🔥 Popular | Latest

Chill, Definitely, and Life: storlek: stephendann: words4bloghere: tealdeertamer: iconuk01: srsfunny: Wolves React To Gamekeeper Who Had Been Away On Maternity Leave “WHERE’S YOUR PUPPY! WE WANNA SEE YOUR PUPPY! DID YOU JUST HAVE THE ONE? DO YOU HAVE THEM WITH YOU? ARE THERE PHOTOS?” I’m not a hundred percent positive but I’m pretty sure this is the wild life center where I visited wolves. And the safety briefing included the question “So if you’re pregnant, do you want to know or not?” Turns out there had been a bit of an awkward situation once where the keepers had casually mentioned a woman’s pregnancy in a group, and she herself didn’t even know yet. Turns out the wolves are excellent at telling if you’re pregnant and the keepers can tell based on their body language.  They get all odd and careful around pregnancy. (Even wolves knows that you have to take care of pregnant people.) So they definitely knew she was pregnant. And if I remember my BBC documentaries right, a wolf will leave the pack to give birth and introduce the cubs to the pack once she feels ready for it. And maternity leave is flexible but often around 6 months so they’re going “YOU WERE GONE FOREVER! WE WERE SO WORRIED! WHERE ARE THE CUBS?? WE HAVE TO GREET THE CUBS!!“  Also the two on her back are fighting over who gets to greet her first. Giving and receiving attention is a commodity that goes by hierarchy and if you don’t accept that there will be scuffles.. The wolf lying down next to her isn’t chill about her coming back, it’s just submissive to the other wolves and waiting for it’s turn to show excitement. Now I can see why we domesticated these adorable jerks. Wolf packs have maternity leave? Wolves: better than American companies.
Save
Anaconda, Drunk, and Friends: Sprint Wi-Fi 2:25 PM Tweet tl saint lil rogue Retweeted Noob Saibot @Mommaafro So a woman's idea of being friends is being friends? Chef Nol @UR_SO_ COOL_NOL A woman's idea of "Let just be friends" is "Hey listen to all my problems and keep me company...while I have sex with someone else." 9/14/17, 9:26 AM 115 Retweets 168 Likes Tweet your reply 2 astronomically-androngynous: sounddesignerjeans: princess-mint: alarajrogers: niambi: I’m???? Oh my God this actually explains so much. So there’s a known thing in the study of human psychology/sociology/what-have-you where men are known to, on average, rely entirely on their female romantic partner for emotional support. Bonding with other men is done at a more superficial level involving fun group activities and conversations about general subjects but rarely involves actually leaning on other men or being really honest about emotional problems. Men use alcohol to be able to lower their inhibitions enough to expose themselves emotionally to other men, but if you can’t get emotional support unless you’re drunk, you have a problem. So men need to have a woman in their lives to have anyone they can share their emotional needs and vulnerabilities with. However, since women are not socialized to fear sharing these things, women’s friendships with other women are heavily based on emotional support. If you can’t lean on her when you’re weak, she’s not your friend. To women, what friendship is is someone who listens to all your problems and keeps you company. So this disconnect men are suffering from is that they think that only a person who is having sex with you will share their emotions and expect support. That’s what a romantic partner does. But women think that’s what a friend does. So women do it for their romantic partners and their friends and expect a male friend to do it for them the same as a female friend would. This fools the male friend into thinking there must be something romantic there when there is not. This here is an example of patriarchy hurting everyone. Women have a much healthier approach to emotional support – they don’t die when widowed at nearly the rate that widowers die and they don’t suffer emotionally from divorce nearly as much even though they suffer much more financially, and this is because women don’t put all their emotional needs on one person. Women have a support network of other women. But men are trained to never share their emotions except with their wife or girlfriend, because that isn’t manly. So when she dies or leaves them, they have no one to turn to to help with the grief, causing higher rates of death, depression, alcoholism and general awfulness upon losing a romantic partner.  So men suffer terribly from being trained in this way. But women suffer in that they can’t reach out to male friends for basic friendship. I am not sure any man can comprehend how heartbreaking it is to realize that a guy you thought was your friend was really just trying to get into your pants. Friendship is real. It’s emotional, it’s important to us. We lean on our friends. Knowing that your friend was secretly seething with resentment when you were opening up to him and sharing your problems because he felt like he shouldn’t have to do that kind of emotional work for anyone not having sex with him, and he felt used by you for that reason, is horrible. And the fact that men can’t share emotional needs with other men means that lots of men who can’t get a girlfriend end up turning into horrible misogynistic people who think the world owes them the love of a woman, like it’s a commodity… because no one will die without sex. Masturbation exists. But people will die or suffer deep emotional trauma from having no one they can lean on emotionally. And men who are suffering deep emotional trauma, and have been trained to channel their personal trauma into rage because they can’t share it, become mass shooters, or rapists, or simply horrible misogynists. The only way to fix this is to teach boys it’s okay to love your friends. It’s okay to share your needs and your problems with your friends. It’s okay to lean on your friends, to hug your friends, to be weak with your friends. Only if this is okay for boys to do with their male friends can this problem be resolved… so men, this one’s on you. Women can’t fix this for you; you don’t listen to us about matters of what it means to be a man. Fix your own shit and teach your brothers and sons and friends that this is okay, or everyone suffers. The next time a guy says, “What? You don't want to be my friend?” I’ll text him this and then ask if he really wants to be friends or just have another potential girlfriend. y’all I am living for these analyses where the new way to fight the patriarchy is to teach men to love each other and themselves Im a communication student and can confirm the above is absolutely 100% accurate and it’s called agentic vs communal friendship theorized by Steven McCornack
