maddeningscientist said: wait, “nerdsniping blog”?? is this a Genre, how do i get in on this
oh it’s quite simple really,
thank u google thats exactly what i was looking for, not how many days she has been the prime minister of the united kingdom, her height in picometers. you can read my mind, google, its uncanny
The difference between the polytheism of fantasy fiction and historical Greece-roman polytheism is that fantasy polytheism tends to be far more consistent, like there are actually rules on how things work instead of the constant shifting and inconsistency which Greek myth tends to have.
(I might be wrong, since I not an expert or anything.)
could it be that the gods can actually exist in fantasy fiction
Local Owl Struck by Lightning
Death an accident, according to Greek man at scene
women are never free from misogyny and male entitlement, not even after death
I like this because it rests at an unlikely crossroads of “Poe’s Law Incel Weirdness” and “Things I Rather Suspect That You Could Get A Drunk Utilitarian To Agree To.”
1. I don’t even know if this is a false flag or not. I hope so, but I don’t think it’s certain. Anyway, somebody thinks that necrophilia for non necrophiliacs is better than never having a live woman consent to sex with them.
2. This seems to be a result of the denormalization of hiring sex workers. Like, I’m pretty sure that “incels” aren’t a problem in cultures that have normalized sex work.
3. Seriously, government funded necrophilia is supposed to be a better solution than decriminalization of sex work????
OP’s line seems to imply a worldview in which men normally think like this, but actually incels are their own special brand of fucked up.
Never internalize the idea that your value is derived solely from sexual “success.” It will corrupt your mind.
Poetic.
****except rampant militarism that threatens world war 3
shush, u. only thru war in syria can we obtain true female empowerment
2017 is the year of right wingers just straight up admitting they hate democracy on a regular basis
I’ve been saying it for years. Democracy is cancer, @taxloopholes.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t we a democratic republic??
Also correct me if I’m wrong - doesn’t that mean we all can vote on things but we can’t change basic laws like making sure things like rape or murder or whatever are illegal so that people have human rights?
Okay, but consider the following:
The US Constitution has been amended before. If a large enough majority of the culture demand something, and they can credibly wield force, then the promises writ in paper can be overriden. As such, ensuring murder remains illegal or effectively illegal requires ensuring most people want to keep it illegal.
Not that the Founders didn’t try. There’s certainly more friction required to do that than if you have an emperor.
Look, dueling was legal when the United States was formed. The Founding Fathers themselves, personally, participated in dueling (for all the non Hamilton! fans in the audience). By modern standards, dueling IS murder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel#Colonial_North_America_and_United_States
In this case, I mean try more generally. They made it require a larger majority to legally abolish various rights, and some of the groundwork they laid was used later.
Anonymous asked:
I can understand being terrified to look up non-msm sources on Venezuela. but you can't just believe CNN Breitbart or vice or other mainstream outlets
mutant-aesthetic answered:
“Venezuela no longer has the money to fund its lavish social programs because their oil isn’t worth what it used to be and they have nothing anywhere else” isn’t a terribly controversial take though.
Also, at least one alternate source of someone living there corroborates that the whole country is running out of money. Communists can sometimes have like this whole alternate reality thing going where they are terrified that “oops we fucked up Socialism” is not that uncommon of an outcome and has happened multiple times before.
I don’t want to touch Venezuela specifically bc I don’t know enough about it.
But I see this broader shorthand argument from anti-socialists a lot, and this seems as good a moment as any to point out that it’s never going to persuade anyone who doesn’t already reflexively oppose socialism, because it’s built on a sort of dishonest gerrymander intended to leverage outgroup homogeneity.
In order to be like “socialism always screws the pooch!“ you have to bundle a lot of diverse heterogeneous examples together under the “socialism” umbrella, while excluding a lot of others that also look pretty darn socialist yet have not devolved into mass starvation and atrocity. Defining “socialism” as inclusive of peak Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship due to its having a nominally socialist mythos, but exclusive of Scandinavian-style social democracy despite its possessing overt functional and operational socialist features, just seems like you’re playing dodgy semantic games. And it’s not like capitalism has never screwed the pooch. Capitalism isn’t one homogeneous model, either. It too is a cluster with many diverse variations and bastardizations and multiple failure modes that can do and have done terrible large-scale damage.
At this point, you could get into the sort of atrocity Olympics squabble where you merrily fling body counts at one another that you sourced by cherry-picking the most damning data cuts you could find on the worst historical fuckups you can plausibly ascribe to the other side. But that’s boring, and it doesn’t accomplish anything, because tactically everyone’s metrics in that type of volley are suspect and overall the entire structure of the debate is ultimately ahistorical. Besides which, it’s sidestepping my point, which is that shit is hard and nobody has the one true magical blessed ideology guaranteed proof against catastrophic failure when live human beings actually try to operationalize it. Your opponents are most likely not malevolent exponents of evil in that they do not actually want things to end up with millions dead and everything in shambles,* and you should give them the fundamental benefit of the doubt in that regard, and not just be like “But $YOURIDEOLOGY kills! Look at history! Q.E.D.”
