$LAYYYTER
titsay
if i look back, i am lost
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
noise dept.
@theartofmadeline
One Nice Bug Per Day
wallacepolsom
Kiana Khansmith
★
Sweet Seals For You, Always
hello vonnie
styofa doing anything
Game of Thrones Daily
will byers stan first human second
h
almost home
Sade Olutola
seen from Brazil
seen from Ukraine
seen from Ukraine
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@dr-stefan-frank
So I was shadowbanned a few months ago, but too lazy to do anything about it.
But I finally decided to make a new blog.
If anyone of my followers (including the pornbots, I’m not discriminating) is interested in continuing to follow an abrasive cunt that never interacts with anyone, because she’s just that lazy, here’s the link:
https://dr-stefan-frank-3.tumblr.com/
Anyway. Toodles. :)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The shit just never ends huh
He made a joke about current events. There was nothing racial in there. Lazy journalists are just rolling out slander about him, as they have been.
Tumblr be believing The Media.
I swear to god the “pewdiepie is a natzeeh reeeee” people are some of the dumbest motherfuckers on this platform.
”So I feel like this is the perfect time for a film like this. I feel like the film has become more important and more relevant today, which is a sad thing.” – Oscar Winner Taika Waititi in the Press Room
This gets the postwar history of West Germany disastrously wrong in a way that plays nicely with the mythology of the Allied victory.
nuremburg was a fucking sham lol
what is “operation paperclip”
Project Paperclip was the US effort to recruit some 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers into our own military and space engineering projects.
The Soviet Union had a similar operation.
Here’s the caption for the picture at the top of the Wikipedia article:
Kurt H. Debus, a former Nazi scientist turned NASA director, sitting between U.S. President John F. Kennedy (right) and U.S. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson (third from right) during a briefing at Blockhouse 34, Cape Canaveral Missile Test Annex.
Note the lack of a prison jumpsuit.
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about Debus:
In 1939, he obtained his engineering doctorate with a thesis on surge voltages, and was appointed assistant professor at the university. During World War II, Debus was a member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and Himmler’s SS[6] (since 1940[7]).
The men recruited from Paperclip did far more to help the Nazi cause then some guy talking shit on the internet and marching around with a tiki torch.
They were recruited because they made extremely concrete and useful contributions to Nazi weaponry.
This doesn’t excuse tiki torch guy, but the more I think about it the more I find the propagandistic lie about how we treated Nazis after the war to be the truly upsetting bit of this sound bite.
1. Thank you for the elaborate rundown that I can easily reblog to educate followers who might not actually be aware
2. I am terribly sorry it was taken as a serious question and not a sarcastic remark
Actually, I replied in comments, but thinking further, I wanted to say that I don’t think it’s actually shameful not to be aware of that particular part of WWII history. It happened 75 years ago, and its importance in the American consciousness has been steadily declining. Some people on Tumblr are young, or, like me, fundamentally ignorant about large chunks of history, and nobody is born knowing this stuff.
I do think it is absolutely shameful for Waititi to make a claim about immediate post-war history that is so blatantly false, especially after finishing a movie about that exact time period.
For those of you not tracking what’s going on here; Taika Waititi adapted and starred in a movie making fun of Nazis. Including their ideological conformity and ingroup-signalling.
He won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, and used his literal and figurative platform to spout incorrect nonsense in order to endorse authoritarian censorship of people for having opinions he considers harmful.
You know, like the Nazis.
Such a shame Ricky Gervais didn’t host the Oscars as well.
I don’t understand the disproportionate vitriol and mockery directed at anti-male circumcision activists, who are very obviously correct. Is it that they’re seen as whiny men embarrassing themselves by complaining about their inadequate genitals? Is it that circumcision is a relatively minor issue, so their passion about it seems out of place? Just the inherent funniness of dicks?
social-justice-y advocating for issues that disproportionately affect men is associated with MRA stuff, which already has a pretty bad rep. I think it’s also seen as trying to draw on the analogy to FGM, but since it’s not as bad that’s seen as whiny.
The thing with the analogy to FGM is, while the most common forms of FGM are indeed way worse, even the mildest form of FGM (ritual pinprick), which is more comparible to male circumcision, are banned in places that allow male circumcision.