Save
Anaconda, Drunk, and Fall: So a woman's idea of being friends is A woman's idea of "Let just be friends" is Hey listen to all my problems and keep me niambi ers Oh my God this actually explains so much. So there's a known thing in the study of human psychology/sociology/what-have- you where men are known to, on average, rely entirely on their female romantic partner for emotional support. Bonding with other men is done at a more superficial level involving fun group activities and conversations about general subject s but rarely involves actually on about emotional problems. Men use alcohol to be able to lower their inhibitions enough to expose themselves emotionally to other men, but if you can't get emotional support unless you're drunk, you have a problem. So men need to have a woman in their lives to have anyone they can share their emotional needs and vulnerabilities with. However, since women are not socialized to fear sharing these things, women's friendships with other women are heavily based on emotional support. If you can't lean on her when you're weak, she's not your friend. To women, what friendship is is someone who listens to all your problems and keeps you company. So this disconnect men are suffering from is that they think that only a person who is having sex with you will share their emotions and expect support. That's what a romantic partner does. But women think that's what a friend does. So women do it for their romantic partners and their friends and expect a male friend to do it for them the same as a female friend would. This fools the male friend into thinking there must be something romantic there when there is not. This here is an example of patriarchy hurting everyone. Women have a much healthier approach to emotional support they don't die when widowed at nearly the rate that wid- owers die and they don't suffer emotionally from divorce nearly as much even though they suffer much more financially, and this is because women don't put all their emotional needs on one person. Women have a support network of other women. But men are trained to never share their emotions except with their wife or girlfriend, because that isn't manly. So when she dies or leaves them, they have no one to turn to to help with the grief, causing higher rates of death, depression, alcoholism and general awfulness upon losing a romantic partner So men suffer terribly from being trained in this way. But women suffer in that they can't reach out to male friends for basic friendship I am not sure any man can comprehend how heartbreaking it is to realize that a guy you thought was your friend was really just trying to get into your pants. Friendship is real. It's emotional, it's important to us. We lean on our friends. Knowing that your friend was secretly seething with resentment when you were opening up to him and sharing your problems because he felt like he shouldn't have to do that kind of emotional work for anyone not having sex with him, and he felt used by you for that reason, is horrible. And the fact that men can't share emotional needs with other men means that lots of men who can't get a girlfriend end up turning into horrible misogynistic people who think the worlid owes them the love of a woman, like it's a commodity... because no one will die without sex. Masturbation exists. But people will die or suffer deep emotional trauma from having no one they can lean on emotionally. And men who are suffering deep emotional trauma, and have been trained to channel their personal trauma into rage because they can't share it, become mass shooters, or rapists, or simply miS The only way to fix this is to teach boys it's okay to love your friends. It's okay to share your needs and your problems with your friends. It's okay to lean on your friends, to hug your friends, to be weak with your friends. Only if this is okay for boys to do with their male friends can this problem be resolved so men, this one's on you. Women can't fix this for you; you don't listen to us about matters of what it means to be a man. Fix your own shit and teach your brothers and sons and friends that this is okay, or everyone suffers. The next time a guy says, "What? You don't want to be my friend?" I'll text him this and then ask if he really wants to be friends or just have another potential girlfriend. fall-out-man Im a communication student and can confirm the above is absolutely 100% accurate and it's called Friend vs Friendzone
Save
Alive, Anaconda, and Apparently: Barber: "what you want?" Him: "give me the most dystopian shit possible" Barber: "got ya fam" LifeNews com LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ Follow British Govt Encouraging Women to Give Birth to Disabled Babies to Harvest Thei Organs buff.ly/2Fuaepo <p><a href="http://krungle.tumblr.com/post/171933983002/libertarirynn-matt-ruins-your-shit" class="tumblr_blog">krungle</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171933218134/matt-ruins-your-shit-kajiosblog-this" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://matt-ruins-your-shit.tumblr.com/post/171925993106/kajiosblog-this-articles-title-is-rather" class="tumblr_blog">matt-ruins-your-shit</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kajiosblog.tumblr.com/post/171917720473/this-articles-title-is-rather-misleading-they" class="tumblr_blog">kajiosblog</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>This article’s title is rather misleading.  They aren’t encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs or something like that.  