A #webcomic page I quickly sketched out while I get ready to go visit my dad in the hospital, inspired by some in-shells in my mentions whining out the same nonsensical arguments for why #gender based #censorship against so-called "female npls" should remain the status quo. First of all, "sksual organs" only applies to the parts actually involved in procreation; the term you're looking for is "erogenous zones," which can apply to ANY gender's npl, as well as lips, ear, knee, elbow, foot, whatever... It depends on the person, and is absolutely not limited to "people who look female." in addition to that, the argument that "female npls must remain banned from public and online because men are attracted to them" is the most asinine argument and I don't understand how (besides #misogyny) anyone can say this with a straight face?? You think straight women and gay men aren't equally as turned on by MALE chests?
It continues to amaze me how, for all our supposed progress towards #equality in other regards, especially #lgbt / #queer issues, top free #inequality remains this one US issue that continues unquestioned and unacknowledged by the vast majority of Americans, even so-called leftists. YOU ARE SAYING IF SOMEONE "LOOKS FEMALE," THEN THEY DESERVE LESS RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES THAN SOMEONE WHO "LOOKS MALE." HOW ARE YOU OKAY WITH THIS?!?
Don't fool yourself: It's mostly just about family connections and pure randomness.
#Capitalism#Liberalism#Philosophy#MoralPhilosophy#Inequality#Poverty: "Rawls thinks agents designing a society from behind the veil of ignorance might nevertheless allow some inequality, in exchange for greater economic efficiency. But in navigating such tradeoffs they’d be guided by the principle that inequalities need to earn their keep by (a) making the better-off positions available to every qualified applicant under conditions of meaningful equality of opportunity and (b) only allowing inequalities, even inequalities that satisfy condition (a), when whoever is worst off would still be better off than they would be under a more equal alternative.
The resulting loophole for acceptable inequalities is much narrower than many readers of Rawls over the decades have realized. Rawls himself, who certainly wasn’t a radical firebrand by personal inclination, had reluctantly come to realize by the end of his life that even a form of capitalism modified by a generous welfare state couldn’t meet his demanding standard.
Meanwhile, one of Rawls’s most important critics, the Marxist philosopher G. A. Cohen, argued that even this loophole was too large for it to be appropriate to call any arrangement that passed Rawls’s test “justice.” Cohen acknowledged that economic efficiency matters, for much the same reason Rawls thought it did — the standard of living of even the lower classes — but he thought we should keep a more demanding notion of egalitarian justice as our north star."
While we often appreciate the economic forces & structures that cause & reinforce poverty, this report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation focusses on how stigma is keeping the poor, poor.
Among its recommendations is to stop designating the disabled & unpaid carers as 'economically inactive' while also rejecting the characterisation of low-paid work as 'unskilled'.
We should/must reject the narrative of the wealthy about the rest of us!
Child poverty is not an intractable problem; policy has been key in both its expansion & is how we can tackle it.
Again, the last fifteen years may not have been the only cause of a social problem but have compounded it & in many cases have seen policy choices intended to make things worse for the vulnerable.
After the election we need to see a sea change in socio-political attitudes & actions... whether we will is another issue altogether!
#Austerity#Populism#Europe#Globalization#Inequality: "Governments have repeatedly adjusted fiscal policy in recent decades. We examine the political effects of these adjustments in Europe since the 1990s using both district-level election outcomes and individual-level voting data. We expect austerity to increase populist votes, but only among economically vulnerable voters, who are hit the hardest by austerity. We identify economically vulnerable regions as those with a high share of low-skilled workers, workers in manufacturing and in jobs with a high routine-task intensity. The analysis of district-level elections demonstrates that austerity increases support for populist parties in economically vulnerable regions, but has little effect in less vulnerable regions. The individual-level analysis confirms these findings. Our results suggest that the success of populist parties hinges on the government's failure to protect the losers of structural economic change. The economic origins of populism are thus not purely external; the populist backlash is triggered by internal factors, notably public policies."