Creative Pooping

Eat information, defecate ideas.

luxtempestas:

but could we just take a moment to imagine Eren as Bambi

image

image

image

image

image

(via tinkerbullshit)

repel’s-effect-wore-off.jpg

filenames:

repel's-effect-wore-off.jpg

(via harrington1200)

How to finish that last minute assignment

the-girlwhowasonfire:

cjshark:

prettyflyforaredspy:

ruemex:

disgruntledota:

leetakeuchi:

imageimageimageimageimage

I can not count the number of times this trick has saved my ass.

And people say Tumblr doesn’t teach you life skills…

this will come in handy one day

ATTENTION GRADUATING CLASS OF 2013: COLLEGE SURVIVAL 101

Reblogging for future reference..

Reblogging so my followers pester me every day until I find out how to detect this and release the information to the public.

(Source: gamerspirit, via tinkerbullshit)

raginrayguns said: No, it was clear you weren't justifying it. It sounded like you were trying to explain it, but I don't think you did. You can't explain the appeal of war with more war, that's like trying to explain why people get pet dogs by saying that sometimes dogs have puppies. You could just as easily use that as an "explanation" for why everyone really wants pet public lice

Okay, I see that.

Perhaps a better answer would be that the point of all that global hegemony is that the US is paranoid about keeping its own internal and external policy objectives secure from an international order which might hypothetically oppose them.

If you are wondering why it is so paranoid about this, well, the simple answer is that the US just doesn’t like internationalism, especially when it isn’t led by it. There are quite a few reasons for this, which go deep into the depths of American history and philosophy, which I have relatively small inferential distance from, which is why my previous answers were not well-formed.

raginrayguns said: "Unchallengeable global hegemony for the purpose of maintaining the ability of unilateral US action anywhere, anytime. Duh." That's circular. You're saying the military is there so that the military can always be used. Wars are fought so that later wars can be fought. What's the benefit of unilateral US action anywhere, anytime?

I wasn’t justifying it. Sorry if that was unclear.

actualvampireang:

do you ever find a list on wikipedia and you’re kind of like “i’m not sure why i’m surprised to discover this list is on wikipedia”?

In 2006, maybe. Now I’m just not surprised.

actualvampireang:

do you ever find a list on wikipedia and you’re kind of like “i’m not sure why i’m surprised to discover this list is on wikipedia”?

In 2006, maybe. Now I’m just not surprised.

(via cyborgbutterflies)

confused by the us military

michaelblume:

raginrayguns:

shlevy:

raginrayguns:

it’s really expensive but I’m not really sure what it’s for

from what I know of history, it seems that many militaries are for making business easier: setting up favorable trade agreements, defending property in foreign countries and defending shipping. Like the war with Columbia for the Panama Canal, the installation of the Shah in Iran to avoid nationalization of British-owned oil, and the exclusive trade agreements with colonies under mercantilism. And in the Cold War, communist governments had more trade with the USSR and capitalist more with the USA, correct? Plus, the US couldn’t own land and resources and companies in communist countries.

but then there’s lots of stuff that seems more for, idk, being compassionate. Like US support of Israel, whatever you personally think of it, a lot ofpeople think of it as a compassionate act. Well, that also has trade benefits; I’m thinking of how US financial support for the Iron Dome is conditional on Israel contracting a lot of the work to the US and sharing some of the secret technology behind it. So that’s a bad example, maybe

"what is it for" is a bit of an overloaded question I think. Do you mean "what does it accomplish" or "what do its leaders intend it to accomplish" or "what did its creators intend for it to accomplish" or "what would it accomplish in an ideal world" or something else?

why does it keep getting big heaps of money to do its thing? So for each person involved in the decision to give it big heaps of money, what benefit do they expect from it?

EDIT: THough that’s what I meant by “what is it for”, “what is it for” is not really the question I wanted to ask. What I really wanted to know is what effects it has on the world, and whether each of those effects are good or bad, so that I can decide later whether to accept military contracts/military grants

There is a popular theory that it keeps getting heaps of money to do its thing because the people who get paid all the money to build all the weapons and stuff are donating money to/buying nice dinners for the congresscritters who approve the defense spending

Unchallengeable global hegemony for the purpose of maintaining the ability of unilateral US action anywhere, anytime. Duh.

Though our air superiority fighters are probably overkill.

fnord888:

eccentric-opinion:

When rich people leave a neighborhood, it’s white flight. When they move into a neighborhood, it’s gentrification.

Falling rents are bad because they attract low-rent people. Rising rents are bad because they make life more difficult for us.

There’s no pleasing some people.

First they said inflation is bad. Now they say deflation is bad. There’s just no pleasing some people.

I mean, I agree that some of the lefty/social justicey memes surrounding housing are poorly thought out. But do you think you might be excluding a middle there?

One could say that a problem with charging rents on inhabiting land in general is a tendency for the system to be unstable, causing population movement. Population movement is bad for the moved population, because they have to pay the costs of reorganizing their lives. Population movement is bad for the original inhabitants, because xenophobia and political demographic shifts.

The “solution” to this was to subsidize house-buying…

ozymandias271:

judging from his writing about sex, c s lewis clearly has some kind of Fucked Up Sexual Issues

but for the life of me I can’t figure out what

at some point I need to sit down with a person and a copy of Screwtape and the Four Loves and maybe the Letters and just go ?????? until we figure it out’

seriously. what is the thing with beards 

Literally that Moral Orel episode where he has wet dreams about Jesus?