Opinionated
Opinionated

Opinionated

Cares
Cares

Cares

In 2016
In 2016

In 2016

Your Opinion
Your Opinion

Your Opinion

My Opinion
My Opinion

My Opinion

Give
Give

Give

How Much
How Much

How Much

Obviously
Obviously

Obviously

hear
 hear

hear

care
 care

care

🔥 | Latest

Apparently, Definitely, and Family: Me [25F] with my boyfriend [25M] of seven months. He has VERY bizarre opinions and I want help understanding him, and getting him to understand how others see him Relationships submitted 7 hours ago by throwaway47273747483 have been with my boyfriend, Henry, for around 7 months now, and he's an amazing guy etc. I really see this developing into a long and very serious relationship. There are no big problems or red flags. One thing that gets me though, are his political opinions. They are esoteric, somewhat incomprehensible, and frankly, bizarre. He is an ardent monarchist (we are in the UK) but not in the typical use of the word (ie liking the Queen being an impartial head of state), he literally believes in the divine right of kings and that it is the only natural form of government. He claims to recognise no monarch since James ll, and apparently the real legitimate successor is some guy called Francis who I've never heard of, who is also supposedly the rightful king of France and Greece. He never votes, saying he has no desire to assist his monarch in their choice of servants (which is technically how the UK government works, the Queen "chooses" whoever wins the election). He expressed disgust at Prince Harry's recent engagement, I pressed him as to why (I was slightly worried it was racist in nature) and he said both Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton are commoners who have no business marrying royalty, then made some remark about the Royal Family being a "ghastly bunch of arriviste Germans anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter". It's just strange. It's like his worldview is so odd and so far removed from anything I can even begin to understand. I can name the current major Royals and a few of the more important historical ones, whereas he is an absolute expert. He will passionately debate anyone who wants to, though again it just makes him look strange. Friends at dinner will be discussing normal, contemporary political issues, and he will interject and go on some tangent about how this all relates to "King John's submission to Papal authority in 1213". He does seem to genuinely believe this stuff, but it gives an odd impression to those around us. No one can really reply beecause they don't know what he's talking about so he definitely gets the feeling he's winning these debates (he's far too well-mannered to be rude about it, but it's certainly an unspoken truth in his view) tikkunolamorgtfo: TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Apparently, Definitely, and Family: Me [25F] with my boyfriend [25M] of seven months. He has VERY bizarre opinions
 and I want help understanding him, and getting him to understand how others see
 him Relationships
 submitted 7 hours ago by throwaway47273747483
 have been with my boyfriend, Henry, for around 7 months now, and he's an amazing guy etc.
 I really see this developing into a long and very serious relationship. There are no big
 problems or red flags.
 One thing that gets me though, are his political opinions. They are esoteric, somewhat
 incomprehensible, and frankly, bizarre. He is an ardent monarchist (we are in the UK) but not
 in the typical use of the word (ie liking the Queen being an impartial head of state), he literally
 believes in the divine right of kings and that it is the only natural form of government. He
 claims to recognise no monarch since James ll, and apparently the real legitimate successor
 is some guy called Francis who I've never heard of, who is also supposedly the rightful king of
 France and Greece. He never votes, saying he has no desire to assist his monarch in their
 choice of servants (which is technically how the UK government works, the Queen "chooses"
 whoever wins the election). He expressed disgust at Prince Harry's recent engagement, I
 pressed him as to why (I was slightly worried it was racist in nature) and he said both Meghan
 Markle and Kate Middleton are commoners who have no business marrying royalty, then made
 some remark about the Royal Family being a "ghastly bunch of arriviste Germans anyway, so I
 suppose it doesn't matter". It's just strange. It's like his worldview is so odd and so far removed
 from anything I can even begin to understand. I can name the current major Royals and a few
 of the more important historical ones, whereas he is an absolute expert.
 He will passionately debate anyone who wants to, though again it just makes him look strange.
 Friends at dinner will be discussing normal, contemporary political issues, and he will interject
 and go on some tangent about how this all relates to "King John's submission to Papal
 authority in 1213". He does seem to genuinely believe this stuff, but it gives an odd impression
 to those around us. No one can really reply beecause they don't know what he's talking about
 so he definitely gets the feeling he's winning these debates (he's far too well-mannered to be
 rude about it, but it's certainly an unspoken truth in his view)
tikkunolamorgtfo:
TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