Anti-male circumcision activists tend to combine correct arguments about bodily autonomy with controversial rhetoric describing circumcised men as horribly mutilated, which a) does not match the actual lived experience of most circumcised men, b) is effectively trying to tell men who never had a problem until the activists showed up that something is horribly wrong with them, and c) contradicts fairly ingrained aesthetic opinions.
The set of circumcised men who are not anti-circumcision activists and also think uncircumcised penises look better than circumcised ones is probably pretty close to empty.
Women from cultures where FGM was practiced didn’t always see themselves as mutilated and didn’t have a problem until cultural outsiders told them it was wrong. Some of them still feel that way. It’s still mutilation performed by force or coercion via cultural expectation that permanently changed how their genitalia functioned. Which is what circumcision is.
I’m not out to hurt people’s feelings but if its between hurting people’s feelings and letting the practice of performing unnecessary surgical intervention on literal infants often with little to no pain relief and that will irreversibly effect the function of their penis for the rest of their lives continue? I suppose I’ll have to hurt some feelings.
Men who were circumcised as infants don’t see a problem with it because they are incapable of knowing any different and in many cases the people around them tell them its normal (or even that intact penises are abnormal). Cultural norms are fucked up all the time. “Lots of people are fine with it” isn’t a very strong argument for not interrogating them.
And real talk: there is literally no way to speak against circumcision that won’t make people get defensive. None. Many circumcised men don’t want to hear information that might in any way suggest they are lacking or, possibly worse, wrong done by. Even if intactivists limited their rhetoric only to “correct” arguments about how it is immoral to circumcise a non-consenting infant, it would still be very “controversial” to parents who circumcised their children and doctors who performed or recommended infant circumcision.
Sometimes the truth is controversial because it makes people uncomfortable to hear it; it implicates them in having done something wrong. It’s the same shit you come up against when you try to convince people to stop hitting their kids. Lots of people, to whom the practice was normalized, feel that it did not personally damage them when their parents were physically violent with them. It doesn’t make it true. And I can’t really be expected to not call child abuse child abuse because some people are uncomfortable with conceptualizing themselves as having been abused as a child, especially when it can, and often is, used as a justification for abusing their own children. Circumcision is mutilation.
that permanently changed how their genitalia functioned
The tendency to say false things doesn’t help the activist case either. We have an empirical test case for this - men who have converted to Judaism or Islam as adults (and thus have a basis for comparison) typically report that after the initial healing period, not much is different.
The foreskin has a mechanical function, therefore its is objectively true that removing it changes the way the penis functions. The men you are referring to don’t have a phantom foreskins.
Fwiw I’m very skeptical of these sorts of claims about sensitivity because they don’t seem to be coming from 20 years or so into their post-foreskin life. They haven’t spent the same amount of time with their glans exposed as an adult man who was circumcised as infant would have.
Also if I cut off my pinky and the sensation other four fingers remained the same, it would still be dumb to say the sensation in my hand didn’t change. It changed because I can no longer feel the portion I removed.
sigmaleph >social-justice-y advocating for issues that disproportionately affect men is associated with MRA stuff, which already has a pretty bad rep.
Seems like a flaw with social justice, considering their frequent claims to be about gender equality, and sometimes to help men, explicitly.
IME, a lot of SocJus folks seem to have a problem with the idea of men as primary victims of anything, in general, and will accuse intactivists of misogyny because they don’t let women have a monopoly on being victims of genital mutilation.
Also, why is IP’s “empirical test case” based entirely on subjective opinions?
IDGAF about which is worse.
Circumcision is mutilation and is WRONG.
Period. End of discussion.
Die mad about it.
I’d also like to point out that MGM - depending on which estimates you use - is orders of magnitude more common than FGM.
Usually the problem with anti-male circumcision activism is how to implement it in a way that doesn't infringe on religious liberty, coupled with speculations of antisemitism
It’s not liberty to surgically inflict your religion on someone who doesn’t believe in or even understand it and can’t consent. If Judaism or Islam can’t handle that, too bad for them.