They aren’t encouraging anything.</p> <p>The truth of the matter is that expecting mothers who find out that their baby will be born with fatal defects will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early, in order to allow for organ donation.  Note this this is simply an option, and there is no incentive or penalty for either choice.</p> <p>Source: <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth">https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth</a></p> </blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5p3fvAsQ11rw09tq_540.gif" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif"/></figure><p>I don’t think a single other person read that headline and thought they were “encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs.” That’s not why people find it incredibly disturbing and I’m astounded those were the conclusions you drew and thought it needed to be corrected. No seriously where did you get the idea that it was being claimed that mothers were being told to disable unborn children so they could be harvested? That makes no sense, that’s like the logic of Ricky from Trailer Park Boys who thinks that as long as you drag stolen goods down to the curb it becomes garbage and it’s not illegal to steal garbage. The very idea of a baby needing to be disabled in order to justify harvesting it’s organs should be offensive, it implies disabled people have less right to be alive and have their organs inside their own fucking bodies. The article title wasn’t misleading your terribly needless strawman explanation of the title was misleading. This is the exact reason I hate “fact checkers” you need fact checkers for the fact checkers they can be so bogged down in spin and semantics and dumb bullshit like this. The problem is with the harvesting of organs from disabled babies full stop. I didn’t think this needed to be explained but here goes.</p> <p>First of all it turns human life into a commodity, and not just a commodity but a commodity that would be controlled by the medical system of an increasingly fascist socialist government. What could go wrong?</p> <p>Like for example it hasn’t even happened yet and already there seems to be confusion about what exactly constitutes fatal defects. A system that always is going to want more organs is going to determine for themselves what is disabled enough? And what level of disabled is enough that you should be determined as scrap parts instead of a person? How do you know the baby will die? Doctors tell people their kids will be born dead or will die soon all the time that live full lives. One of my best friends parents were told he wouldn’t make it past a few weeks and he’s in his late twenties now. Really glad this wasn’t the policy back then.</p> <p>“will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early” No, carrying out the pregnancy has always been an option it’s the harvesting of organs that would be the new factor here. If it’s as you said that they are being given the option to carry out the pregnancy does that mean that right now women are being forced to have abortions? No giving birth is and always has been the default option. I find it gross that you think the only thing people do when they find out a baby will have serious defects is just abort it. These fatal defects represent a percentage chance of survival not a guarantee, so while yes a lot of people just say fuck it and abort at any sign of a problem there are also lots of people that take the risk give birth because worst case scenario the baby dies naturally best case scenario it survives. Medium case scenario it survives but raising it is costly and they have a lower quality of life…but it’s still a life and it should be up to a person to decide if their quality of life is low enough that they would rather not have it at all. <br/></p> <p>The horrifying part is they are not talking about stillborns, they’re not talking about babies that died in the womb. They’re talking about babies they believe will die eventually after being born. Who makes that determination? You trust the NHS… a system so shitty they amputate the wrong limbs on people to decide what babies are basically done for before they’re even born. Especially when they will benefit from every single baby a parent decides to allow be harvested. If there is room for corruption there will be corruption.</p> <p> So what happens once those babies are born and they’re alive? Do they start up a daycare center thats whole purpose is to wait for babies to die so they can be harvested? I’m sure the care there would be super humane and hospitable. What do they do with the ones that survive? By that point they would have become property of the NHS because they’re not babies they’re just living organ donations that haven’t had the courtesy to die naturally yet. Do they call up the mother and say hey so remember when you told us we could harvest your dead baby…well can you come by and pick up your two year old… that fucker is being really stubborn about not dying like we promised. Or much more likely they’ll just kill the babies immediately to avoid that burden and complication and not give them the chance to survive. I’ve already heard the term post birth abortion or as someone with a soul left would call it baby murder. </p> <p>They try to get around this by claiming the harvesting wont be an option until they are told the mother wants to have an abortion. What a great failsafe right? Well except that they can tell the mother whatever they want to get her to say she wants an abortion. They can tell her that her baby will definitely die when it might have a good chance of living. Which happens already without the added incentive of wanting to harvest the organs.