tikkunolamorgtfo: TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Ass, Dude, and Empire: sleepydumpling: welkinalauda: tikkunolamorgtfo: xmasterassassinx: winterpunk: xekstrin: crackrockdebby: d–i–y—-orgasms: be-blackstar: tikkunolamorgtfo: WATCH THIS: MAN SHUTS DOWN ANTISEMITIC WHITE POWER PREACHER One of my friends in the Boston area took this video and gave me permission to post it. She writes: “ I stood there for twenty minutes, easily. Hitler Youth kept trying to preach about “the evils of the Jews” and the big guy barely let him get a word in edgewise. At one point, the big guy yelled, “I will be here ALL DAY” and the crowd cheered.” I promise this will be the best thing you see today. Where’s a goddamn bullhorn when you need it? wow that preacher is probably shitting his pants low key with some big ass biker that close to his face  Caption for those who need it– the guy in the suit is saying shit like “all races must serve us as put here by God” and a lot of racist/anti Semitic drivel. Every time he opens his mouth to speak though, the biker yells “AHHHHHHH!!!” Until the man in the suit shuts up again. When the man in the suit takes a breath and opens his mouth, the biker doesn’t even let him get started and just screams “AHHHHH”…. This happens a few times. The guy in the suit plows ahead but the biker screams and says “No no no no!!!” I love biker dude Make racists afraid again. Um, sorry, but the guy in the suit deserves to speak his opinions. How’d you like to get screamed at everything time you spoke about what you are passionate about? I’m not saying I agree with his opinion, but that doesn’t make shutting him down like this right. Freedom of Speech. Just agree to disagree and walk away. 1) Freedom of Speech means you have the right to speak your mind without being punished or censored by the government. It does not mean other people have to listen to you, and it does not mean they can’t yell over you if you’re saying something disgusting and inflammatory. The Biker Dude has just as much right to do what he’s doing as the Neo-Nazi. Nobody’s right is being infringed upon here. 2) The guy is “passionate about” hating and inciting violence against Jews. I’m passionate about information literacy, candle-making, and giving snuggles to my pet rabbit. There’s a fucking difference, there.  3) “Agree to disagree” is something you say when two people can’t come to a consensus over whether or not The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. It’s not something you say when one person is Jewish and the other person believes Jews are a evil satanic cabal trying to enslave the white race who must be stopped at all costs. That’s not an “agree to disagree” topic. We don’t “agree to disagree” over the issue of whether or not Jews are people. We don’t “agree to disagree” over whether or not black people, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ folks, etc. are deserving of basic human rights. These things are not up for debate, and there is no middle-ground to be had with people who think otherwise.  “I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”– Randall Munroe Always reblog the anti-hate bikie.
Ass, Dude, and Empire: sleepydumpling:

welkinalauda:

tikkunolamorgtfo:

xmasterassassinx:

winterpunk:

xekstrin:

crackrockdebby:


d–i–y—-orgasms:


be-blackstar:


tikkunolamorgtfo:


WATCH THIS: MAN SHUTS DOWN ANTISEMITIC WHITE POWER PREACHER
One of my friends in the Boston area took this video and gave me permission to post it. She writes: “ I stood there for twenty minutes, easily. Hitler Youth kept trying to preach about “the evils of the Jews” and the big guy barely let him get a word in edgewise. At one point, the big guy yelled, “I will be here ALL DAY” and the crowd cheered.”
I promise this will be the best thing you see today.


Where’s a goddamn bullhorn when you need it?


wow that preacher is probably shitting his pants low key with some big ass biker that close to his face 



Caption for those who need it– the guy in the suit is saying shit like “all races must serve us as put here by God” and a lot of racist/anti Semitic drivel.
Every time he opens his mouth to speak though, the biker yells “AHHHHHHH!!!” Until the man in the suit shuts up again. When the man in the suit takes a breath and opens his mouth, the biker doesn’t even let him get started and just screams “AHHHHH”…. This happens a few times.
The guy in the suit plows ahead but the biker screams and says “No no no no!!!”
I love biker dude

Make racists afraid again.

