Anonymous asked: So you want a severly disabled person to live a painful life because It's INHUMANE to put them out of their misery before they could have been developed?! You sick twisted fuck. People like you should have been aborted.
So we are killing disabled people?
I just want to be clear. You’re saying that disabled people should be killed because of their disabilities. That they have less of a right to life than an able-bodied person. That they are less valuable than an able-bodied person.
Is that what you’re putting forth?
Because that’s ableism and eugenics.
This anon is EXTREMELY offensive to me. My mother was born with a severe disability that causes her chronic, extreme pain every day. And yet my mother loves life. She would rather live her life with ten times as much pain than be denied her life. Don’t you dare fucking say that she should have been “put out of her misery”. You’re saying my mother shouldn’t have been BORN because she was DISABLED. Fuck you. I don’t get pissed off much but the fact that you would rather my mother HAVE DIED than being given the chance at life is just sickening. YOU are the sick and twisted one. Why don’t you find people who live with a severe disability. Ask them. Ask several of them. All of the people that me and my mother have met through support groups are some of the brightest, happiest, and most optimistic people that I have EVER met. The fact that you say the should be “put out of their misery” is disgusting. That sounds like the start of a bad futuristic thriller where society abolishes all people who are “perfect”. Read The Giver. That’s what they do in that book. And it’s disgusting. You are so fucking lucky that my mother is not on Tumblr. How do you think she or other disabled people would feel if they read that they shouldn’t have been born? You sicken me.
Judge for yourself why many Americans are clueless about the world and anxious about themselves.
You know how you get those posts with Americans and Brits bickering over freedom and tea and scones and spelling.
And the rest of us who aren’t from either country are just looking on like
oh just kiss already
We’re shipping countries now?
Anonymous asked: hey so I just have a clarification question.. when Bill Gates says raising the minimum wage it will encourage business to automate things what does that mean exactly? As far as I can figure out it means that businesses will start to not people in jobs anymore and turn towards technology.. is that correct?
Yes, more or less. He’s saying some employers may find a cheaper way to make your job nonessential if wage increases become burdensome.
"So you have to be a bit careful: If you raise the minimum wage, you’re encouraging labor substitution, and you’re going to go buy machines and automate things — or cause jobs to appear outside of that jurisdiction.
And so within certain limits, you know, it does cause job destruction. If you really start pushing it, then you’re just making a huge tradeoff.”
- Bill Gates
Fresh off the first family’s sixth annual winter vacation to the Hawaiian island of Oahu – billed to American taxpayers at a cost of $4 million – Michelle Obama and the first daughters Malia and S
Can’t we do something to stop them from stealing from us all the fucking time?
How appropriate… China.
Anonymous asked: its not a baby its a fetus. theres a difference.
I’m a teenager, not yet an adult. My youngest sibling is a child, not yet a teenager. The one in the womb is a fetus, not yet a toddler. Either way, we’re all alive and human.
At the end of the day, you can use whatever term you want to use to identity the human life in the womb. Still, it will never not be a human life, and it will never be okay to end a human’s life. Period.
'It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!' .. (‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’ by Lewis Carroll)
The reason this cartoon works is because our current society has an ambiguous understanding of the words presented on the sign.
Let’s start with the word ‘dictator.’ Dictator in current society is painted with a picture of a bloodthirsty cur, someone who resorts to torture and murder, rather than someone who holds singular power to make decisions. Most powerful Kings and Queens in history have been dictators, but many have been good and wise rulers. In single parent households, the parent is a dictator, even if they are good and fair. Dictators do not become ‘bloodthirsty curs’ (as a rule) until they are met with strong opposition to their policies. Many of the bloodthirsty curs were hailed as heroes in their time, or at least at first including Stalin (he had the medals to prove this), Mao, Khomeini, and even (yes I am going there, bad boy that I am) Hitler. Dictators like Augustus, Elizabeth I, and Charlemagne are still hailed as heroes, but this does not mean that they were not autocrats. Some dictators are elected and although most turn the position into a life-long post, not all do.
A dictator can exercise his control in more ways than just killing off the opposition. For instance he can marginalize his opponents in a number of ways like demonizing them (excommunication anyone?) with some sort of moral outrage, real or concocted. Or he can harass them with legal action (IRS audits). Or he can spy on them and scare away his friends (metadata). He can attack their finances (regulations or giving governmental grants or subsidies to their competitors). He can freeze them out through the legal system by submitting them to investigations of wrong doing, even if there is no evidence of such. All of these things can be done openly to scare away those who might consider voicing opposition in the future as long as the dictator himself can claim plausible denyability of one’s own direct involvement. Of course this last one is made easier if the press is on the dictator’s side or is being controlled by law or intimidation by the dictator (FCC monitors).
Again, the fact that what measures the autocrat is taking are popular (delaying the small business health-care mandate; instituting the Dream Act) they are still the actions of a dictator.
tl;dr, I know but this is important.
