1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna

More you might like

[soon your askbox would be full of shitpost asks like Argumate’s and] you’d be tempted to make an ms paint collage for every single one.

This television show blog doesn’t have that kind of animation drawing budget.

But don’t worry.  Most anons on this blog do not get a Full Custom™ MS Paint.JPG for their asks.  It’s just the rate of images per ask that would reduce.

anons asks shtpost

Anonymous asked:

But Miti, how are your anons supposed to optimize our asks for creepiness and/or offensiveness if we don't know your race and gender? Won't you think of the anons?

Ugggh.  Who do you think you are, Google?

Come back when you’re a multinational corporation physically embodying the threat of a societal panopticon in order to more efficiently sell Authentic™ skinny mom jeans to hipsters, loser.

anons asks shtpost this is a joke

But yeah, I probably missed an ask some time in the last 9 hours, so if you sent one, you can send it again.

Also if you didn’t send one you can send one anyway.  I tend to leave my askbox out in the open where just anyone could stuff asks in it.

anons asks

rocketverliden asked:

I realize the issue of Confederate statues is probably stale by now, but I have thought of a take that is probably you: replace Confederate statues with Union statues to remember the Civil War and take pride in the United States' historical military prowess

Nah, actually I was thinking that there are lots of other southerners we could choose from for replacement statues, specifically ones that weren’t all “rah rah slavery” and so on.  Some of them could be a lot more modern, others from before the war, and so on.  U.S. founding fathers from those states would be the ideal option for many of them - it reaffirms membership in the US, still has lots of historical weight, and so on.

They shouldn’t be more black than the proportional share of the population, though.

The goal here is to provide an alternative, positive regional identity for the white southerners that is not rooted in the racism inherent to the Confederacy.  (And the racism was inherent - at least one governor or whatever went on about how yeah, this was about slavery, and yeah, this was about “the inferiority of the negro race” and so on.)

History is big.  There is a lot that can be chosen from when we decide what to emphasize.  There are many people, with many stories.  With this, we could step sideways.

(The exception is generic confederate soldier statues, which should stay.  After all, the side that wins the war usually thinks it’s the ethical side, since most factions fighting a war think they’re the ethical side, so removing them just means legitimizing the idea of removing monuments to soldiers of losing sides in general.)

However, I don’t think the capital-L Left, in broad strokes, wants the southern whites to have a positive southern identity.  I think it wants to crush them in order to celebrate itself and its righteousness.

It doesn’t like the founding fathers, either.  It doesn’t like the United States of America.  

It could celebrate the power of the very ideals this nation’s founders espoused as the source of some of the very power that overturned the cruelty they allowed at this nation’s founding.  But most of those people were white men, so they won’t.

asks rocketverliden torches in the night racepol racism cw policy politics

Anonymous asked:

Arguably, crime syndicates are better positioned than corporations to live up to the responsibility that their power demands. Just a question of finding a mob boss with enough loyalty to the locale.

And thus, our dear local anon suggests the establishment of Anarcho-Mafiaism.

Reactionary, or avant-garde Progressive?

We leave it to our readers to decide.

anons asks politics shtpost

learn-tilde-ath asked:

If you would, could you please say some thoughts (even yay/nay/mu) on this policy proposal? : When taking the census in order to determine the number of house seats for each state, people who the state has revoked franchise/voting-rights from (as part of result of being convicted of a crime) don't count towards the population of the state for the purpose of determining number of house seats.

This seems reasonable to me on first reading.

My late night tired concern is that the census might not update the house seats fast enough to account for changes in policy or something.

It could act as a pressure against the politicians to be Tough On Crime, or at least for them to use whatever means they can to try to strip their opposition from voting.  On the other hand, I’m not sure I want certain convicted criminals voting until they are, at least, out of prison again.