</p> <p>Where would the oversight be. The NHS is already overwhelmed you think there’s going to be someone checking to make sure nobody is telling mothers their babies have fetal defects when they don’t? You think the system is going to check every single case, especially when every single case is going to benefit them? What fairy tale world do you live in. It’s the setup for a system where you give a doctor the power to say to himself this baby has a 10-60% chance of survival this mother is being a real bitch…and we’re in need of organs right now…maybe I tell her the lowest number in that estimate. Which is all it will be…fucking estimates. I have a member of my family that was pronounced dead four times and lived another twenty years. These people can’t even figure out when a person is dead and you want to give them 100% authority to determine who will die. Fuck that, fuck this. If they do this there will be horror stories rolling out within the week.</p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine fucking reading this and being like “no guys you don’t understand nobody’s asking the mother’s to disable the babies, just to give birth to disabled babies instead of murdering them in the womb so we can chop them up for parts! Because that’s so much better!”</p> </blockquote> <p style=""> “ babies diagnosed with fatal illnesses “</p> <p>That is a pretty high bar if you ask me. The kid will die anyway, sometimes destroying the organs in the process and often involving massive pain while being kept alive for enormous sums of money on machines. At least in this way the poor kid doesn’t have to suffer and some other kid gets a chance to end their suffering, as well, when they receive their transplants.</p> <p>The entire conversation on this started with fetuses that developed with no brain.</p> <p>You all that say this is wrong because of ‘compassion’ are showing no compassion for either the pain and suffering of the baby or the pain and suffering of the kids who will be able to live a much more normal and longer life once they get transplants. It isn’t ‘compassion’ you are showing but a strict adherence to a moral code and be damned how much pain and suffering it causes others.</p> <p>You people would show more compassion for your dog than you would for another human being.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>“No YOU guys are actually the cruel ones for not wanting to murder sick babies to harvest them for parts!“</p><p>Are you fucking serious? First of all apparently it’s no longer possible to harvest organs after natural death despite the fact that it’s done all the time? “They’re going to die eventually anyway“ I’ve got a newsflash for you pal, so are you. I like how you think this is completely justified based on your assumption that all babies born with fatal illnesses are in constant pain and should therefore be exterminated for their own sake. This is post is a hot mess in every way.</p>
Save
Alive, Anaconda, and Bailey Jay: Barber: "what you want?" Him: "give me the most dystopian shit possible" Barber: "got ya fam" LifeNews com LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ Follow British Govt Encouraging Women to Give Birth to Disabled Babies to Harvest Thei Organs buff.ly/2Fuaepo <p><a href="http://matt-ruins-your-shit.tumblr.com/post/171925993106/kajiosblog-this-articles-title-is-rather" class="tumblr_blog">matt-ruins-your-shit</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kajiosblog.tumblr.com/post/171917720473/this-articles-title-is-rather-misleading-they" class="tumblr_blog">kajiosblog</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>This article’s title is rather misleading.  They aren’t encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs or something like that.  They aren’t encouraging anything.</p> <p>The truth of the matter is that expecting mothers who find out that their baby will be born with fatal defects will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early, in order to allow for organ donation.  Note this this is simply an option, and there is no incentive or penalty for either choice.</p> <p>Source: <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth">https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth</a></p> </blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370"/></figure><p>I don’t think a single other person read that headline and thought they were “encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs.” That’s not why people find it incredibly disturbing and I’m astounded those were the conclusions you drew and thought it needed to be corrected. No seriously where did you get the idea that it was being claimed that mothers were being told to disable unborn children so they could be harvested? That makes no sense, that’s like the logic of Ricky from Trailer Park Boys who thinks that as long as you drag stolen goods down to the curb it becomes garbage and it’s not illegal to steal garbage. The very idea of a baby needing to be disabled in order to justify harvesting it’s organs should be offensive, it implies disabled people have less right to be alive and have their organs inside their own fucking bodies. The article title wasn’t misleading your terribly needless strawman explanation of the title was misleading. This is the exact reason I hate “fact checkers” you need fact checkers for the fact checkers they can be so bogged down in spin and semantics and dumb bullshit like this. The problem is with the harvesting of organs from disabled babies full stop. I didn’t think this needed to be explained but here goes.</p> <p>First of all it turns human life into a commodity, and not just a commodity but a commodity that would be controlled by the medical system of an increasingly fascist socialist government. What could go wrong?</p> <p>Like for example it hasn’t even happened yet and already there seems to be confusion about what exactly constitutes fatal defects. A system that always is going to want more organs is going to determine for themselves what is disabled enough? And what level of disabled is enough that you should be determined as scrap parts instead of a person? How do you know the baby will die? Doctors tell people their kids will be born dead or will die soon all the time that live full lives. One of my best friends parents were told he wouldn’t make it past a few weeks and he’s in his late twenties now. Really glad this wasn’t the policy back then.