Can we talk about the Olympic sharpshooter that just won with one hand in her pocket and a Witcher medallion on her belt? Because I love her.


    This is how a lot of shooters operate because you are required to only use one hand in the Olympics (which is impressive on its own bc maybe I’m weak but pistols are super fucking heavy) and it’s recommended that you use a casual stance to help even your heart beat, which is really important in shooting


    Fascinating! I’ve grown up with guns for my whole life but I know absolutely nothing about professional shooting. Learning a lot from this post.



    okay but



    I do not understand but I am delighted.


    blinders on the side to cut down on distractions, an eyepatch to cover one eye, and a patch with a hole to narrow field of vision to “just target” - no need to close one eye and squint, which makes it harder to see, and no visual distractions


    open rp

    any sluts out here want some tea? a fucking biscuit?


    ‘Tis I, Matthew Hopkins, infamous English witch-hunter, responsible for the deaths of between 230 and 400 people in the 17th century.

    Excuse me, miss.  Are you, by chance… a witch?


    a witch yeah yeah, anyway shit this tea has NO sugar and i forgot sugarcubes is that cool with you


    Matthew Hopkins recoils in fear and disgust, for this is truly


    Y-yes, that will be fine.  As a Puritan, if I take tea at all, it is without sugar…

    Seeming to have not alerted the witch, he chooses to take a subtle approach and coax the damning information out of her.

    Now, pardon me for asking, but do you regularly hold council with imps and other such demons, perhaps meeting for tea and to blaspheme God?


    look dude do you want a biscuit or not


    Matthew Hopkins’ eyes darken in fear, and his face goes ghastly white.  The Witchfinder General has found a witch for whom he is no match.  She evades even his most cunning inquiries with ease, and the brazen air with which she admits her heresy shows she fears neither man nor God.  He cannot win, and defeated, he relents.

    A biscuit would be lovely… Thank you.


    Fully-restored 1958 Golden Sahara II with Goodyear’s Illuminated Neothane Glow-Tyres

    Source: https://reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/gctp9p/fullyrestored_1958_golden_sahara_ii_with/


    Classic cars boast a lot of features you don’t see in contemporary models, but did you know that at one point those features even included–well, were going to include–illuminated tires?

    The idea started floating around in the 50s, but nothing really came of it until Goodyear started mulling it over in the early 1960s. Dubbed as one of the “most dramatic tire developments in the history of the industry,” these tires were made of a synthetic rubber known as Neothane. Goodyear used the translucent material, dying it various colors–bright green, yellow, blue, and red, just to name a few. Then, the company put 18 small light bulbs, which were essentially dash lights, inside the tires, giving them the glowing effect seen in the photo below.


    More of the story here.


    Why couldn’t we have that? This future is boring.


    It is deeply, deeply beneficial to TERFs if the only characteristic of TERF ideology you will recognize as wrong, harmful, or problematic is "they hate trans women".

    TERF ideology is an expansive network of extremely toxic ideas, and the more of them we accept and normalize, the easier it becomes for them to fly under the radar and recruit new TERFs. The closer they get to turning the tide against all trans people, trans women included.

    Case in point: In 2014-2015, I fell headlong into radical feminism. I did not know it was called radical feminism at the time, but I also didn't know what was wrong with radical feminism in the first place. I didn't see a problem with it.

    I was a year deep into this shit when people I had been following, listening to, and looking up to finally said they didn't think trans women were women. It was only then that I unfollowed those people, specifically; but I continued to follow other TERFs-who-didn't-say-they-were-TERFs. I continued ingesting and spreading their ideas- for years after.

    If TERFs "only target trans women" and "only want trans women gone", if that's the one and only problem with their ideology and if that's the only way we'll define them, we will inevitably miss a vast majority of the quiet beliefs that support their much louder hatred of trans women.

    As another example: the trans community stood relatively united when TERFs and conservatives targeted our right to use the correct restroom, citing the "dangers" of trans women sharing space with cis women. But when they began targeting Lost Little Girls and Confused Lesbians and trotting detransitioners out to raise a panic about trans men, virtually the only people speaking up about it were other transmascs. Now we see a rash of anti-trans healthcare bills being passed in the US, and they're hurting every single one of us.

