food for thought monsters


An all-you-can-process scrapbook of the internetly things I like best. +
Someday I will write Park City stories and Marauder fic again.
.skrittimhit~ my GW2/games blog

How did GamerGate become a lightning rod for violence — and is social media helping or making it worse?

When you’re on the same side as Adam Baldwin, you’re on the wrong side.

(There is a 100% chance he uses this post as an excuse to have his mouthbreathing followers attack me, incidentally.)


Dr. Seuss was not even in the general area of fucking around.



I’m Adam.

-And I’m Emily.

We make “funny videos” on the Internet.

-But soon, we might not be able to.

That’s because…


…net neutrality is in jeopardy. Net Neutrality is the principle that says ISPs can’t discriminate between different types of traffic.

That means that…


…whether you’re a bedroom music producer, a couple on an amateur porn site, or just someone with a start up idea - you get access to the same users as Netflix, Facebook or Amazon. On the Internet, anyone can succeed.




…America’s ISPs wanna set up a pay-for-play system where rich companies pay extra to get to those users first.

If this happens…


…instead of a wonderful playground if innovation that it is now, the Internet will become like cable TV where you can only get stuff that’s been pre-approved by a bunch of old rich guys.

Ten years from now…


…your Internet bill could be a bigger “fustercluck” than your cable bill.

Now, you might be thinking…


…isn’t the government supposed to protect me from fragrant doucheholery like this?



…the former chairman of the FCC (government agency that’s SUPPOSED to protect you) is now the cable industry’s head lobbyist. And another former cable industry lobbyist is now the CURRENT head of the FCC.



…we can’t trust the FCC to make the right decision on their own. That’s why WE need to protect the Internet we love. The chaotic, AWESOME, often quite weird, place where literally everyone’s voice can be heard.

In a few months…


…the FCC will approve this festering soal of proposal unless we speak up. The Internet is one of the few places where human voices speak louder than money. So while that’s still the case, let’s use those voices. Go to DEARFCC.ORG and tell them to protect Net Neutrality. Thanks for doing your part to protect the Internet.


Contact FCC at

IF DEARFCC.ORG IS DOWN, simply go to good old

All GIFS are courtesy of our new friend, RANDY!


Source Video

Asked Anonymous


I think this is a deeply flawed way of looking at the world.

Now, I have talked about Ferguson, and I’ve talked about Gaza. (In fact, I’ve been writing and talking about Israel and Palestine for more than a decade.) But there are many important problems facing the world that I haven’t talked about: I haven’t talked much about the civil war in South Sudan, or the epidemic of suicide among American military personnel, or the persecution of Muslim Rohingya people in Myanmar.

Is that okay? Is it okay for me to talk about, say, racism in football and lowering infant mortality in Ethiopia? Or must we all agree to discuss only  whatever is currently the ascendant news story? Is it disrespectful to Ferguson protesters to talk about continued political oppression in Egypt now that we are no longer reblogging images of the protests in Tahrir Square? I think this is a false choice: If you are talking about Ferguson and I am talking about Ethiopian health care, neither of us is hurting the other.

I think the challenge for activists and philanthropists online is in paying sustained attention, not over days or weeks but over years and decades. And I worry that when we turn our attention constantly from one outrage to another we end up not investing the time and work to facilitate actual change. We say “THE WORLD IS WATCHING,” and it is…until it isn’t. We’ve seen this again and again in Gaza and the West Bank. We’re seeing it in Iran. We’re seeing it in South Sudan. And we’re seeing it in the U.S., from net neutrality to Katrina recovery.

The truth is, these problems are complicated, and when the outrage passes we’re left with big and tangled and nuanced problems. I feel that too often that’s when we stop paying attention, because it gets really hard and there’s always a shiny new problem somewhere else that’s merely outrageous. I hope you’re paying attention to Ferguson in five years, anon, and I hope I am, too. I also hope I’m paying attention to child death in Ethiopia. I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive.

I really don’t want to minimize the effectiveness of online activism, because I know that it works: To use a personal example, I’ve learned a TON from the LGBT+ and sexual assault survivor communities in recent years online. People on tumblr make fun of me for apologizing all the time, but I apologize all the time because I am learning all the time, and every day I’m like, “Oh, man, Current Me has realized that Previous Me was so wrong about this!”

