🔥 | Latest

Community, Family, and Finance: Cancel Your Credit Card Before You Die A lady died this past January, and the bank billed her for February and March for their annual service charges on her credit card, and added late fees and interest on the monthly charge. The balance had been $0.00 when she died, but now somewhere around $60.00. A family member placed a call to the Bank Here is the exchange Family Member: am calling to tell you she died back in January Bank The account was never closed and the late fees and charges stil apply. Family Member : 'Maybe, you should turn it over to collections. Bank: 'Since it is two months past due, it already has been.' Family Member So, what will they do when they find out she is dead?' Bank: 'Either report her account to frauds division or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!' Family Member 'Do you think God will be mad at her?' Bank: 'Excuse me?' Family Member: 'Did you just get what I was telling you - the part about her being dead?' Bank: 'Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor.' Supervisor gets on the phone: Family Member 'I'm calling to tell you, she died back in January with a $0 balance. Bank: 'The account was never closed and late fees and charges still apply.' Family Member from her estate?' Bank (Stammer) 'Are you her lawyer?' Family Member 'No, I'm her great nephew. (Lawyer info was given) Bank: 'Could you fax us a certificate of death?' Family Member 'Sure. (Fax number was given) You mean you want to collect After they get the fax Bank: 'Our system just isn't setup for death. I don't know what more I can do to help. Family Member 'Well, if you figure it out, great! If not, you could just keep billing her. She won't care. Bank: 'Well, the late fees and charges do still apply. (What is wrong with these people?1?) Family Member: 'Would you like her new billing address?' Bank: That might help... Family Member: 'Odessa Memorial Cemetery Highway 129, Plot Number 69.' Bank: 'Sir, that's a cemetery ! Family Member: 'And what do you do with dead people on your planet? thefingerfuckingfemalefury: ohgoditsneph: niniblack: eudoxiav: lawful-evil-novelist: theludicrousrival: billiam-spockspeare: Capitalism will put the bill on your grave and harass your grieving family until they pay One of my cousins passed away unexpectedly at the age of 35, and had been paying back a loan from the bank. About two weeks after his death, my great aunt received a statement from the bank (his mail was being delivered to her house) about a late payment. She called the bank and explained the situation and the only thing a manager could say was “Well, that’s unfortunate. We can arrange so payments will resume in 30 days, that should be enough time to have already paid for the other arrangements.” On top of the unexpected $10,000 funeral, cremation and burial bill, my aunt had to finish paying my uncle’s $5,000 loan. She’s a disabled retiree, on a fixed income, and could barely afford to pay for her insulin for diabetes. She nearly lost her home of more than 40 years. Fuck the system. She didn’t need to pay. When people die, their debts are not their family’s responsibility. In fact, it is outright illegal to try and collect those debts from a person who didn’t cosign the loan and isn’t executing the will. Debts and Deceased Relatives Here’s a link to the detail on that one. Banks count on people not knowing that last comment so that they can still get money They really do. My great-grandmother had her identity stolen before she died at the age of 93, and thousands of charges were racked up on credit cards in her name. After she passed away, they called my mother to try and collect. My mom laughed at them, and told them: “She’s dead, good luck collecting.” The credit card asked my mother, “Don’t you want to clear your grandmother’s debts? Don’t you want to clear her good name?” My mom laughed at them again. “No,” she said. “Because a 90 year old wasn’t watching porn with those credit cards, and her name is fine. Don’t give credit cards to old women likely to pass away soon. This is on you.” Which is how I learned as a young child to always question collection agents, and to never pay off debts that aren’t your own. They often can’t even collect that money from the estate, if there is one, depending on how you write your will and what kind of account the money was kept in. DO NOT EVER PAY OFF DEBTS THAT AREN’T YOUR OWN. If a loved one of yours dies and bill collectors (credit cards, loans, etc etc) start calling you off the hook and request that you pay off their debts, tell them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves. The reason being is that the moment you give them a single penny, that debt is now on YOU because you’ve now agreed to pay it off. Do not agree to pay off their debt. Do not pass go, do not give them $200. Boosting this to let people know that if any of these greedy little dog-fuckers start harassing them to pay off a relatives debt the correct thing to do is just tell them to piss off and not pay them a single thing And that there is NOTHING they can do if you do this Unless you cosigned the loan, are a joint account holder, or a spouse of the deceased in a community property state, you would likely not be on the hook for any debts from the deceased. The executor of their estate will be in charge of addressing the loans with the help of the estate and hopefully life insurance money, but if there isn’t enough in that to pay off the debts then creditors are just shit out of luck and they legally are not allowed to mislead you into thinking you have to pay them back when you don’t (which is not to say that they don’t try). You have a legal right to order them not to contact you via letter.
Community, Family, and Finance: Cancel Your Credit Card Before
 You Die
 A lady died this past January, and the bank billed
 her for February and March for their annual service
 charges on her credit card, and added late fees and
 interest on the monthly charge. The balance had
 been $0.00 when she died, but now somewhere
 around $60.00. A family member placed a call to
 the Bank

 Here is the exchange
 Family Member: am calling to tell you she died
 back in January
 Bank The account was never closed and the late
 fees and charges stil apply.
 Family Member : 'Maybe, you should turn it over to
 collections.
 Bank: 'Since it is two months past due, it already
 has been.'
 Family Member So, what will they do when they
 find out she is dead?'
 Bank: 'Either report her account to frauds division
 or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!'
 Family Member 'Do you think God will be mad at
 her?'
 Bank: 'Excuse me?'

 Family Member: 'Did you just get what I was
 telling you -
 the part about her being dead?'
 Bank: 'Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor.'
 Supervisor gets on the phone:
 Family Member 'I'm calling to tell you, she died
 back in January with a $0 balance.
 Bank: 'The account was never closed and late fees
 and charges still apply.'
 Family Member
 from her estate?'
 Bank (Stammer) 'Are you her lawyer?'
 Family Member 'No, I'm her great nephew.
 (Lawyer info was given)
 Bank: 'Could you fax us a certificate of death?'
 Family Member 'Sure. (Fax number was given)
 You mean you want to collect

 After they get the fax
 Bank: 'Our system just isn't setup for death.
 I don't know what more I can do to help.
 Family Member 'Well, if you figure it out, great!
 If not, you could just keep billing her. She won't
 care.
 Bank: 'Well, the late fees and charges do still
 apply.
 (What is wrong with these people?1?)
 Family Member: 'Would you like her new billing
 address?'
 Bank: That might help...
 Family Member: 'Odessa Memorial Cemetery
 Highway 129, Plot Number 69.'
 Bank: 'Sir, that's a cemetery !
 Family Member: 'And what do you do with dead
 people on your planet?
thefingerfuckingfemalefury:
ohgoditsneph:

niniblack:

eudoxiav:


lawful-evil-novelist:

theludicrousrival:


billiam-spockspeare:
Capitalism will put the bill on your grave and harass your grieving family until they pay

One of my cousins passed away unexpectedly at the age of 35, and had been paying back a loan from the bank. About two weeks after his death, my great aunt received a statement from the bank (his mail was being delivered to her house) about a late payment. She called the bank and explained the situation and the only thing a manager could say was “Well, that’s unfortunate. We can arrange so payments will resume in 30 days, that should be enough time to have already paid for the other arrangements.” 
On top of the unexpected $10,000 funeral, cremation and burial bill, my aunt had to finish paying my uncle’s $5,000 loan. She’s a disabled retiree, on a fixed income, and could barely afford to pay for her insulin for diabetes. She nearly lost her home of more than 40 years. Fuck the system. 


She didn’t need to pay.  When people die, their debts are not their family’s responsibility.
In fact, it is outright illegal to try and collect those debts from a person who didn’t cosign the loan and isn’t executing the will.
Debts and Deceased Relatives
Here’s a link to the detail on that one.


Banks count on people not knowing that last comment so that they can still get money


They really do. 
My great-grandmother had her identity stolen before she died at the age of 93, and thousands of charges were racked up on credit cards in her name. After she passed away, they called my mother to try and collect. My mom laughed at them, and told them: “She’s dead, good luck collecting.” The credit card asked my mother, “Don’t you want to clear your grandmother’s debts? Don’t you want to clear her good name?” My mom laughed at them again. “No,” she said. “Because a 90 year old wasn’t watching porn with those credit cards, and her name is fine. Don’t give credit cards to old women likely to pass away soon. This is on you.”
Which is how I learned as a young child to always question collection agents, and to never pay off debts that aren’t your own. They often can’t even collect that money from the estate, if there is one, depending on how you write your will and what kind of account the money was kept in. 

DO NOT EVER PAY OFF DEBTS THAT AREN’T YOUR OWN.

If a loved one of yours dies and bill collectors (credit cards, loans, etc etc) start calling you off the hook and request that you pay off their debts, tell them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves.
The reason being is that the moment you give them a single penny, that debt is now on YOU because you’ve now agreed to pay it off.

Do not agree to pay off their debt. Do not pass go, do not give them $200.

Boosting this to let people know that if any of these greedy little dog-fuckers start harassing them to pay off a relatives debt the correct thing to do is just tell them to piss off and not pay them a single thing 
And that there is NOTHING they can do if you do this 


Unless you cosigned the loan, are a joint account holder, or a spouse of the deceased in a community property state, you would likely not be on the hook for any debts from the deceased. The executor of their estate will be in charge of addressing the loans with the help of the estate and hopefully life insurance money, but if there isn’t enough in that to pay off the debts then creditors are just shit out of luck and they legally are not allowed to mislead you into thinking you have to pay them back when you don’t (which is not to say that they don’t try). You have a legal right to order them not to contact you via letter.

thefingerfuckingfemalefury: ohgoditsneph: niniblack: eudoxiav: lawful-evil-novelist: theludicrousrival: billiam-spockspeare: Capitali...

