#but they are the one who posted it for reblogs on al gore’s internet

[unopenablebox]

cmon man that’s not a sonnet. where are the iambs

[armoricaroyalty]

the 90-9-1 rule, or A Partial Answer to the Eternal Question of 'Why Don't My Posts Get More Notes?'

In the small amount of time I’ve been on Al Gore’s internet, I have acquired a small amount of wisdom, which I now share with you: 90% of people don’t engage.

This theory of internet engagement has been floating around online since at least 2006, and as such, it goes by a lot of different names: participation inequality, the 1% rule, the 90-9-1 principle. Whatever name you encounter it under, the principle is the same: on any given website, most of the content is generated by only 1% of the user base.

This theory divides internet users into three camps:

Heavy Contributors are people who use the website every day and generate the vast majority of its content. In earlier eras of the internet, these were people posting in forums, maintaining their own geocity or angelfire pages, and setting up webrings to link related content and form communities of like-minded people. In the current age, the category of ‘heavy contributors’ includes influencers and content creators on platforms like YouTube and TikTok, but it also includes the people who remember to like, subscribe, and smash that bell icon. On websites like Tumblr, a heavy contributor is more likely to be a person who likes and reblogs without generating original content or adding commentary to others’ posts. But heavy contributors are also the big-time posters, the ones making gifsets, fic, viral shitposts, and other kinds of content. For these people, the internet is a social, creative place, and they go online to socialize and create. They generate the vast majority of the content everyone consumes and enjoys. And according to the 90-9-1 principle, these users represent only 1% of the people who use the internet.

Intermittent Contributors are people who use the website frequently and occasionally post. In modern times, this might be someone who mostly engages through likes and the occasional reblog. In fan communities and on websites like AO3, they might be an avid consumer of content, reading every fic with their OTP, but that passion doesn’t usually motivate them to leave comments, write fic of their own, or share recommendations. The intermittent contributors might be just as active as the heavy contributors, but their online presence is smaller. They make less of a splash than their noisier counterparts in the 1%. According to the theory, these users represent 9% of the people who use the internet.

Infrequent Contributors (lurkers) are everyone else. Because they don’t generate much (or any) content, it’s difficult to track their presence and behavior. Some sign on every day and read everything that’s posted without ever adding to the conversation. They might check Tumblr on their phones during breaks at work and never think about it otherwise. They might have an account they use once every three months when they remember it exists. They might never create an account, and just browse the front pages of sites like Reddit. According to the theory, these users represent 90% of the people who use the internet.

To people in the 1%, the behavior of the lurkers and intermittent contributors feels absolutely outlandish. Why bother signing on if you’re not going to make anything or contribute to the conversation? Why follow an account if you’re never going to like or reblog? Human beings have a tendency to see their behavior as “normal” and assume everyone else is doing the same, and that tendency toward generalization can be really blinding for people who exist in tiny, exceptional categories like the 1% of ‘active’ users.

The assumption that everyone uses the internet like they do can often make the people in the 1% feel very, very lonely, especially the creatives. You work for hours on a story or an illustration, hit ‘post,’ and get only a few comments and likes. You’ve got followers, you’ve got an audience, why is your work being met with crickets? If you’re posting in the hopes that other people will engage with your content, it can be very disheartening to create something and be met with silence by the vast majority of your followers.

The truth is that 90% of your followers just won’t engage. That doesn’t mean they’re not reading your stuff. That doesn’t mean they don’t enjoy your stories. That doesn’t mean they’re not looking forward to your next update or they’re not turning your story over in their heads while they wait for the bus. It just means that they’re not engaging with it in a way that is visible to you.

Think about it. You might be very active on one platform and quiet on another. You have read many books in your life, but how many letters have you written to authors? When you see a movie in theaters, is your first instinct to get online and tweet at the actors and directors? When you watch YouTube videos and TikToks, do you feel the urge to make your own, or do you just think “cool video!” and move on with your life?

