Video

anarcho-queer:

unbossed:

anarcho-queer:

If Wal-Mart Paid Its Employees a Living Wage, How Much Would Prices Go Up? (2:02)

This video crunches the numbers on how much Walmart, the single biggest beneficiary of the food stamp economy, might have to raise prices across the board to help a typical worker earn a living wage.

This video was created by Slate magazine and Marketplace. It’s part of a series entitled The Secret Life of a Food Stamp.

Imagine what the prices could be like if the workers owned Walmart, and weren’t wasting so much of the revenue by putting it in the pockets of looting Walton heirs and mooching shareholders.

Great question! The Walton family is worth $150 billion combined. The equivalent to the bottom 50 million+ families in America. 

The mac n cheese will be damn near free even after the 2.2 million workers theoretically agree on a living wage.

Source: anarcho-queer
Photo Set

dark-inertia:

waiting4codot:

realifeshit:

wow THIS THO

Someday, I hope to actually laugh at these comics.

but seriously fuck people who think our generation had everything handed to us. we may not be first generation college students, but we’re paying double/triple what you paid for an education of more questionable quality. i’m not saying we don’t have it better, but we’re not as lazy as you think.

(via empathicsociety)

Source: a-golden-lasso-of-my-own
Answer
  • Question: ghandi was a collobarator with the british empire and a traitor to his fellow citizens. he also denied his wife drugs to save her life for religious reasons and then took those same drugs when he needed them to save his own life DO THE RESEARCH - ldevstuff
  • Answer:

    theintentionalife:

    I actually had this conversation with a friend this weekend. I’m fully aware of Gandhi’s shortcomings and the evil he lived while he spread messages of peace. But the thing that I feel most people miss in this moral inconsistency is the ability for a person or a message to serve more than more purpose and create more than one impact. The flaw of cultural symbolism is that complicated humans and multifaceted ideas become simplified and narrowed in their associations the further they travel from their origin. And as much as I appreciate factuality for the sake of argument, I value practicality and outcomes over purism. Gandhi was an evil AND awesome guy. He did terrible things AND he did wonderful things (even if the only thing you can consider wonderful was giving voice and acting as a symbol for peace long after he died). I get the emotional inclination to BRING JUSTICE to the unjust. You may be thinking, “Oh he was such a __fill in the blank terrible word__, he shouldn’t be given credit for half of what he’s credited for!” But he’s dead, so there’s no justice to be had regarding him personally at this point. Sure, by all means go after legacy if you must. But the cultural fact is that at this point he is only a symbol, which has done so much good for humanity. If you do still wish to tear him down, please be prepared to replace his impact. I’d hate to see anyone who dedicates themselves to reducing the harm in this world end up accidentally increasing it. You may just be seeking to destroy an unjust messenger, but just make sure you don’t also destroying a just message.

Source: theintentionalife
Photo
Photo
rollership:

 
Photo Set

shiki-sarreau:

fetus-teeth:

jethroq:

nikkisshadetree:

duchessofdeviance:

reinedeboheme:

blicky417:

Now HE is a role-model

A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.

they criticize him because they aren’t brave enough to emulate him.

Wow, this is awesome!

So, you know, you mention the Tupamaros as a “robin hood organization” and don’t mention that they were a Marxist group, because that word is scary to liberals.

And the post kinda glosses over that the country was at the time, under a military Junta.

Jose Mujica is so much better than this photoset

Re-reblogging for the above.

Real leadership, comrades.

(via empathicsociety)

Source: dumbbabysounds
Photo

Next time you are participating in a debate or watching one, look out for logical fallacies such as this:

burden of proof

You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn’t been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

Source: yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Photo

liberalsarecool:

oinonio:

The Roberts Court

Justice John Roberts approaches all decisions from the perspective “how can I change the current law to benefit billionaire donors and legal ‘fiction defined’-corporations”.

The country deserves real legal minds who stand on principle and are not shills for oligarchs and plutocrats.

(via empathicsociety)

Source: uclick.com
Photo Set

Feminism is having a wardrobe malfunction.

Does your brand of feminism remove barriers for women, or simply move them around? Does is expand options for women, or does it just shift them? You don’t liberate women by forcing them to choose option B instead of option A. What is comfortable for you might not be comfortable for someone else, and it’s entirely possible that what you see as oppressive, other women find comfortable or even downright liberating.

Before you think the girl in the middle is a strawman, let me tell you I used to be her, back in my misguided youth. I considered myself the standard to which other people should adhere. But that was stupid. It’s not up to me to tell people how to dress, and it’s much nicer to let everyone choose for themselves.

Some women would feel naked without a veil. Some women would find it restrictive. Some women would feel restricted by a bra. Some women would feel naked without one. Some women would feel restricted by a tight corset. Others love them. Some wear lots of clothes with a corset. Some only wear the corset and nothing else. What makes any article of clothing oppressive is someone forcing you to wear it. And it’s just as oppressive to force someone not to wear something that they want to wear.

(via theintentionalife)

Source: rosalarian
Link

The Problem With "EveryBODY is Beautiful"

theintentionalife:

The unspoken casualty of using our culture’s obsession with surface level beauty as a means to determine a woman’s societal value is the creative potential that has been stolen from her and stolen from all of us. When a woman is psychologically enslaved by the internal fluctuation of her own…

Source: theintentionalife
Quote

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’"

- Isaac Asimov (via buildings-on-fire)

(via paradiseoroblivion)

Source: buildings-on-fire
Photo
Photo
Photo
Photo