Hey Guys Let Me Tell You About Advance Fee Scams

Shyte like this is EXACTLY why I left these people

Why is it when I tell people I don’t want to be called cis, because I’m just a woman, they mock and demean me. Yet those same people demand I call trans women real women, and trans men real men. Those same people demand I use their preferred pronouns and gender labels. They demand I don’t label them something they don’t identify with. But not a single one of them respects me enough not to label me against my will.

The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Forever and always 🤍

reblog this if you're pro-life 🤍

Nah, it's fine. We all get upset. Hope you have a better week :)

Does anyone ever learn something new that makes them despair for the human race? Like, I just came to a horrible realization and I’m actually shaking right now with grief and anger.

If you're a Hisoka simp, watch this!

How dare Marvel Rivals make me obsess over a fictional couple I knew nothing about until a few days ago

I know I'm gonna ruffle a lot of feathers when I say this, but I think this is something people don't really touch on when it comes to the topic of female modesty (at least not too often).

A big criticism I have when it comes to the topic of female modesty (especially in some ‘Christian’ spaces) is that most who speak on it often approach it from the lens of “Immodesty makes men lust.” And regardless of how true that is, lots of women roll their eyes when they hear it because lots of us have experienced harassment (and a lot of women even sexual abuse) from men REGARDLESS of WHAT we are wearing.

Whether or not the message of “dress this way and men won’t harass you” was your personal intention or not, that is unfortunately the message that has been pushed on a LOT of women from the time we could first walk by OTHER people.

Sure, clothes have an effect on how people perceive us, I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t. You obviously can’t walk into your office job wearing a low cut halter top and booty shorts—you have to dress for the environment you’re in (durr).

But clothes definitely have not stopped people from doing what they want to do to us at the end of the day. I think the main reason why lots of women roll their eyes when the topic of modesty comes up is because we’re being told the solution to a problem that we know for a fact has not actually worked.

If people kept telling you that wearing a helmet prevents serial killers from targeting you, but serial killers kept targeting you anyway, would you be more convinced to wear a helmet? No, because wearing a helmet didn’t change anything.

Lots of women realize this reality and so I think that’s why a lot of women dress with the mindset of “I’m gonna wear whatever the heck I want because it clearly doesn’t matter what I wear or don’t wear—men are still gonna behave the same.”

I’ve gotten harassed by a male ‘friend’ who bullied me in highschool and snuck around to obtain my phone number (without my permission) so that way he could flirt with me despite me telling him to stop (pretty tame all things considered). And all throughout high school, I wore nothing except big hoodies, jeans, and sometimes sweatpants.

Modesty is important, I agree. But stop promising women that it provides GRAND changes in how men will treat them. So many women have experience that proves it really doesn’t. Because it’s not about the clothes and never will be about the clothes, it’s about the character of the men we interact with. So if the only way a man can respect a woman is if she covers herself head to toe like a box, I don’t know if I can consider him a respectable person.

Sure, modesty can help people respect you more---but stop telling women that it ELIMINATES mistreatment from men---because it doesn't. And to tell something that isn't true is a lie.

You're so real for this. There's actually proof that women who do get them actually suffer from WORSE mental and physical consequences despite what they'd like you to think.

An Ode to Simplicity :D

I have rarely, if ever, had trouble hitting a minimum word count. I like to explain things. I like to look at things in depth and from different angles. But what I love is the simple distilled truth of something. There is elegance in brevity. (Which I don't often attain to, as you can see. :D) There is also, usually, a lot less room for deception. This is one reason I favor the pro-life position. When I see pro-abortion arguments, I typically see three pages of mental and verbal gymnastics that have to speedrun through logical fallacies and into advocating ableism, discrimination, eugenics, and more on their hasty way to explain how it's actually "compassionate" and "moral" and "forward-thinking" to murder babies. Oh, sure, there are a few tired, pseudo-pithy mottos that can be tried: "the freedom/right to choose!" and "equal rights!" and "my body, my choice!" But I or anyone can drive a truck through the plot holes in those slogans with very little effort. - For example, "Freedom/right to choose!" becomes a lot less nice-sounding when you ask, "Freedom/right to choose...what?" Because it turns out that most sane people actually have some strong opinions about giving someone else the freedom and the right to choose to murder people. - "Equal rights! Human rights!" Great! So what about the rights of the human in the womb? Ask this, and you'll watch the pro-abortion crowd either fall over themselves to deny science or to reveal that they actually don't believe in equal rights for all humans -- they instead believe in equal rights for some humans and not others, based on physical and arbitrary characteristics like size, degree of development, and location. Which is what we call "inequality" and "discrimination". - "My body, my choice!" Sure! Except it's not your body that's getting torn apart by forceps or starved of nutrients, obviously, so it's not really your choice -- you're just taking it away from the baby. Not to mention that EVERY civilized society restricts the lesser right of autonomy in the event where it infringes upon another's primary right to life. (Otherwise, have fun explaining to people why you believe there shouldn't be any laws against assault, murder, rape, drinking and driving, etc.) - BONUS: "YOU'RE KILLING WOMEN!" Um, no -- you are. Where do you think women come from? Rocks? And feel free to look it up -- there is a difference between triage, tragedy, and murder. And in no medical case is an abortion the "treatment" necessary to save the mother's life -- oftentimes, it can actually put her in even more danger. Meanwhile, while the proponents of abortion have to either write essays and essays futilely attempting to claim otherwise to maintain the moral high ground OR abandon it altogether and lean into the whole infanticide-worshipping cult thing, me and any other pro-lifer can state our position as a whole pretty simply without having to do any of those things. It goes like this: "Hi! It's wrong to murder babies. Please stop doing it."

