promethea.incorporated

ilzolende:

ilzolende:

Idea: Instead of trying to convince everyone that their continued existence is immoral, work on reducing the water needed for various daily activities.

Have decided to post the badwrong thing: http://fusion.net/story/309831/life-extension-silicon-valley-dystopian-future/

(Note: I’m going to use <angle brackets> for my paraphrasing. “Quotation marks” will be reserved for direct quotes.)

Stuff that starts with <Man, wouldn’t it be better if the outgroup, who disagreed with me, would just die?> is incredibly distasteful. Someone should write this author a letter starting with nostalgia for the days when everyone thought queer people would all die of AIDS, or pieces about how malaria is nature’s punishment for people with a different ethnicity from the letter-writer having too many kids, or something.

His behavior seemed eccentric and harmless at the time, but as more members of our country’s .01%—almost always male, and almost always white—become engaged in the attempt to draw out life spans, the potential dystopian consequences are harder to ignore.

<Your continued existence is inherently harmful to me> is a very strong and aggressive statement. Honestly, if my continued existence is inherently harmful to her, screw her, I’m not suicidal and I’m not obligated to be.

There aren’t many futures more chilling to me than one in which not even the march of time can free us from our oligarchs.

How about the futures where everyone keeps having to die, indefinitely?

But establishing a much longer life expectancy, whether that means a life that lasts 120 years or 500 years, would demand solutions to many fresh problems: Who pays for the treatments that make prolonged life possible? How would people afford basic expenses during their extra decades when they’re already struggling to provide for themselves now? Would we be living more years only so we could work more years and if so, is the longer life bargain worth it?

You just said that billionaires would buy the treatments for themselves. And, sure, living longer might be unpleasant, but if so, (assuming people get less ridiculous about suicide) you can just not do that? Do you want access to life extension tech or not? Pick one. How is providing more options inherently bad?

Maybe it’s just me, but the tone of this article seems to be <~it’s dystopian when my enemies aren’t dead uwu~>.

This cavalier vapidity led Packer to summarize Thiel’s vision of an ideal future as one in which “a few thousand Americans … live to a hundred and fifty, while millions of others … perish at sixty.”

Imagine playing so many zero-sum and negative-sum games that you stop being able to believe that benefits for some people can only be achieved by hurting other people at minimum an equivalent amount.

Most Americans aren’t interested in clinging to life at all costs, and most of us don’t want to live much longer than we already do. We (rightly) suspect that our quality of life will diminish as time passes, and feel guilty about further taxing the environment and finances of those left to care for us. That’s not a “pro-ageing trance”—that’s common sense and basic decency.

Look, part of anti-aging is about making sure quality of life doesn’t drop that much. Also, stop feeling suicidal because of environmentalism, that’s wrong, and regarding the environmentalists who did that to you: SCORN DEM.

And as Silicon Valley titans ignore their own water crisis while trying to devise ways for their individual, water-consuming selves to stick around for an extra century on top of all the new lives we’ll be welcoming onto the planet, we’re equally justified in withholding the good Samaritan status they try to claim.

Apparently we don’t deserve to live because some of us take baths and go swimming, then? How about we improve water efficiency and look at non-lethal methods of reducing population-growth-induced harms?

It’s disconcerting to see intelligent people treat aging as a “fundamental unsolved problem” or a “side-effect” instead of an elegant solution to an ecosystem that entails living beings using limited resources.

List of people who think my grandfather’s death is an “elegant solution” to their concerns:

• Nazis
• This author, apparently

Life needs to be recycled so more life is perpetuated; just give a listen to “The Circle of Life” if you need refreshing on that point.

So, I need to die so you can have 20 kids, is that it? I’m already here and your kids aren’t. For someone who seems like a feminist, you sure seem to value the creation of new humans over the individual rights of existing ones.

