mop


                    
                    
                
meme generator
meme generator

meme generator

knock knock
knock knock

knock knock

mop dog
mop dog

mop dog

Mop Bucket
Mop Bucket

Mop Bucket

Skrillex Mop
Skrillex Mop

Skrillex Mop

Angry Mop
Angry Mop

Angry Mop

Bigger Mop
Bigger Mop

Bigger Mop

Floor
Floor

Floor

Funny
Funny

Funny

Drops
Drops

Drops

🔥 | Latest

mop: CW CNN @CNN Follow European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes SULLDHONHS Sophia Chang Follow @sophchang "European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56 million. It took a long time for me to process that figure CNN @CNN European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @sophchang And to think, the world population in 1900 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5 billion I don't know what the world pop was like in 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE percentage of that. That astronomical number is definitely hard to process 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019 Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600 was about 570 million. They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's population. That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today. Whoa 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019 evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck, this is A LOT Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others. Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse. Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time. Cuz that’s not true. Tw genocide, tw violence When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it. Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back. The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution. And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history. Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse. (tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)
mop: CW CNN
 @CNN
 Follow
 European colonizers killed so many Native
 Americans that it changed the global climate,
 researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C
 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019
 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes
 SULLDHONHS

 Sophia Chang
 Follow
 @sophchang
 "European settlers killed 56 million
 indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56
 million. It took a long time for me to process
 that figure
 CNN
 @CNN
 European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed
 the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c
 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019
 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes

 Follow
 @RadRoopa
 Replying to @sophchang
 And to think, the world population in 1900
 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5
 billion
 I don't know what the world pop was like in
 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE
 percentage of that.
 That astronomical number is definitely hard
 to process
 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019

 Follow
 @RadRoopa
 Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang
 I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600
 was about 570 million.
 They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's
 population.
 That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today.
 Whoa
 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019
evergreennightmare:
red-stick-progressive:

aossidhboyee:


red-stick-progressive:

burdenbasket:


gahdamnpunk:
This is insane
holy fuck, this is A LOT


Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. 
The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others.
Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. 
That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse.


Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time.


Cuz that’s not true. 
Tw genocide, tw violence
When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. 
They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it.
Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back.
The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. 
The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution.
And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history.
Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse.

(tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)

evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck...