*Mic drop* That's it. That's literally it. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. :D

Why I think Silver deserves to be in the fourth Sonic movie

So off the bat, I know some of you guys are going to disagree with me and that is perfectly fine. I know a lot of people have mixed opinions regarding Silver as a character, and I certainly have my own.

All I ask is that if you do have any disagreements or information I might be missing, that you convey them respectfully since we're talking about FICTIONAL characters---the world isn't gonna end if we think different about a floating psychokinetic hedgehog.

I think he should be in the next Sonic movie, but in order for my points to coalesce properly, there's other aspects of the topic I'd like to address first in hopes you guys will see where I am coming from.

Personally, on top of having his powers being freaking awesome, I think Silver is a good character and is rather underused in more recognized forms of Sonic media. Don't get me wrong, he was in Sonic 06 and could very well have other mediums he was in---but for the most part, I don't see him and it's as if the Sonic franchise forgets he exists.

Now, don't get me wrong---I understand why some people might have an aversion to Silver regarding his appearance in the Sonic 06 game. His boss battle is tough for utterly no reason, he believes Mephiles at the drop of a hat, and then became a (sometimes annoying) meme. But personally, I don't think this makes him a bad character--but rather he had a bad introduction and I'll explain what I mean.

Regarding his trust in Mephiles, I'd be one to agree that it was naive for him to do, but Knuckles the Echidna underwent similar situations with Eggman MULTIPLE times. Especially if we're talking about Sonic X, Knuckles is shown to have believed Dr. Eggman's lies and fight Sonic multiple times. So personally, I feel as though if you dislike Silver for believing Mephiles, you should have similar thought patterns toward Knuckles for doing similar stuff---if not more than Silver.

For me, I interpret Silver trusting Mephiles as desperation to save his world from destruction. Silver---like Sonic---is an adolescent boy who has the weight of the world on his shoulders and is doing the best he can with the information that is given to him.

I'm explaining all of this because I for one, can't exactly agree with the narrative that Silver is a villain or that he's plain stupid (as some---not all, but some---have argued). And even if I were to agree with the notion that Sonic 06 had the worst portrayal of Silver, I still wouldn't agree with the implication that because of his introduction in the game--that it means he doesn't deserve a redesign or rewrite to fit the movie (since that's what Jeff Fowler has done with other characters in the film already).

I think having Silver in the movie could reintroduce a new version of him and considering Jeff Fowler's obvious skills in bringing honor to the iconic characters, I don't see why Silver would be any different.

Some people think Silver wouldn't fit, but I disagree due to a pattern I noticed within the more recent Sonic films (including the end credit scene for the third one involving Shadow).

Granted, we don't know what the fourth movie is about (or at least I don't) so for all I know, Silver COULD not actually fit into the plot. But considering what we saw with the metal Sonics, I think he'd fit right in.

In the second movie, it gave Sonic two allies (Tails and later on Knuckles) and an enemy (Eggman). In the third movie, it gave Sonic two allies (who would later on be Shadow and Eggman) and an enemy (Gerald Robotnik). While sure, they definitely have their differences in how they manifested plotwise, there was still a pattern.

In the end credit scene of the third movie, it already shows us who the new enemy would be [metal sonic] and who the new ally would be [Amy Rose]. So Silver could very easily fit that role of being the second ally. And sure, the whole 'enemy turned friend' thing might be predictable or old for some people, but I don't think it's a case of lazy writing. I think it's more about the franchise showing who Sonic truly is as a character and how at his core, he wants to help people.

