The NotABlog

Slowly learning about tumblr. It really sucks as a blogging platform, but it's pretty good at being a shithole filled with internet arguments.

Standard bs tumblr intro: I take an Egalitarian approach for non-specific issues, but call myself an MRA when it's relevant. I remember being a pseudo-MRA before AVFM became a real website.

My real-world fundraising and activism focuses on raising money for disease research like Alzheimer's and Heart Disease.

I have reached the conclusion that the Feminist movement is rotten from the core outwards, and needs to either be burned to the ground and reconstructed, or abandoned. Problems for any group exist, and could stand to be addressed, but I think it needs to be done in a better framework.

What I'd like to see happen in my fantasy world is for Feminism to turn to dust and blow away, and for a Women's Rights Activism type of organization take it's place.

Equal risk plus equal expectations and obligations should lead to equal rewards.

This blog mostly consists of reblogs of MRA stuff, and anti-feminist stuff (when the two intersect), with a steady drip feed of fun tumblr chaff to help the information go down a bit easier.

Too much awful news and hatred is really exhausting. That's why I don't generally track tags.

(via jaxblade)

creativerule34hentai:

meme-rage:

I don’t know how to deal with this information.
omg-humor.tumblr.com

W-wha…

beaky-peartree:

Why do people act like being a vampire is so fucking great. You can’t eat garlic bread so what’s the point

(via cyrilthewolf)

can-u-not-my-wayward-son:

metalhearted:

today is the oldest you’ve ever been
and the youngest you’ll ever be again

let that sink in

what the fuck does it want now
image

(via hentai-ass)

haaaaaaaaave-you-met-ted:

cultofthepigeon:

mariofartwii:

I will never get over the hate that surrounds Ohio.

FRICKING MOST BEAUTIFUL POST IVE EVER SEEN DEAR FRICKING GOODNESS BLESS

image

(via fanficwriterquestions)

slagarthefox:

lord-dlichnum:

slagarthefox:

lord-dlichnum:

simsplumbobswastika:

rtrixie:

IT BEGINS

When am I going to be called a bigot for not supporting

pedo rights?

image

just omg….

image

image

image

image

i’m officially so fucking done with liberals….

image

Also, found this in the comments:

Pedophilia is not a “sexual orientation,” and erroneous use of that phrase will be corrected soon in its new manual on mental illnesses, the American Psychiatric Association said Thursday.

The APA’s statement came in response to media inquiries, including from The Washington Times, about an uproar on the Internet that the APA had designated pedophilia as a sexual orientation in its new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as DSM-5 or DSM-V.”

So, we’ve learned that propaganda and fear-mongering work both ways and the right are just a capable of it. 

That’s true. But pushing pedophila as a legitimate and respected sexuality has been something that has been going on for a very long time. I personally reblogged this as a knee-jerk reaction without reading the article and looking further into it. 

That was wrong of me. and I apologize. I’ll do my best to remember to fact check and not think with my heart. 

I checked that list, and large number of them are actually defunct. 

Fact checking is an important thing. Especially when reading about something that sounds flat-out ludicrous and potentially dangerous.

My understanding of my reading of this article is that it draws a difference between pedophilia (having the thoughts) and pedophilic disorder (acting on the thoughts due to compulsion).

I can see a case being made that it’s the same kind of mental wiring that determines what a person is attracted to (opposite sex, same sex, different body types, etc), but I think it should still be categorized as a kind of botched wiring or dysfunction, not a full “orientation”. I don’t know how the DSM is organize, so for all I know it’s already organized both ways. Both as a “Here’s a list of ways a mind can experience sexual attraction” and in a “Here’s a list of sexual attractions that are pretty fucked up”.

Then again, compared to all the new genders, sexualities, and other special snowflake stuff I see on tumblr, this honestly strikes me as a less bizarre thing to say. Way to go, tumblr, you have lowered my standards this much.

Disclaimer: I have not taken any psychology classes. I just crashed one or two lectures, so I don’t really know how to navigate the DSM-V to find out what it actually says - in the researchers’ own words.

All that said, I don’t really see what the article is trying to say. It says “here’s a thing”, and then kind of rambles along and throws related information at the viewer. I think the author tried to write the article while they were still confused at the decision, and it came out in their work.

Since the general intelligence of a discussion drops dramatically whenever the people having it get really emotional, and since this is a very emotional and knee-jerk kind of subject, I don’t expect to see any rational discussion on this.

