Reblog Extraordinaire
Last update
2023-10-03 03:25:18

    @lastsonlost Do you want to nuke em?


    I honestly don’t know what the point is sometimes giving how full-bore bloodthirsty these people are but okay. I don’t want to hear anyone claiming it was a joke later on. You want to play edgy, you’re going to get cut.

    warning graphic imagery ahead…..

    I really would like to know what women are trying to escape from when they are deliberately going out of their way to pursue and attack random strangers?

    Drunken Woman Who Stabbed Man With Stiletto Gets $250 Fine – No Conviction

    So I’m going to take a guess and assume OP endorse is all this shit. I mean I don’t normally assume but when people like OP make what appears to be blanket excuses for female violence I don’t see much of an option.

    like somebody tell me how is this okay?

    Three women plead guilty to fatal beating of homeless man in Philadelphia

    An elderly man died of injuries after he was pushed off a bus. Now police have made an arrest

    I would really like to know why it’s excusable for a woman to torture and abuse her child. Is someone going to tell me it’s the patriarchy backfiring?

    Mother ‘recorded herself torturing her one-year-old son by placing plastic bag over his head and burning him’ to get revenge on child’s father who had a new girlfriend’

    Somehow all these innocent lives had it coming? Somehow the monster that shot up an elementary school is the real victim here?                                                       Is that what I’m being told?

    Andrew Bagby was murdered by Shirley Jane Turner on November 6th, 2001 (She later murdered their 1 year-old son on August 18th, 2003) 

    Brenda Spencer killed two and injured nine at Cleveland Elementary School on January 29th, 1979

    Laurie Dann killed one boy and injured five others at Hubbard Woods Elementary School on May 20th, 1988

    Mary Ann Holder killed five children including her own son in Pleasent Gardens, NC on November 20th, 2011

    All Things Considered I’m inclined to disagree with op. I think some women killed because they want to and they know they can…(or at the very least think so)

    Women who killed or attempted to kill children in the news, past 30 days (US):

    Women who killed or attempted to kill children in the news between January and April 2014 (US):

  • Domestic violence: Women abusers on the rise
  • Gender-symmetry with gramham Kevan Method aka  Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence V74 Murray A. Straus.
  • Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment
  • Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Violence: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State
  • Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative
  • Feminist Create rape laws that exclude female rapists.
  • Feminist Make it impossible to charge women with rape.
  • Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.
  • Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.
  • Feminists against equal custody.
  • The primary aggressor clause where only men get charged with abuse.
  • you know it’s post like this that make me feel more inclined to believe that men should be doing the escaping.

    Anyone who agrees with op endorses all this. I hope you can live with yourself.

    And here I am trying to reason with the unreasonable. God Help me.


    The homoerotic relationship between a sword and its scabbard


    The sword that cuts all but its scabbard. The scabbard that consumes none but its sword. The sword that is dulled by its scabbards protection but would fall to disrepair without it


    The scabbard that cannot kill yet is soaked in blood all the same from holding its sword


    My mind went straight to the sword entering the scabbard like...sexually.

    Tumblr has ruined me.


    One of my favourite bits of word knowledge is that the word "vagina" is not actually the Latin word for a woman's lady parts, but rather "sheath" or "scabbard", used euphemistically by doctors from sometime in the 1600s onwards to avoid using the actual, correct and incalculably ancient word for that part of female anatomy, which is "cunt".

    There's an almost endless number of insights one can extrapolate from this fact relating to the evolution of language, the continual but continually shifting phenomenon of taboo, class war, the suppression of native culture and language by an occupying force, the spread of Christianity and increased shame about sex and the body, but it's also just funny to me that every time you hear someone using the word vagina, thinking they're being very refined, polite and well-spoken, they're actually calling that thing between a woman's legs a placeholder for a gentleman's mighty sword.


    https:// www.currentaffairs.org /2023/05/why-the-right-will-never-ever-support-gun-control

    I think Jefferies was onto something, but there’s more to it. To understand the level of intransigence, it helps to think about the ideology that conservatives subscribe to. Fear and a sense of futility are central to right-wing thinking. For the right, the world is a dangerous and terrifying place in which Evil is lurking around every corner. Such Evil could be in the form of “groomers” coming for your children (by reading to them while wearing makeup) or it could be the “China threat.” Paranoia about globalists, communists, immigrants, criminals, and other Big Scary Others is ubiquitous on the right. 
    If your mental world is already one of extreme (and delusional) fear, mass shooters do not seem like an aberration. They are just another threat among many. The natural state of life, in much conservative literature, is “nasty, brutish, and short,” and the forces of order and civilization only just barely keep the forces of evil chaos at bay. Conservatism is characterized by an extreme pessimism about our ability to improve the world; the standard argument is that progressives are naive and hubristic in their desire to effect change through social policy and whatever they do will “hurt the very people they are trying to help.” The view of human nature that underpins right-wing thought is false, but it’s a compelling story.
    If you view the world as a place full of virtually uncontrollable menacing evil, it’s easy to see why gun control doesn’t make sense.

