*ownership

I promised I’d explain how I understand capitalism – I’m going to take this explanation from a paper I recently wrote about how love functions under capitalism, and how that function is sustained:

it is important to understand that when I refer to capitalism here, I am not referring to a mere economic system, but also

  1. to the set of social structures, systems, and processes it produces and is maintained by, and
  2. to the way of perceiving the world around us that is the result of living under capitalism, especially as that relates to the way we perceive other people

in being an economic system, capitalism is centred around private ownership (of property, labour, and the means to make goods) and wealth accumulation, as well as a pricing system that assigns value to goods, services, labour, and the means to make goods

under capitalism, people are not exempt from being assigned value

  • for certain groups of people, this works in their favour, because they are the intended beneficiaries of capitalism – they are most conducive to its continued existence, directly benefit from it, and thus have a vested interest in its persistence; these people’s lives are inherently valuable, because capitalist ends align with their own
  • however, certain people’s lives are only valued in terms of their capability to be used as a means to capitalist ends – these people have instrumental value, as opposed to inherent value
  • for people who cannot be used as a means to meet capitalist ends, or who are a hindrance to meeting those ends, their lives have no value, or are instrumentally valuable only insofar as they can be erased

currently, and in the West, particularly North America, people who are White, cis, male, heterosexual, able-bodied and of a particular socioeconomic status are primary beneficiaries – they directly benefit from the structures (i.e., capitalist political, economic, and social institutions), systems (such as the prison-industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline, the medical/psychiatric-industrial complex, etc.,), and processes (e.g., settler colonialism and the extermination of Indigenous peoples, anti-Blackness and the denigration, suppression, and murder of Black peoples, misogyny and the subjugation of women, imperialism and the exploitation and extermination of people in destabilized nations, etc.) that are reliant on the dehumanization of others for their sustenance – processes sustain systems sustain structures

this having been said, social identities and locations are complex, and people benefit and suffer as a result of capitalism on myriad axes – people are valued differently on these axes in terms of capitalist ends, and who is valued and the way people are valued can and do shift over space and time

ultimately, capitalism is dependent on the reduction of all people to their worth in meeting capitalist ends – in this way, capitalism is necessarily dehumanizing for all, and this dehumanization manifests itself in myriad ways

it is important to understand that capitalism is woven into our social fabric – it permeates the way we think about those around us on an individual level; it causes us to view others not only in terms of their value to capitalist ends, but in terms of their value to our own ends [which are usually capitalistically-aligned themselves]

we come to think about people in terms of what they can do for us, and often form relationships on this basis, even if we do not intend to

the way we love each other is not exempt

The discussion of the nuances of patriotism is especially important right now, with Trump and Clinton supporters each righteously claiming ownership of the “most patriotic” label. Patriotism isn’t just getting teary-eyed on the Fourth of July or choked up at war memorials. It’s supporting what the Fourth of July celebrates and what those war memorials commemorate: the U.S. Constitution’s insistence that all people should have the same rights and opportunities and that it is the obligation of the government to make that happen. When the government fails in those obligations, it is the responsibility of patriots to speak up and remind them of their duty.

artwork by the fantastically talented @birdologist and animation by the lodestar of my heart, the inimitable @awkwardarbor.

OKAY. so. As a note of minor importance, OCCASIONALLY I fuck up and overcommit to a subplot. Usually I burn a few thousand words before I actually post anything, and then I scrap all those, backtrack, and rewrite whatever I was actually supposed. But SOMETIMES I go so far as to post something I’m not happy with, and this necessitates a retraction. So.

Consider the previous version of part 6 to have been pulled. I don’t necessarily mean that it didn’t happen, just that it muddies the waters, and I don’t care enough about it or consider it important enough to actually depict it in the main text. Consider it a deleted scene.

the_horizons_child

You can find Heavenward on Tumblr// Ao3// ff.net

the_horizons_child - part 6

He has to admit, it’s nice not to be in charge.

Theirs is a strange quartet, consisting of two distinct partnerships—John and EOS, Jeff and Kyrano—and the latter infinitely stranger, in John’s mind, and this is allowing for the fact that he’s embedded a super computer in his chest to accommodate a sentient AI. His father’s bodyguard is a fixture in John’s memory, but always in a strict, official capacity. When Kayo had been folded into the family, her father had resolutely kept his distance, kept things professional. It wasn’t ever subservience, but there was a definite air of deference about him. A carefully delineated margin between employee and employer, and the definition of that relationship was always strictly held to, as a matter of course and a matter of preference.

No longer, apparently. Because if anyone’s in charge, right at the moment, John thinks it must be Kyrano—even though now his father occasionally refers to him as “Ben”, and Ben, in turn, speaks to Jefferson Tracy as though they’re friends, equals—partners.

Keep reading

youtube

Rise of the Tomb Raider: 20 Year Celebration Gamescom Theater Demo

In Rise of the Tomb Raider, Lara becomes more than a survivor, and embarks on her first Tomb Raiding expedition in search of the secret of immortality. She’ll explore a vast and hostile world, engage in guerilla combat, and discover deadly tombs.

This video showcase begins with the cinematic action of “Thin Ice” from the main campaign, followed by a preview of “Blood Ties”, which will feature over an hour of new single-player story as Lara’s uncle challenges her ownership of Croft Manor. Concluding the video is a look at the new “Lara’s Nightmare” combat mode, in which Lara must protect her childhood home from hordes of the undead.

