lifehackable:

Stretches that improve different aspects of your body.

325,417 notes

boys-and-suicide:

weird-amphibious-dolphin:

kiei:

Super Mario vs Pacman by Unknown

This was a ride from beginning to end

This was so entertaining to watch

My favorite cartoon ever.

boys-and-suicide:

weird-amphibious-dolphin:

kiei:

Super Mario vs Pacman by Unknown

This was a ride from beginning to end

This was so entertaining to watch

My favorite cartoon ever.

92,615 notes

stfu-and-think:

brutuspilot:

stfu-and-think:

skypig357:

stfu-and-think:

skypig357:

stfu-and-think:

skypig357:

stfu-and-think:

skypig357:

pokemon-for-social-justice:

kumagawa:

u right tho..white privilege just some tumblr bullshit..def. not applicable in the real world..damn

I would call the police on these people. If this isn’t illegal then it should be.

-Glace

Not to put too fine a point on it, and I’m waiting for the report to come out before judging the cops, but notice the folks in the picture NOT holding their guns in their hands. This is an important point

FWIW I’m not a fan of open carry

Reports are now saying it was an unloaded BB gun on the racks at Walmart.

Doesn’t matter what it is. It’s what officers think it might be at the time. Hindsight is not applicable, only information at the time of the incident. This can work against officers as well

However, officers are supposed to be highly trained, use their best judgement, and utilize deadly force as a very last resort. If this case has been reported accurately and the officer(s) could not identify an undeadly weapon, or at least match it to those already on the shelves, which is where the man supposedly removed the gun, they should not be allowed to carry a badge. I will eagerly wait for more news on this story, but to me, it just sounds like another case of unnecessary police brutality and poor judgement that once again cost someone of color his life.

This would be, at worst, NOT brutality, but an error is judgment. Not knowing the totality of the circumstances in this incident, if someone is running around with a rifle pointing it at people you do not have to wait to identify it. Means, opportunity and intent are the three pillars you need to legally justify lethal force. That’s it. If someone is representing means, that’s all that is required. Particularly where time is of the essence.

Again, not saying this is what happened here, just general legal principles for lethal force that could be applicable here

I would say shooting a person who couldn’t defend himself fits the definition of cruel, harsh, and/or violent treatment of another person quite aptly. That’s the definition of brutality, after all.

If means is all a cop needs to be justified in firing a shot, then no one is safe, because an officer can come up with any number of seemingly legitimate reasons to exert force. No child with a Wii controller should be safe in his own home if the officer at his door hastily mistakes it for a gun. No person trying out an unloaded gun next to a dozen more that look just like it on the shelves is safe, either, if an officer can claim he thought it was a loaded, deadly weapon. Officers can literally come up with any number of excuses for they weren’t wrong after the fact, whether or not their feeds were legitimate.

As the reasonable person I know you are, you don’t find something at least a little bit wrong with this?

I’m withholding final judgement on this case until the hearing, but I don’t expect it will end any differently than other similar cases in recent memory.

Brutality has a malice component to it. I don’t believe it fits here based on what I’ve seen

Not based on the Merriam Webster definition, which is the one I used.

As to the other, any use of force is based upon the totality of the circumstances. Means, opportunity and intent (MOI) must be demonstrated from the reasonable officer point of view given the information known at the time of the incident. Lethal force is that force which the officer can articulate he or she BELIEVED was to cause death or serious bodily injury, given the MOI noted above. MOI to commit death or serious bodily injury. That’s the standard. It just depends can the officer articulate that the circumstances fits that standard.

Again, if what you say is true, then this entire premise is based on the BELIEFS of the officers rather than on the objective FACTS of the situation. That is not how civilized human beings make decisions, let alone human beings who are supposed to be heavily trained NOT to use excessive force. If an officer cannot use judgement to determine whether or not a situation warrants shooting to kill, he or she should not be an officer. At the very least, he or she should be punished for using poor judgement, which more often than not, they are not. 

And in this one we simply don’t have all the information we need to make a judgment.

We cannot make absolute judgement at this time, but we have enough information to make reasonable hypotheses. 

The only point I want to interject here is this: where were the photos of those white people taken? There are definitely some states that allow you to carry weapons on you anywhere. And some stores allow you to do it in some areas… So this guy probably picked it up in the wrong state. Don’t get me wrong, this is terrible and I don’t condone it. I hate cops. But you can’t just throw up photos of white people doing something, and a black guy getting in trouble for something without context first.

That is one very important point to mention, as open carry is very lenient in some states. I think the visual point the OP was trying to make (this is all conjecture) is that it’s quite the contrast to assume people (who happen to be white) carrying around obviously deadly weapons aren’t inciting violence, when the same couldn’t be said for a person (who happened to be black) carrying a nondeadly weapon. Like I said, we can’t know what exactly John Crawford was doing with that BB gun, whether he was waving it around or aiming it at people (even though it was unloaded when he took it off the shelf), or just holding it and walking around with it. However, I know I would personally feel more threatened by any of the white people shown above than a black man with an unloaded weapon intended for children/young adults. 

