before i'll be a slave...

Word

legal = supported by the ruling class; nothing more, nothing less.

Google it.this is really I thing. I’m so fucking sick right now 😒

he missing his calling of pushing up daisies.

Migos > The Beetles. If you disagree name 5 beetle songs without using google

holy fuck, I didn’t expect this to work, I was like psh, whatever it’s just a quick reblog, but I wished my Dad would actually respond back to me AND HE FUCKING DID A FEW DAYS LATER, I GOT A FUCKING TEXT FROM MY DAD TODAY WHO HASN’T SPOKEN OR RESPONDED TO ME IN MONTHS HOLY FUCK WHAT IS THIS MAGIC IT WORKS. 

I WANTED TO SEE MY BOYFRIEND AND I DIDN’T THINK I’D GET DAYS OFF BUT THIS WEEKEND I’M HEADING UP THERE??? THIS IS CRAZY SHIT 

SO LIKE I JOKINGLY WISHED FOR MY OWN LEN KAGAMINE AND THEN LIKE A WEEK LATER I GOT A LEN NENDOROID??? H ELP

WTF OKAY SO THIS SHOT ACTUALLY WORKS BECAUSE WHEN I WISHED, I HAD WISHED MY CRUSH WOULD LIKE ME BACK AND GUESS WHAT? I HAVE A BOYFRIEND NOW. WHAT THE HELLLLL?????

ok I’ve said this before but IM DOING IT AGAIN THE FIRST TIME I SAW THIS, MY WISH DID COME TRUE SO I REBLOGED AGAIN AND SAID IT IN THE TAGS BUT THEN I WISHED FOR SMTH ELSE AND IT LITERALLY LITERALLY HAPPENED LIKE A COUPLE DAYS LATER WHAT THE HELL SO NOW IM WRITING THIS HERE FOR YOU BC I DONT BELIEVE IN THIS CRAP BUT STILL IT’S AN AWFULLY BIG COINCIDENCE

I wish for someone to leave something in my ask.

OKAY SO I ASKED FOR A HEDGEHOG AND NOW GUESS WHO HAS A PET HEDGEHOG

i want you to stay for one day and one nigh with me and give me sp much love i dont have to cry of lonliness tonight, every night

no bUT THE LAST TIME I DID THIS SHIT I WISHED MEETING MY IDOL AND IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE I FCKING GOT THE FCKING EMAIL SAYING I WAS GOING TO MEET TAYLOR OH MY GOD

I could really do with a wish coming true rn….

It actually did work.

what is rational and reasonable about being “sometimes too antagonistic”? antagonism is not a space of reason or rationality; its reactionary. what’s up with people being so invested in making the discussion be about women having the right to talk about their experiences as opposed to questioning why women have these experiences in the first place.

So you have missed the entire point in a spectacular fashion

That, or I disagree with your position.

If you think this is a scary email then you shouldn’t be online

its not addressed to me so i have no reason think it frightening or threatening and i am not in the business of policing how and when people can feel threatened. why should she not be afraid of this email when it describes being threatened with rape and death so heavily that she had to leave her home as “sometimes too antagonistic?” fucking eagles fans are too antagonistic. her whole life was threatened for no other reason than her gender and she gets told that if she doesn’t allow her personal space to remain open to those types of threats, she is irrational, unreasonable, and every other dog-whistle for “non-male” there is. who gave you the right to declare when someone else has gone too far speaking about their own oppression that you don’t experience?

Who talked about rape or death threats? Their own oppression? I can no longer continue this as my sides seems to have been launched into orbit

You talked about it when you said she was “ Fucking Brianna Wu has been milking the gamergate thing hard.” Gamergate became a thing once she was threatened with rape and death and forced to leave her house. The author of the email also talked about it when he said his ilk can be “sometimes overly antagonistic”. Brianna Wu has not stopped talking about it since it happened. You are trying to remove all of the context of the twitter post and the email and pretend like this is all about her right to be bothered by this email in isolation of the events that sparked it. “I can’t continue this discussion because I am laughing too hard” = “my argument holds no water so let me laugh it off and no one will notice how wrong I am and how I refuse to critically challenge my fucked up views”

so you aren’t removing the context, just refusing to address it in the conversation? the email is a response to her blocking people, which was a response to the threats. they cannot be separated into isolated conversations if you wish to make a claim that someone is milking gamer gate. how can gamer gate both boost awareness of her game while taking away press from her game?  everyone views things through a specific lens, its called subjectivity. its what allows me to have researched my position and still not agree with you.

