brainsplurge:

Art dump? Art dump.

Reblog for the morning crowd.

Art dump? Art dump.

Idea for a two-volume book series:

  • Book one: a life-affirming story about pretentious teens with superiority complexes who have experiences and give nauseatingly quotable musings on philosophy and what it means to be alive, which often involves their enjoyment of books and tea and their condescending view of the popular kids as sheep
  • Book two: the same exact story, except this time it's being narrated by the teacher who has to deal with these asshole kids on a daily basis but is legally barred from saying "are you fucking kidding me" when they say some pretentious bullshit about how they prefer the smell of old books to the taste of alcohol. The teacher is re-telling the story to her friend at the bar, and her friend refuses to accept that these children could POSSIBLY be as pretentious as she makes them sound

Kinda surprised folks are pissed by the ending to the latest paradox space.

They’re trolls. Casual shittiness to each other is pretty commonplace. Hell Terezi’s done similar to those around her for no less reason than boredom. It may be a little out of character for Dave to initiate it and the pacing needed work but… this level of upset seems disproportionate.

“I’m not rich, but…” This is something only rich people say or ever think to say. I had never heard it before I started spending time with the wealthy.

The Ways We Don’t Talk About Wealth, wherein an escort writes about money.

Bonus:

“Who do they think donates to all the charities?” one of my conservative clients said when complaining about those who complain about our country’s outrageous income gap. I did not assume the Herculean task of explaining to him that some citizens dream of a world in which their health and sustenance wouldn’t depend on the sporadic mercy of the affluent.

(via sirken)

(via obstinatecurator)

myflawedfairytale:

So, yesterday one of my followers sent me a message asking me to explain feminism to him. Oh boy, did that question make me nervous. Not because I can’t tell you a definition of my own movement, but because there are so many branches of feminism and some of them are full of truly horrible people and hence there is a good chance that anyone asking you to explain feminism on tumblr does so to take a screenshot of your answer and attack you on their blog, but I tried anyway because he seemed nice and genuinely interested.
This is what I wrote:
———————————————————————————————————
Just in case you don’t know the dictionary definition:
feminism -noun [U] /ˈfem.ɪ.nɪ.zəm/