Family, Get Money, and God: Cancel Your Credit Card Before You Die A lady died this past January, and the bank billed her for February and March for their annual service charges on her credit card, and added late fees and interest on the monthly charge. The balance had been $0.00 when she died, but now somewhere around $60.00. A family member placed a call to the Bank Here is the exchange Family Member: am calling to tell you she died back in January Bank The account was never closed and the late fees and charges stil apply. Family Member : 'Maybe, you should turn it over to collections. Bank: 'Since it is two months past due, it already has been.' Family Member So, what will they do when they find out she is dead?' Bank: 'Either report her account to frauds division or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!' Family Member 'Do you think God will be mad at her?' Bank: 'Excuse me?' Family Member: 'Did you just get what I was telling you - the part about her being dead?' Bank: 'Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor.' Supervisor gets on the phone: Family Member 'I'm calling to tell you, she died back in January with a $0 balance. Bank: 'The account was never closed and late fees and charges still apply.' Family Member from her estate?' Bank (Stammer) 'Are you her lawyer?' Family Member 'No, I'm her great nephew. (Lawyer info was given) Bank: 'Could you fax us a certificate of death?' Family Member 'Sure. (Fax number was given) You mean you want to collect After they get the fax Bank: 'Our system just isn't setup for death. I don't know what more I can do to help. Family Member 'Well, if you figure it out, great! If not, you could just keep billing her. She won't care. Bank: 'Well, the late fees and charges do still apply. (What is wrong with these people?1?) Family Member: 'Would you like her new billing address?' Bank: That might help... Family Member: 'Odessa Memorial Cemetery Highway 129, Plot Number 69.' Bank: 'Sir, that's a cemetery ! Family Member: 'And what do you do with dead people on your planet? thefingerfuckingfemalefury: ohgoditsneph: niniblack: eudoxiav: lawful-evil-novelist: theludicrousrival: billiam-spockspeare: Capitalism will put the bill on your grave and harass your grieving family until they pay One of my cousins passed away unexpectedly at the age of 35, and had been paying back a loan from the bank. About two weeks after his death, my great aunt received a statement from the bank (his mail was being delivered to her house) about a late payment. She called the bank and explained the situation and the only thing a manager could say was “Well, that’s unfortunate. We can arrange so payments will resume in 30 days, that should be enough time to have already paid for the other arrangements.” On top of the unexpected $10,000 funeral, cremation and burial bill, my aunt had to finish paying my uncle’s $5,000 loan. She’s a disabled retiree, on a fixed income, and could barely afford to pay for her insulin for diabetes. She nearly lost her home of more than 40 years. Fuck the system. She didn’t need to pay. When people die, their debts are not their family’s responsibility. In fact, it is outright illegal to try and collect those debts from a person who didn’t cosign the loan and isn’t executing the will. Debts and Deceased Relatives Here’s a link to the detail on that one. Banks count on people not knowing that last comment so that they can still get money They really do. My great-grandmother had her identity stolen before she died at the age of 93, and thousands of charges were racked up on credit cards in her name. After she passed away, they called my mother to try and collect. My mom laughed at them, and told them: “She’s dead, good luck collecting.” The credit card asked my mother, “Don’t you want to clear your grandmother’s debts? Don’t you want to clear her good name?” My mom laughed at them again. “No,” she said. “Because a 90 year old wasn’t watching porn with those credit cards, and her name is fine. Don’t give credit cards to old women likely to pass away soon. This is on you.” Which is how I learned as a young child to always question collection agents, and to never pay off debts that aren’t your own. They often can’t even collect that money from the estate, if there is one, depending on how you write your will and what kind of account the money was kept in. DO NOT EVER PAY OFF DEBTS THAT AREN’T YOUR OWN. If a loved one of yours dies and bill collectors (credit cards, loans, etc etc) start calling you off the hook and request that you pay off their debts, tell them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves. The reason being is that the moment you give them a single penny, that debt is now on YOU because you’ve now agreed to pay it off. Do not agree to pay off their debt. Do not pass go, do not give them $200. Boosting this to let people know that if any of these greedy little dog-fuckers start harassing them to pay off a relatives debt the correct thing to do is just tell them to piss off and not pay them a single thing And that there is NOTHING they can do if you do this
Family, Get Money, and God: Cancel Your Credit Card Before
 You Die
 A lady died this past January, and the bank billed
 her for February and March for their annual service
 charges on her credit card, and added late fees and
 interest on the monthly charge. The balance had
 been $0.00 when she died, but now somewhere
 around $60.00. A family member placed a call to
 the Bank

 Here is the exchange
 Family Member: am calling to tell you she died
 back in January
 Bank The account was never closed and the late
 fees and charges stil apply.
 Family Member : 'Maybe, you should turn it over to
 collections.
 Bank: 'Since it is two months past due, it already
 has been.'
 Family Member So, what will they do when they
 find out she is dead?'
 Bank: 'Either report her account to frauds division
 or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!'
 Family Member 'Do you think God will be mad at
 her?'
 Bank: 'Excuse me?'

 Family Member: 'Did you just get what I was
 telling you -
 the part about her being dead?'
 Bank: 'Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor.'
 Supervisor gets on the phone:
 Family Member 'I'm calling to tell you, she died
 back in January with a $0 balance.
 Bank: 'The account was never closed and late fees
 and charges still apply.'
 Family Member
 from her estate?'
 Bank (Stammer) 'Are you her lawyer?'
 Family Member 'No, I'm her great nephew.
 (Lawyer info was given)
 Bank: 'Could you fax us a certificate of death?'
 Family Member 'Sure. (Fax number was given)
 You mean you want to collect

 After they get the fax
 Bank: 'Our system just isn't setup for death.
 I don't know what more I can do to help.
 Family Member 'Well, if you figure it out, great!
 If not, you could just keep billing her. She won't
 care.
 Bank: 'Well, the late fees and charges do still
 apply.
 (What is wrong with these people?1?)
 Family Member: 'Would you like her new billing
 address?'
 Bank: That might help...
 Family Member: 'Odessa Memorial Cemetery
 Highway 129, Plot Number 69.'
 Bank: 'Sir, that's a cemetery !
 Family Member: 'And what do you do with dead
 people on your planet?
thefingerfuckingfemalefury:
ohgoditsneph:

niniblack:

eudoxiav:


lawful-evil-novelist:

theludicrousrival:


billiam-spockspeare:
Capitalism will put the bill on your grave and harass your grieving family until they pay

One of my cousins passed away unexpectedly at the age of 35, and had been paying back a loan from the bank. About two weeks after his death, my great aunt received a statement from the bank (his mail was being delivered to her house) about a late payment. She called the bank and explained the situation and the only thing a manager could say was “Well, that’s unfortunate. We can arrange so payments will resume in 30 days, that should be enough time to have already paid for the other arrangements.” 
On top of the unexpected $10,000 funeral, cremation and burial bill, my aunt had to finish paying my uncle’s $5,000 loan. She’s a disabled retiree, on a fixed income, and could barely afford to pay for her insulin for diabetes. She nearly lost her home of more than 40 years. Fuck the system. 


She didn’t need to pay.  When people die, their debts are not their family’s responsibility.
In fact, it is outright illegal to try and collect those debts from a person who didn’t cosign the loan and isn’t executing the will.
Debts and Deceased Relatives
Here’s a link to the detail on that one.


Banks count on people not knowing that last comment so that they can still get money


They really do. 
My great-grandmother had her identity stolen before she died at the age of 93, and thousands of charges were racked up on credit cards in her name. After she passed away, they called my mother to try and collect. My mom laughed at them, and told them: “She’s dead, good luck collecting.” The credit card asked my mother, “Don’t you want to clear your grandmother’s debts? Don’t you want to clear her good name?” My mom laughed at them again. “No,” she said. “Because a 90 year old wasn’t watching porn with those credit cards, and her name is fine. Don’t give credit cards to old women likely to pass away soon. This is on you.”
Which is how I learned as a young child to always question collection agents, and to never pay off debts that aren’t your own. They often can’t even collect that money from the estate, if there is one, depending on how you write your will and what kind of account the money was kept in. 

DO NOT EVER PAY OFF DEBTS THAT AREN’T YOUR OWN.

If a loved one of yours dies and bill collectors (credit cards, loans, etc etc) start calling you off the hook and request that you pay off their debts, tell them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves.
The reason being is that the moment you give them a single penny, that debt is now on YOU because you’ve now agreed to pay it off.

Do not agree to pay off their debt. Do not pass go, do not give them $200.

Boosting this to let people know that if any of these greedy little dog-fuckers start harassing them to pay off a relatives debt the correct thing to do is just tell them to piss off and not pay them a single thing 
And that there is NOTHING they can do if you do this

thefingerfuckingfemalefury: ohgoditsneph: niniblack: eudoxiav: lawful-evil-novelist: theludicrousrival: billiam-spockspeare: Capitali...