I’ve been afflicted with Chats-Too-Much since birth, so I am inordinately active on talky platforms like Tumblr and Discord. But on YouTube, I’m an internet ghost. I have a few creators whose videos I watch avidly (and often multiple times). I follow them, I have the bell dinged, I even support a few on patreon. But I don’t comment on videos and rarely ever like them because that’s just not how I engage on that platform.

The 90-9-1 rule isn’t an absolute. Actual studies have found that the real percentages of different types of users varies from site-to-site. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s, online participation required a much greater degree of expertise and technical know-how. In the modern era, with the almost-universal implementation of like buttons, voting systems, and internal bookmarking features like AO3’s, more users fall into that middle category of intermittent contributors. Social media completely changed the way we use the internet to communicate, and the social distancing and isolation of the pandemic further reshaped our ways of engagement. I’m not even going to get into the subject of engagement as currency and the monetization of everything, because those are a) immensely depressing to me and b) outside of the scope of this essay, but the idea that anyone can become a celebrity online has also radically altered the way we exist on the internet.

This essay is only meant to say: on hobby sites and in fandom spaces, try to divorce your self-worth and desire to create from the amount of engagement your content gets. Each and every one of us loves to see the numbers go up, but the numbers can’t be why you’re engaging in social spaces and sharing your work. It’s not easy, but if your only drive to create is to get attention, you will never be satisfied. You’ll get 50 followers and wish you had 100. You’ll get 1,000 followers and wish you had 10,000. You’ll always be chasing more, and you’ll never be able to enjoy the followers you do have and the engagement you do get -- you’ll always be stuck staring at your analytics page, resenting the silent 90% for not doing more to boost your content and validate your worth in the eyes of the immortal algorithm.

It’s not easy to decouple your desire to create from your desire for attention. But it’s ultimately necessary for the good of your mental wellbeing and the good of your art. Enjoy your hobbies and enjoy your posting. If neither are bringing you any joy, ask yourself why and be willing to accept that you might need to let go of something or else shift your mode of engagement. You might even be happier as a lurker, creating only for yourself.

[bluedalahorse]

So over the last few weeks I’ve been thinking about what is it makes it hard for me to participate in the broader fandom discussions of/squeeing over Wilmon, even when I personally enjoy them as a couple and love having individual conversations about them. I’m putting this behind a cut, leaving this untagged, and making this unrebloggable. I’m not really intending to start a public reblog chain here—it’s less a public discussion, and more personal introspection that I’m okay with people seeing and interacting with. I’m also okay with people commenting and offering thoughts, as usually I work thoughts out through conversations with others. This post is really ideal for the livejournal era of like, I have people on a special filter and post to that filter, but that doesn’t exist, so you get this version.

You’re also welcome to skip my silly introspection, if you wish. Plenty of other things to read out there on Al Gore’s internet!

What this isn’t is a criticism of how other people ship, or of fandom as a whole. It’s not a call-out post. There’s a lot of individual nuances to how everyone goes about their shipping, and it’s in my individual conversations that I’ve gotten to hear those nuances. I always delight in learning about where individual folks’s feelings are!

I’m just trying to sort through my own brain right now. I hope people will take it as such.

Anyway. As someone who ships and enjoys Wilmon but who struggles to participate in the community experience of Wilmon shipping that most of the rest of YR fandom seems to enjoy, I’ve been trying to work out like… what’s behind that. Like, what about these conversations makes it hard for me to get involved in them? Why do I have trouble stepping in? So I thought about it a lot.

