Del
Del

Del

Radical Islam
Radical Islam

Radical Islam

threating
 threating

threating

radicalized
radicalized

radicalized

were
were

were

oed
oed

oed

go to
go to

go to

ever
ever

ever

dieing
dieing

dieing

confrontational
confrontational

confrontational

🔥 | Latest

Beautiful, Bitch, and Children: kalichnikov "Terf is a slur used to silence us" dang bitch wish it worked shut the fuck up Source: kalichnikov nermish-ish-blog asked: BORK! What the heck is a terf? Thought it was a trans slur but idk now. paper-mario-wiki answered: trans exclusive radical feminist. basically a shitty person, usually a really angry talk-to-your- manager type woman who believe trans women shouldnt have a say in feminist issues because they arent "real" women. paper-mario-wiki also they tend to reclaim the lesbian D*ke slur a LOT which is weird. criticalfrog| Transwomen are male. Males do not get to speak about feminism because they are men. You are also a man and should not speak on feminism |radicalyobi feminism is not for males paper-mario-wiki cool, youre fundamentally and objectively incorrect, and also dont talk anymore 4:47 AM-12 Apr 2019 36,016 Retweets 90,837 Likes gahdamnpunk Beautiful cial honey-harpe It's almost as if it's not damaging their self esteem, image to their classmates, and wow it's like people want to be treated with kindness a-room-of-my-own I tried that with kids at a summer camp I worked at about 10 years ago. They had activities after lunch and I proposed dancing and relaxation. They loved it. The especially cute thing was one day, I brought a few CDs of Roma music, I'm a big fan so I have quite a few from Django Reinhardt manouche jazz to Roma folk songs. There were Roma children from Kosovo, but I didn't know if the songs were in their language or not. Turned out they were and the kids were just happy! That's one of my fondest memories of that summer. They taught SO the lyrics to the other children (and to me ha!) and also how to dance. As for relaxation, one hyperactive boy came everyday and really appreciated it. Photos Videos Marketplace Pages Places - Fsuwr 22 points 2 days ago Wait for a paper bill then call your ins company. All ER visits are supposed t in network. You may have to push the ef Everyday Feminism 572K like this Society & Culture Website Laura and 18 other friends like this Liked permalink embed save report give gold re Check out our online magazine Learn how to apply feminism to your r... heidycge2 3 points 1 day ago Usually policies have a waiver if y this was the only ER you could go Like Being Feminist amarnanru unu fared at the time 160K like this - Community Valentina and 10 other friends like this Open Link in New Tab 6+ Matching Posts Open Link in New Container Tab Open Link in New Window ARCA ARTANE Like Family Research Council Open Link in New Private Window 243K like this Publisher Bookmark This Link Family Research Council is the nation's premier advocacy organizat... BINCE Save Link As... Save Link to Pocket Copy Link Location Shinigami Eyes Mark as anti-trans Mark as t-friendly Clear Help paper-mario-wiki: polyglotplatypus: hey there! are you tired of accidentally reblogging from TERFs and other transphobes? then have no fear, for the shinigami eyes extension (chrome/firefox) is there for you. with it, you can identify social media users and pages that are trans-friendly and the ones that are transphobic! never reblog from a transphobe again. oh thats me! hi me! cool extension.
Beautiful, Bitch, and Children: kalichnikov
 "Terf is a slur used to silence us" dang bitch wish it worked shut the fuck up
 Source: kalichnikov

 nermish-ish-blog asked:
 BORK!
 What the heck is a terf? Thought it was a trans slur but idk now.
 paper-mario-wiki answered:
 trans exclusive radical feminist.
 basically a shitty person, usually a really angry talk-to-your-
 manager type woman who believe trans women shouldnt have a
 say in feminist issues because they arent "real" women.
 paper-mario-wiki
 also they tend to reclaim the lesbian D*ke slur a LOT which is weird.
 criticalfrog|
 Transwomen are male. Males do not get to speak about feminism
 because they are men. You are also a man and should not speak on
 feminism
 |radicalyobi
 feminism is not for males
 paper-mario-wiki
 cool, youre fundamentally and objectively incorrect, and also dont talk
 anymore