When I think about the nightmarish possibility of a world in which health care inequalities are even further exacerbated, two things come to mind. … The second is of one of my favorite bell hooks quotes: “Women and children all over the world want men to die so they can live.”

STOP PLAYING ZERO-SUM GAMES, STOP TELLING ME I’M OBLIGATED TO LET YOU WIN ZERO-SUM GAMES

Give me a world in which oligarchs and politicians are biologically incapable of staying in power for centuries or else, please, give me an early death.

Local discourse norms prevent me from actually giving the response this statement seems to merit.

Aaaand that’s the lowlights of the article. Ugh. Thank you, Amelia, for showing this to me.

This is an excellent snark on a terribly and extremely shitty zero-sum person.

and yeah, I’m also thinking of a very deserved response which is totally against all discourse norms worth having in public (reverse-engineering the response from this information shouldn’t be that hard for the people who really want to know; it’s cheap, it’s a classic, and it’s very terrible in this context)

(via ilzolende)

1 week ago · tagged #death cw #bad sj cw · 143 notes · source: ilzolende · .permalink

rendakuenthusiast:

socialjusticemunchkin:

bgaesop:

I see this all the time, people saying “transwomen are risking their lives just by existing!” and bemoaning the high murder rate of trans women, things like that.

But when I actually look at the data, it paints a very different story.

There were 22 trans women murdered in the USA in 2015. There aren’t quality numbers about how many trans women there are in the USA total, but estimates put the total at around 700,000. Assuming half of those are trans women, that’s 350,000 (it’s probably more, but that would help my case). That’s a murder rate of about 6.2 per 100,000 people.

Cis women are murdered at a rate of about 1.95 per 100,000 people. So it looks like trans women are in much more danger than their cis counterparts, right?

Well, yes, if all we’re going to compare them to is women. But if we look at male victims of violence (which folks so rarely do, for some reason), we see that men are murdered at a rate of 6.56 per 100,000 people [ibid].

Which is to say, slightly more often than trans women.

Transitioning from being a man to a woman makes you safer.

So where did this idea of trans women as constant victims of violence come from? Is there something I’m missing in the data? Is it just an issue of nobody caring about violence against men, so they only compare trans women to cis women? What’s going on?

All of those 22 seemed to be black or hispanic, a population making around 30% of the US and thus an estimated 100,000 trans women for convenience. This gives a murder rate of 22/100,000.

Furthermore, that article was in late October, suggesting that if murders happen at a steady pace, they were missing approximately 20% of the year’s murders that would put the total at 26/100,000 instead.

And considering that 19 of the murdered women were black, while those estimates give roughly 40,000 black trans women, the murder rate is something like 50/100,000 when accounting for the couple of expected missing murders.

Then there’s the way male victims of homicide tend to be substantially more likely to…have engaged in activities universally agreed to constitute a lifestyle in which getting murdered is not such an unexpected thing. What I’m saying is that, just like we track combatant deaths and civilian deaths in wars separately, trans women are probably more likely to fall in the category which is the murder equivalent of “noncombatant”. When black men are killed, they relatively often are the same kind of people as the killers while trans women are not. (I won’t try to put numbers on it, but I’m pretty sure everyone knows that eg. gangs tend to shoot members of rival gangs more (per capita) than they shoot random outsiders; not saying it isn’t a tragedy, but it’s a different kind of tragedy and “violent men kill non-violent men and women” tickles people’s justice nerves more than “violent men kill other violent men”.) And when one counts that the homicide rate among black people is something like 17/100,000 and a rough estimate would imply a rate of ~25-30/100,000 for black men, black trans women are being killed at almost twice the rate of black men, and even more if one focuses on “non-combatant” murders of people who weren’t involved in doing violence to others (eg. assuming that 1 in 6 murdered black men were “combatants”, it gives trans women a ratio of approximately or over double that of “civilian” men).