In the US, most people who get cut aren’t doing it for religious reasons, which these accusations of Antisemitism - and it’s almost always just antisemitism, not antisemitism and Islamophobia - never seem to acknowledge.
Most people who do it in the United States do it because the man who invented Corn Flakes thought it’d be a good way to stop boys from masturbating and it caught on.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
do straights rly think this is normal
No, we fuckin don’t.
Why did you assume the one abused was a guy to begin with? Could have also been a girl.
As if that’s any better.
And could is the key word. Our minds are accustomed to male-female relationships, because it’s simply the norm and overwhelming majority.
Oh I didn’t mean you, I meant the guy above. Bad phrasing on my part, I think.
And yeah, it’s not any better.
I know, I know, I just felt like explaining it, because I see where they’re coming from.
Well, not just that, but also because a lot of people refuse to believe that gay people, especially gay women, can be abusive. Case in point: the first comment up there and the countless amount of others just like it all over this shitty site.
Original post: Here is a troublesome situation within the context of a romantic relationship, which might very well constitute abusive behaviour.
Galaxy brain SJW #27439: Hmmm, how can I make this about Dem Disgusting Straightz™?
Well obviously in order to be able to criticize a woman you have to somehow drag in a bad group™. I’m genuinely surprised they didn’t bring whites™ into it as well.
One reason that feminists might have a knee-jerk opposition to anti-circumcision rhetoric is that MRAs bring it up as a form of whataboutism to derail feminist discussions of FGM. It's like how they derail feminist discussions of abuse against women with "men get abused too", thereby poisoning the well for legit activists who want to discuss abuse against men. It's like how antisemites and Islamophobes often poison the well on criticising various Middle Eastern countries.
I haven’t seen that myself but it sounds plausible.
Bruh. You can barely talk about male circumcision without a feminist appearing out of thin air to yell at you about how its not as bad as FGM and how dare you compare them even when not a single person mentioned FGM.
And frankly, if you’re going to go about how barbaric and sexist it is that some other culture practices genital mutilation as a matter of course, I think its pretty fair that someone points out to you that genital mutilation is going on in your own backyard and in your own culture.
Feminists have a “knee-jerk opposition to anti-circumcision rhetoric” for the same reason they have a knee-jerk negative response to all men’s issues: they’re sexist. Feminists are all about body autonomy until it starts to interfere with their policy of shitting on the idea that men’s issues are worth anyone’s time or attention, at which point caring about body autonomy is stupid. It’s not the big mean MRAs’ fault that feminist are hypocrites. Maybe they should gain a sense of basic morality?
I literally cannot recall a time I ever saw an “MRA” attempt to derail a feminist conversation about FGM, but plenty of the converse.
I’ve also seen plenty of these “oh, we only hate MRAs because they’re derailing!” arguments, even though the issues in question should already be feminist concerns, according to the principles feminists regularly claim to have.
Like someone said “if your conversation about rape can be ‘derailed’ by talking about male rape victims and female rapists, you weren’t really talking about rape”.
“… as a form of whataboutism to derail feminist discussions of FGM. “
The practice that is illegal in Western countries, and becoming illegal or being discouraged in many of the countries that traditionally practiced it? What exactly is the discussion that is being derailed?
As far as MRAs et alia use FGM in arguments it is to support the notion that circumcision should be looked at similarly. Not to defend FGM.
And feminists regularly use FGM as a way to derail discussion on circumcision, they use it as a particularly dishonest appeal to worse problems. So this is projection.
“ It’s like how they derail feminist discussions of abuse against women with “men get abused too”, thereby poisoning the well for legit activists who want to discuss abuse against men. “
Or simply that feminists never address a third of abuse victims!
Feminists are allergic to self awareness aren’t they….
> … as a form of whataboutism to derail feminist discussions of FGM.
That’s a cute way to phrase “MRA talks about circumcision, but because they fucking dared to call it what it is - genital mutilation - this is now derailment, even though FGM was never mentioned at all and the MRA was the one to start the discussion in the first place” or “feminist talked about how circumcision is totally medical and everbody who calls it mutilation is a horrible person that doesn’t take FGM seriously and an MRA swooped in to prove them wrong”.