What I’ve noticed is that within YR fandom, there’s this general undercurrent of like… Wilmon is sometimes held up to be this Idealized Model Romance. And for me personally, the idea that like, so many people seem to be interpreting them as Ideal and Model, it just adds a lot of pressure to how I interpret or talk about their relationship publicly on tumblr. I find I rebel against that kind of pressure. It makes it less fun to publicly invest in their love, for me personally, if I feel like I’m supposed to talk about them being soulmates and destined and perfect and 100% healthy in their communication at all times. If I’m supposed to profess that they have never done anything wrong in their lives, and believe their love will last forever and ever and they will have a perfect marriage. If they always touch one another perfectly and have beautiful moments of intimacy! I mean, I’m exaggerating a bit here. And yes, fandom will always idealize their favorite pairings and characters a bit. But the general tenor of the more communal fandom discussions can lean that way, and those are the discussions that always leave me feeling a bit like I don’t belong, and like I am not properly following Community Protocols For Enjoyment of The Ship.

I also am conscious that this is helpful for other people, to have a romance they can believe in as good or ideal. That for some people it’s a form of escapism. And that’s okay! I’m just trying to figure out why I work differently than others.

What, blue, so you just think Wilmon are toxic? No. I don’t. I think they’re human. I think they way they grow as a result of their relationship is fascinating and wonderful. I like the way they each have to question what they value as a result of their relationship. I like that Wilhelm has to confront his privilege and starts questioning the systems that don’t treat people like Simon fairly. I like that Simon has to think critically about how he sets his boundaries, and radically accept his feelings. I like the way they start to clarify their values as a result of their relationship with one another. But I also like the way there are lots of mistakes in that journey. I live for this moments of drama. I like the cute moments as well! And the intimacy is so well-choreographed! Sometimes, however, I feel guarded about discussing the part where Wilhelm and Simon have flaws—even though the flaws and drama are part of what pull me in!—because I’m preemptively expecting someone to come in and say “well actually they’re good people and have never done anything wrong and here’s why; are you saying they are toxic?” So I don’t end up making the post in the first place, or weighing in on the discussion. Or like, sometimes I do make a blog post that gets into the growth/change aspect of their relationship I discussed above, and reblogs take it in a direction that goes back to the language of them being a perfect moral ideal, and I’m like, hmmm that’s not where I was going with my original post. Which is fine, because once you post something to tumblr, the reblogs do what they will. But I do notice that discussions float in a certain direction. You know?

Maybe a better way to say this is, generally speaking, I’m a person who likes romance but isn’t a hopeless romantic (and, for the record, I’m also aromantic) so the draw of romance stories for me is less in a sense of soulmate destiny or happily ever after, and more in watching how romantic love pushes a person to change and grow. Often this growth is positive. But you know, I’m also truly fascinated by the moments where relationships can make people more jealous or selfish, or moments when a difficult breakup helps someone clarify their own values. These moments, and how characters process them, are as much of a draw for me as cute kissing scenes. It’s okay if that’s not you, and you mostly like more idealized romances, or fluffier ones, or whatever! We can like different stuff, and different approaches to a concept. But I think what I see in these fandom discussions is that like, collectively we assume we’re all on the same page and look for the same things in romance, and maybe we’re… not as much on the same page as we thought?

Which leads me to another thing about the mysterious fandom undercurrent that posits Wilhelm and Simon as the Ideal Model Romance—I feel like it creates less space for shipping other pairings or considering other romances within the YR universe. If Wilmon is not just a thing that is well-written and enjoyable (which it very much is! it’s so good!) and is instead held up by fandom as a sort of Moral Ideal, then every other pairing in the YR universe is going to get judged against them as a standard. Like why ship a rarepair like stedrika or like, idk, Ayub/Felice or something when you could be focused on the Moral Ideal of Love? And every other character’s morality is going to be determined by how much they support or oppose Wilmon, too. Linda is Good and She Supports Them While They Hook Up At Her House. Kristina is Bad and Threatens To Break Them Up With Her Royal Scepter. And so on and so forth. It feels like Wilmon is the ruler (haha no pun intended) and all the other characters are measured against it. Like other characters should be thinking about them or talking about them at all times or they’re just not worth our time enough.

