George Lucas: if you make gay stuff about my characters I’ll sue you
*3 decades later*
George Lucas: *sells Star Wars*
Oscar Isaac: Poe is in love with Finn
Carrie Fisher: Obi-Wan Kenobi is bisexual
Mark Hamill: Luke’s sexuality is never addressed in the movies, also he could be trans and even if he isn’t he supports trans people because all Jedi do
Ok but why don’t people understand there is a difference between nightblogging and shitposting??
nightblogging is like “What if apples screamed when we bit them?”
Shitposting is like “a crisp one donger bill”
One is more coherent than the other.
i’m glad we’re focusing on the important issues here at tumblr.com
nightblogging has more of a focus on theoreticals, especially in stating absurd thoughts in normal ways. think the kind of stuff your best friend says to you at a sleepover at 3 am after the lights have gone out and neither of you have slept in 20 hours or more– a “what if” question isn’t unsual in and of itself, but the unreal subject matter (apples screaming when you bite them) makes it funny. shit posting is more often the opposite, stating normal things in ways that make them absurd. “a crisp one dollar bill” isn’t funny or unusual, but replacing “dollar” with the absurdist internet word “donger” is what makes it funny & thus a shitpost. it’s not necessarily that one is more coherent, but that they’re differentiated both by form and by lexicon. nightblogging is surrealism, shitposting is dada
“NIGHTBLOGGING IS SURREALISM, SHITPOSTING IS DADA”
I honestly don’t understand why there aren’t more people who, when given the platform to discuss minimum wage, don’t simply distill it to the simplest of facts:
A forty hour work week is considered full time.
It’s considered as such because it takes up the amount of time we as a society have agreed should be considered the maximum work schedule required of an employee. (this, of course, does not always bear out practically, but just follow me here)
A person working the maximum amount of time required should earn enough for that labor to be able to survive. Phrased this way, I doubt even most conservatives could effectively argue against it, and out of the mouth of someone verbally deft enough to dance around the pathos-based jabs conservative pundits like to use to avoid actually debating, it could actually get opps thinking.
Therefore, if an employee is being paid less than [number of dollars needed for the post-tax total to pay for the basic necessities in a given area divided by forty] per hour, they are being ripped off and essentially having their labor, productivity, and profit generation value stolen by their employer.
Wages are a business expense, and if a company cannot afford to pay for its labor, it is by definition a failing business. A company stealing labor to stay afloat (without even touching those that do so simply to increase profit margins and/or management/executive pay/bonuses) is no more ethical than a failing construction company breaking into a lumber yard and stealing wood.
Our goal as a society should be to protect each other, especially those that most need protection, not to subsidize failing businesses whose owners could quite well subsidize them on their own.
I wish I had this post two hours ago.
A living wage should enable a middle class lifestyle, not just basic necessities. It should enable necessities, leisure, and savings, or else we’re also saying that there are people who deserve to devote the entirety of their productivity to surviving another week of labor in order to do more labor with no possibility of enrichment or advancement.
“…they are being ripped off and essentially having their labor, productivity, and profit generation value stolen by their employer.”
This is capitalism. No amount of liberal analysis about labor being “a business expense” (and that businesses that can’t afford to pay employees an adequate living wage are “failing businesses” – Wal Mart would beg to differ, but I digress) is going to change the simple fact that labor is ripped off by the nature of surplus value appropriation by capitalists within the capitalist mode of production. Workers do not/can not take home the full product of their labor under this system. Like, by definition. You provide work, the entire value of it belongs to the capitalist, then the capitalist dolls out mere fractions of that value back to you so that you can just get by and repeat the process the next day. This whole thing is maintained via property hierarchy, and it dehumanizes people by treating their labor as just another cost to be minimized, no different from other overhead.
i imagine ianto’s apartment to be like chaotically neat, you feel? like, he’s not there often, and he doesn’t have that many possessions in the first place, but what he does have is placed strategically in such odd places, that it wouldn’t make sense to anybody but him.
like, whenever tosh comes over for movie night she’s always sitting on top of whatever book ianto’s reading in his tidbits of spare time (voltaire, usually), and no matter how many times it happens, she just doesn’t learn.
and gwen has constantly tried to re-organize the small abode, but ianto has learned to keep a close eyes on her, and swat away whatever her wandering hands may be working on (she’s taken to shoving his mugs in the cupboard, much to ianto’s dismay).
owen isn’t over much, but when he is, he exaggerates the state of the apartment, lunging through the neatly folded piles of blankets on the floor as though they were made of lava. it bothers ianto to no end, and if owen’s coffee tastes a little salty the next day- well, ianto has absolutely no idea why.
jack loves ianto’s apartment. he’s been living at the hub for years, and isn’t used to how regular people actually live. and when they finally upgrade from casual office hookups to a Real Relationship™ (or as real as the two of them can get at least) he finds the quirkiness off ianto’s apartment to be rather a lot like ianto himself; a quiet storm.
(he just wishes he’d stop tripping over things. it messes with his ‘cool.’)