Now, what possible factors could be causing one to overestimate the rate? That estimate on the number of trans women is on the low side and the real numbers are probably twice that. This would mean that black trans women would “only” be killed at the same rate as black men. On the other hand we don’t know how many trans women are murdered but labeled as men and not found out about. Thus the real numbers are probably somewhere vaguely between 25-50/100,000, and I’d guess probably a bit closer to the low side than the high.

In fact, this is something the non-shitty SJ people try to draw attention to: it’s not about white trans people; thus saying that “trans people” are having an extremely high risk of being murdered, when it’s specifically TWoC who actually get killed, is at best disingenuous and at worst completely detracting from the actual issues by glossing over that specificity. And this also suggests that black men are also suffering from massive amounts of violence that society should do something about (instead of doing something that lets it look like it’s doing something), as it’s almost as dangerous to be a black man as it is to be a black trans woman (and when we add class to this it gets even more extreme).

What are the murder rates for trans men? Does transitioning to male make you statistically less safe?

I counted an estimate of 4-6 trans men murdered in 2015 and 2016 (depending on whether one extrapolates for the rest of this year or not) for an annual death rate of 2-3. That’s 1/100,000 by the estimates at the top, and suggests a lot of trans men’s deaths are misreported as cis women’s deaths because I’m not believing that number for one second.

If we take ASAB as our prior it suggests that murdered trans men have 1:1 chances of being recorded as trans men. If we take gender as prior the chances are 1:6. I’m leaning more towards the latter because I find it highly unlikely that men who also have the complicating factor of transphobia would not be getting killed as often as other men, and I find it especially hard to believe that trans men would be just as low-risk as cis women.

This does creepy things to the murder rates of trans women. If we assume trans women are 5 times as visible as trans men, we would expect to be missing ~25 murders a year; if trans women are 10 times as visible as trans men, there would still be ~15 missing murders, pushing trans women’s murder rates up by 50-100%. Holy shit. Even a conservative estimate where being trans reduces a man’s murder risk by half, and trans women are 10 times more visible, the real murder rate would be 30% higher when accounting for the expected unrecorded cases.

2 weeks ago · tagged #death cw #murder cw #transmisogyny cw · 128 notes · .permalink

bgaesop:

socialjusticemunchkin:

bgaesop:

I see this all the time, people saying “transwomen are risking their lives just by existing!” and bemoaning the high murder rate of trans women, things like that.

But when I actually look at the data, it paints a very different story.

There were 22 trans women murdered in the USA in 2015. There aren’t quality numbers about how many trans women there are in the USA total, but estimates put the total at around 700,000. Assuming half of those are trans women, that’s 350,000 (it’s probably more, but that would help my case). That’s a murder rate of about 6.2 per 100,000 people.

Cis women are murdered at a rate of about 1.95 per 100,000 people. So it looks like trans women are in much more danger than their cis counterparts, right?

Well, yes, if all we’re going to compare them to is women. But if we look at male victims of violence (which folks so rarely do, for some reason), we see that men are murdered at a rate of 6.56 per 100,000 people [ibid].

Which is to say, slightly more often than trans women.

Transitioning from being a man to a woman makes you safer.

So where did this idea of trans women as constant victims of violence come from? Is there something I’m missing in the data? Is it just an issue of nobody caring about violence against men, so they only compare trans women to cis women? What’s going on?

All of those 22 seemed to be black or hispanic, a population making around 30% of the US and thus an estimated 100,000 trans women for convenience. This gives a murder rate of 22/100,000.

Furthermore, that article was in late October, suggesting that if murders happen at a steady pace, they were missing approximately 20% of the year’s murders that would put the total at 26/100,000 instead.

And considering that 19 of the murdered women were black, while those estimates give roughly 40,000 black trans women, the murder rate is something like 50/100,000 when accounting for the couple of expected missing murders.