Um, sorry, but the guy in the suit deserves to speak his opinions. How’d you like to get screamed at everything time you spoke about what you are passionate about? I’m not saying I agree with his opinion, but that doesn’t make shutting him down like this right. Freedom of Speech. Just agree to disagree and walk away.

1) Freedom of Speech means you have the right to speak your mind without being punished or censored by the government. It does not mean other people have to listen to you, and it does not mean they can’t yell over you if you’re saying something disgusting and inflammatory. The Biker Dude has just as much right to do what he’s doing as the Neo-Nazi. Nobody’s right is being infringed upon here.
2) The guy is “passionate about” hating and inciting violence against Jews. I’m passionate about information literacy, candle-making, and giving snuggles to my pet rabbit. There’s a fucking difference, there. 
3) “Agree to disagree” is something you say when two people can’t come to a consensus over whether or not The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. It’s not something you say when one person is Jewish and the other person believes Jews are a evil satanic cabal trying to enslave the white race who must be stopped at all costs. That’s not an “agree to disagree” topic. We don’t “agree to disagree” over the issue of whether or not Jews are people. We don’t “agree to disagree” over whether or not black people, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ folks, etc. are deserving of basic human rights. These things are not up for debate, and there is no middle-ground to be had with people who think otherwise. 



“I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”– Randall Munroe

Always reblog the anti-hate bikie.

sleepydumpling: welkinalauda: tikkunolamorgtfo: xmasterassassinx: winterpunk: xekstrin: crackrockdebby: d–i–y—-orgasms: be-blackst...

Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!!
Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO
uncleromeo:

feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes:


emotionsclashagainstemotions:


thatpettyblackgirl:

Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒

the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs.


Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language.
“For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip.
For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert.
But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)”


^^^!!!

uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives o...

Child Support, Community, and Fucking: Chronic Sex @ChronicSexChat Chronic Sex *Psst* Marriage equality doesn't exist anywhere unless disabled people can marry without losing their benefits Pass it orn 5/21/18, 7:03 AM actualmythicalcreature: somecunttookmyurl: tyse-has-unpopular-opinions: juxtapoesition: oistrong: I’m all for fighting for marriage equality in the LGBT community. But we’re so focused on that no one knows about this problem. W…wait Thats a thing???? Yep! The man I refer to as my husband? We aren’t actually married. We can’t be. If I married him, the government would literally expect me to care for him and be his sole source of income. He would lose all of his benefits, including SSDI. Spouses are expected to share income and that effects ALL of his benefits, even his health insurance. We simply can’t afford to be married. But it goes even further than that. If I were disabled, our incomes would STILL be combined, meaning BOTH of us would have our benefits cut. For people reviving supplemental income, their benefits can be cut anywhere from 25% of their current income all the way down to 0% In fact, one of the stipulations of receiving income under the adult disabled child program (which provides benefits for people who were disabled before age 22) is that they LITERALLY never be married. I normally don’t link to blog posts as resources, but since social service resource sites like to dress this problem up and make it seem smaller than it really is, I’m gonna call it appropriate! Check it out! https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/06/29/op-ed-why-no-matter-what-i-still-cant-marry-my-girlfriend I’m upset about the situation in case you couldn’t tell. Disabled people in the UK do not have marriage equality. If you so much as LIVE with a partner you lose a massive chunk of income Disabled Canadian chiming in - it’s the same here. I can even be kicked off disability for living with a romantic partner for longer than 6 months because then I’m considered common-law, and said partners income is deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits. Things like alimony, spousal support, and child support are also deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits - so you also get in shit for having previous relationships. If I have a roommate, they can request I PROVE that I’m not in a relationship with them by getting character references to swear it. Essentially, anyone whose unlucky enough to love me, is considered my financial caretaker. It fucking sucks.
Child Support, Community, and Fucking: Chronic Sex
 @ChronicSexChat
 Chronic Sex
 *Psst*
 Marriage equality doesn't exist
 anywhere unless disabled people can
 marry without losing their benefits
 Pass it orn
 5/21/18, 7:03 AM
actualmythicalcreature:
somecunttookmyurl:


tyse-has-unpopular-opinions:

juxtapoesition:


oistrong:
I’m all for fighting for marriage equality in the LGBT community. But we’re so focused on that no one knows about this problem.

