Now Playing Tracks

The dream of the 90s

shitmystudentswrite:

Within the 20th century, the ‘90s were hands down the greatest decade for a boy to be born and raised through. The pop-culture and technology was simply at its prime. We’ll start from the beginning. What do kids at the age from just being born to about six years old care about? That’s simple, breast milk; but more importantly, toys. Although the breast milk in the 90s was most likely delicious, there is no existing cryogenically frozen breast milk lab for me to prove it. However, I sure as hell can sell you on how awesome the toys were.

i…

what

holy shit what’s that it’s a calmasis

1. I just favorited a metric ton of art of them because: yes.

2. As someone who identifies as genderqueer but honestly gives no fucks about what pronoun is used for me, I am quietly putting my head on my desk with respect to everything else concerning this character. (Yes: I am aware this is just me and applies to no one else in my situation. However: Stop standing up for me.)

3. I’d roleplay them, though.

:o: Thar ze blows

mspandrew:

Desktop background by this tumblrist.

Many updates tend to spark crazy outbursts of fanart, particularly those that introduce new characters. It doesn’t even matter if the character is someone in a fictional book within the story. Actually, that probably only encourages it, since…

I hate to break it to T-Rex, but the singular nonspecific “they” has a long and storied history in the English language in referring to somebody of unknown or unspecified gender. It’s only recently that the idea of it being “always plural” and grammatically incorrect as singular has crept into common recommendation.

Complacency of the Learned plotting

rimbaum:

So yeah, me and some collaborators got together last night and tonight and we started this thing up.

I, personally, am really psyched to get started on writing. The plotting and planning and brainstorming is showing a lot of promise and all four of us really seem to be meshing on ideas.

If you’re interested in seeing what we’ve got so far, come on over and take a look! It’ll be fun, I promise :3

INTRIGUING.

I for one am fascinated by this project.

transhumanisticpanspermia: plagueheart: chaemera: Good to see at least one senator in DC has morals. /o\ okay. please read this in its entirety to understand why “LET’S KEEP UPPING TAXES ON THE RICH” is not in fact an effective tactic for addressing a deficit and never has been at any point in the country’s economic history, and “huge tax cuts” tend to have a “paradoxical” effect of the rich paying more in taxes than they were under stricter tax regimes. tl;dr: if you’re taxing someone for 50%+ of their income, they tend to move that income into nontaxable forms. reduce the tax burden and they stop doing that. Actually, it’s not the “rich” who are the problem, it’s the uber-rich. Income tax brackets aren’t the problem whatsoever. It’s corporate taxes where all the money gets thrown into old-white-guy pits. It’s avoidable corporate taxes and lax inheritance and capital gains taxes which are the problem. CATO and Mises love to bring things down to simple income tax, and often times their research is correct. However, it’s also irrelevant, because income tax is not the problem. Think of it this way: it doesn’t matter that the executives of GE get taxed 40 some percent or whatever the bracket is this week. It matters that GE itself pays so little taxes that the government pays them, and that the board members get taxed diddley-squat on the various means with which they make money from the whole setup. CATO’s researchers point that out, actually, in that very article—diddling with income tax means that people in the top itty-whatever percentage are going to shift themselves into self-employment because they turn into corporations at that point. Suddenly, corporate taxes apply, and they dodge the income tax bullet because they enter the massively evasive corporate tax territory. You’re right, however, that it boils down to income tax doesn’t matter. I’m just tired of seeing the RICH PEOPLE AREN’T PAYING ENOUGH, INCREASE TAXES!! dialogue thrown out when that’s not the issue at all. Because: 1) it doesn’t work for the reasons outlined above, namely tax evasion through the massive loopholes left in our system, 2) it doesn’t cut to the heart of the problem, which are in part those massive loopholes and in part the sheer ridiculousness of the corporate tax system at this point, and 3) people who are benefitting from the currently damaged system are using the RICH PEOPLE DON’T PAY ENOUGH TAXES meme to continuously poison the narrative so that we can’t have an honest discussion about the actual issues. And it’s an extremely effective poison because saying “actually, no” immediately leads to the “but you’re amoral!” or “you’re heartless!” as a rebuke, because while redistributive tax systems don’t work particularly effectively in our economic scheme and have not historically, they have a deep emotional appeal. Which is why I get so fucking angry at Tumblr on a regular basis because 98% of the dialogue boils down to people vomiting up whatever narrative poison they’ve been fed, rather than having a discussion. We allow our politicians to get away with the “buy on emotion, justify on emotion” for what’s been effectively forever and now all the political and social dialogue revolves around who can make their opponent look like a complete monster first. Sorry. I just sat through four hours at the dinner table having a mostly decent discussion with my family but I still want to rip my hair out for every time my dad used the word “libertarian” to describe me like it was an insult. Maybe I will take him at his word and stop coming to dinner since it’s Democrats and independents only at the table.
Zoom