</p> <p>“will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early” No, carrying out the pregnancy has always been an option it’s the harvesting of organs that would be the new factor here. If it’s as you said that they are being given the option to carry out the pregnancy does that mean that right now women are being forced to have abortions? No giving birth is and always has been the default option. I find it gross that you think the only thing people do when they find out a baby will have serious defects is just abort it. These fatal defects represent a percentage chance of survival not a guarantee, so while yes a lot of people just say fuck it and abort at any sign of a problem there are also lots of people that take the risk give birth because worst case scenario the baby dies naturally best case scenario it survives. Medium case scenario it survives but raising it is costly and they have a lower quality of life…but it’s still a life and it should be up to a person to decide if their quality of life is low enough that they would rather not have it at all. <br/></p> <p>The horrifying part is they are not talking about stillborns, they’re not talking about babies that died in the womb. They’re talking about babies they believe will die eventually after being born. Who makes that determination? You trust the NHS… a system so shitty they amputate the wrong limbs on people to decide what babies are basically done for before they’re even born. Especially when they will benefit from every single baby a parent decides to allow be harvested. If there is room for corruption there will be corruption.</p> <p> So what happens once those babies are born and they’re alive? Do they start up a daycare center thats whole purpose is to wait for babies to die so they can be harvested? I’m sure the care there would be super humane and hospitable. What do they do with the ones that survive? By that point they would have become property of the NHS because they’re not babies they’re just living organ donations that haven’t had the courtesy to die naturally yet. Do they call up the mother and say hey so remember when you told us we could harvest your dead baby…well can you come by and pick up your two year old… that fucker is being really stubborn about not dying like we promised. Or much more likely they’ll just kill the babies immediately to avoid that burden and complication and not give them the chance to survive. I’ve already heard the term post birth abortion or as someone with a soul left would call it baby murder. </p> <p>They try to get around this by claiming the harvesting wont be an option until they are told the mother wants to have an abortion. What a great failsafe right? Well except that they can tell the mother whatever they want to get her to say she wants an abortion. They can tell her that her baby will definitely die when it might have a good chance of living. Which happens already without the added incentive of wanting to harvest the organs.</p> <p>Where would the oversight be. The NHS is already overwhelmed you think there’s going to be someone checking to make sure nobody is telling mothers their babies have fetal defects when they don’t? You think the system is going to check every single case, especially when every single case is going to benefit them? What fairy tale world do you live in. It’s the setup for a system where you give a doctor the power to say to himself this baby has a 10-60% chance of survival this mother is being a real bitch…and we’re in need of organs right now…maybe I tell her the lowest number in that estimate. Which is all it will be…fucking estimates. I have a member of my family that was pronounced dead four times and lived another twenty years. These people can’t even figure out when a person is dead and you want to give them 100% authority to determine who will die. Fuck that, fuck this. If they do this there will be horror stories rolling out within the week.</p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine fucking reading this and being like “no guys you don’t understand nobody’s asking the mother’s to disable the babies, just to give birth to disabled babies instead of murdering them in the womb so we can chop them up for parts! Because that’s so much better!”</p>
Save
Arguing, Tumblr, and American: IF THE MINIMUM WAGE WAS REALLY "NEVER MEANT TO BE A LIVING WAGE, THEN WHY DID FDR, THE PRESIDENT WHO SIGNED IT INTO LAW IN 1938, SAY: "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country By living wages, I mean more than the bare subsistence level I mean the wages of a decent living Franklin D. Roosevelt IN SUPPORT OF AN SHARE THIS IF YOU AGREE THAT THERE'S NO JUSTIFICATION FORA MINIMUM WAGE BELOW A LIVING WAGE! $11 MINIMUM WAGE <p><a href="http://addictinginfo.tumblr.com/post/83841892544/minimum-wage-should-be-linked-to-the-poverty" class="tumblr_blog">addictinginfo</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level. </p></blockquote> <p>First of all FDR was a garbage president who threw American citizens in interment camps because of their race. I don’t really think he should be your yardstick for human decency.</p><p>Second, I have never seen the goalposts move so often as they do when people are defining what constitutes a “living wage“. Labor is a commodity, and it’s one of the only commodities that people argue should have a fixed price regardless of its actual worth. If I told you that apples should always be at least $10 no matter what, you would laugh at me. But all labor is worth $15 an hour?</p>

addictinginfo: Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level.  First of all FDR was a garbage president who threw American citizens i...

Save
