The Skidiot @theskidiot - Tumblr Blog

Posts

hazelenjoyer

they're the same picture

blackfemmejeanvaljean

I’m about 90% sure the economy is never gonna “improve”

this is capitalism in it’s final form

this is it honey

wumblr

except, you know, those companies that do a charitable thing for every thing they sell

that’s kinda new and interesting. benevolent capitalism

blackfemmejeanvaljean

lmao

wumblr

Pay attention, class: This is what it looks like when one is unwilling to consider new information.

alexandra-erin

It’s not new information, though. It’s misinformation.

First, it’s not that new.

Did you know that there was a time in U.S. history—which is by definition recent history—when a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, that’s the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, “So what does this do for everyone else?”

The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What you’re calling “benevolent capitalism” isn’t benevolent at all. It’s a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract from—not even paper over or stick a band-aid on—the problems capitalism creates. And the fact that you’re here championing it as “benevolent capitalism” is a sign of how ell it’s working.

Let’s take Toms, as one example. The shoe that’s a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who can’t afford them.

That’s not genuine benevolence. That’s selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.

(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)

The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. It’s no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.

Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?

Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. They’ll tell you they can’t afford it, that it’s not possible, that consumers won’t stand for it, that you’ll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.

But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.

So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but they’re not willing to pay their workers more?

Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.

“Charity” is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. “Charity” is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and you’re setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.

On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, you’re creating an expectation. You’re admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and it’s hard to walk that back.

Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, they’re smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.

So companies will do charitable “buy one, give one” and marketing “buy one, get one” even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they won’t do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.

Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is “How much money can we make?” and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.

But there’s nothing benevolent about throwing a scrap of bread to someone who’s starving in a ditch because you ran them out of their home in the first place.

left-reminders

This is one of the best anti-capitalist posts on the entire site.

iamonlyhereforthefreefood

When Everything Everywhere All at Once said “The only thing I do know is that we have to be kind. Please, be kind, especially when we don’t know what’s going on"

When the Good Place said “Why choose to be good every day when there is no guaranteed reward now or in the afterlife… I argue that we choose to be good because of our bonds with other people and our innate desire to treat them with dignity. Simply put, we are not in this alone.”

When Jean-Paul Sartre said ”‘Hell is other people’ is only one side of the coin. The other side, which no one seems to mention, is also ‘Heaven is each other’. Hell is separateness, uncommunicability, self-centeredness, lust for power, for riches, for fame. Heaven on the other hand is very simple, and very hard: caring about your fellow beings.“

fuckyeahcomicsbaby

People aren’t the only ones with vivid imaginations

garrettauthor

Further proof that literally any story trope can be AMAZING if properly executed.

“And then it all turned out to be a dream” has got to be one of the most annoying things ever, except here it’s PERFECT.

fruitface

jade_reaction.gif

femmefaramir

older lotr illustrations sometimes depict éowyn wearing ridiculously small armour. apart from the problem general sexualisation of the only female character (who really does anything), there’s another hilarious thought:

éowyn pretended to be dernhelm, a man. to fit in, she must have worn men’s armor. so the armor in the illustrations is normal for rohirrim.

therefore, all the rohirrim rode to war just like that:

hobbit-hole

there’s a thundering sound in the distance as the rohirrim ride into war but rather than hoofbeats it’s the collective sound of all their cheeks clapping

delicatelytoobear

the artist for this particular piece is Frank Frazetta and to be fair to him this is how he drew the orcs armor

so the rohirrim comment is probably not that far off

adhd-trash-mammal

That’s a man who just straight up had a problem with the concept of wearing pants into battle, and I respect that

cumaeansibyl

male or female

hero or villain

sea or land

even in the snow

I guarantee you Frazetta’s Rohirrim were 100% pants-free

missmollyetc

Good Old Frank. That man loved bodies and hated clothes so much

thebyrchentwigges

trist-pkmngal

Frank Frazetta was the reason He-Man was designed like that; the producers conduct a study to see what art appeal the most to children, and Frank’s work came out on top in popularity. So everyone in He-Man is dressed the way they are directly because of Frazetta.

snugglebunchesofeyes

That man gave us the gift of warrior thighs and tits for everyone.

fortheloveofteaa

adamthegirl

You've heard this refrain before -- giving money to homeless people is not the best way to help them because it might be squandered, or spen

juicetrump

repotting

“Researchers gave 50 recently homeless people a lump sum of 7,500 Canadian dollars (nearly $5,700). They followed the cash recipients’ life over 12-18 months and compared their outcomes to that of a control group who didn’t receive the payment. The preliminary findings, which will be peer-reviewed next year, show that those who received cash were able to find stable housing faster, on average. By comparison, those who didn’t receive cash lagged about 12 months behind in securing more permanent housing.

People who received cash were able to access the food they needed to live faster. Nearly 70% did after one month, and maintained greater food security throughout the year. The recipients spent more on food, clothing and rent, while there was a 39% decrease in spending on goods like alcohol, cigarettes or drugs.“

It’s almost like people self medicate to survive intense stress like, idk, not having the cash to live anywhere but outdoors. People who are extremely poor do not want to be poor, we WANT to be safe and have autonomy in our lives but capitalism makes that impossible for some people.