But we can only learn when we can listen. And when you call me a hypocrite for talking about X instead of talking about Y, it makes it really hard to listen.

At times, online discourse to me feels like we just sit in a circle screaming at each other until people get their feelings hurt and withdraw from the conversation, which leaves us with ever-smaller echo chambers, until finally we’re left only with those who entirely agree with us. I don’t think that’s how the overall worldwide level of suck gets decreased.

I might be wrong, of course. I often am. But I think we have to find ways to embrace nuance and complexity online. It’s hard—very, very hard—to make the most generous, most accepting, most forgiving assumptions about others. But I also really do think it’s the best way forward.


A friend of mine brought it to my attention that Mitt Romney shares a striking resemblance to The Illusive Man. Now I cannot unsee….








I think some things need to be clarified/expanded upon. So, consider this a brief overview on the development of legal sex discrimination protections, and the reasons as to why (a) sex discrimination is inclusive of sex discrimination, gender discrimination, gender performance, and sex stereotypes, and (b) why the Pregnancy Discrimination Act had to exist in the first place.

Theories of Sex Discrimination, In 90 Seconds.

When Title VII was first passed, there wasn’t a strong concept of what “sex discrimination” meant. However, through case law, it actually became a very (appropriately, in my opinion) broad categorization. It included both discrimination against biological sex (“No vaginas hired here” is illegal), and sex stereotypes (discriminating against individuals for failure to conform with an employer’s concept of what a man or woman should act like is illegal). The use of sex stereotypes as an argument for categorizing employer action as sex discrimination has become particularly helpful for gender nonconforming and trans* individuals. For example, there has been positive movement regarding the recognition of discrimination against gender nonconforming and trans* individuals as sex discrimination, either because it’s discrimination based on the employer imposing his/her concept of what a man or woman is supposed to be, or discrimination based on the individual’s transition from one gender to another, which is thus inherently linked to the individual’s gender. As a result, sex discrimination has become a legal theory through which advocates can attack many, many forms of sex and gender discrimination. Is it confusing that the law has been using sex and gender interchangeably through the law? Yes. Can it be problematic that the law doesn’t make a strong distinction between sex and gender? Yes. However, it’s the hand we have, and I would say that it’s better - on the ground, advocating for people, and actually making change and making individuals’ lives better - that we have both tools available, even if they’re imperfectly named. I used to have some discomfort over the elision between sex and gender in the law, because it didn’t seem to reflect perfectly what sex and gender were, and could lead to confusion in courts and the law. However, once I actually started working on these issues, it became far more important that we get coverage for people for the clear discrimination they were facing rather than choosing not to use a particular theory because the vocabulary was imperfect. 

Why Does the PDA Exist?

Another issue that I think may be informative here is this: why do we have the PDA in the first place? Prior to the passage of the PDA, there was a U.S. Supreme Court case that stated discrimination against pregnancy wasn’t discrimination against women. [Note: this was in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was a California insurance program, but sex discrimination theories and case law are often interchangeable between the public/Fourteenth Amendment sector and the private/Title VII sector.] At the time, an insurance provider refused to cover pregnancy as a form of disability. Obviously, this had a hugely disproportionate effect on women. However, the Court found that the fact that pregnancy vastly affected women didn’t mean that it was sex discrimination - it was, instead, a legitimate decision to cover or not to cover a medical condition (that just so happened to predominantly affect women). The Court, in fact, used the exact same logic as the poster above said, @anachronizomai: “I’m saying that pregnancy affects people who have the ability to become pregnant. That is the class being facially discriminated against.” What’s the problem with this? Laws discriminating against non-suspect classifications (ie: anything but race, gender, illegitimacy, alienage, religion, national origin, and a few others) undergo lower scrutiny. That is, it’s easier for the state to justify such a law, and less likely that such a law will be found to constitute illegal discrimination. Had the Court recognized that pregnancy disproportionately affects women, that failure to cover pregnancy disproportionately affects women, and is in fact discrimination against women the same way that saying “we don’t hire people with vaginas” is discrimination against women, even though not all women have vaginas and not all vagina-ed people are women, then the law would have had to undergo a more stringent analysis, and would have been less likely to be upheld. 