the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way


the set of activities intended to achieve this state

So far so good, right? I honestly doubt that many people would disagree with this idea in theory (with the exception of crazy misogynists). But now you probably think ‘If the whole thing is just about women having the same rights as men, isn’t this like searching for something you’ve already found, aren’t we equal already?’ We kind of are, assuming that you live in a Western country, but then we’re really not.
3rd and 4th wave feminism, which is the majority of what you see on this site isn’t so much about changing laws so women can vote/work/etc, as it is about changing people’s attitudes about traditional (or patriarchal if you want to call them that) gender roles, respect, and in some cases (although those are extremely hard to find on tumblr, which is embarrassing to no end) about helping women in regions of the world where they do not have basic human rights to this day.
Some key concepts/ideas/myths/bullshit of feminism as you’ll encounter it on tumblr:
Patriarchy:
Feminism usually defines patriarchy as an unfair social system that is oppressive to women.
It encompasses most of the ideas below, such as gender roles, rape culture, slut-shaming, and so on. The only problem I have with this is that it implies that all injustices between genders are exclusively the men’s fault. I think women contribute equally to everything that is going wrong there, and hence ‘patriarchy’, which is Greek for ‘the rule of the father’ is a terrible name for this concept.
Gender Roles:
Masculinity and femininity are social constructs no one should be forced to adhere to. Men should be able to be stay at home dads and nurses and hairdressers and cry and be scared of spiders without being called a ‘failure’ or ‘whipped’ or ‘gay’, and girls should be able to be engineers and terrible cooks and construction workers and not give a shit about their looks without anyone calling them a ‘bitch’ or a ‘dyke’ or ‘manly’. Also, if a girl wants to wear make up and shave and be a housewive with children and bake a dozen cupcakes a day, that is fine and doesn’t make her any less of a feminist or more of a slave of patriarchy than anyone else (although some radfems* might disagree with me on that, ‘internalised misogyny’ and such *sighs*).
Basically… just don’t force your stereotypes on how anyone should act on them and let them decide who they want to be and we’re good.
Wage Gap:
Probably my biggest problem with modern feminism, because I totally fell for it. I’m sure that if you’re American, you’ve heard Obama say that it’s a huge problem that full time working women still make 23% less money than their male counterparts. That is true.
Sounds like oppression and sexism on a large scale and gives you a bit of a WTF-moment right there, doesn’t it? When I first heard that I was in 9th grade economy class and I was disgusted and angry and didn’t bother to check the facts on this for a long time. Like up until a few months ago.
Thing is, it is not a fair comparison. We’re not comparing women and men working the same hours in the exact same job here. Everything over 35 hours/week counts as full-time and men in the States work on average 5 hours/week more than women. Both count as full time, both are part of this statistic. Also, there are still huge disparities between the jobs men and women tend to choose, because men are usually more willing to work under uncomfortable circumstances, doing dangerous and physically straining jobs and travel a lot while lots of women go into safe and in some cases terribly underpaid but more social professions. I’m not sure if this particular difference is more damaging to men or women, since guys get all the dangerous high stress factor shit and are pressured into being the provider their entire lives and women end up being underpaid and discouraged from becoming anything technical or political, but oh well.
Also men are more likely to equate their self-worth with their professional success while women tend to define themselves by their social standing (again, a gender roles thing), so they tend to be more competitive and ask for promotions much more frequently.
In any case, the wage gap as most people imagine it is a myth.
Slut-shaming:
Thinking of women as lesser beings if they’re not the virginal type. As in saying ‘She wears short skirts and showed her boobs on the internet and she had sex with 10 guys since I met her, what a skank, what a whore, who would ever want to date that!’ and high-fiveing you best friend because he banged a different girl every night for the last 7 days ‘Perfect week, bro!’
Promiscuity is fine as long as you don’t hurt anyone physically or emotionally (as in STIs, cheating, mind games, etc) and calling women sluts is childish and stupid and if you think a woman is ‘dirty’ after you touched her, you probably should have washed your hands.
Oh, this is also part of the rape culture thing.
Side note: The word ‘slut’ is being redefined by my generation to lose its derogatory implications and become a symbol of someone who is a lover of sexual pleasures and is liberal enough to indulge those desires on her own terms. Girls who call themselves sluts usually embrace the term as something positive.
Objectification:
The difference between appreciating someone’s beauty and attractiveness and objectifying them is the difference between ‘boobs and butts’ and ‘tits and asses’. It’s respect for the person behind the image.
Objectification is writing about the murder of a model like this: 
and this 
not mentioning her name but putting her on the cover in a bikini and making dumb sexual innuendoes about something that is far from fun and sexy.
It’s also risking a model’s physical health to take a picture of her standing half naked on a mountain when it’s -20°F and the rest of the crew is fully clothed and wearing warm jackets until she passes out and loses her eyesight and hearing. Happened to Kate Upton for this: 
(I stole these two examples from the lovely feminist bluesigma**, who probably doesn’t agree with me on everything. So if you’re going to hate me, do not hate her for something I’ve said.)
