I made seventeen bucks on the app store lads
What's your app?
Sade Olutola
đ
trying on a metaphor
Game of Thrones Daily
ojovivo

Origami Around

romaâ
Today's Document
đȘŒ

blake kathryn
Noah Kahan
cherry valley forever
Not today Justin
Misplaced Lens Cap

ellievsbear
No title available

â
DEAR READER
No title available

⣠Chile in a Photography âŁ

seen from Italy
seen from Sweden
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia

seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from Philippines
seen from Italy
seen from Russia

seen from Italy
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Nepal

seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from South Africa
seen from Germany
seen from United States
@industrial-angel
I made seventeen bucks on the app store lads
What's your app?
itâs been a couple of years and Iâm still scratching my head over the syllogism
1. all boys are bad 2. some boys are trans 3. therefore not all boys are bad
it keeps on popping up tho
Proof by contradiction!
Do the kids still say things are based?
if they belong on the short bus
Imma keep saying based until Iâm 90. All the slang from my generation sucked. I like this generationâs slang better.
Have fun being a plague on society
Fucking yolo bro
One of my friends tried to get all of us to start saying âsolarâ and it never caught on and i pray for him everyday
Your friend was solar, dude.
(Note: Rehashing things Iâve said before, definitely a late-night rant)
I still find the fact that 46% of the country decided to vote for Donald fucking Trump of all people for President to be completely baffling at a gut level.Â
How could anyone possibly have been comfortable voting for such an obviously mean, selfish, low-IQ, inexperienced, incoherent, authoritarian, and unserious person? How could otherwise educated, moral, rational people, have voted for this man (as many otherwise well-educated, moral, and rational Republicans did)? I still feel like I live in a bad satire of America rather than the real world.
Even if I grant every critique of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and I try to inhabit the mindset of a person with conservative policy views, and I concede all the frustration with the cultural left that many on the right feel, I still donât see how there is even a contest between which one would be preferable to run our military, our diplomacy, and our nuclear weapons. Like shouldnât basic respectability and competence trump all else when the other candidate completely fails on those metrics?
I feel a deep shame whenever I think about the fact that such a horrible man is the face of my nation. I didnât feel that way about Bush, I would not have felt that way about McCain or Romney.
Something is rotten about the right in this country, something so rotten that they all thought that somehow Trump was a lesser of evils choice. There were signs of this rot earlier: the rise of Fox News, talk radio, and Breitbart, the crazier elements of the Tea Party (Sharon Angle, Christine OâDonnell, Todd Aiken), the radicalization of Republicans in Congress and state legislatures, but it wasnât clear until Trump how deep the rot went.
The left is by no means perfect, not even close, and if this were another time with a more normal President Iâd be more comfortable focusing more of my time on that. But there really is no equivalence between the leftâs dysfunctionâs and the rightâs. Right now there really is something truly different, something scary, something very big and uniquely bad going on with the right at a systemic, sociological level that I donât really understand no matter how much I obsess about it, at least at an emotional level.
Half the country was willing to accept authoritarian rhetoric. Half the country was willing to accept incoherence and stupidity and lying. Half the country was willing to accept meanness, endorsement of sexual assault, and racist rhetoric. Most Republican voters are not authoritarians, racists, sexists, liars, or mean, but they didnât mind voting for it at all.
Thatâs terrifying.
I want you to imagine that there was a group within your country that had been mass kidnapping kids for sex trafficking with more or less impunity, for years.
The police refused to do anything about it. Â The politicians not only claimed it wasnât happening, but celebrated bringing more of that group. Â The media gaslit you and said it wasnât happening.
In fact, when you raised objections, you were sent for ideological retraining.
Of course, Iâm not talking about the United States.
But suppose someone in the United States did know about such a thing happening.  And the same cycle of âbut it isnât realâ was being used by the same ideological groups to claim that what happened in another developed country was impossible, that it would never happen, and certainly wasnât happening there and could not possibly happen here.
Approximately how many layers of âFUCK YOUâ would they want to send those ideological groups as a message?  Why on Earth would they care about those groupsâ criticisms when said groups are a bunch of lying hypocrites?
Quite frankly, if youâre actually baffled that they could put Trump in the Whitehouse, you donât understand Trump voters as well as you think you do.
And those Very Serious People that Clinton was the representative of?  Clinton wanted even more involvement in Syria than Trump has so far actually provided.  She said as much right before he missile striked that airbase, and we all know that the MSM would have been chanting âYASS, QUEEN, SLAY! #STRONGWOMENâ the whole time.
I didnât vote for Trump, but the Serious People have worn down the value of being perceived as serious. Â If we get through to 2020 with no new big wars, Iâm going to chalk it up as a victory.
Imagine feeling how you do that Trump couldn't possibly be the lesser of two evils, but instead feeling exactly the same way about hildog.
Northern California is burning: the Rocky Fire has charred nearly 70,000 acres west of Clearlake, while the Jerusalem Fire has grown to more than 14,000 acres, forcing the evacuation of 150 homesâŠ