This idealization is, I think, part of why people see shipping Wilmon and shipping something like sargust as mutually exclusive practices, and even occasionally view the practice of sargust-bashing as like… a community activity we all do as the YR fandom, that we do in support of Wilmon. Periodically I get comments from well-meaning humans who are like “well, you know people don’t ship sargust because of what they did to wilmon, right?” Which, I acknowledge that this is likely well-meaning, when people remind me of this. I also agree that a little bit of August-bashing is good times—hell, even I, someone who owns a cute plush effigy of August that I have no intention of burning at the stake, get in on bashing him. And at the same time I’m like, YES, of course I know what sargust did, I am 100% aware that August is a shitbag who needs accountability for his actual crimes and Sara thought he was kissable anyway. It’s very fair that that’s a dealbreaker for many people who like the show, and I get it when that’s why you (general) don’t ship them. And also… the moral dilemma of it all is part of what I personally find hot? And the part where August spent first season saying he’d rather die than sell his father’s stuff but then in season 2 he sells his father’s stuff to buy Sara her precious horse but also it’s a dick power move but also it shows so much change in August’s character even if it’s not the change we want for him? The stab in the gut that scene is as I watch both of their hearts break??? Y’all. Y’all I like that scene as much as I like “everything is fake” and Wilhelm’s hands covered in football dots. I am allowed to like both. Given what I usually look for in love stories, of course I’m going to like both.

What, blue, so you’re just saying that sargust is the ideal love story instead? No! No I’m not! IT IS IN FACT A SUSPICIOUS AND PROBLEMATIC SITUATION IN MAY WAYS. I’m saying I find them terribly fascinating, as fascinating as I find Wilhelm and Simon. And I’m also saying that the notion of any love story being ideal or a moral model isn’t a draw for me in the first place.

I like specific love stories, about specific people trying to work through specific shit in their lives. I like stories where people stay together forever. I like stories where people stay together a while but ultimately part ways with one another having learned a lot. I like Second Chance Romances. I like spectacularly explosive breakups. I like a lot of things.

So when I’m watching the discussion like the one currently going on at the confessions blog—where someone says something like, “I’m worried Wilmon won’t be endgame” and someone chimes in with “they probably will be, don’t worry!” I can personally vibe with that. I’m actually in favor of Wilmon being endgame for the series, whether they stay together into adulthood (something I would very much enjoy!) or break up a few years later. But when the discussion snowballs into Wilmon being perfect soulmates who are destined to be together, and they’ll never break up because they’re the perfect fairytale couple, I like… I start to feel that uncomfortable pressure to publicly express support for them as a Moral Ideal, instead of just as interesting people in an interesting situation, and I find myself retreating back inside my shell and staying quiet instead of participating.

And again I 100% get that like… for other people the opposite is reassuring. And that some people need that escapism, and that idealism. I don’t think one way or the other is a better way to be a fandom person. They’re both valid ways of fandoming.

I guess my question is… how do we all coexist with each other? Am I actually deluding myself, and maybe I’m just fandom broken? Or is there a certain level of amatonormativity and toxic monogamy that pervades fandom in general (extending this now to other media franchises as well) that’s getting to me, an annoying aro? I’m not saying we all have to change (again, this is not a call-out post) but I am saying I am still trying to figure out where I belong in fandom spaces now that I’ve returned to them after being away for a while, and I want to know how to curate my fandom experience accordingly. A lot of the general advice on curating one’s fandom experience does not work the same way in smaller fandoms than it does in larger ones, so. You know.

I feel like this kind of thing was easier on LJ, but I am probably idealizing my LJ years. I wonder if anyone feels the same way.

Anyway, there’s no conclusion here. I’ve basically vomited my brain onto the page and now I’ll see what happens.

[sleepy-spacetronaut]

🌌🌟✨Blog’s info drawer✨🌟🌌

✨Welcome to the space nook’s catalogue! Feel free to look around!

