regretproduced:

lejacquelope:

lovelogicrainbows:

Feminist: Misandry doesn’t exist.

Me: Men get sentenced to longer prison terms for the same crime.

Feminist: That’s misogyny, because women aren’t seen as a threat.

Me: So is black men being sent to jail longer an instance of black privilege, because white people aren’t seen as a threat?

I am African American and I take issue with what you posted.

Particularly THE PART WHERE YOU THOUGHT OF THAT POINT BEFORE I DID

DAMN IT.

I LOVE IT

-Sigh-

Okay, that is a fair point. However, you have to keep in mind that racism and sexism are not the same thing at all. They are both discrimination against certain people, but they’re different. Just think about it.

People expect a woman who has done the exact same crime as a man to be weaker and less violent, more contrite and less likely to do the same thing again, so they make her prison time shorter. This is a problem because something like this is buying into such common stereotypes about women. These stereotypes may give women this one advantage, but it sucks for them in so many other areas in life (eg: less likely to land a job even with the exact same qualifications as a man). Though I have to say, this is also to some extent sexist towards men because it is less forgiving of them.

Black men, on the other hand, are stereotyped and thus perceived as more aggressive and intimidating, and more likely to commit a crime. Unconscious racism puts people more on guard around them and makes them jump at any minor thing they do. White people get less jail time, and still have way more job opportunities.

TLDR: Women getting less jail time and non-white people getting more jail time than white guys is discriminating against the first two groups because of the stereotypes surrounding both.

freshfoam:

Art Work by Jama Jurabaev

wigmund:

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.

The costs are kinda staggering for a country the size of the US. Switzerland has a population of 7.9 million compared to the population of the US which currently just below 314 million.
Paying everyone in the US about 20,000 a year (just above poverty level for a family of three per current guidelines) would cost about $6,280,000,000,000 - just over 6.25 trillion per year
This doesn’t take into account children (about 23%) and those making more than poverty level and would probably be offered incentives to not take the cost-of-living support (let’s say over $50,000 so around about 50%, that increases to about 64% for those making over 35k per year). So let’s say about 70% of the US wouldn’t take this support for various reasons.
That drops the costs before bureaucracy causes problems to below 1.9 trillion dollars (94,420,000 people would get help, again multiplied by 20k). The US spent about $3.5 trillion in all areas last year, even with the probable savings from the various public support programs this plan would be an increase in the annual budget and cause a big fit among the right wing and fiscal conservatives.
I’d love to see something like this but the United States is too damned big for its own good.

Yeah, I don’t know how this would work out in countries other than Switzerland, which is already very rich and has the money available to do this.
Take Spain for example. We’re already in a big debt crisis. The government doesn’t exactly have the money to give to everyone regardless of whether they’re working or not (unemployment is high here). No one has the solution to fix all our financial problems. Maybe we could just borrow more from Switzerland.
Also, if I’m correct and 33k$ is around 25k€, there’s also the factor to consider that since Switzerland is a richer country, it’s more expensive to live there. So this would only cover really basic living costs I guess, so if anyone wants to live comfortably they’d have to get a job.
Not saying this plan isn’t a good thing, it is, it’s just highly doubtful that it’d be a possibility in most countries. Maybe in the long term it would prove beneficial, but it’s the short term that always holds us back.

wigmund:

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.

The costs are kinda staggering for a country the size of the US. Switzerland has a population of 7.9 million compared to the population of the US which currently just below 314 million.

Paying everyone in the US about 20,000 a year (just above poverty level for a family of three per current guidelines) would cost about $6,280,000,000,000 - just over 6.25 trillion per year

This doesn’t take into account children (about 23%) and those making more than poverty level and would probably be offered incentives to not take the cost-of-living support (let’s say over $50,000 so around about 50%, that increases to about 64% for those making over 35k per year). So let’s say about 70% of the US wouldn’t take this support for various reasons.

That drops the costs before bureaucracy causes problems to below 1.9 trillion dollars (94,420,000 people would get help, again multiplied by 20k). The US spent about $3.5 trillion in all areas last year, even with the probable savings from the various public support programs this plan would be an increase in the annual budget and cause a big fit among the right wing and fiscal conservatives.

I’d love to see something like this but the United States is too damned big for its own good.

Yeah, I don’t know how this would work out in countries other than Switzerland, which is already very rich and has the money available to do this.

Take Spain for example. We’re already in a big debt crisis. The government doesn’t exactly have the money to give to everyone regardless of whether they’re working or not (unemployment is high here). No one has the solution to fix all our financial problems. Maybe we could just borrow more from Switzerland.

Also, if I’m correct and 33k$ is around 25k€, there’s also the factor to consider that since Switzerland is a richer country, it’s more expensive to live there. So this would only cover really basic living costs I guess, so if anyone wants to live comfortably they’d have to get a job.

Not saying this plan isn’t a good thing, it is, it’s just highly doubtful that it’d be a possibility in most countries. Maybe in the long term it would prove beneficial, but it’s the short term that always holds us back.

andworldbuildingtoo:

shadesoffantasy:

thesecretkeith:

drawology:

animationtidbits:

WTF Happened to Movie Posters?

DAT BLUE ORANGE CONTRAST

No seriously watch this. It’s blowing my mind.

not mind blowing (not for me anyway) but certainly interesting

In short - Hollywood got lazy.

demonfeathers:

paulsrockinpagoda:

presidentobarna:

leaf-jelly:

131-di:

illogicalhumanoid:

brickiestsurgeon:

131-di:

the contrabass saxophone is such an absurd instrument

image

talk dirty to me

Have ya’ll seen the double contrabass flute before???

reblogging my own post because what in the fuck

image

i give you the contrabass tuba. Why is it real. I dont know.

Know what’s even better?

HYPERBASS FLUTE

image

my counter:

image

piccolo trombone 

I hope it makes kazoo noises

lighten-up-will-ya:

This Haunting Graveyard Of Cars Has Abandoned In The Forest For Decades

.

Deep in a forest near the small Belgian village of Chatillon is a graveyard of abandoned rusty cars. Urban legend says that they once belonged to US soldiers stationed in the region in the 50s and 60s following WWII.  When the troops were sent home, they hid them in a forest until they could come back and retrieve them - but that never happened.

Source and more images: 

http://news.distractify.com/culture/70-year-old-traffic-jam/?v=1

takenbyabook:

beben-eleben:

Six-Word Stories That Are Absolutely Heart-Breaking

OH MY GOD.

cherucat:

straight people are  so weird wtf like heres a drawing of two animals in love but one has eyelashes so you know these are Straight Animals

ericlacombe:

Étude 6

ericlacombe:

Étude 6