Let this article be a reminder to yall, while the forest services are refusing to pay volunteer firefighters as forest fire season becomes critical, this absolutely will harm inmates forced into prison labor.Â
california is not above abusing their power over prisoners.Â
The article calls these people volunteers. But their other options beside volunteering are making even less money and being even more restricted. The word âvolunteerâ becomes weighted.
There are no true choices in prison. It is slave labor.
they literally explicitly say they want the prison population as full as possible so they donât run out of cheap firefighter labor. they donât even have a euphemism for it. fucking murder these pigs
âVoluntarismâ under capitalism
A relative of mine was convicted for second degree murder due to an accident while driving under the influence. She volunteered as a firefighter in California to get time off her sentence. My understanding was that it really was voluntary.
Thoughts on the English Civil War:
Keep reading
The meme of the good King/Tsar/Emperor being lead astray by bad advice is so prevalent even in modern times that I think itâs impossible to eradicate.
Itâs probably related to the Just World Hypothesis: obviously things are messed up, any fool can see that, but the whole world canât be a mess, as that would be unbearable. Ergo, there is someone at the top who is good and pure and noble, but somewhere along the line things get messed up by Rasputin, evil eunuchs, corrupt local magistrates, or whatever.
You can see identical things written about Bush, Obama, and just about every other world leader. âHe wants to do this, but his hands are tied!â
and perhaps conversely that bad rulers are personally to blame for everything that goes wrong, and not some combination of incentives and economic factors outside their control.
Moral agency arbitrage.
posts yâall love: iterating over every possible combination of a set of items to generate cheap wacky humour.
posts yâall hate: anything remotely critical of anything remotely tech related.
yeah this is a callout post
post yâall love: dank memes
posts yâall hate: advocacy of a healthy social life
my dick: out
memes dank, arms are heavy, reblogging his callout already, momâs spaghetti
Forcibly escort me from the building, daddy.
okay itâs going to bug me if I donât:
remember that no matter how damn visionary Larry Page is, in fifty years time the company will be run by someone else.
andhishorse said: It already is being run by somebody else, as of two years ago.
you are not technically correct, the best kind of correct, as I deliberately did not use the G word in this post!
heâs still the CEO of Alphabet Inc.
What if they create immortality?
Monopoly On Force
A term and concept you may often encounter in discussions with anarchists, libertarians, and other similar sorts is âthe monopoly on force,â IE: âthe state possesses a monopoly on force in a given geographic region.â However, I think the full depth of this concept is not always understood, or is taken for granted, and so I wanted to write a short piece on it and what that means for folks who oppose the state, as I see it.
In the United States, the legal system is divided in two parts, and I donât mean this in the way SVU opens but rather its divided into criminal law and civil law. Under the latter, weâre dealing with one party who alleges wrongdoing by the other and pursues a legal action for redress of injury, either in the form of obligation to do something (usually pay out damages) or stop doing something that is damaging the plaintiff, or a combination of both. In these cases, you have it termed âThe Case of Plaintiff vs. Accusedâ loosely speaking. Civil cases have a lower burden of proof, generally, and also lack the presumption of innocence, for various reasons.
However, this is not so in a criminal case, a fact many people donât entirely understand. In a criminal case, the plaintiff is not the supposed victim of a crime. If someone stabs you, you could sue them for damages in a civil case. However, the criminal case, the plaintiff is not the alleged victim of a crime. Indeed, the case isnât even really about them at all. Instead, it is nominally about âsociety,â at least in trappings. The state is pursuing the charges that are violation of its criminal statues and laws, not restitution on behalf of an alleged victim.
This is why, in the United States, criminal cases are âThe People of the State of X vs. Accusedâ or âPeople of the United States vs Accused,â generally speaking, often shortened to just âState vs. Accused,â or âUnited States vs. Accused.â Nominally speaking, the state is supposed to be acting as the representative and advocate of society itself. In Commonwealth countries, this takes the form instead of the âCrown vs. Accused,â where the Crown is seen as the advocate of the people. As stated, the alleged victim is actually not party to the case, except in terms of being potentially a witness called to testify. This is why the penalties levied on a guilty party involve the state, not the alleged victim; fines go to the state, not them, and the state may take custody of the person and lock them away and deny their freedom.
This is, supposedly, part of the concept that the state is acting as a representative of the people. However, this is a lie. In reality, the state does not (and indeed cannot) act as a representative of the whole of the people, for various reasons that go beyond this short bit. Suffice to say, the state is pursuing its own interests, which may nominally line up with what some may consider to be the interests of society, but that is not the primary driving goal. Instead, what the state is exercising is its monopoly on force, which really is what the criminal law boils down to. If Person A stabs Person B, the criminal trial is not actually about getting justice or restitution for Person B, itâs about enforcing the legal statue that the state has.