About me:

Username: Sleepy Spacetronaut , or Alciefer (Al, Alcie) on some other platforms.

Young adult.

Pronouns: anything except it/its, really. In case of doubt, please use They/them for me, thank you!

I make art, tiny comics, write stories and seldom poetry.

Main fandoms (more or less part of) : Gravity Falls, Les Misérables, Mob Psycho 100, That’s Not My Neighbor (Video Game)

Here I mainly post fandom content and artworks, but I can branch out to reblog humanitarian campaigns and those which appear in my asks. I will create a separate post for all of the campaigns I got sent so far.

Author’s note: (08/11/2024) Please refrain from sending consecutive messages into my inbox (one or two are sufficient), I am currently organizing a masterpost for all the campaigns I have been sent so far. Thank you for your understanding!

Advisory

Most of my content is either General or PG-13, I will not be drawing NSFW (specifically: Sexual or gore-y) content.

HOWEVER! I may draw other mature themes, including yet not limited to: partial nudity, strong language, or verbal/physical violence, in which case I will tag my posts accordingly. View those posts at your own discretion, I highly recommend that anyone younger than 16 y/o stirs away from there. I won’t be playing internet police to see who is looking at my content—i don’t have the time or patience for that. You are sentient and capable of thought, you know what’s right for you and what isn’t.

Side note: This post will be updated each time new content is generated.

Gravity falls & The Book of Bill (TBOB)

-Bill’s Human Design (first drawing) can be found here and the info sheet regarding his design here

-Gravity Falls Fanfic Idea w/Handyman Bill AU

-Bill Cipher - Human design Full-body

-Kid Bill design

-Creature Bill design

-When the Mystery Shack acquired a gremlin…

-Older Mabel design

-Older Dipper design*

-Gravity falls kids as adults*

-Weirdmaggedon 2.0*

Gravity Falls FanComics

-Chip Wars* -We meet again*

-A Family thing*

-Stargazers*

-“I did it , I saved the town”; Ford and Bill react to the animation*

Gravity H🕳️les

-Gravity Holes AU (my little creation :3)

-Dipper, Mabel and waddles design page

-Stanford and Stanley Pines design pages*

-The Holes theory*

-Gravity Holes Rescue Team*

-Life on the other side*

-Gravity Holes; “We found a bunker …”*

Gravity Falls - Rewind the Timeline AU

-Concept, design and fic idea (I will start writing it in December, but I already have 70% of the story outlined-> I will include the link to AO3 when it will be started)

-digitalized design

Gravity Falls - Vogelfrei (Pilot project V)

-Story specificities (production and etc)

-Fanfic masterpost ! *

My Student Spirit(MSS)/Дух Моей Общаги (ДМО)

-Elijah chibi fanart

My two cents plus tax! Fanart for @/geezerflakes’s webtoon

-Fanart here

[***This post is under construction. More content to be added.]

[sasquatchandleatherjacket]

@aborddelimpala hey thanks for tagging me in this post! happy to offer my $0.02. also thanks for sticking up for all of us creators!

so those sam girls posts- i remember i used to get tagged in them pretty often although i haven’t seen one in a while, i guess this is why? my personal request (which was on my about page when my about page worked-- anyone know why none of the links on my stupid blog are working? grrr) was this:

If you want to use one of my gifs as a reaction gif or in a compilation post that is fine, I only ask that you credit me somewhere/link back to my original. If you don’t I probably won’t do anything about it but I’ll think you’re a dick and that’s not what you want, is it?

i, personally, and i speak for me only, am ok with people posting a gif of mine in a compilation post or whatever if they give credit somewhere in the post. i’ve had people ask me if they can use a gif, either on this hellsite or somewhere else on al gore’s internet, and i always tell them it’s fine as long as they give credit. that’s ME though, i would not, and no one else should, assume that all gifmakers are ok with that. just fucking ask.

