From the Fringes of Sleeplessness
New Heights of Paranoia

thebicker:

kohenari:

Earlier today, I asked whether or not gun advocates who extoll the virtues of defending your home with a weapon wouldn’t perhaps do better to buy an alarm system or adopt a dog.

This question was met with a level of paranoia that’s at once depressing and exhilarating, as it provides a look into the minds of some of these gun advocates.

Here are just a couple.

The first guy explained to me that buying a gun is a sensible and cost effective way to deter crime, which a spoiled bourgeois like me obviously doesn’t understood:

It’s almost as if some of these people can’t afford to maintain a large dog or to install electronic alarm systems. It’s almost as if some of these people aren’t privileged enough to live in high income areas where these countermeasures are common. It’s almost as if some of these people would rather spend 200 bucks on a shotgun so that they can continue to afford to feed themselves and make payments rather than investing bundles of cash into alarms and dogs.

Drawing a weapon on someone who is attempting to harm you is deterrence. Most defensive uses of firearms do not result in anyone being shot. The logical response to someone pointing a gun at you as you try to rob them is to run away.

If you notice, he suggests that alarms and dogs are only to be found in fancy gated communities like mine. I suspect that he’s desperately wrong, at least about dog ownership. But, then, I don’t often drive my Ferrari out of the suburbs so I can’t know for sure.

He also suggests that drawing a weapon is deterrence. And that’s fine … as long as we’re changing the definition of deterrence. You see, deterrence involves preventing someone from doing something (in this case, home invasion). But if they’re already in your home and you’re drawing a gun, you haven’t deterred them. You’ve just significantly raised the stakes.

The second guy went about a thousand steps farther:

Wait even if you do have those things how about we cut the power to your home? No alarm? Dog? Poison it days before you plan To break in or simply lead it out and dispose of them quietly. Look your first line of defense is gone now I’m in your home armed. Checkmate.

You see, in this guy’s mind, the criminal wants so badly to break into your home that he’s planning his home invasion days in advance. He’s poisoned your dog; he’s cut the power to your house so your alarm doesn’t work; and now nothing stands in the way of his nefarious schemes. This burglar is a criminal mastermind and no one but an armed homeowner will ever be safe from him. And criminals are all like him. So forget about dogs and alarms; they’re pretty much worse than useless.

Get your guns and a pile of ammo, board up all the doors and windows, and stay awake for the rest of your life.

Oh man. I had a hearty laugh at both of these. “But home invasions!” is a piss-poor defense of American’s gun violence epidemic. Despite what police procedurals would have you believe, there are not scores of violent burglars sitting in a van with a blueprint of your home and your neighborhood’s electrical grid. Most crimes like that are crimes of opportunity: They notice a window left open, or see the lights haven’t been turned on for a few days, or think you make an easy target. A large, visible alarm and/or a barking dog is a much more obvious way to say “It’s a bad idea to rob me!” than having a gun in your nightstand.

Yahoo put out a list of nine ways to deter burglars. Dogs and alarms (along with visible surveillance cameras and motion-activated lights) are on there. So is having neighbors make it look like you’re there when you’re out of town. Notably, the list — compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services — does not have “own a gun” on there. Alarms and dogs make criminals think twice before robbing you. Having a gun in your house makes it significantly more likely that you or a family member will die from being shot with it.

If a criminal comes to your house, cuts the power, and poisons your dog, they proooooooobably have a plan for if you have a gun. Look, I don’t want to scare anyone, but if someone is going to that length to get into your house they’re going to get into your house.

Yes, there are occasionally news stories about someone shooting and killing a home invader. But there are many, many more about kids or irresponsible adults accidentally shooting someone.

