🔥 | Latest

Ass, Dude, and Empire: sleepydumpling: welkinalauda: tikkunolamorgtfo: xmasterassassinx: winterpunk: xekstrin: crackrockdebby: d–i–y—-orgasms: be-blackstar: tikkunolamorgtfo: WATCH THIS: MAN SHUTS DOWN ANTISEMITIC WHITE POWER PREACHER One of my friends in the Boston area took this video and gave me permission to post it. She writes: “ I stood there for twenty minutes, easily. Hitler Youth kept trying to preach about “the evils of the Jews” and the big guy barely let him get a word in edgewise. At one point, the big guy yelled, “I will be here ALL DAY” and the crowd cheered.” I promise this will be the best thing you see today. Where’s a goddamn bullhorn when you need it? wow that preacher is probably shitting his pants low key with some big ass biker that close to his face  Caption for those who need it– the guy in the suit is saying shit like “all races must serve us as put here by God” and a lot of racist/anti Semitic drivel. Every time he opens his mouth to speak though, the biker yells “AHHHHHHH!!!” Until the man in the suit shuts up again. When the man in the suit takes a breath and opens his mouth, the biker doesn’t even let him get started and just screams “AHHHHH”…. This happens a few times. The guy in the suit plows ahead but the biker screams and says “No no no no!!!” I love biker dude Make racists afraid again. Um, sorry, but the guy in the suit deserves to speak his opinions. How’d you like to get screamed at everything time you spoke about what you are passionate about? I’m not saying I agree with his opinion, but that doesn’t make shutting him down like this right. Freedom of Speech. Just agree to disagree and walk away. 1) Freedom of Speech means you have the right to speak your mind without being punished or censored by the government. It does not mean other people have to listen to you, and it does not mean they can’t yell over you if you’re saying something disgusting and inflammatory. The Biker Dude has just as much right to do what he’s doing as the Neo-Nazi. Nobody’s right is being infringed upon here. 2) The guy is “passionate about” hating and inciting violence against Jews. I’m passionate about information literacy, candle-making, and giving snuggles to my pet rabbit. There’s a fucking difference, there.  3) “Agree to disagree” is something you say when two people can’t come to a consensus over whether or not The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. It’s not something you say when one person is Jewish and the other person believes Jews are a evil satanic cabal trying to enslave the white race who must be stopped at all costs. That’s not an “agree to disagree” topic. We don’t “agree to disagree” over the issue of whether or not Jews are people. We don’t “agree to disagree” over whether or not black people, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ folks, etc. are deserving of basic human rights. These things are not up for debate, and there is no middle-ground to be had with people who think otherwise.  “I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”– Randall Munroe Always reblog the anti-hate bikie.
Ass, Dude, and Empire: sleepydumpling:

welkinalauda:

tikkunolamorgtfo:

xmasterassassinx:

winterpunk:

xekstrin:

crackrockdebby:


d–i–y—-orgasms:


be-blackstar:


tikkunolamorgtfo:


WATCH THIS: MAN SHUTS DOWN ANTISEMITIC WHITE POWER PREACHER
One of my friends in the Boston area took this video and gave me permission to post it. She writes: “ I stood there for twenty minutes, easily. Hitler Youth kept trying to preach about “the evils of the Jews” and the big guy barely let him get a word in edgewise. At one point, the big guy yelled, “I will be here ALL DAY” and the crowd cheered.”
I promise this will be the best thing you see today.


Where’s a goddamn bullhorn when you need it?


wow that preacher is probably shitting his pants low key with some big ass biker that close to his face 



Caption for those who need it– the guy in the suit is saying shit like “all races must serve us as put here by God” and a lot of racist/anti Semitic drivel.
Every time he opens his mouth to speak though, the biker yells “AHHHHHHH!!!” Until the man in the suit shuts up again. When the man in the suit takes a breath and opens his mouth, the biker doesn’t even let him get started and just screams “AHHHHH”…. This happens a few times.
The guy in the suit plows ahead but the biker screams and says “No no no no!!!”
I love biker dude

Make racists afraid again.