transhumanisticpanspermia:

plagueheart:

chaemera:

Good to see at least one senator in DC has morals.

/o\

okay. please read this in its entirety to understand why “LET’S KEEP UPPING TAXES ON THE RICH” is not in fact an effective tactic for addressing a deficit and never has been at any point in the country’s economic history, and “huge tax cuts” tend to have a “paradoxical” effect of the rich paying more in taxes than they were under stricter tax regimes.

tl;dr: if you’re taxing someone for 50%+ of their income, they tend to move that income into nontaxable forms. reduce the tax burden and they stop doing that.

Actually, it’s not the “rich” who are the problem, it’s the uber-rich. Income tax brackets aren’t the problem whatsoever.

It’s corporate taxes where all the money gets thrown into old-white-guy pits. It’s avoidable corporate taxes and lax inheritance and capital gains taxes which are the problem. CATO and Mises love to bring things down to simple income tax, and often times their research is correct. However, it’s also irrelevant, because income tax is not the problem.

Think of it this way: it doesn’t matter that the executives of GE get taxed 40 some percent or whatever the bracket is this week. It matters that GE itself pays so little taxes that the government pays them, and that the board members get taxed diddley-squat on the various means with which they make money from the whole setup.

CATO’s researchers point that out, actually, in that very article—diddling with income tax means that people in the top itty-whatever percentage are going to shift themselves into self-employment because they turn into corporations at that point. Suddenly, corporate taxes apply, and they dodge the income tax bullet because they enter the massively evasive corporate tax territory.

You’re right, however, that it boils down to income tax doesn’t matter. I’m just tired of seeing the RICH PEOPLE AREN’T PAYING ENOUGH, INCREASE TAXES!! dialogue thrown out when that’s not the issue at all. Because: 1) it doesn’t work for the reasons outlined above, namely tax evasion through the massive loopholes left in our system, 2) it doesn’t cut to the heart of the problem, which are in part those massive loopholes and in part the sheer ridiculousness of the corporate tax system at this point, and 3) people who are benefitting from the currently damaged system are using the RICH PEOPLE DON’T PAY ENOUGH TAXES meme to continuously poison the narrative so that we can’t have an honest discussion about the actual issues. And it’s an extremely effective poison because saying “actually, no” immediately leads to the “but you’re amoral!” or “you’re heartless!” as a rebuke, because while redistributive tax systems don’t work particularly effectively in our economic scheme and have not historically, they have a deep emotional appeal.

Which is why I get so fucking angry at Tumblr on a regular basis because 98% of the dialogue boils down to people vomiting up whatever narrative poison they’ve been fed, rather than having a discussion. We allow our politicians to get away with the “buy on emotion, justify on emotion” for what’s been effectively forever and now all the political and social dialogue revolves around who can make their opponent look like a complete monster first.

Sorry. I just sat through four hours at the dinner table having a mostly decent discussion with my family but I still want to rip my hair out for every time my dad used the word “libertarian” to describe me like it was an insult. Maybe I will take him at his word and stop coming to dinner since it’s Democrats and independents only at the table.

