Forced Ranting

communismkills:

I can’t believe Hitler was born today to wage WWII for our sins.

CommunismKills

buffalo-liberty:

buffalo-liberty:

You know I’ve tried for a while here, but I’ve become more aware of CK. she operates entirely on shock value, doesn’t actually believe in the ideology but merely panders to it adherents by denouncing certain “unpure” factions within it and focuses primarily on promoting conservative and nationalist ideas, which would be less egregious if she admitted it - if she didn’t say she was simultaneously a libertarian or an-cap. She posts quips without addressing the original author, or even the argument itself and proceeds to make unfounded ad hominems against said nameless detractors. She has no intention of having a real debate or addressing the opposition instead relying on strawmen and false dichotomies. I’d like to believe religious people can believe in liberty but apparently their right to impose their religion on children, which is an act of violence especially to physically remove tissue for religious reasons, trumps the right to not get cut up by a doctor for a reason you don’t believe in.

The more CK speaks the truer this becomes. I should add, any valid criticisms will be ignored or disregarded as anti-semitism, which for “not being a nationalist” is somehow a good way to deflect criticism.

Can you blame her? After all, anti-circumcision activists are calling to make the practice illegal, and to provide for legal punishment for both parents and doctors/mohels who perform the procedure.

Given that circumcision is a core component of Judaism, and no other religion, some of the criticism really does start to take on anti-semitic tones. Given its importance within Judaism, it would be almost akin to banning the consumption of crackers with wine, and claiming that the reasons had nothing to do with Christianity. That may be true, but it does not dispel the disproportionate effects upon one religion over others.

Given the historical context within which Jews view the world, there is absolutely zero chance that they will stop performing circumcisions, and instead the entire practice will be driven underground. After all, it’s not the first time it’s happened to them. “Intactivists” who propose banning the procedure, then, will not succeed in stamping it out, and instead will simply criminalize the actions of otherwise-peaceful people.

So if you claim to be a libertarian, and you recognize how flawed an approach that is when it comes to the drug war, why would you ever advocate it as an approach to dealing with circumcision?

(I’ll write another post addressing some of the substantive arguments against circumcision, which I do not think are nearly as conclusive as “intactivists” pretend.)

I can tell when people on my dashboard are masturbating, because they’ll reblog a bunch of porn in a row, and then not again for a day or two.

bossrobotdad said: This used to be possible but was changed. Used to could also format asks with linebreaks and a’thing.

Figures…the hot new thing at internet companies these days is breaking perfectly good functionality. But hey, look at these new rounded corners, aren’t they so awesome?!

Hey, tumblr staff — you know, it’d be nice to be able to include links in asks. Maybe just restrict them in anonymous asks, or asks sent to people who aren’t following each other, or have a limit of links per day, if spam is your concern? It’s pretty frustrating to try and share a picture with someone privately, and not the entire world.

craiganthonywells:

forcedranting:

craiganthonywells:

jillstrif:

in the UK, it takes you a lifetime to get treatment and then you die. in America, you get the best treatment immediately. God I hate the ignorant youth on tumblr.
the government owns you in the UK. the government does not own us in America. “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.” -Thomas Jefferson
and universal healthcare isn’t free. it comes out of your huge taxes. 

Um what? What gave you impression that UK health care is so bad?
US health care is ranked at 35th in the world and is the most expensive. It has the highest percentage of GDP funding it and it’s not even a public system. So don’t be audacious enough to criticise any other countries health care spending. America really isn’t as free as you think it is. The NHS is relatively good value for money, and actually when given the option to pay more in the form of a tax contribution, the majority of Britons were in favour of it. It’s nonsensical to say they the government owns our lives for taxes which we pay voluntarily. The only exception to this is where people opt to have private health care instead, they still have to pay health insurance, which I think is wrong.

Um, what?  NHS hasn’t published wait time statistics since 2011, but the picture wasn’t pretty then.
That the NHS is overwhelmingly popular does not mean that it is of high quality.

I never said that the NHS was perfect. Far from it. It’s very good at treating minor things but not so much the major ones, partly due to the mindless beaurocracy as exemplified in the article, but also due to the fact that so many procedures which really shouldn’t be considered health are practised on the NHS such as cosmetic ones.
My objection was to the argument that the US system is so superior when really it’s the worst value for money in the world.
And I wasn’t saying that the NHS is good because it is popular, just that one cannot be owned by something one voluntarily pays for. That’s something I’d expect a communist to say.