    When you refuse to call a TERF a TERF just because they didn't specifically say they hate trans women, when you refuse to think critically about a TERF belief just because it's not directly related to trans women, you are actively helping TERFs spread their influence and build credibility.


    what is some TERF ideology we should be on the look out for?


    This isn't comprehensive, but I'll do my best.

    TERFs are, first and foremost, radical feminists. Radical feminism is essentially second-wave feminism without the intersectionality brought in by third-wave feminism. It believes that patriarchy is at fault for the oppression of women, but sees this in a very strict, binary way: women are the oppressed, and men are the oppressors.

    TERFs use this to justify their specific brand of transphobia. This idea, among others, is essential in supporting that transphobia.

    I'll try to outline some of those ideas, and some of the logical thruoughlines they use:

    • Women are uniquely oppressed, and always in danger. Womanhood- or the experience of being a woman- is defined by oppression, misogyny, and Being In Danger.
    • Women are particularly in danger in the presence of, and in relationships with, men. Spaces that exclude men are essential to preserving the safety of women.
    • Socialization: men are raised to support patriarchy, while women are raised to be subjugated by it. Men have no motive to unlearn these lessons, so all men are inherently more corrupted by these lessons than women.
    • Relationships with men are therefore inherently (more likely to be) abusive, and relationships with women are inherently safe(er).
    • Sex, in particular, is more often exploitative than not. Only some kinds of sex are not exploitative. Many kinds of sex that we think are consensual, or that people say are consensual, are either rape or proto-rape.
    • Exchanging money for sex is inherently rape/exploitation/non-consensual in some way.
    • As women who deny men access to them, lesbians are The Most Oppressed and also The Most Endangered. They must be protected at all costs.
    • Because so many women have been raped by men with penises, both men and penises are inherently traumatic to A Lot Of Women.
    • Many lesbians will naturally have an aversion to relationships with trans women because of this. Trans women who argue against this "genital preference" are potential rapists trying to infiltrate lesbian spaces to hurt and take advantage of women.
    • Men will always try to invade "women's spaces" to take advantage of women, endanger them, and strip away their resources both for personal gain/pleasure, and in service of upholding the patriarchy.
    • If we allow men to say they are women, they will invade those spaces and hurt "real" women. Men who say they are women are dangerous, and must be excluded and punished.
    • Men may try to obfuscate labels and terminology to "define women out of existence" or otherwise cause confusion, which they can manipulate to further their infiltration.
    • Women are all miserable with their bodies, cursed with the pressure to reproduce and have sex with men.
    • Women are all miserable with their genders, forced as they are to ensure the overwhelming and constant suffering that is patriarchy.
    • Women will attempt to escape this misery and pressure by "becoming men". This is cowardly, but understandable; a tragic but inevitable result of patriarchy. These women must be saved.
    • Some women who try to escape patriarchy are doing it out of self-interest; they are betraying women by becoming men, and contributing to their oppression. These women must be punished.
    • Bio-essentialism: women are oppressed specifically because of their bodies and ability to reproduce. This is an inherent and defining part of womanhood. Nobody can claim womanhood without this experience, everyone who has had this experience is a woman.
    • Women's bodies are all beautiful and perfect because they are women's bodies. If the womanliness of them is tampered with, they become less valuable. Men's bodies are gross and undesirable symbols of patriarchy.
    • Testosterone makes people violent, aggressive, irrational, and angry. Estrogen makes people calm, kind, and happy.
    • Men can never understand women's bodies as well as other women do.
    • People can be attracted to other people on the basis of "sex" alone. This is inherent, immutable, and unquestionable.
    • Men are sexual animals who inherently and unavoidably find lots of bad things sexually arousing. Because "youth" is attractive, many men find young girls and children attractive, and will try to take advantage of them. Misogynistic control/power over women, hurting women, and even rape are also inherently sexually appealing to men.
    • "Gender" is meaningless; it's founded in misogynistic stereotypes about men and women, and when you remove the stereotypes, there's nothing left at all. Only binary "sex" is real, because that's what patriarchy (and biology) is based on.
    • Manhood is itself a toxic, oppressive, inherently corrupting concept. Anyone who participates in manhood is corrupt and immoral; who would choose to be the oppressor?
    • Masculinity is defined only by hating women, having power, and being aggressive, violent, and controlling (etc.)
    • Patriarchy doesn't just target women, but femininity as a whole, for its association with women.
    • Patriarchy doesn't just reward men, but masculinity, as it rejects femininity. People who reject femininity and embrace masculinity are rewarded by the patriarchy.

