Wickedness

What I like, as I like, and when I like. The home of fannish me.

artbymoga:

Inspired by a recent experience I had with someone stealing my art and cropping out my URL.
Dedicated to every artist who has had their art work stolen.

(via watchmecare)

cartoonpolitics:

"It is one of the characteristics of a free and democratic nation that it have free and independent labor unions." ~ F. D. Roosevelt

cartoonpolitics:

"It is one of the characteristics of a free and democratic nation that it have free and independent labor unions." ~ F. D. Roosevelt

(via realworldnews)

moesagi asked: Hello! If I may, I'd like to request some black cats please! :3 thank you!

thecutestofthecute:

Of course friend! I love black cats, they are defintely NOT bad luck. I don’t know why people would make up such a stupid thing.They are a regular cat like any other and should be loved and cared for just the same wouldn’t you agree? <3

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

[*snip*]
The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’
Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?
The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?
And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?
Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.
-Lemon

Beginning with one of your tags, I’m not a Christian, so no I don’t need any sort of Jesus. My views aren’t motivated by religion.
Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society. In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces. There is a lot of literature on the subject you should become familiar with.
Now you’ve made two wrong implications. One, that liberal government giveaways are better for the economy than conservative policies. That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.
The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.
Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.
More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.
Fundamentally practically trumps good intentions for a reason.

The tags weren’t serious, I was making a joke, so, that aside…
"There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies."
Funny you should say that. Reagan tripled the national debt, national debt was $900 billion when he came to office, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.
He spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters which are now known as the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
He cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% -AKA the people with more than enough money to pay taxes- and raised them for the middle and lower classes -the people least able to pay them for seven of the eight years he was in office for a total of eleven tax raises for the people least able to handle these raises.
When he came to office, unemployment was at 7.5%, when he left office it was at 11%.
Please explain how higher deficits, unemployment rates and raising taxes for the people least able to survive and manage those increases was ‘economic growth’? I threw in the fact that he’s the reason Al Qeada exists because he spent billions making Osama Bin Laden instead of, idk, feeding people in his country.
Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.
Now finally, I haven’t said anything about ‘government dependancy’. And why do you assume all homeless people are abled? Homeless people are very likely to be suffering from mental illness or addiction, which gets in the way of getting off the street. And if they can’t afford treatment you insist on charging them for the cycle can never be broken. I’m not advocating for people to just be fed by the government, I’m advocating for helping to break the cycle of poverty all together. Which is very doable with actually surprisingly little money.
Money invested in people who can’t even afford to eat because of Reagan’s shitty policies (Sorry but he’s the one who decided trickle-down economics would work and frankly that’s a proven failure), will help. And yes, government regulation is absolutely necessary in a market setting. It’s government regulation that means seven year olds aren’t in sweat shops in working conditions so poor that their life expectancy is to 25. It’s government regulations that mandate pay must be more than just five cents an hour.
-Lemon

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

[*snip*]

The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’

Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?

The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?

And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?

Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.

-Lemon

Beginning with one of your tags, I’m not a Christian, so no I don’t need any sort of Jesus. My views aren’t motivated by religion.

Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society. In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces. There is a lot of literature on the subject you should become familiar with.

Now you’ve made two wrong implications. One, that liberal government giveaways are better for the economy than conservative policies. That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.

The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.

Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.

More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.

Fundamentally practically trumps good intentions for a reason.

The tags weren’t serious, I was making a joke, so, that aside…

"There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies."

Funny you should say that. Reagan tripled the national debt, national debt was $900 billion when he came to office, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.

He spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters which are now known as the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

He cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% -AKA the people with more than enough money to pay taxes- and raised them for the middle and lower classes -the people least able to pay them for seven of the eight years he was in office for a total of eleven tax raises for the people least able to handle these raises.

When he came to office, unemployment was at 7.5%, when he left office it was at 11%.

