Fierce, Gitaxian Librarian

shiny and chrome

[thistoowillpasss]

[thistoowillpasss]

[thistoowillpasss]

[thistoowillpasss]

[kittykittyredcat]

[quakerjoe]

[captain-price-returns]

A real page on the White House website

[free-and-to-none-accountable]

The American century of humiliation is goin great 👍

[virtualgirladvance]

every time I think of putting political commentary in my art america just pumps out a new all time low shot and i have to wonder if ill ever keep up

[xerserise]

Stop asking 'but without police, how will we address crime?'

Crime is a social construct. We could eliminate all crime right now, simply by making everything legal. And cops don't stop crime (typically). They don't protect people (typically). They show up, after the fact, and put people into the prison system, where, if found guilty (or coerced into taking a plea bargain, even if innocent), they can be legally enslaved (in the US, at least).

So, um, maybe don't ask the equivalent of 'how will we enforce the laws that the state enacts, if we don't have armed thugs threatening people with death and enslavement?' It kind of makes you look like a bootlicker.

[top-lil]

"Crime is a social construct" is a good example of something that is true by definition, yet entirely useless by all other metrics. Yeah, "fruits" are also a social construct, but there are many good reasons as to why apples or peaches make for good pie filling, while rock salt and metal filings don't.

Predicting crimes is hard, generally, even with the modern panopticon in consideration. That's why criminal justice, instead of trying to physically preclude crime, leverages long-term personal consequences. Such a tactic obviously doesn't work perfectly; many people may consider the risk still worth it, or just don't consider the long-term in the first place. But it's a third barrier to some specific crimes most people agree are typically bad (murder and rape, mainly), reinforcing the existing social and psychological barriers. There's also the calculus that keeping people who are guilty of particularly heinous acts separate from civil society prevents them from committing more of those same acts... except against each other, I guess. But then it doesn't strongly affect anyone else, so the calculus still works.

There are crimes on some books that defy these purposes, and exist as either extensions of more coherent crimes into contexts that make much less sense, or means of social control. "Digital piracy" is a good example of the former, "hate speech" is a good example of the latter. And this sort of belief makes some sense when considering victimless crimes such as these. But consider...

Rape and murder. What's the fucking answer for those?

Undue mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

[xerserise]

Hate speech is not a victimless 'crime', it's a reinforcement of societal biases that maintains unjust hierarchies.

Also, you eliminate a lot of 'crime' by eliminating unjust hierarchies.

Also, you eliminate a lot of 'crime' by having a society where everyone's needs are met,

Also, studies show that punitive justice systems don't work.

Also, cops don't stop murders or arrest rapist, in the vast majority of cases.

Whatever the answer is, it isn't what we have now.

[top-lil]

"Hate speech" is a farcical, and intentionally vague, concept, created to artificially inflate the supply of "crime" and to use state violence to coerce political conformity. Policing speech is a tool of "unjust hierarchies", you complete rube.

"Also, you eliminate a lot of 'crime' by having a society where everyone's needs are met" Not "a lot", just some. Shoplifting food isn't a particularly large slice of the pie...

Also, studies show that 99% of statements prefaced with "studies show" are bullshit.

"Also, cops don't stop murders" Neither do hugs and kisses. Again, the idea is that long-term personal consequences will preclude a lot of people from committing particularly heinous acts. It doesn't work perfectly, because many people just don't care about long-term consequences, if they consider them at all.

"arrest rapist[s]" This is sometimes true (see: the grooming gangs scandal in the UK), but any appearances to this effect are mostly an illusion of statistics being portrayed in a dishonest manner.

"Whatever the answer is, it isn't what we have now."

And it's not having no system at all, either. You dodged my question last time, so I'll make it easier: what the fuck is your plan for any heinous act? Or is it the typical "prison abolitionist" bullshit where there is no plan, and you're driven entirely by bellyfeel?

[fierceawakening]

“Crime is a social construct. We could eliminate all crime right now, simply by making everything legal. “

But I don’t want to make lynching legal. Sorry about that.

The leftism leaving people’s bodies, again.

(I do not agree with everything @top-lil is saying here, but ‘we could simply make everything legal’ nearly made me spit out my drink. Sure, we could do that. We could do a lot of very dumb things. Doesn’t mean we should.)