    Some of these ideas are contradictory, but they lead to the same conclusions. Some of them lead to similar conclusions, many of which take very little further nudging to push into more dogmatic ideas.

    This is exactly why we need to understand all of these paths into TERF ideology- and more.

    In fact, the vast majority of the points on this list- particularly the beginnings of their logic- can be very easily swallowed while still holding that trans women are women, and trans men are men.

    That's what TIRFs (trans-inclusive radical feminists) are, and they're still incredibly dangerous. TIRF ideology normalizes these points, making it far easier for TERFs to recruit; even if TIRFs themselves try to be aggressively anti-TERF.

    Again, this isn't comprehensive, and it would take a long time and a lot of words to cover every flaw and danger in every line of reasoning here.

    But remember how these things work; even if some of them begin with a grain of truth, even if some of them are true- especially if you define the words they contain differently- be wary of them.


    It's important to note how sex-negative they can be, and how in some circles this leads to a belief that being a lesbian is the only way one can liberate oneself from the abuse of men. They see sexual orientation as a choice to be made for one's safety, or a political act--not something based on genuine attraction. They also sometimes push the idea of the "gold-star lesbian"--that is, a lesbian who's never been with a man--as the ideal. If you're a bisexual? Disgusting, don't interact.

    It's... sadly common to see on dating sites.


    radical feminism is almost indistinguishable from evangelical conservatism. both camps believe that heterosexual sex is a violent consumption (and an immoral corruption) of women’s pure bodies. they believe that womanhood is inextricably centered around the uterus. they believe that men are basically ravenous violent sex-obsessed beasts who need to be restrained by the morality of good women. they believe that your sex at birth defines your character for the rest of your life, and that male and female are completely different, oppositional states of being. they believe that limiting young people’s access to information will keep them safer than giving them a full education and letting them make their own fully informed choices. they believe it’s better--safer and more virtuous--to be an innocent victim than an active agent. they both believe that suffering through all of this sanctifies women and proves that they’re more noble and virtuous than men. and, of course, the more suffering a woman endures, the more noble it must have made her.

    the only difference is that radical feminists express their anger over these terrible beliefs and evangelical conservatives repress it.

    and lot of these beliefs are familiar, and comfortable, to a lot of people who aren’t even radfems or conservatives. they pervade western thought already. it’s a framework of understanding sexism that resonates with a lot of our lived experiences. and going from acceptance of a terrible system to righteous anger at that terrible system can be an important and cathartic stage for victims of that system! but the next step is to reject the validity of that system, which radfems do not.


    It’s implied but not explicitly stated above that BDSM--all BDSM no matter how well negotiated--counts as “rape” in this type of ideology.

    Other highlights: All rape fantasies are inherently sick and dangerous. Pornography is inherently unhealthy and people who say they can separate porn from real life are suspect. "Informed consent” is fake: people are inherently harmed by BDSM/weird fantasies/porn/whatever, and saying yes to those things is just a sign that the person is damaged, not a valid conscious choice.

    In a fandom context, the above stuff looks like this:

  • AFABs who write m/m instead of focusing on female characters are self-hating women who are betraying their sisters.
  • It is the duty of AFABs to write f/f in particular.
  • Being into m/m if you aren’t a cis man is “fetishization”.
  • Everyone could just choose to write f/f if they were being politically good. Saying you’re “just not into” something is an excuse rather than a valid description of how desire and inspiration work.
  • “Because it makes me horny” is never a valid reason for fic.
  • F/F is purer and better and softer than any other content.
  • All kinky fic is furthering rape culture.
  • Kinky f/f is especially heinous and must be stamped out.
  • The fact that you have to click on “gross” AO3 works to see them doesn’t matter because their very existence is damaging to people.
  • If you disagree, it’s because you're a broken, deluded victim engaging in self harm.
  • Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

    A lot of fandom wank is explicitly and overtly pushing radfem garbage and calling that progressive. Yes, you, trans teenagers of tumblr. No matter how many times you reaffirm that you hate TERFs.

    When you say “X is bad except for cope-shipping”...

    When you demand that hobbyist women write about female characters...

    When you say that people are clearly predators or going to become predators because of their Bad fic content...

    You are helping TERFs.