 4:47 AM-12 Apr 2019
 36,016 Retweets 90,837 Likes
 gahdamnpunk
 Beautiful
 cial
 honey-harpe
 It's almost as if it's not damaging their self esteem, image to their classmates,
 and wow it's like people want to be treated with kindness
 a-room-of-my-own
 I tried that with kids at a summer camp I worked at about 10 years ago. They
 had activities after lunch and I proposed dancing and relaxation. They loved it.
 The especially cute thing was one day, I brought a few CDs of Roma music, I'm
 a big fan so I have quite a few from Django Reinhardt manouche jazz to Roma
 folk songs. There were Roma children from Kosovo, but I didn't know if the
 songs were in their language or not. Turned out they were and the kids were
 just
 happy! That's one of my fondest memories of that summer. They taught
 SO
 the lyrics to the other children (and to me ha!) and also how to dance. As for
 relaxation, one hyperactive boy came everyday and really appreciated it.

 Photos
 Videos
 Marketplace
 Pages
 Places
 - Fsuwr 22 points 2 days ago
 Wait for a paper bill then call your ins
 company. All ER visits are supposed t
 in network. You may have to push the
 ef
 Everyday Feminism
 572K like this Society & Culture Website
 Laura and 18 other friends like this
 Liked
 permalink embed save report give gold
 re
 Check out our online magazine Learn how to apply feminism to your r...
 heidycge2 3 points 1 day ago
 Usually policies have a waiver if y
 this was the only ER you could go
 Like
 Being Feminist
 amarnanru unu fared at the time
 160K like this - Community
 Valentina and 10 other friends like this
 Open Link in New Tab
 6+ Matching Posts
 Open Link in New Container Tab
 Open Link in New Window
 ARCA
 ARTANE
 Like
 Family Research Council
 Open Link in New Private Window
 243K like this
 Publisher
 Bookmark This Link
 Family Research Council is the nation's premier advocacy organizat...
 BINCE
 Save Link As...
 Save Link to Pocket
 Copy Link Location
 Shinigami Eyes
 Mark as anti-trans
 Mark as t-friendly
 Clear
 Help
paper-mario-wiki:
polyglotplatypus:

hey there! are you tired of accidentally reblogging from TERFs and other transphobes? then have no fear, for the shinigami eyes extension (chrome/firefox) is there for you.
with it, you can identify social media users and pages that are trans-friendly and the ones that are transphobic! never reblog from a transphobe again.

oh thats me! hi me! cool extension.

paper-mario-wiki: polyglotplatypus: hey there! are you tired of accidentally reblogging from TERFs and other transphobes? then have no fear...

Saw, Shit, and Tumblr: seafaringlife: not to rb my own shit but bert playing warped 03 in a dress was the most radical thing that festival ever saw
Saw, Shit, and Tumblr: seafaringlife:
not to rb my own shit but bert playing warped 03 in a dress was the most radical thing that festival ever saw

seafaringlife: not to rb my own shit but bert playing warped 03 in a dress was the most radical thing that festival ever saw

Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.  It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.  I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.  Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.  What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:  Also:  He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works Lol body painting literally Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way

what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: aunti...