    What an absolutely miserable worldview; to live in eternal fear of everyone and everything. To see evil in every action and every aspect of life.

    I think there was actually a study that showed that people become more conservative the more scared they are.

    And it's mostly accurate, except for one blip in it: the Mulford Act, where a bunch of conservatives outlawed public carrying of loaded firearms because the Black Panthers were doing it, carrying around guns to dissuade cops from having "accidents". Turns out that gun control suddenly works fine when it comes to disarming "those people".


    So why the hell would you support gun control now?


    What an absolutely miserable worldview; to live in eternal fear of everyone and everything. To see evil in every action and every aspect of life.

    This is an incredibly ironic thing for a leftist to say because this is essentially how they live their lives: through fear mongering, hate mongering, and sowing discord in relationships through the lens of social justice.


    Leftists locked everyone away for two years and nuked the economy because of a virus with a 99.86% survival rate.

    Conservatives now=/= conservatives then. Conservatives now are encouraging everyone (including minorities) to practice their God-given right to firearm ownership. Leftists, on the other hand, are saying “we can get gun control by getting black people to carry guns”. Something that’s extremely telling about the left. The democrat party never became not racist. They just started hiding it better.


    Wow, God-given right to gun ownership. Tell me, where are guns and the right to own them mentioned in the Bible? Or is this the usual "the Founding Fathers were God's representatives on Earth and my specific and wrong interpretation of the Bill of Rights is holy scripture" heresy that gun nuts swear to?

    And a rational response to an actual threat to human life is not the same thing as killing people over imaginary threats. You're far more likely to be killed by your own gun or to kill your own family members than to actually use it in defense, and in the case of defense it will probably get you killed, (hint: guns do not make you bulletproof and whipping one out just makes you more likely to get shot, this is not a video game) and your friends will wave off your death as a "necessary sacrifice" for the right of domestic abusers to own semiautomatics.


    All rights are ultimately God-given rights. To suggest otherwise implies rights aren’t rights, but rather privileges. This applies to everything. Including your right to life. Rights don’t come from documents- the documents are just the nice way of letting would-be tyrants know what’s up.

    Jesus literally commanded his followers to arm themselves- with the same weapons the military had at that.

    You’re going to be absolutely shocked to know that you don’t have a right to murder someone. Murder. You can, however, kill someone and it be justified- it’s called self defense (Kyle Rittenhouse did just this in Kenosha just a few years ago).

    Between 40 and 60% of mass shootings are stopped by good guys with guns- 40% including gun free zones, 60% excluding gun free zones.

    Additionally, between 500k and 3m crimes are prevented per year by armed civilians.

    According to U.S. Justice Department victimization studies analyzed by Kleck, for both robbery and assault, victims who used guns for protection were less likely either to be attacked or injured than victims who responded in any other way, including those who did not resist at all; and victims who resisted robbers with guns were less likely to lose their property. A follow-up study of rape found that using a gun or knife for protection reduced the likelihood of a completed rape, and using a gun reduced the likelihood of injury to close to zero. Such resistance also reduces the likelihood of psychological trauma.”

    It’s almost like criminals aren’t willing to be shot or something.

    There’s a reason that Hitler, Mao, etc all banned guns. Armed populations are harder to oppress.

    Now, I took the thirty seconds to go onto your blog and look to see you defending abortion (and sharing posts doing just that). With this in mind, I know YOU DO NOT GIVE A SINGLE EXPLETIVE ABOUT SAVING LIVES. So nice try with the emotional manipulation on that one. Ain’t working, Chief. Anyone with eyes can see you’re full of horseshit. You want control- not to save lives. If you were genuine, you’d be calling to ban abortions (abortion doctors murder something around 800k Americans yearly. That’s just America. 63 million since 1972, nearly reaching ten times the amount of people murdered by Hitler and his thugs.)

    Owning a gun doesn’t make you a domestic abuser. The overwhelming majority of gun owners aren’t domestic abusers (it’s illegal for violent felons to own a firearm, speaking from a standpoint of the US law). You know who was a domestic abuser? One of the folks the left defended when he was attacking Kyle Rittenhouse. You know, just like the pedophile they also defended.