So, the Court took a similar tack and refused to recognize that discrimination based on pregnancy is discrimination against women (even if not all women are ones getting pregnant and not all pregnant people identify as women), because of the hugely disproportionate effect pregnancy discrimination has on women and the borderline pretextual usage of pregnancy as a way to discriminate against women without ever saying the word “woman.” Because of this, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. To me, it seems incredibly fitting that a regulation stating that coverage of prescriptions with an exclusion for birth control is sex discrimination comes under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which similarly had to state that coverage of medical conditions with an exclusion for pregnancy is sex discrimination. 

 But What About Disparate Impact?

Disparate impact is a theory that Congress has only placed in some of its laws. It’s meant to target systemic, unintentional discrimination. For example, an employer uses a written test to determine who to hire. The written test, however, has some really skewed pass rates, where white applicants pass at far higher rates than POC applicants. POC applicants then sue under a disparate impact theory, which means they say that the written test has a substantially disproportionate effect based on one of the statute’s protected categories (race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.), and that the qualities being tested are unrelated to the job at issue (ex: you tested me on physics, when the position is sales representative to a clothing store). The business then must show that the test is related to the job at issue (ex: I test you on your ability to carry heavy loads up and down stairs to be a firefighter, where you’ll probably be carrying heavy equipment and people in dangerous situations.) Disparate impact is not per se illegal. It is just a theory by which some individuals can try and use disparate impact as an open door to get at insidious, unspoken discrimination that uses facially neutral standards as a pretextual cover.

Why is this an unhelpful theory for pregnancy discrimination? (1) It’s fallen out of favor and is less and less persuasive. You can use it, but you’re more likely to lose, which helps no one - including your client and your cause. (2) As the SCOTUS case shows, there can be legitimate employer-provided reasons for discrimination based on pregnancy. In that case, the insurance program, I believed, demonstrated that coverage of pregnancy would have been too costly. There’re other instances where the job requires some physical demand that is more difficult for a pregnant person to fulfill. Contrary to disparate treatment theories - where if the employer treats you in a discriminatory manner, it’s not OK - disparate impact theory merely gives the plaintiff the opportunity to allege that the action was discriminatory, and the employer can bring forth a variety of seemingly neutral and non-discriminatory reasons for their behavior. If they convince the court, they win.

TL;DR (but really, please read the longer sections)

(1) Failure to recognize actions that disproportionately affect a suspect group, and that is often used as a pretext for discriminating against that suspect group, as discrimination against that suspect group is harmful to those individuals who get screwed over by employers and to the suspect group as a whole. 

(2) The term “discrimination against women” is not meant and has not been read to narrowly mean discrimination against women. It is discrimination based on biological sex, on gender identity, on gender performance, and on gender stereotypes. It also is meant to target the prejudices of the employer, and is not meant to cast any assumptions or identities on the victim of discrimination. See, for example, the following instances (which I’m paraphrasing from cases).

- Employee on an oil rig got sexually harassed by his co-workers because he was seen as insufficiently manly. It didn’t matter whether or not the employee actually was “unmanly” or “effeminate” (actually, he was pretty conforming to concepts of masculinity), it just mattered that the aggressors thought he was, and that this belief triggered the harassment. 

- Employee is harassed by, among other actions, the constant receipt of “effeminate” gifts because it’s believed the employee is gay, and thus effeminate. It doesn’t matter if the employee is effeminate or gay, it merely matters that the aggressor thought he was, and that this belief triggered the harassment. 

- Employee does not get promoted because she was too masculine and “needed a lesson in charm school.” It does not matter whether or not she is actually masculine or violated an objective standard regarding her failure to conform with feminine stereotypes. All that matters is that the employer believed that she was insufficiently feminine from his standard of femininity, and then took discriminatory action against her because of that belief.

How does this compare? When an employer refuses to cover pregnancy, it’s often a pretextual cover for discrimination against women in the employer’s mind. It doesn’t matter if the affected employee identifies as a woman; the employee is still a victim of the employer’s prejudicial belief and resultant discriminatory action. Failure to recognize that pregnancy is often discrimination against women will not lead to a more PC version of the law - it would lead to reduced protections against pregnancy discrimination, because “people who can get pregnant” do not constitute a suspect classification, and thus more discriminatory actions will be considered permissible. 