As long as a pedophile (1) commits no crimes and (2) stays away from kids (an important factor for 1 to happen, I think), I’m probably not going to go out of my way to get in their face about it. I assume there’s going to be some kind of monitoring by qualified, objective people.

(via takashi0)

Asker Anonymous Asks:
Where does your foreskin go when they cut it off?
jalopyrustbucket jalopyrustbucket Said:

wtfmanga:

image

MINEisn’t going anywhere! I’m quite attached to mine, thank you very much! D:

As for other people? I imagine their penis sweaters are waiting to keep their weiners warm at the pearly gates when the time comes

It’s used to grow skin grafts for burn patients, and is sold, for profit, as an ingredient in high-end skin creams.

Mutilating the genitals of newborn infants without any anesthesia is a very profitable business.

I think I’ve heard this version of Hamlet before.

During my english class, the teacher had us go through at least 5 different versions of hamlet. The written version of the play with the translations on the other side, a traditional movie version with Patrick Steward as claudius and an actor I don’t remember as Hamlet, a later traditional movie version with the old Hamlet actor playing Claudius now (since he was 20 years older at the time), a movie version that modernized everything (interesting to watch), and this version, which he recited for the class after closing all the doors and getting us to agree to not record him reading it.

It was hilarious, short, and filled with an absurd amount of vulgarity.

(via ruinedchildhood)

heroinfriday:

undercookedthings:

heroinfriday:

fitspirationfitblr:

prettyboyshyflizzy:

venom-snake-outer-heaven:

fuck-social-justice-blogs:

heroinfriday:

promiscuousindianchild:

That’s not even….what feminism is. You got the definition wrong lil blossom

Hurr Durr because the dictionary definition of feminism is what feminism actually is, not what is practiced world-wide by privileged women and men who find it necessary to take all accountability away from women and instead blame the whole of society and men for the problems of the world.
Yeah, okay there, sweetheart
-Liv

This is the most accurate post I’ve ever seen I want this etched into stone and put in my front garden 

This needs to be etched into the highest mountain and written with materials that can stand the test of time! An explanation why we need to re-think what Feminism is now.

Because the dictionary CANNOT say what an ideology is, because ideologies change with the times, and Feminism now, has changed so much, that the ones who are rational, are so few that they are silenced under waves of hatred.

 Those same waves are the ones that are trying to take away free thought for women who want to decide for themselves to believe in.

Beautifully Written.

Feminism isn’t about putting down males or saying all men are born rapists because then all women would be born rapists, too. Women are capable of rape, just as men are. Feminism is about the equality of the sexes and cooperating with one another to create a better society.

Omg if only feminism was actually striving to make men and women equal instead of just making men’s lives harder and taking away from their rights with little to no scientific backing.

There are plenty of examples of feminists and feminism saying and doing discriminatory things in the name of women’s equality. If feminism cared about men then why is it not doing things to promote men?

-Liv

I’m a man and I’m a feminist. Can you please tell me which rights feminism is taking away from me because as far as I can see feminism is positive for both men an women.

To deny feminism is to accept patriarchy which is actually something damages men and women alike. So maybe you were brainwashed into thinking women wanted to take over the world and slave men and maybe you saw some anti-men propaganda that hid itself behind a feminist name but real feminism is about acknowledging that there is no equality where there should be. 

Well first of all, you believe in the patriarchy theory, so you”re not going to listen to me to begin with.

But I’ll give you a list:

-Feminists oppose and have actually mobilized against male domestic abuse shelters. Google Earl Silverman, he killed himself after the government wouldn’t fund his shelter, a male domestic violence shelter.

-male teachers are fast becoming a thing of the past, in all levels of education, due to sex scandals and the fact that parents just don’t trust men around their kids anymore. Hilariously, the amount of female teacher sex scandals is on the rise, which means once again that women are just as likely to abuse and take advantage of young people.

-there are feminists pushing for an end to “innocent until proven guilty” in the face of rape accusations. Feminists would rather all rape accusations be taken as truth.

Furthermore, do you know what patriarchy is? Patriarchy literally means that the lineage—family name—is passed on through the male side. It also refers to a society that organizes its political structures based on pateral lines.

Neither of these are applicable in today’s society. Children can and do take their mothers last name, and our government is voted on by the members of our society, aka you and me.

So stop with your Bullshit.