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Af, America, and Apparently: Game Of Thrones's Natalie Dormer: men are as objectified as women on TV actor has joined the debate genders are judged equally on looks about objectification in TVand L4 butterflyinthewell: shipperwolf1: brunhiddensmusings: fierceawakening: guyveranimefan87: eric-coldfire: eldritchgentleman: cruxofargon: the-critical-feminist: cishetwhiteoppressor: Finally, a sane celebrity who doesn’t bend the knee to feminist bullshit. Source My god I love her. I know people are gonna get salty af about this but by God she’s RIGHT. When Brad Pitt did Fight Club, he was cutting weight for every single scene to maintain his physique at 155. I’ve you’ve ever cut weight, you know how horrible that must have been. He did it because they needed a “look”. Changing Tatum said his Magic Mike body doesn’t last for more than five days. He starved down and dehydrated his already fit physique for a “look”. The male soldiers on Spartacus: Blood and Sand were eating pretty much chicken and veggies for every meal to maintain a “look”. Why is this such a big deal? Because all these characters are considered physical goals for men. These are actual unobtainable physical standards for men. Male body image issues get swept under the rug so often that some people don’t even think they exist. You want proof? Just check out that scene in Captain America: First Avenger where Cap just transformed into that beautiful beefcake of a man. Agent Carter’s actress just HAD to touch them muscles, it was completely unscripted. Chris Evans had to wear shirts so small they physically hurt, and he dislocated a shoulder during the helicopter scene in Civil War. But who cares, girls got to wet their panties watching Captain America flex. If we are talking about unrealistic physical standards of male fitness given to us by movies, I would like to mention Hugh “Wolverine” Jackman here. Yeah, he is ripped, isn’t he? Well, it is true, but to get that kind of definition, he went through 36 hour period of dehydration, which caused him to temporarily lose 10 pounds of “water weight”.  Thus during the fight scene he was filming, he was a hair breadth from blacking out whole time, just to look unrealistically muscular. As he said during interview with Steven Colbert, “If You go three days without water, You will die. Then, when You are halfway there they shout ‘Roll it!” It’s the same with professional bodybuilders who get into periods of extreme fasting and dehydration to lower their fat-to-muscle ratio to inhuman levels, all in hopes of making their muscle definition a bit better. According to experts, healthy body fat percentage for a healthy male ranges from 8% to 20%, depending on height, lifestyle and numerous other variables.  Fitness model and professional bodybuilder Helmut Strebl also known as “World’s Most Shredded Man” as he supposedly managed to get his body fat percentage below 5%… … But only when he partakes in competitions, since it is not humanly possible to live with such low fat percentage of one’s body for longer periods of time. I mean, yeah, he keeps a draconian training regime, as well as a very strict diet even off-season, but looks much more human then… There are documented cases of incredibly fit and muscular bodybuilders fainting on the stage in the middle of their flexing routines, as well as several who outright died, because of cardiac arrest caused by their blood becoming too thick, due to long dehydration… And let’s not forget about Muscle Dysmorphia, colloquially known as “Megarexia” or “Bigarexia”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_dysmorphia Yeah, it’s a thing, but it’s barely talked about, since it’s apparently not manly to admit to having problems like that, which also creates problems with researching this particular disorder… So… Thanks Hollywood? I had no idea that most people who looked like this are dehydrated until I read posts like this. dehydrated to the point theyre about a day away from actual organ failureokay so chris hemsworth is a absolute god of a man, but hollywood says ‘thats not good enough’ and for the thor movie he has to spend several days having the juice squeezed from his body untill he looses about a gallon of whats supposed to be him so that he can do 2 days of shooting scenes without his shirt, after which he has to have recovery time before he is hospitalized because i am not joking about ‘one day away from organ failure’thats the benchmark- look at chris hemsworth and process that he is told he isnt suitable for a shirtless scene without prepping for three days and nearly fainting real feminism acknowledges the unhealthy standards that men are held to. radfems brush them off as non-existent guys, feminism is for you, too. it’s for all of us. I would hate to think of what Dave Bautista had to go through since he was shirtless the entire time as Drax. All that makeup plus dieting….yikes! Also, let’s not forget that men can get eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia too.
Af, America, and Apparently: Game Of Thrones's Natalie Dormer: men
 are as objectified as women on TV
 actor has joined the debate
 genders are judged equally on looks
 about objectification in TVand
 L4
butterflyinthewell:

shipperwolf1:

brunhiddensmusings:

fierceawakening:

guyveranimefan87:

eric-coldfire:

eldritchgentleman:

cruxofargon:

the-critical-feminist:

cishetwhiteoppressor:

Finally, a sane celebrity who doesn’t bend the knee to feminist bullshit.
Source

My god I love her.

I know people are gonna get salty af about this but by God she’s RIGHT.
When Brad Pitt did Fight Club, he was cutting weight for every single scene to maintain his physique at 155. I’ve you’ve ever cut weight, you know how horrible that must have been. He did it because they needed a “look”. 
Changing Tatum said his Magic Mike body doesn’t last for more than five days. He starved down and dehydrated his already fit physique for a “look”.
The male soldiers on Spartacus: Blood and Sand were eating pretty much chicken and veggies for every meal to maintain a “look”. 
Why is this such a big deal? Because all these characters are considered physical goals for men. These are actual unobtainable physical standards for men. Male body image issues get swept under the rug so often that some people don’t even think they exist.

You want proof? Just check out that scene in Captain America: First Avenger where Cap just transformed into that beautiful beefcake of a man. Agent Carter’s actress just HAD to touch them muscles, it was completely unscripted. 

Chris Evans had to wear shirts so small they physically hurt, and he dislocated a shoulder during the helicopter scene in Civil War. But who cares, girls got to wet their panties watching Captain America flex.

If we are talking about unrealistic physical standards of male fitness given to us by movies, I would like to mention Hugh “Wolverine” Jackman here.
Yeah, he is ripped, isn’t he?
Well, it is true, but to get that kind of definition, he went through 36 hour period of dehydration, which caused him to temporarily lose 10 pounds of “water weight”. 
Thus during the fight scene he was filming, he was a hair breadth from blacking out whole time, just to look unrealistically muscular.
As he said during interview with Steven Colbert, “If You go three days without water, You will die. Then, when You are halfway there they shout ‘Roll it!”
It’s the same with professional bodybuilders who get into periods of extreme fasting and dehydration to lower their fat-to-muscle ratio to inhuman levels, all in hopes of making their muscle definition a bit better.
According to experts, healthy body fat percentage for a healthy male ranges from 8% to 20%, depending on height, lifestyle and numerous other variables. 
Fitness model and professional bodybuilder Helmut Strebl also known as “World’s Most Shredded Man” as he supposedly managed to get his body fat percentage below 5%…
… But only when he partakes in competitions, since it is not humanly possible to live with such low fat percentage of one’s body for longer periods of time.
I mean, yeah, he keeps a draconian training regime, as well as a very strict diet even off-season, but looks much more human then…
There are documented cases of incredibly fit and muscular bodybuilders fainting on the stage in the middle of their flexing routines, as well as several who outright died, because of cardiac arrest caused by their blood becoming too thick, due to long dehydration…
And let’s not forget about Muscle Dysmorphia, colloquially known as “Megarexia” or “Bigarexia”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_dysmorphia
Yeah, it’s a thing, but it’s barely talked about, since it’s apparently not manly to admit to having problems like that, which also creates problems with researching this particular disorder…
So… Thanks Hollywood?


I had no idea that most people who looked like this are dehydrated until I read posts like this.

dehydrated to the point theyre about a day away from actual organ failureokay so chris hemsworth is a absolute god of a man, but hollywood says ‘thats not good enough’ and for the thor movie he has to spend several days having the juice squeezed from his body untill he looses about a gallon of whats supposed to be him so that he can do 2 days of shooting scenes without his shirt, after which he has to have recovery time before he is hospitalized because i am not joking about ‘one day away from organ failure’thats the benchmark- look at chris hemsworth and process that he is told he isnt suitable for a shirtless scene without prepping for three days and nearly fainting

real feminism acknowledges the unhealthy standards that men are held to. radfems brush them off as non-existent 
guys, feminism is for you, too. it’s for all of us.


I would hate to think of what Dave Bautista had to go through since he was shirtless the entire time as Drax. All that makeup plus dieting….yikes!
Also, let’s not forget that men can get eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia too.

butterflyinthewell: shipperwolf1: brunhiddensmusings: fierceawakening: guyveranimefan87: eric-coldfire: eldritchgentleman: cruxofargo...