The Super TL;DR: Please don’t bring us back to 1974 (the year that SCOTUS case was decided) because you want a law that is not meant to and does not cast light upon the identity of the victim to fit perfectly with the victim’s self-identity. 

Hello! Thank you for your helpful and thoughtful reply. I have some (genuine, information-seeking) questions, if that’s okay. 

A. You say that sex discrimination and gender (performance) discrimination are largely conflated in the law. Would it be reasonable to assume, then, that while the law may not carefully distinguish between them, “sex” and “gender” both become suspect classifications? That is to say, discrimination based entirely on physicalities of “biological sex” is suspect, and discrimination based on opposition to certain kinds of gender performance (esp. femininity) is also, regardless of the body of the person performing it? (I think this is what you are saying, I just want to confirm. Biological sex = suspect classification; social gender also = suspect classification.)

B. You use the phrase “hugely disproportionate effect” to explain why pregnancy discrimination is discrimination against women. Is “hugely disproportionate effect” sufficient to move discrimination from “disparate impact” to “facially discriminatory”? That is, does facial discrimination require an actual, inherent, direct link? Or is “hugely disproportionate effect” enough?

C. If discriminating against biology alone, regardless of what gender adheres to the body, is suspect, as in your “no hiring of people with vaginas” example, I have a few more questions there. If it’s illegal to refuse someone a job because they have a vagina, I would presume that it is also illegal to treat them poorly once hired because they do. If we replace “vagina” with “uterus,” then, it would seem that it would be illegal sex discrimination to treat employees worse than their coworkers simply because they have (or had) a uterus. Medical care related to pregnancy and hormonal contraception is care needed by people who have uteri. Refusing only that care, then, would be discrimination against a suspect class, yes?

D. I still think it’s fair to object to the categorization of “discrimination against people with uteri” as “discrimination against women.” If, per my question in A., either sex or gender discrimination can be grounds for legal action, even if courts conflate the two, we aren’t obligated to, are we? I support the idea that refusing hormonal contraception is (and should be) illegal discrimination. But it isn’t clear to me that it would be any less possible to name it as such without conflating certain kinds of bodies with “womanhood” or “manhood.”

My objection is not and has never been to the outcome that the administration is seeking. My concern is the message that it sends when we unnecessarily mix terms when it comes to gendered terms (woman, man, etc) and sexed ones.

(I appreciate your time, and apologize in advance if there are places where my questions don’t make as much sense as I’d hoped given that I’m not a lawyer.)

I’ll try to field what I can and Natacha and fill it out.

A. Yeah, that’s correct.  Anything relating to sex/gender/gender performance is a suspect classification.  It’s all lumped into “gender discrimination” mostly in that gender has a lower level of scrutiny than race (intermediate vs strict).

B. I can’t answer this 100% sure, but facial discrimination requires it to be obviously, on its face, singling out a group of people in a suspect class.  I think “hugely disproportionate effect” probably falls here — like if we banned anyone with the last name “Martinez”, there could be some Anglo people who are affected too but that’s clearly discrimination on the basis of ethnicity.  I think there’s also something to be said for what the average person would see here — and at this point, the average person would probably see discrim against pregnancy-related issues as discrim against women.

C. Yes - the law understands that right now as a sex/gender discrimination category.  Recasting that as a medical discrimination category changes entirely what kind of protections are allowed and cast the scrutiny level way down (unless we can get caselaw naming “individuals who have had or have female sex organs” as a suspect class — we might be able to, but that’s not how it’s understood right now).  Right now, suspect classes are race, national origin, and religion.  Quasi-suspect are legitimacy of birth and gender/sex.  Disability, age, wealth, etc etc, are not suspect and therefore only require a “rational basis” for the discrimination.  The new regs also open up pregnancy to more disability protections, but gender protection is stronger than disability.

D. I mean, I already agree that it would’ve been better to rephrase the footnote as you are saying.  To me, at least, it’s simple enough to say, “As birth control only affects employees who can become pregnant, blah blah blah blah may be a form of sex discrimination.”  It’s already on the books that pregnancy discrimination is sex discrimination, so the link we need is to pregnancy.  It probably included the line about women (a) because lawyers are taught to be as clear as possible with every step of logic, and (b) because that’s how the PDA is defined - to protect “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth…” etc.  To redefine the PDA as sex discrimination but against a category of people with certain organs/biological abilities instead of the shorthand “women” would be fine, and would still fit in the caselaw for sex discrim, but the PDA is a statute and good luck getting Congress to amend that without deciding to just throw out the act altogether.