America, Ass, and Children: Amy Renee Wasney Monday at 9:31 PM While watching A Christmas Carol tonight, my attention was caught by Bob Cratchit's salary. He makes "15 bob a week." I got curious and looked into inflation and conversion to American money, and if A Christmas Carol happened this year, Bob Cratchit would be making $27,574 per year in American money. If someone works 40 hours a week at the current federal minimum wage, they'll make $15,080. So Bob Cratchit, the epitome of poverty, makes $12,494 more than minimum wage workers (full time) each year. And yet we have people saying minimum wage is fine where it's at. <p><a href="http://eruhamster.tumblr.com/post/169093714870/thetakubooty-libertarirynn-hst3000" class="tumblr_blog">eruhamster</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://thetakubooty.tumblr.com/post/169093033392/libertarirynn-hst3000-libertarirynn-this" class="tumblr_blog">thetakubooty</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092911679/hst3000-libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://hst3000.tumblr.com/post/169092756302/libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning" class="tumblr_blog">hst3000</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092461069/this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning-to-end-first" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>This is a total load from beginning to end. First off I’m curious where you did your research because mine showed that Cratchit made about $90 a week or $4,680 a year in today’s money. That’s not even close to your number. Secondly, if minimum wage is so necessary to prevent employers from exploiting their workers, then why don’t all companies pay minimum wage?</p></blockquote> <p>A minor point on the conversion. Christmas Carol is far enough back that inflation calculations can get a bit hairy. Some things have been reduced in price dramatically due to automation and industrialization, while others have gotten way more expensive due to (funnily enough) rising labor costs. There’s about five different ways to calculate conversion, and none if them are broadly applicable to global statements.</p> </blockquote> <p>Oh definitely. Even in my calculations it wasn’t too clean-cut. Plus the modern English shilling is not the same as the shilling in 1843. I don’t want to sound like a cynic and suggest that this person just pulled a random number out of their ass without caring whether not it was accurate because they wanted to make a point but…</p> </blockquote> <p>what was their point?</p> </blockquote> <p>Their point was that Bob Cratchit made next to nothing working for Scrooge as it was, and if he got paid more than minimum wage workers today, then we have something very wrong with our society. Which isn’t necessarily wrong.</p> <p>Also <a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mZHrjydhp9oUbxMGBDJA8rw">@libertarirynn</a> you’re really asking why minimum wage is necessary? Of course if everyone paid the same minimum wage, then they wouldn’t get people who cared about their jobs and it’d be harder to find skilled workers– both because existing skilled workers would rather work a minimum wage job where they could do less, and because no one would want to bother to learn trades and skills because they’ll get paid the same shit amount anyway. </p> <p>Minimum wage is necessary to stop people from taking advantage of unskilled labor. Factory work and the like. Do you know what life was like for people before minimum wage was a thing? People were making so little that essentially all they did was work all day, and child labor was popular because the entire family needed to work to make ends meet– mother, father, and children. It was necessary to give people a better standard of living, along with abolishing child labor and making sure people did not end up working 12 hours a day 6, sometimes 7 days a week. Do you not know what Industrial Revolution America was like, before regulations? Child labor, people just asking to ONLY work 40 hours a week, extreme poverty, a lack of regulations that caused tragedies like the fire at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire">Triangle Shirtwaist Factory,</a> etc. </p> <p>And before you ask why it’s necessary today now that we’ve long since gotten rid of things like child labor laws… It’s for all the people who lose their jobs or are single mothers and are forced to work multiple part time jobs in order to feed their children, because so many jobs that do not pay minimum wage today require so much experience and a degree. Maybe if employers were less selfish with hiring practices and gave more people jobs when they needed them and made it so only teenagers had to work minimum wage, we’d be alright. But that’s not how the world is.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote><p>Their point was that Bob Cratchit made next to nothing working for Scrooge as it was, and if he got paid more than minimum wage workers today, then we have something very wrong with our society. Which isn’t necessarily wrong.</p></blockquote> Except that it is wrong, because as I just pointed out Bob Crachit was making much, much less than minimum wage. <blockquote><p>Also @libertarirynn you’re really asking why minimum wage is necessary?</p></blockquote> Yep. And if you haven’t heard me do it before you must be new here. <blockquote>Of course if everyone paid the same minimum wage, then they wouldn’t get people who cared about their jobs and it’d be harder to find skilled workers– both because existing skilled workers would rather work a minimum wage job where they could do less, and because no one would want to bother to learn trades and skills because they’ll get paid the same shit amount anyway.</blockquote> Wow I literally don’t know what to say. You pointed out the exact reasons the imposition of a minimum wage is unnecessary. Companies are naturally going to offer more if they think it will give them more skilled workers. <blockquote><p>Minimum wage is necessary to stop people from taking advantage of unskilled labor. Factory work and the like. Do you know what life was like for people before minimum wage was a thing? People were making so little that essentially all they did was work all day, and child labor was popular because the entire family needed to work to make ends meet– mother, father, and children. It was necessary to give people a better standard of living, along with abolishing child labor and making sure people did not end up working 12 hours a day 6, sometimes 7 days a week. Do you not know what Industrial Revolution America was like, before regulations? Child labor, people just asking to ONLY work 40 hours a week, extreme poverty, a lack of regulations that caused tragedies like the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, etc.