PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Misplaced Lens Cap
No title available
bliss lane
Cosmic Funnies
taylor price
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Love Begins
No title available
RMH
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
Kiana Khansmith
Today's Document
shark vs the universe
blake kathryn
sheepfilms
The Stonewall Inn
titsay
cherry valley forever
@theartofmadeline
seen from South Korea
seen from Indonesia
seen from Guatemala
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from Singapore
seen from Spain
seen from Greece
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Bahrain
@siryouarebeingmocked
You forgot stealing and/or killing.
Socialism is just "things happening under capitalism"
Also aren't you unemployed?
Me when I defend the system that creates one-party dictatorships 100% of the time by saying that the other system is also bad sometimes.
If that is a real tweet (it is) , the replacement headline isn't much better.
>Now that the SpaceX initial public offering is making Elon Musk all but officially the world’s first trillionaire, is it okay to despise him just for being one? To broaden the question, are the billionaires associated with widening inequality a bad look for capitalism?
>inequality
Gee, I wonder what slant you're going with.
>Most importantly, concentrated wealth means concentrated political power that tends, in a self-reinforcing cycle, to exacerbate economic inequality.
I feel like "self-reinforcing cycle" here is Underpants Gnoming.
>The eminent jurist Louis Brandeis once warned, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”
Many anti-capitalist and anti-billionaire people explicitly want the economic power concentrated in the government's hands. Even though that's even less people than billionaires.
Then there’s Mr. Musk’s hypocrisy, which feeds popular resentment of capitalists who pretend to be pro-market but are in fact pro-business. Mr. Musk disparages big government while gorging on “at least [US]$38-billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits, often at critical moments … helping seed the growth that has made him the world’s richest person,” The Washington Post reported last year.
Weird how so many on the far-left are against handouts when it's people they don't like, while many pro-capitalist people are against government handouts even for the rich.
Also, I don't see how "getting a lot of money from the government" is inherently opposed to supporting small government. Especially when the federal budget is in the trillions. And I'm ignoring the state-level money.
Also, that Washington Post PDF is about how Musk's businesses - not just Musk personally - have gotten that money. It also says he has dozens of government contracts.
Over twenty years.
In other words, a lot of the money is being paid for providing goods and services.
Funny definition of "handout".
PS: This post is bait for a troll.
blue amber
Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebrides, Scotland
By Jim Richardson
The monster.
Holy shit, as though we're supposed to just forget that until recently, the guy was lauded as a true Renaissance man and given cameos on shows.
You could cure cancer but if you back a politician that the establishment hates in the meantime, you will still be treated like you're less than dirt.
It started when he wanted to buy Twitter, IMO.
Also, we have always been at war with Eastasia.
The monster.
Fucking hell. Hes not a Nond villain. If he has to be a villain, then he'd be a Kingsman villain. It's right fucking there.
You forgot stealing and/or killing.
Socialism is just "things happening under capitalism"
Also aren't you unemployed?
Class, Pointing-At-fascists has volunteered to demonstrate the classic leftist tactics of "NO U" and a personal attack.
every major structural social problem right now is basically "we don't have enough skilled workers on the ground" and the reason is always "well we've been intentionally underpaying and understaffng them for decades to increase corporate profits" and somehow the news always just mentions the "shortage" without digging into the cause
air travel is a mess? shortage of air traffic controllers - for some mysterious reason
logistics a mess? shortage of truck drivers - for some mysterious reason
public transit can't meet demand? shortage of bus drivers - for some mysterious reason
We even mysteriously have shortages of doctors, nurses, teachers... FOR SOME MYSTERIOUS REASON
FUCKING PAY PEOPLE AND HIRE ENOUGH STAFF
you know those aren't "corporate profits" right it's very important you know that those things you mentioned are not "corporate profits."
the shortage of air traffic controllers is due to the federal aviation administration intentionally training fewer ATC operators so that a higher percentage of them could be black (this was a major scandal, not something some culture warrior made up). the FAA is not a corporation and has nothing to do with "corporate profits."
there is no shortage of truck drivers and logistics being "a mess" has literally nothing to do with truck drivers it is entirely about international boat travel lanes.
there is no shortage of bus drivers, there is a shortage of public transport routes that actually exist and are actually created with the money that is spent to create them and there is no "corporate profit" from public transportation bus routes. privately owned corporate bus travel is stuff like Greyhound and they do not have a driver shortage either.
the american medical association, which is a union and not a corporation, limits the number of doctors that can be trained, for the explicit purpose of driving up demand so that doctors will be paid more.
public school teachers are not paid by corporations and have nothing to do with "corporate profits." privately owned schools, which are sometimes at least close to "corporate profits," do not have a teacher shortage and in fact teachers are very willing to work for them even though they pay less than public school because the conditions they work in are not miserable.
none of these things have anything to do with "corporate profits." you cannot just identify any problem in the world and blame it on "corporate profits."