reposting with ANY attribution (even the “these gifs aren’t mine” [like no shit, dude] without saying who made them? or without honestly searching for the original creator and saying you did but you “couldn’t find them, if anyone knows who it is so i can give credit let me know”, etc) is garbage and lazy behavior. 

there’s a bro hug compilation going around where i think like 5 of the 6 gifs are mine, and the poster didn’t even indicate anywhere that they didn’t make any of the gifs. i was literally so shocked i compared them to mine frame by frame to make sure. yeah, that’s irritating. i commented on it so at least if someone looks at the notes they can see that it’s a repost (unless they blocked me but i don’t think they did). and look, i know in the grand scheme of things it’s not a huge deal. i’m not sitting here with my stomach in knots over it. but, like, come on guys. just learn how to make your own gifs. i’ll even help you. sheesh.

i try not to reblog posts like that and if i accidentally do, i hope someone lets me know so i can delete (i’ve done it by accident before, just simply not being aware that the OP wasn’t the OP, and was thankful someone told me and directed me to the original post).

tl;dr- i don’t have really any “fight the reposter” spoons, but like. don’t repost without credit/permission, guys. it’s a dick move.

[sydney-the-patriot-blog]

I was recently engaged in debate with a user named apersnicketylemon. The user replied one last time then blocked me so I could not respond. I typed out an entire counter argument before realizing I had been blocked and Tumblr was not allowing me to reblog the post. So, for anybody who was actually following that, here is my final retort. You can find the original debate on my page.

1. Alabama is a deeply red state. For a state made up mostly of conservatives to vote a democrat into office, a significant amount of conservatives in Alabama must have voted democrat. There aren't enough liberals in Alabama for Jones to have won if only a small portion of conservatives voted for him. More conservatives voted democrat than voted republican. This is basic math. You're not stupid.

2. If the people who voted for Moore are right-wing extremists, would you also argue that the students burning their own campuses and punching people in the face in protest when a republican comes to speak at their university are somehow NOT left-wing extremists? There always have been and always will be absurd people in the world. By your logic, people like ANTIFA must also be pulled closer toward the right. Unless you're actually not interested in evening things out at all and that's just an excuse to say it's okay to try and force people of differing opinions to agree with you, which is what I suspect is actually your motivation in saying that.

3. Even the Brookings Institute (which is left-leaning, by the way, and has been bitching about this bill for a while) admitted that 80.4% of Americans will see a tax cut through this bill and only 4.8% will see an increase. The average annual cut will be about $2,140, which is not an insignificant amount of money. 2027 is a long ways away and, I don't know if you noticed yet, but the right wing is going for a full tax reform. We want to lower taxes for everyone, not just the middle class. This bill is only the first step. Give it time.

4. Don't give me that "the system keeps wealthy people in power" bullshit. According to, again, the Brookings Institute, which is, again, left-leaning, there are only three things you have to do to avoid being permanently poor in the United States. You have to graduate high school, you have to hold down a job, and you have to get married before you have babies. That's it. These things are not exactly hard to do. 72% of people born poor who follow this formula will move into the middle class before age 30. There is tremendous income mobility in the U.S. Also, wealthy people don't all necessarily stay wealthy. "The 1%" doesn't refer to an actual group of people. The 1% is a buzzword that actually means very little. People move in and out of the 1% all the time, unless they're Bill Gates. Nobody "stays in power."

5. In what world does a dozen not mean twelve? It literally means twelve.

6. I scoured the internet for 30 minutes after reading your last reply looking for some hard evidence that he stole tax money or accepted gifts from foreign ambassadors. If the best you've got is "they payed to stay at his hotel!!!" then you're seriously reaching. Again, I don't like Trump. He does stupid things. I think having foreign ambassadors stay at Trump Towers and not even having the common courtesy to wave the bill is dumb and rude as shit, but I don't think it should be considered "accepting a gift" and I don't think it calls for impeachment.

