184528
28 Jul 14 at 12 am

tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.

The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.

But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!"

"But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”

"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)

And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!

Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.

And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.

Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.

And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.

The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?

TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 

But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.

Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.

(via goldist)

tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!""But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.
 22672
26 Jul 14 at 6 pm

cherry-and-also-bomb:

"Be soft. Do not let the world make you hard. Do not let the pain make you hate. Do not let the bitterness steal your sweetness" Kurt Vonnegut (at etsy: lemonsaltcrafts)

(via puppysizedelephants)

cherry-and-also-bomb:

"Be soft. Do not let the world make you hard. Do not let the pain make you hate. Do not let the bitterness steal your sweetness" Kurt Vonnegut (at etsy: lemonsaltcrafts)
 787
18 Jul 14 at 6 pm

(Source: morsmordrexx, via bigbadfox)

la-meilleure-amie:

Everyone SAYS they want a fairytale wedding but when I show up and curse their firstborn suddenly I’m a jerk.

(Source: meilleure--amie, via freedomandjesus)

 16928
17 Jul 14 at 3 pm

objectifiant:

mediamattersforamerica:

Here’s why it’s a terrible idea to let your kids watch Fox News.

While commenting on a female perpetrator fleeing to Canada after committing statutory rape, a Fox correspondent said this:

"If you’re a sixteen-year-old kid and you have sex with your best friend’s mom you usually get high-fives."

And Jesse Watters didn’t stop there.

"She’s not that attractive so you might not have that kind of reception … She’s not Debra Lafave.” 

This isn’t the first time a man on Fox’s Outnumbered downplayed the seriousness of statutory rape. For reference, see: Tucker Carlson, who told America to "lighten up" on the crime and said that men understand that sexual harassment from a female teacher is the "greatest thing that ever happened." A month later he attacked a kid for reporting statutory rape as "whiny."

We’re seeing a trend here, and it’s Fox’s glorification of crimes against America’s youth. This is especially problematic when an estimated 1 in 6 men go through unwanted or abusive sexual experiences before they turn 18.

How rape culture handles male victims.

Read Tampa.

(via a-strong-female-character)

objectifiant:

mediamattersforamerica:

Here’s why it’s a terrible idea to let your kids watch Fox News.
While commenting on a female perpetrator fleeing to Canada after committing statutory rape, a Fox correspondent said this:
"If you’re a sixteen-year-old kid and you have sex with your best friend’s mom you usually get high-fives."
And Jesse Watters didn’t stop there.
"She’s not that attractive so you might not have that kind of reception … She’s not Debra Lafave.” 
This isn’t the first time a man on Fox’s Outnumbered downplayed the seriousness of statutory rape. For reference, see: Tucker Carlson, who told America to "lighten up" on the crime and said that men understand that sexual harassment from a female teacher is the "greatest thing that ever happened." A month later he attacked a kid for reporting statutory rape as "whiny."
We’re seeing a trend here, and it’s Fox’s glorification of crimes against America’s youth. This is especially problematic when an estimated 1 in 6 men go through unwanted or abusive sexual experiences before they turn 18.

How rape culture handles male victims.


Read Tampa.

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?"

punacceptable:

fun prank: teach girls from an early age that their entire worth lays in how pretty they are, then make fun of them for being “”“superficial”“”

(via girlsgetbusyzine)

 111318
10 Jul 14 at 6 pm

hallowshorror:

anotherlgbttumblr:

kp-ks:

Book Burning Memorial

'In the center of Bebelplatz, a glass window showing rows and rows of empty bookshelves. The memorial commemorates the night in 1933 when 20,000 “anti-German” books were burned here under the instigation of Goebbels. There's a plaque nearby that says something like “Where they burn books, they will also burn humans in the end.” '

Interesting but rarely mentioned: most of the content burned that night came from the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (institute for the science of sex) headed by Magnus Hirschfeld. The institute and Hirshfeld himself were some of the first to openly campaign for the right to have sex with someone of the same gender, the right to transition if you did not identify with your birth sex and for the general acceptance of queer people. The team had already performed the first SRS operations in Germany and in addition, the institute advocated sex education, contraception, the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and women’s emancipation.
Photographs of the night of the book burning are plastered across history books world wide, but the queer movement that was destroyed that night often goes unmentioned.

reblogging again for that^

(Source: Flickr / kca, via fromonesurvivortoanother)

hallowshorror:

anotherlgbttumblr:

kp-ks:

Book Burning Memorial
'In the center of Bebelplatz, a glass window showing rows and rows of empty bookshelves. The memorial commemorates the night in 1933 when 20,000 “anti-German” books were burned here under the instigation of Goebbels. There's a plaque nearby that says something like “Where they burn books, they will also burn humans in the end.” '

Interesting but rarely mentioned: most of the content burned that night came from the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (institute for the science of sex) headed by Magnus Hirschfeld. The institute and Hirshfeld himself were some of the first to openly campaign for the right to have sex with someone of the same gender, the right to transition if you did not identify with your birth sex and for the general acceptance of queer people. The team had already performed the first SRS operations in Germany and in addition, the institute advocated sex education, contraception, the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and women’s emancipation. Photographs of the night of the book burning are plastered across history books world wide, but the queer movement that was destroyed that night often goes unmentioned.

reblogging again for that^

whatshouldwecallme:

image

my mom: are you sure you want the 20 piece mcnugget isn't an eight piece enough
me: ...
my mom: didn't you just eat a fish sandwich
me: ...
my mom: ...
me: *takes deep breath* we teach girls to shrink themselves-- to make themselves smaller

plaidandredlipstick:

the reason male comic book fans work themselves into a frenzied rage over “fake geek girls" is because they think they can’t get a girlfriend because of their love for comic books (a.k.a nerdiness). if they accept that geek girls genuinely love comic books, then they’re left with the cold harsh reality that it’s not their nerdiness that makes them unattractive to women, but the fact that they are misogynistic condescending dickbags who need to be avoided AT ALL COSTS

(via thedoctorandtotoro)

 94941
09 Jul 14 at 1 pm

mpreg-tony:

askelviranow:

mpreg-tony:

ponysrantaday:

thegirlwhocriedfoxface:

flirtyblonde:

I had this happen to me last night. I highly encourage anyone who uses Kik to block him.

who. does. this.

Grooooss. 

Signal boost to anybody that uses Kik to block this person. 

So when men try to say “not all men”, this is what the fuck I mean.

idk if you noticed but, he isnt all men, hes 1 guy soooo

Yes. And the UCSB shooter was one guy. And every man who rapes a woman is also “just one guy”, which is 237,868 “just one guys” a year. And that’s just rapes, that’s not including sexual assaults that don’t result in rape. Should we talk about domestic abuse? ”Male partners assault 2 million American women each year.” That’s 2 MILLION “just one guys”. 

Do you see the problem? There are too many “just one guys”. Literally hundreds of thousands of “just one guys”. 

It’s not “just one guy”. It’s two million guys. It’s two hundred thousand guys. 

So stop telling me “not all men”. Stop telling me “it’s just one guy”.

It’s not just one guy.

(via nakedandsobbing)