Same thing happened with college admission and graduation. As soon as women started doing better than men all of a sudden it stopped being about equality and started becoming about merit. Funny how that works.
Good ol’ bad ol’ takedownmras. I’d bet money S/He didn’t even check first, they just came up with a rationalization.
Also, feminists claim men outearn women, across the board, period, full stop, no qualifiers and no nuance. Going “well, it’s still in men’s favor the REST of the time” doesn’t change the fact that feminists are very wrong. I’d say 1/5 of an adult working life is pretty significant.
What’s amazing about Birds of Prey is that it has women in crop tops and tight pants, but at no point is the camera ogling them. Theres no slow pan up the body, or focus on tits or ass; the women are just characters doing shit and the camera treats them as such.
(Vague possible spoilers)
Harley gets caught in a white t under an active sprinkler, and despite this, the scene focuses on action and not her wet clothes. A character is forced to have her dress cut off, and at no point is the scene or her shown fetishisticly, but instead, it focuses on the violating and humiliating nature of the villain and how upset the woman is at being exposed and forced into dancing on a table.
It’s just refreshing that a kind of dumb action movie has women wearing whatever and the camera never treats them like a piece of meat. That alone makes the movie worth price of admission.
> A character is forced to have her dress cut off, and at no point is the scene or her shown fetishisticly, but instead, it focuses on the violating and humiliating nature of the villain and how upset the woman is at being exposed and forced into dancing on a table.
Out of curiosity, how many blockbuster movies do you see where that sort of thing is portrayed “fetishistically”? Because I’m drawing a complete blank.
EDIT: Surprising no one, I asked OP to prove the problem she’s complaining about actually exists, and I got blocked.
Almost like she made it up!
So a woman has her top become transparent and another one is undressed and does a table dance.
So empowering.
Union Flag taken down from EU council building.
Congrats for finally managing to leave the Reich.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Women are getting literally frozen out of the workplace.
3 Ways Your Modern Office Secretly Hates Your Guts
Accurate. At least at my last job I could get away with wearing a hoodie instead of having to purchase a “workplace-suitable” blanket.
Open-plan office is a nightmare and requires high volumes of repetitive music on high-quality headphones to maintain focus.
I have a woolen blanket at work that I have over my lap 90% of the time I sit down. And I basically never wear any light clothing. So I guess I’m always in the market for good-looking thick hoodies. Even in summer.
Remember when Cracked co-signed that “air-conditioning is sexist” article many feminists disavowed because it made them look silly?
Also, the average dude weighs a lot more than 154 lbs.
I’d rather wear a thick hoodie in summer than sit in an office full of sweating men.
Our air conditioner broke down one summer and let me tell you, it was not pleasant. My colleagues (and probably myself as well) didn’t exactly smell like roses, even with deodorant.
Human trafficking? Nah. The UN has a better word for what’s happening: genocide. See below:
Read b, c, and e twice more, then look again at the year they convened and why.
Crazy. This is the first time in human history where people are risking life and limb by traveling thousands of miles towards a genocide.
OP, human trafficking only applies if the adult the child is being taken from was looking to sell the child.
If anything, the kids being taken from the adults is kids being rescued from human trafficking.
And, y'know, the whole dragging your kids across dangerous terrain in order to enter a country illegally thing should be grounds enough to deem the adults ineligible to care for the kids.
But they just want a better life for their kids!
Pay no attention to the fact that they’ve gotten those kids killed, raped, and occasionally both.
> because she wasn’t his mother
She prolly wasn’t his grandmother either.
I hope Wikipedia doesnt go bankrupt it will feel like the end times . I think I will literally panic
Encyclopedia Britannica is always there
there’s this place called a library. and they have these things called books. and then there’s this thing called Google Search. where you can find books in PDF form.
Wikipedia is user edited. you can literally put anything you want in an entry almost. I think you know where I’m about to go with this.
