Monthly Archives: January 2012

spock-variety-hour:

rayn3r:

Star Wars if Dr. Seuss had created it.

#oh my land #this is fantabulous #look at the umbrella handle on Obi-Wan’s lightsaber

unatheblade:

trestrajes:

‘Hotter than this’, la serie

Link

Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals. Carnism is essentially the opposite of vegetarianism or veganism; “carn” means “flesh” or “of the flesh” and “ism” denotes a belief system. Most people view eating animals as a given, rather than a choice; in meat-eating cultures around the world people typically don’t think about why they find the meat of some animals disgusting and the meat of other animals appetizing, or why they eat any animals at all. But when eating animals isn’t a necessity for survival, as is the case in the majority of the world today, it is a choice – and choices always stem from beliefs.

We recognize that not eating animals stems from a belief system; vegetarianism was named centuries ago. Accordingly, we don’t refer to vegetarians as “plant eaters,” as we understand that eating plants reflects an underlying ideology in which consuming animals is considered unethical and inappropriate. Yet, we still refer to “non-vegetarians” as “meat eaters,” as though the act of eating meat were divorced from a belief system, as though vegetarians were the only ones who bring their beliefs to the dinner table. However, the reason that many people eat pigs but not dogs, for example, is because they do have a belief system when it comes to eating animals.

Why, then, has carnism not been named until now? One reason is because it’s simply easier to recognize those ideologies that fall outside the mainstream. A much more important reason, though, is because carnism is a dominant ideology – an ideology so widespread and entrenched that its tenets are considered common sense, “the way things are,” rather than a set of widely held opinions. And carnism is also a violent, exploitative ideology; it is organized around intensive, extensive, and unnecessary violence toward, and exploitation of, animals. Even the production of so-called humane meat (and other animal products), a miniscule percentage of the meat produced in the world today, exploits animals and often involves brutality. The tenets of carnism run counter to the core values of most people who would not willingly support the exploitation of others or condone such violence toward other sentient beings. So carnism, like other violent, exploitative ideologies, must hide itself to ensure the participation of the populace; without popular support, the system would collapse.

If I were going to set up a website to parody vegetarianism and veganism gone wrong, it would look a little bit like this.

What is Carnism?

How I think of New Atheists:

ideasandopinions:

“atheism” … reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man. – Marx

 if there is to be talk about philosophy, there should be less trifling with the label“atheism” (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people.” in his letter to Arnold Ruge.

Just Marx being awesome.

logicallypositive:

Well you’re in England (correct me if I’m wrong) so maybe English police do things differently. But I’ve seen a list of the websites that the US Department of Homeland Security monitors on a regular basis and tumblr was not on that list. I don’t imagine police other than maybe the NYPD monitor Tumblr (because the NYPD is a massive domestic intelligence apparatus). If the Fed’s aren’t doing it then I don’t think local or even state police would bother. Then again I’m an American, so maybe police in other countries are different.

If they don’t, it’s only because they’ve not heard of it yet.  An open platform like this, the police will have no qualms in using to figure out who they want to keep an eye on.  There’s a difference between that and what they can get to hold in court, though.  Hence you’re unlikely to have any drama as a result unless you post up some really ridiculous confessions.  It’ll more likely prove a problem if you get yourself arrested and they decide to drudge through your Tumblr to see what else they can get on you …

logicallypositive:

I don’t think coppers patrol tumblr, or else yeah I’m pretty sure I’d already be arrested at this point

Are you kidding me?  They “patrol” Twitter, they’ll use public posts on Facebook and you can bet they’ll watch suspect Tumblrs.  They won’t necessarily arrest you over a Tumblr post because anyone can post any shit on the internet.  That doesn’t mean it would be worth picking them up for it.  But I’d be very amazed if there aren’t at least a couple of governments that look in on what’s being said, especially when dramatic things happened like the London riots.

peak-society:

philosophy-of-praxis:

peak-society replied to your post: “Sitting around and doing nothing is a political act”; have you ever been on a riot protest or you just like to talk in the easy way?

this anon is clearly not creeping your FB to see you commie students getting arrested

Shhh, The coppers have plenty of footage of my face for their wankbanks already.  They don’t need to creep my FB and Tumblr for that.

I mean wait!  No!  I never leave the house, I’m a keyboard warrior through and through.

hahaha fuck the photos of you and matt make me wish i was either in uni or in the UK raising hell with you guys. 

Psshaw.  You’ll give the game away!

bourgeois civility.

of-praxis:

I don’t know what words to describe this particular phenomon but I have been using the phrase bourgeois civility. 

Bourgeois civility is when you are interacting with a government major who sees your categorical rejection of populist libertarianism, Objectivism, and neoliberalism as ‘narrow-mindedness.’