I can say for ATC controllers though- that job is EXTREMELY stressful and due to the nature of aviation, you often work undesirable shifts (graveyard, swings, early mornings) and while the compensation is OK, it definitely isn't enough for all the stress that job entails.
OP has a point about many jobs not compensating enough, but they're wrong about it being about coporate profits when it comes to ATC and public transportation since those are government employers.
are bots making communities now??? some of the ones i get recommended feel like it
like the admin of this one is deactivated and at least 95% of the members are bots
can you imagine you wake up one day in a dark room chained to a radiator with your phone at 1% and you unlock it and find that you've been added to this community
The first thing you do in that situation is open Tumblr?
Where the hell else would I post about being chained to a radiator, fucking Bluesky?
everyone has to be nice to him
^ guy drowning in blood
Was talking yesterday with a friend about how in the past people's politics and sex lives were seldom, if ever, mentioned and respectfully considered private and off-limits. Now when you meet people, that's the first thing they want you to know about themselves before anything else. Our present culture's priorities are entirely upside-down.
Okay but none of that is true though. "The good old days" never existed. Things were never better and more pure and wholesome in the past. History is not the home where your ideal political reality lives.
"In the past" we can find McCarthyism, in which rampant paranoia about communist infiltration lead to neighbors turning on each other to accuse one another of being politically unpure which lead to widespread social unrest, blacklisting, and guilt by association. Entire lives were destroyed by accusations that were completely unsubstantiated.
"In the past" puritan settlers would gossip about one anothers sex lives because "Holy Watching" was considered a social obligation to ensure everyone in the community was abiding by their religious practices, so any sexual deviancy was rooted out and spread around which instantly resulted in social stigmatization and even legal discipline.
Politics and sexual practices were never considered private and not to be discussed. People were always people. There is nothing different about how people act today than how they acted sixteen hundred thousand years ago. Stop romanticizing the past. As its best, the past sucked just as much as today does.
It's true that human drives and flaws don't change from age to age, but the conclusions you've made from that sensible observation are all provably false:
It's a fact that, pre-1960s, sex was not a subject to be brought up in polite conversation, in public, or even explicitly mentioned in newspapers, movies, on the radio or TV.
It's a fact that, before some point in the 1990s, homosexuality was not something celebrated, promoted or really even spoken of outside of its own tiny subculture, except in jest, and the most kind and tolerant straight people considered it a private affair, with the most respectful approach being to not "out" any gay friends they had.
In my own childhood back in the 1980s, I never knew the political or sexual persuasions of any of my teachers in both primary or high school, or any of the grown-ups around me either. Apart from a handful of 'politically correct' lefty comedians, I didn't know who any of the people on TV were voting for, because none of them ever spoke about it.
From that to where we are now is a vast, easily-observable difference in ordinary, acceptable behaviour within two generations, and claiming otherwise displays only astounding ignorance of historical events.
"In the past" we can find McCarthyism,
And McCarthyism is famous specifically because it was a rare outlier.
Also, I'd like to point out that a lot of the modern left is pretty fine with cancelling people over their political beliefs.
Or anyone who appears to support them, as we saw with the Hogwarts Legacy harassment. They yelled at people who weren't even aware of the controversy.
The right also does acrobatic pirouettes off the handle, but it is not and never has been limited to people on the Other Side™.
"In the past" puritan settlers would gossip about one anothers sex lives
So you had to jump from something last century to something that ended centuries ago.
Sounds like you're lacking in examples!
. There is nothing different about how people act today than how they acted sixteen hundred thousand years ago.
How many women had voting rights back then?
Or men, for that matter?
This is becoming the laziest and dumbest strawman on Tumblr. Do they really think everyone who's not down with sterilizing kids, voter fraud and the destruction of western civilization is a creationist Christian from the 1920s bible belt?
I'm not a Christian, not a Republican, not even a Right Winger, as far as I am aware. I'm just a scrap of consciousness making my way through the universe trying to make the most sense of it I can before I die.
Plenty of right-wingers aren't even religious.
Also, NO U is not a counterargument, and I think the sheer level of backlash might've scared the tiki torch terrors back into their holes. Or at least convinced them not to do it again.
Feminism is a propaganda-driven mental disorder that removes women's ability to love, reason or maintain anything objectively good in the world.
That's a pretty obvious troll. Which is why it was deleted and has 0 karma. I'm pretty sure a viewpoint this crazy would be an obvious outlier even if it was sincere.
The monster.
