Hey everyone. Everyone is constantly complaining about the fake news, and how nobody ever does anything. I've got something we can do. Anyone can do it, and if enough of us do it, it WILL have a noticeable impact.

In January, a bunch of retarded apes bought calls on GME, and this massive call buying sent GME to the moon. Most of these fake news companies are owned by phone companies. Companies that are publicly traded. AT&T owns CNN. Comcast owns MSNBC. So we can employ the inverse tactic. If we all buy a bunch of puts on these companies, it will send their stocks cratering, and hurt them where it actually counts. Right in the wallet.

I was playing Guitar Hero at an arcade recently. On the song I was playing, some madlad had filled the leader board with T2020 as the name. Guys, we need to start hitting the arcades.

Fill the envelope with a dick pic, take their cash, and give them the dick pic envelope. They don't know what's inside, and won't until it's opened.

Is Abortion Morally Wrong?

To answer the question of the morality of abortion, several other questions must first be addressed. Among them are the following: At what stages does life begin? At what stage is that life considered human? Under what conditions is taking another human life morally wrong? Only after answering these questions can the issue of abortion be addressed.

Biology defines multicellular life as the following: Possessing DNA and engaging in the process of cellular division. That life is further considered to be alive if the cells are performing the process of cellular respiration. Human life that is alive, therefore, can be defined as “a body of cells containing human DNA undergoing cellular division and performing cellular respiration”. These conditions are met from the moment of conception. After conception, the cells carry unique DNA, containing 21 chromosome pairs that are actively dividing. As such, after conception, this group of cells can scientifically be considered as “alive human life”. Whether or not this life can be considered as sapient, or possessing moral value, is a separate question. 

Regardless of the answer to this question, it is clear that unborn children possess potential sapience. In a period of less than a year, they will be capable of eating, crapping, and movement. They will then rapidly develop, gaining a sense of awareness. For this reason, they must possess at least as much moral value as a person on life support, in a coma. It can also be argued they possess more value. The reason that this can be argued is that there is a guaranteed date that they will awaken, and start becoming more independent. As this certainty is not present for someone in a coma, it can be said that the unborn child possesses more moral value than the person in the coma. There are many different philosophies when it comes to justifiably taking a life. Most of them permit the taking of non sapient life as long as it is beneficial and not wasteful. Evidence of this is the entire farming industry. If this taking of non sapient life was recognized by society as not being permissible, it is highly doubtful that we would be able to produce the amount of food needed to sustain the population. On the taking of sapient life, the philosophies are more divided. Most of them conditionally permit the taking of sapient life, with variance to the conditions that must be met. Very few permit non conditional taking of sapient life. A collectivist society might view any taking permissible, as long as either the removal was seen as either a benefit to society, or as not a detriment to the society. An example of this utilitarian framework can be seen in the society of Nazi Germany. In the 1940s, the Nazis had judged certain people, among them being the mentally disabled, the elderly, the crippled, among others, as net detriments to society. Among the charges leveled against them were possessing inferior DNA, being a waste of finances, being a waste of food, being an idiot, among others. Most of these can be summed up by a simpler charge: Being an undesirable that is too costly to look after. The Nazi solution to this problem was Aktion T-4. Under the guise of treatment, these people would be sent to certain hospitals, among them Hadamar, Harthiem, Bernburg, and Brandenburg, to be exterminated via carbon monoxide and lethal injection. Many of the people who staffed these hospitals, such as Franz Stangl, Franz Suchomel, and Christian Writh, would later go on to serve at the Aktion Reinhard extermination camps of Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. These camps served much the same purpose as the hospitals, only more secret, and on a far larger scale. I would argue that abortion is highly similar, the primary difference being the location. In both situations, you have a case of targeted elimination. In both cases, the primary justifications are ones of either convenience or eliminating undesirables. Take Iceland as an example. In Iceland a test was developed that could test for down syndrome. These tests could be administered before the child was born. In the following years, the rate of children born with down syndrome fell by nearly 100%. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/ Most societies, ours being among them, have soundly rejected elimination of undesirables as a solution to the problem of being a drain on resources. For this reason, I too must reject it. Almost all philosophies permit the taking of life for the reason of self defense however. If an operation needs to be performed to save the life of the mother, but also threatens the life of the child, allowing the child to die for the sake of performing the operation can be argued as an act of self defense. Therefore, this can be argued as a permissible reason for abortion. In conclusion, an unborn child can be considered to be an alive human with moral value, and as such, abortions are morally wrong. However, if it must be done to save the life of the mother, an exception can be made.