Bailey Jay, Family, and Get Money: Cancel Your Credit Card Before You Die A lady died this past January, and the bank billed her for February and March for their annual service charges on her credit card, and added late fees and interest on the monthly charge. The balance had been $0.00 when she died, but now somewhere around $60.00. A family member placed a call to the Bank Here is the exchange Family Member: am calling to tell you she died back in January Bank The account was never closed and the late fees and charges stil apply. Family Member : 'Maybe, you should turn it over to collections. Bank: 'Since it is two months past due, it already has been.' Family Member So, what will they do when they find out she is dead?' Bank: 'Either report her account to frauds division or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!' Family Member 'Do you think God will be mad at her?' Bank: 'Excuse me?' Family Member: 'Did you just get what I was telling you - the part about her being dead?' Bank: 'Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor.' Supervisor gets on the phone: Family Member 'I'm calling to tell you, she died back in January with a $0 balance. Bank: 'The account was never closed and late fees and charges still apply.' Family Member from her estate?' Bank (Stammer) 'Are you her lawyer?' Family Member 'No, I'm her great nephew. (Lawyer info was given) Bank: 'Could you fax us a certificate of death?' Family Member 'Sure. (Fax number was given) You mean you want to collect After they get the fax Bank: 'Our system just isn't setup for death. I don't know what more I can do to help. Family Member 'Well, if you figure it out, great! If not, you could just keep billing her. She won't care. Bank: 'Well, the late fees and charges do still apply. (What is wrong with these people?1?) Family Member: 'Would you like her new billing address?' Bank: That might help... Family Member: 'Odessa Memorial Cemetery Highway 129, Plot Number 69.' Bank: 'Sir, that's a cemetery ! Family Member: 'And what do you do with dead people on your planet? ohgoditsneph: niniblack: eudoxiav: lawful-evil-novelist: theludicrousrival: billiam-spockspeare: Capitalism will put the bill on your grave and harass your grieving family until they pay One of my cousins passed away unexpectedly at the age of 35, and had been paying back a loan from the bank. About two weeks after his death, my great aunt received a statement from the bank (his mail was being delivered to her house) about a late payment. She called the bank and explained the situation and the only thing a manager could say was “Well, that’s unfortunate. We can arrange so payments will resume in 30 days, that should be enough time to have already paid for the other arrangements.” On top of the unexpected $10,000 funeral, cremation and burial bill, my aunt had to finish paying my uncle’s $5,000 loan. She’s a disabled retiree, on a fixed income, and could barely afford to pay for her insulin for diabetes. She nearly lost her home of more than 40 years. Fuck the system. She didn’t need to pay. When people die, their debts are not their family’s responsibility. In fact, it is outright illegal to try and collect those debts from a person who didn’t cosign the loan and isn’t executing the will. Debts and Deceased Relatives Here’s a link to the detail on that one. Banks count on people not knowing that last comment so that they can still get money They really do. My great-grandmother had her identity stolen before she died at the age of 93, and thousands of charges were racked up on credit cards in her name. After she passed away, they called my mother to try and collect. My mom laughed at them, and told them: “She’s dead, good luck collecting.” The credit card asked my mother, “Don’t you want to clear your grandmother’s debts? Don’t you want to clear her good name?” My mom laughed at them again. “No,” she said. “Because a 90 year old wasn’t watching porn with those credit cards, and her name is fine. Don’t give credit cards to old women likely to pass away soon. This is on you.” Which is how I learned as a young child to always question collection agents, and to never pay off debts that aren’t your own. They often can’t even collect that money from the estate, if there is one, depending on how you write your will and what kind of account the money was kept in. DO NOT EVER PAY OFF DEBTS THAT AREN’T YOUR OWN. If a loved one of yours dies and bill collectors (credit cards, loans, etc etc) start calling you off the hook and request that you pay off their debts, tell them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves. The reason being is that the moment you give them a single penny, that debt is now on YOU because you’ve now agreed to pay it off. Do not agree to pay off their debt. Do not pass go, do not give them $200.
Bailey Jay, Family, and Get Money: Cancel Your Credit Card Before
 You Die
 A lady died this past January, and the bank billed
 her for February and March for their annual service
 charges on her credit card, and added late fees and
 interest on the monthly charge. The balance had
 been $0.00 when she died, but now somewhere
 around $60.00. A family member placed a call to
 the Bank

 Here is the exchange
 Family Member: am calling to tell you she died
 back in January
 Bank The account was never closed and the late
 fees and charges stil apply.
 Family Member : 'Maybe, you should turn it over to
 collections.
 Bank: 'Since it is two months past due, it already
 has been.'
 Family Member So, what will they do when they
 find out she is dead?'
 Bank: 'Either report her account to frauds division
 or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!'
 Family Member 'Do you think God will be mad at
 her?'
 Bank: 'Excuse me?'

 Family Member: 'Did you just get what I was
 telling you -
 the part about her being dead?'
 Bank: 'Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor.'
 Supervisor gets on the phone:
 Family Member 'I'm calling to tell you, she died
 back in January with a $0 balance.
 Bank: 'The account was never closed and late fees
 and charges still apply.'
 Family Member
 from her estate?'
 Bank (Stammer) 'Are you her lawyer?'
 Family Member 'No, I'm her great nephew.
 (Lawyer info was given)
 Bank: 'Could you fax us a certificate of death?'
 Family Member 'Sure. (Fax number was given)
 You mean you want to collect

 After they get the fax
 Bank: 'Our system just isn't setup for death.
 I don't know what more I can do to help.
 Family Member 'Well, if you figure it out, great!
 If not, you could just keep billing her. She won't
 care.
 Bank: 'Well, the late fees and charges do still
 apply.
 (What is wrong with these people?1?)
 Family Member: 'Would you like her new billing
 address?'
 Bank: That might help...
 Family Member: 'Odessa Memorial Cemetery
 Highway 129, Plot Number 69.'
 Bank: 'Sir, that's a cemetery !
 Family Member: 'And what do you do with dead
 people on your planet?
ohgoditsneph:

niniblack:

eudoxiav:


lawful-evil-novelist:

theludicrousrival:


billiam-spockspeare:
Capitalism will put the bill on your grave and harass your grieving family until they pay

One of my cousins passed away unexpectedly at the age of 35, and had been paying back a loan from the bank. About two weeks after his death, my great aunt received a statement from the bank (his mail was being delivered to her house) about a late payment. She called the bank and explained the situation and the only thing a manager could say was “Well, that’s unfortunate. We can arrange so payments will resume in 30 days, that should be enough time to have already paid for the other arrangements.” 
On top of the unexpected $10,000 funeral, cremation and burial bill, my aunt had to finish paying my uncle’s $5,000 loan. She’s a disabled retiree, on a fixed income, and could barely afford to pay for her insulin for diabetes. She nearly lost her home of more than 40 years. Fuck the system. 


She didn’t need to pay.  When people die, their debts are not their family’s responsibility.
In fact, it is outright illegal to try and collect those debts from a person who didn’t cosign the loan and isn’t executing the will.
Debts and Deceased Relatives
Here’s a link to the detail on that one.


Banks count on people not knowing that last comment so that they can still get money


They really do. 
My great-grandmother had her identity stolen before she died at the age of 93, and thousands of charges were racked up on credit cards in her name. After she passed away, they called my mother to try and collect. My mom laughed at them, and told them: “She’s dead, good luck collecting.” The credit card asked my mother, “Don’t you want to clear your grandmother’s debts? Don’t you want to clear her good name?” My mom laughed at them again. “No,” she said. “Because a 90 year old wasn’t watching porn with those credit cards, and her name is fine. Don’t give credit cards to old women likely to pass away soon. This is on you.”
Which is how I learned as a young child to always question collection agents, and to never pay off debts that aren’t your own. They often can’t even collect that money from the estate, if there is one, depending on how you write your will and what kind of account the money was kept in. 

DO NOT EVER PAY OFF DEBTS THAT AREN’T YOUR OWN.

If a loved one of yours dies and bill collectors (credit cards, loans, etc etc) start calling you off the hook and request that you pay off their debts, tell them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves.
The reason being is that the moment you give them a single penny, that debt is now on YOU because you’ve now agreed to pay it off.

Do not agree to pay off their debt. Do not pass go, do not give them $200.

ohgoditsneph: niniblack: eudoxiav: lawful-evil-novelist: theludicrousrival: billiam-spockspeare: Capitalism will put the bill on your...

America, Charlie, and News: Charlie Griffith Thursday at 9:28 AM So Captain America's shield, perhaps the greatest symbol he has, is made from stolen Wakandan vibrainium. I don't know of many better metaphors in the world. Like Comment Share O You, Ashante Lucombe and 713 others theamazingsallyhogan: 17mul: mighty-mouth: Colonizers gone colonize. 😂😂 @lmsig In December of 1940, America still hadn’t entered the war. There were a lot of Americans - such as the 800,000 paying members of the America First Committee - who looked at fascists massacring their way through Europe and declared “that’s not our problem.” Captain America was created by two poor Jewish Americans, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, with the specific intent of trying to convince Americans that entering the war was the right thing to do.  It wasn’t easy - Kirby went far beyond what was expected of artists at the time, penciling the entire issue with a deadline that would have been difficult for a two-man crew to pull off.   Captain America punched Hitler right on the cover, at a time when a majority of Americans just didn’t feel like doing anything decisive against the Nazis. Kirby and Simon faced considerable resistance for their creation, including steady hate mail and outright death threats.   Once, while Jack was in the Timely office, a call came from someone in the lobby. When Kirby answered, the caller threatened Jack with bodily harm if he showed his face. Kirby told the caller he would be right down, but by the time Jack reached street level, there was no one to be found. Both creators enlisted after America entered the war.  Kirby, as an artist, was called upon to do the extremely dangerous work of scouting ahead to draw maps.  He also went on to co-create Black Panther in 1966. They didn’t create Captain America to be an accurate depiction of America-As-It-Is.  The character was meant to inspire and embolden, to show America-As-It-Should-Be. The subject of where the Vibranium for the shield came from actually never came up for decades of comics, until it was finally addressed by Black Panther’s writer, Christopher Priest, in 2001.  Priest never shied away from acknowledging America’s racism, but he also understood that Captain America represented an ideal, intended to inspire Americans to be better.  The story mixed together a “present day” discussion between Cap and T’Challa with flashbacks to when Cap met the Black Panther ruling Wakanda during World War II. FLASHBACK: PRESENT: PRESENT - FLASHBACK PRESENT: The Vibranium was given, freely, by one good man to another good man. It is right to rage against the injustices done by our governments.  We must call them out, and we must fight for what’s right. But if you can’t even stand to see the symbols created to inspire people to be better, and rail against those, then you’re just confusing cynicism for realism.
America, Charlie, and News: Charlie Griffith
 Thursday at 9:28 AM
 So Captain America's shield, perhaps the greatest
 symbol he has, is made from stolen Wakandan
 vibrainium.
 I don't know of many better metaphors in the world.
 Like Comment
 Share
 O
 You, Ashante Lucombe and 713 others
theamazingsallyhogan:

17mul:

mighty-mouth:

Colonizers gone colonize. 😂😂

@lmsig 

In December of 1940, America still hadn’t entered the war.
There were a lot of Americans - such as the 800,000 paying members of the America First Committee - who looked at fascists massacring their way through Europe and declared “that’s not our problem.”
Captain America was created by two poor Jewish Americans, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, with the specific intent of trying to convince Americans that entering the war was the right thing to do.  It wasn’t easy - Kirby went far beyond what was expected of artists at the time, penciling the entire issue with a deadline that would have been difficult for a two-man crew to pull off.  
Captain America punched Hitler right on the cover, at a time when a majority of Americans just didn’t feel like doing anything decisive against the Nazis.
Kirby and Simon faced considerable resistance for their creation, including steady hate mail and outright death threats.  


