Hazy Thoughts and Half Remembered Dreams

Original thoughts and notable reposts 

[viralfrog]

[improbabledreams900]

Critical Role · Campaign 4, Episode 9

[touchstonelevity]

[shortgremlinman]

[robertreich]

Check out this new album

[socialistexan]

While American Jews are slightly more likely to see criticism or protest of Israel as antisemitic than the rest of the population, we are also significantly more likely to say those are *not* antisemitic, by large majorities.

When AIPAC or Dem Majority for Israel or any of their shell groups try to act as if criticism of Israel is antisemitic, just know that:

70% of American Jews do not think criticism of Israel is antisemitic, while only 20% do.

68% of American Jews do not think criticism of the IDF is antisemitic, while only 25% do.

49% of American Jews do not think protesting events that tangentially support Israel is antisemitic, while only 38% do.

AIPAC speaks for a minority of conservative Jews (who are only around 15-20% of the American Jewish population) and powerful billionaire donors, a good number of whom aren't even Jewish. It is time once and for all to end this vile lie that Israel=Jew and that all or even a majority of Jews support the apartied and genocide of the modern Israel occupation.

[datsderbunnyblog]

This comment was left on a post about making the most of the Libby app. "Excessive use of generous lending policies" is the most absurd phrase I've ever seen anyone use to discuss libraries.

[catboycommunist]

evergreen

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

looked up Heidi because I'm a journalist

for reasons I can't imagine this publisher of sexless Alaska love stories is averaging under 20 likes each on posts about her books, so if I can be so honest I kind of have my doubts that her books are getting read even with the excessive use of generous lending policies

[ariaste]

Also her claim that authors are not getting paid per borrow is.... wrong. With ebooks (which is what she's talking about here with Libby) there are two forms of licensing for libraries to lend out ebooks.

The first kind is that they buy a license for a pre-determined amount of check-outs. I'll just make some numbers up for the sake of illustrating what that looks like: Let's say $20 for 20 borrows. When the ebook has been checked out 20 times, the library has to renew the license and pay more money in order to continue lending out the ebook. The author gets a cut of that $20 as their royalties.

The second kind is literally paying per borrow. (Again just making up numbers here) Let's say the library pays 50 cents every time the book is checked out. The author still gets a cut as their royalties. Is it just 10 or 20 cents per borrow? Yes, but that adds up! AND it means that people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to read my book at all are able to read it, which is great! AND it means that the library is thriving and being used, which is also great!

So yes, authors DO get paid from library activity!!!!!!

Do not feel guilty for using the library. I don't know one single author (except this Little Miss Ma'am in the screenshots, apparently) who would resent their readers for using libraries.

[dykescully]

dykes for trans rights quilt - sarah-joy ford

[praxis-app]

join the praxis discord - sign up - github

[clearancecreedwatersurvival]

Moreover, overpopulation is an ecofascist myth specifically scapegoating ‘developing’ nations in the global south for climate disaster.

In reality, populations only rise so sharply as people begin to receive better access to healthcare and maternal and infant mortality in particular decrease. Eventually, as healthcare access is more evenly distributed through a population and people on a larger scale are able to access family planning care, the population stops increasing and levels out and decreases.

Which is why so-called ‘developed’ are all now manufacturing a crisis about population decline and not having enough bodies to fill out the labor force while simultaneously fearmongering about overpopulation in racialized groups. It’s eugenics shit.

[i-used-to-be-a-spy]

This video is almost 10 years old and is so good at educating against ecofascist ideas of overpopulation. Makes me angry 10 years later we're still dealing with eugenics

[headspace-hotel]

I LOVE THIS VIDEO AND I LOST IT FOR AGES AND NOW I FOUND IT

Everybody go watch Hans Rosling destroy ecofascism thank u

[theonion]

Dazed while trying to piece together the series of bizarre yet deeply vivid images, the entire nation reportedly awoke Monday from a strange dream in which it had been watching soccer. “I wasn’t just willingly viewing it, I actually cared who won, and I was tuning in right here in the United States instead of watching it in Europe or someplace like that,” said 27-year-old Philadelphia resident Erika Sloan, one of the 340 million bewildered Americans who were kneading their foreheads in an attempt to recall the almost lifelike scenes in which they knew when Cape Verde was playing and had an opinion on whether a player was offside.