Side note: Radfems* like to make objectification a part of rape culture ‘stare rape’, which I think is utter bullshit and trivialises the reality of psychologically damaging sexual assault.
Rape Culture:
Not a term invented by feminists, originally it referred to the way rape is condoned and seen as normal in American prisons. ‘You don’t want to be anyone’s girlfriend, do you?’ Hysterically funny (not really) cop jokes. Pretty sure you’ve heard some of those if you’ve ever seen a crime show.
But hey, the linguistic river never stops flowing and we change definitions of things all the time, so here’s the feminist rape culture idea:
Let’s say you’re a girl and you have been raped at a party, then you report the guy and the cops start asking questions. Of course they have to do that, it has to be proven like any other crime after all. The thing is, they do not ask you what happened, they ask you what you were wearing and what you were drinking and if you flirted with him. If your answer to those questions is something revealing, anything alcoholic and yes, your case is as good as lost, because apparently you were ‘asking for it’.
'He held you down and forced himself on you? Totally fine if you ever sent him a picture of your boobs, you’re a slut and probably enjoyed it anyway… really, what is the problem, it’s just snuggle struggle.' Ha, the hilarious rape jokes again.
And in some cultures, the virginity of a girl is so important that you risk being killed if someone finds out you were raped, so reporting it is completely out of the question. Then there is also the totally ok idea that women are murderers for having abortions after they were raped to get rid of the little souvenir that grows inside of them reminding them of what might have been the most traumatic thing they have ever experienced. And rapists can usually sue for shared custody of the child they created.
Oh, and rape victims get grilled like criminals during their trials, while the convicted rapists tend to go to jail for a shorter amount of time than internet activists or people who didn’t pay their taxes.
And don’t even get me started on the ‘she likes it rough’ argument in court when you have physical proof.
Side note: Crazy radfems* like to say that women can’t rape because it’s only rape if there is penetration and forget that there are literally all sorts of things you can shove into people. Also, the penetration thing is bullshit, forcing anyone to have sex with you without their consent is rape. The idea that men can’t get raped is a little less common even among radfems*, but equally stupid and sexist.
Abortion:
This is a pretty US-centric problem since few countries in Europe seriously considered making abortions illegal for decades***. Important nonetheless. I’m a philosophy student, so my opinions on abortions and the moral status of an embryo have more to do with ethics and metaphysics than with feminism, but I suppose very few people would agree with me on that. Tumblr activists tend to see the pro-life position as white republican men trying to oppress women by forcing them to have babies and valuing the life of a fetus more than its mother’s. Not true, pro-life and pro-choice opinions are pretty evenly distributed among genders, although there might be some truth to the assumption that most pro-lifers are religious/Republicans.
Misandry: 
Not officially a part of feminism, but unfortunately there are branches of my movement in which ‘smash the patriarchy’ turned into ‘kill all men’. You know, ‘let’s stop misogyny by hating an entire gender and now that science has evolved this much, we can have babies without them anyway. Also, men obviously can’t be feminists, since they’re the oppressors… all of them, at all times.’
Very much vengeful irrational sexist thinking, very unproductive, very bad for our reputation, very ‘I want to shake them and make them sit in the naughty corner until they have come back to their senses’. And sadly, very teenage tumblr activism.
Side note: Some feminists think that misandry is not a thing and doesn’t affect men. It is and it does. More than you know.
The friend-zoned fedora wearing cishet white neckbeard nice-guy virgin:
'CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE, MATE! NO UTERUS, NO OPINION!'
I jest, I joke, I kid. It’s a popular strawman for every MRA (men’s rights activist) or more generally any man who disagrees with or questions tumblr feminism. Because attacking them for their supposed virginity and choice of clothing just makes us so much better than slut-shaming men *facepalm*
Also, the friendzone…. only a problem if the friend-zoned person actually thinks they are entitled to date you because they were nice to you. Most people who were rejected by someone they like don’t think that way. They might be hurt, sad and disappointed and not want to be around you and be your friend for awhile because of that reason, not because they think that if they can’t fuck you, you’re a bitch.
And nice guys do not finish last, girls are not exclusively into assholes. Nice guys always get the girl in the end, provided they have more going for them than just being ‘nice’.
———————————————————————————————————
*I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but I am far from agreeing with some of those things. People who are very very much into all of them are called radical feminists, or radfems… or, in some cases, hypocritical sexist bitches (my 2 cents right there).
**I strongly recommend you all follow her and read her Feminism Master Post. 
***Ireland had a complete ban on abortions until very recently and that is terrible and wrong. When I wrote this post, I didn’t know about that, but you can read a little bit more about it here.
Lastly, DO NOT JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR ANY OF THIS. Research it yourself. There are tons of studies and statistics out there and I, as well as any other feminist, anti-feminist, egalitarian, MRA, and everyone else who will post something on feminism on this site, am not a completely objective source. Don’t let me be your only one.