-Liv

Finally found it.

braeburned:

Another convention print! Done initially for a button design, but I’d quickly whip it into a print design as well. 

Dash, I know you’re competitive, but you’ve gotta pick your battles.

(via randomaros)

somehyliankid:

I absolutely love this.

(via abbiegoth)

nostlenne:

jalopyrustbucket:

nostlenne:

I don’t know what to think that I played that 20 questions game and it told me I was a college-age male.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true. Online quizzes can’t be wrong!

I mean, I am obsessed with a dick I don’t even have. That’s typical of college-age males right?

I’m not sure what Internet quiz you took, but I suppose it would depend on whether how invested the college age guy is with the bar scene.

Just spitballing here.

stumblerisminaction:

jalopyrustbucket:

stumblerisminaction:

thatsbullocks:

the-sad-deku:

contrarianbullshit:

atheistassessment:

‘Militant’ Atheist http://ift.tt/1mqnhmU

And Militant Atheists get as much if not more hate

Well there was Stalin but I guess you could call him a Militant Communist rather than Atheist, but he did force atheism on others sooooo……

Let’s not forgot that Communism itself champions atheistic society. So either way you look into Stalin…
Ah, but how rude of me. I should let atheistmemebase get back to work; after all, those cherries won’t pick themselves!

Yeah, athiests love to paint religion as the source of all evil while conveniently forgetting the millions who died under atheistic communist regimes. When it’s brought up you can expect a vigorous “No True Scotsmen” defense.

Communistic regimes are about communism and only later force atheism in order to remove a rallying point for the masses.
If you look at history and somehow come away with the impression that atheism causes communism, the you need to start getting your history from places other than religious websites or tumblr.


Wasn’t claiming atheism causes communism but all or nearly all communist regimes enforced atheism. Are we supposed to believe it’s all just coincidental? After all, Marx himself was an atheist. So atheism has always been intertwined with Marxism.
Stalin was an atheist. So was Mao. And those two men caused, either directly or indirectly, the deaths of millions. Mao may very well be the biggest mass murderer in history.
This is not condemn atheism itself but it’s pretty fucking hypocritical for atheists to paint religion as the source of all violence while ignoring the horrible things done by atheists.
I’d like to point out that I am not religious and am atheist myself. Or perhaps I should say agnostic since I’m open to the possibility that there could be some sort of Supreme Being out there.

I’d like to point out that they also did not believe in Batman or Scooby Doo. A lack of a belief in a deity of some kind, and the subsequent lack of adherence to a specific book that supposedly proscribes behaviour to people (not that most religious people bother to follow those guidelines, but they’re there) does not imply that they, as a result of not believing in Scooby Doo, decided (with purpose) to do the opposite of the proscribed Scooby Doo methodology (to investigate mysteries) and be ignorant of the world around them. I’m speaking in analogy now, but I hope that it’s understandable. The implication I’m seeing is that these people are saying “I am atheist, and because I am atheist, I will be a colossal asshole to millions!”If someone could prove a link that shows that not believing in a god causes someone to become a bad person, then I’d have something to address. I’m not sure how to go about trying to prove a negative or work off of vague suppositions. I’m not even seeing an explicit link being made. It’s just two concepts being put next to each other. The reason for oppressive regimes to enforce mandatory atheism is to remove a rallying point that the masses might use to rebel against the government. The goal of these communist regimes is to centralize everything to the government, including the psychological place that religion has in people’s minds. That is my assertion. That is my explanation as to why I think the link between atheism and some oppressive regimes exists.
Also, Dawkins is described as a Militant Atheist (doing atheist things in a “militant” way), while Stalin and the others were militant assholes who happened to be atheist. If you try to link these things in any kind of causal way, you’d have to find a link that goes from Atheism -> Asshole. You can find links that go from Christian -> Asshole and Islamic -> Asshole. Regardless of what the not-asshole members of those religions say, there are real links that can direct a persons behavior towards bad ends that come from those religions and holy books. Taking this idea to the extreme, this means that the main defense that Atheism has that would stop it from being a force for asshole behaviour is that it doesn’t try to dictate a person’s behaviour at all. There’s a wonderful kin of simplicity in that.

stumblerisminaction:

jalopyrustbucket:

stumblerisminaction:

thatsbullocks:

the-sad-deku:

contrarianbullshit:

atheistassessment:

‘Militant’ Atheist http://ift.tt/1mqnhmU

And Militant Atheists get as much if not more hate

Well there was Stalin but I guess you could call him a Militant Communist rather than Atheist, but he did force atheism on others sooooo……

Let’s not forgot that Communism itself champions atheistic society. So either way you look into Stalin…

Ah, but how rude of me. I should let atheistmemebase get back to work; after all, those cherries won’t pick themselves!