This is because the state claims the absolute authority over the use of force in its claimed jurisdiction. By exercising force inside that jurisdiction in a way not in compliance with the state, it thus is asserting a right to punish you. This extends also to self defense, in which the state passes judgment on if you were legitimate in your use of force, because it has to sanction all uses of force in a given area for them to be seen as valid.
What this means is, of course, that the state is asserting actual ownership and control of you, as a person, because they are the ones that can dictate the actual disposition of your body and if your use of it was legitimate. In this way, the existence of a state violates the rights of the individual in ways beyond the more commonly discussed fact of taxation being theft.
Better rule of law than mob rule?
oh no, the govât tries to ruin lives of our younger generation AGAIN.
I would love this idea if everything was accessible, high schools actually taught and didnât move people through school, also more/better guidance counselors and social workers because everyoneâs home life does not make this feasible. Saddening.
this is awful
wow. what a fucking mess.
This actually worked really well in Texas.
It took me a while to suss out the difference between land mines and coal mines.
seriously! I was puzzling over a Knight Rider book (???) wherein KITT drives over a mine, thinking hmm wouldnât you just fall down it? why would it explode??
floating sea mines were even more confusing
How do they even get the coal out of those? Barges?
the logical endpoint of the app economy is some kind of partner sharing service (just a variant of ride sharing, reallyâŠ)
Ubersleeps?
itâs been years since i first saw this image and i still vehemently identify with it
"I will kill God and become anyone who tries to stop me"
> We did analysis on hundreds of factors across centuries worth of data from hundreds of countries to determine what drove the levels of violence in a society. [âŠ] What we found was that the most significant factor was the number of individuals aged 13â19 relative to the number of individuals aged over 35. If the teenage group ever exceeded the over 35 group, violence increased to the point there was a very high chance of civil war. Furthermore, the opposite was true. If the 35+ year-olds outnumbered the teenagers, there was no chance of civil war. [âŠ]
> ⊠numerous children then receive less attention, less affection, and less education. They donât have productive means of employment, and when they get hit with the wave of hormones we all experienced during our teenage years, they arenât in school, donât have a job, and donât have a mother to give them the love they need. All it takes is some charismatic leader to rally them behind a populist cause and boom the powder keg explodes.
> The craziest part of my story was that we did this research in 2007. At the time, there were several countries that had the same population pyramid with tons of teenagers but low violence and no civil war: Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Iran (Tunisia wasnât as bad, actually).
> The âbossesâ said this was a real problem with our theory, and we tried to explain it away by saying maybe in the 21st century where dictators have access to fighter jets and tanks that they can hold the teenagers back from starting a civil war. Little did we know we had accidentally predicted the Arab Spring by nearly three years! [âŠ] ⊠there is no way we are overthrowing our government in the United States through violence. There just arenât enough teenagers.
Teenagers scare the living shit out of me.
If they're no prisons where you gonna put criminals???
You donât. âCriminalâ is not some adverse and alien species. Theyâre just people.
People commit âcrimesâ because of environmental conditions. People steal because they need something (thereâs no theft if thereâs no ownership, by the way), they kill because they feel threatened, and so on. If you change their environments, you change their behavior. Most of the âcriminal elementâ of society is actually the cause of one of two narrow things: either weâve defined a totally normal behavior as criminal, or weâve forced people into desperate and wild acts through a total destruction of the fabric of community. People have a need for social bonds, and Capital has demanded we destroy virtually all of them. Is there any surprise that folks become sick?Â
What youâre really asking is how do we stop people from harming each other. The first thing you do is discourage reasons that people harm each other. You feed, you educate, you raise, you confront. And if harm does come about, if unjust events come about, you take the individual situation and the individual people involved in it and you create an individual solution for equity, or rehabilitation, or learning. And in the most extreme cases, you exile a party. Send them out of the community entirely, to live or die alone, or in a community better suited to them perhaps. The fault in your assumption, the one required for you to even think of sending this ask in, is that prisons are no solution for anything at all. They solve literally nothing, and their only utility is in increasing injustice through total exploitation. How could such a brutal and unsubtle practice be a solution for subtle and versatile conditions? How could every situation in which imprisonment is prescribed be fundamentally similar enough that it would have that punishment in common? And how is punishment useful, or just? We know full well, through experience and history and study, that it isnât. Thereâs many ready alternatives to the practice, and who even knows what artful and efficient practices weâd be able to discover without the obstacle of prisons.
We have so many people to put into prisons because the society that makes them is immoral and sickly. Do you even realize how many societies have existed perfectly well without prisons? How many continue to? All prisoners should be freed, all prisons destroyed so thoroughly that there are no signs remaining of the places they haunt, and each victim of them given complete, generous, and individual compensation for what theyâve been required to endure. Prisons are a classic case of pretending to treat a symptom, and not the disease causing it. A snake-oil placebo.