The other word people are confused about is ‘Socialist.’ Karl Marx wrote a book about a Utopian society but stated that such a society, one with no governments, religions and armies, could only exist if the entire planet was part of this society. Until then there would need to be an intermediate period with strong centralized governments that were working towards this Utopia of his. At the time he wrote the book the Industrial Revolution had just begun but most people were still divided into two classes: Noble and Peasants. In his eyes the noble class did no work and the peasants were all slaves. This was pretty close to the reality of pre-Industrial Europe, close enough that I’ll let it slide for now. His solution was “From each according to his ability, to each according to their need.” This looks mighty good on paper but it ignores the basic fact of human behavior. If I work harder then the next guy, I deserve to get more out of my work than the next guy (maybe not today but a raise or promotion sure would be nice in the near future). This is compounded by two problems: 1) people always think they work harder than the guy that is doing the same amount of work next to them and 2) what is ‘need’ and do we really work hard for ‘need’ or do we work harder for ‘want’?
Let’s discuss ‘need’ for a second. I am single (and not adverse to receiving random selfies) but the guy next to me has a wife and nine kids. Each of us are working a plot of ground that produces six sacks of flour. (Oh, oh, I hate word problems!) At the end of the day he gets to take home eleven sacks of flour and I get one. Is that fair? What would you do? Would you work less, only producing enough to feed yourself, or maybe you would get wife and have six kids of your own. But either solution would lead to starvation. (think about it) This is why ‘to each according to his need’ does not work for the less needy you are the less you get but the more needy you are the more you get. Now let’s say my neighbor is not as good a farmer as I am and only produces three bags of flour to my six. That means I lose a quarter bag because he has so many kids he can’t sleep well enough to pull his own weight (not like he was pulling it in the first place). I keep thinking of what would be a solution to this mess and all I can think of is quite uncivilized.
"Utopia" is a perfect society. Perfection is a journey, not a destination. Therefore a Utopia cannot exist.
Ok, now that we know what Karl Marx said and have an idea of why it cannot work in reality, we need to discuss what his ideas grew into. Remember, Karl Marx was thinking about an agrarian society, one based on farming with small towns and villages, not an industrial society with big cities (which was another mistake, a mistake that should have made his entire work moot, but didn’t). Anywho, the bridge society, the new government-type that was going to take humanity from feudalism to Utopia did not seem to concern Karl Marx so much as the Utopia that would result did so it was up to others to figure out to bridge that chasm and three forms of government came from it as follows:
1) Communism - This is a form of government where the government owns everything and makes sure everyone has a job using the natural-born skills of that person to contribute to society. At the end of the day everything that is produced is divided up among everyone equally. Only problem with this is, again, human nature, but let’s say the human nature I stated above doesn’t figure in, this new human nature does. The guy dividing up the goods is going to pocket a little extra for himself, well maybe not that guy but we all know someone will so that guy might as well pocket a little, too. Pretty soon we are right back to a feudalistic system except with new Lords.
2) Fascism - The writings of the early fascists explicitly states that it is based on the works of Karl Marx. It is a system where industry is owned by individuals but they are watched closely by the government and highly regulated to make sure they pay attention to worker safety and fair pay. Those that do not do so are fined and those that continue to do business in bad ways are fined out of existence. However, those ‘good’ businesses are rewarded with government contracts and subsides. The problem here is the amount of the reward and who decides it. Maybe if you paid that guy a little kickback you can get a lot larger of a reward. Then the inspector sees this and wants his piece of the graft, after all he says if you are naughty or nice, after all. Before long all these pay-offs are hurting the business’ profits but since he is paying for good inspections anyway he can make it back by cutting corners when it comes to worker safety. When an ‘accident’ eventually happens, as it will, the business owner simply pays the investigator to declare it was beyond the business’ control to foresee and prevent it. Pretty soon you have a manufacturing sector that is all about who you know (and pay off) instead of what you know.
3)Socialism - In this form businesses do pretty much what they want and people make what they can. However, if people make ‘too much’ money then their money is taken away from them and given to those that need it more. Oh wait…mmm… isn’t that called “progressivism”? That has ‘progress’ in the name and progress means ‘to move forward’ and so it must be good, right? Well, half right, yes, it is now called ‘progressivism’. I now have to refer you to a book (if you got this far you can’t hate reading that much): George Orwell’s 1984. In the book there was something called ‘newspeak’. Newspeak is when someone takes a word that induces a certain reaction to the public, positive or negative, and replaces with a word that induces the opposite feeling in the listener: socialist = cousin to communist = bad; progressive = progress (to move forward) = good.
There has never been a pure form of any government type; all governments have been a mixture of types with varying levels of controls, laws, and regulations (and graft). There has also never been a pure form of economy as government and economy cannot be separated. Remove government and you have anarchy. An economy cannot exist in an anarchy. In an anarchy the guy with the biggest fist becomes the government.
Now, go back and reread what I said about Karl Marx, reread no.3 then reread the cartoon. Has your opinion changed yet?
READ THE COMMENT.
The world has bigger problems than boys who kiss boys
An yet that’s all we ever hear about in America.
"Wow, our economy is crap and our dollar in tanking"
“But gay marriage!”
"Damn, Russia is invading Eastern Europe"
“Businesses discriminating against gay marriages based on their religious beliefs? NOT ON MY WATCH!”
"The government is rapidly usurping power from the people and systematically nullifying the Constitution."
“But the President is pro gay-marriage, so it’s ok.”
We have much bigger problems than who you do or do not have sex with. Most of us really don’t care.
So we were sitting in class today
and my U.S. History teacher was trying to get us to understand why it was such a big deal that England had put a tax on colonial sugar, and he goes,
"What if you had to pay a tax every time you logged onto wifi?"
And the whole class just went
and I heard at least two people whisper “I would murder someone”