Once, while Jack was in the Timely office, a call came from someone in the lobby. When Kirby answered, the caller threatened Jack with bodily harm if he showed his face. Kirby told the caller he would be right down, but by the time Jack reached street level, there was no one to be found.




Both creators enlisted after America entered the war.  Kirby, as an artist, was called upon to do the extremely dangerous work of scouting ahead to draw maps.  He also went on to co-create Black Panther in 1966.


They didn’t create Captain America to be an accurate depiction of America-As-It-Is.  The character was meant to inspire and embolden, to show America-As-It-Should-Be.

The subject of where the Vibranium for the shield came from actually never came up for decades of comics, until it was finally addressed by Black Panther’s writer, Christopher Priest, in 2001.  Priest never shied away from acknowledging America’s racism, but he also understood that Captain America represented an ideal, intended to inspire Americans to be better. 
The story mixed together a “present day” discussion between Cap and T’Challa with flashbacks to when Cap met the Black Panther ruling Wakanda during World War II.
FLASHBACK:
PRESENT:
PRESENT - FLASHBACK
PRESENT:
The Vibranium was given, freely, by one good man to another good man.
It is right to rage against the injustices done by our governments.  We must call them out, and we must fight for what’s right.
But if you can’t even stand to see the symbols created to inspire people to be better, and rail against those, then you’re just confusing cynicism for realism.

theamazingsallyhogan: 17mul: mighty-mouth: Colonizers gone colonize. 😂😂 @lmsig In December of 1940, America still hadn’t entered the w...

Anna, Brains, and Church: SKILL HARD WORK TO ACHIEVE A LEVEL OF SKILL IN ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO STAND ON A PILLAR OF HARD WORK. OH, I JUST STARTED HERE TALENT & I HARD WORK TALENTHARD WORK owLTURD.com violent-darts: charlesoberonn: jelloapocalypse: These bother me sometimes. We all start as literal useless babies. No one gets a magic ticket that makes them better at anything. If someone says they “never practice” it’s probably because they like doing the skill and see it as a fun use of their time instead of “practice”. I will qualify this a small but I think important amount, because what it is is actually complicated:  Some people’s brains and nervous systems are wired for better hand-eye coordination. Some people’s brains and nervous systems are wired for better pattern recognition. Or translations of audio input. Or whatever.  What this does is combine with @jelloapocalypse‘s EXTREMELY WELL-OBSERVED COMMENT (If someone says they “never practice” it’s probably because they like doing the skill and see it as a fun use of their time instead of “practice”.) in a way that can be both invisible and give this kind of person a massive leg up while being really discouraging to someone who doesn’t have that wiring.  It doesn’t get to the actual original comic’s level of “oh I just started here”. But let’s take two people called Riley and Kennedy, and we’ll do singing, since that’s what I teach.  Riley and Kennedy have exactly the same kind of background: parents who listen to the radio sometimes, the usual social stuff around popular music of whatever genre, etc, but no formal training. Neither of them sings in a church choir, neither of them falls into a formal disability category, whatever.  The first time Riley shows up in my studio and we sing a really simple song I use as a diagnostic, she gets it mostly right. She can follow the tune; she can hear pitch, and it takes very little work for her to chivvy her voice into matching that pitch as long as there’s not something pulling her off. (In other words: as long as I’m singing the same notes as her and playing them on the piano, and as long a she can hear both herself and those notes).  For Riley the lesson is really fun and validating and she goes home and sings along to her own music for a while and comes back next week with six songs she wants to try learning. And most of her lessons are like that: pretty easy positive feedback. That means Riley “practices” a lot in exactly the way @jelloapocalypse describes, even if she doesn’t think she’s actually practicing (that is, sitting down to sing the songs we’re working on together in a systematic way) at all.  In contrast, the first time Kennedy comes to my studio, she struggles. It’s harder for her to hear the difference between notes, and it’s much harder for her to make her voice actually match the pitch she wants to sing at. When we pull out the diagnostic tune, she mostly manages to drone a few clusters of semi-tones, and while she can hear that she’s Off, it’s actually very hard for her to tell HOW she’s off, or what she should do to correct it.  In most cases, for Kennedy, lessons - and in fact the overall experience of singing - is not fun. It’s not validating. It’s a whole process of Not Being Good, of Doing Things Wrong, and given the way humans are often in casual situations being laughed at. When Kennedy goes home she doesn’t sing along with any music she plays: she keeps her lips pressed together and at best enjoys other people singing (and maybe feels envious and demeaned because she can’t do it).  Now the thing is, the practical “skill” difference for Riley and Kennedy here at the beginning is minimal. But the Rileys will tend (if they like what they’re doing) to ROCKET UP THE SKILL LEVEL, because of the “practice is fun so it’s just the thing I do” - because there is always a bunch of validation and positive reinforcement in the act of doing whatever it is, be it doodling or singing or math.  The Kennedys won’t. In fact if they’re not lucky enough to have a good teacher, and one who can put a lot of this into perspective for them, they will tend to be inhibited. The worst time is when a Riley and a Kennedy are friends and sign up to learn together, and Riley takes off and Kennedy’s left sitting there feeling like she’s somehow Deeply Flawed.   And in fact the whole Doctrine of “It’s Just About How Hard You Work” will in and of itself become part of what inhibits them, because they will watch the Rileys - and even the Annas, Anna in this metaphor being the Totally Normal Student who never really exists - grasp things faster than they do, even if they ARE working hard. And this will HAPPEN. They will watch this reality happen in front of them … and then people say to them “oh, it’s all about how hard you work, dear.” And it’s like being gaslit. (Well, to be fair: it IS being gaslit, just without malice intended on the part of the people doing it.)  And that message is horribly horribly toxic: here Kennedy is, and she IS working hard, but she’s still not progressing as fast as Riley or Anna no matter what she does! But it’s All About Hard Work, right? So that must mean that no matter how hard she THINKS she’s working, she’s actually just lazy, or doesn’t want it enough. It’s clearly a moral flaw in her.  I actually have, personally, really good luck with teaching the Kennedys because I literally have this conversation with them when they come to my studio. I actually outright tell them: firstly, anyone who has working vocal chords can sing. Anyone who has working vocal chords and the ability to distinguish audio pitch can even sing on key in tune! But some people have an easy time learning this and some people have a hard time, and sometimes which it is has some relationship to, say, “early exposure to music” or whatever but sometimes it seems to be utterly fucking random - pure luck of the draw.  You CAN SING. The capability is there. And if you want to we will find out how to make it happen. It might not happen as fast as for some other person, it might take more work, it might take more care, but that’s okay: that’s not your fault, that doesn’t mean you’re NOT working hard, but it does mean that here at the beginning we do things like recalibrate victories, we make your progress about YOU, not about Riley or Anna.  But I’m also not going to gaslight you or make you feel like you’re either delusional or somehow especially So Terrible You Don’t Fit In The Rest Of The World: sure, I’ve got some Riley-types who walk in here, noodle around, and we go on to Art Songs. They exist.  So what? Tall people exist. People with broad shoulders exist. People with dark hair exist. Physical embodiment and neurology hand out luck of the genetic roulette with no interest in outcomes. If you’re born blonde, it’s always going to take more work for you to have brown hair than someone born with brown hair, but much like dyeing your hair to match what you want, we can train the muscles of your voice and the neural pathways for hearing to do what you want.  The differences between Rileys and Kennedys are very small. If Riley didn’t discover she liked singing and Kennedy worked at it for years then no, Riley would not “start out” as good as Kennedy is after those years. And you can be Riley and if you DON’T do the fucking work, the Annas of the world especially will blast past you and leave you in the dust.  But on the other hand the Rileys get this wonderful cycle of positive reinforcement that does often start from a place of their coincidental physical embodiment giving them a slight leg up. And pretending that’s not the case does a big disservice to the Kennedys.  We just absolutely do need to reframe that for what it is (a tiny fundamental difference and then a HELL OF A LOT OF “this is fun so I practice more so I get more validation so I -” and more or less no moral meaning at all), what it doesn’t mean, and how to compensate for it. 
Anna, Brains, and Church: SKILL
 HARD
 WORK
 TO ACHIEVE A LEVEL
 OF SKILL IN ANYTHING
 YOU HAVE TO STAND ON
 A PILLAR OF HARD WORK.
 OH, I JUST
 STARTED
 HERE
 TALENT & I HARD
 WORK
 TALENTHARD
 WORK
 owLTURD.com
violent-darts:

charlesoberonn:

jelloapocalypse:

These bother me sometimes.
We all start as literal useless babies. No one gets a magic ticket that makes them better at anything. If someone says they “never practice” it’s probably because they like doing the skill and see it as a fun use of their time instead of “practice”.