    Literally no one is talking about murdering innocent people (except you, being pro abortion). People are talking about the right to self defense- which guns are used for frequently.

    Not only is your viewpoint against reality and basic human rights, it just isn’t grounded in any sort of logic. You might almost say that you’ve been destroyed by facts and logic.

    At least try to be informed about what you’re talking about. But let’s be honest- if you were informed, you wouldn’t be a leftist. Especially considering everything anon said is fearmongering is actually just observable. Except, you know, mass shooters (who are a statistical anomaly.)


    Yeah all of those arguments are absolute ascientific horseshit sponsored by the NRA while actual science from the CDC was banned for being "anti-gun", God gave me the right to an abortion in Exodus, Jesus only told his disciples to carry swords to fulfill a prophecy and chastised them for actually using it, ("live by the sword, die by the sword"), armed guards make for three times higher casualties in shootings and twice as many are subdued nonviolently than violently (only 22 of 249 shootings were actually stopped by gun violence compared to 42 stopped without it), Hitler actually was actually more pro-gun than the regime before him, and innocent people do get murdered by gun violence, you just claim "self-defense" in the aftermath and then trust anyone white with a gun to have totally driven out of town to go shoot people nonviolently.

    "Destroyed by facts and logic" honey if that genuinely worked your entire political party would have gone down in flames decades ago. Your advocates are all clinging to delusions while you lose more and more ground and people get more and more fed up by your repeated insistence that everything is fine. We live in the age of the internet. People can see that other countries don't suffer as they do, they can see why, and no amount of confusing statistics is gonna change the fact that while you prance around treating guns like toys people die in stupid, avoidable ways. You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass and called you....what was that again? Oh yeah, "A SINGLE EXPLETIVE", which might be the most pathetic euphemism I've heard from someone over 10. If you are incapable of ever admitting the slightest scenario in which you could be wrong, then any objectivity you claimed is fucking bullshit.


    “Muh NRA!!!”

    The NRA helps push forward gun control, firstly. No pro gun people like them. As you mentioned yourself. We don’t call them “Negotiating Rights Away” for nothing. But if you actually listened to the other side and, you know, informed yourself of these things, you’d know that.

    The “actual science” isn’t “banned for being anti gun.” The actual science happened to be pro gun (as previously cited). It just can’t outright push for gun control. So you’re mad now that more agencies aren’t being used to push for your agenda.

    There is no right to abortion. That would be murder. Murder is frowned upon. Even in Exodus- the verse you’re referencing specifically isn’t an abortion, but rather a miscarriage. Miscarriage=/= abortion.

    We know that God creates us- the Bible points out that we are created at the moment of conception (Psalms 139). Thousands of years of Church history and millions and millions of Christian theologians disprove you.

    Your entire argument here is “I have the right to murder an innocent baby, but you don’t have a right to defend yourself from the carjacking serial murderer that’s trying to rape you.”

    Jesus himself used a whip. It very clearly wasn’t using force that was frowned upon, but rather Peter’s attempt at preventing a prophecy from being fulfilled.

    We see several times where God commands the use of force for justified purposes (ACTUALLY read Exodus). Even IF your argument of “it was to fulfill a prophecy that he told them to carry a sword!” was right- which it isn’t- we can look back and see the construction of the walls of Jerusalem. Every worker carried a weapon as they worked (Nehemiah 4:17-23).

    As for your claim about Hitler being “more pro gun” than the people before him…

    A- That isn’t a high bar and it’s extremely arguable, and B, your own source- Wikipedia (which in itself is easily edited and notably used for propagandist purposes; it isn’t uncommon for them to be in the realm of double-think aside from the lack of logic)- has this to say.

    In early 1930s Germany, few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms,[2] the Weimar Republic having strict gun control laws.[8] When the Nazi party gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened for Nazi party members only.[5]: 672  The laws were tightened in other ways, such as specifically banning ownership of guns by Jews.”

    It was just a few years ago that Venezuela banned guns and the government started massacring people.

    Aside from that, your other sources are notably propaganda sources.

    Looking at The Trace, for example (which admits it has an extremely limited amount of data).

    They cite the FBI- which was recently proven to be lying about the statistics (hiding the fact that gun owners stop attacks). I mentioned this previously. No need to go over old territory, you’re just using bad data.

    “Innocent people do get murdered by gun violence, you just claim "self-defense" in the aftermath and then trust anyone white with a gun to have totally driven out of town to go shoot people nonviolently.”