You’re condescending and annoying. I am attached to Wikipedia out of sentimentality it’s always been there for as long as I remember and reliable to me for some casual trivia. Wikipedia is iconic and I love her. go write a research paper or something
who let high school teachers find tumblr
me: hm i wonder how many countries drive on the same side as the UK
friend: let’s check wikipedia in 2 seconds on our phones
some asshole on tumblr: um excuse me why don’t you stop what you’re doing to go to the library and look it up in an outdated book that’s edited maybe twice a decade and that definitely doesn’t have a single page article called “list of countries with left-hand traffic”
also “user edited” really doesn’t mean as much as you think it does. there are millions of people displaying accurate information, for every one person displaying inaccurate information. and that inaccurate information is usually changed quickly, and the person who made it can get their ip blocked from wikipedia if it was bad enough. way more accurate than textbooks or a library.
Librarian here! I’ve worked at both academic (college/university) and public libraries, and let me tell you this: most print encyclopedias are useless garbage we can’t get rid of fast enough. With the exception of subject-specific sets which we need to buy again every few years because the information has become outdated, most of the information in any volume of an encyclopedia is far more accessible and far more in-depth on the internet.
Wikipedia as a reference resource is fantastic because, just like print encyclopedias, it serves as a jumping-off point for research… and so do librarians! A librarian isn’t going to just write your paper for you, we’re going to point you to the books, articles, and websites that contain the information. Wikipedia is great for that, too, because any article that gets more than a bit of traffic will wind up with sources and external links. But print encyclopedias don’t go that far in citing their sources, and because they’re static media, the references may not only be outdated, they might be entirely inaccessible due to age, obscurity, or cost of access.
And there’s an interesting thing about all those books we have on the shelves… anyone can write one, and usually they only have a handful of other people checking their work. Academic journals are somewhat notorious for the ease with which a completely falsified paper can see publication (especially in cases of electronic journals), but printed books can also be easily falsified, whether as a result of publishers with an agenda or just fact-checkers slacking off.
As has been pointed out above, wikipedia is really great at getting obscenely specific in terms of the topics of articles. It’s an amazing collection of data, and more importantly, it’s an amazing collection of sources of data.
The role of a reference librarian and a wikipedia editor are basically the same: show you a brief summary of the information you need, and point you to more in-depth, reliable sources.
I was helping a friend clear out their dad’s old stuff from their home recently and we came across encyclopedias from the 90s.
They all went to the dump. They were ASTOUNDINGLY outdated. Totally fucking useless.
High school English teacher here–I regularly get crap from some of my colleagues, but I am completely fine with students using Wikipedia for info. Wikipedia does an excellent job of flagging articles that have been recently edited until someone can verify the changes, so pages with inaccurate info often have giant warnings at the top saying “THIS PAGE MAY CONTAIN IANCCURATE INFO”. Won’t find that in an out-of-date print edition.
Not only that, but Wikipedia cites its sources. It tells you right at the bottom of the page where all its info came from, so if you want to use a fact from Wikipedia but don’t want a teacher annoyed with you, just cite the source in the footnote. Teachers and professors are (a) not likely to check up on this and (b) it’s a real source so even if they do it’s legit?
The biggest problem I have had with letting students use Wikipedia is actually that Wikipedia articles are often written in such academic language that students sometimes struggle to understand them. That part kids have to overcome on their own or with the help of their teacher. But there’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia as a source. Hatred for it is a remnant of academic elitism, thinking that “peer-reviewed” can only mean some handful of crusty white dudes instead of literally anyone with enough knowledge and motivation to review it.
Honestly. My dad is a college professor and he’s told me time and again to always start my research at Wikipedia. You have to go further, obviously, but its such a great jumping off point for information.
Plus, where else can I find an itemized and updated list of every Cryptid known to human kind?
For the impenetrable articles, here’s my tip.
The list of other languages in the sidebar? Look at it and check whether the article has a version in Simple English.
Simple English is a mode for non-native English speakers but is also great if your reading comprehension is not super good, you’re having a slow brain day for any mental health or developmental disorder reason, or the English version is just poorly written.
Librarian here, and this whole post gives me so much joy.
@sugargroupie, @turtletotem
I feel like people think “not a reliable source” means “not true” but it actually means “can’t be quoted because the words might change”
I never knew there was a simple English version? I learned something new!
