Ayo! Your blogs aren’t being muted, Tumblr’s bot probably introduced a new glitch. Clicking any of my “muted” posts and editing them (you don’t have to actually edit anything, just click “edit” and “save”) fixed my blog. Seems to be working for others too.
Reblog to save a life. Might work for the rest of you as well.
Real talk, though, because it needs to be said: as much as we all joke that porn was the only good thing this place had left, the reality is that it being the only place where one could regularly engage with and promote sexual content being gone is really not understanding at all what makes this place special. I mean we all joke about “horny on main” and all that, but the reality is that for a lot of the LGTBQ+ community, particularly younger members still discovering themselves and members in extremely homophobic environments where most media sites were banned (but Tumblr wasn’t even considered important enough to be), this was a bastion of information and self-expression. For a lot of artists too, this was a great place to come and post NSFW work and get traction that became Patreon pages that became honest jobs.
The problem with “family friendly” social media is that more often than not, the ones hit the most by the whole family friendly nonsense are marginalized groups that have no vehicles to express themselves. Stuff like YouTube consistently bans or flags simple content featuring something as innocuous as two men kissing as “adult” content and makes it hard for LGBTQ+ content creators to compete with their non-queer peers for a lot of those reasons.
The ultimate problem isn’t even that banning of NSFW content, it’s the general mess surrounding it and unintended consequences to these groups. For MONTHS Tumblr has had a huge problem with porn spam bots and outright child pornography, and for MONTHS the majority of the userbase has been in general consensus that both of these things needed to stop. Tumblr did NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. When Apple finally removed their app from the store, SPECIFICALLY because of the child pornography, Tumblr decided to do what any rich corporation owning a social media site with zero understanding of what makes it popular would do, and decided that the best course of action was to eat itself like an Ouroboros. Rather than admit that they have done an absolutely shit job at keeping pedophiles off this website and rather than hiring the necessary staff to carefully moderate content, they decided to loose a poorly programmed bot that literally deleted perfectly SFW blogs with thousands of followers, and rather than properly handling moderation, they decided that it was best to simply go the lazy route and block anything even remotely NSFW.
They run this site in the worst way possible, and I don’t understand how @support or @staff or their completely oblivious “CEO” plans to keep this sinking ship alive.
No, no, no. Don’t try passing off racism as “dating preferences.” Dating preferences are like: “I PREFER short guys to tall guys, but I wouldn’t say no to a cute tall guy.“ Racism is: “I don’t date blacks.” These things are not equivalent.
And don’t tell me it isn’t this blatant, when gays write “No blacks, no Asians” literally right on their dating profiles.
Some of y'all in my inbox are so fucking funny! Like: “but if it’s the third waning moon of the year, while six of the planets are aligned, and I’m a Virgo and he’s a Scorpio, and I’m wearing blue shoes, THEN is it okay for me to not date black guys?! What do you think?!”
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
“if a child was dying of cancer and his dying wish was to make a grindr account that said ‘no chocolate, beans, or rice’ would it be okay then????”
Anonymous asked: Here's something I don't get about anarchy. If the state is split up into a bunch of ministates, then won't we wind up with a scenario where either the more powerful ministates don't get along with each other, in which case we have a war, which is bad, or worse, a scenario where the more powerful ministates *do* get along with each other, so if one of them does something horrible all of their friends just shrug and it's basically like we have a state?
Yeah that’s not really what anarchy is - I guess that’s the Somalian model you’re thinking of, but if you have a bunch of ministates/gangs/warlords in close geographical proximity that’s not a stateless society - quite the opposite.
Instead of ministates you should think of what ancaps call DROs, dispute resolution organizations. A state is a monopoly on the legitimized use of force in a geographic area - a DRO is not a state because it is not a monopoly. it is more of a service provider in a competitive market with voluntary clients who are able to cancel their service without having to leave the country. DROs would rarely go to war with one another for a variety of reasons and would instead submit disputes to neutral arbitration - even powerful states generally prefer to submit disputes to international arbitration rather than go to war most of the time. War between DROs is not something that can be totally ruled out but I think we have good reason to believe it would be both less common and less destructive than wars between states.
A DRO that allows horrible things to be done to their clients will soon have no clients and cease to exist. It’d be a service provider that’s conspicuously failing to provide a service at that point. States can get away with doing that because they’re coercive monopolies, but a DRO could not because they are neither of those things. A DRO that tried to become a state, that demanded taxes from everyone in an area, would find itself at war with every other DRO that had clients in that area. So it’d be kind of like how Bitcoins work, I guess - if you let any single entity get more control than all the others combined then you can potentially wind up with something like the same shitty centrally-manipulated system we had to begin with. But if that power stays distributed you wind up with something with interesting and useful properties, that’s potentially all but impossible to corrupt.