It’s when you read an article about people who support Rick Perry ads and are told that all opinions are equal and the best way to combat ostensibly bad ones is to engage in civil debate, that political discourse is best exemplified if people don’t harangue those with opposing views but try to have a nice conversation.

It’s this stupid idea that all ideas are equal in the context of policy studies and in this magical marketplace of ideas (except critical theory, which is never allowed in most IR discussions because, as a Harvard/Columbia educated professor once told us, ‘only poor people believe Capitalism is bad. Now Samuel Huntington, isn’t it interesting how he predicted the War on Terror so long ago?’)

It’s liberalism at its worst, when you are told that your frustration at movies like Akira (which are originally Japanese, feature Japanese people, and are set in Japan but are white-washed into Hollywood casting calls which only ask for white men to star in this summer’s hottest blockbuster) is just an opinion, and that its not racist to imply that most of America can only relate to a white guy instead of an Asian one— its actually called studying your market. 

It’s when you forget that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

Bourgeois civility is basically when you co-op the invisibility of power dynamics involved in structural violence and translate it into a discourse. It’s snooty, multicultural liberalism. It’s when you think that normalizing discourse that erases power dynamics is acceptable; that someone getting irritated with opinions that probably destroy the livelihood, culture, autonomy, and families of various groups are being naturalized as legitimate political positions.

I don’t believe activism should be too aggressive at all times, I think sometimes we alienate people if we are too flippant or rude despite our own pains. But I will never tolerate bourgeois civility. Because ideas are not equal if I am fighting for my rights and you are fighting to put me in jail or deport me by spreading lies about my people, my communities, my culture; when I am the only one who is suffering and will continue to suffer if X law fails to pass or Z law does pass; but am also the one being told, ‘all political opinions are equal!’

It’s when someone tries to rationalize the current GOP platform— which is fascist, destructive, racist, sexist, and all around bad for this country and the rest of the world— as legitimate political thought that should be seriously engaged with instead of flippantly dismissed. It’s not realizing that American politics is a fucking absurdest theater right now— with the FDA seizing people’s private lemon trees because they pose a threat to the lemon lobby (wtf) or when ICE uses predator drones to do domestic business.

It’s the confusion of ‘being open-minded’ with ‘the ability to think critically.’

can someone please tell me what bourgeois civility is?

of-praxis:

akagoldfish:

philosophy-of-praxis:

mindofthetimes:

Someone’s way of telling you that they think you’re a sissy for thinking discussions should be civil. Also, they wanted to identify you with “the oppressors”, cause that’s what those people do to people they don’t like.

No.  Bourgeois civility is the demand for a code of conduct that meets specific standards otherwise the conversation becomes null and void.  The expectation that tone, language, accent, dialect, vernacular or what have you must meet the standards of the person who calls without having to actually address the argument or participate in discourse.

It’s called bourgeois civility because the homogenisation of language, the enforcement of received pronunciation, chastising people for using colloquialisms is something that supports bourgeois power structures and suppresses the diversity within the working class, communities of colour and so on.

As in if my boss tells me I’m getting a paycut and I tell him he should go fuck himself, and I lose my job despite being completely justified in thinking that the boss should find some large object to insert in whichever orifice of his he deems most suitable, that is bourgeois civility.  When people shut off conversations with people of colour, women, members of the LGBT community saying they’re getting too emotional or worked up and they’ll talk about things when that person has “calmed down” which is really a polite way of saying “fuck you I’m much smarter and more rational, I don’t need to reply to what you have to say” that is bourgeois civility.

What Comrade Sam said.

i wrote a post about it here a while ago but tldr is, discourse that assumes a vacuum of power instead of entrenched power relations and also assumes all opinions to be ‘correct’ and ‘valid in their own way’

More words is more knowledge.

peak-society replied to your post: “Sitting around and doing nothing is a political act”; have you ever been on a riot protest or you just like to talk in the easy way?

this anon is clearly not creeping your FB to see you commie students getting arrested

Shhh, The coppers have plenty of footage of my face for their wankbanks already.  They don’t need to creep my FB and Tumblr for that.

I mean wait!  No!  I never leave the house, I’m a keyboard warrior through and through.

“Sitting around and doing nothing is a political act”; have you ever been on a riot protest or you just like to talk in the easy way?

Say again?

Unless I’m misreading you, you want me to either make a post boasting about how I go do illegal things, on an open for all to read blog, or you want me to say that I’ve never left the house and therefore lack cred.

The other problem is the inference that the only meaningful action is to go out and riot, which is even more asinine.

So you appreciate why I find the premise of the question ridiculous?

thegovernmentstolemygermscd:

philosophy-of-praxis:

thegovernmentstolemygermscd:

Shit man, do they make a pan large enough to boil a human? 