Please explain how higher deficits, unemployment rates and raising taxes for the people least able to survive and manage those increases was ‘economic growth’? I threw in the fact that he’s the reason Al Qeada exists because he spent billions making Osama Bin Laden instead of, idk, feeding people in his country.

Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.

Now finally, I haven’t said anything about ‘government dependancy’. And why do you assume all homeless people are abled? Homeless people are very likely to be suffering from mental illness or addiction, which gets in the way of getting off the street. And if they can’t afford treatment you insist on charging them for the cycle can never be broken. I’m not advocating for people to just be fed by the government, I’m advocating for helping to break the cycle of poverty all together. Which is very doable with actually surprisingly little money.

Money invested in people who can’t even afford to eat because of Reagan’s shitty policies (Sorry but he’s the one who decided trickle-down economics would work and frankly that’s a proven failure), will help. And yes, government regulation is absolutely necessary in a market setting. It’s government regulation that means seven year olds aren’t in sweat shops in working conditions so poor that their life expectancy is to 25. It’s government regulations that mandate pay must be more than just five cents an hour.

-Lemon

(Source: prolife-ruinslives, via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

The library’s one of the few civic spaces we have left. People are feeling like there’s no other ways for these online platforms and services to be run, it’s our destiny to have them be privately run, and yet we invoke the analogy of the library or archive all the time. To me it says that we find it realistic that Google will be our archive when it’s an advertising company. We’ve seen them get rid of services that are not profitable (Google Reader), and we’ve seen them demote things like Google Scholar. That’s realism, where it’s unrealistic to think we’d build on the success of the library with a national repository for knowledge, arts, and culture? Libraries exist and they’re open. Libraries exist with all these values we invoke in the digital sphere, but there are very few people thinking about how we might build upon them.

Anonymous asked: Shut the fuck up about vaccinations. Not everyone has to have them, not everyone believes in them. Uneducated fuck.

cognitivedissonance:

inthearena1:

cognitivedissonance:

of-shoes-of-ships-of-sealing-wax:

aspiringdoctors:

restless-wafarer:

aspiringdoctors:

image

You know, my homie and secret best friend Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best….

image

This isn’t an issue of belief or should even be up for discussion. It’s not a debate- like gravity or that the Earth revolves around the Sun isn’t up for debate. It’s a fact, whether or not you like it. Sorry bro.

And any ‘educated fuck’ knows that vaccines are necessary and everyone who can have them should have them.

Have a lovely day, sugar. 

Actually there’s a lot of research and knowledge supporting the fact that vaccines are NOT necessary. It is simply another thing that today’s health system is super big on, just like hospital births and c-sections. And a lot of people actually have long term and short term complications from getting vaccines. Ahem.

Dang guys, you thought I didn’t check my activity log every now and then? Because I knew shit like this would pop up. And, I just finished my block exam and am feeling fiesty.

Actually you’re wrong. That ‘research’ is either completely fabricated OR grossly misinterprets the data OR uses shitty research techniques to get the data they want- all which are grossly unethical, in case you’re curious. I’ve got slides from a recent lecture on vaccines (aka why I am so fired up about this nonsense). You can check out the citations on each slide if you don’t believe me… something unsurprisingly missing from literally every anti-vaccine comment I’ve gotten and website that I have visited. Show me your sources, honey, and if you do, I will blow them out of the water because not a single one stands up to current scientific research standards.

There are however tomes and tomes of research for the safety end efficacy of vaccines. Don’t believe me? Look at a simple google scholar search.

So! Here we go! 

image

image

Holy shit, it’s almost like vaccines SAVE SOCIETY MONEY. In fact, they give money back to society, along with the other programs indicated by red arrows. Which would be really weird for something that is just a healthcare fad like c-sections and hospital births.