W…wait Thats a thing????


Yep! The man I refer to as my husband? We aren’t actually married. We can’t be. 
If I married him, the government would literally expect me to care for him and be his sole source of income. He would lose all of his benefits, including SSDI. Spouses are expected to share income and that effects ALL of his benefits, even his health insurance. We simply can’t afford to be married. 
But it goes even further than that. If I were disabled, our incomes would STILL be combined, meaning BOTH of us would have our benefits cut. 
For people reviving supplemental income, their benefits can be cut anywhere from 25% of their current income all the way down to 0%
In fact, one of the stipulations of receiving income under the adult disabled child program (which provides benefits for people who were disabled before age 22) is that they LITERALLY never be married. 
I normally don’t link to blog posts as resources, but since social service resource sites like to dress this problem up and make it seem smaller than it really is, I’m gonna call it appropriate! Check it out!
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/06/29/op-ed-why-no-matter-what-i-still-cant-marry-my-girlfriend
I’m upset about the situation in case you couldn’t tell. 


Disabled people in the UK do not have marriage equality.

If you so much as LIVE with a partner you lose a massive chunk of income 


Disabled Canadian chiming in - it’s the same here. I can even be kicked off disability for living with a romantic partner for longer than 6 months because then I’m considered common-law, and said partners income is deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits. Things like alimony, spousal support, and child support are also deducted dollar for dollar from my benefits - so you also get in shit for having previous relationships. If I have a roommate, they can request I PROVE that I’m not in a relationship with them by getting character references to swear it. Essentially, anyone whose unlucky enough to love me, is considered my financial caretaker. It fucking sucks.

actualmythicalcreature: somecunttookmyurl: tyse-has-unpopular-opinions: juxtapoesition: oistrong: I’m all for fighting for marriage equ...

Game of Thrones, Life, and Tumblr: shmemson: vernacular-manslaughter: octospider: Gwendoline Christie is the actress for Brienne of Tarth in Game of Thrones. She stands at 6 feet 3 inches tall and took swordfighting, horseriding, and stagefighting lessons for her part, as well as gaining 14 pounds of muscle, to accurately portray Brienne. (x) She was also terrified of cutting her hair because she’d spent her life believing it was one of the only things that would make people see her as feminine despite her height. In an interview with TV Guide she said: I struggled for a long time with [cutting] my hair, but then I’m grateful for the opportunity to realize that femininity doesn’t have to come from hair or any of those traditional female archetypes of appearance, So, that’s been exciting actually. I can’t speak with any kind of authority whatsoever because I’m just an actor and I only have my opinions, but I do think it’s really refreshing to have a woman depicted on a mainstream TV show that doesn’t obey typical aesthetics of females and the way they have been portrayed in the past. And I’m really excited to be portraying one of those women. And I hope that her popularity signals a greater expansion of people’s views about men and women and that gender types can be more flexible. She’s so so so so great. I think she’s just incredible.
Game of Thrones, Life, and Tumblr: shmemson:

vernacular-manslaughter:

octospider:

Gwendoline Christie is the actress for Brienne of Tarth in Game of Thrones. She stands at 6 feet 3 inches tall and took swordfighting, horseriding, and stagefighting lessons for her part, as well as gaining 14 pounds of muscle, to accurately portray Brienne. (x)

She was also terrified of cutting her hair because she’d spent her life believing it was one of the only things that would make people see her as feminine despite her height. In an interview with TV Guide she said:
I struggled for a long time with [cutting] my hair, but then I’m grateful for the opportunity to realize that femininity doesn’t have to come from hair or any of those traditional female archetypes of appearance, So, that’s been exciting actually. I can’t speak with any kind of authority whatsoever because I’m just an actor and I only have my opinions, but I do think it’s really refreshing to have a woman depicted on a mainstream TV show that doesn’t obey typical aesthetics of females and the way they have been portrayed in the past. And I’m really excited to be portraying one of those women. And I hope that her popularity signals a greater expansion of people’s views about men and women and that gender types can be more flexible.

She’s so so so so great. I think she’s just incredible.

shmemson: vernacular-manslaughter: octospider: Gwendoline Christie is the actress for Brienne of Tarth in Game of Thrones. She stands at ...