I totally agree. When a gun enters the picture, I feel inherently unsafe. I think open carry of any weapon is an issue, but thats just my liberalism shining through. I mean, I think guns are cool, and I don’t mind like cap guns or nerf guns, but a real gun. uh-uh. Keep that shit away

69,368 notes

mediapathic:

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

This is a theological point that doesn’t come up often enough.

(Source: drunkonstephen)

649,726 notes

stfu-and-think:

skypig357:

stfu-and-think:

skypig357:

stfu-and-think:

skypig357:

stfu-and-think:

skypig357:

pokemon-for-social-justice:

kumagawa:

u right tho..white privilege just some tumblr bullshit..def. not applicable in the real world..damn

I would call the police on these people. If this isn’t illegal then it should be.

-Glace

Not to put too fine a point on it, and I’m waiting for the report to come out before judging the cops, but notice the folks in the picture NOT holding their guns in their hands. This is an important point

FWIW I’m not a fan of open carry

Reports are now saying it was an unloaded BB gun on the racks at Walmart.

Doesn’t matter what it is. It’s what officers think it might be at the time. Hindsight is not applicable, only information at the time of the incident. This can work against officers as well

However, officers are supposed to be highly trained, use their best judgement, and utilize deadly force as a very last resort. If this case has been reported accurately and the officer(s) could not identify an undeadly weapon, or at least match it to those already on the shelves, which is where the man supposedly removed the gun, they should not be allowed to carry a badge. I will eagerly wait for more news on this story, but to me, it just sounds like another case of unnecessary police brutality and poor judgement that once again cost someone of color his life.

This would be, at worst, NOT brutality, but an error is judgment. Not knowing the totality of the circumstances in this incident, if someone is running around with a rifle pointing it at people you do not have to wait to identify it. Means, opportunity and intent are the three pillars you need to legally justify lethal force. That’s it. If someone is representing means, that’s all that is required. Particularly where time is of the essence.

Again, not saying this is what happened here, just general legal principles for lethal force that could be applicable here

I would say shooting a person who couldn’t defend himself fits the definition of cruel, harsh, and/or violent treatment of another person quite aptly. That’s the definition of brutality, after all.

If means is all a cop needs to be justified in firing a shot, then no one is safe, because an officer can come up with any number of seemingly legitimate reasons to exert force. No child with a Wii controller should be safe in his own home if the officer at his door hastily mistakes it for a gun. No person trying out an unloaded gun next to a dozen more that look just like it on the shelves is safe, either, if an officer can claim he thought it was a loaded, deadly weapon. Officers can literally come up with any number of excuses for they weren’t wrong after the fact, whether or not their feeds were legitimate.

As the reasonable person I know you are, you don’t find something at least a little bit wrong with this?

I’m withholding final judgement on this case until the hearing, but I don’t expect it will end any differently than other similar cases in recent memory.

Brutality has a malice component to it. I don’t believe it fits here based on what I’ve seen

Not based on the Merriam Webster definition, which is the one I used.

As to the other, any use of force is based upon the totality of the circumstances. Means, opportunity and intent (MOI) must be demonstrated from the reasonable officer point of view given the information known at the time of the incident. Lethal force is that force which the officer can articulate he or she BELIEVED was to cause death or serious bodily injury, given the MOI noted above. MOI to commit death or serious bodily injury. That’s the standard. It just depends can the officer articulate that the circumstances fits that standard.

Again, if what you say is true, then this entire premise is based on the BELIEFS of the officers rather than on the objective FACTS of the situation. That is not how civilized human beings make decisions, let alone human beings who are supposed to be heavily trained NOT to use excessive force. If an officer cannot use judgement to determine whether or not a situation warrants shooting to kill, he or she should not be an officer. At the very least, he or she should be punished for using poor judgement, which more often than not, they are not. 

And in this one we simply don’t have all the information we need to make a judgment.

We cannot make absolute judgement at this time, but we have enough information to make reasonable hypotheses. 

The only point I want to interject here is this: where were the photos of those white people taken? There are definitely some states that allow you to carry weapons on you anywhere. And some stores allow you to do it in some areas… So this guy probably picked it up in the wrong state. Don’t get me wrong, this is terrible and I don’t condone it. I hate cops. But you can’t just throw up photos of white people doing something, and a black guy getting in trouble for something without context first.

69,368 notes

out-nerd-myself:

ifiwasthelastgirl:

This show.

THIS is how you do product placement

5,076 notes

If we’re genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women, we need to get the facts straight

Much of what we hear about the plight of American women is false. Some faux facts have been repeated so often they are almost beyond the reach of critical analysis. Though they are baseless, these canards have become the foundation of Congressional debates, the inspiration for new legislation and the focus of college programs. Here are five of the most popular myths that should be rejected by all who are genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women:

MYTH 1: Women are half the world’s population, working two-thirds of the world’s working hours, receiving 10% of the world’s income, owning less than 1% of the world’s property.

