Nothing trickles. Nothing. #TaxTheRich

No title available
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
taylor price
art blog(derogatory)
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

#extradirty
No title available

★
Sweet Seals For You, Always
tumblr dot com

@theartofmadeline
noise dept.

Origami Around
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

titsay

No title available
trying on a metaphor
Cosimo Galluzzi
Today's Document

roma★
seen from Venezuela
seen from Lithuania

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Indonesia

seen from United States
seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from France

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
@kickair8p
Nothing trickles. Nothing. #TaxTheRich
disabled children not allowed be children.
especially. intellectually and/or developmentally disabled (I/DD) children, & children w behavioral or “behavioral” struggles (aka many I/DD children) not allowed be children.
which may be weird thing say at first because I/DD famous for be infantilized, be treat as forever children. so would think children be only thing they “allow” be, n say they not allow be children contradicting—
but not actually.
as general whole, nondisabled children “allowed” tantrums. allow emotional immature. allowed childish quirks.
what be normal child tantrum fuss in (white) nondisabled children, even with child health/care professionals who whole entire job be understand that nondisabled typically developing child have underdeveloped brain n not yet have self regulate skill n that developmentally appropriate that normal, it may be talk as annoying & inconvenient, but for I/DD children every. single. time. where they “tantrum” “fuss” even in developmentally appropriate ways, chance be write as sign of their disability, sign of behavior problem, sign of emotional problem. be evidence of disorder. of abnormal. of something wrong. which be “okay” reason dehumanize, abuse, be talk about like animal, like not in room, like difficult problem to be solved.
nondisabled adults fondly look back at childhood comfort objects that maybe still have now, stuffed toys blankets or maybe less usual things that mean something to them. but when disabled children have them it be more likely *automatic* see as problem, as something need be weaned off, need be taken away, as unhealthy overattachment, be write into behavioral plan, only allow x minute per day, see as “impractical” & “useless”.
as general whole, nondisabled children allow say no, allow act out “no,” allow prefer, allow not want do something so protest by not doing, by not listening, by pretend not hear you. it may be see as funny or annoying but meanwhile for disabled children it largely see as oppositional as noncompliance as inattentive as something need be trained out of by all means possible.
nondisabled children do things because they kids. disabled children do things because there something wrong with them.
nondisabled children rights n autonomy not fully respected by any means but disabled children get even less of it.
disabled children often not allowed many leeway’s as nondisabled children, what be developmentally appropriate for same age nondisabled children often be over label as disorder as problem as something abnormal need be get rid off in disabled children.
n especially when come to behaviorally, white nondisabled children get be the most “child,” n Black n other disabled children of color get “child” stolen from them in multiple ways.
look, even if hypothetically I was willing to scan my face and give a video of me to a social media company's shady unnamed third party data processor to do [God] knows what with in order to prove my adulthood...
chances are I can't. my body is that of a disabled Asian woman.
the facial markers of childhood on a white person- prominent monolid eyes, round faces without prominent cheekbones, clear, smooth skin devoid of wrinkles, lack of facial hair- are traits that many adults of Asian descent, many in their fifties and sixties even, have to an extent that several of my (adult, mind you) relatives and friends have been declared to be in their teens, or even to be preteens or 8-year-olds, by an algorithm that associated those features with childhood rather than ethnicity and lineage.
I can usually figure out how to look directly at a camera, if I try hard enough. but from what I've seen of Roblox's face verification process, it also needs you to move your eyes slowly from left to right so it can determine you're using live footage of a real person.
simple, right? wrong. I can't do that. I can kind of move my eyes a short distance(and it always hurts like hell, especially when I do it consciously), and I can change what part of my vision I'm paying attention to, but otherwise my only way to change what I'm looking at is to turn my entire head. and it clearly doesn't accept head-turning as "looking from left to right".
I don't have any other facial differences that might mess with the algorithm recognizing my face as a face- and that's a related problem that's already been documented by numerous people and organizations like Face Equality International.