This was a very sensible, well thought out bit on modern feminism and it made me smile.

myflawedfairytale:

So, yesterday one of my followers sent me a message asking me to explain feminism to him. Oh boy, did that question make me nervous. Not because I can’t tell you a definition of my own movement, but because there are so many branches of feminism and some of them are full of truly horrible people and hence there is a good chance that anyone asking you to explain feminism on tumblr does so to take a screenshot of your answer and attack you on their blog, but I tried anyway because he seemed nice and genuinely interested.

This is what I wrote:

———————————————————————————————————

Just in case you don’t know the dictionary definition:

feminism -noun [U] /ˈfem.ɪ.nɪ.zəm/

  1. the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way

  2. the set of activities intended to achieve this state

So far so good, right? I honestly doubt that many people would disagree with this idea in theory (with the exception of crazy misogynists). But now you probably think ‘If the whole thing is just about women having the same rights as men, isn’t this like searching for something you’ve already found, aren’t we equal already?’ We kind of are, assuming that you live in a Western country, but then we’re really not.

3rd and 4th wave feminism, which is the majority of what you see on this site isn’t so much about changing laws so women can vote/work/etc, as it is about changing people’s attitudes about traditional (or patriarchal if you want to call them that) gender roles, respect, and in some cases (although those are extremely hard to find on tumblr, which is embarrassing to no end) about helping women in regions of the world where they do not have basic human rights to this day.

Some key concepts/ideas/myths/bullshit of feminism as you’ll encounter it on tumblr:

Patriarchy:

Feminism usually defines patriarchy as an unfair social system that is oppressive to women.

It encompasses most of the ideas below, such as gender roles, rape culture, slut-shaming, and so on. The only problem I have with this is that it implies that all injustices between genders are exclusively the men’s fault. I think women contribute equally to everything that is going wrong there, and hence ‘patriarchy’, which is Greek for ‘the rule of the father’ is a terrible name for this concept.

Gender Roles:

Masculinity and femininity are social constructs no one should be forced to adhere to. Men should be able to be stay at home dads and nurses and hairdressers and cry and be scared of spiders without being called a ‘failure’ or ‘whipped’ or ‘gay’, and girls should be able to be engineers and terrible cooks and construction workers and not give a shit about their looks without anyone calling them a ‘bitch’ or a ‘dyke’ or ‘manly’. Also, if a girl wants to wear make up and shave and be a housewive with children and bake a dozen cupcakes a day, that is fine and doesn’t make her any less of a feminist or more of a slave of patriarchy than anyone else (although some radfems* might disagree with me on that, ‘internalised misogyny’ and such *sighs*).

Basically… just don’t force your stereotypes on how anyone should act on them and let them decide who they want to be and we’re good.

Wage Gap:

Probably my biggest problem with modern feminism, because I totally fell for it. I’m sure that if you’re American, you’ve heard Obama say that it’s a huge problem that full time working women still make 23% less money than their male counterparts. That is true.

Sounds like oppression and sexism on a large scale and gives you a bit of a WTF-moment right there, doesn’t it? When I first heard that I was in 9th grade economy class and I was disgusted and angry and didn’t bother to check the facts on this for a long time. Like up until a few months ago.

Thing is, it is not a fair comparison. We’re not comparing women and men working the same hours in the exact same job here. Everything over 35 hours/week counts as full-time and men in the States work on average 5 hours/week more than women. Both count as full time, both are part of this statistic. Also, there are still huge disparities between the jobs men and women tend to choose, because men are usually more willing to work under uncomfortable circumstances, doing dangerous and physically straining jobs and travel a lot while lots of women go into safe and in some cases terribly underpaid but more social professions. I’m not sure if this particular difference is more damaging to men or women, since guys get all the dangerous high stress factor shit and are pressured into being the provider their entire lives and women end up being underpaid and discouraged from becoming anything technical or political, but oh well.