</p></blockquote> Most of that has very little to do with minimum wage, nor is it particularly relevant in modernized industry. <blockquote><p>And before you ask why it’s necessary today now that we’ve long since gotten rid of things like child labor laws… It’s for all the people who lose their jobs or are single mothers and are forced to work multiple part time jobs in order to feed their children, because so many jobs that do not pay minimum wage today require so much experience and a degree. Maybe if employers were less selfish with hiring practices and gave more people jobs when they needed them and made it so only teenagers had to work minimum wage, we’d be alright. But that’s not how the world is.</p></blockquote> We can’t just magically decide to skill is worth more money because of sob stories about single mothers. I know many a single mother who did things like go to night classes to earn a degree or even just learn particular skills to make themselves a valuable employee worth more than minimum wage. And again, most low skill jobs *do* pay above minimum wage, especially to valuable workers. I’ve only been paid minimum wage once in my life, and I’ve worked several low skill jobs. Do you know why this is? Because those jobs are dime a dozen. Wendy’s knows if they pay you just minimum wage and McDonald’s offers you a dollar more, you go work at McDonald’s. Companies being able to set their wages drives competition and therefore wages up. Skill is a commodity to be paid for just like anything else. Flipping burgers simply is not worth $15 an hour and emotional appeals involving child factory workers from 1928 will not change that. I encourage you to check my minimum wage tag for more in-depth information. <a href="https://tmblr.co/mhaiNKeZ_RViwScgQtvf7CQ">@redbloodedamerica</a> <a href="https://tmblr.co/mIiX85InXZ_5gFO1XlH6zKA">@libertybill</a> <a href="https://tmblr.co/m5-xacQqloOb-oZ4F4dhAIA">@libertarian-lady</a>
Save
Drunk, Friends, and God: Sprint Wi-Fi 2:25 PM Tweet tl saint lil rogue Retweeted Noob Saibot @Mommaafro So a woman's idea of being friends is being friends? Chef Nol @UR_SO_ COOL_NOL A woman's idea of "Let just be friends" is "Hey listen to all my problems and keep me company...while I have sex with someone else." 9/14/17, 9:26 AM 115 Retweets 168 Likes Tweet your reply 2 sounddesignerjeans: princess-mint: alarajrogers: niambi: I’m???? Oh my God this actually explains so much. So there’s a known thing in the study of human psychology/sociology/what-have-you where men are known to, on average, rely entirely on their female romantic partner for emotional support. Bonding with other men is done at a more superficial level involving fun group activities and conversations about general subjects but rarely involves actually leaning on other men or being really honest about emotional problems. Men use alcohol to be able to lower their inhibitions enough to expose themselves emotionally to other men, but if you can’t get emotional support unless you’re drunk, you have a problem. So men need to have a woman in their lives to have anyone they can share their emotional needs and vulnerabilities with. However, since women are not socialized to fear sharing these things, women’s friendships with other women are heavily based on emotional support. If you can’t lean on her when you’re weak, she’s not your friend. To women, what friendship is is someone who listens to all your problems and keeps you company. So this disconnect men are suffering from is that they think that only a person who is having sex with you will share their emotions and expect support. That’s what a romantic partner does. But women think that’s what a friend does. So women do it for their romantic partners and their friends and expect a male friend to do it for them the same as a female friend would. This fools the male friend into thinking there must be something romantic there when there is not. This here is an example of patriarchy hurting everyone. Women have a much healthier approach to emotional support – they don’t die when widowed at nearly the rate that widowers die and they don’t suffer emotionally from divorce nearly as much even though they suffer much more financially, and this is because women don’t put all their emotional needs on one person. Women have a support network of other women. But men are trained to never share their emotions except with their wife or girlfriend, because that isn’t manly. So when she dies or leaves them, they have no one to turn to to help with the grief, causing higher rates of death, depression, alcoholism and general awfulness upon losing a romantic partner.  So men suffer terribly from being trained in this way. But women suffer in that they can’t reach out to male friends for basic friendship. I am not sure any man can comprehend how heartbreaking it is to realize that a guy you thought was your friend was really just trying to get into your pants. Friendship is real. It’s emotional, it’s important to us. We lean on our friends. Knowing that your friend was secretly seething with resentment when you were opening up to him and sharing your problems because he felt like he shouldn’t have to do that kind of emotional work for anyone not having sex with him, and he felt used by you for that reason, is horrible. And the fact that men can’t share emotional needs with other men means that lots of men who can’t get a girlfriend end up turning into horrible misogynistic people who think the world owes them the love of a woman, like it’s a commodity… because no one will die without sex. Masturbation exists. But people will die or suffer deep emotional trauma from having no one they can lean on emotionally. And men who are suffering deep emotional trauma, and have been trained to channel their personal trauma into rage because they can’t share it, become mass shooters, or rapists, or simply horrible misogynists. The only way to fix this is to teach boys it’s okay to love your friends. It’s okay to share your needs and your problems with your friends. It’s okay to lean on your friends, to hug your friends, to be weak with your friends. Only if this is okay for boys to do with their male friends can this problem be resolved… so men, this one’s on you. Women can’t fix this for you; you don’t listen to us about matters of what it means to be a man. Fix your own shit and teach your brothers and sons and friends that this is okay, or everyone suffers. The next time a guy says, “What? You don't want to be my friend?” I’ll text him this and then ask if he really wants to be friends or just have another potential girlfriend. y’all I am living for these analyses where the new way to fight the patriarchy is to teach men to love each other and themselves