My teacher has granted me the privilege of being able to analyze our President's inauguration speech as the topic for an English composition. If any of you can point me to previously done pieces, that I could use as a guide for improving my work, I would be grateful.

Social implies Group

Justice implies Judgement

Social Justice = Group Judgement.

Haven't we just spent 60 years telling people to NOT do this?

Cleaning: The Final Feminist Frontier

Why men still don’t do their share of the dirty work.

Jessica Grose/March 18, 2013/The New Republic

The day after Hurricane Sandy, my husband had cabin fever and was desperate to go for a walk. We had been trapped in our apartment for 36 hours. Here was the rub. His father was about to come over, and our living room was strewn with shut-in detritus: magazines, beef jerky wrappers, and empty soup cans. Even though I was eight months pregnant, I insisted we tidy up. My husband argued that his dad didn’t care if our place was a bit messy, but it’s really hard to fight with a massively pregnant person who is hanging up jackets and washing dishes.

When it comes to housekeeping, my basically modern, egalitarian marriage starts looking more like the backdrop to an Updike short story. My husband and I both work. We split midnight baby feedings. My husband would tell you that he does his fair share of the housework, but if pressed, he will admit he’s never cleaned our bathroom, that I do the dishes nine times out of ten, and that he barely knows how the washer and dryer work in the apartment we’ve lived in for over eight months. Sure, he changes the light bulbs and assembles the Ikea furniture, but he’s never scrubbed a toilet in the six years we’ve lived together.

This is not just our issue. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 55 percent of American mothers employed full time do some housework on an average day, while only 18 percent of employed fathers do. Even if you control for the fact that moms with full-time jobs tend to work fewer hours than dads with full-time jobs (as studies have), working women with children are still doing a week and a half more of “second shift” work each years than their male partners.(1)

Furthermore, when you look at the granular data from time-use studies, the housework men actually do is both more gendered and less frequent than the housework women do. Father do slightly more lawn care than moms—11 percent of working dads are out mowing the lawn on an average day compared to 6.4 percent of working moms. So that means dads are out clipping the hedges on sunny Saturdays, while moms are the ones doing the drudgery of vacuuming day in and day out. And this isn’t solely an American phenomenon. Even in the famously gender-neutral Sweden, women do 45 minutes more housework a day than their male partners.

To be fair, men do far more cleaning now than they did in the Eisenhower era. But when you look at the advances women have made in getting men to share other domestic tasks—childcare, cooking—cleaning is still very much women’s work though it’s worth noting that men still don’t do as much childcare and cooking as women do. The fact that it’s more than ok—cool even—for men to take on pretty much any domestic tasks but cleaning is everywhere in wider culture. Louis C.K., one of the most popular stand-ups in the country, has constructed his entire identity around fatherhood and is still seen as masculine and hilarious. Ben Affleck is photographed carting his two daughters around a Los Angeles farmers market and the world swoons. There is a new magazine Kindling Quarterly that looks like an Anthropologie catalog and bills itself as an “exploration of fatherhood.” Anthony Bourdain, Momofuku’s David Change and the Voltaggio brothers of “To Chef” fame have made cooking synonymous with trash mouths and tattoos. Men with brawny arms host butchering classes in Middle America and Popular Mechanics has written a beginners guide to brewing beer.

Which is all to say, it’s seen as socially admirable and masculine for a man to be on diaper duty or to sous-vide a steak, but there are no closet organizing tips in the pages of Esquire, no dishwasher detergent ads in the pages of GQ. Considering the strides that have been made in getting men to share the labor in other traditionally female domestic areas, why has cleaning remained the final frontier?

At its most basic, a reason why a lot of men don’t want to clean is obvious: it’s not fun. The rewards of the other two traditionally female household tasks—childhood and cooking—are palpable. Your kid’s smile, a delicious meal. But not so with cleaning. Drew Magary, a Deadspin columnist and the author of the forthcoming parent memoir Someone Could Get Hurt, says that men will never take the initiative and clean without being asked “because it sucks.” Indeed, when sociologists Judith Treas and Tsui-o-Tai looked at household task hierarchies among men in 32 different countries, they found that men all over the world will forego laundry over all other traditionally female tasks—they’re much more likely to care for a sick spouse or child or go grocery shopping.

But this is only a very partial explanation. Disaggregating all the factors that go into making women more inclined to clean than men is a headachey, complex, chicken-egg, nature-nurture project. But looking at some of the practical reasons and the theories behind this disparity might just give us some of the tools to shift it.