7. 21 separate accusations of rape does not mean he is probably a rapist. It means there were millions of Hillary supporters who really, really, really didn't want him to president and thought the world would most definitely explode in 2017 if he won. If I go out onto the street right now, find a hardcore leftist and tell them I'm in favor of the tax bill that just passed, I would be labeled a nazi, among other things. I don't trust any of the shit leftists say when they're willing to label anybody who disagrees with them a literal Hitler supporter.

8. Even if Trump is a rapist, which I highly doubt, I still don't support a rapist, because I don't support Trump (this is like the third time I've said that but whatever.) I don't cheer on people, I cheer on ideas. My goal is to analyze and criticize him, and every other political figure, fairly. I actually criticize Trump more than I agree with him. But when I see people spreading blatant lies about ideas Trump supports for no reason other than the fact that they don't like him, yes, I'm going to make fun of those people. Get out of lockstep with politicians. Start thinking critically about things rather than just agreeing with whatever "your guys" are agreeing with.

9. James Comey is shady as hell (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/22353/fbi-confirms-comey-drafted-letter-clinton-ryan-saavedra%3famp). He was also a highly controversial figure to be running the FBI. But like I said, Trump does dumb shit and I think he jumped the gun in firing Comey. I don't think Trump wanted him to stop the investigation because he has something to hide. He's not that smart. I think he's offended almost as easily as SJW's - almost - and the dumbass thought the investigation was an attack on his character or some crap like that.

10. In the 1970's, climate alarmists were screeching about 'global cooling.' (https://www.scribd.com/doc/225798861/Newsweek-s-Global-Cooling-Article-From-April-28-1975) One common talking point for modern climate alarmists is that 97% of scientists believe climate change is man made and an urgent threat. That is patently false. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980?tesla=y) Some global warming alarmists were not able to get the results they wanted, so they tampered with the data. (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/3/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/ , https://bandlerblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/read-this-and-weep-al-gore/ , https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#283a7ba2988d) And finally, the climate just simply hasn't been rising at a very alarming rate (http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/06/a-new-record-pause-length-no-global-warming-for-18-years-7-months-temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/) Why do leftists have to bring climate change into literally everything?

11. "Well documented by real news sources." Real news sources that are all left-leaning, some of them even wholeheartedly liberal or leftist, but refuse to admit they have any sort of bias which is bullshit because everybody is politically biased. I'm honest enough to admit I have a conservative bias. You obviously have a liberal bias. There's no such thing as a human being who is invested in politics on any level being able to maintain an objective stance. Nobody is objective. Mainstream media sources are subjective and always have been.

12. Okay, so the things Trump has done that I think are actually good: ISIS's territorial holdings are practically nonexistent, the stock market is soaring and has been breaking record highs all year, unemployment statistics have significantly lowered, he decertified the Iran deal, he acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel's capital (which was always true but now it's being acknowledged), he repealed the individual mandate which has by and large been the most hated aspect of Obamacare, and I would consider the tax bill that just passed to be a win since it's the first step in achieving a full tax reform.

13. Trump has done significantly more bad things than good (for the fourth and final time, I don't support him). But to say he's pure evil and has done no good for this country at all is a blatant lie. Every president does both good and bad things and to pretend that's not the case is nonsensical. In this case the bad outweighs the good. That does not mean the good should all be ignored. Again, I rally for ideas, policies, and individual acts. I don't rally for specific people, because to rally for a person is to rally for the bad as well as the good and I refuse to fall into such a cultish thought process. It's called thinking for yourself. You should try it, it's very freeing.

14. A large number of conservatives don't actually fail to understand freedom of speech, you just happen to be full of fresh, steaming horse shit.

It's just now occurring to me that it was probably a waste of time to link to all those sources when the OP and the OP's cult-y lockstep followers likely won't bother clicking on a single link. But in any case, thank you and goodnight.