I don’t know if you ever saw Breaking Bad, but the reason that Heisenberg goes into the drug trade is because of his lung cancer. And yet, by your own admission, it is precisely the “major ones”, like cancer, that the NHS is so terrible at addressing. I think the point the OP was making, about “being owned”, referred to the policy of the NHS refusing to allow citizens to privately pay for treatment above and beyond that which the NHS covered, which appears was changed in 2008 to allow “topping-up”.

craiganthonywells:

forcedranting:

craiganthonywells:

jillstrif:

in the UK, it takes you a lifetime to get treatment and then you die. in America, you get the best treatment immediately. God I hate the ignorant youth on tumblr.

the government owns you in the UK. the government does not own us in America. “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.” -Thomas Jefferson

and universal healthcare isn’t free. it comes out of your huge taxes. 

Um what? What gave you impression that UK health care is so bad?

US health care is ranked at 35th in the world and is the most expensive. It has the highest percentage of GDP funding it and it’s not even a public system. So don’t be audacious enough to criticise any other countries health care spending. America really isn’t as free as you think it is. The NHS is relatively good value for money, and actually when given the option to pay more in the form of a tax contribution, the majority of Britons were in favour of it. It’s nonsensical to say they the government owns our lives for taxes which we pay voluntarily. The only exception to this is where people opt to have private health care instead, they still have to pay health insurance, which I think is wrong.

Um, what? 

NHS hasn’t published wait time statistics since 2011, but the picture wasn’t pretty then.

That the NHS is overwhelmingly popular does not mean that it is of high quality.

I never said that the NHS was perfect. Far from it. It’s very good at treating minor things but not so much the major ones, partly due to the mindless beaurocracy as exemplified in the article, but also due to the fact that so many procedures which really shouldn’t be considered health are practised on the NHS such as cosmetic ones.

My objection was to the argument that the US system is so superior when really it’s the worst value for money in the world.

And I wasn’t saying that the NHS is good because it is popular, just that one cannot be owned by something one voluntarily pays for. That’s something I’d expect a communist to say.

I don’t know if you ever saw Breaking Bad, but the reason that Heisenberg goes into the drug trade is because of his lung cancer. And yet, by your own admission, it is precisely the “major ones”, like cancer, that the NHS is so terrible at addressing.

I think the point the OP was making, about “being owned”, referred to the policy of the NHS refusing to allow citizens to privately pay for treatment above and beyond that which the NHS covered, which appears was changed in 2008 to allow “topping-up”.

communist internet tough guy: say that when the revolution comes fucker see what happens
craiganthonywells:

jillstrif:

in the UK, it takes you a lifetime to get treatment and then you die. in America, you get the best treatment immediately. God I hate the ignorant youth on tumblr.
the government owns you in the UK. the government does not own us in America. “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.” -Thomas Jefferson
and universal healthcare isn’t free. it comes out of your huge taxes. 

Um what? What gave you impression that UK health care is so bad?
US health care is ranked at 35th in the world and is the most expensive. It has the highest percentage of GDP funding it and it’s not even a public system. So don’t be audacious enough to criticise any other countries health care spending. America really isn’t as free as you think it is. The NHS is relatively good value for money, and actually when given the option to pay more in the form of a tax contribution, the majority of Britons were in favour of it. It’s nonsensical to say they the government owns our lives for taxes which we pay voluntarily. The only exception to this is where people opt to have private health care instead, they still have to pay health insurance, which I think is wrong.

Um, what?  NHS hasn’t published wait time statistics since 2011, but the picture wasn’t pretty then.
That the NHS is overwhelmingly popular does not mean that it is of high quality.

craiganthonywells:

jillstrif:

in the UK, it takes you a lifetime to get treatment and then you die. in America, you get the best treatment immediately. God I hate the ignorant youth on tumblr.

the government owns you in the UK. the government does not own us in America. “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.” -Thomas Jefferson

and universal healthcare isn’t free. it comes out of your huge taxes. 

Um what? What gave you impression that UK health care is so bad?

US health care is ranked at 35th in the world and is the most expensive. It has the highest percentage of GDP funding it and it’s not even a public system. So don’t be audacious enough to criticise any other countries health care spending. America really isn’t as free as you think it is. The NHS is relatively good value for money, and actually when given the option to pay more in the form of a tax contribution, the majority of Britons were in favour of it. It’s nonsensical to say they the government owns our lives for taxes which we pay voluntarily. The only exception to this is where people opt to have private health care instead, they still have to pay health insurance, which I think is wrong.