To start, nearly all of the ads for cleaning products feature women and are designed to appeal to women. According to a 2008 study from the University of New Hampshire, only about 2 percent of commercials featuring men showed them doing domestic tasks. Even Tide, which has recently featured a stay-at-home dad in a few commercials, uses ads that emphasize the dad part rather than the cleaning part—like this one, where a father is sweetly washing his daughter’s favorite princess dress. Ads like that, according to P&G North America Fabric Care Brand Manager, Matthew Krehbiel, are meant to appeal to the 17 percent of men who are the primary grocery shoppers and launderers. But that’s a small slice of the overall market, and so it makes sense that it’s not the marketer’s priority. This aspect of cultural messaging is a self-perpetrating tautology: The vast majority of detergent purchasers are women, and so marketers feature more women in the ads.

In a phone interview, Arlie Hochschild, the author of The Outsourced Self and the foundational feminist text on women and housework, The Second Shift, makes the argument that a women’s desire for a clean house has deeper origins than just marketing. Cleaning, Hochschild says, is not simply physical work. It’s emotional work. “Letting the house go is in a way letting something deeper go. .. You get a sense of safety in an orderly home.” Hochschild says.

But assuming both parties care about creating a sense of safety in the home, why does it fall to women? I suspect that women are more driven to keep a clean house because they know

they—before their male partners—will be judged for having a dirty one. When I lived with two female roommates, I was much more of a slob. None of us was particularly responsible for the emotional tone of the apartment—no single one of us was more likely to be shunned for the state of our bathroom. But when I got married, the dust bunnies hopping across our floor started seeming like a personal affront. Although it was my husband’s father coming over, I was the one who insisted we clean. I was worried I would be judged for the beef jerky wrappers (on both aesthetic and gustatory grounds), despite the fact that my father-in-law has never once made a peep about the state of our abode. Somewhere lodged within me was the message that it was my responsibility.

Unfortunately, the notion that women will be the first to be judged for a messy home and the first to be commended for an orderly one isn’t much of an incentive for men to pick up the mop. In the instances in which men actually do the majority of the housework in their partnerships, women are still the ones getting credit. David Michael Perez, the publisher and editor of Kindling Quarterly, says that though he does more decorating and cleaning than his spouse does, “often when people say ‘Your house is nice,’ it’s directed more at his wife.” If they’re not even going to be rewarded for it, why bother at all?

With all these obstacles to real gender parity of chores, what’s a working woman to do? Philosophy professor Alexandra Bradner suggests on the Atlantic website that couples sit down with a list of questions like, “Do I do half of the laundry and half of the dishes every day?” to figure out where they’re slacking off in comparison to their mate. This sounds exhausting and impractical. If I do one load of laundry, it’s easier for me to do the second rather than wait for my husband to mosey over. (Bradner also says that when men do traditionally female chores, they’re enacting “small instances of gender heroism, or ‘SIGHs’—which, barf.”)

I’m much more inclined to take the advice of Jenny Anderson, the co-author of It’s Not You, It’s the Dishes, which applies economic theory to household tasks. A lot of women shoo their husbands away from cleaning because they know the men will do a sub-par job of scrubbing the sink. Anderson says you should divide up tasks according to the economic theory of comparative advantage. Let’s say a woman is twice as good as her husband at doing laundry, but only 20 percent better than husband at doing the dishes. In that couple, the husband should always do the dishes. What’s more, he’ll get better at it through repetition.

Another solution is for women to lower their filth thresholds. Did I really need to clean up the house for my father-in-law? Would he have cared if there were a few glasses sitting out on the kitchen table? Probably not. But it’s harder to stomach this fix once you have children, when the threat of a Fisher Price plastic hell-scape is perpetually around the corner. One of the women I interviewed for this piece, who doesn’t want to publicly shame her husband, said that when she came home after a weekday night out, it was so messy that it looked like she had 40 kids instead of two. If she had left the living room like that, it wouldn’t have been very hygiene modeling for her kids (and, at some point, might get social services called).

One last suggestion comes from Magary, who so emphatically declared that cleaning sucks: make cleaning more fun. He says that when the Swiffer first came on the market, it was sort of enticing. (Swiffer reps said they had no information to share with me about men and cleaning.) “We like gadgets and stuff,” Magary explains, “If there was some new electronic hovering Apply product that cleaned the bathroom, “I’d try it.” Are you listening out there in Cupertino? You have a huge, untapped market on your hands for toilet-scrubbing iPods. I bet my husband would buy one.

“Second Shift” was a term popularized by Arlie Hochschild in her book, The Second Shift, to refer to the extra child care and housekeeping women do after they get home from the office (the first shift).

What a fucking joke lol