So yeah, everyone go donate to Wikipedia, they’re having a hard time over there.
Have they solved the issue of women and POC being doxxed/harassed/driven out of editing? Because that causes pretty severe bias too and I’m not interested in donating until it’s resolved.
That happens to basically everyone who isn’t a rules lawyer hardcore editor with a clique on their side. It’s not about race or gender.
That’s why I’m laffing at the idea Wikipedia can be ‘edited by anyone’. Technically, yes, practically, no.
The correct phrase is “anyone could be editing it”. And by anyone I mean we usually have no idea who the fuck the rules lawyer is.
With traditional encyclopedias you know who the editorial team is and you know they are properly qualified.
In theory, anyway.
don’t forget the time an editor on wikipedia was found guilty in taking bribes to edit certain pages to ignore certain facts
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy
They took bribes to maintain a certain political narrative - and to prevent less established editors from getting a word in.
On Gamergate, no less. One of the most blatantly biased articles on the site if you know anything about the truth.
Wikipedia definitely ain’t good for any scholarly research, but if you wanna know just how fast an ostrich can run, it’s fuckin fantastic
Once again, I point you to the sources. Wikipedia is sourced Chicago-style— those blue superscript numbers in brackets at the ends of sentences on Wikipedia are links to the sources of the content of that sentence. If you read something on Wikipedia and it sounds dubious, check if there’s a citation number nearby that links to a source of that information. If it’s not sourced, it might not be correct. If it’s sourced, congrats, it’s probably accurate.
Oh hey, and you can also check the editing history of each article whenever. Dubious information? Check when, why, and by who it was edited. Trusted Wikipedia moderator several edits ago added the information and no one has challenged it yet? All good. Random guy added one sentence last Tuesday without a source or explanation? Maybe google (or Ecosia) that one first.
Sources =/= “probably accurate”. All they’re saying is that they found a “trusted source” that made the claim. That’s a textbook Appeal to Authority.
Also, your solution to criticisms of Wikipedia’s bias is…to do in-depth research of our own? Based on someone’s standing in the exact system that’s allegedly biased and cliquish?
Lol Buzzfeed News is one of their “trusted sources”.
this is true except for the part where OP seems to believe this is something she has to tell men, and hence why she has to make it more clear to the visual learners that men are
because fandom purity policing ain’t a male activity
Yeah, where the hell are the men who are saying “liking Kylo Ren is moral degeneracy”? Ross Douthat? Is he even still alive?
Just because some fossilized paleoconservatives said shit like that 40 years ago and were taken seriously, doesn’t mean they’re that powerful now. (Even if some of them are technically still alive.)
Well, alright, to be fair, probably there are a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who still say shit like that, and still have power in their communities.
But… They sure as hell don’t rule Twitter or Tumblr.
un fucking canny
I fail to see how it has anything to do with misogyny, instead of the usual “stop shipping what I don’t like” nonsense. Feminism was - as it often is when it intersects with fandom - an excuse not a reason.
the outfit is supposed to look fun and quirky, not sexy...
The outfit looks like shit. The entire movie looks ‘fun and quirky’ like that one dumb girl who couldn’t move on from watching Invader Zim in high school and makes spork jokes.
Birds of Prey Huntress is a vigilante. Her outfit isn’t supposed to be ‘fun and quirky’, they were trying to make it look vaguely practical. She’s supposed to be more or less The Serious One, going from outfit alone.
> fun and quirky, not sexy...
Of course. That’s why she’s still half naked.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Eminem released a surprise new album with a message about gun reform front and center — the rapper has a history of political protest songs and also called for listeners to register to vote for the 2020 election.
Eminem most of his life: I have many illegally owned guns. I need these because of how dangerous life in the inner city is. Fuck the government.
Eminem after being rich as fuck: the state is life. You don’t need guns, that’s what your privately hired security guards are for. Praise whatever candidate the dems tell you to vote for.
He’s being an edgy bad boy by repeating one of the most common, middle-of-the road positions in America today.
Ah, it’s the Greenday of Hip-Hop.
wilddd
Shut the fuck……
> a queer drink
Wonder if their next ad will call their drink a bundle of sticks. :)