Um, what? 

NHS hasn’t published wait time statistics since 2011, but the picture wasn’t pretty then.

That the NHS is overwhelmingly popular does not mean that it is of high quality.

hahahahahahahahah

hahahahahahahahah

chrisray:

priceofliberty:

liberalsarecool:

Conservative consistent lack of logic.

This post is a joke, right? From a parody blog, now I get it!
Ha ha ha

Come on guys, human rights are something that are given to you by other people, specifically, other people with the power to destroy you for any reason they choose.  If they want to ring your neck a little to get some fees out of you, you should just be happy, because it can get a whole lot worse.  It has always been pieces of paper that give you the rights, just like it is the law that makes murder immoral.  You tea baggers need to know that even if those powerful people who are nice enough to give you rights routinely break their promises, or even do things that are unconstitutional, it doesn’t matter.  They have the guns and they promise they are acting with the best intentions.  Wars don’t pay for themselves you anti-federal government pieces of shit!  

New rule: if you don’t accept the existence of individual liberties, then you don’t get any!

chrisray:

priceofliberty:

liberalsarecool:

Conservative consistent lack of logic.

This post is a joke, right? From a parody blog, now I get it!

Ha ha ha

Come on guys, human rights are something that are given to you by other people, specifically, other people with the power to destroy you for any reason they choose.  If they want to ring your neck a little to get some fees out of you, you should just be happy, because it can get a whole lot worse.  It has always been pieces of paper that give you the rights, just like it is the law that makes murder immoral.  You tea baggers need to know that even if those powerful people who are nice enough to give you rights routinely break their promises, or even do things that are unconstitutional, it doesn’t matter.  They have the guns and they promise they are acting with the best intentions.  Wars don’t pay for themselves you anti-federal government pieces of shit!  

New rule: if you don’t accept the existence of individual liberties, then you don’t get any!

Jacque Fresco, from Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.

"Fresco is the director of The Venus Project.[1] Fresco advocates global implementation of a socioeconomic system which he refers to as a “resource-based economy.”

The dog’s name is “Precious”.

My schadenfreude is running deep and strong right now.

mapsbynik:


Nobody lives here: The nearly 5 million Census Blocks with zero population
A Block is the smallest area unit used by the U.S. Census Bureau for tabulating statistics. As of the 2010 census, the United States consists of 11,078,300 Census Blocks. Of them, 4,871,270 blocks totaling 4.61 million square kilometers were reported to have no population living inside them. Despite having a population of more than 310 million people, 47 percent of the USA remains unoccupied.
Green shading indicates unoccupied Census Blocks. A single inhabitant is enough to omit a block from shading
Quick update: If you’re the kind of map lover who cares about cartographic accuracy, check out the new version which fixes the Gulf of California. If you save this map for your own projects, please use this one instead.
Map observations
The map tends to highlight two types of areas:
places where human habitation is physically restrictive or impossible, and
places where human habitation is prohibited by social or legal convention.
Water features such lakes, rivers, swamps and floodplains are revealed as places where it is hard for people to live. In addition, the mountains and deserts of the West, with their hostility to human survival, remain largely void of permanent population.
Of the places where settlement is prohibited, the most apparent are wilderness protection and recreational areas (such as national and state parks) and military bases. At the national and regional scales, these places appear as large green tracts surrounded by otherwise populated countryside.
At the local level, city and county parks emerge in contrast to their developed urban and suburban surroundings. At this scale, even major roads such as highways and interstates stretch like ribbons across the landscape.
Commercial and industrial areas are also likely to be green on this map. The local shopping mall, an office park, a warehouse district or a factory may have their own Census Blocks. But if people don’t live there, they will be considered “uninhabited”. So it should be noted that just because a block is unoccupied, that does not mean it is undeveloped.
Perhaps the two most notable anomalies on the map occur in Maine and the Dakotas. Northern Maine is conspicuously uninhabited. Despite being one of the earliest regions in North America to be settled by Europeans, the population there remains so low that large portions of the state’s interior have yet to be politically organized.
In the Dakotas, the border between North and South appears to be unexpectedly stark. Geographic phenomena typically do not respect artificial human boundaries. Throughout the rest of the map, state lines are often difficult to distinguish. But in the Dakotas, northern South Dakota is quite distinct from southern North Dakota. This is especially surprising considering that the county-level population density on both sides of the border is about the same at less than 10 people per square mile.
Finally, the differences between the eastern and western halves of the contiguous 48 states are particularly stark to me. In the east, with its larger population, unpopulated places are more likely to stand out on the map. In the west, the opposite is true. There, population centers stand out against the wilderness.
::
Ultimately, I made this map to show a different side of the United States. Human geographers spend so much time thinking about where people are. I thought I might bring some new insight by showing where they are not, adding contrast and context to the typical displays of the country’s population geography.
I’m sure I’ve all but scratched the surface of insight available from examining this map. There’s a lot of data here. What trends and patterns do you see?
Errata
The Gulf of California is missing from this version. I guess it got filled in while doing touch ups. Oops. There’s a link to a corrected map at the top of the post.
Some islands may be missing if they were not a part of the waterbody data sets I used.
::
©mapsbynik 2014 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Block geography and population data from U.S. Census Bureau Water body geography from National Hydrology Dataset and Natural Earth Made with Tilemill USGS National Atlas Equal Area Projection