Then there’s the way male victims of homicide tend to be substantially more likely to…have engaged in activities universally agreed to constitute a lifestyle in which getting murdered is not such an unexpected thing. What I’m saying is that, just like we track combatant deaths and civilian deaths in wars separately, trans women are probably more likely to fall in the category which is the murder equivalent of “noncombatant”. When black men are killed, they relatively often are the same kind of people as the killers while trans women are not. (I won’t try to put numbers on it, but I’m pretty sure everyone knows that eg. gangs tend to shoot members of rival gangs more (per capita) than they shoot random outsiders; not saying it isn’t a tragedy, but it’s a different kind of tragedy and “violent men kill non-violent men and women” tickles people’s justice nerves more than “violent men kill other violent men”.) And when one counts that the homicide rate among black people is something like 17/100,000 and a rough estimate would imply a rate of ~25-30/100,000 for black men, black trans women are being killed at almost twice the rate of black men, and even more if one focuses on “non-combatant” murders of people who weren’t involved in doing violence to others (eg. assuming that 1 in 6 murdered black men were “combatants”, it gives trans women a ratio of approximately or over double that of “civilian” men).

Now, what possible factors could be causing one to overestimate the rate? That estimate on the number of trans women is on the low side and the real numbers are probably twice that. This would mean that black trans women would “only” be killed at the same rate as black men. On the other hand we don’t know how many trans women are murdered but labeled as men and not found out about. Thus the real numbers are probably somewhere vaguely between 25-50/100,000, and I’d guess probably a bit closer to the low side than the high.

In fact, this is something the non-shitty SJ people try to draw attention to: it’s not about white trans people; thus saying that “trans people” are having an extremely high risk of being murdered, when it’s specifically TWoC who actually get killed, is at best disingenuous and at worst completely detracting from the actual issues by glossing over that specificity. And this also suggests that black men are also suffering from massive amounts of violence that society should do something about (instead of doing something that lets it look like it’s doing something), as it’s almost as dangerous to be a black man as it is to be a black trans woman (and when we add class to this it gets even more extreme).

It seems a bit disingenuous to keep slicing and dicing the demographics until you come up with an obscure enough one where their rate is higher than average. Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does make me look a bit askance.

How does the murder rate of TWoC compare to, say, illegal immigrant east Asian sex workers in the US? Or just US based sex workers in general? For a variety of reasons, trans women are more likely to be sex workers than cis women are. What happens if we control for that?

The point of intersectionality is to find out the factors that make people suffer. In this case slicing and dicing the demographics has shown that black people tend to suffer extremely high rates of violence, and I don’t think “black people” is a massively obscure demographic (unlike, say, the way the most vulnerable minority is always the individual; the demographic $murdered_trans_woman_X suffered a murder rate of 100,000/100,000 and that’s terrible), nor “black trans women” either. And I don’t think including class in it is a bad thing either, because “what do we do to the murder rate” is a vague question, but “what do we do to the murder rate of poor black people” is a more specific question that is easier to answer.

And such slicing and dicing also reveals new information; in this case I updated as I was expecting the murder rate of TWoC to be higher than it was compared to the murder rate of black men, and thus it seems that being black AMAB is the actual massive risk factor for violence. Intersectional analysis improves epistemic fidelity!

Also, sex workers suffer massive amounts of violence too and that’s not okay and the things that cause it need to be destroyed.

(via bgaesop-deactivated20160701)

2 weeks ago · tagged #steel feminism #death cw #transmisogyny cw · 128 notes · .permalink

shlevy:

ozymandias271:

mankind will never be free until the last vice cop is strangled with the guts of the last NIMBY

#this is hyperbole please don’t murder nimbys

this just in ozy frantz totally cool with strangling vice cops

frankly…

2 weeks ago · tagged #death cw #violence cw #okay maybe don't murder vice cops either #mostly because you would get in trouble for it #the best heuristic for oppressed people since sharp stick time · 28 notes · source: ozymandias271 · .permalink

bgaesop:

I see this all the time, people saying “transwomen are risking their lives just by existing!” and bemoaning the high murder rate of trans women, things like that.