    Innocent people are murdered with guns. It’s extremely rare. It’s even more rarely done by rifles.

    This isn’t a racial issue- you’re just intellectually weak and grasping for the “but racism!!!!” card and hoping no one will notice. The gun community was applauding Andrew Coffee lV. As they do with Colion Noir, Brandon Herrera, the Rooftop Koreans, etc.

    What, are you mad that your pedo friends get clapped?

    “Destroyed by facts and logic" honey if that genuinely worked your entire political party would have gone down in flames decades ago.”

    Firstly, no? The Democratic Party are the ones always operating on the fee-fees. AOC once famously said that “it is more important to be morally right than factually right,” lest we forget. She really just announced that that was the DNC’s operating strategy.

    Secondly, I’m not claiming a party. If you’d bother doing a modicum of research, you’ll see I complain about politicians of every side. But let’s be real- we know you don’t do actual research. You just nod at whatever your masters tell you.

    “People can see that other countries don't suffer as they do, they can see why, and no amount of confusing statistics is gonna change the fact that while you prance around treating guns like toys people die in stupid, avoidable ways.”

    Other countries- like Canada, Australia, England, NZ, etc all arrest people for being mean on Twitter. I’m being a bit unfair to myself and EXCLUDING places like China and Russia in this specific part of the argument. So now you’re going with the “countries that arrest people for dissent are doing okay” argument?

    Guns aren’t toys (except for Nerf guns and water guns, I guess lol). Theyre tools. Only Alec Baldwin (he’s your guy- the anti gunner that shot someone to death through his own incompetence) treats guns like toys. And that ends poorly.

    I’m not saying guns are toys. Leftists are the ones that are always making the “guns are sex toys” argument (for some reason, that’s almost always the way the conversation ends up. That, or they start talking about genitalia otherwise in a totally irrelevant way. Again, something easily observed if you open your eyes for even .05 seconds.)

    Guns are tools to be treated respectfully. Tools which you have a right to own.

    Sorry, but you lose. Again.

    Keep stacking the L’s I guess.

    Anyone seeing this can easily go to Colion Noir or Brandon Herrera- again, both people who know infinitely more than you, OP- and see how wrong you are.


    During the 15-hour Senate filibuster on gun control, there were 38 shootings that killed 12 people and injured 36 more across America

    That roughly translates to one shooting perevery 23 minutes.


    Of all gun deaths, most are from either suicide or gangs with illegally owned firearms.

    1- Let me know when criminals start obeying laws.

    2- Let me know when you learn that you don’t get to infringe upon the rights of the people because someone else did a bad thing.


    Ugh, if I’d known that gun nuts would be so shitty to you, I’d have never posted that anon post about gun control. 😞

    You didn’t say anything that wasn’t true, and the article was a good article. I’ve made posts about gun control plenty of times before without problems. I guess the exposure of their inherent cowardice and hypocrisy was just too much for them to handle.


    Have you considered not posting misinformation? That would help you greatly.

    People pointing out that you’re lying (or just wrong; though considering you react to information proving you wrong by playing the victim makes me lean to the former) isn’t hypocritical nor cowardice. I’d say it’s quite the opposite of that.

    You aren’t the victim just because people pointed out you were advocating for their rights to be violated. On the internet, you’ll find people disagreeing with you when you say “we should violate the rights of the people.”

    I’m also gonna point out the irony in your profile picture being the rebel logo. The rebels. From Star Wars.

    That rebellion which began with people disobeying blaster laws. Blaster confiscation which the Empire pushed through immediately following the Clone Wars.

    I’m pretty sure you’re the Empire here… I’ve got this great post about the “common sense lightsaber control” somewhere.


    You know I’m not even a Christian but I’m still a better Christian than most conservatives desperately trying to find some loophole in “love your enemies, turn the other check, live by the sword and die by the sword” and a billion other explicitly pacifist scriptures to convince themselves Jesus wants them to kill people.


    You have to be dangerous to be a pacifist. Otherwise, you’re just harmless- you can’t refuse to use violence if it literally isn’t a choice for you. Though Jesus wasn’t a pacifist. There’s a temple of people with whip marks who would attest to that.

    Also a misrepresentation of the argument. Not very cash money of you, but not unexpected.

    “You have a right to defend yourself”=/= “Jesus wants me to go kill a bunch of people”

    (A friendly reminder you literally defended abortion- which isn’t self defense, though it is murdering a bunch of innocent people. You used the Bible and Jesus for this, so the “I’m not a Christian but” thing makes you seem extremely disingenuous at best and shows bad intentions)

    While Christianity is in itself “conservative” by modern American standards, conservative=/= Christian.