FACTS: This injustice confection is routinely quoted by advocacy groups, the World Bank, Oxfam and the United Nations. It is sheer fabrication. More than 15 years ago, Sussex University experts on gender and development Sally Baden and Anne Marie Goetz, repudiated the claim: “The figure was made up by someone working at the UN because it seemed to her to represent the scale of gender-based inequality at the time.” But there is no evidence that it was ever accurate, and it certainly is not today.

Precise figures do not exist, but no serious economist believes women earn only 10% of the world’s income or own only 1% of property. As one critic noted in an excellent debunking in The Atlantic, “U.S. women alone earn 5.4 percent of world income today.” Moreover, in African countries, where women have made far less progress than their Western and Asian counterparts, Yale economist Cheryl Doss found female land ownership ranged from 11% in Senegal to 54% in Rwanda and Burundi. Doss warns that “using unsubstantiated statistics for advocacy is counterproductive.” Bad data not only undermine credibility, they obstruct progress by making it impossible to measure change.

MYTH 2: Between 100,000 and 300,000 girls are pressed into sexual slavery each year in the United States.

FACTS: This sensational claim is a favorite of politicians, celebrities and journalists. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore turned it into a cause célèbre. Both conservatives and liberal reformers deploy it. Former President Jimmy Carter recently said that the sexual enslavement of girls in the U.S. today is worse than American slavery in the 19th century.

The source for the figure is a 2001 report on child sexual exploitation by University of Pennsylvania sociologists Richard Estes and Neil Alan Weiner. But their 100,000–300,000 estimate referred to children at risk for exploitation—not actual victims. When three reporters from the Village Voice questioned Estes on the number of children who are abducted and pressed into sexual slavery each year, he replied, “We’re talking about a few hundred people.” And this number is likely to include a lot of boys: According to a 2008 census of underage prostitutes in New York City, nearly half turned out to be male. A few hundred children is still a few hundred too many, but they will not be helped by thousand-fold inflation of their numbers.

MYTH 3: In the United States, 22%–35% of women who visit hospital emergency rooms do so because of domestic violence.

FACTS: This claim has appeared in countless fact sheets, books and articles—for example, in the leading textbook on family violence, Domestic Violence Law, and in the Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. The Penguin Atlas uses the emergency room figure to justify placing the U.S. on par with Uganda and Haiti for intimate violence.

What is the provenance? The Atlas provides no primary source, but the editor of Domestic Violence Law cites a 1997 Justice Department study, as well as a 2009 post on the Centers for Disease Control website. But the Justice Department and the CDC are not referring to the 40 million women who annually visit emergency rooms, but to women, numbering about 550,000 annually, who come to emergency rooms “for violence-related injuries.” Of these, approximately 37% were attacked by intimates. So, it’s not the case that 22%-35% of women who visit emergency rooms are there for domestic violence. The correct figure is less than half of 1%.

MYTH 4: One in five in college women will be sexually assaulted.

FACTS: This incendiary figure is everywhere in the media today. Journalists, senators and even President Obama cite it routinely. Can it be true that the American college campus is one of the most dangerous places on earth for women?

The one-in-five figure is based on the Campus Sexual Assault Study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and conducted from 2005 to 2007. Two prominent criminologists, Northeastern University’s James Alan Fox and Mount Holyoke College’s Richard Moran, have noted its weaknesses:

“The estimated 19% sexual assault rate among college women is based on a survey at two large four-year universities, which might not accurately reflect our nation’s colleges overall. In addition, the survey had a large non-response rate, with the clear possibility that those who had been victimized were more apt to have completed the questionnaire, resulting in an inflated prevalence figure.”

Fox and Moran also point out that the study used an overly broad definition of sexual assault. Respondents were counted as sexual assault victims if they had been subject to “attempted forced kissing” or engaged in intimate encounters while intoxicated.

Defenders of the one-in-five figure will reply that the finding has been replicated by other studies. But these studies suffer from some or all of the same flaws. Campus sexual assault is a serious problem and will not be solved by statistical hijinks.

MYTH 5: Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns—for doing the same work.

FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.

Why do these reckless claims have so much appeal and staying power? For one thing, there is a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders. There is also an admirable human tendency to be protective of women—stories of female exploitation are readily believed, and vocal skeptics risk appearing indifferent to women’s suffering. Finally, armies of advocates depend on “killer stats” to galvanize their cause. But killer stats obliterate distinctions between more and less serious problems and send scarce resources in the wrong directions. They also promote bigotry. The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies.

My advice to women’s advocates: Take back the truth.

750 notes

dansrules:

disneyfab:

this literally gave me chills.

I’ve never hit the reblog button so fast in my life.

(Source: starssight)

414,071 notes

daily-superheroes:

"Do you know how to use the shadows and the night" (Grayson Futures End #1) nsfwhttp://daily-superheroes.tumblr.com

daily-superheroes:

"Do you know how to use the shadows and the night" (Grayson Futures End #1) nsfw
http://daily-superheroes.tumblr.com

261 notes