OH! This is the first time I’ve seen a picture for it!
this is my single favorite halloween post in all of time and history
Today's Document
i don't do bad sauce passes
noise dept.
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
AnasAbdin
Keni

oozey mess
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Sweet Seals For You, Always

Andulka
Misplaced Lens Cap

Product Placement
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
KIROKAZE
No title available
RMH
hello vonnie

No title available

tannertan36
seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from China

seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from Singapore

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Chile

seen from Saudi Arabia
@beardednaturalist
OH! This is the first time I’ve seen a picture for it!
this is my single favorite halloween post in all of time and history
thinkin thoughts! this one’s called “niche market”
[ID: A four-panel comic drawn in black and white, its panels arranged in a square.
Panel one shows an anxious person with tattoos and piercings in a black shirt. Caption: “I used to worry that no one would ever find me attractive”
In panel two, a garage band performs in industrial setting. The singer, guitarist, keyboardist, and audience revel under a leaky pipe with spider webs. Caption: “But I figure I’m like a shitty basement ska show”
Panel three shows two people singing and playing guitar together. Caption: “Which isn’t as likeable as a lot of other shows”
Panel four shows two people standing together, one in a black shirt, one in white, surrounded by sparkles. The one on the left is blushing and the one on the right is smiling. Caption: “But for the people who want to be there, it’s perfect.” /end ID]
Why is it always ‘queer people are projecting their identities onto characters’ and never ‘straight people are presuming that their identity is the default’?
I COULD NOT REBLOG THIS FAST ENOUGH
Capitalism is cancerous. It ruins everything and we've got (late-)stage 4 terminal capitalism. Now this is true everywhere but fuck if I have not felt it qquite as strongly as I do in the video game industry (well I feel it more so in medicine and insurance than here but that not as ingrained in my everyday now its corroding my escape) Capitalism- loot boxes, mobile games, micro transactions, pay to win, pay to customize, and all the other symptoms- have destroyed so many franchises in the last 2 years. Bethesda? Fucking dead to me. Blizzard? Been dying for ever and and Overwatch was the final coffin nail. Starwars? Its being done by EA Nuff said. Pokemon? Being dismantled by Pokemon Go and the money its making. I just want fun entertainment that I can actually just play and enjoy and I just keep having capitalism eek its way in and ruin the results. Any of the above could be salvaged if it wasnt all about the money. Well maybe not Bethesda and Fallout 76, not unless the held onto it for another 2-3 years and had a real beta test phase.
Fucking Pokemon though! The whole reason we are losing the national dex ties back to Pokemon Go and the other mobile titles. Its why we havent gotten any spin off titles since it was released, and its why we got the watered down mess that is Let’s Go instead of a Diamond and Pearl remake. Please Nintendo save The Pokemon Company from itself you are the only (major) company I know that still has any semblance of decency and dedication to quality and loyalty. In conclusion Capitalism is a Plague and its infected my fantasies and I want to cry.
Source: [x]
Click HERE for more facts!
I love bees. They ease my stress.
......WTF that are really trying to move us backward arent they. Fucking Misogynistic fuckwads.
Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.
Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.
“BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!” “But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
“But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”
I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!
The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.
reblogging for more top commentary
They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.
The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.
The only reason people are against this is because when people are financially stable there is less crime (therefore less prison industrial complex free labour) there are less medical problems (IE less hospital visits meaning less money for the medical and pharmaceutical companies) and the point I am making is that a full guaranteed income to all means that those wealthy people at the top get less money and so they try and fool you into thinking it’s bad so you help encourage them lining their pockets.
Just so everyone knows we have a Presidential Candidate that is running on a Universal Basic Income platform. Only $12k a year but its a solid start. An extra $1000 a month would do so much good for so many people. His name is Andrew Yang by the way. And here is his campaign website: www.yang2020.com
So has anyone out there put together an anti-fascist, anti-racist, and anti-capitalist mailing list we can sign up known conservatives to receive a torrent of information contrary to their ideologies. A bit of immersion therapy if you will. My jackass of a grandfather is apparently signed up to receive things from Judicial Watch (a racist-trump-loving-deep-state-conspiracy-believing-shitshow of an action group) and I think its time he received some information from another source. Or at least annoyed him to the point of getting a new email.
This is literally WALL-E lmfao
Good tags
He pitches an escape from earth? Sounds good to me. Let’s shoot him into the sun, then loot and pillage his stuff to our heart’s content.
All good suggestions my fellows. I'll get started on the catapult. Might not break out of the atmosphere on the first go but thats a risk im willing to take.
In the gun control debate, one reason why self-defense against tyranny is brushed off so often is because a lot of folks making that argument love tyranny.
No conservative militia would defend their black and brown neighbors against state violence. None of them lift a finger against ICE. They always defend the most repressive elements of the state, from the police to the army. They always make excuses for grotesque wealth inequality. They’re happy to attack whistleblowers at the service of the deep state (the only reason some of them criticize it now is because they think it’s politically biased, as opposed to the enormous power it wields).
The vast majority of marginalized people, including myself, don’t believe that mainstream gun culture favors our freedom. It’s exclusively authoritarian, made by and for traditionalists, nationalists, and others like them. These people want to regulate what kind of marriage is legitimate, what bathrooms trans and non-binary people can use, whether their kids are gay or straight, who can come into the country, and so on. At their worst, they’ll kill us themselves. The idea that those same people will stop LARPing the American Revolution and actually fight tyranny today is hilarious. Nobody believes it.