She’s milking gamergate for exposure. You know what law enforcement agencies tell you when receive death threats? Do not advertise them.What did she do? The exact opposite. She made the claim that 8chan was created to harass her even though it was founded a year prior to all this. She then said #gamergate was trying to stop the release of her game even though her game had already came out, it was even updated Sept 15 of this year. She blames gamergate for making her friend Samantha Allen leave the industry even though that happened in Feb and gamergate started in August. She has made herself the prime target of gamergate , according to her, even though out of the 2 million tweets on #gamergate only like 3% were negative tweets to her. As far as her death threats go, she cannot prove it was gamergate yet willfully ignores the fact that its third parties and blames gamergate. She is thriving off the attention, 4 weeks ago no one knew who she was, now she’s going on Msnbc and other t.v. sources. She’s using this for exposure and the easiest way is to play the constant victim.

so we are done with the premise that she is involved in this commentary because gamergate was pulling press from her game and we are sticking with she is using gamergate to enlarge her influence? that's less shaky.  law enforcement tells women not to dress like sluts to avoid getting raped and for the media to write about them favorably to avoid future police murders of unarmed people so their advice is meaningless to me.  without sources for your quotes from her, i won't argue against their validity or context; even if everything you say she said was said by her for the reasons you think and misrepresented the timeline of events as it relates to other people, that doesn't change the fact that women are harassed in games because of they are women and Brianna Wu was harassed for speaking out against it. you said she "made herself the prime target" like the people targeting her are robots responding to programming; they have autonomous power and they used it to harass someone who disagrees with them. 60,000 tweets against are okay though because she can't prove that the death threats were from gamergate? btw that is a lovely piece of logical alchemy you pulled by starting with "she can't prove its gamergate" and end with "she ignores the fact that its third parties and blames gamergate". she and gamergate would go away if men stopped trying to make online gaming a bastion for misogyny and racism, but people are too busy arguing against the rights of women to discuss it.

what is rational and reasonable about being “sometimes too antagonistic”? antagonism is not a space of reason or rationality; its reactionary. what’s up with people being so invested in making the discussion be about women having the right to talk about their experiences as opposed to questioning why women have these experiences in the first place.

So you have missed the entire point in a spectacular fashion

That, or I disagree with your position.

If you think this is a scary email then you shouldn’t be online

its not addressed to me so i have no reason think it frightening or threatening and i am not in the business of policing how and when people can feel threatened. why should she not be afraid of this email when it describes being threatened with rape and death so heavily that she had to leave her home as “sometimes too antagonistic?” fucking eagles fans are too antagonistic. her whole life was threatened for no other reason than her gender and she gets told that if she doesn’t allow her personal space to remain open to those types of threats, she is irrational, unreasonable, and every other dog-whistle for “non-male” there is. who gave you the right to declare when someone else has gone too far speaking about their own oppression that you don’t experience?

Who talked about rape or death threats? Their own oppression? I can no longer continue this as my sides seems to have been launched into orbit

You talked about it when you said she was “ Fucking Brianna Wu has been milking the gamergate thing hard.” Gamergate became a thing once she was threatened with rape and death and forced to leave her house. The author of the email also talked about it when he said his ilk can be “sometimes overly antagonistic”. Brianna Wu has not stopped talking about it since it happened. You are trying to remove all of the context of the twitter post and the email and pretend like this is all about her right to be bothered by this email in isolation of the events that sparked it. “I can’t continue this discussion because I am laughing too hard” = “my argument holds no water so let me laugh it off and no one will notice how wrong I am and how I refuse to critically challenge my fucked up views”

so you aren't removing the context, just refusing to address it in the conversation? the email is a response to her blocking people, which was a response to the threats. they cannot be separated into isolated conversations if you wish to make a claim that someone is milking gamer gate. how can gamer gate both boost awareness of her game while taking away press from her game?  everyone views things through a specific lens, its called subjectivity. its what allows me to have researched my position and still not agree with you.

what is rational and reasonable about being “sometimes too antagonistic”? antagonism is not a space of reason or rationality; its reactionary. what’s up with people being so invested in making the discussion be about women having the right to talk about their experiences as opposed to questioning why women have these experiences in the first place.

