Out Of
Out Of

Out Of

Keep It
Keep It

Keep It

College For
College For

College For

Whats The
Whats The

Whats The

Would You
Would You

Would You

Your
Your

Your

The
The

The

Give
Give

Give

Looking For
Looking For

Looking For

Not
Not

Not

🔥 | Latest

For Money: Jennifer Medina @jenniferjmedina Yup, looks about what was expected. Steven Pruitt has made nearly 3 million edits on Wikipedia and writtern 35,000 original articles all for free. CBSNEWS.COM Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia George @geochirper this tweet is fucking horrible this man is literally providing the world with free knowledge and you think criticising his appearance is funny? Fuck you lesbiansandpuns: naamahdarling: infowarts: infowarts: wormbabie: concretecatholic: celticpyro: positive-memes: People should thank this man Sorry Jennifer not everybody can look like Chris Evans while doing a huge service to the general public. Anyway this guy is amazing. Did you see the video? He has such a glowing personality and his eagerness to share knowledge is infectious. some people will take any chance they can to dehumanize fat people theres also been a motion to write more articles about women because the gap in articles about men vs articles about women is astronomically huge, and he’s written hundreds or thousands of them and is a huge proponent of this. he’s done a lot of great work and he spends countless hours a day researching things so that we have access to that knowledge. he’s a hero. he doesnt do it for money either, tho apparently his regular job also involves research. but he does this purely because he believes in how important it is for information to be free. he’s done 600 articles on women as a part of this push for more He looks like a nice guy and I know people like to sneer at it but Wikipedia is a good, ACCESSIBLE starting point for learning about things, so like, haters can fuck all the way off. “How much money do you make from this?”“None.” “So why do you do it?” “The idea of it, making it all free, fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union. So I’m very conscious of what it can mean to make knowledge free. To make information free.”  how can you hear that and think anything other than that this is a brilliant, kind, generous man
For Money: Jennifer Medina
 @jenniferjmedina
 Yup, looks about what was expected.
 Steven Pruitt has made nearly 3 million edits on Wikipedia and writtern
 35,000 original articles all for free.
 CBSNEWS.COM
 Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia
 George
 @geochirper
 this tweet is fucking horrible this man is
 literally providing the world with free
 knowledge and you think criticising his
 appearance is funny? Fuck you
lesbiansandpuns:

naamahdarling:

infowarts:

infowarts:

wormbabie:

concretecatholic:

celticpyro:


positive-memes:
People should thank this man
Sorry Jennifer not everybody can look like Chris Evans while doing a huge service to the general public. 
Anyway this guy is amazing.


Did you see the video? He has such a glowing personality and his eagerness to share knowledge is infectious. 


some people will take any chance they can to dehumanize fat people  

theres also been a motion to write more articles about women because the gap in articles about men vs articles about women is astronomically huge, and he’s written hundreds or thousands of them and is a huge proponent of this. he’s done a lot of great work and he spends countless hours a day researching things so that we have access to that knowledge. he’s a hero. he doesnt do it for money either, tho apparently his regular job also involves research. but he does this purely because he believes in how important it is for information to be free. 

he’s done 600 articles on women as a part of this push for more

He looks like a nice guy and I know people like to sneer at it but Wikipedia is a good, ACCESSIBLE starting point for learning about things, so like, haters can fuck all the way off.

“How much money do you make from this?”“None.”
“So why do you do it?”
“The idea of it, making it all free, fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union. So I’m very conscious of what it can mean to make knowledge free. To make information free.” 
how can you hear that and think anything other than that this is a brilliant, kind, generous man

lesbiansandpuns: naamahdarling: infowarts: infowarts: wormbabie: concretecatholic: celticpyro: positive-memes: People should than...