In the case of Silver, I think that could work very well. And it's not like Jeff has it happen the exact same way each time. Heck, even if they were to make him an ally for Sonic off the bat without them being enemies first, I believe it could still very much work.

Once again, the fourth movie hasn't even released and so not many of us (at least not me) know know what the plot for it will be. But, if possible (and that's a big if), I think Silver deserves a shot at redemption by being in the fourth Sonic movie.

People who say that abortion is needed because of the fact that rape victims exist, I feel are missing a MAJOR point in their arguments. And before you start blowing off on me, at least be willing to hear my perspective here.

I don't think it's a problem of abortion being easily accessible. I think it's a problem of rapists not having consequences.

1 in 3 women globally are sexually assaulted. Thus, the concept of a woman/girl becoming pregnant against her will unfortunately doesn't sound out of the norm at all. And regardless of the statistical reasons that women TRULY get abortions for, let's think about another aspect here.

If rape is such a common thing (which it is unfortunately) and women keep aborting the children they’re getting as a result of being raped, doesn’t that mean we should put MUCH more pressure to condemn and stop the rape endemic—which is why these specific sets of victims would hypothetically be getting abortions in the FIRST place? We’re only treating the SYMPTOMS here and not looking at the actual CANCER that keeps spreading.

If you guys put as much pressure on our justice systems as much as you push for abortion, it would probably gain more a productive response in the long run. Because I think we can all agree that we just want forced pregnancy to be stopped as much as possible.

Abortion is a rapist’s dream because then there’s a chance that if they do get you pregnant, that you’d be supported (if not pressured) to then erase the evidence of what he did to you.

If we're really gonna be saying that the circumstances a child is born into should dictate whether or not it should continue to develop, then I'm very sure a large percentage of us would not even be here today if that logic were to actually be implemented. If you look back in your family history enough, someone must've either gotten raped or put into a hard situation.

We need to crack on these corrupt justice systems that don't punish rapists accordingly, not have the children pay for the sins of the father.

I definitely don't like the way how conservatism handles abortion in some cases (because I feel besides making hospitals, there's still not much that's being improved), but I most certainly do not agree with the notion that the circumstances in which a child is made should dictate it's right to live. If that were true, I wouldn't be alive to make this post.

If rape is something you are so concerned about (as am I), then why aren't we banging on the doors of these justice systems instead of the doors of these clinics?

I'm pretty sure that if women are doing something as a result of a bigger problem, shouldn't we address the BIGGER problem then?

i went to a leftist festival last month and there was a panel dedicated to prostitution, why abolition is the only road to go for leftists and how to help and support prostituted women exiting the trade, and i keep thinking about that union organizer who said, "we hear more and more that 'sex work is work', but if that were true, then there'd be professional trainings leading to a qualification for prostitution, then there'd be prostitution diplomas, then high schoolers could send applications to follow those trainings and become prostitutes. but we all know that all these things don't exist, and if they did exist we would all recognize them for what they are: a grooming business encouraging pedophilia and violence against women and girls." and what she said later; "trade unions that argue that 'sex work is work' never engage in legal battles against pimps or brothel owners. they don't even recognize that pimps are the bosses of the prostitution market. "sex workers' trade unions" don't fight pimps because sex workers' unions don't represent the alleged "workers" (prostituted women), they represent the bosses: pimps."

and that made me think of what Kajsa Ekis Ekman said about the trade unions that consider prostitution to be work and prostituted women to be workers: they offer trainings about condom use and spend millions of dollars funding "worker peer education" about "safe sex".

So one again, it's prostituted women who are held responsible for the spreading and the prevention of STDs - not the johns, not the pimps. the prostituted women, many of them victims of sex trafficking. "As human trafficking expert Malka Marcovich has pointed out, this means a return to nineteenth-century ideals of hygiene, where the onus was “primarily on the women to take responsibility for the health of ‘the customer’, so diseases would not be spread to their families” (2007, p. 347)."

It's quite obvious to any trade union organizer that prostitution is not work and the sex trade can't be organized as a trade union. a few months ago, the biggest unions in my country (which included the traditional left-wing trade unions as well as students' unions) issued a paper condemning the 'sex work is work' narrative and the pimp lobbies got so mad about that because they know their strategy isn't working because leftists know what left-wing politics look like and they know women's liberation doesn't come from prostitution. Now it's interesting that the biggest voices of the "sex work is work" movement come from the USA, where the anticapitalist left doesn't exist. American liberals love to pass reactionary politics as revolutionary but not because they are stupid in their own country does it mean they should influence the actually left-wing labour movement in other countries, right?