So you have missed the entire point in a spectacular fashion

That, or I disagree with your position.

If you think this is a scary email then you shouldn’t be online

its not addressed to me so i have no reason think it frightening or threatening and i am not in the business of policing how and when people can feel threatened. why should she not be afraid of this email when it describes being threatened with rape and death so heavily that she had to leave her home as “sometimes too antagonistic?” fucking eagles fans are too antagonistic. her whole life was threatened for no other reason than her gender and she gets told that if she doesn’t allow her personal space to remain open to those types of threats, she is irrational, unreasonable, and every other dog-whistle for “non-male” there is. who gave you the right to declare when someone else has gone too far speaking about their own oppression that you don’t experience?

Who talked about rape or death threats? Their own oppression? I can no longer continue this as my sides seems to have been launched into orbit

You talked about it when you said she was " Fucking Brianna Wu has been milking the gamergate thing hard." Gamergate became a thing once she was threatened with rape and death and forced to leave her house. The author of the email also talked about it when he said his ilk can be "sometimes overly antagonistic". Brianna Wu has not stopped talking about it since it happened. You are trying to remove all of the context of the twitter post and the email and pretend like this is all about her right to be bothered by this email in isolation of the events that sparked it. "I can't continue this discussion because I am laughing too hard" = "my argument holds no water so let me laugh it off and no one will notice how wrong I am and how I refuse to critically challenge my fucked up views"

what is rational and reasonable about being “sometimes too antagonistic”? antagonism is not a space of reason or rationality; its reactionary. what’s up with people being so invested in making the discussion be about women having the right to talk about their experiences as opposed to questioning why women have these experiences in the first place.

So you have missed the entire point in a spectacular fashion

That, or I disagree with your position.

If you think this is a scary email then you shouldn’t be online

its not addressed to me so i have no reason think it frightening or threatening and i am not in the business of policing how and when people can feel threatened. why should she not be afraid of this email when it describes being threatened with rape and death so heavily that she had to leave her home as "sometimes too antagonistic?" fucking eagles fans are too antagonistic. her whole life was threatened for no other reason than her gender and she gets told that if she doesn't allow her personal space to remain open to those types of threats, she is irrational, unreasonable, and every other dog-whistle for "non-male" there is. who gave you the right to declare when someone else has gone too far speaking about their own oppression that you don't experience?

what is rational and reasonable about being “sometimes too antagonistic”? antagonism is not a space of reason or rationality; its reactionary. what’s up with people being so invested in making the discussion be about women having the right to talk about their experiences as opposed to questioning why women have these experiences in the first place.

So you have missed the entire point in a spectacular fashion

That, or I disagree with your position.

what is rational and reasonable about being "sometimes too antagonistic"? antagonism is not a space of reason or rationality; its reactionary. what's up with people being so invested in making the discussion be about women having the right to talk about their experiences as opposed to questioning why women have these experiences in the first place.

In the fake-ass world where the acting white theory hasn't been debunked, how black is Charles Barkley? Drunk driving to purchase sex illegally again with a loaded handgun in the car all in the same night? That doesn't include his multiple assault charges. That's so much vapid thuggery that white people and their pet black people should stop giving him a platform to hate black people for doing what he does and not having the decency to be rich enough to get away with it.

Clearly Nas hasn't tried explaining white privilege to racist white people.

they need to take the drone-bombing peace-prize winning leader of the the largest police state in history the fuck off this list if it means anything at all. FDR also needs to kick rocks.