I just can't follow the instructions, because it wants me to do something I can't do and expects that all adult humans can move their eyes consciously, because ha ha who couldn't do that if they're using a computer in the first place? it's not like disabled people might ever have friends or want to be on social media!
Image is a post by Owen @Owennfa on July 14 2026 at 2:24PM, image text (first sentence in all-caps as in original) reads:
THE LABOR DEPARTMENT JUST DROPPED NEW WAGE DATA AND IT'S BRUTAL.
Corporate profits up 47% since 2020.
Worker wages up 12% in the same period.
Meanwhile groceries up 35%, rent up 40%, utilities up 28%.
Your paycheck grew 12%. Your bills grew 35%.
The math is simple: you're getting poorer every year even when you get a raise.
You can't budget your way out of this. The system is designed so your income can never catch up to your expenses.
That's not an accident. That's policy.
End image transcription.
I love Universal Basic Income but I need people to promote it in addition to other solutions and not as a substitute for them.
"Corporation stole your life's work? Well if there were UBI you wouldn't mind!"
"Robot stole your job? With UBI you wouldn't need your job!"
"Not enough help for disabled people? If we all had UBI that would replace disability payments!"
"Corporations conglomerating into a few huge unregulatable cartels which hike up the prices of everything forever? Just tax them and do UBI!"
Like, yes UBI would certainly help those problems. I'm not at all saying it wouldn't.
But if we do not actually fix society in a few key ways, we're going to end up right back where we are now.
For instance, if we had UBI nationally (instead of just in test areas), these big colluding megacorporations would simply raise the prices of everything to recapture the money. The only limit in the money they extract from us right now is how much we have. If we had more, they'd take more, and monopoly gives them the ability to do that efficiently.
UBI isn't going to hire a special ed teacher in my kid's school or make your apartment ADA compliant.
UBI shouldn't be a consolation prize for destroying a job someone loved. Humans like to work, and we like to benefit from our own work. I do not want to have my industry demolished to be done worse by a word salad machine, and be compensated by a check.
And of course, with corporations so huge they can buy politicians, they will soon vote the taxes down and UBI back out.
We need, for starters:
robust anti trust
money out of politics
regulations that protect ordinary people without a lawyer
I could go on and on but I think I've made my point. UBI and other laws and systems that promote justice, not just one or the other.
The reason technocrats are often weirdly okay with promoting UBI is it has the potential to be the entitlement equivalent of a flat tax, which is less corrective of inequality than progressive taxation. They're looking at UBI as a way to control per capita spending on us. Some of those savings would come from cutting out the layers of bureaucracy that currently means-test and gatekeep access to benefits like disability and food stamps, but a simplistic UBI system could leave the most expensive care cases in the cold to make up the difference on their own. UBI needs to be additional to other safety nets (or be sophisticated enough to adjust individual income payments to cover disparate living costs e.g. medical expenses, regional variations in cost of living, etc.) in order to be a real concession to the working class.
I had a lot of/still have some vestigial arrogance about quantitative methods over qualitative ones, probably in a combination of scientific misogyny + STEMlord superiority. But doing regression analysis and quant-heavy data analysis makes me realise more and more that you can justify basically any claim with numbers, and that you can construct your research in such a way as to output the numbers you want. which does not mean that all data are made up or that quantitative knowledge is all false. I think stories about scientists straight up inventing numbers or fudging experiments on purpose prove that there is a real difference between fraudulent and non-fraudulent research. but those data must always be narrativised & are always already narrativised. The act of presenting numbers itself is doing some of that narration because you’re already arguing that these numbers are worth presenting
People in the notes are rightfully pointing out common issues with data manipulation and pre-loaded conclusions in scientific research (i.e., the academic version of asking "so, how often do you beat your wife?" and so on), but I should have clarified that I'm not really talking about that. I'm talking about completely legitimate, above-board scientific research.