I may return to this later.

asks learn-tilde-ath politics policy

samueldays asked:

I sort of want to argue with you about your recent quoting of the Second Amendment, but first I think I should know with what mindset you're quoting it. Principle of extrapolation? Restriction to be worked around? Law? Representation of certain mindset? Something else?

Shitposting.

Well, not entirely shitposting.  

Let’s be honest.  That policy is not going to happen.

Most Americans don’t care enough about civil defense, the gun owners will fight it out of fear that lefitsts will try to use it to take all their guns, groups of leftists will try to use to take all the gun owners’ guns, and so on.

Yes, it’s intended to take a touch of the spirit, of a militia for defense of the country, the distribution of power among the people…

But mostly it was just to be a wacky compromise proposal under Nationalist terms to present what such an alternative might look like.  …if it wouldn’t be immediately expanded to try and seize the guns.  And for comparison with the Swiss.

Although I’m not joking that I’d like to see martial arts as part of high school curricula in other posts.

politics asks samueldays

Anonymous asked:

What would be the impacts of a path to permanent residency (rather than citizenship) for undocumented immigrants?

I’m really tired right now, and should probably let this ask sit, but if I do the knowledge of it just resting there in my askbox, waiting, will nag me.

There are a few big implications.

  1. It prevents, limits, or slows attempting to subvert democracy by sabotaging (or ““sabotaging,”” depending on your morality) the immigration mechanism.  “Just bring in millions of people who will vote for my party” is a potentially exploitable flaw in conventional democracy which could, potentially, result in an unstoppable feedback cycle.
    1. In this vein, it dis-incentivizes political parties from deliberately bringing in “undocumented” immigrants because they have far less to gain from it.
    2. It also disincentivizes the immigrants themselves from coming somewhat relative to a pathway citizenship, although I suspect most are chasing money rather than political voice.
  2. It risks creating a long-term, permanently-disenfranchised underclass who cannot vote in their own interests.  This depends significantly on the implementation.
  3. Relative to current policy, it accomplishes some of the same goals as a pathway to citizenship, but changes the voting demographics more slowly (one generation vs more-or-less immediately).  So if you were hoping to reduce criminal activity and exploitation through naturalization, you could do most of that with permanent residency.

Of course, a major part of why there is illegal immigration into the country is because you can exploit them in ways that you can’t exploit the natives - not just because the natives can vote, but because people who violated immigration law have to stay under the radar to avoid potential deportation/etc, and so will have to be much more desperate before turning to law enforcement.

The businesses supporting this out of a desire for cheap and exploitable labor do not actually want these people properly naturalized, because then they’d have to pay them more, so they’d tend to just import more unauthorized labor.

It’s important to remember that a pathway to citizenship does nothing to stem the flow that caused this in the first place, and is thus not a real solution.  

Immigration cannot solve global poverty while the rate of new people created each year massively exceeds the capacity of developed nations to take them in.

Only developing the countries of origin economically, such that they are wealthy enough that people mostly don’t want to leave, can truly solve global poverty.

There are also other policy alternatives.

  • Issuing a large number of long-term work permits (8-20 years) based on the number of unauthorized migrants currently in the country.  This would allow some of the same effects of bringing people up to the surface, but without the same commitment as permanent residency or citizenship.  However, it is sorta kicking the can down the road.
  • Allow the individual states to issue a number of permanent residency permits proportional to their population, at their discretion.  I have joked about this, but it’s actually an option worthy of consideration.
  • Implement hourly wage-subsidies for low-wage American workers, but only for citizens.  While this is useful for the poor, and may significantly increase their negotiating leverage, it may even have some business backers.  Driving down the de facto wages for all non-citizens, who are not eligible for the subsidy, makes coming and staying far less profitable (and thus desirable) for unskilled labor.
  • Allow more immigration above current regular levels, but all of these additional immigrants must be sponsored and insured by specific American citizens/charitable organizations, including any education they may require to meet basic levels.  (aka “if you want this so badly, you pay for it”)
anons asks politics policy
See this in the app Show more
Top Photos