For Money: Keaton Patti Follow eKeatonPatti I forced a bot to watch over 1,000 hours of lawyer commercials and then asked it to write a lawyer commercial of its own. Here is the first page LAWYER COMMERCIAL INT. FIRM LAW ROOM A LAWYER stands next to a shelf with books. The books are very wide. They have eaten too many words LAWYER Have you been hurt in an accidental car? Has the government sold your lungs without asking nicely? Are you Mesothelioma? Answer me! The lawyer opens a briefcase. It's full of lemons, the justice fruit only lawyers may touch LAWYER (CONT'D) If so, you can act entitled for money. I'l help. I graduated from lawn school and all my teachers were bitten by dogs Words scrol1 across bottom of the screen. These are cases the lawyer takes: UNFAIR STABBING, ILLEGAL SHOES, HUSIC TO0 CANADIAN, SUE THE RAIN, DIvORCE YOUR TOILET, FAKE SONS. LAWYER (CONT'D) I have been a lawyer for over 35 weekends and I'm currently dating the Bill of Rights for fun. We see the Bill of Rights. It's in love. The lawyer will1 break its heart. There's nothing we can do. LAWYER (CONT'D) Let me use it to send your asbestos to court. I will wear two suits and I promise to steal the judge's gavel for you The lawyer opens up the jacket of his first suit. Millions of gavels pour out. His promise has worth LAWYER (CONT D) My clients never go to jail town We see his past clients: a tornado, a tornado, a tornado LAWYER (CONT 'D) Remember, you don't pay any money unless you pay us money. Call for a free use of phone The phone digits appear. It's your social security number A bot watched over 1000 hours of lawyer commercials and then made this
For Money: Keaton Patti
 Follow
 eKeatonPatti
 I forced a bot to watch over 1,000 hours
 of lawyer commercials and then asked it
 to write a lawyer commercial of its own.
 Here is the first page
 LAWYER COMMERCIAL
 INT. FIRM LAW ROOM
 A LAWYER stands next to a shelf with books. The books
 are
 very wide. They have eaten too many words
 LAWYER
 Have you been hurt in an accidental
 car? Has the government sold your
 lungs without asking nicely? Are
 you Mesothelioma? Answer me!
 The lawyer opens a briefcase. It's full of lemons, the
 justice fruit only lawyers may touch
 LAWYER (CONT'D)
 If so, you can act entitled for
 money. I'l help. I graduated from
 lawn school and all my teachers
 were bitten by dogs
 Words scrol1 across bottom of the screen. These are cases the
 lawyer takes: UNFAIR STABBING, ILLEGAL SHOES, HUSIC TO0
 CANADIAN, SUE THE RAIN, DIvORCE YOUR TOILET, FAKE SONS.
 LAWYER (CONT'D)
 I have been a lawyer for over 35
 weekends and I'm currently dating
 the Bill of Rights for fun.
 We see the Bill of Rights. It's in love. The lawyer will1
 break its heart. There's nothing we can do.
 LAWYER (CONT'D)
 Let me use it to send your asbestos
 to court. I will wear two suits and
 I promise to steal the judge's
 gavel for you
 The lawyer opens up the jacket of his first suit. Millions of
 gavels pour out. His promise has worth
 LAWYER (CONT D)
 My clients never go to jail town
 We see his past clients: a tornado, a tornado, a tornado
 LAWYER (CONT 'D)
 Remember, you don't pay any money
 unless you pay us money. Call for a
 free use of phone
 The phone digits appear. It's your social security number
A bot watched over 1000 hours of lawyer commercials and then made this

A bot watched over 1000 hours of lawyer commercials and then made this

For Money: See this old man? Here's why he is one of the best people in the world... This is 99 year old Dobri Dobrev, a man who lost most of his hearing in the second World War, has spent decades traveling 25 kilometers by foot every day, decked in his homemade clothes and leather shoes, from his village to the city of Sofia, Bulgaria, where he spends the day begging for money. Strangely enough, Dobrev isn't begging for himself He manages to live with an 80 euros pension (rougly 100 usd) a month. All the money that he has collected over the years (an estimated 40.000 euros) have been donated by him to orphanages unable to pay their bills. He doesn't keep a cent of the money he receives. Everything is for the orphanages. Some call him "The saint of Baylovo", his place of birth. This year he will be 100 years old. ARS ParaHecilrioc A SP CAPHI CT IOCTHNCT YPABO BECENCT CCPMO HEHO 6:Ba IPENANST borA TEHN WiseCT As one might expect, he is cherished by everybody. They call him Dyado Dobri (Grandpa Dobri) and he represents the good that can be done in the most selfless way possible. So, if you're in need of a role model, here's one. Just by being a little bit like him, the world will be a much better place. thebikingviking: useless-bulgariafacts: Dobri Dobrev passed away yesterday. He was 103 years of age. RIP Grandpa Dobri, you will be remembered. 1914-2018
For Money: See this old man? Here's why he is one
 of the best people in the world...
 This is 99 year old Dobri Dobrev, a man who lost most of his hearing in
 the second World War, has spent decades traveling 25 kilometers by
 foot every day, decked in his homemade clothes and leather shoes,
 from his village to the city of Sofia, Bulgaria, where he spends the day
 begging for money.

 Strangely enough, Dobrev isn't begging for himself
 He manages to live with an 80 euros pension (rougly 100 usd) a month.
 All the money that he has collected over the years (an estimated 40.000
 euros) have been donated by him to orphanages unable to pay their bills.