Eliezer Yudkowsky  (via rampias)

Being a “product of their times” is no excuse. Never let someone off the hook for bigotry. 

(via callingoutbigotry)

1 k 117438





Barack Obama has attained a level of sassiness one can only dream of.

Holy shit it’s real.

oh my fuck. sass king.

As a president I’m pretty split with Obama but as a person I absolutely love him

1 k 33637


brb smashing things

"The Department of Health and Human Services argued that the companies forfeited protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when they became corporations instead of other legal entities."

1 k 335275








US students will be able to shield themselves during school shootings with the latest in body armour, the Bodyguard Blanket

Are fucking kidding me? I have been sitting at home and constantly watching the news after the events of yesterday. For those of you who are wondering, I am a junior at REYNOLDS HIGH SCHOOL! I was there when the shooter kept running in the halls trying to open the doors and get in. I was there in the dark praying and crying while my librarian kept saying ” they’ll have to kill me before they touch my kids” I have known her for three years, her determination to keep us safe broke her heart. Seeing this, that little children need protection in school. Are we sending kids to a battlefield? I have three little brothers ranging from 5-10, and still people have the nerve to speak about the second amendment? Really? I can’t even type anymore. I’m so disgusted and frustrated. When will you realize that it’s important to have gun control? When a shooter is pointing a gun at your child? Is that when you’ll realize that guns aren’t something to be kept around. People say it’s a free country but honesty, this country is more oppressed and diseased than any other country.

Show me ONE instance where gun control and gun free zones prevented school shootings.


Let me tell you guys a story.
In 1996, in a little town in Australia called Port Arthur, a gunman killed 35 and injured 23. This place was a tourist attraction, with plenty of visitors and locals going about their business. 
35 people died.That’s 35 marriages, anniversaries, birthdays or uni degrees. 35 people left Port Arthur in body bags.
At the time, we had a pretty conservative government, and the Prime Minister at the time (in hindsight) was kind of a dick. But within two weeks of the shooting, Howard instituted a massive reform and buyback of all firearms. 

But it must be a statistical flaw, you say, there weren’t that many massacres before 1996, right? No, WRONG. 
In the eighteen years leading up to Port Arthur, there had been 13 mass shootings. 

But April, you ask, this couldn’t possibly have worked could it? Wouldn’t it only have reduced the mass shootings? WRONG.
Since 1996, there have been ZERO mass shootings. That’s right, ZERO. FUCKING ZILCH. There have been scattered homicides, however:

How many schools have been raided and children murdered? NONE.
How many film buffs have been murdered in their seats? NONE.
How many innocent lives have been lost to the barrel of a gun? NONE.

On top of this, homicides involving the use of guns, and youth suicide involving the use of guns has declined dramatically, by up to 60%

Australia, however much the environment tries to kill you, is a safe haven, and you can walk the streets with 99% assurance that you won’t fall victim to a drive by shooting.

Your move, America.

Okay, but if you plan  to kill someone, will the fact that guns are illegal stop you from getting one if you know you’re going to jail anyways?

Guns aren’t illegal in australia, only some are. Those that plan to kill people, usually use weapons like knives and such. It’s easier to get a gun say for hunting, protecting your farm etc.

Here’s just some of the things:

  • a federal ban on the importation of “all semi-automatic self-loading and pump action longarms, and all parts, including magazines, for such firearms, included in Licence Category D, and control of the importation of those firearms included in Licence Category C.”  The sale, resale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, and use of such firearms would also be banned by the states and territories, other than in exceptional circumstances (relating to military or law enforcement purposes and occupational categories, depending on the category of the firearm);[23]
  • standard categories of firearms, including the two largely prohibited categories (C and D), which include certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, and a restricted category for handguns (category H);[24]
  • a requirement for a separate permit for the acquisition of every firearm, with a twenty-eight-day waiting period applying to the issuing of such permits,[25] and the establishment of a nationwide firearms registration system;[26]
  • a uniform requirement for all firearms sales to be conducted only by or through licensed firearms dealers, and certain minimum principles that would underpin rules relating to the recording of firearms transactions by dealers and right of inspection by police;[27]
  • restrictions on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period and a requirement that dealers only sell ammunition for firearms for which the purchaser is licensed;[28]
  • ensuring that “personal protection” would not be regarded as a “genuine reason” for owning, possessing, or using a firearm under the laws of the states and territories;[29]
  • standardized classifications to define a “genuine reason” that an applicant must show for owning, possessing, or using a firearm, including reasons relating to sport shooting, recreational shooting/hunting, collecting, and occupational requirements  (additional requirements of showing a genuine need for the particular type of firearm and securing related approvals would be added for firearms in categories B, C, D, and H);[30]
  • in addition to the demonstration of a “genuine reason,” other basic requirements would apply for the issuing of firearms licenses, specifically that the applicant must be aged eighteen years or over, be a “fit and proper person,” be able to prove his or her identity, and undertake adequate safety training[31] (safety training courses would be subject to accreditation and be “comprehensive and standardised across Australia for all licence categories”);[32]
  • firearms licenses would be required to bear a photograph of the licensee, be endorsed with a category of firearm, include the holder’s address, be issued after a waiting period of not less than twenty-eight days, be issued for a period of no more than five years, and contain a reminder of safe storage responsibilities;[33]
  • licenses would only be issued subject to undertakings to comply with storage requirements and following an inspection by licensing authorities of the licensee’s storage facilities;[34]
  • minimum standards for the refusal or cancellation of licenses, including criminal convictions for violent offenses in the past five years, unsafe storage of firearms, failure to notify of a change of address, and “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm”;[35] 

We can’t even close the god damn gun show loophole. I’ve been to a gun show and seen how easy it is for anyone to rock up and get a gun without a background check. It’s enough to send you screaming home and never leave it. Then I wake up to, “New study finds more women shot and killed by domestic partners than all U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan” ( Get your shit together, America.

1 k 251997











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.

Why did they stop in canada?


Fascinating! I’m from the Canadian prairies and I’ve never heard of this.




totalitarian dystopian future lit is like “what if the government got so powerful that all the bad stuff that’s already happening ALSO HAPPENED TO WHITE PEOPLE?”









The judges sympathized with the notion that a woman should be able to have a reasonable expectation not to have secret photos taken up her skirt when she goes out in public, but ruled that current state law does not address that. Massachusetts’ “Peeping Tom” laws, as written, only protect women from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Since upskirt photos are taken of fully clothed women in public, they don’t count, according to the court.

“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” the court wrote.

Robertson’s lawyers defended his actions by arguing the photos were a matter of free speech.

Upskirt photos are becoming increasingly common with the spread of camera phones, but the law is slow to catch up with new technologies. Under most voyeurism laws, women must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is difficult to prove when she is in public. The Massachusetts court is hardly the first to acquit men who take these photos; perpetrators in Oklahoma, Indiana, and Washington have all been cleared by judges because the laws on the books did not apply. In response to one case in which a man legally took upskirt photos of a 10-year-old girl, Indiana lawmakers passed an upskirt ban in 2011. Other states have considered but not passed similarly updated voyeurism laws.

ew ew ewwwww


Today in news that makes me want to seek alternate living arrangements in a nearby galaxy…

Maybe I’m just not that bright, but isn’t that the whole purpose of setting precedent? To set a standard for how laws are interpreted and enforced in society? 

This just makes me want to vomit.

Our legal system is one means of reinforcing the white capitalist heteropatriarchy. This is a clear fucking example.

I don’t have the resonable expectation of privacy…..inside my own clothes.

"Judges sympathized"

Clearly they did not.

Okay, update. The state legislature passed a new bill that makes it illegal to take upskirt photos of women or children. It’s on the Governor’s desk, and he has already stated that he plans to sign it.

The judiciary failed at setting a precedent here in a gross and terrible way, but the state legislature responded with a speedy and bipartisan assurance tgat this is Not Okay.

That’s the kind of update I like to hear. I still loathe that I don’t have a ~reasonable expectation of privacy~ inside my own fucking clothes, though. THAT continues to be a steaming pile of bull shit.