For example, I've had students ask me (in good faith) how it was possible for international medical bodies to report different counts of COVID-19 cases during the early years of the pandemic. And one of the answers is that you need to first define what you mean by a "COVID-19 case." Do you include self-reported incidences? Waste water data? Geo-fenced social media posts about people complaining about their coronavirus symptoms? Federal estimates? Hospital data? How do you compare countries/territories/substate entities with mandatory reporting mechanisms vs countries/territories/substate entities that rely only on voluntary self-reported cases? And what combination of these do you use? How you construct what you mean by "case" is going to impact the outcomes you report. These different counts of COVID-19 cases can all be true simultaneously, not because numbers are made up, but because they all come out of different methodologies that can be equally valid.
And this is true across all science, not just social science. Bill Clinton said it best lol: "it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." This feels obvious when you look at scientific research that uses "skull measurements" as their object of analysis - the concept itself is white supremacist, regardless of how "sound" the research is. But even something as apparently self-evident as a COVID-19 case still requires a definition, and how you define your variables is necessarily going to impact how the research goes and what conclusions are drawn.
These definitions are always embedded in political & social assumptions. And again, this does not mean that science is all made up or nonsense or whatever. There is a widespread fetishism of "objective knowledge" that is itself ideological - the idea that knowledge can be divorced from all historical and political contexts, that you can scrub bias from research and simply report the facts. Valuable, well-supported, well-constructed scientific research is always embedded in these contexts. Not just as a result of researcher assumptions, but of the material context it exists in - what research resources are available, how & what research gets funded, the academy's relationship to the state & non-government bodies that both provide data and use that research to inform policy, the historical relationships universities often have with settler-colonialism and imperialism that give them access to "foreign" research subjects, etc etc etc.
So my overall point (which I didn't communicate well) is that data can always say what you want to some extent, for good and for ill. And research results (at least in my experience) tend to surprise you in ways that require explanations, which themselves can be fully justified, but again, exist within many different contexts that influence how you interpret them - and not just the results themselves, but your own surprise at your results
Daily artwork Number 1960.
Humans are weird: fibers.
We all fucking LOVE fibers. We wear them. Eat them. We use hypothetical fibers to explain the unexplainable. We make ART with them - not just the obvious crocheting or needle felting or sewing. Guitars, brushes, all these things. STRING THEORY. And all the media tropes, like the red string of fate. Humanity is obsessed with fiber.
We use them to make little cup phones to talk with your friend in the treehouse and also the entire* worlds communication infrastructure relies on the fact that we can blink a light really fast on one end and see it on the other.
*there are obviously exceptions, but the point is if we suddenly had to abandon fiberoptic cable we'd be so fucking shit outta luck immediately
Even in a post-capitalist, post-consumerist world, you still need to produce goods, as a result of this, you need factories because it is more effective to have a few people making a lot of clothes in a factory than every woman being forced to sit down and spin wool all day.
If you live in Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, or Texas, we need you to take action to protect disability rights! https://autisticadvocacy.org/2026/02/take-action-to-protect-disability-rights/
“Subramanian seems to be zeroing in on this discrete part of the case for potential sanctions because prosecutors admittedly mislead the magistrate judge that issued the non-disclosure order, failing to tell him that the phone subpoenas involved journalists and misrepresenting that the investigation wasn’t public when prosecutors were already engaged with NYT counsel in the case. While the NYT won a resounding victory in court in the narrow confines of this case, the Trump DOJ remains an enormous, unprecedented, and unchecked threat to civil liberties, including freedom of the press. And the people most responsible for this travesty of justice are the president’s picks to be attorney general and DNI.”
— A Huge Win for the NYT In Air Force One Subpoena Debacle
I need you all to see this "Mcdonald's bathroom" that I saw on Facebook
I wonder what the rest of the house is like. Is it all McDonalds? Is each room a different fast food establishment?
Or maybe the rest of it is normal, so you're lulled into complacency, and then when you have to pee, you're hit all at once by the full force of...this.
Honestly, this is a transformative art form I'm fond of, when somebody makes their own take on a corporate aesthetic — defiance, kitsch, whatever, a human being wanted, made, and enjoyed this.
The Muppet Show (1976 – 1981)