 He doesn't keep a cent of the money he receives.
 Everything is for the orphanages.
 Some call him "The saint of Baylovo", his place of birth.
 This year he will be 100 years old.

 ARS ParaHecilrioc
 A SP
 CAPHI CT
 IOCTHNCT
 YPABO
 BECENCT
 CCPMO
 HEHO
 6:Ba
 IPENANST
 borA
 TEHN
 WiseCT
 As one might expect, he is cherished by everybody. They call him
 Dyado Dobri (Grandpa Dobri) and he represents the good that can be
 done in the most selfless way possible.
 So, if you're in need of a role model, here's one. Just by being
 a little bit like him, the world will be a much better place.
thebikingviking:
useless-bulgariafacts:

Dobri Dobrev passed away yesterday. He was 103 years of age.
RIP Grandpa Dobri, you will be remembered.


1914-2018

thebikingviking: useless-bulgariafacts: Dobri Dobrev passed away yesterday. He was 103 years of age. RIP Grandpa Dobri, you will be reme...

For Money: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
For Money: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate...

For Money: Jennifer Medina @jenniferjmedina Yup, looks about what was expected. Steven Pruitt has made nearly 3 million edits on Wikipedia and writtern 35,000 original articles all for free. CBSNEWS.COM Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia George @geochirper this tweet is fucking horrible this man is literally providing the world with free knowledge and you think criticising his appearance is funny? Fuck you lesbiansandpuns: naamahdarling: infowarts: infowarts: wormbabie: concretecatholic: celticpyro: positive-memes: People should thank this man Sorry Jennifer not everybody can look like Chris Evans while doing a huge service to the general public. Anyway this guy is amazing. Did you see the video? He has such a glowing personality and his eagerness to share knowledge is infectious. some people will take any chance they can to dehumanize fat people theres also been a motion to write more articles about women because the gap in articles about men vs articles about women is astronomically huge, and he’s written hundreds or thousands of them and is a huge proponent of this. he’s done a lot of great work and he spends countless hours a day researching things so that we have access to that knowledge. he’s a hero. he doesnt do it for money either, tho apparently his regular job also involves research. but he does this purely because he believes in how important it is for information to be free. he’s done 600 articles on women as a part of this push for more He looks like a nice guy and I know people like to sneer at it but Wikipedia is a good, ACCESSIBLE starting point for learning about things, so like, haters can fuck all the way off. “How much money do you make from this?”“None.” “So why do you do it?” “The idea of it, making it all free, fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union. So I’m very conscious of what it can mean to make knowledge free. To make information free.”  how can you hear that and think anything other than that this is a brilliant, kind, generous man
For Money: Jennifer Medina
 @jenniferjmedina
 Yup, looks about what was expected.
 Steven Pruitt has made nearly 3 million edits on Wikipedia and writtern
 35,000 original articles all for free.
 CBSNEWS.COM
 Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia
 George
 @geochirper
 this tweet is fucking horrible this man is
 literally providing the world with free
 knowledge and you think criticising his
 appearance is funny? Fuck you
lesbiansandpuns:

naamahdarling:

infowarts:

infowarts:

wormbabie:

concretecatholic:

celticpyro:


positive-memes:
People should thank this man
Sorry Jennifer not everybody can look like Chris Evans while doing a huge service to the general public. 
Anyway this guy is amazing.


Did you see the video? He has such a glowing personality and his eagerness to share knowledge is infectious. 


some people will take any chance they can to dehumanize fat people  

theres also been a motion to write more articles about women because the gap in articles about men vs articles about women is astronomically huge, and he’s written hundreds or thousands of them and is a huge proponent of this. he’s done a lot of great work and he spends countless hours a day researching things so that we have access to that knowledge. he’s a hero. he doesnt do it for money either, tho apparently his regular job also involves research. but he does this purely because he believes in how important it is for information to be free. 

he’s done 600 articles on women as a part of this push for more

He looks like a nice guy and I know people like to sneer at it but Wikipedia is a good, ACCESSIBLE starting point for learning about things, so like, haters can fuck all the way off.

“How much money do you make from this?”“None.”
“So why do you do it?”
“The idea of it, making it all free, fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union. So I’m very conscious of what it can mean to make knowledge free. To make information free.” 
how can you hear that and think anything other than that this is a brilliant, kind, generous man

lesbiansandpuns: naamahdarling: infowarts: infowarts: wormbabie: concretecatholic: celticpyro: positive-memes: People should than...