[xerserise]

See, there's this thing called logic. Nowhere did I say that we *should* make everything legal. What I said was that crime is a social construct, and I pointed out that we *could* eliminate crime by making everything legal. 'Crime' is anything that people decide is a crime. It's not some inherent thing with its own existence. It's whatever we label as crime.

Anyway, way to continue missing the point, which was: "So, um, maybe don't ask the equivalent of 'how will we enforce the laws that the state enacts, if we don't have armed thugs threatening people with death and enslavement?' It kind of makes you look like a bootlicker."

[fierceawakening]

Okay, but my question remains, which is; in a world where the state can enforce no agreed upon rules at all, what do we do with lynchers?” It’s not a weird hypothetical. Lynchings are absolutely currently happening.

If the state cannot enforce the rule “no lynching,”who enforces it instead?

[sister-lucifer]

i would trust weird al with my drink at a party. granted he may put one of those capsules that expands into a sponge animal in it,

[rhyme-plus-zombie]

sorry i had a vision and i just had to draw it

[vinceaddams]

It's nice that loud noises don't stick to clothes like smells do. That would be really bad if they did.

[banderboucher]

[fierceawakening]

JFK is Emrakul????)

[nokie]

this video changed me as a person

[jelloswingsets]

[Video description: Someone offscreen uses a Hatsune Miku hand puppet to play an IPad rhythm game. The song has a fast tempo and a complicated beat pattern on the game. The player doesn't miss a beat. When the song ends, the game shows, "Full Combo." The Miku puppet does a happy dance. /end description]

[xerserise]

Stop asking 'but without police, how will we address crime?'

Crime is a social construct. We could eliminate all crime right now, simply by making everything legal. And cops don't stop crime (typically). They don't protect people (typically). They show up, after the fact, and put people into the prison system, where, if found guilty (or coerced into taking a plea bargain, even if innocent), they can be legally enslaved (in the US, at least).

So, um, maybe don't ask the equivalent of 'how will we enforce the laws that the state enacts, if we don't have armed thugs threatening people with death and enslavement?' It kind of makes you look like a bootlicker.

[top-lil]

"Crime is a social construct" is a good example of something that is true by definition, yet entirely useless by all other metrics. Yeah, "fruits" are also a social construct, but there are many good reasons as to why apples or peaches make for good pie filling, while rock salt and metal filings don't.

Predicting crimes is hard, generally, even with the modern panopticon in consideration. That's why criminal justice, instead of trying to physically preclude crime, leverages long-term personal consequences. Such a tactic obviously doesn't work perfectly; many people may consider the risk still worth it, or just don't consider the long-term in the first place. But it's a third barrier to some specific crimes most people agree are typically bad (murder and rape, mainly), reinforcing the existing social and psychological barriers. There's also the calculus that keeping people who are guilty of particularly heinous acts separate from civil society prevents them from committing more of those same acts... except against each other, I guess. But then it doesn't strongly affect anyone else, so the calculus still works.

There are crimes on some books that defy these purposes, and exist as either extensions of more coherent crimes into contexts that make much less sense, or means of social control. "Digital piracy" is a good example of the former, "hate speech" is a good example of the latter. And this sort of belief makes some sense when considering victimless crimes such as these. But consider...

Rape and murder. What's the fucking answer for those?

Undue mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

[xerserise]

Hate speech is not a victimless 'crime', it's a reinforcement of societal biases that maintains unjust hierarchies.

Also, you eliminate a lot of 'crime' by eliminating unjust hierarchies.

Also, you eliminate a lot of 'crime' by having a society where everyone's needs are met,

Also, studies show that punitive justice systems don't work.

Also, cops don't stop murders or arrest rapist, in the vast majority of cases.

Whatever the answer is, it isn't what we have now.

[top-lil]

"Hate speech" is a farcical, and intentionally vague, concept, created to artificially inflate the supply of "crime" and to use state violence to coerce political conformity. Policing speech is a tool of "unjust hierarchies", you complete rube.

"Also, you eliminate a lot of 'crime' by having a society where everyone's needs are met" Not "a lot", just some. Shoplifting food isn't a particularly large slice of the pie...

Also, studies show that 99% of statements prefaced with "studies show" are bullshit.

"Also, cops don't stop murders" Neither do hugs and kisses. Again, the idea is that long-term personal consequences will preclude a lot of people from committing particularly heinous acts. It doesn't work perfectly, because many people just don't care about long-term consequences, if they consider them at all.

