I Care But I Dont Want To

I can’t believe I actually lived though the full transition from VHS to DVD. Like there are people alive who have never seen a VHS tape….I remember when we were still tryna figure out how the fuck they got a full movie onto a cd. 

Okay, but their typography game is on point. I mean it takes a lot of practice to hand letter with a chalk or a brush. Hand lettering with a piping bag is next level. 

WOW.

reblog if you remember what it felt like to walk into blockbuster

PURE POST OP

Is it too early to start reblogging this or?

Its never too early to start reblogging this

I love how one set was not enough for him

Just a warning, I will be reblogging this every time I see it for the next week.

You know what, it does take a big person to admit they were wrong so publicly and work to undo the harm. I believe I made fun of her in the past, but timemachineyeah changed my mind.

america is a deeply flawed society, (built on slavery, oppression, and genocide), that has always been undeniably hostile towards women and minorities; to pretend otherwise is massively ignorant, even dangerous.

Name one right that women and minorities do not have in America. I’ll wait. 

Move to Tehran and tell me America treats women badly.

It’s such a terrible shame @lipstickandleeches was picked up by the secret police for criticizing America as a mere woman. Oh, wait, we’re not some socialist shithole. The worst she can expect is rational people pointing out her idiocy on the internet.

Alright this may seem v radical but I am all for complete gun control. The removal of ALL guns from the hands of the public. Private citizens do not need them. I just don’t see a reason for any person living their normal life to own a gun or ANY kind. I mean I guess (????) For hunting during designated seasons but even that is really unnecessary. I’ve known people killed in drive by shootings and people with personal experience being threatened with guns. My stepfather and mother used to argue about guns he had for hunting and because their domestic situation was HELLA abusive I grew up completely terrified that my stepdad would just up and decide to kill her or any of us one day. Guns have no place in anyone’s hands. White men and veterans in NRA t-shirts come into my job all the time and I don’t feel safe despite the “Responsible gun-owner” concealed carry slogans they wear proudly. I feel afraid. I get shaky and terrified any time I spot one because that shit makes me feel threatened not protected. Guns are so fucking unnecessary and I wish people were less fucking stupid about how much they “need” them. The right to bear arms is bullshit in modern society, sorry not sorry. If I could I would personally remove the guns from every person in the country and ban all gun sales forever.

If people refused to hand over their firearms to such a confiscation effort, would you be willing to kill them?

What a stupid, stupid question. Of course not.

I don’t know that it is a stupid question though, if total gun-control were implemented this goes one of two ways. Either people give them up willingly or they fight. I’m not a big fan of guns myself, never had one. but I also don’t believe the state should have a monopoly on force.

Well clearly there’s no real, feasible and civil way to remove guns in one fell swoop and certainly there would be resistance and a good chance for violence. Despite what people may argue about protection, guns are a vehicle of violence and any effort to remove them would be inherently dangerous because people get upset and make rash, vicious decisions based on their principles. But there’s a huge grey area between giving up on gun control and killing people to take their guns. That’s the thing people violently opposed to gun control seem to fundamentally misunderstand. Just like there are numerous ways to protect yourself and your family (some of them without guns, wow imagine it), there are a lot of ways to deal with people who break rules that don’t involve immediate violence and even if it did come to violence in this hypothetical scenario, there are ways to show force without intentionally harming people who disagree with you. Killing anyone is so far off the point of my offhand imaginary scenario though that to me it was immediately a ridiculous response.

How would you enforce a total ban on firearms without threat of force?

There would be a threat of legal action which in theory would be enough for some but for those who are stubborn enough to go out and flaunt firearms after that then who’s to say there would be no threat of force? There are just ways to demonstrate force that don’t involve shooting and/or killing people. But if the armed party immediately resorts to pulling out their guns on authorities then obviously there will be increased force. No one is saying there would be no force but like… killing people is so extreme. That’s what they’d be trying to prevent so like unless there was an absolute immediate and mortal threat then like obviously do not kill someone to take their guns. Of course with the current trigger-happy police force there would be issues but I’m not even discussing this entirely realistically. Obviously as a 20 year old female of limited physical strength or political power I won’t be personally knocking on doors and taking guns away from people but in the event that this did happen I absolutely would not advocate for the killing of stubborn gun owners.

If the thing you produce and own or trade for becomes illegal, then any action you take in refusing to give up this illegal item does put you in the wrong. If you were talking about heroin, it would be the same. You are not allowed to produce or trade for heroin legally. To refuse to give up your heroin would be an illegal action and therefore you are the one instigating the action against the authorities and the law. That puts the responsibility for any escalation, once again, firmly into your hands.

Does legal prohibition equate to a moral code? At one point in this country, slavery was legal. Civil rights activists in the ‘60s had to willingly and implicitly break laws in order to further their agenda. If we’re equating legal processes with societal morality, then are we to presume that “the responsibility for any escalation” in the hands of civil rights activists? If I really wanted to be a dick, I could phrase it as something like “Are you saying civil rights activists were responsible for firehoses and dogs being set on them”, but that feels like a logical fallacy somewhere, an appeal to emotion or something.

But civil rights activists were fighting to exist as human beings and not to own something that would make it easier for them to kill people. That is absolutely a logical fallacy and I’m glad you caught yourself before you let that idiocy tumble across my screen.

If you want to defend yourself I’m not saying you cannot. But living and existing are not the same as living and existing with a gun you are prepared to turn on another person, no matter what equivalency you try to make.

Oppressing the populace is hardly radical. Monarchs, Dictators and Emperors have done it for millennia. Self defense should be a human right/

This post is gross and controlling