It’s terrible, because the core argument is correct. Taking guns away from the public and leaving the state with the authority to use them is terrifying. The state is always the greatest purveyor of violence. In the US, where police regularly profile and kill black people for the most trival bullshit, robbing them of even the slightest chance of an equal playing field is incredibly dangerous. The old Black Panther Party was able to prevent police violence against black people by open-carrying guns, and because of this, conservatives at the time were strong proponents of gun control. Liberals love to quote Ronald Reagan on the topic …
Americans don’t go around carrying guns with the idea they’re using them to influence other Americans. There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.
… but either don’t know or gloss over the fact that he was justifying a racist law, passed in response to the Black Panther Party resisting racist police.
We see the same reactionary underbelly of gun control today. The justification behind New York’s stop-and-frisk law “is to disarm likely suspects, although it has become a general law-and-order measure, particularly to enforce gun laws.” Existing laws, especially stop-and-frisk, disproportionately target black people. As much as authoritarians of different stripes would like to claim otherwise, laws are not neutral in practice. We are socialized into hierarchies. The existence of law is proof enough; the idea that we can isolate law in a vacuum, away from hierarchically-defined behavior, is absurd.
Gun control doesn’t just control the distribution of guns. It controls people. And more often than not, it controls marginalized people.
Back in 2012, there were 1,360 militia groups in the US. How many of those do you think were radical? Anti-racist? Anti-fascist? Can you even name one? Whatever answers you came up with, I’m sure they were deeply uncomfortable. This is not a position we want to be in. This is why a radical gun culture is overdue for us. This is why we need individual and communal self-defense. We’ve made some progress with organizations like Redneck Revolt, the John Brown Gun Club, Trigger Warning, the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, and probably a bunch of local groups I’m not aware of. But we’re still outgunned. Radicals need to make a complete break with liberalism on this front. That doesn’t mean fetishizing violence, as authoritarians do. It means recognizing that the freedom of one is the freedom of all. It means recognizing that this principle actually means something, and that you’re willing to do whatever it takes to defend it. It means a profound love for your neighbor — no matter what race, gender, or sexuality they are — that transcends any political or philosophical principle, and that love is not the same as being passive.
That’s what self-defense against tyranny really means.
This really addresses my feeling on gun control and gun culture. For anyone that doesnt know o was very deep into gun culture at 1 point and ot started pretty much 100% becuase of the deaire to be armed against an oppressive government and protecting my loved ones. And while at the time i was mistaken on the origin of the threat, and it opened me up to near radicalization in some scary ways the anchors i had were my queer family and the fact I prefer to be driven by love not hate. Ive since dove deep into the left but i still believe there is a balance to gun control that could save lives and protect freedoms that neither the liberals or conservatives will acknowledge or consider. We need more community defense groups and that doesnt need to mean people walking around with guns it means coming together knowing one another, teaching what we can and if someone steps out of line and threats violence in out community being ready to react rationally and accordingly. We are all comrades out here we just dont have the connection yet. This has been rambly but suffice to say i think there is a place for guns in a more communal world but there are people standing in the way on both sides of the center putting people in danger and pushing the bigoted militias forward. Fuck guns are a messy dirty subject.
As part of my recent deep dive into philosophy and political economy, today’s audiobook is The Federalist Papers, and man…I really wish they’d teach The Federalist Papers in more detail in civics class, because Hamilton, Madison, and Jay are very up-front about their desire for an American empire and their suggestions for making one. They’re not even subtle.
Madison is such an absolute hawk. He’s all like “The democratic-republicans think we shouldn’t have a standing army, but if we don’t maintain a peacetime army then how are we gonna use the threat of force to bully our neighbors into compliance? Or finish doing genocides on the natives? And what if someday we need to kill a whole bunch of our own citizens and establish a police state? Betcha didn’t think about that!”
I try to avoid commenting overmuch on pop culture negatively or taking a dump on people’s favorite media but I swear to God if anybody from the Hamilton fandom comes on this post all like “Oh there go my faves being drama queens again :3” then I’m gonna come to your house and tar and feather you and force you to move to Kentucky.
These people were goddamn animals.
In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention. All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. “We subscribe to the doctrine,” might one of our Southern brethren observe, “that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist no. 54
So yeah. I’ll help you with the tar and feathering.
That passage in particular is… complicated. Hamilton’s argument is less that slave shouldn’t be viewed as people, and more that Southern slaveowners were perfectly willing to call slaves “people” when it came to things like determining population for governmental seats, but “property” for things like. Rights, and freedoms, and stuff. The man himself was nowhere near perfect, but he was an abolitionist.
“This is in fact their true character.” is a glaringly unambiguous statement
“Like, yeah they’re people, but we can still own them.”
I dunno how you interpret that any way but “Wow fuck this asshole.”
Also just because he was an abolitionist doesn’t mean he wasn’t a huge racist too—which is more than obvious from his own words.
Dunking on the Founding Fathers for their shitty ideas is necessary and Good. There are far better political theorists out there.
Make Socialism Common Ownership Of The Means Of Production Again
Forget this foul “capitalism and socialism can coexist” socdem fantasy. If capitalists are exploiting workers, communities, and the environment for accumulation and profit, it’s capitalism. Increasing the size of the welfare state and improving the roads doesn’t change that inherent logic. We need full economic democracy and production for human needs rather than for elite profits.
People first ✊☀️
Demolish the nuclear family norm. Destroy the idea that your only option is to live alone until you move in with a romantic partner with the intention of marrying.
Realize that burdens are easier shared, and humans aren’t solitary creatures. Remember that living with others you can share resources, share skills, share responsibility.
If you are dreading the idea of living alone, realize you don’t have to.
Move in with your friends, create your own little commune. Support eachother and split costs. Complement eachothers shortcomings. Be there for eachother. Coexist.