If you want a gun because you hunt or shoot or because you think America is destined for ~tyranny~, at least those are semi-valid reasons to have one. Owning it to protect your home is just a bad and dangerous plan.

stevewyshywaniuk:

azspot:

Fight for 15 // Strike Fast Food

Nobody should be surprised by this, but they will be.

stevewyshywaniuk:

azspot:

Fight for 15 // Strike Fast Food

Nobody should be surprised by this, but they will be.

thebicker:

charles-a-green:

charles-a-green:

tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

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.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.

This is wonderful commentary and I really really hope that we can have something like this in the US

I’m reblogging this TWICE because I love it that much

A couple things worth noting:
The "mincome" experiment didn’t run in all of Canada — just in one town. It was in the late 1970s, but the results weren’t analyzed and published until just a few years ago. Here’s an interview with the researcher who analyzed the outcome. TL;DR version: It went really well. But the experiment only lasted five years and has never been repeated anywhere else.
The idea of a guaranteed minimum income has gained popularity with a surprising group: Libertarians. The government would theoretically abolish Social Security, welfare, food stamp programs, disability, and other social programs and replace it with “here is the amount of money everyone gets no matter what.” It would drastically reduce the size of government, which gets those Ron Paul folks on board. And it would eliminate poverty (assuming the minimum income was at or above the poverty line), which gets us bleeding-heart types on board. Obviously, opponents include big banks (who make money processing food stamps, among other things) and every person who considers poverty a moral failing (the wealthy, the entire Republican party, that one uncle everyone has who you dread getting seated next to at Thanksgiving). Also, some elderly people, since a minimum guaranteed income might be lower than their current Social Security benefits.
I think, if nothing else, it’s worth a try. However, given the political climate, “let’s give free money to everyone!” is not a home run as far as potential legislation goes.

thebicker:

charles-a-green:

charles-a-green:

tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

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.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.

This is wonderful commentary and I really really hope that we can have something like this in the US

I’m reblogging this TWICE because I love it that much

A couple things worth noting:

The "mincome" experiment didn’t run in all of Canada — just in one town. It was in the late 1970s, but the results weren’t analyzed and published until just a few years ago. Here’s an interview with the researcher who analyzed the outcome. TL;DR version: It went really well. But the experiment only lasted five years and has never been repeated anywhere else.

The idea of a guaranteed minimum income has gained popularity with a surprising group: Libertarians. The government would theoretically abolish Social Security, welfare, food stamp programs, disability, and other social programs and replace it with “here is the amount of money everyone gets no matter what.” It would drastically reduce the size of government, which gets those Ron Paul folks on board. And it would eliminate poverty (assuming the minimum income was at or above the poverty line), which gets us bleeding-heart types on board. Obviously, opponents include big banks (who make money processing food stamps, among other things) and every person who considers poverty a moral failing (the wealthy, the entire Republican party, that one uncle everyone has who you dread getting seated next to at Thanksgiving). Also, some elderly people, since a minimum guaranteed income might be lower than their current Social Security benefits.

I think, if nothing else, it’s worth a try. However, given the political climate, “let’s give free money to everyone!” is not a home run as far as potential legislation goes.

stardust-rain:

stardust-rain:

sometimes tumblr’s US-centric social justice makes me so fucking frustrated. Right now sweden’s third biggest party are literally neo-nazis and our elections couldn’t even get onto trending tags today, goddamit.

Okay, so the post is gaining notes and people are confused, so to explain what the hell is going on: 

image

Swedish elections held were on last Sunday, 14th September. We’ve had a right-leaning government the past eight years and after this there will be a change of power. The new party, Socialdemocrats (S) gained a total of 31% percent. The old party, Moderaterna (M) gained 21%. 

Sverigedemokraterna (SD) gained a total of 12.9%. Their policy is racist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, anti-diversity, anti-LGBT+, and anti-feminist. Basically, they tick every box on the douchebag lottery.

If you’re here to argue that they’re ~not actually~ Nazis: 1) Fuck you. 2) Fuck the horse the you rode in on. 3) I hope you get stepped on by a moose, you ignorant asswipe. 