And drug/alcohol abuse, even when prioritized over eating and other necessities, isn’t some kind of alien mindset, it’s very often a matter of not having the resources to actually be safe and fully meet your actual needs so you have to cope somehow with the suffering that deprivation causes.

whatbigotspost

This is a perfect example of the kind of important study that shouldn’t NEED to be done, but does need to be done so we can once and for all implement policies that actually help people.

quousque

i think it’s important that it was a lump sum all at once, instead of little amounts intermittently. If you’re homeless and, say, addicted to alcohol or meth or whatever, and someone gives you $20 a day, for 12 months, what are you gonna do with that? $20 isn’t enough to pay for a place to sleep that night. You can get some food, but you can’t stock up on anything because you have nowhere to put it. You can’t buy a new pair of shoes. You can’t pay for medication. You can’t really save it up because what are you gonna do, walk around with $5000 worth of twenties in your pocket? until they get lost or stolen and you never got anything out of that money? But you can go and get $20 worth of alcohol and maybe the rest of your day will suck a little less.

But if you get that $5000 all at once and then nothing for the rest of the year, that’s enough to get an apartment for a month, and your meds, and food, and clothes, and then well hey you can look for a job (and you have a mailing address, wow!).

if you’re in a shit situation getting dribs and drabs of money can keep you alive but it won’t help you really change your circumstances, but a large lump sum can do that.

env0

I have brought this study up to multiple people who despite the research, still cannot break their stereotypical image of people who are homeless.

green-loaf

newtgeiszler

capitalists will literally be like "it's cheaper to address homelessness by installing hostile architecture and hoping they all die rather than giving them a place to live" and bootlickers will be like "sounds good to me"

ruinedrainbowpooka

and studies will be like “No, it literally IS cheaper to give them a place to live” than do other shit” and bootlickers will be like “SOUNDS FAKE!”

smitethestate

More often they'll be like "BUT YOU CAN'T JUST GIVE THEM SOMETHING FOR FREE, THEY NEED TO DIE OF EXPOSURE LIKE RESPONSIBLE ADULTS"

bogleech

The last one is it. You can show them the research demonstrating that it will be cheaper and they’ll say, literally HAVE said, that giving them something “before they earned it” is in some way immoral, that it’s somehow unfair or hurtful to people who have jobs, and that it will make people “lazier.” They genuinely think the threat of starvation and death is where work ethic comes from and that this is the glue holding civilization together. They also tend to convince themselves that people who are homeless often did something to deserve it, and therefore we must keep them punished until they fix their situation by themselves.

These are murderous, sadistic, obscene views to hold and the people who choose to hold them barely have any humanity.

theskidiot

Home secretary criticised for tweets vowing to restrict use of tents by homeless people, ‘many of them from abroad’

Typical wealthy folks attitude

neko-manta

tuberousroot

they are friends <3

spocks--cock

Christopher: A woman? Kirk: A crewman.

thetrekkiehasthephonebox

OH LOOK AT THAT THE 1960S

neil-kumiko

AND SHE’S IN COMMAND GOLD FUCKERS.

She’s not in Medical blue, a caretaking, feminine role.

Those in Gold were either OFFICERS, NAVIGATORS, PILOTS, TACTICAL OFFICERS, or WEAPONS SPECIALISTS.

wetwareproblem

This is the Kirk everyone likes to forget.

jazzchordravepiano

Y’all, if you care about feminism, then you ought to care about the history and context of the miniskirt. The 60s were an era of rebellion against the 50s, and the skirts were part of it. They were literally cutting edge fashion, and a statement that women made against the more housewifey style of skirt from the decade before. It was Grace Lee Whitney herself who suggested to Roddenberry that they wear them, and Nichelle Nichols has said she never had a problem with them. They are a product of their time yes, but the women chose to wear them because of the context of that time.

socialistexan

Also some men in Starfleet ware miniskirts and dresses:

And some of the women wear pants:

They’re given the power of choice, regardless of gender or sex.

artofquartz

Shit ‘-’ None of this even clicked to me - Thats fucking glorious :D

duckbunny

Picard in that dress is so good. Look at him! He looks formal and serious and dignified! He looks like he’s captain of his ship and he’s got some important business to do. And he’s in a dress and tights. And it’s not a joke. It’s not a joke about a man in a dress! It’s just, you know, a man who is wearing a dress, and that’s normal and appropriate. It’s part of the uniform. It fits him. It’s totally unremarkable and that is so rare and I’m so happy.

absynthe--minded

I feel obligated to point out that this is Picard’s literal dress uniform (his Extra Special Fancy Uniform), and he hated his dress uniform? But he hated it because the collar was uncomfortable, not because it was A Dress. There’s zero commentary on how it’s A Dress and a lot of bitching about its lack of comfort.