"arrest rapist[s]" This is sometimes true (see: the grooming gangs scandal in the UK), but any appearances to this effect are mostly an illusion of statistics being portrayed in a dishonest manner.

"Whatever the answer is, it isn't what we have now."

And it's not having no system at all, either. You dodged my question last time, so I'll make it easier: what the fuck is your plan for any heinous act? Or is it the typical "prison abolitionist" bullshit where there is no plan, and you're driven entirely by bellyfeel?

[fierceawakening]

“Crime is a social construct. We could eliminate all crime right now, simply by making everything legal. “

But I don’t want to make lynching legal. Sorry about that.

The leftism leaving people’s bodies, again.

(I do not agree with everything @top-lil is saying here, but ‘we could simply make everything legal’ nearly made me spit out my drink. Sure, we could do that. We could do a lot of very dumb things. Doesn’t mean we should.)

[avadaniels]

these guys haven't seen goncharov

[medusadyke]

tumblr discourse after 13 years on this fucking website

[princessnijireiki]

[top-lil]

"prison abolition" is a hilarious position, because proponents respond to obvious, vital questions like "how will you manage serial murderers and rapists?" with "d-don't worry about it, things will be different, and because they'll be different, they'll be BETTER!"

but there's a better hypothetical: ask what they would want to happen if they were a victim of a hate crime. should the perpetrator be merely rehabilitated? locked away for an arbitrary amount of time? executed on the spot?

obviously, when people are unwilling or unable to consider even first-order consequences of a policy, expecting them to comprehend a hypothetical is a tall order. but it at least makes them look even dumber ;)

[fierceawakening]

This is how it seems to me too. That people forget about things like hate crimes, lynchings, etc.

Or maybe they’re just cynically assuming that the perpetrators of those crimes don’t get convicted, so it doesn’t matter.

It very much seems to me like an instance of leftism leaving people’s body though. Marginalized people need to be protected from aggression by the powerful, who attack and abuse them… uh, but… no one should punish anyone, so we can’t actually make doing those things unpleasant for the perpetrators… but um

So yeah.

[fierceawakening]

...so Ghislaine is fine?

(This line of thinking confuses me so much. I don't see how anyone who has ever spoken to anyone who's been abused or experienced a serious crime can agree with it at all.)

[fierceawakening]

That’s what I think every time I see it. I know we all love LeGuin, and far be it for me to take a dump on one of the greats, but if no one ever deserves anything, then it’s perfectly fine for exploiters to exploit, because if you tell them you deserve better they can just say no one deserves anything.

Which is really weird to me coming from leftists. It screws up the whole idea that laborers should be treated well, which is pretty core to leftism.

So I dunno. It really does seem to be sometimes that people believe a bunch of leftist Things and don’t really consider how they fit together.

So you get “prison is bad so no one deserves anything” alongside “labor is good so everyone deserves fair wages” and people not seeing that you have to do the flippity floppity cognitive dissony to believe both things at once.

And I see both posts and go “huh, I can see that stuff about the capitalism! Literally everyone, even people I despise, deserve better!” to one and then, “hey! I just decided this shit is pretty important! I can’t toss it now!” to the other one, and they go “not really a leftist.”

And I’m just like my possible but not necessarily sibling in Christ, I’m just trying to avoid blatant doublethink here, because if I don’t I’m gonna know I’m not being consistent and it’s gonna really annoy me until I go fix it anyway.

[fierceawakening]

I have no illusions that he will save us, but I am very much here for Not Giving A Flying Fuck Hunter Biden.

[pangur-and-grim]

does anyone else have knees that stop working? like you balance your weight wrong, and it's like well, now I don't have a knee for the next three days

[fierceawakening]

This is me rn

I’m currently on vacation in Greece. With this exact flavor of shit knee.

Im having a lovely time but MY BONES

[cherryhatter-deactivated2015072]

KICK THE CAN!

Let’s play the biggest game of kick the can on the internet.

To kick the can, reblog it. I wanna see how long this can go on for.

[visibun]

the oldest reblogs for this post that i can find are from january 2nd of 2013. this can has been getting kicked around tumblr for almost 13½ years now

[whiteshakira]

1 time i watched this youtube video called "every time a person of color has had a line in the harry potter movies" & it was only like 10 minutes long but also the "person of color" with by far the most lines was this shrunken head with a jamaican accent

[fierceawakening]

Have we come up with a word for “completely unsurprised yet nonetheless profoundly dismayed” yet?

These Days we certainly need it.