Like you could criticize democracy by saying ‘but the person who won this ‘election’ thing could abuse his position to make sure he’d be voted in every time, and then his son after him could do the same, and then his son after him, so it’s basically just like we have monarchy anyway, and so you might as well not bother with democracy.’ And I think someone arguing for democracy would have to respond with ‘yes, that could happen, it has happened, if enormous numbers of people were simultaneously foolish and cowardly enough to allow it to happen, but that’s not what I’m arguing for, that’s a fake, failed version of the system I’m talking about, there is such a thing as an actual democracy with free and fair elections that isn’t 99% of the population voting for Dear Leader or else.’
And you could criticize democracy by saying ‘wouldn’t the party that lost the election just start a civil war?’ And someone arguing for democracy would have to respond with ‘yeah that could happen, it has happened, but the system has pretty strong incentives for avoiding that, stronger than monarchy has for avoiding succession disputes, and so our system would actually make civil wars less common than in the system we’re replacing.’
Anarchy is not a utopia that has no possible failure conditions, no real-life system can withstand something like 90% of the population deciding to line up to support some would-be dictator’s bid for absolute power, or an issue that divides the society neatly in half that everyone is willing to kill over, or an overwhelmingly powerful foreign invader. And nobody seems to expect familiar systems to be able to deal with those things, just hypothetical ones. Man, you’d think after Trump got elected last year there’d be a little bit more enthusiasm for novel political systems that wouldn’t allow a former reality TV host to legally blow up anyone he wants with flying killer robots. I could almost understand someone being so excited over Obama that they believed the system wasn’t an absolute farce but in this post-2016 world we can’t hide from that fact. Any system that gave Donald Trump the power to start a nuclear war needs to be drastically re-thought from the ground up.
It’s 2017. Can we stop pretending that regulating markets and monopolies in capitalism “stiffles creativity?”
Explain pls😫😮
When people argue that regulations stifle creativity in capitalism, what they’re actually addressing is regulations that promote fairness and competition. Meaning, a lot of regulations in capitalism exist to regulate corporations from monopolizing markets or from basically setting whatever rules they want that consumers have little option but to support. Cable companies are an example: how much competition Comcast really have? Most of their products and services are garbage and overpriced and they can get away with it because of the lack of options on the consumer end.
The entire “argument” for destroying net neutrality is that “regulations are bad because they stifle creativity,” which is complete bullshit. Regulations by the FCC imposed on internet providers are to keep them from doing pretty much anything they want (i.e. fuck over consumers and kill competition through aggressive, unfair tactics). Fiscal conservatives love to argue that deregulation is a good thing and the markets will balance themselves out, but it never works out that way. The same applies to taxes: deregulating and cutting taxes for the rich has been empirically proven to not create jobs for the middle and lower class; deregulation of banks are what caused the economic downturn of the mid 2000′s, and deregulation of banks and how they handled loans was also one of the prime drivers for the housing market crash, etc.
Pretending that perfectly logical regulations that keep corporations from monopolizing markets and basically robbing consumers blind is “stifling creativity” is nonsense.
Basically corporations want to exist outside of any regulations despite REPEATEDLY proving that they can’t be trusted to regulate themselves in any manner that constitutes consideration of the damage they cause to the economy outside of their own profit margins. Fiscal conservatives eat that whole “the freer the market the better” bullshit when lack of regulation leads to monopolies and underhanded business practices that absolutely constitutes the exact opposite of a “free market” and when you show them clear evidence of this they call it “crony capitalism” as if it’s some separate phenomenon rather than a direct result of not regulating rich shitheads with zero sense of business ethics.
It’s funny how they love saying “Oh the free Market will regulate itself” and “if you don’t like it don’t shop there” when we bring up bigoted and heinous shit these million and billion dollar companies and corporations do for profit, how shitty/dangerous what they’re doing or selling is, or talk about making these companies open more jobs and pay employees livable wages.
But as soon as we decide we don’t fuck with those companies anymore suddenly it’s hundreds of articles about how these companies are dying and they need our support and we’re destroying America. But isn’t us not giving them our money and them dying just the Market “regulating” itself?
And they don’t seem to care about the free Market when corporations and companies literally choke it to death and make it where they’re literally your only option and you have to pay exorbitant prices or you’ll starve, die, lose an important feature of life etc. it’s almost like these rich ass wipes only care about the “Market” when it stops them from becoming richer.