Android, Arsenal, and News: a75N 1234 AM Thread ta You Retweet.ed wyatt aSayWhenLA BREAKING Holy fk. Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston. National Guard units seek- ing to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. 10:58 PM 09 Aug 19 Twitter for Android 3,916 Retweets 5,899 Likes Wyatt @SayWhenLA ld Replying to @SayWhenLA Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were- killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw. Speaking after the clash, Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, 29 tn 543 1,420 Wyatt @SayWhenLA Id has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as 'criminals," just issued an executive order authorizing the 12t 420 1267 wyatt SayWhenLA ld summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons 1n 417 129 WyattSayWhenLA Id Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the woek. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between govermment and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. 1 400 190 Wyatt SayWhenLA ld One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily. Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of 183 Wyatt SayWhenLA ld outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily armed extremists who had been tipped aff regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard t 1209 1 0 Wyatt SayWhenLA Id Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was repartedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. tu 3s0 160 Q1360 Wyatt SayWhenLA Id Eight civilians were killed in the Aensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units 1 409 1224 Wyatt @SayWhenLA Id Colonel Smith, finding his forces aver matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat. Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. n 367 uTO Wyatt @SayWhenLA Id The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops t 1202 6 n 38 WyattSayWhenLA Id Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large. And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775 n u34 254 Wyatt SayWhenLA Id On July 4th, 1776 these same extremists as Bill Mitchell calls them, signed the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each ather and their countrymen their lives, fortunes, & sacred honor. Many of them lost everything, aver the course of the next few years. Lest we forget.. un 504 JusticeForEricGarmer @th.. Id Tweet your reply Breaking News: History is important
Android, Arsenal, and News: a75N 1234 AM
 Thread
 ta You Retweet.ed
 wyatt
 aSayWhenLA
 BREAKING Holy fk.
 Seventy-two killed resisting
 gun confiscation in Boston.
 National Guard units seek-
 ing to confiscate a cache
 of recently banned assault
 weapons were ambushed by
 elements of a Para-military
 extremist faction.
 10:58 PM 09 Aug 19 Twitter for
 Android
 3,916 Retweets 5,899 Likes
 Wyatt @SayWhenLA ld
 Replying to @SayWhenLA
 Military and law enforcement
 sources estimate that 72 were-
 killed and more than 200 injured
 before government forces were
 compelled to withdraw.
 Speaking after the clash, Governor
 Thomas Gage declared that the
 extremist faction, which was made
 up of local citizens,
 29 tn 543
 1,420
 Wyatt @SayWhenLA Id
 has links to the radical right-wing
 tax protest movement.
 Gage blamed the extremists for
 recent incidents of vandalism
 directed against internal revenue
 offices. The governor, who
 described the group's organizers
 as 'criminals," just issued an
 executive order authorizing the
 12t 420 1267
 wyatt SayWhenLA ld
 summary arrest of any individual
 who has interfered with the
 government's efforts to secure law
 and order.
 The military raid on the extremist
 arsenal followed wide-spread
 refusal by the local citizenry to
 turn over recently outlawed
 assault weapons
 1n 417
 129
 WyattSayWhenLA Id
 Gage issued a ban on
 military-style assault weapons
 and ammunition earlier in the
 woek. This decision followed a
 meeting in early this month
 between govermment and military
 leaders at which the governor
 authorized the forcible
 confiscation of illegal arms.
 1 400 190
 Wyatt SayWhenLA ld
 One government official, speaking
 on condition of anonymity
 pointed out that "none of these
 people would have been killed had
 the extremists obeyed the law and
 turned over their weapons
 voluntarily.
 Government troops initially
 succeeded in confiscating a large
 supply of
 183
 Wyatt SayWhenLA ld
 outlawed weapons and
 ammunition. However, troops
 attempting to seize arms and
 ammunition in Lexington met with
 resistance from heavily armed
 extremists who had been tipped
 aff regarding the government's
 plans.
 During a tense standoff in the
 Lexington town park, National
 Guard
 t 1209
 1 0
 Wyatt SayWhenLA Id
 Colonel Francis Smith,
 commander of the government
 operation, ordered the armed
 group to surrender and return to
 their homes. The impasse was
 broken by a single shot, which was
 repartedly fired by one
 of the
 right-wing extremists.
 tu 3s0 160
 Q1360
 Wyatt SayWhenLA Id
 Eight civilians were killed in the
 Aensuing exchange.
 Ironically, the local citizenry
 blamed government forces rather
 than the extremists for the civilian
 deaths. Before order could be
 restored, armed citizens from
 surrounding areas had descended
 upon the guard units
 1 409 1224
 Wyatt @SayWhenLA Id
 Colonel Smith, finding his forces
 aver matched by the armed mob,
 ordered a retreat.
 Governor Gage has called upon
 citizens to support the state
 national joint task force in its
 effort to restore law and order.
 n 367
 uTO
 Wyatt @SayWhenLA Id
 The governor also demanded the
 surrender of those responsible for
 planning and leading the attack
 against the government troops
 t 1202
 6
 n 38
 WyattSayWhenLA Id
 Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and
 John Hancock, who have been
 identified as ringleaders" of the
 extremist faction, remain at large.
 And this fellow Americans, is how
 the American Revolution began,
 April 20, 1775
 n u34 254
 Wyatt SayWhenLA Id
 On July 4th, 1776 these same
 extremists as Bill Mitchell calls
 them, signed the Declaration of
 Independence, pledging to each
 ather and their countrymen their
 lives, fortunes, & sacred honor.
 Many of them lost everything,
 aver the course of the next few
 years. Lest we forget..
 un 504
 JusticeForEricGarmer @th.. Id
 Tweet your reply
Breaking News: History is important