Rise of the Tomb Raider: 20 Year Celebration is the most comprehensive version of the award-winning experience, and also includes PlayStation VR support, co-op Endurance mode, an “Extreme Survivor” difficulty mode, 5 classic Lara skins, an outfit and weapon inspired by TR III, and all of the previously released DLC. The game launches on PS4 October 11th, and the new content will be included as part of the Season Pass on Xbox One and PC. Pre-Order now at BuyROTTR.com.

anonymous asked:

I saw you reblogged the post from lawyerlarrie about how you disagree about columbia and i wanted to ask what you think about the point the anon raised, how the smear campaign is still going on and to this degree and why sony hasn't pit a stop to it? (Sorry if you've already talked about this)

I think it’s because Sony has less power over Syco than people think they do. I base that on their response to the Kesha lawsuit and the fact that their deal with Dr. Luke and his label Kemosabe is almost identical to the deal with Simon and Syco (i.e. 50/50 ownership, as opposed to full ownership of the other labels).

Those deals seem to indicate some administrative and PR support, but little else. I think Sony went into the deals expecting to have to put in some money and a little effort and then just essentially sit back and rake in the cash.

So when shit goes down, they’re contractually obligated to stay out of it.

I also think we see too much. The smear campaign is pretty localized to The Sun and dipshit Louis Walsh and if you look at what happened yesterday with The Sun running that weird Ibiza article about Louis and mentioning D and F at the end, and then Digital Spy picking up part of the article and not mentioning them at all (and throwing in the stalkery fan stuff), it looks to me as if someone is actually doing some subtle counter-moves to undermine the impact of Simon’s efforts.

As always, that’s my take on things, and it’s likely far more complicated than that. Also… I could be wrong. I’m not dying on that hill, I don’t feel passionately about it, and if something happens that shakes the foundation of my theory, I’ll change it.

I just personally don’t care if they stay with Sony or not, I don’t think Sony or Columbia are the “bad guys” and I think it they would go to great lengths not to lose the band and Harry (they dropped the ball with Liam tho, or he threw it back at them). And the original Columbia/Harry rumors support that - to my mind.

anonymous asked:

Okay, so I support guns on a self defense level, like pistols and stuff, (as long as there are good background checks), but why the massive assault rifles designed to kill a crowd of a thousand people in under ten seconds? How is that self defense/at all necessary?

What kind of gun are you referring to? 

Fully automatic weapons (which, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot kill a crowd of a thousand people in under ten seconds), are banned. 

“Assault weapon” does not really have any real meaning when it comes to guns. 

There are plenty of reasons why rifles and shotguns are necessary, for self defense and otherwise, but quite frankly: 

The right to keep and bear arms is a human right, has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as an individual right, and I absolutely do not have to defend my ownership or lack of ownership of any amount of firearms and ammuntion to anybody, much less a faceless anon on the internet. 

I don’t want to be rude, but you are incredibly ill informed and you’ve come into my inbox looking to pick a fight. There is no fight to pick. So, please, I hope you have a lovely day, and if you do ever want to have a meaningful discussion about guns, you are always welcome to return. 

politico.com
Democrats pounce on Young's ethics imbroglio
By RACHAEL BADE

House Democrats on Monday seized on reports that Rep. Don Young failed for more than two decades to disclose ownership of California land leased to oil and gas companies — the latest ethics scandal to plague the Alaska Republican.

The Alaska Dispatch News reported Sunday that Young inherited a third of his parents’ family farm in the early 1990s but never listed the asset on financial disclosure forms in accordance with federal law and congressional ethics rules. It wasn’t until the property sold for $1.5 million in 2015 that Young, who reported pocketing more than $200,000 from the sale, after taxes, realized he hadn’t included the farm on his list of assets in annual disclosures, his office said.

Young also twice signed paperwork leasing the land to oil and gas companies — once in 1993 and again in 2001 — turning a small profit that was required to be disclosed, the newspaper reported and Young’s office confirmed. Young, who served as House Natural Resources Committee Chairman between 1995 and 2001, did not report profits from the second such lease, either.

Read more here

Cat ownership things ppl don't warn you about

There will come a time when you are sleepily stumbling to your bedroom late at night with all the lights off and suddenly in the beam of the cell phone you’re using as a flashlight you will see a pair of glowing eyes staring at you from a dark corner and for one moment you will seriously consider that a lesser demon has infiltrated your home

This will happen more than once

2

Eltingville Club Lunch Box
On sale Nov 23
8" x 7" x 3 ¾"
$14.99
Although most comic fans hate to admit it, there’s a little bit of Eltingville in all of us. Creator Evan Dorkin has described the characters as “four older teenagers who are fans, and they’re possibly some of the worst fans who have ever lived.”
Now they can duke it out into immortality for ownership of their ultimate collectible – a genuine litho-printed tin lunchbox.

The price of signing big-name artists to music publishing deals is skyrocketing—even for those more famous for singing than for songwriting.

Harry Styles, a singer in the British boy-band One Direction, has been discussing deals with an upfront fee in excess of $6 million while aiming to retain majority ownership of his songs, according to people familiar with the matter. Ex-bandmate Zayn Malik got several million dollars for a publishing deal with Kobalt Music Group Ltd. in June, according to Sas Metcalfe, who oversees Kobalt’s deals.

The cost to sign such household names to songwriting contracts have increased about threefold over the past two years, some publishers say, so long as the stars take credit for at least co-writing their tunes. Mr. Styles and Mr. Malik earned co-writing credits on many of One Direction’s hits while Mr. Styles also helped write songs for stars such as pop singer Ariana Grande.