i-clash-with-everything:

You can see the exact moment where it goes
"I HAVE MADE A HORRIFIC MISTAKE. FUCK. FUCK FUCK FUCK F-"
And then it falls in.

i-clash-with-everything:

You can see the exact moment where it goes

"I HAVE MADE A HORRIFIC MISTAKE. FUCK. FUCK FUCK FUCK F-"

And then it falls in.

phrux:

adamsforthought:

dungeonsandpendragons:

Commonly confused medieval weapons, a powerpoint by me.

Now stop screwing them up, seriously, or I will put a medieval weapon in your head.

Tumblr is endearing me to being lectured at in Comic Sans

THIS is a WAR SCYTHE, a scythe actually used in combat. Notice it is not a useless piece of shit and is an actual functional weapon.

The only reason why death is pictured with a FARMING scythe is because he harvests souls.

goodstuffhappenedtoday:

 More at the link.

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’April 16, 2014
Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.
This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.
To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.
Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.
Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.
The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.
However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.
People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.
One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.
It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’
April 16, 2014

Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.

This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.

To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.

Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.

Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.

The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.

However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.

People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.

One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.

It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.

Source

thegirldetective:

beyonceforbreakfast:

mallomallo:

gloomyteens:

gloomyteens:

when you feel your clothes fresh out of the oven

image

OKAY SO I REALIZED I USED OVEN INSTEAD OF DISHWASHER BUT I KINDA FORGOT WHAT IT WAS CALLED AND USED THE NEXT BEST GUESS I COULD THINK OF

It’s called a washing machine

i think its a dryer like who would be feeling wet ass clothes

this post is a fucking train wreck

genderpunkenby:

I want to educate people about LGBTQIA issues, especially trans issues. I wan’t to help people learn. But it’s difficult to want to do that when the majority of people are like “convince me on why i should give a shit about your basic human rights” instead of “im curious and I dont know as much about this as i should, can you help me understand” 

konkeydongcountry:

tonberrycrunch:

Just found out in the Japanese dub of Frozen, this guy 

image

Is voiced by

image

image

cutemetalhead:

stage-6:

cutemetalhead:

by the way, since we’re talking about r/tumblrinaction, i just thought you should all know that they literally encourage their users to go through these tags to pick on people, so i’d be wary about tagging stuff so it appears in these tags.
as was stated before, a lot of redditors use an entry youre featured on to send you anon hate, reblog your post to unsafe people, etc. so they might find you through these tags. a good way to avoid this is to put letters/numbers/symbols after the trigger, so you could put say #ableism 890283948 or #fatphobia djflksjdfj or #racism /// (like i do!). make sure if you do this theres a space between the trigger and the letters/numbers/symbols.
if you’d like you can signal boost this so your followers know to watch out

cutemetalhead:

stage-6:

cutemetalhead:

by the way, since we’re talking about r/tumblrinaction, i just thought you should all know that they literally encourage their users to go through these tags to pick on people, so i’d be wary about tagging stuff so it appears in these tags.

as was stated before, a lot of redditors use an entry youre featured on to send you anon hate, reblog your post to unsafe people, etc. so they might find you through these tags. a good way to avoid this is to put letters/numbers/symbols after the trigger, so you could put say #ableism 890283948 or #fatphobia djflksjdfj or #racism /// (like i do!). make sure if you do this theres a space between the trigger and the letters/numbers/symbols.

if you’d like you can signal boost this so your followers know to watch out

rocprinceray:

White People: - “Black people are always pulling the race card!”

rocprinceray:

White People: - “Black people are always pulling the race card!”

tsparks:

tortle:

catbuttcat:

rhamphotheca:

State of Idaho plans to poison up to 4,000 Common Ravens. 
Justification: Ravens prey on the eggs of the imperiled Greater Sage-Grouse. Yet of 19 reasons for the grouse’s declining numbers, predation by other wildlife comes in at #12. Providing protected areas and requiring sustainable land management are the most important ways to conserve the grouse, not killing avian predators. 
Join petition by Golden Eagle Audubon Society: Sign the petition here.
(via: American Bird Conservancy)

It’s really close, please sign guys!

killing one species to ‘protect’ another is a horrible approach to anything. Have people not learned by now? And how many other animals would this inevitably poison? Ones that would also not only ingest the poison, but the poisoned bird carcasses.What is wrong with people.

Crows and Ravens hold a sacred position in the Mythos of North America, they should be honored and revered not murdered. 

tsparks:

tortle:

catbuttcat:

rhamphotheca:

State of Idaho plans to poison up to 4,000 Common Ravens.

Justification: Ravens prey on the eggs of the imperiled Greater Sage-Grouse. Yet of 19 reasons for the grouse’s declining numbers, predation by other wildlife comes in at #12. Providing protected areas and requiring sustainable land management are the most important ways to conserve the grouse, not killing avian predators.

Join petition by Golden Eagle Audubon Society:

Sign the petition here.

(via: American Bird Conservancy)

It’s really close, please sign guys!

killing one species to ‘protect’ another is a horrible approach to anything. Have people not learned by now? And how many other animals would this inevitably poison? Ones that would also not only ingest the poison, but the poisoned bird carcasses.

What is wrong with people.

Crows and Ravens hold a sacred position in the Mythos of North America, they should be honored and revered not murdered. 

t h e m e