You want to get rid of prisons, but exile people? What do you think prisons are.
There are seventeen kinds of wrong in this here post.
Prisons are a pit where people are forbidden from moving freely, eating cleanly, and are violated literally every single day. Exile is saying âyou have the whole rest of the world, donât stay near us anymore.â Not really comparable.Â
But persistent logical failures is kind of par for the course for a ârationalist,â eh?
Where exactly is the rest of the world as a venue for exile? Australia is already full!
(Not to mention that positing a functional exile system assumes border control and police forces of a kind you might not want).
Prison sucks, but even once we release all the non-criminals in there for drug possession we still have the problem of dysfunctional people who simply cannot be allowed into society.
For pretty much the history of its usage âexileâ was synonymous with âmurderâ and I see little reason why that would change. Maybe you exile them to a different city â except that city has laws of its own, and since weâre talking extreme cases, whatâs stopping them from re-exile-ing that child abuser or unrepentant murderer over to the next town, and the next town?
Ultimately ending in, presumably, them having nowhere to live but the wilderness, leaving them to die from starvation, exposure, disease (they canât get medical treatment now!), or being mauled by a bear.
One could say âoh, but weâd make it so theyâd have to take the exiles.â And then everyone else leaves the city on account of not wanting to live next to the guy who cuts people into chunks, other exiles get sent in now that there are fewer people left to protest and by golly youâve got a new prison in everything but name.
Since weâre in the world of hypotheticals, I would think that building a society with clean, spacious prisons where inmates are fed real food and given recreation, education, medicine, proper therapy, etc. and where prisons are held accountable for their treatment of inmates are a more humane solution than sentencing someone to a slow, bitter, stressful, painful death.
Iâm totally with you on the idea that at least 90% of the people in prison donât belong there, and that the prison system is one of the greatest atrocities of the modern world; famines brought on by terrible agriculture management are also horrible, but that doesnât mean we need to destroy agriculture.
we need more prisons like this one
Uh, no. Prisons are by nature shitty. âResortâ prisons just move the problems to less visible places, they donât eliminate them. You canât just trap people in a handful of rooms and expect everything to be fine. I also donât see any kind of issue with forcing people to go live alone in the wilderness to tough it out and die alone when theyâre, like, an unrepentant serial murderer or whatever, assuming there really is no way to treat someone like that in a compassionate society (which I think is not a judgement that we, as products of our callous societies, can justifiably make). They can still live free, they can still develop their own care, and yes itâs a bad and lonely life - but it is living, and living without violation of their humanity or force into subservience. Itâs a life created by their own will. What youâre arguing now is that my position must be that actions donât have consequences, that itâs âunfairâ in my ethical system. Itâs not. Itâs a reasonable last resort used on people who demonstrably cannot adapt to or function with a caring society. I could talk about the oral and anthropological history of exile, too, but thatâs a huge digression because the post wasnât even about that.
Why are you people focusing in so much on just one word that youâre most alarmed by? That is a tiny fraction of the entire post. Thereâs arguing in bad faith and then thereâs⊠this. I donât have the vocabulary to describe how much youâre fucking up right now, to be perfectly honest. Are all your discussions this fruitless? If you treat this as having a win condition youâll just convince folks youâre not worth talking to, and if you keep picking at one particular point like a scab you wonât let heal, thatâs just going to happen sooner. Hot tip real quick.
Absolutely no people belong in prisons. It isnât 90%. Itâs 100%. Capture and security is probably a necessary part of any kind of judgement or rehabilitation program, but it stretching on for even months is unreasonable, let alone years - let alone lifetimes. And thatâs after an entire web of other systems for prevention have failed, influences we canât predict with any certainty from this side of things.
But what has agriculture done to cause offense?
Right now Iâm at the level of tiredness where I start coming up with genious ideas like âmake it so that the government can only tax the incomes of the poor and middle class and nothing else so that the state is more strongly incentivized to pursue income-boosting policiesâ.
sleep or you gonna die
The middle class will get you!
In an ideal world we would all argue in a structured manner, but itâs less fun than bomb throwing and Tumblr by its very construction discourages establishing any form of common knowledge that isnât related to image macros.
there are also an awful lot of people whoâd be ideologically opposed to whatever structure we come up. some because weaknesses in their ideology would be legible, others because theyâd see the structure as inherently biased. the cynic in me wants to say the former and the latter are different faces of the same thing.
the only way to nerdish intellectual honesty would be to construct a system that everybody hates
And one that doesn't work ultimately. The great logicians tried to make a formal system for finding truth, but that didn't turn out well.