And most people have no complications for getting vaccines, and if they do, most of them are short term. In fact, it is devilishly hard to prove an adverse effect was because of a vaccine. Why? Because it’s how we’re wired. We falsely see connections and causes where there are none (called a type 1 error; you are rejecting a true null hypothesis). People are more likely to attribute an adverse health event to a shot- even if that shot is the placebo and the numbers are just the background rate for whatever health event in the population.

image

And here is a graph showing the sample sizes necessary to prove that an adverse event is caused or related to a vaccine.

image

You know what, it was a really good lecture and I’m going to share more more relevant slides in case any one else feels like contradicting me.

These slides show the public health impact of vaccines. Note the differences between the historical peak and post-vaccine era deaths columns. Because saving literally thousands of lives is totally a conspiracy you should beware of.

image

image

And this is why herd immunity is so important! See how high it has to be for measles? Guess what we’re seeing outbreaks of thanks to anti-vaxxers? Don’t forget that one of the deadly complications of measles is SSPE.

image

Look how Hepatitis A infections in older adults when down after kids started getting immunized. Shocking! Could vaccines be… good for …. everyone????

image

Ahem.

Anti-vaxxers are a danger to the world and we need to stop them tbh

GODDAMMIT. I AM SICK OF THESE ANTI-VAXXER SHIT GOBLINS.

VACCINATE THOSE WHO CAN BE VACCINATED TO PROTECT THOSE WHO LEGITIMATELY CANNOT.

I DON’T GIVE A FUCK IF YOU THINK YOU’RE A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE FLOATING AROUND IN YOUR SPARKLY CLOUD OF YOUR OWN SELF RIGHTEOUS FARTS THAT WILL PROTECT YOU FROM DISEASES LIKE POLIO.

GET. A. GODDAMN. CLUE. THEN GET VACCINATED. VACCINATE YOUR SPAWN.

YOUR BATSHIT BELIEFS ARE KILLING PEOPLE.

In my opinion, refusing to vaccinate a child who can be vaccinated is tantamount to medical neglect. I am 100% done with being nice to anti-vaxxers. We need to bring back exiling people. Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy are the first to go.

Welcome to forced injections, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood liberal.

You’re goddamn right. Nothing says individual freedom like infecting newborns with measles because you’ve got your head jammed so far up your Ayn Rand-hypnotized, objectivist, unvaccinated butthole that vaccinations are suddenly are LibertyStompers™ and therefore, causing an epidemic is no big — even though the parents of those too young to be vaccinated, or people who are immunocompromised don’t even get a choice about exposing themselves to harm from your special snowflake irresponsibility.

So yeah, if it’s Typhoid Mary² or “forced injections,” roll up your sleeve, wankstain.

There's Basically No Way Not to Be a Gentrifier

Here it is: Fuck you. I live where I can afford to live. Not because I chose to live there, not because I want to live there, but because the rent was not completely extortionate and I wouldn’t have to choose between the rent and food, or rent and utilities, or rent and transporation, or rent and medical care - and even then there are times when I’ve had to. To talk about ‘choosing’ where to live is talking about a privilege that most of us don’t have.

(Source: theatlanticcities, via theatlantic)

What men mean when they talk about their “crazy” ex-girlfriend is often that she was someone who cried a lot, or texted too often, or had an eating disorder, or wanted too much/too little sex, or generally felt anything beyond the realm of emotionally undemanding agreement. That does not make these women crazy. That makes those women human beings, who have flaws, and emotional weak spots. However, deciding that any behavior that he does not like must be insane– well, that does make a man a jerk.

And when men do this on a regular basis, remember that, if you are a woman, you are not the exception. You are not so cool and fabulous and levelheaded that they will totally get where you are coming from when you show emotions other than “pleasant agreement.”

When men say “most women are crazy, but not you, you’re so cool” the subtext is not, “I love you, be the mother to my children.” The subtext is “do not step out of line, here.” If you get close enough to the men who say things like this, eventually, you will do something that they do not find pleasant. They will decide you are crazy, because this is something they have already decided about women in general.