g4smaskkid:

hot topic homestuck idea

everydaymonet:

Since there are still like three minutes left of Tuesday here have a Topless Tuesday

Read More

gforcetrademark:

YOU DO NOT

UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE

DRINK THE TAP WATER

nintendofunclub:

white power.

hudmelberryson-nyc:

dianapocalypse:

misterjmasters:

hiddenjumprope:

dumbthingsstraightpeoplesay:

elderlylockpick:

robofillet:

roxinpunch:

electriczebras:

fabfemmeboy:

i-found-you-justine-time:

everythingcominguprainbowcats:

saynathespiffy:

picturesinhismind:

blacksheepboy-:

hopeboysisacheapthing:

did-you-kno:

Source

You SHOULD know this, because it is INCREDIBLY important and something that wasn’t acknowledged until very, VERY recently.

(I did a history project on this in Y9. We got to do something from the 20th century; everyone else did, like, Marilyn Monroe, and I read a translation of Moi, Pierre Seel, déporté homosexuel and then did my project on that. Cheerful, no, but important to know about, yes.)

whaaaaat, seriously?!

In 1950, East Germany abolished Nazi amendments to Paragraph 175, whereas West Germany kept them and even had them confirmed by its Constitutional Court.

Well, that’s horrifying.

Oh my god

Homosexual concentration camp prisoners were not acknowledged as victims of Nazi persecution.^[7] Reparations and state pensions available to other groups were refused to gay men, who were still classified as criminals — the Nazi anti-gay law was not repealed until 1994, although both East and West Germany liberalized their criminallaws against adult homosexuality in the late 1960s.

“Gay Holocaust” survivors could be re-imprisoned for “repeat offences”, and were kept on the modern lists of “sex offenders”. Under the Allied Military Government of Germany, some homosexuals were forced to serve out their terms of imprisonment, regardless of the time spent in concentration camps. (X)

Also worth mentioning that homosexuals are still largely unacknowledged as victims of the Holocaust even within circles where they should know better.  For example, in the Holocaust Museum in DC and Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, gay deaths are acknowledged only in passing and there is not a single picture of a “man of the pink triangle” - only of an empty ballroom that had once held a gay dance club.  When Yad Vashem was completely redone in 2005, gay groups pressed for inclusion alongside other non-Jewish groups such as the disabled, Roma, etc., and numerous senior-level officials and the Rabbinate condemned such requests for inclusion, with some going so far as to suggest that the homosexuals were German criminals and therefore did not belong in the same category as the Jews who had done nothing wrong.  When the memorial to gays in the Holocaust was unveiled in Berlin four years ago, senior members of Yad Vashem condemned it and, in particular, its proximity to the memorial for Jewish victims of the Shoah.

this planet shouldn’t be allowed to exist any longer

This is important. Of all the WWII history I learned in school, this was never once mentioned.

Oh my GOD.

And now my soul is bleeding.

Re-blogging again because when I was being taught the history of Nazi Germany, THIS WAS NEVER EVER EVER MENTIONED. NOT ONCE. 

Yeah, it never was. I don’t think I found this out until… maybe a book mentioned it, but I don’t think I knew until I got involved with the GSRM community.

This is the first I have ever heard about this ever.  I am sad.

ow.

…I don’t even remember my school teaching that people were locked up for being gay… just jewish and disabled…

omg

fuck Montana

I feel like my school is the only school that doesn’t just say “Jews,” but “Jews and gypsies and gays and whoever the Nazis happened to hate at that particular moment.” Like, seriously, we focus so much on the “religious repression” part of this all that we forget that what was going on was political and cultural oppression in general. 

Anyway, this is important and all true. 

heyitspj:

quoth-raven:

“Now we both know that’s not quite true.”

maximumbuttitude:

hey

you

dont you dare think

for even a second

that nobody saw you

when you decided this waS AN ACCEPTABLE WAY TO PARK YOUR VEHICLE BECAUSE IS AW IT OKAY I FUCKING SAW IT YOUR SHITTY PARKING JBO IS ON GOOGLE MAPS IN FRONT OF THE ENTUIRE WORLD

zamii070:

Happy Wriggling Day Karkat

rexilsor:

OMFG

ih0peyourwifidies:

shooting-stetsons:

russian-tupperware:

aetropos:

yeahyeahno:

chicksdigthephoenix:

super-scout:

aetropos:

starexorcist:

tehmostaewsumblogevar:

starexorcist:

ecrusher:

10knotes:

M&Ms Droplets

now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes

The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.

But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.

The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!

Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.

BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.

Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?

Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo?

So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.

Thank you for your time.

Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.

Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.

And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.

So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.

hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.

I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe

Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.

The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog?

On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.

Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?

Rather unlikely!

Actually, Mr. Godot!!

Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…

If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!

Aah… these M&M’s droplets

So colourful… reminds me of the days of my youth!

the red ones remind me of my hemorroids… *cough*

I have found some new evidence though the original image source suggesting this second image has been tampered with!

This image clearly shows candies that correspond to the colours commonly found in M & M s…  The edge of the bowl is visible, as are some ‘M’ symbols, if you look closely.

This suggests the second image in the original is perhaps just a fabrication based off of the second.

Therefore…

It is clearly a fraud!

You shouldn’t jump the “fraud” gun just yet, Wright. If your source is really the corresponding photo to the first, then the “gumball” picture in question might not be at fault. To put it bluntly, it might just be a copycat.

To put it another way, this could just be a case of a mistaken and mismatched photoset..

With all the evidence provided, I think it’s safe to assume this case could be solved: The candies in the second photograph are not M&Ms, but the photo itself was not exactly tampered with. It was just a completely separate photo of separate candies, possibly just misplaced in this set by the original poster, who was completely unaware of the mismatch!

Hold it right there everyone.

There is..

A PUZZLE HIDDEN IN THAT BOWL OF MISLEADING CANDY.

WHY ARE YOU IDIOTS ARGUING ABOUT CANDY WHEN THERE ARE ACTUAL, INTERESTING MURDERS TO BE SOLVED?

are you actually insisting that a mystery is less interesting simply because it isn’t a murder?