(Source: imgfave)

transhumanisticpanspermia: fyeahcodegreen: For news on indigenous struggles: From Intercontinental Cry: Intercontinental Cry is dedicated to keeping you informed about the most pressing and under-reported struggles in the world today. Intercontinental Cry is a free online magazine that provides news, videos, and urgent action alerts centered on Indigenous People and their struggles around the world to reclaim their lands, defend their traditions, enact their rights, and to quite literally survive.… http://intercontinentalcry.org Two things: While the current paradigm of progress is terrible, that does not invalidate progress. Does that number even mean anything? 200,000? I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but the culture depicted as “indigenous” here is sedentary, and sedentary society came about around 11,000 years ago. As for the type of nomads that existed before sedentary society (much different than those who existed parallel to it), they were supplanted, “killed off,” if you will, by the “indigenous” cultures.Yeah. Stone tools are over 250,000 years old. But from 200,000 years ago to 11,000 years ago, civilization was not static, and it was not full of pristine, utopian indigenous cultures. This is the same “I miss the old times” attitude that liberals call out constantly for being mind-mendingly naive. (Civil rights? Psh. Who needs ‘em.)As for “modern civilization,” I’m presuming this means “imperialist civilization.” Because pretty much anything else is “indigenous,” because much like imperial states called everyone else “barbarians,” people who oppose imperialism pretty much apply the blanket label “indigenous” to any culture that never practiced imperialism. (Even though many actually did, like the Cherokee Nation.) That came about, oh, 300-400 years ago. Again, in the time from 11,000 YA to 400 YA, a lot of shit happened. It wasn’t like someday someone woke up and said “I’m going to piss off a 21st century liberal by turning the world imperialist!” You know who killed off all the charismatic megafauna like mammoths, dire wolves, giant sloths, saber-toothed cats, Haast’s eagles, and all the fuckin’ huge marsupials in Australia? THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES. \c_c\
Zoom

transhumanisticpanspermia:

fyeahcodegreen:

For news on indigenous struggles:

From Intercontinental Cry:

Intercontinental Cry is dedicated to keeping you informed about the most pressing and under-reported struggles in the world today.

Intercontinental Cry is a free online magazine that provides news, videos, and urgent action alerts centered on Indigenous People and their struggles around the world to reclaim their lands, defend their traditions, enact their rights, and to quite literally survive.
…

http://intercontinentalcry.org

Two things:

  1. While the current paradigm of progress is terrible, that does not invalidate progress.
  2. Does that number even mean anything? 200,000? I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but the culture depicted as “indigenous” here is sedentary, and sedentary society came about around 11,000 years ago. As for the type of nomads that existed before sedentary society (much different than those who existed parallel to it), they were supplanted, “killed off,” if you will, by the “indigenous” cultures.
    Yeah. Stone tools are over 250,000 years old. But from 200,000 years ago to 11,000 years ago, civilization was not static, and it was not full of pristine, utopian indigenous cultures. This is the same “I miss the old times” attitude that liberals call out constantly for being mind-mendingly naive. (Civil rights? Psh. Who needs ‘em.)
    As for “modern civilization,” I’m presuming this means “imperialist civilization.” Because pretty much anything else is “indigenous,” because much like imperial states called everyone else “barbarians,” people who oppose imperialism pretty much apply the blanket label “indigenous” to any culture that never practiced imperialism. (Even though many actually did, like the Cherokee Nation.) That came about, oh, 300-400 years ago. Again, in the time from 11,000 YA to 400 YA, a lot of shit happened. It wasn’t like someday someone woke up and said “I’m going to piss off a 21st century liberal by turning the world imperialist!”

You know who killed off all the charismatic megafauna like mammoths, dire wolves, giant sloths, saber-toothed cats, Haast’s eagles, and all the fuckin’ huge marsupials in Australia?

THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.

\c_c\

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union