mapsbynik:

Nobody lives here: The nearly 5 million Census Blocks with zero population

A Block is the smallest area unit used by the U.S. Census Bureau for tabulating statistics. As of the 2010 census, the United States consists of 11,078,300 Census Blocks. Of them, 4,871,270 blocks totaling 4.61 million square kilometers were reported to have no population living inside them. Despite having a population of more than 310 million people, 47 percent of the USA remains unoccupied.

Green shading indicates unoccupied Census Blocks. A single inhabitant is enough to omit a block from shading

Quick update: If you’re the kind of map lover who cares about cartographic accuracy, check out the new version which fixes the Gulf of California. If you save this map for your own projects, please use this one instead.

Map observations

The map tends to highlight two types of areas:

  • places where human habitation is physically restrictive or impossible, and
  • places where human habitation is prohibited by social or legal convention.

Water features such lakes, rivers, swamps and floodplains are revealed as places where it is hard for people to live. In addition, the mountains and deserts of the West, with their hostility to human survival, remain largely void of permanent population.

Of the places where settlement is prohibited, the most apparent are wilderness protection and recreational areas (such as national and state parks) and military bases. At the national and regional scales, these places appear as large green tracts surrounded by otherwise populated countryside.

At the local level, city and county parks emerge in contrast to their developed urban and suburban surroundings. At this scale, even major roads such as highways and interstates stretch like ribbons across the landscape.

Commercial and industrial areas are also likely to be green on this map. The local shopping mall, an office park, a warehouse district or a factory may have their own Census Blocks. But if people don’t live there, they will be considered “uninhabited”. So it should be noted that just because a block is unoccupied, that does not mean it is undeveloped.

Perhaps the two most notable anomalies on the map occur in Maine and the Dakotas. Northern Maine is conspicuously uninhabited. Despite being one of the earliest regions in North America to be settled by Europeans, the population there remains so low that large portions of the state’s interior have yet to be politically organized.

In the Dakotas, the border between North and South appears to be unexpectedly stark. Geographic phenomena typically do not respect artificial human boundaries. Throughout the rest of the map, state lines are often difficult to distinguish. But in the Dakotas, northern South Dakota is quite distinct from southern North Dakota. This is especially surprising considering that the county-level population density on both sides of the border is about the same at less than 10 people per square mile.

Finally, the differences between the eastern and western halves of the contiguous 48 states are particularly stark to me. In the east, with its larger population, unpopulated places are more likely to stand out on the map. In the west, the opposite is true. There, population centers stand out against the wilderness.

::

Ultimately, I made this map to show a different side of the United States. Human geographers spend so much time thinking about where people are. I thought I might bring some new insight by showing where they are not, adding contrast and context to the typical displays of the country’s population geography.

I’m sure I’ve all but scratched the surface of insight available from examining this map. There’s a lot of data here. What trends and patterns do you see?

Errata

  • The Gulf of California is missing from this version. I guess it got filled in while doing touch ups. Oops. There’s a link to a corrected map at the top of the post.
  • Some islands may be missing if they were not a part of the waterbody data sets I used.

::

©mapsbynik 2014
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Block geography and population data from U.S. Census Bureau
Water body geography from National Hydrology Dataset and Natural Earth
Made with Tilemill
USGS National Atlas Equal Area Projection

commanderabutt:

lilkittygrl:

you-can-call-me-carl:

How come a girl can wear guys clothes and look cute or wear a suit and look hot, but when a guy wears a dress or a skirt it’s weird?

because our society thinks it’s degrading to be feminine

because people fought for women’s right to do that but no one ever did the opposite