I will qualify this a small but I think important amount, because what it is is actually complicated: 
Some people’s brains and nervous systems are wired for better hand-eye coordination. Some people’s brains and nervous systems are wired for better pattern recognition. Or translations of audio input. Or whatever. 
What this does is combine with @jelloapocalypse‘s EXTREMELY WELL-OBSERVED COMMENT (If someone says they “never practice” it’s probably because they like doing the skill and see it as a fun use of their time instead of “practice”.) in a way that can be both invisible and give this kind of person a massive leg up while being really discouraging to someone who doesn’t have that wiring. 
It doesn’t get to the actual original comic’s level of “oh I just started here”. But let’s take two people called Riley and Kennedy, and we’ll do singing, since that’s what I teach. 
Riley and Kennedy have exactly the same kind of background: parents who listen to the radio sometimes, the usual social stuff around popular music of whatever genre, etc, but no formal training. Neither of them sings in a church choir, neither of them falls into a formal disability category, whatever. 
The first time Riley shows up in my studio and we sing a really simple song I use as a diagnostic, she gets it mostly right. She can follow the tune; she can hear pitch, and it takes very little work for her to chivvy her voice into matching that pitch as long as there’s not something pulling her off. (In other words: as long as I’m singing the same notes as her and playing them on the piano, and as long a she can hear both herself and those notes). 
For Riley the lesson is really fun and validating and she goes home and sings along to her own music for a while and comes back next week with six songs she wants to try learning. And most of her lessons are like that: pretty easy positive feedback. That means Riley “practices” a lot in exactly the way @jelloapocalypse describes, even if she doesn’t think she’s actually practicing (that is, sitting down to sing the songs we’re working on together in a systematic way) at all. 
In contrast, the first time Kennedy comes to my studio, she struggles. It’s harder for her to hear the difference between notes, and it’s much harder for her to make her voice actually match the pitch she wants to sing at. When we pull out the diagnostic tune, she mostly manages to drone a few clusters of semi-tones, and while she can hear that she’s Off, it’s actually very hard for her to tell HOW she’s off, or what she should do to correct it. 
In most cases, for Kennedy, lessons - and in fact the overall experience of singing - is not fun. It’s not validating. It’s a whole process of Not Being Good, of Doing Things Wrong, and given the way humans are often in casual situations being laughed at. When Kennedy goes home she doesn’t sing along with any music she plays: she keeps her lips pressed together and at best enjoys other people singing (and maybe feels envious and demeaned because she can’t do it). 
Now the thing is, the practical “skill” difference for Riley and Kennedy here at the beginning is minimal. But the Rileys will tend (if they like what they’re doing) to ROCKET UP THE SKILL LEVEL, because of the “practice is fun so it’s just the thing I do” - because there is always a bunch of validation and positive reinforcement in the act of doing whatever it is, be it doodling or singing or math. 
The Kennedys won’t. In fact if they’re not lucky enough to have a good teacher, and one who can put a lot of this into perspective for them, they will tend to be inhibited. The worst time is when a Riley and a Kennedy are friends and sign up to learn together, and Riley takes off and Kennedy’s left sitting there feeling like she’s somehow Deeply Flawed. 
 And in fact the whole Doctrine of “It’s Just About How Hard You Work” will in and of itself become part of what inhibits them, because they will watch the Rileys - and even the Annas, Anna in this metaphor being the Totally Normal Student who never really exists - grasp things faster than they do, even if they ARE working hard. And this will HAPPEN. They will watch this reality happen in front of them … and then people say to them “oh, it’s all about how hard you work, dear.” And it’s like being gaslit. (Well, to be fair: it IS being gaslit, just without malice intended on the part of the people doing it.) 
And that message is horribly horribly toxic: here Kennedy is, and she IS working hard, but she’s still not progressing as fast as Riley or Anna no matter what she does! But it’s All About Hard Work, right? So that must mean that no matter how hard she THINKS she’s working, she’s actually just lazy, or doesn’t want it enough. It’s clearly a moral flaw in her. 
I actually have, personally, really good luck with teaching the Kennedys because I literally have this conversation with them when they come to my studio. I actually outright tell them: firstly, anyone who has working vocal chords can sing. Anyone who has working vocal chords and the ability to distinguish audio pitch can even sing on key in tune! But some people have an easy time learning this and some people have a hard time, and sometimes which it is has some relationship to, say, “early exposure to music” or whatever but sometimes it seems to be utterly fucking random - pure luck of the draw. 
You CAN SING. The capability is there. And if you want to we will find out how to make it happen. It might not happen as fast as for some other person, it might take more work, it might take more care, but that’s okay: that’s not your fault, that doesn’t mean you’re NOT working hard, but it does mean that here at the beginning we do things like recalibrate victories, we make your progress about YOU, not about Riley or Anna. 
But I’m also not going to gaslight you or make you feel like you’re either delusional or somehow especially So Terrible You Don’t Fit In The Rest Of The World: sure, I’ve got some Riley-types who walk in here, noodle around, and we go on to Art Songs. They exist. 
So what? Tall people exist. People with broad shoulders exist. People with dark hair exist. Physical embodiment and neurology hand out luck of the genetic roulette with no interest in outcomes. If you’re born blonde, it’s always going to take more work for you to have brown hair than someone born with brown hair, but much like dyeing your hair to match what you want, we can train the muscles of your voice and the neural pathways for hearing to do what you want. 
The differences between Rileys and Kennedys are very small. If Riley didn’t discover she liked singing and Kennedy worked at it for years then no, Riley would not “start out” as good as Kennedy is after those years. And you can be Riley and if you DON’T do the fucking work, the Annas of the world especially will blast past you and leave you in the dust. 
But on the other hand the Rileys get this wonderful cycle of positive reinforcement that does often start from a place of their coincidental physical embodiment giving them a slight leg up. And pretending that’s not the case does a big disservice to the Kennedys. 
We just absolutely do need to reframe that for what it is (a tiny fundamental difference and then a HELL OF A LOT OF “this is fun so I practice more so I get more validation so I -” and more or less no moral meaning at all), what it doesn’t mean, and how to compensate for it. 

violent-darts: charlesoberonn: jelloapocalypse: These bother me sometimes. We all start as literal useless babies. No one gets a magic ti...

Baby, It's Cold Outside, Christmas, and Definitely: Andrew Rannells @AndrewRannells I don't think any more people need to record Baby It's Cold Outside. I think we're good there girlwholovesturtles: bigbutterandeggman: teachingwithcoffee: It’s time to bring an end to the Rape Anthem Masquerading As Christmas Carol Hi there! Former English nerd/teacher here. Also a big fan of jazz of the 30s and 40s.  So. Here’s the thing. Given a cursory glance and applying today’s worldview to the song, yes, you’re right, it absolutely *sounds* like a rape anthem.  BUT! Let’s look closer!  “Hey what’s in this drink” was a stock joke at the time, and the punchline was invariably that there’s actually pretty much nothing in the drink, not even a significant amount of alcohol. See, this woman is staying late, unchaperoned, at a dude’s house. In the 1940’s, that’s the kind of thing Good Girls aren’t supposed to do — and she wants people to think she’s a good girl. The woman in the song says outright, multiple times, that what other people will think of her staying is what she’s really concerned about: “the neighbors might think,” “my maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” “there’s bound to be talk tomorrow.” But she’s having a really good time, and she wants to stay, and so she is excusing her uncharacteristically bold behavior (either to the guy or to herself) by blaming it on the drink — unaware that the drink is actually really weak, maybe not even alcoholic at all. That’s the joke. That is the standard joke that’s going on when a woman in media from the early-to-mid 20th century says “hey, what’s in this drink?” It is not a joke about how she’s drunk and about to be raped. It’s a joke about how she’s perfectly sober and about to have awesome consensual sex and use the drink for plausible deniability because she’s living in a society where women aren’t supposed to have sexual agency. Basically, the song only makes sense in the context of a society in which women are expected to reject men’s advances whether they actually want to or not, and therefore it’s normal and expected for a lady’s gentleman companion to pressure her despite her protests, because he knows she would have to say that whether or not she meant it, and if she really wants to stay she won’t be able to justify doing so unless he offers her an excuse other than “I’m staying because I want to.” (That’s the main theme of the man’s lines in the song, suggesting excuses she can use when people ask later why she spent the night at his house: it was so cold out, there were no cabs available, he simply insisted because he was concerned about my safety in such awful weather, it was perfectly innocent and definitely not about sex at all!) In this particular case, he’s pretty clearly right, because the woman has a voice, and she’s using it to give all the culturally-understood signals that she actually does want to stay but can’t say so. She states explicitly that she’s resisting because she’s supposed to, not because she wants to: “I ought to say no no no…” She states explicitly that she’s just putting up a token resistance so she’ll be able to claim later that she did what’s expected of a decent woman in this situation: “at least I’m gonna say that I tried.” And at the end of the song they’re singing together, in harmony, because they’re both on the same page and they have been all along. So it’s not actually a song about rape - in fact it’s a song about a woman finding a way to exercise sexual agency in a patriarchal society designed to stop her from doing so. But it’s also, at the same time, one of the best illustrations of rape culture that pop culture has ever produced. It’s a song about a society where women aren’t allowed to say yes…which happens to mean it’s also a society where women don’t have a clear and unambiguous way to say no. I will never get tired of people actually paying attention to the actual meaning of this song.
Baby, It's Cold Outside, Christmas, and Definitely: Andrew Rannells
 @AndrewRannells
 I don't think any more people
 need to record Baby It's Cold
 Outside. I think we're good there
girlwholovesturtles:

bigbutterandeggman:
teachingwithcoffee:
It’s time to bring an end to the Rape Anthem Masquerading As Christmas Carol
Hi there! Former English nerd/teacher here. Also a big fan of jazz of the 30s and 40s. 
So. Here’s the thing. Given a cursory glance and applying today’s worldview to the song, yes, you’re right, it absolutely *sounds* like a rape anthem. 
BUT! Let’s look closer! 
“Hey what’s in this drink” was a stock joke at the time, and the punchline was invariably that there’s actually pretty much nothing in the drink, not even a significant amount of alcohol. 
See, this woman is staying late, unchaperoned, at a dude’s house. In the 1940’s, that’s the kind of thing Good Girls aren’t supposed to do — and she wants people to think she’s a good girl. The woman in the song says outright, multiple times, that what other people will think of her staying is what she’s really concerned about: “the neighbors might think,” “my maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” “there’s bound to be talk tomorrow.” But she’s having a really good time, and she wants to stay, and so she is excusing her uncharacteristically bold behavior (either to the guy or to herself) by blaming it on the drink — unaware that the drink is actually really weak, maybe not even alcoholic at all. That’s the joke. That is the standard joke that’s going on when a woman in media from the early-to-mid 20th century says “hey, what’s in this drink?” It is not a joke about how she’s drunk and about to be raped. It’s a joke about how she’s perfectly sober and about to have awesome consensual sex and use the drink for plausible deniability because she’s living in a society where women aren’t supposed to have sexual agency.
Basically, the song only makes sense in the context of a society in which women are expected to reject men’s advances whether they actually want to or not, and therefore it’s normal and expected for a lady’s gentleman companion to pressure her despite her protests, because he knows she would have to say that whether or not she meant it, and if she really wants to stay she won’t be able to justify doing so unless he offers her an excuse other than “I’m staying because I want to.” (That’s the main theme of the man’s lines in the song, suggesting excuses she can use when people ask later why she spent the night at his house: it was so cold out, there were no cabs available, he simply insisted because he was concerned about my safety in such awful weather, it was perfectly innocent and definitely not about sex at all!) In this particular case, he’s pretty clearly right, because the woman has a voice, and she’s using it to give all the culturally-understood signals that she actually does want to stay but can’t say so. She states explicitly that she’s resisting because she’s supposed to, not because she wants to: “I ought to say no no no…” She states explicitly that she’s just putting up a token resistance so she’ll be able to claim later that she did what’s expected of a decent woman in this situation: “at least I’m gonna say that I tried.” And at the end of the song they’re singing together, in harmony, because they’re both on the same page and they have been all along.
So it’s not actually a song about rape - in fact it’s a song about a woman finding a way to exercise sexual agency in a patriarchal society designed to stop her from doing so. But it’s also, at the same time, one of the best illustrations of rape culture that pop culture has ever produced. It’s a song about a society where women aren’t allowed to say yes…which happens to mean it’s also a society where women don’t have a clear and unambiguous way to say no.


I will never get tired of people actually paying attention to the actual meaning of this song.

girlwholovesturtles: bigbutterandeggman: teachingwithcoffee: It’s time to bring an end to the Rape Anthem Masquerading As Christmas Carol H...

Food, Publix, and Target: thealaskanassassin: champagnebruja: hitthisandjustchill: motherofpalms: swagintherain: blackness-by-your-side: WORD. he does the job no one wants to do and then will be told that he’s stealing it. The driscolls boycott is still goin on And here are ways you can help farmworkers Donate to food chain workers alliance https://t.co/okIpzNoyEv Donate to United farm workershttps://t.co/HwgXdH4l7w Donate to farmworker justicehttps://t.co/O14KKMg7KE Donate/give supplies to migrant Farmworkers Assistance Fund https://t.co/ePbmNBVLMP Donate to center for Farmworker familieshttps://t.co/IReMpiEaq1 Donate to campaign for Migrant worker justice https://t.co/f2TV0Jqzd1 Donate to brandworkershttps://t.co/NhTNsUrbBw Donate to CIWhttps://t.co/uH5bUUGqwg Keep in mind that Publix and Wendy’s refuse to join the fair food program Reblogging again for the links for those of you who have not harvested/ or do not know harvesters: you HAVE to go as fast as you possibly can at every given minute. workers almost always forgo their break times. why? because the patrons set minimum daily quotas. if for example, you are picking grapes, the quota is 48 (21 pound) boxes of grapes for an 8 hour shift, or  1,000 pounds of grapes picked by just TWO PEOPLE. however if you only reach the minimum quota, the supervisors will threaten you by threatening to reduce your hours, or outright firing you. so any video you see of field workers moving mind-mindbogglingly fast are out of fear and necessity.  📢📢📢
Food, Publix, and Target: thealaskanassassin:

champagnebruja:

hitthisandjustchill:

motherofpalms:

swagintherain:

blackness-by-your-side:

WORD.

he does the job no one wants to do and then will be told that he’s stealing it.


The driscolls boycott is still goin on And here are ways you can help farmworkers
Donate to food chain workers alliance  https://t.co/okIpzNoyEv
Donate to United farm workershttps://t.co/HwgXdH4l7w
Donate to farmworker justicehttps://t.co/O14KKMg7KE
Donate/give supplies to migrant Farmworkers Assistance Fund https://t.co/ePbmNBVLMP
Donate to center for Farmworker familieshttps://t.co/IReMpiEaq1
Donate to campaign for Migrant worker justice https://t.co/f2TV0Jqzd1
Donate to brandworkershttps://t.co/NhTNsUrbBw
Donate to CIWhttps://t.co/uH5bUUGqwg
Keep in mind that Publix and Wendy’s   refuse to join the fair food program


Reblogging again for the links

for those of you who have not harvested/ or do not know harvesters:
you HAVE to go as fast as you possibly can at every given minute.
workers almost always forgo their break times. why? because the patrons set minimum daily quotas.
if for example, you are picking grapes, the quota is 48 (21 pound) boxes of grapes for an 8 hour shift, or  1,000 pounds of grapes picked by just TWO PEOPLE. however if you only reach the minimum quota, the supervisors will threaten you by threatening to reduce your hours, or outright firing you.
so any video you see of field workers moving mind-mindbogglingly fast are out of fear and necessity. 


📢📢📢

thealaskanassassin: champagnebruja: hitthisandjustchill: motherofpalms: swagintherain: blackness-by-your-side: WORD. he does the job ...

Being Alone, Apparently, and Children: lethal-cuddles: proxypunch: herwinnen: the-evil-lesbian: the-evil-lesbian: bookwormguri: the-evil-lesbian: I want everyone to watch this video. Philip DeFranco is talking about a YouTube channel called DaddyOFive, ran by a man blogging about his family’s everyday life and regularly uploading “prank” videos. This man and his wife prank each other and their children, who are also made to prank each other for more material they put into monetized videos. As you will see in this video, the way they treat their children (especially Cody, who I assume to be 7-9 years old) is outright horrid and abusive, though. Cody seems to be the only one of the children who gets visibly upset over his parents’ “pranks” fairly frequently, begging them to leave him alone and quit messing with him and yelling at them to stop.In the first clip that’s shown in DeFranco’s video, the parents pour invisible ink all over the floor and blame Cody for it, filming his reaction.He is shown yelling and crying, nearly panicking and insisting that he has nothing to do with it, but they don’t stop.Instead, they keep yelling and cursing at him at the top of their lungs, only to tell him and his brother that it’s “just a prank” once they stopped crying.Another clip shows the mother filming Cody and yelling at him for not being able to “take a joke”, manipulating him and putting all the blame on him instead of apologizing.They constantly follow him around with their camera, not giving him any personal space and filming as many of his reactions as possible to humiliate him in front of thousands of viewers.But it gets worse than that.A different clip shows the father pushing Cody face first into a bookshelf. He is then shown crying on his bed, with a bleeding nose, next to a blood-stained pillow.His father then claimed that it was “red ink” and that he simply had a scrape underneath his nose.On top of that, the man who runs this channel uploaded a video titled “BLOCKING ALL THE HATERS”, ranting about the people complaining about their videos and pointing out how horribly they treat their kids in front of his children, even making sure they listen to every word he says.In DeFranco’s video, it becomes obvious that they constantly manipulate, emotionally abuse and physically abuse their children, egging them on and keeping them under control by making them say things like: “At least you don’t hit us like most parents!” I encourage everyone to watch this video to get a better idea of the situation. If you can, that is. Social services have been called on this family before, but no consequences have followed I legit feel ill watching the short clips of the kids, but I still believe it should be broadcasted what pieces of garbage these parents are.Fuck them. Fuck them and their greedy fucking souls.Please please PLEASE do not watch the video if you are triggerd by any of the warnings. I personally am not, but even I found it incredibly hard and distrubing to watch. I felt the same way. I will never understand how parents can treat and manipulate their children this way and never feel remorse.Here’s an addition that shows just how much they terrorize them. They pretend to destroy their children’s possessions and laugh at their reactions. That alone is enough to leave deep scars on anyone’s mental health, especially a child’s.DeFranco mentioned that these people tend to terrorize Cody the most, but looking through their list of videos, I couldn’t believe just how many videos are about Cody.They obviously enjoy humiliating their kids, but to me, it seems like they’re intentionally abusing Cody the most for not playing along as much as they wish he did. I also feel like this is just another tactic to keep their children under control and have them play along.An indirect way of saying “Don’t be as whiny and difficult as Cody, or else we’ll treat you the same way.”When Cody yelled at them and said “You made me go through all this just for a stupid prank?!”, it broke my heart. These people don’t have a single shred of love or empathy for their children. Another addition:Apparently, they uploaded a video in which they made Cody think he was going to be put up for adoption, filming his reaction. As you can imagine, Cody was horrified, begging them to let him stay.Supporters of his parents have used his reaction to try and prove that their kids are happy, claiming that Cody wouldn’t have fought so hard to stay if he was unhappy with his family. Of course, Mike Martin (the father) reblogged the tweets defending him.These people publicly abuse and humiliate their children in exchange for money. That’s not an assumption, it’s a proven fact. It doesn’t matter whether the children are aware of the abuse or not, or how they feel about their parents’ “pranks”.Of course the thought of being taken away from your home and the family you’ve known for your whole life would terrify a child as young as Cody. Their parents have manipulated them into thinking that they’re lucky to live with them and pressured them to play along with their “pranks” for several years. They’ve made their children think that this kind of life is normal and that they have nothing to complain about. They don’t know any better.A child’s horrified reaction to the thought of being placed into a completely unfamiliar home consisting of strangers they think they’ll be forced to live with for the rest of their life is not proof that a child is not being abused.In fact, most children who live in abusive homes love their parents dearly and can’t imagine living without them because they are so emotionally dependent on them.Ignoring that is incredibly dangerous. Please share this. A lot of social media attention has helped before so why not help these children? Yeah no these aren’t pranks that’s just assholes wanting money I couldn’t watch past the first clip, this is just disgusting.How the fuck can people be this cruel!? Those poor kids!
Being Alone, Apparently, and Children: lethal-cuddles:

proxypunch:

herwinnen:


the-evil-lesbian:

the-evil-lesbian:

bookwormguri:

the-evil-lesbian:
I want everyone to watch this video. Philip DeFranco is talking about a YouTube channel called DaddyOFive, ran by a man blogging about his family’s everyday life and regularly uploading “prank” videos. This man and his wife prank each other and their children, who are also made to prank each other for more material they put into monetized videos. As you will see in this video, the way they treat their children (especially Cody, who I assume to be 7-9 years old) is outright horrid and abusive, though. Cody seems to be the only one of the children who gets visibly upset over his parents’ “pranks” fairly frequently, begging them to leave him alone and quit messing with him and yelling at them to stop.In the first clip that’s shown in DeFranco’s video, the parents pour invisible ink all over the floor and blame Cody for it, filming his reaction.He is shown yelling and crying, nearly panicking and insisting that he has nothing to do with it, but they don’t stop.Instead, they keep yelling and cursing at him at the top of their lungs, only to tell him and his brother that it’s “just a prank” once they stopped crying.Another clip shows the mother filming Cody and yelling at him for not being able to “take a joke”, manipulating him and putting all the blame on him instead of apologizing.They constantly follow him around with their camera, not giving him any personal space and filming as many of his reactions as possible to humiliate him in front of thousands of viewers.But it gets worse than that.A different clip shows the father pushing Cody face first into a bookshelf. He is then shown crying on his bed, with a bleeding nose, next to a blood-stained pillow.His father then claimed that it was “red ink” and that he simply had a scrape underneath his nose.On top of that, the man who runs this channel uploaded a video titled “BLOCKING ALL THE HATERS”, ranting about the people complaining about their videos and pointing out how horribly they treat their kids in front of his children, even making sure they listen to every word he says.In DeFranco’s video, it becomes obvious that they constantly manipulate, emotionally abuse and physically abuse their children, egging them on and keeping them under control by making them say things like: “At least you don’t hit us like most parents!” I encourage everyone to watch this video to get a better idea of the situation. If you can, that is. Social services have been called on this family before, but no consequences have followed
I legit feel ill watching the short clips of the kids, but I still believe it should be broadcasted what pieces of garbage these parents are.Fuck them. Fuck them and their greedy fucking souls.Please please PLEASE do not watch the video if you are triggerd by any of the warnings. I personally am not, but even I found it incredibly hard and distrubing to watch.

I felt the same way. I will never understand how parents can treat and manipulate their children this way and never feel remorse.Here’s an addition that shows just how much they terrorize them.
They pretend to destroy their children’s possessions and laugh at their reactions. That alone is enough to leave deep scars on anyone’s mental health, especially a child’s.DeFranco mentioned that these people tend to terrorize Cody the most, but looking through their list of videos, I couldn’t believe just how many videos are about Cody.They obviously enjoy humiliating their kids, but to me, it seems like they’re intentionally abusing Cody the most for not playing along as much as they wish he did. I also feel like this is just another tactic to keep their children under control and have them play along.An indirect way of saying “Don’t be as whiny and difficult as Cody, or else we’ll treat you the same way.”When Cody yelled at them and said “You made me go through all this just for a stupid prank?!”, it broke my heart. These people don’t have a single shred of love or empathy for their children.

Another addition:Apparently, they uploaded a video in which they made Cody think he was going to be put up for adoption, filming his reaction. As you can imagine, Cody was horrified, begging them to let him stay.Supporters of his parents have used his reaction to try and prove that their kids are happy, claiming that Cody wouldn’t have fought so hard to stay if he was unhappy with his family. Of course, Mike Martin (the father) reblogged the tweets defending him.These people publicly abuse and humiliate their children in exchange for money. That’s not an assumption, it’s a proven fact. It doesn’t matter whether the children are aware of the abuse or not, or how they feel about their parents’ “pranks”.Of course the thought of being taken away from your home and the family you’ve known for your whole life would terrify a child as young as Cody. Their parents have manipulated them into thinking that they’re lucky to live with them and pressured them to play along with their “pranks” for several years. They’ve made their children think that this kind of life is normal and that they have nothing to complain about. They don’t know any better.A child’s horrified reaction to the thought of being placed into a completely unfamiliar home consisting of strangers they think they’ll be forced to live with for the rest of their life is not proof that a child is not being abused.In fact, most children who live in abusive homes love their parents dearly and can’t imagine living without them because they are so emotionally dependent on them.Ignoring that is incredibly dangerous.

Please share this. A lot of social media attention has helped before so why not help these children? 


Yeah no these aren’t pranks that’s just assholes wanting money

I couldn’t watch past the first clip, this is just disgusting.How the fuck can people be this cruel!? Those poor kids!

lethal-cuddles: proxypunch: herwinnen: the-evil-lesbian: the-evil-lesbian: bookwormguri: the-evil-lesbian: I want everyone to watch t...

Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Facts: CBS News @CBSNews Possibility of more debates depends on Bernie Sanders' "tone," Clinton strategist says cbsn.ws/ 25t8xN.J futureprof09: c-bassmeow: thesanderstans: The Hillary camp is trying so hard to evade debates by calling Bernie sexist because they just don’t know what to do with their candidate who has the emotional range of a toaster oven and performs poorly when standing next to a real human. If she can’t handle Bernie’s “tone” how will she be able to handle Donald Trump’s? Also, It’s sad how Clinton usually takes up more time during the debates, twists Bernie’s record, outright has lied about her record or relevant facts, AND she is almost always allowed to go over her time yet she can’t handle the heat with Bernie. What she is essentially saying is “ do not criticize me; i am above you”. She does not care about the democratic process and she must hide behind “Obama’s legacy” and conflating any criticism of her with a right wing conspiracy and/or sexism in order to convince her followers. Bernie has been almost unnaturally respectful. ANY other politician would have capitalized on the fact that she might be indicted for her emails yet he REFUSED  to attack her on that.  She has been one of the most condescending people this entire election cycle like 2008. don’t be sexist! ;) 
Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Facts: CBS News
 @CBSNews
 Possibility of more debates
 depends on Bernie Sanders' "tone,"
 Clinton strategist says cbsn.ws/
 25t8xN.J
futureprof09:

c-bassmeow:

thesanderstans:

The Hillary camp is trying so hard to evade debates by calling Bernie sexist because they just don’t know what to do  with their candidate who has the emotional range of a toaster oven and performs poorly when standing next to a real human.

If she can’t handle Bernie’s “tone” how will she be able to handle Donald Trump’s?

Also, It’s sad how Clinton usually takes up more time during the debates, twists Bernie’s record, outright has lied about her record or relevant facts, AND she is almost always allowed to go over her time yet she can’t handle the heat with Bernie. What she is essentially saying is “ do not criticize me; i am above you”. She does not care about the democratic process and she must hide behind “Obama’s legacy” and conflating any criticism of her with a right wing conspiracy and/or sexism in order to convince her followers. Bernie has been almost unnaturally respectful. ANY other politician would have capitalized on the fact that she might be indicted for her emails yet he REFUSED  to attack her on that. 

She has been one of the most condescending people this entire election cycle like 2008.


don’t be sexist! ;) 

futureprof09: c-bassmeow: thesanderstans: The Hillary camp is trying so hard to evade debates by calling Bernie sexist because they just ...