    Genuinely, I ask this of you- do better. Understand these differences.


    Let’s be realistic, most people in the Arts will naturally tilt ‘left’ without any of the Marxist propaganda you claim exists (and which cannot be found in any classroom or campus). It’s been the case long before the 1970s.

    I actually agree with you to a certain extent, in that people with creative temperaments will seemingly always tend towards things that promise novel ideas and 'progress' of some kind. Kurt Vonnegut used to say artists are the canaries in the coal mine for the human race: looking for new ways forward is a necessary part of what artists bring to the world, although there's nothing in that which is automatically bound to modern Marxist identity politics, and in every state in which those Marxist policies become state law, all true artists rebel and become the counterculture, as they did in the Soviet Union.

    Thousands of years before the left/right division was invented, artists dreamed and invented for themselves, just as they will a thousand years from now, as long as they're still human. Politics are temporary.

    "...the Marxist propaganda you claim exists (and which cannot be found in any classroom or campus)."

    It's unarguably found in every classroom and campus in the western world.

    Every university in my country has explicitly Marxist organizations like the Socialist Worker Party openly setting up trestle tables full of their petitions and literature to each year sign up new naive young minds to their cause, and weekly engaging in mass-produced sticker and poster campaigns with their logos printed all over them with no resistance from the powers-that-be, and have done so without a break at least as far back as the 1970s.

    Whereas there is zero equivalent for any right-of-center organizations anywhere: no far- or-even-center-right parties are even allowed to leaflet or discuss their ideas on university grounds. The lack of diversity of allowed thought this demonstrates is (literally) impossible to argue against.

    On top of that, the left-wing bias has been routinely shown in surveys and studies for years that "Liberal" professors outnumber conservative professors 12-to-1 in modern American universities, and around 90% of political donations from staff are given to the Democrat Party. A hundred years ago this was very much not the case, with political affiliations being much more balanced and reflective of the wider voting population, and the education system largely having, if anything, a reputation for dull, conservative traditionalism. The 1970s seems to be the point that dramatically changed, and the education system was targeted to be infiltrated and taken over by Marxist theory and propaganda, as it has been.


    You're terribly misinformed in everything you've written me, and I worry about your ability to think any argument you make through, without ever questioning it yourself before speaking.

    An approach that might help you is to, instead of "strawmanning" other peoples' positions, try in good faith to attack your own position first and make the best argument you can find against your own beliefs, and see how well they stand up then. If other people easily demonstrate you're wrong, go back to the drawing board, taking what they've shown you, and make stronger arguments against your own positions until you feel you've got a clearer handle on how the things you say will sound to anyone not already sharing your views. There are reasonable arguments for all the positions you've put forward, but you've not made any of them.


    As a rower on a coed team, the idea that there is little to no sex advantage is insane at the Junior level, let alone the masters and professional level. I’m the tallest junior female rower in my region, I’m just above the average junior male. Even when adjusted for weight, the max power output of our best female rowers are often hundreds of watts below our mediocre male rowers, many of whom are only ~13-14 years old, while our best girls are 17-19. Even the length of limbs (extremely important in rowing) is different between the sexes. Men have proportionally longer legs and arms, which means that male rowers will have longer strokes than identical height female rowers. You have to be purposely ignorant about rowing (or any sport for that matter) to legitimately think that a trans woman could compete fairly against women.


    Wokeism is becoming the dominant religion. Think about it. If it isn’t, then why are people who don’t subscribe to it treated as heretics?

    It's better not to think of it as an isolated thing in itself: as I've said elsewhere, wokeness is an internet age rebranding of the political correctness of the 1960s-2000s, which is in itself an invasive outgrowth and expansion of Marxist and Maoist false beliefs about reality, "conflict theory" and power dynamics, with believers dogmatically policing smaller and smaller, and ever more private, parts of people's lives, interactions and language.

    The goal is to make the great majority of people who don't support Marxism or Maoism still be manipulated by Marxists and Maoists without knowing it, by those teachings over time becoming the new secular morality and the unpopular and unelected law of the land, with the ultimate aim of weakening, demoralizing and finally destroying all non-Communist western nations.

    The remove that is created by labeling this Soviet-era-initiated infiltration campaign "wokeness" or "political correctness" disguises what is actually happening, why, and what direction the attack is coming from, and so instead just seems like a bizarre modern fad that appeared out of nowhere one day for no known reason.

    So the short answer is yes: it's all the same thing and all a secular religion.