I’m always accepting dms and asks btw, in case anyone needs to talk or has anything to share or want to know from me :)
@ahamkaracature omg is that you
Me watching my neighbors get up to stupid shit as usual
as I would too
I didn’t want to disrupt the post about hostile architecture I saw because it’s true that the main target is homeless people but I did want to mention that this architecture also hurts people who aren’t skinny. I want to preface this all by saying I am in no way trying to minimize how this impacts people experiencing homelessness I am just trying to add on to the discussion of how these are bad.
You think that someone who can’t fit into those weird little yellow seats is going to feel comfortable? No. It will only make them feel bad or excluded.
Look at this shit. It’s not good or nice.
It only adds to the ways fat people are made feel unwelcome and though we already needed to tear this shit down because it makes life a million times worse for people experiencing homelessness and so this isn’t saying this is why you should tear it down. It is saying that our society is fatphobic and that sucks.
This isn’t a side effect, hostile architecture is designed to drive EVERYONE who’s “undesirable” from public spaces. Homeless people are the biggest targets but also disabled people, fat people, elderly people, etc. Other things, like anti-“loitering” measures and increased presence of police and security, drive out even more people, especially people of color and teenagers.
You aren’t disrupting or derailing discussions by talking about your experiences, we NEED to talk about the ways that different kinds of people are declared “unwanted” and pushed out of society.
Yeah, we no longer have “ugly laws” on paper, but in practice and architecture, we still absolutely do. If anything, we’ve gotten worse and more hostile towards “ugly” (unhoused, disabled, fat, etc) people in the past ten years- and this is exacerbated in the USA especially by the way communities are built to be car-dependent and segregated by class and race.
We have to keep reblogging this so future historians will read it and puzzle endlessly over its meaning
The heavy implication that historical ‘abstract’ poetry that people have been analysing for ages without being able to conclude the meaning could have just been shitpost level in-jokes between poets is sending me.
Universal basic income is essential if we want to build a bright future in the age of automation.
Seriously. The 40-hour work week was codified in 1940, before computers did anything. Per-hour productivity has more than quadrupled since then, but we’re working even harder, to live not all that much better. It’s absurd.
No, it’s not absurd, it’s deliberate. The ruling class wants us to work as hard as possible, so they have profits to skim and pile up.
I’ll reblog this every time I see it: Before the 40 hour work week, we had the 80 hour work week, the 100 hour work week. What got us 40 hours? Unions. Want a work week that reflects productivity levels? Unions. Want UBI? Unions.
“Get a rat and put it in a cage and give it two water bottles. One is just water, and one is water laced with either heroin or cocaine. If you do that, the rat will almost always prefer the drugged water and almost always kill itself very quickly, right, within a couple of weeks. So there you go. It’s our theory of addiction. Bruce comes along in the ’70s and said, “Well, hang on a minute. We’re putting the rat in an empty cage. It’s got nothing to do. Let’s try this a little bit differently.” So Bruce built Rat Park, and Rat Park is like heaven for rats. Everything your rat about town could want, it’s got in Rat Park. It’s got lovely food. It’s got sex. It’s got loads of other rats to be friends with. It’s got loads of colored balls. Everything your rat could want. And they’ve got both the water bottles. They’ve got the drugged water and the normal water. But here’s the fascinating thing. In Rat Park, they don’t like the drugged water. They hardly use any of it. None of them ever overdose. None of them ever use in a way that looks like compulsion or addiction. There’s a really interesting human example I’ll tell you about in a minute, but what Bruce says is that shows that both the right-wing and left-wing theories of addiction are wrong. So the right-wing theory is it’s a moral failing, you’re a hedonist, you party too hard. The left-wing theory is it takes you over, your brain is hijacked. Bruce says it’s not your morality, it’s not your brain; it’s your cage. Addiction is largely an adaptation to your environment. […] We’ve created a society where significant numbers of our fellow citizens cannot bear to be present in their lives without being drugged, right? We’ve created a hyperconsumerist, hyperindividualist, isolated world that is, for a lot of people, much more like that first cage than it is like the bonded, connected cages that we need. The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is connection. And our whole society, the engine of our society, is geared towards making us connect with things. If you are not a good consumer capitalist citizen, if you’re spending your time bonding with the people around you and not buying stuff—in fact, we are trained from a very young age to focus our hopes and our dreams and our ambitions on things we can buy and consume. And drug addiction is really a subset of that.”
—
Johann Hari,
Does Capitalism Drive Drug Addiction?
(via bigfatsun)
Is the fish picture cute?
Rating: NO
This fish is clearly in distress. The fish is stationary, also known as the “freeze” response, indicating an enormous feeling of panic within the animal. The water is far too shallow for a fish of this size, and keeping a fish in a bathtub is unsanitary, both for you and the fish. This is not a healthy environment for a fish to be in, both physically and mentally, as the shock of the unfit living condition can severely lower a fish’s life expectancy - it is not cute, it is not trendy, and it is not worth the aesthetically pleasing instagram shots. Please stop treating animals like toys.
[Image ID: a photo of a corndog in a bathtub. End ID.]
Radical feminism isn't recuperable if only you just stay away from the overt transphobia. The rhetoric that led to this transphobia is BAKED into radfem philosophy. The positioning of women as ontological victims & men as ontological abusers, the refusal to acknowledge the large amount of interlocking factors that create our social conditions beyond simple asab, the overidentification that acts as though all women are the same & have the same relationship to misogyny & sexism & oppression. The fucking bioessentialism. All of this leads not only to transphobia but down the line it leads to allyship with the right wing in the exact same way that we saw occur in the 80s. Radical feminism is not the fucking way!! as @cabinetmanrei said, just because liberal feminism is a failure doesn't mean there aren't other options
this is so upsetting, PLEASE rb to spread awareness
PLEASE, PLEASE REBLOG THIS, WHETHER YOURE JEWISH OR NOT.
THIS IS A SUPER IMPORTANT PART OF OUR HISTORY, DONT LET IT GET DESTROYED.
perhaps help take steps to stop them now from future attempts...