But when I actually look at the data, it paints a very different story.

There were 22 trans women murdered in the USA in 2015. There aren’t quality numbers about how many trans women there are in the USA total, but estimates put the total at around 700,000. Assuming half of those are trans women, that’s 350,000 (it’s probably more, but that would help my case). That’s a murder rate of about 6.2 per 100,000 people.

Cis women are murdered at a rate of about 1.95 per 100,000 people. So it looks like trans women are in much more danger than their cis counterparts, right?

Well, yes, if all we’re going to compare them to is women. But if we look at male victims of violence (which folks so rarely do, for some reason), we see that men are murdered at a rate of 6.56 per 100,000 people [ibid].

Which is to say, slightly more often than trans women.

Transitioning from being a man to a woman makes you safer.

So where did this idea of trans women as constant victims of violence come from? Is there something I’m missing in the data? Is it just an issue of nobody caring about violence against men, so they only compare trans women to cis women? What’s going on?

All of those 22 seemed to be black or hispanic, a population making around 30% of the US and thus an estimated 100,000 trans women for convenience. This gives a murder rate of 22/100,000.

Furthermore, that article was in late October, suggesting that if murders happen at a steady pace, they were missing approximately 20% of the year’s murders that would put the total at 26/100,000 instead.

And considering that 19 of the murdered women were black, while those estimates give roughly 40,000 black trans women, the murder rate is something like 50/100,000 when accounting for the couple of expected missing murders.

Then there’s the way male victims of homicide tend to be substantially more likely to…have engaged in activities universally agreed to constitute a lifestyle in which getting murdered is not such an unexpected thing. What I’m saying is that, just like we track combatant deaths and civilian deaths in wars separately, trans women are probably more likely to fall in the category which is the murder equivalent of “noncombatant”. When black men are killed, they relatively often are the same kind of people as the killers while trans women are not. (I won’t try to put numbers on it, but I’m pretty sure everyone knows that eg. gangs tend to shoot members of rival gangs more (per capita) than they shoot random outsiders; not saying it isn’t a tragedy, but it’s a different kind of tragedy and “violent men kill non-violent men and women” tickles people’s justice nerves more than “violent men kill other violent men”.) And when one counts that the homicide rate among black people is something like 17/100,000 and a rough estimate would imply a rate of ~25-30/100,000 for black men, black trans women are being killed at almost twice the rate of black men, and even more if one focuses on “non-combatant” murders of people who weren’t involved in doing violence to others (eg. assuming that 1 in 6 murdered black men were “combatants”, it gives trans women a ratio of approximately or over double that of “civilian” men).

Now, what possible factors could be causing one to overestimate the rate? That estimate on the number of trans women is on the low side and the real numbers are probably twice that. This would mean that black trans women would “only” be killed at the same rate as black men. On the other hand we don’t know how many trans women are murdered but labeled as men and not found out about. Thus the real numbers are probably somewhere vaguely between 25-50/100,000, and I’d guess probably a bit closer to the low side than the high.

In fact, this is something the non-shitty SJ people try to draw attention to: it’s not about white trans people; thus saying that “trans people” are having an extremely high risk of being murdered, when it’s specifically TWoC who actually get killed, is at best disingenuous and at worst completely detracting from the actual issues by glossing over that specificity. And this also suggests that black men are also suffering from massive amounts of violence that society should do something about (instead of doing something that lets it look like it’s doing something), as it’s almost as dangerous to be a black man as it is to be a black trans woman (and when we add class to this it gets even more extreme).

(via theungrumpablegrinch)

2 weeks ago · tagged #death cw #murder cw #transmisogyny cw · 128 notes · .permalink

michaelblume:

isometries:

explodingbat:

lambdaphagy:

You often hear that it’s irrational to worry about terrorism, let alone to legislate about it.  Terrorism is spectacular and primed to offend our sense of group solidarity, so our monkey-brains attend to it out of all proportion to its severity.  If you consulted the actuarial tables, you’d be much more worried about car crashes.  No one’s that worried about car crashes, so we shouldn’t get too worked up about terrorism either.