Yeah, athiests love to paint religion as the source of all evil while conveniently forgetting the millions who died under atheistic communist regimes. When it’s brought up you can expect a vigorous “No True Scotsmen” defense.

Communistic regimes are about communism and only later force atheism in order to remove a rallying point for the masses.

If you look at history and somehow come away with the impression that atheism causes communism, the you need to start getting your history from places other than religious websites or tumblr.

Wasn’t claiming atheism causes communism but all or nearly all communist regimes enforced atheism. Are we supposed to believe it’s all just coincidental? After all, Marx himself was an atheist. So atheism has always been intertwined with Marxism.

Stalin was an atheist. So was Mao. And those two men caused, either directly or indirectly, the deaths of millions. Mao may very well be the biggest mass murderer in history.

This is not condemn atheism itself but it’s pretty fucking hypocritical for atheists to paint religion as the source of all violence while ignoring the horrible things done by atheists.

I’d like to point out that I am not religious and am atheist myself. Or perhaps I should say agnostic since I’m open to the possibility that there could be some sort of Supreme Being out there.

I’d like to point out that they also did not believe in Batman or Scooby Doo.

A lack of a belief in a deity of some kind, and the subsequent lack of adherence to a specific book that supposedly proscribes behaviour to people (not that most religious people bother to follow those guidelines, but they’re there) does not imply that they, as a result of not believing in Scooby Doo, decided (with purpose) to do the opposite of the proscribed Scooby Doo methodology (to investigate mysteries) and be ignorant of the world around them.

I’m speaking in analogy now, but I hope that it’s understandable.

The implication I’m seeing is that these people are saying “I am atheist, and because I am atheist, I will be a colossal asshole to millions!”

If someone could prove a link that shows that not believing in a god causes someone to become a bad person, then I’d have something to address.

I’m not sure how to go about trying to prove a negative or work off of vague suppositions. I’m not even seeing an explicit link being made. It’s just two concepts being put next to each other.

The reason for oppressive regimes to enforce mandatory atheism is to remove a rallying point that the masses might use to rebel against the government. The goal of these communist regimes is to centralize everything to the government, including the psychological place that religion has in people’s minds.

That is my assertion. That is my explanation as to why I think the link between atheism and some oppressive regimes exists.

Also, Dawkins is described as a Militant Atheist (doing atheist things in a “militant” way), while Stalin and the others were militant assholes who happened to be atheist. If you try to link these things in any kind of causal way, you’d have to find a link that goes from Atheism -> Asshole. You can find links that go from Christian -> Asshole and Islamic -> Asshole. Regardless of what the not-asshole members of those religions say, there are real links that can direct a persons behavior towards bad ends that come from those religions and holy books. Taking this idea to the extreme, this means that the main defense that Atheism has that would stop it from being a force for asshole behaviour is that it doesn’t try to dictate a person’s behaviour at all. There’s a wonderful kin of simplicity in that.

Asker smithanon Asks:
Seriously, why does anyone even care about hooters? I don't want ro sacrifice quality of food for waitresses that show a bit more flesh and flirt a bit. Or who dance every hour. If im paying for food, i want it delivered promptly and tasty.
jalopyrustbucket jalopyrustbucket Said:

smithanon:

jalopyrustbucket:

smithanon:

sjwstupidity:

Well I don’t know if Hooters is good or not…I’ve never been.  But the complaint that Hooters shouldn’t exist because it degrades women…that’s just silly.  Like, if that’s why you hate hooters you need to get over yourself…the world doesn’t revolve around your insecurity.

So these people are just complaining about a restaurant that women work in who are willingly working there because they personally see it as degrading to women? One would think that negates a woman’s ability to choose for themselves, but then again we’re talking about feminists here.

From what I’ve heard, the food there is actually really good, especially the wings.

They’ve made it so you can order them and get them delivered.

That wouldn’t happen if the only reason to go there was to look at the servers.

when one opened in my city, the food was so bad that it didn’t stay open for more than a few months.

Not all franchise locations are created equal, I suppose.