Half the fun is in the hunt.

I know of a few that would be good for young humans. Is it bad morality to engage in Marxist Cannibalism if the specimens being cannibalized are under a certain age?

Eh, I think encouraging this level of revolutionary terror is just much simpler than awkward “who are my real parents?” conversations that will inevitably happen.

cirqueduferret:

philosophy-of-praxis:

That’s true.  Have you ever compared the difference between boiling a lobster and boiling a human?  Damn do lobsters make a creepy screaming noise when you chuck them in the pan.

Actually that’s just the air escaping their shells. Lobsters are put in a vegetative state beforehand so they can’t feel anything.

Humans on the other hand bitch the whole way down.

Thumbs up.

thegovernmentstolemygermscd:

aarbearrawr:

thegovernmentstolemygermscd:

aarbearrawr:

enterkylexvx:

thegovernmentstolemygermscd:

when people who are under 30 say they’ve been straightedge for 10+ years.

MOTHERFUCKER YOU WERE NOT STRAIGHTEDGE, YOU WERE A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. 

What a joke.

I am in no way straight edge, nor do I ever intend to be. That being said, I have learned that straight edge is more than just abiding by the laws set in place to govern what a person does or does not put in their body. Straight edge (if I understand it correctly) is a person, regardless of age, deciding that they do not want to poison themselves with drugs and alcohol and as a result choose to claim edge.

Point of fact, there is no legal age for the following:

  • Marijuana
  • Cocaine
  • Heroin
  • Crack
  • Opium
  • LSD
  • Peyote
  • Any prescription medicine

Edge has almost nothing to do with age.

WWWAAAHHHHHH!!!! Motherfucker shut up. You have no idea what the fuck I’m talking about. Stop trolling the fucking tags and be quiet. 

lol this coming from someone who claims they are an anarchist, yet still “trolls vegans”. Because oppression is really bad when it is happening to you, but it’s a joke when it happens to another species. Nothing you say means anything.

HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL. HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL.

That’s true.  Have you ever compared the difference between boiling a lobster and boiling a human?  Damn do lobsters make a creepy screaming noise when you chuck them in the pan.

can someone please tell me what bourgeois civility is?

mindofthetimes:

Someone’s way of telling you that they think you’re a sissy for thinking discussions should be civil. Also, they wanted to identify you with “the oppressors”, cause that’s what those people do to people they don’t like.

No.  Bourgeois civility is the demand for a code of conduct that meets specific standards otherwise the conversation becomes null and void.  The expectation that tone, language, accent, dialect, vernacular or what have you must meet the standards of the person who calls without having to actually address the argument or participate in discourse.

It’s called bourgeois civility because the homogenisation of language, the enforcement of received pronunciation, chastising people for using colloquialisms is something that supports bourgeois power structures and suppresses the diversity within the working class, communities of colour and so on.

As in if my boss tells me I’m getting a paycut and I tell him he should go fuck himself, and I lose my job despite being completely justified in thinking that the boss should find some large object to insert in whichever orifice of his he deems most suitable, that is bourgeois civility.  When people shut off conversations with people of colour, women, members of the LGBT community saying they’re getting too emotional or worked up and they’ll talk about things when that person has “calmed down” which is really a polite way of saying “fuck you I’m much smarter and more rational, I don’t need to reply to what you have to say” that is bourgeois civility.

designismymuse:

Hong Kong Car Proposal- Interface Studio Architects (via archdaily)

People who design multi-story car parks such as these are obviously people that take the bus.

What in sweet fuck.

The university cannot be an ivory tower, far away from the society, removed from the practical accomplishments of the Revolution. If such an attitude is maintained, the university will continue giving our society lawyers that we do not need.

Ernesto Guevara, speech to university students, October 17, 1959 (via fyeahcheguevara)

Which works best?

Anarcho-Maoists

Maoist-Anarchists

Maoist-Anarchy

Maowo-Anarchists

Maowow-Anarchists

Maoam-Anarchists

You decide.

I reckon the cherries are Proudhon and Kropotkin, whilst the salivating maniac in green is Mao.  The packaging is red and a blackish blue.  That’s more than just a coincidence.

rykemasters:

communismkills:

You cannot defend Stalin and be an anarchist.

You cannot defend Kim Jong Il and be an anarchist.

The end.

Well, that’s actually true. If you’re going to distinguish between anarchists and Marxist-Leninists, then you’ll find that pretty much no anarchists at all defend either of those people. Hell, the majority of communists and marxists don’t defend either of those people either.

Which is an entirely different matter from the fact that you’re not an anarchist by any stretch and aren’t remotely well-placed to tell anyone about anything related to anarchism or communism.

Anarcho-Maoists are a dying breed 😦