  1.  they literally started as neo nazis. They have used a Neo-Nazi movement as campaign slogans,
  2. party members have assaulted immigrants with iron pipes (tw for racialised violence),
  3. worn Nazi symbols 
  4. supported and helped build Neo-Nazi group SvP.

There’s probably more, but I don’t have links on hand. 

They’ve been having rallies and demonstrations all over Sweden, and people have shown up just to turn their back on them and protest (this post explains it better). 

In the 2010 elections, SD were pretty much considered no better than neo-Nazis and only got 5.7% votes - it put them in 6th place and was just enough to get them into parliament. In the elections before that, they got about 2.9%. In the past four years, they’ve grown exponentially in Sweden.

They’ve also run extremely extensive PR campaigns, appealing to the youth, kicking out members “exposed” of being racist, (note: these members often end up in SvP) and picking up buzzwords from the Socialdemocrats’ ideology. 

29% of votes they gained this year were from swing voters who previously voted M,  and the biggest gain have been in the south, in small towns and the countryside:

image

This is not something that’s just going on in Sweden. Europe has seen an influx of extreme-right parties over the last decade or so, often thinly disguised as a party that puts ‘traditional values’ and ‘national interest’ first.

In Greece and Hungary they’ve already been in power. In Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Finland France and UK, extreme-right-wing parties have been voted into the EU. 

Because here’s the thing: we’ve forgotten what it looks like. We’ve gotten to the point where we’ve turned Nazism into a cartoonish lampoon of goose-stepping, uniforms and moral lessons that “we’ll never be like them~”, ignoring the fact nationalism is not as cut-and-dry two ends of an extreme but exists on a scale.

People have been apologising for SD’s actions for a while now because they’re not considered “extremist enough” to be neo-Nazis, because they don’t share the same beliefs, because they’ve “publicly denounced” SvP. 

But the same people still get hurt. Still SD has the institutional and systematic power and privilege to oppress, degrade and humiliate people of colour, which they already have done. Stop making excuses for them. Stop making leeways for right-wing-extremists because that is how they gain tract. 

Please spread this. 

thebicker:

Haaaa, remember two weeks ago when they said the RNC was all about equal pay?

ponyofthesea:

narputo:

geeksquadgangbang:

Sarah Silverman is visited by Jesus Christ

This is one of the best responses to men against abortion ever

I watched this video a while ago and I am so excited someone finally made GIFS!

thebicker:

crooksandliars:

Somewhat hard to fathom that these type of people actually exist, and even more so that they sometimes run for elected office.

via The Pueblo Chieftan

A debate over Pueblo’s values and future between Commissioner Sal Pace and his challenger Tom Ready on Wednesday night suddenly took a sharp turn east.

East, as in Newtown, Conn., where a disturbed gunman shot 26 people, including 20 kids, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

Ready had just criticized Pace and Democrats for higher energy costs in the state and Pace, reacting to Ready in a stern voice, said “I thought we agreed not to go negative, but what about your posting on your Facebook site linking to a story that questioned whether Sandy Hook really happened?”

Ready said he only put that link up because he called for open discussion. “I don’t think (the Sandy Hook shootings have) been proven. And what’s wrong with open discussion?”

After the debate, Ready said did not recall posting the link specifically, but “it would not be the first time I put something out there for discussion.”

 “I don’t think (the Sandy Hook shootings have) been proven. And what’s wrong with open discussion?”

fatallywhimsical:

benedictbooty:

Remember Wendy Davis?

image

You know, the badass democrat who fillibustered for 11 hours straight to conserve women’s rights in Texas?

image

Well, this wonderful and amazing woman has announced her campaign for Texas governor!

image

Let’s show her some goddamn support!

Her opponent, Greg Abbott, is all about “traditional values.”

 What fucking good have “traditional values” ever done for anyone?