Breaking News: History is important

Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported @babadookspinoza Follow "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT When Europe gets it right It's a miracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them- unconditionally 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes Julesy @julesprom Follow "you can't just give people homes for free" actually you can and it turns out to be a cheaper alternative for cities and communities than having a homeless population "but no one wants to have to pay for all this" its literally cheaper and benefits everyone in the community an account you reported @babadookspinoza "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT Is amiracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Show this thread y d 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people. Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.
Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported
 @babadookspinoza
 Follow
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 When Europe gets it right
 It's a miracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Finland is the only EU country where
 homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving
 people homes as soon as they need them-
 unconditionally
 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019
 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes

 Julesy
 @julesprom
 Follow
 "you can't just give people homes for
 free"
 actually you can and it turns out to be a
 cheaper alternative for cities and
 communities than having a homeless
 population
 "but no one wants to have to pay for all
 this"
 its literally cheaper and benefits
 everyone in the community
 an account you reported @babadookspinoza
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 Is amiracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Show this thread
 y
 d
 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019
 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes
bemusedlybespectacled:

jethroq:
goawfma:
who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐
The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people.

Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.

bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The s...

Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported @babadookspinoza Follow "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT When Europe gets it right It's a miracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them- unconditionally 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes Julesy @julesprom Follow "you can't just give people homes for free" actually you can and it turns out to be a cheaper alternative for cities and communities than having a homeless population "but no one wants to have to pay for all this" its literally cheaper and benefits everyone in the community an account you reported @babadookspinoza "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT Is amiracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Show this thread y d 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people. Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.
Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported
 @babadookspinoza
 Follow
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 When Europe gets it right
 It's a miracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Finland is the only EU country where
 homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving
 people homes as soon as they need them-
 unconditionally
 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019
 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes

 Julesy
 @julesprom
 Follow
 "you can't just give people homes for
 free"
 actually you can and it turns out to be a
 cheaper alternative for cities and
 communities than having a homeless
 population
 "but no one wants to have to pay for all
 this"
 its literally cheaper and benefits
 everyone in the community
 an account you reported @babadookspinoza
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 Is amiracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Show this thread
 y
 d
 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019
 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes
bemusedlybespectacled:

jethroq:
goawfma:
who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐
The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people.

Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.

bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The s...

Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!? Sl BAPU BAPTIST CHUR(H SUS DISGUST MyCHILD Dortyouatti? SaSin!God condemns W all! BRIAN heed to have a talk 0 CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE TH ISLAMIC TEMPUE I didnt die ona Cross for this BS RADICAL righte homoSexvality ar the last 2.000 yearsold. prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated.
Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!?
 Sl
 BAPU
 BAPTIST
 CHUR(H
 SUS
 DISGUST
 MyCHILD

 Dortyouatti?
 SaSin!God
 condemns W
 all!
 BRIAN
 heed to
 have a
 talk
 0

 CHRISTIANS
 CELEBRATE TH
 ISLAMIC TEMPUE
 I didnt
 die ona
 Cross for
 this BS
 RADICAL

 righte
 homoSexvality
 ar the last
 2.000 yearsold.
prismatic-bell:
the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99:


prismatic-bell:


broken-bits-of-dreams:

prismatic-bell:


aiko-mori-hates-pedos:

artbymoga:
Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012…

Good post OP


Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty.


WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 

1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice.

2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time.

3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” 

Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. 

Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 

4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy).


So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.)


Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers:








Much appreciated.

prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymog...

Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA thewickedverkaiking: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.  It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.  I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.  Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.  What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:  Also:  He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE
Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
thewickedverkaiking:
aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE

thewickedverkaiking: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr...

America, Facts, and Trash: afloweroutofstone: shituationist: radical-eirini: rossjm: higher-order: China: *does this*Inept activists in western countries: “Banning plastic straws in our bars and restaurants will save the planet guys :))))))” This chart is extremely misleading because basically the whole world dumps its trash in china and other countries at the top of this chart. This isn’t the same as how much trash each country produces - if that were what the chart was measuring, it would look FAR different. I’m not saying this to defend China, but if you’re looking at who produces the most waste per capita you should look at countries like the United States of America, Switzerland and New Zealand - countries that all produce FAR more waste per capita than China does. Like do you people SERIOUSLY think Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Vietnam have even close to the consumption capacity to produce 5 or 6 TIMES more waste than the US? The reality is that first world countries pay poorer countries to dispose their waste there because disposing of this waste in a cheap way is now mostly illegal there (at least in Europe I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to burn it anymore) and any ways to do it in an environmentally friendly way are way more expensive. And of course, poorer countries don’t have the capacity (or the resources) to dispose of this waste in an environmentally friendly way (although this is actually changing for China specifically, if you look at the chart its somewhat old), so of course for them to get rid of it, it goes into the sea. First world: *exports trash and pollution-causing industry to the third world, consumes products dependent on these facts* Inept first worlder: “wtf China stop polluting” Imagine seeing a chart that claims Sri Lanka produces 82 times more waste per capita than the dramatically wealthier United States and just rolling with it
America, Facts, and Trash: afloweroutofstone:

shituationist:

radical-eirini:

rossjm:

higher-order:

China: *does this*Inept activists in western countries: “Banning plastic straws in our bars and restaurants will save the planet guys :))))))”

This chart is extremely misleading because basically the whole world dumps its trash in china and other countries at the top of this chart. This isn’t the same as how much trash each country produces - if that were what the chart was measuring, it would look FAR different. I’m not saying this to defend China, but if you’re looking at who produces the most waste per capita you should look at countries like the United States of America, Switzerland and New Zealand - countries that all produce FAR more waste per capita than China does.
Like do you people SERIOUSLY think Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Vietnam have even close to the consumption capacity to produce 5 or 6 TIMES more waste than the US?
The reality is that first world countries pay poorer countries to dispose their waste there because disposing of this waste in a cheap way is now mostly illegal there (at least in Europe I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to burn it anymore) and any ways to do it in an environmentally friendly way are way more expensive. And of course, poorer countries don’t have the capacity (or the resources) to dispose of this waste in an environmentally friendly way (although this is actually changing for China specifically, if you look at the chart its somewhat old), so of course for them to get rid of it, it goes into the sea.

First world: *exports trash and pollution-causing industry to the third world, consumes products dependent on these facts*
Inept first worlder: “wtf China stop polluting”

Imagine seeing a chart that claims Sri Lanka produces 82 times more waste per capita than the dramatically wealthier United States and just rolling with it

afloweroutofstone: shituationist: radical-eirini: rossjm: higher-order: China: *does this*Inept activists in western countries: “Bannin...