But does this prove too much?

Suppose that terrorism is less of a problem than car crashes, which themselves are not a pressing national concern.  Then it seems that we should be able to tolerate a roughly similar number of deaths from terrorism as from car crashes without getting bent out of shape about it.  Car crashes kill about thirty thousand people a year in the US, so we should be able to take about ten 9/11′s a year without really minding all that much.

Can that be quite right?

Ten 9/11′s a year would present an annual per capita risk of about 10^-4.  What does that mean in context?  In the worst year of the Second Intifadah, civilian deaths in Israel stood slightly lower, at about 8 * 10^-5 per capita.  During World War II, civilian deaths in Great Britain were somewhere around 2*10^-4.  So ten 9/11′s a year would put us somewhere between the worst year on record for a country whose culture has, let’s say, come to be defined by a sense of national existential risk, and a country that had to be propagandized out of surrendering by its own government.

So if you begin from the premise that deaths from car crashes, pools and ladders are interchangeable with deaths from terrorism, then you can arrive at the conclusion that a 9/11 every month would be within normal operating parameters.  But if that strikes you as a reductio, then perhaps we should revisit the assumption that deaths from terrorism are just like accident deaths in every relevant respect.

Isn’t it just the unfamiliarity? When car crash deaths began occurring they were taken extremely seriously

i actually do pretty firmly believe that the world (where it applies, the US at least) would be better off with much less cars (and much more trains, say). is this an uncommon opinion?

(it’s really convenient that aspirin became a poster child for “safe, commonly used medication” despite having such a crazy array of potential deadly side effects. It means that whenever you want to push a new drug, you can say it has “fewer side effects than aspirin” and be pretty sure that you’re right)

[x]

I’d consider it very preferable if terrorism was treated just like all other murders. Norway basically did it when they had their own per capita equivalent of 9/11 and simply arrested and sentenced the person responsible. If the US had concluded that the murder statistics of 2001 looked kind of bad and there were a bunch of extraordinarily serious criminals on the loose, but not freaked the fuck out, the world would be in a way better shape today.

And car crashes need to be taken way more seriously while airplane security is overblown, coal power gets away with being utterly irresponsible while the slightest whiff of radiation makes people freak out about nuclear plants etc.

2 weeks ago · tagged #death cw · 96 notes · source: lambdaphagy · .permalink

shieldfoss:

shkreli-for-president:

responsible-reanimation:

baggvinshield:

my fellow US citizens please please, we’ve got to do something about the gun violence in our country. there’s no reason someone should be able to just go buy an assault rifle or an automatic firearm of any kind. these weapons are designed to kill people, why are they sold in stores as if they have any other purpose? we have big elections coming up in November and we have to put pressure on our politicians to do something about our gun laws, to fight back against the NRA and stand up for the victims of all these senseless killings. we have to stop this happening, way too many innocent people have died because our laws favor big gun manufacturers instead of the safety of our citizens.

I’m all for this, but banning assault rifles doesn’t do much for all the shooting victims who don’t make front-page news.

Trying to ban handguns is political suicide, but maybe we could try an anti-gun campaign that specifically works with America’s cultural mythology around guns?

“John Wayne is dead, he is not coming back, you are not John Wayne and never will be, put down the damn gun.”

Ah yes, the Guns, the guns that sprout limbs and walk into gay clubs and start shooting people entirely on their own,

And while we’re at it, “there’s no reason someone should be able to just go buy an assault rifle or an automatic firearm of any kind” congratulations, that is also illegal in all US states. Literally zero automatic weapons are available in American gun stores unless you’re buying for police/military use.