Not a goddamn thing, that’s what. Vote for Wendy Davis.

nappynomad:

socialjusticekoolaid:

The Ferguson City Council convened for the first time since Mike Brown’s death, and proved that they literally give no fucks about what the community has to say. Added to their vague, paltry proposed reforms, seems real change will have to come in Ferguson via the ballot box. I don’t care where you live folks— let this be a lesson in voting/participating in your local elections and government! #staywoke #farfromover 

My people getting it!

chakrabot:

slitheringink:

artofcarmen:

fyeahwhovians:

raygender:

themediafix:

Breaking news: The D.C. Appeals Court just killed Net Neutrality.This could be the end of the Internet as we know it. But it doesn’t have to be. Tell the FCC to restore Net Neutrality: http://bit.ly/1iOOjoe

they want to make the internet like tv. with channels and paying to get to specific websites and things. net neutrality = not doing that

This impacts every internet user. Please signal boost the hell out of this and sign the petition if you are American

I do not reblog things like this very often, but this affects me both personally and my business as a freelance artist.
In the economy here; cash is already strapped as it is. You bet your ass companies would suck the ever living life out of misc. art sites.
I don’t want it to ever come down to me choosing between groceries or purchasing a new tier package via comcast to be able to access tumblr or DeviantArt (let alone not guaranteeing I’ll even be seen by my customer base since they may not want to pay out their asses either). It doesn’t seem important to most, but I do 90% of my business online entirely.
Please sign up, fight for this and share it with your followers/friends/family and urge them to give them hell as well.

Not writing related, but this is incredibly important. While we pay for service via ISPs, the internet has been a relatively free space where everyone, no matter their income level, is able to connect, access a wealth of information, and express themselves. The Internet has become a major part of our culture as human beings and the notion that ISPs might be able to limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more is utterly sickening. A lot of us are cash strapped as is, and I’d rather not be limited even more by someone else’s greed. Net Neutrality is essential and I hope you guys will understand why it needs to remain.
-Morgan
P.S. Signal boost this if you’re able.

“ limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more”
 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more
 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more
 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more
 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more
DO YOU WANT THIS? NO?? CLICK THE LINK. REBLOG.

chakrabot:

slitheringink:

artofcarmen:

fyeahwhovians:

raygender:

themediafix:

Breaking news: The D.C. Appeals Court just killed Net Neutrality.

This could be the end of the Internet as we know it. But it doesn’t have to be. 

Tell the FCC to restore Net Neutrality: http://bit.ly/1iOOjoe

they want to make the internet like tv. with channels and paying to get to specific websites and things. net neutrality = not doing that

This impacts every internet user. Please signal boost the hell out of this and sign the petition if you are American

I do not reblog things like this very often, but this affects me both personally and my business as a freelance artist.

In the economy here; cash is already strapped as it is. You bet your ass companies would suck the ever living life out of misc. art sites.

I don’t want it to ever come down to me choosing between groceries or purchasing a new tier package via comcast to be able to access tumblr or DeviantArt (let alone not guaranteeing I’ll even be seen by my customer base since they may not want to pay out their asses either). It doesn’t seem important to most, but I do 90% of my business online entirely.

Please sign up, fight for this and share it with your followers/friends/family and urge them to give them hell as well.

Not writing related, but this is incredibly important. While we pay for service via ISPs, the internet has been a relatively free space where everyone, no matter their income level, is able to connect, access a wealth of information, and express themselves. The Internet has become a major part of our culture as human beings and the notion that ISPs might be able to limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more is utterly sickening. A lot of us are cash strapped as is, and I’d rather not be limited even more by someone else’s greed. Net Neutrality is essential and I hope you guys will understand why it needs to remain.

-Morgan

P.S. Signal boost this if you’re able.

“ limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more”

 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

 limit what sites I can access unless I pay them more

DO YOU WANT THIS? NO?? CLICK THE LINK. REBLOG.