Save
Africa, Children, and Facebook: International Number Ones Because every country is the best at something 2016 edition Norway PIZZA EATERS POP MUSIC weden NEWS MEDIA in CASHLESS PAYMENTS Denmark WIND POWER START-UPS ELECTRICITY USE BILLIONAIRES WOMEN Netherlands COFFEE DRINKERS Ireland uania WORKING CONDITIONS ALCOHOL DRINKERS Belarus BEST PASSPORT Germany INNOVATION PAID TIME OFF Austria WHISKEY DRINKERS PORNSTARS Hungary DASHCAMS KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS LGBTTOLERANCE Kazakhstan URANIUM KIWI FRUITS MATERNITY LEAVE FACEBOOK ADDICTS ongolia VELOCIRAPTORS Greece CHEESE EATERS CORK TWITTER CENSORSHIP ur Kyrgyzstan WALNUT FORESTS nited Stat SPAM EMAILS orgia HOMOPHOBES anistan China OIL WEALTH HAUTE CUISINE OPIUM JAILED JOURNALISTS MEDICAL RESEARCH Taiwan Pakistan Mexico L LEMONS ppines SOCIAL NETWORKING Puerto Rico Morocco Guatema CARDAMON ARGAN OIL MURDER CHEAPEST PETROL D Honduras LEAST POLICE PEPPER Vietnam a Egypt FAT KIDS HEAVY WOMEN Venezuela Costa Rica WELL FORESTS Suriname Niger RUBBER GLOVES Malaysia ngapore HEALTHIEST PEOPLE CHILD BRIDES ARMS IMPORTS BIODIVERSITY Papua New Guinea Eritrea Yemen GENDER INEQUALITY HEALTHIEST DIETS CHiLD LABOUR GUM ARABIC Sierra Leone MATERNAL MORTALITY ria Ethiopia Indonesia MAHOGANY COCAINE UNDERWEIGHT CHILDREN South Sudarn OIL DEPENDENCY ru SCRABBLE PLAYERS COCONUTS BRAZIL NUTS EMALE GENITAL MUTILATION Liberia LOWEST PUBLIC DEBT ENTREPRENEURS ganda UNHAPPINESS CASHEWS ôte d'lvoire Par POSITIVITY Kenya DATA BREACHES on WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT FARMLAND on Chile COPPER FEMALE WORKERS Tanzania CHILD MORTALITY New Zealand CHINOOK SALMON HORSE MEAT Argentina FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS Madagascar Namibia CAR CRASHES LANGUAGES DIAMONDS GRAPHITE Mozambique South Africa DEATH COMMODITY PSYCHOLOGY ECOLOGY GASTRONOMY ECONOMY NICETY HUMANITY TECHNOLOGY NASTY David McCandless// v 2.0 Oct 2016 Research: David Mccandless, Stephanie Smith, Esther Kersley Additional Design: Fabio Bergamaschi Sources: CIA, NYTimes, Bloomberg, UN, The Economist, World Bank, Reuters, BBC, Forbes, The Guardian, WSJ & others. I/ data: http://bit.ly/lIB IntNoOnes mostly per capita / % of population data // very small countries excluded InformationIsBeautiful.net <h2>¿En qué es líder cada país del mundo?</h2><p>Libia en niños gordos.</p><p>Italia en kiwis.</p><p>Francia en bebedores de Whiskey.</p><p>Claro que sí, guapi.</p>
Save
Bad, Bodies , and Cars: Why do people degrade prostitutes? Like you're paying someone to have sex A with you because you can't get laid, you're the one that degrading 24 1 DAY 1 REPLY SHARE *claps so hard hands start to bleed 4 C) 18h <p><a href="http://black-shoshan.tumblr.com/post/111297895175/proudblackconservative-peonymoss" class="tumblr_blog">black-shoshan</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudblackconservative.tumblr.com/post/111294662474/peonymoss-proudblackconservative-true-and-the">proudblackconservative</a>:</p><blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://peonymoss.tumblr.com/post/111291870148/proudblackconservative-true-and-the-realities-of">peonymoss</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudblackconservative.tumblr.com/post/111281295644/true-and-the-realities-of-prostitution-are-very">proudblackconservative</a>:</p><blockquote><p>True, and the realities of prostitution are very very grim. Millions of women, children, and some men are bought and sold via human trafficking and abused and raped throughout their “career”. Prostitution is not typically some glamorous, “pretty woman” thing. It is especially degrading to women. Too bad feminists don’t seem to ever want to talk about human trafficking, an issue that actually does disproportionately affect women. They’re too busy glamorizing it, frankly.</p></blockquote> <p>Many years ago, when residents of a certain neighborhood in Washington D.C. got tired of their streets being used as a red-light district, they solved the problem by going after the johns (they’d slap stickers on the cars along the lines of I’M A JOHN</p></blockquote> <p>Yeah. There’s a country in Europe (I want to say Switzerland but I’m probably wrong) that criminalized buying sex, but not selling it. It was super effective. It discouraged the market and the women were given help instead of just thrown in jail.</p></blockquote> <p>It was Sweden, and yes, it had very good results. It’s so annoying when the pro-prostitution people come out of the woodwork and say that you’ve got to legalize it, it’s the only way prostitution won’t be “driven underground” when actually legalizing prostitution just makes Johns’ lives easier. Prostitution was legalized a few years ago in Germany and policemen who’ve worked for years in an area reported brothels booming and a lot of women from Eastern Europe trafficked in to meet the increasing demand. <br/></p></blockquote> <p>Exactly. People don&rsquo;t seem to realize that when you legalize prostitution the demand increases. Just like with any regulated thing made legal, really. Problem is, the commodity involved here is human beings. If you can&rsquo;t find oodles of human beings willing to sell their bodies, it stands to reason that you&rsquo;ll start kidnapping them to meet demand. It&rsquo;s not like legalizing weed or alcohol.</p>
Save