Um, sorry, but the guy in the suit deserves to speak his opinions. How’d you like to get screamed at everything time you spoke about what you are passionate about? I’m not saying I agree with his opinion, but that doesn’t make shutting him down like this right. Freedom of Speech. Just agree to disagree and walk away.

1) Freedom of Speech means you have the right to speak your mind without being punished or censored by the government. It does not mean other people have to listen to you, and it does not mean they can’t yell over you if you’re saying something disgusting and inflammatory. The Biker Dude has just as much right to do what he’s doing as the Neo-Nazi. Nobody’s right is being infringed upon here.
2) The guy is “passionate about” hating and inciting violence against Jews. I’m passionate about information literacy, candle-making, and giving snuggles to my pet rabbit. There’s a fucking difference, there. 
3) “Agree to disagree” is something you say when two people can’t come to a consensus over whether or not The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. It’s not something you say when one person is Jewish and the other person believes Jews are a evil satanic cabal trying to enslave the white race who must be stopped at all costs. That’s not an “agree to disagree” topic. We don’t “agree to disagree” over the issue of whether or not Jews are people. We don’t “agree to disagree” over whether or not black people, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ folks, etc. are deserving of basic human rights. These things are not up for debate, and there is no middle-ground to be had with people who think otherwise. 



“I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”– Randall Munroe

Always reblog the anti-hate bikie.

sleepydumpling: welkinalauda: tikkunolamorgtfo: xmasterassassinx: winterpunk: xekstrin: crackrockdebby: d–i–y—-orgasms: be-blackst...

Target, Tumblr, and Blog: nasreenparachas: I’ll always be here for my nearly-wife. Nearly-wife? Nearly wife! She my bloody nearly-wife, mate!
Target, Tumblr, and Blog: nasreenparachas:

I’ll always be here for my nearly-wife. Nearly-wife? Nearly wife! She my bloody nearly-wife, mate!

nasreenparachas: I’ll always be here for my nearly-wife. Nearly-wife? Nearly wife! She my bloody nearly-wife, mate!

Af, Ass, and Big Dick: fleur-cannnon: afairlypudgycat: whiskeyworen: jaxblade: norseminuteman: red-faced-wolf: kasaron: bears-for-the-bear-god: the-goddamn-doomguy: captainsnoop: big dick energy Exactly the kind of response Doomguy should get when he walks into a room with other humans. This is genuinely beyond big dick energy It’s honestly Argent Phallus Energy (APE) Holy shit Everyone is talking about key-card guy, but my favorite is the dude who tries to hide behind his swivel chair. Babe, babe, No, Doomguy jumps dick first into hell portals on an hourly basis and pops berserker power ups like your mom pops xanax. That chair aint doin SHIT.  Also I love how they don’t just seem to be afraid of the fact that the apex predator of the Legions of Armageddon just walked in. They are acting like they think he might attack them, because you know the UAC has waged a serious PR war against Doom-Chad while he’s been kicking ass on Mars/Hell.   ALPHA AF!!! I just love the fact that DoomGuy spots the keycard on the dude’s lanyard, and instead of doing a vicious yank, or simply snapping it off the lanyard like he always does, he very, VERY carefully takes it, and slowly pulls the dude to the scanner, before letting him go.For a dude filled with eternal rage and seething violence, that was remarkably polite of him. It was almost his “…Excuse me. I require this. Pardon my reach.”Then that poor marine. “Hey YOU! You can’t… be… here…” DoomGuy just casually approaches, looks at him, looks at his gun, and then still remarkably politely, just takes it. Doesn’t wrench it away, or kill the guy, or anything violent. Just reaches out and retrieves it. Again, like “You are doing a fine job. That’s a fine weapon. Mind if I see it? *takes it and walks away*”It’s as if he’s being very, VERY careful not to harm normal humans (or whatever augmented humans those armored marines qualify as), saving his violence specifically for the Daemonic.Kinda supports my idea that DoomGuy isn’t neccessarily a bloodthirsty raging psycho. He’s a guy who has seen so much, done SO MUCH… that he’s calm. He’s so far beyond wrath at the demons that he’s entered a weird Calm and just LIVES there. Nothing shakes him of it. He doesn’t grunt, he doesn’t yell, he doesn’t scream, he just breathes and moves on. New demon? Well, it’ll bleed like the last. He doesn’t revel in combat, he just moves through it like walking through air; it’s a function of existence for him. Doomguy dissociating 100% of the time Within the first few minutes of Doom 2016 and throughout much of the remainder of the game it’s clear that Doomguy values human life A LOT. Humans are never his enemy, it’s the demons. He looks at the dead man in the elevator as Hayden says something along the lines of “I swear it was for the greater good.” Doomguy sees right in front of him it wasn’t, and I betcha right then Doomguy was against Hayden. Doomguy doesn’t take kindly to crimes against humanity, even if accidental.
Af, Ass, and Big Dick: fleur-cannnon:

afairlypudgycat:

whiskeyworen:

jaxblade:

norseminuteman:

red-faced-wolf:

kasaron:


bears-for-the-bear-god:

the-goddamn-doomguy:

captainsnoop:
big dick energy
Exactly the kind of response Doomguy should get when he walks into a room with other humans.


This is genuinely beyond big dick energy

It’s honestly Argent Phallus Energy (APE)


Holy shit 

Everyone is talking about key-card guy, but my favorite is the dude who tries to hide behind his swivel chair. Babe, babe, No, Doomguy jumps dick first into hell portals on an hourly basis and pops berserker power ups like your mom pops xanax. That chair aint doin SHIT. 
Also I love how they don’t just seem to be afraid of the fact that the apex predator of the Legions of Armageddon just walked in. They are acting like they think he might attack them, because you know the UAC has waged a serious PR war against Doom-Chad while he’s been kicking ass on Mars/Hell.  

ALPHA AF!!!

I just love the fact that DoomGuy spots the keycard on the dude’s lanyard, and instead of doing a vicious yank, or simply snapping it off the lanyard like he always does, he very, VERY carefully takes it, and slowly pulls the dude to the scanner, before letting him go.For a dude filled with eternal rage and seething violence, that was remarkably polite of him. It was almost his “…Excuse me. I require this. Pardon my reach.”Then that poor marine. “Hey YOU! You can’t… be… here…” DoomGuy just casually approaches, looks at him, looks at his gun, and then still remarkably politely, just takes it. Doesn’t wrench it away, or kill the guy, or anything violent. Just reaches out and retrieves it. Again, like “You are doing a fine job. That’s a fine weapon. Mind if I see it? *takes it and walks away*”It’s as if he’s being very, VERY careful not to harm normal humans (or whatever augmented humans those armored marines qualify as), saving his violence specifically for the Daemonic.Kinda supports my idea that DoomGuy isn’t neccessarily a bloodthirsty raging psycho. He’s a guy who has seen so much, done SO MUCH… that he’s calm. He’s so far beyond wrath at the demons that he’s entered a weird Calm and just LIVES there. Nothing shakes him of it. He doesn’t grunt, he doesn’t yell, he doesn’t scream, he just breathes and moves on. New demon? Well, it’ll bleed like the last. He doesn’t revel in combat, he just moves through it like walking through air; it’s a function of existence for him.

Doomguy dissociating 100% of the time


Within the first few minutes of Doom 2016 and throughout much of the remainder of the game it’s clear that Doomguy values human life A LOT. Humans are never his enemy, it’s the demons. He looks at the dead man in the elevator as Hayden says something along the lines of “I swear it was for the greater good.” Doomguy sees right in front of him it wasn’t, and I betcha right then Doomguy was against Hayden. Doomguy doesn’t take kindly to crimes against humanity, even if accidental.

fleur-cannnon: afairlypudgycat: whiskeyworen: jaxblade: norseminuteman: red-faced-wolf: kasaron: bears-for-the-bear-god: the-goddam...

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...