Full Story

[agoodjake54-deactivated20150429]

[ruinedchildhood]

Jinkies

[jesterday00]

Jeepers!

[dollfacemcghost]

Zoinks!

[galvaniccorsair]

Ruh roh!

[paperandpencilsandskips]

FUCK

[pirateprincessjess]

My favorite part of this post is that it implies Fred is the one saying “FUCK” because we know who typically says the other 4 things

[notaplaceofhonour]

which makes sense as he’s the one who actually legally owns it

[queer-as-city-folk]

Homophobic bigots get shit thrown at the stimboard

[aodhanjam]

[queer-as-city-folk]

I tried to find a gif of it and couldn't, if anyone has a gif of farage getting milkshaked, please send it to me

[queer-as-city-folk]

One had been sent in!!!

[hylltonart]

Study I finished painting today!

Timelapse

[boudicca]

"comrade in arms" yeah i bet he was in your arms. every night. fruit

[wizard-council-bureaucrat]

🦠

Take this you will need it further in your journey...

Due to the sharp increase in magic prices since the Wizard War, wizards will be doing the much cheaper biological warfare

[probably-things-and-brian]

@diseases-for-center-control

[diseases-for-center-control]

by god the wizards got the lettuce

[lost-carcosa]

[targetedknowledge]

[frankiesbullshit]

someone tell OP i did it, i spent about 3 hours on it

[mockiatoh]

I think it’s important to be able to recognize the different between our emotional response, our moral response, and what we believe should be our legal response.

For example, emotionally, I genuinely think less of someone who buys into stupid conspiracies about organ donation. I think that morally, if you are unwilling (unwilling, not medically unable) to donate organs, you should not be an organ candidate. I don’t think you should be able to say ‘If I’m dead I want all of my organs to rot, even if they could save lives. But I also want to benefit from other people’s sacrifice.’ Fuck you.

But I do not believe it would be ethical (or practical) to legislate that. I think it would be a horrible ethical violation and medical coercion. I recognize that, even as I’m disgusted by people who would let someone die when saving lives would cost them nothing.

Legal codes and ethical guidelines shouldn’t be based around our feelings.

[mockiatoh]

Not long ago, there was an attempt to pass a law where if a baby was born sick and addicted to drugs, the mother could face child abuse charges and have parental rights terminated. Stepping back from any emotional response—either to the criminalization of addiction or to the suffering of newborns—is extremely difficult. I don’t know if it’s a subject that I could have that level of clarity on because it’s such an emotional topic. 

But what I want to highlight is the political bloc who were most effective against the law, and led to its defeat: community healthcare workers who were on the frontlines, whose careers very often were at that intersection of drug abuse and child suffering. 

Their argument wasn’t primarily about the parental rights of the mothers, or about the criminalization of substance use disorders. Instead, it was about what public health policies work in the real world, and what policies cause more harm. They argued these women would be afraid to access resources for harm reduction during pregnancy. This would result in heavier drug usage during pregnancy than if they were able to access harm reduction strategies and resources. There would also be an increase in abandoned infants, babies who are very sick and need immediate medical help. Fear of punishment wouldn’t help anyone. 

In a practical manner, this legislation would likely do more harm while not addressing the actual problems. Several different policies were instituted instead, ones that had been proven effective in practice. I think that there are some situations that we can only find solutions if we can step away from our immediate emotional response to think, or understand that we aren't the right person to try to fix this problem, and focus on where we can make a positive impact instead.

[fransharp]

Can confirm. I think one of the most devastating conversations I have ever had in 12 years in obstetrics was with an addicted mother. What she said has lived in my brain rent free ever since. She said: I really thought this baby would keep me clean.

She wanted to do right by her baby so bad. That baby was something to work for to strive for. We should be helping people like her be the best parents they can be. Not punishing them (and in turn their babies) for conceiving them in less than perfect circumstances. That fixes nothing. Maybe gives you a little hard on your your perceived superiority. But it helps nothing.