Every time I see a progressive misusing gun terminology it makes me want to head to a range just to bond with people who know their shit, and I’m supposedly way to the left of all those progressives. I mean, “assault weapon” is basically the “sex change operation” of gun politics and if one is pro-accurate-terminology anti-misleading-bullshit one should be consistent with that.

(also, mass shootings are anomalies and should never ever be used as the basis of laws; if you want to legislate (recommendation: maybe count to ten and reconsider whenever you get the urge; legislating is a bad habit people should try to drop), at least do it based on the actual number of annual gun homicides and suicides instead of a single goddamn individual fucking event kthxbye)

(also, mass shootings still below slippery bathtubs as a public health hazard; maybe consider doing something about them bathtubs first if you really feel the need to save lives instead of just signaling progressive virtue)

(via shieldfoss)

2 weeks ago · tagged #guns cw #death cw #violence cw #is this what yelling at the 'blue tribe' feels like? · 760 notes · source: baggvinshield · .permalink

Things that make a promethea happy:

• Productive capital in the form of a sewing machine.
• And not just any sewing machine, but an old one from before planned obsolescence was invented. A heavy noisy indestructible machine from the early 70′s with exactly 3 plastic parts.
  
• I was informed that the machine has been working excellently for four decades, but once those parts break it’ll be gone.
• I informed the person about the existence of a phenomenon known as 3d-printing.
• It’s fascinating how sufficiently new technology gives new life to sufficiently old technology.
• Old-time values were crap but they did know how to make some material things properly.
• It has no fancy electronic operating systems or insecure Internet of Shit features. Just mechanical goodness.
• If I’m going to have it controlled by a computer, it’ll be running a custom set of servos and shit anyway.
• And because it has maintenance hatches revealing access to all the parts, and easy aparttakeability and repairability and con- and outfigureability alike, I’m probably going to have a braingasm when I figure out what exact kind of a Babbagean engine it has outputting the fancy sewing patterns. Because it has them.
• This is a perfect hacker sewing machine. One might say it’s the Thinkpad of sewing machines.
• (Another thing it has in common with Thinkpads: lugging around four of these will hurt your back, and is not recommended.)
• These particular things are pretty much impossible to find on the market; they are known to be so excellent that nobody is willing to give them up.
• I pre-inherited one, which is the best form of inheriting because nobody has to die. Nepotism yay!
• (This is a good sewing machine, but I’m not convinced it’s quite worth anyone dying over. It does get closer than most things, but nah.
• (Or, when I think about it, if someone were to try to expropriate my sewing machine as a piece of productive capital owned by a corporation, it would be worth that someone dying over.))

3 weeks ago · tagged #death cw #shitposting · 17 notes · .permalink

ascerel asked: How serious are you about the "Every country has “those guys” who are only good for deathnote-fodder" thing? Sorry

socialjusticemunchkin:

First: #support your local supervillain is the evil tag, not to be taken 100% seriously. It’s Dark promethea, the side of myself that is best left as online ranting to relieve a frustration on the universe otherwise sufficient to cause so much facepalm to sprout forth as to destroy all the remaining rainforests in Southeast Asia to make room for the plantations necessary to hold them in.

Second: if one has to deathnote a national-level politician to deliver a message to the rest, one would obviously choose the most useless, the most harmful, the most dangerous, and the most anti-humanity politicians one can find. And as it happens, while I do not actually condone deathnoting politicians (although I acknowledge that this view might be subject to inevitable reconsideration were I to acquire such an artifact, which is why it’s probably good that such artifacts most likely don’t actually exist), but if one were to, I don’t think one would have to think too hard and long on which guys to sacrifice. I’m from Europe, we have really terrible politicians around here, and they are literally killing people through their really terrible policies.

injygo said: So you’ve got a little list?

I had, but both Osama Bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi are dead now, and I still am not in possession of a Death Note.

1 month ago · tagged #support your local supervillain #death cw · 7 notes · source: socialjusticemunchkin · .permalink