mop: hobbit-hole if i had to get in a fistfight with any member of the fellowship it would be Frodo because i would easily win hobbit-hole all i am saying is that he would ostensibly be the easiest one to take on in a fight given that he's like three feet tall and has led a life of (physical) leisure compared to all of the others due to his standing as a gentlehobbit legolas, aragorn, and gimli are all used to combat, sam works as a gardener merry and pippin often gallivant off and get into mischief so they have the advantage of experience in whatever it is they've gotten up to/would possibly fight dirty, gandalf is gandalf so while weapons are out of the question i suppose that depends on if magic is involved. i don't think i could take him without magic even if he is old because he's a very large guy, but maybe it would be my knuckles against Frodo's baby soft poet hands, plus rve got the additional height and fighting experience. i just think that he would be the easiest to win against in hand-to-hand combat out of the rest of them. also he isn't real so he can't offer a rebuttal to my claim penny-anna you're absolutely correct BUT wanting to fight Frodo makes you a monster D hobbit-hole this has nothing to do with WANTING to fight Frodo, i just think he would be easiest for me to beat in a fight with no weapons. unless he utilized his very large feet, but i think he's too polite to do that because it's a fist fight and that would be considered playing dirty penny anna for someone who doesn't want to fight Frodo you sure have put a lot of thought into fighting Frodo. animate-mush OP is wrong though: you fight Pippin. First off, Pippin has it coming, so you won't be fighting your conscience at the same time Secondly, Pippin is a spoiled rich kid. He's no less gentry than Frodo is, but Frodo works out and is shown to have better stamina, at least at the outset. Pippin is also both the stupidest and the slowest of the hobbits. They both nearly beat one (1) troll, so that's comparable, but Pippin appears not to have got a single hit in against the orcs that captured them while Merry was cutting off hands like a boss. Pippin also straight-up tell Bergil that he's not a fighter Also there's a nonzero chance that Frodo will just straight up curse you (if the guilt of fighting Frodo isn't enough if a curse by itself) And, of course, if you try to fight Frodo, you will 100% end up fighting Sam, and he will wreck you (and you'll deserve it, you penny-anna Also: if you fight Frodo you'll have a very angry Sam & possibly also the entire Fellowship to deal with BUT if you fight Pippin they will probably cheer you on ainurs Bold of you to assume one could attempt to fight Pippin and NOT instantly be killed by Boromir feynites So here's the thing - you absolutely DO NOT want to try and fight Frodo or Pippin because they are going to be protected by the rest of the Fellowship which basically exists to stop asshole Big People from picking on the hobbits. Folk might talk a big game but when the chips are down, you are not going to lay a single hand on any of the hobbits. Either you'll find yourself immediately fighting all four of them or else you'll move to land your first hit and suddenly Aragorn will side-tackle you into the trees. And he probably hits like a freight train tbh. So here's what you do You fight Legolas. The thing about fist-fighting Legolas of course is that you will lose. This is not a fight you're gonna win no matter what. But Legolas has his standing competition with Gimili, so once the challenge is issued, he's not gonna let anyone else step in and fight you either. No one is liable to volunteer on his behalf, either, so you will only end up fighting the one member of the fellowship. If you are lucky he might also take his shirt off. Bonus! Anyway Legolas will mop the floor with you, but he's also already convinced you're weaker than him anyway because you're not an elf, so he's gonna go kind of easy on you And when you lose he will be all snide and superior about it, which means everyone in the fellowship is gonna sympathize with you, and Gimli will probably challenge him on your behalf afterwards, but here's the key thing You will have lost a fist-fight to an immortal warrior prince That's a way better loss to cop to than that time you tried to fistfight a pudgy gentlehobbit and got beaten to the point of unconsciousness by his gardener yeah? icescrabblerjerky okay so tolkien tumblr is fast becoming my fave tumblr community thank you thank you all you are the true fellowship here. Source:hobbit-hole #mmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 32,148 notes The Tolkien discourse is getting violent
mop: hobbit-hole
 if i had to get in a fistfight with any member of the fellowship it would be Frodo
 because i would easily win
 hobbit-hole
 all i am saying is that he would ostensibly be the easiest one to take on in a fight
 given that he's like three feet tall and has led a life of (physical) leisure
 compared to all of the others due to his standing as a gentlehobbit
 legolas, aragorn, and gimli are all used to combat, sam works as a gardener
 merry and pippin often gallivant off and get into mischief so they have the
 advantage of experience in whatever it is they've gotten up to/would possibly
 fight dirty, gandalf is gandalf so while weapons are out of the question i suppose
 that depends on if magic is involved. i don't think i could take him without magic
 even if he is old because he's a very large guy, but maybe
 it would be my knuckles against Frodo's baby soft poet hands, plus rve got the
 additional height and fighting experience. i just think that he would be the easiest
 to win against in hand-to-hand combat out of the rest of them. also he isn't real
 so he can't offer a rebuttal to my claim
 penny-anna
 you're absolutely correct BUT wanting to fight Frodo makes you a monster D
 hobbit-hole
 this has nothing to do with WANTING to fight Frodo, i just think he would be
 easiest for me to beat in a fight with no weapons. unless he utilized his very
 large feet, but i think he's too polite to do that because it's a fist fight and that
 would be considered playing dirty
 penny anna
 for someone who doesn't want to fight Frodo you sure have put a lot of thought
 into fighting Frodo.
 animate-mush
 OP is wrong though: you fight Pippin.
 First off, Pippin has it coming, so you won't be fighting your conscience at the
 same time
 Secondly, Pippin is a spoiled rich kid. He's no less gentry than Frodo is, but
 Frodo works out and is shown to have better stamina, at least at the outset.
 Pippin is also both the stupidest and the slowest of the hobbits. They both nearly
 beat one (1) troll, so that's comparable, but Pippin appears not to have got a
 single hit in against the orcs that captured them while Merry was cutting off
 hands like a boss. Pippin also straight-up tell Bergil that he's not a fighter
 Also there's a nonzero chance that Frodo will just straight up curse you (if the
 guilt of fighting Frodo isn't enough if a curse by itself)
 And, of course, if you try to fight Frodo, you will 100% end up fighting Sam, and
 he will wreck you (and you'll deserve it, you
 penny-anna
 Also: if you fight Frodo you'll have a very angry Sam & possibly also the entire
 Fellowship to deal with BUT if you fight Pippin they will probably cheer you on
 ainurs
 Bold of you to assume one could attempt to fight Pippin and NOT instantly be
 killed by Boromir
 feynites
 So here's the thing - you absolutely DO NOT want to try and fight Frodo or
 Pippin because they are going to be protected by the rest of the Fellowship
 which basically exists to stop asshole Big People from picking on the hobbits.
 Folk might talk a big game but when the chips are down, you are not going to lay
 a single hand on any of the hobbits. Either you'll find yourself immediately
 fighting all four of them or else you'll move to land your first hit and suddenly
 Aragorn will side-tackle you into the trees. And he probably hits like a freight
 train tbh.
 So here's what you do
 You fight Legolas.
 The thing about fist-fighting Legolas of course is that you will lose. This is not a
 fight you're gonna win no matter what. But Legolas has his standing competition
 with Gimili, so once the challenge is issued, he's not gonna let anyone else step
 in and fight you either. No one is liable to volunteer on his behalf, either, so you
 will only end up fighting the one member of the fellowship. If you are lucky he
 might also take his shirt off. Bonus!
 Anyway
 Legolas will mop the floor with you, but he's also already convinced you're
 weaker than him anyway because you're not an elf, so he's gonna go kind of
 easy on you And when you lose he will be all snide and superior about it, which
 means everyone in the fellowship is gonna sympathize with you, and Gimli will
 probably challenge him on your behalf afterwards, but here's the key thing
 You will have lost a fist-fight to an immortal warrior prince
 That's a way better loss to cop to than that time you tried to fistfight a pudgy
 gentlehobbit and got beaten to the point of unconsciousness by his gardener
 yeah?
 icescrabblerjerky
 okay so tolkien tumblr is fast becoming my fave tumblr community thank you
 thank you all you are the true fellowship here.
 Source:hobbit-hole #mmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 32,148 notes
The Tolkien discourse is getting violent

The Tolkien discourse is getting violent

mop: Ever screw up so bad you had to mop rain
mop: Ever screw up so bad you had to mop rain

Ever screw up so bad you had to mop rain