I need my glasses to find my glasses do you see my problem
You can’t even see your problem
(via assbuttsinaforest)
If 7 more people followed me that would be really great
: So I’m talking to this guy who calls himself a men’s rights activist...
So I’m talking to this guy who calls himself a men’s rights activist even though I would totally count his views as feminist since all of his problems with the system are issues that are inherently caused by patriarchy and I just don’t understand this nit-picking of etymology that’s been going on…
Too many people misinterpret the goals of feminism, and their distorted views are only aided by the loud minority of crazy, radical feminists.
Things like this happen : http://equalitycanada.com/2013/04/06/dialogue-confronting-sexism-proceeds-while-protestors-scream-to-shut-down-event/
And people immediately see feminism as man-hating and against equality. Feminism needs to become more vocal about speaking out against these groups of radicals that call themselves feminists yet don’t want true equality.
It’s just simpler to identify as egalitarian to avoid the etymological problems (even though one shouldn’t have to).
great gatsby deleted scene
(via cats-tats-hipstertwats)
Anonymous asked: your opinions are stupid. and revolting.
Oh anon? And why might that be?
Gatsby: A Personal Summary
- Loved the movie,
hatedstrongly disliked the book. - How were people ‘so distracted’ by the ‘modern music’? Like in Elizabethan England shakespeare used a coloured flag to do a ton of shit and no one seemed too bothered.
- It’s not a romance.
- Daisy is a shitty person.
- Jordan was one of my favorite characters.
- Nick was annoying and was definitely secretly in love with Gatsby.
- All the bad things Tom did were justifiable in his mind.
- Nick was the most judgemental person, like ‘reserves judgement’ my ass.
the sexual tension when u and ur crush are online on fb at the same time and u just stare at their lil green dot
and suddenly you know what gatsby felt like
oH MY GOD
(Source: twoukofukawa, via assbuttsinaforest)
"A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. If our concern is about suffering in this universe, it is rather obvious that we should be more concerned about killing flies than about killing three-day-old human embryos… Many people will argue that the difference between a fly and a three-day-old human embryo is that a three-day-old human embryo is a potential human being. Every cell in your body, given the right manipulations, every cell with a nucleus is now a potential human being. Every time you scratch your nose, you’ve committed a holocaust of potential human beings… Let’s say we grant it that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. First of all, embryos at this stage can split into identical twins. Is this a case of one soul splitting into two souls? Embryos at this stage can fuse into a chimera. What has happened to the extra human soul in such a case? This is intellectually indefensible, but it’s morally indefensible given that these notions really are prolonging scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings, and because of the respect we accord religious faith, we can’t have this dialogue in the way that we should. I submit to you that if you think the interests of a three-day-old blastocyst trump the interests of a little girl with spinal cord injuries or a person with full-body burns, your moral intuitions have been obscured by religious metaphysics."
- Sam Harris, on stem cell research. (via bostonwalkforchoice)
(via ohemgeereally)