*Maybe a few extremists on each side really do want that kind of outcome, but fuck those guys, we don’t dignify them by taking them seriously, and we certainly don’t anoint them as the avatars of their entire wings because this is extremely bad for the discourse and also? it empowers the assholes. ffs do not do this.
Unfortunately, people do routinely acknowledge that European democracies have well-working socialist features, and thus paint this notion of Europe as a horrifying, completely failed, starving hellhole full of rabid rape apes that is completely reliant on America for military protection. I think @this-is-cthulhu-privilege made this point, which was parroted by other fascists, and I think that he still owes me an explanation of his picture of horrors of socialist healthcare and proof that people routinely receive death sentences for things that are cured for free in the US and not the other way round, or proof of literal millions of terrorists moving into the UK on a yearly basis (total population of ISIS territories doesn’t exceed 6 million), or an apology i suppose.
Of course, in this case, when saying “Communists sometimes seem to live in an alternate reality”, I’m referring to the kind of people that think the conditions in Venezeula right now are a vile Capitalist lie, and that the conditions in North Korea are a vile Capitalist lie, and before that that the conditions in the Soviet Union and Maoist China were vile Capitalist lies.
The European countries do have slower economies as a result of their socialist-leaning policies, and unemployment issues, which could be solved in part by doing wealth transfers much more intelligently… but we don’t see them undergoing mass famine or on the verge of collapse. (Also their health services are pretty reasonable in terms of performance/$.)
And I think that this represents not only a quantitative difference but also a qualitative one. One of these involves expropriating entire industries and purging “counter-revolutionaries”. The other involves a relatively capitalist economy issuing welfare checks and having labor laws, and having a handful of natural monopolies or natural resources under state control.
abstractagamid asked:
>cricket-sized chickens -- why not chicken-sized crickets?
Also a good option, but this may require a specialized atmospheric chamber. Once that’s taken care of, mega-crickets can be rebranded as a luxury food for rich people - the Lobster of the Land.
“When We Said The Future is Female, This Isn’t What We Meant, You Sick Fucks”
- Andrea Lemon, Jezebel.com, 2054
Anonymous asked:
How about gentrification? I've seen the pro-property destruction people discussing that, and it's not illegal so appealing to the legal system wouldn't work. And often worker abuse laws are not enforced well, and bringing the lawsuits harms the workers.
theunitofcaring answered:
1) I do not think ‘your livelihood is destroyed and you are possibly injured or killed in a mass riot’ is an appropriate penalty for ‘some asshole decided you were participating in gentrification’
2) Random mass violence sure is a way to keep property values down, I guess, but if your goal is ‘low property values, period’ rather than ‘livable communities with affordable housing’ then we just profoundly disagree on priorities.
3) …and rioting and destroying businesses never harms the workers, I’m sure. Look, raise money so exploited workers can quit. Ask them what they want and do that - I guarantee you it’s not going to be ‘smash the business and attract tons of police attention’. Don’t decide for yourself who is guilty, decide for yourself that legal mechanisms won’t work, decide for yourself that peaceful mechanisms won’t work, destroy tons of stuff, and then call that ‘fighting for marginalized people’.
4) If your radical leftist politics amount to ‘Kristallnacht, but trust us, they deserve it’ then I’m sorry but fuck you.
What violent leftists think will keep housing affordable: using mob violence to physically prevent outsiders from moving in to a neighborhood.
What would actually make housing affordable: Japanese Zoning Laws
What are Japanese zoning laws?
They have a maximum zone type instead of strict limitations of one type for one zone.
Click that link. Look at how smart their plan is.
As a result of this and other policies, their booming metropolitan areas see no significant increase in housing prices relative to American cities and the UK. I had a chart I saved for this but it’s elsewhere. Basically, London prices have gone up like 500% without anywhere near a 500% increase in population, while Tokyo prices are up less than their % rise in population.
oh hey look it’s that graph
TIL how bad American zoning really can be. That certainly explains why you can’t get fresh bread in the morning in America, and why American bread is always hamburger buns or toast.
You want bakeries to be walking distance from your house!
America has issues with inner city crime, so those who can afford to don’t live in the inner city and drive from a low-density, lawn-filled suburb instead. House prices are propped up to exclude disruptive students from schools.
The One Thousand Villages series is, in part, a plan on how these people could be coaxed into living within 500m of a bakery.