Also men are more likely to equate their self-worth with their professional success while women tend to define themselves by their social standing (again, a gender roles thing), so they tend to be more competitive and ask for promotions much more frequently.

In any case, the wage gap as most people imagine it is a myth.

Slut-shaming:

Thinking of women as lesser beings if they’re not the virginal type. As in saying ‘She wears short skirts and showed her boobs on the internet and she had sex with 10 guys since I met her, what a skank, what a whore, who would ever want to date that!’ and high-fiveing you best friend because he banged a different girl every night for the last 7 days ‘Perfect week, bro!’

Promiscuity is fine as long as you don’t hurt anyone physically or emotionally (as in STIs, cheating, mind games, etc) and calling women sluts is childish and stupid and if you think a woman is ‘dirty’ after you touched her, you probably should have washed your hands.

Oh, this is also part of the rape culture thing.

Side note: The word ‘slut’ is being redefined by my generation to lose its derogatory implications and become a symbol of someone who is a lover of sexual pleasures and is liberal enough to indulge those desires on her own terms. Girls who call themselves sluts usually embrace the term as something positive.

Objectification:

The difference between appreciating someone’s beauty and attractiveness and objectifying them is the difference between ‘boobs and butts’ and ‘tits and asses’. It’s respect for the person behind the image.

Objectification is writing about the murder of a model like this:

and this

not mentioning her name but putting her on the cover in a bikini and making dumb sexual innuendoes about something that is far from fun and sexy.

It’s also risking a model’s physical health to take a picture of her standing half naked on a mountain when it’s -20°F and the rest of the crew is fully clothed and wearing warm jackets until she passes out and loses her eyesight and hearing. Happened to Kate Upton for this:

(I stole these two examples from the lovely feminist bluesigma**, who probably doesn’t agree with me on everything. So if you’re going to hate me, do not hate her for something I’ve said.)

Side note: Radfems* like to make objectification a part of rape culture ‘stare rape’, which I think is utter bullshit and trivialises the reality of psychologically damaging sexual assault.

Rape Culture:

Not a term invented by feminists, originally it referred to the way rape is condoned and seen as normal in American prisons. ‘You don’t want to be anyone’s girlfriend, do you?’ Hysterically funny (not really) cop jokes. Pretty sure you’ve heard some of those if you’ve ever seen a crime show.

But hey, the linguistic river never stops flowing and we change definitions of things all the time, so here’s the feminist rape culture idea:

Let’s say you’re a girl and you have been raped at a party, then you report the guy and the cops start asking questions. Of course they have to do that, it has to be proven like any other crime after all. The thing is, they do not ask you what happened, they ask you what you were wearing and what you were drinking and if you flirted with him. If your answer to those questions is something revealing, anything alcoholic and yes, your case is as good as lost, because apparently you were ‘asking for it’.

'He held you down and forced himself on you? Totally fine if you ever sent him a picture of your boobs, you’re a slut and probably enjoyed it anyway… really, what is the problem, it’s just snuggle struggle.' Ha, the hilarious rape jokes again.

And in some cultures, the virginity of a girl is so important that you risk being killed if someone finds out you were raped, so reporting it is completely out of the question. Then there is also the totally ok idea that women are murderers for having abortions after they were raped to get rid of the little souvenir that grows inside of them reminding them of what might have been the most traumatic thing they have ever experienced. And rapists can usually sue for shared custody of the child they created.

Oh, and rape victims get grilled like criminals during their trials, while the convicted rapists tend to go to jail for a shorter amount of time than internet activists or people who didn’t pay their taxes.

And don’t even get me started on the ‘she likes it rough’ argument in court when you have physical proof.

Side note: Crazy radfems* like to say that women can’t rape because it’s only rape if there is penetration and forget that there are literally all sorts of things you can shove into people. Also, the penetration thing is bullshit, forcing anyone to have sex with you without their consent is rape. The idea that men can’t get raped is a little less common even among radfems*, but equally stupid and sexist.

Abortion:

This is a pretty US-centric problem since few countries in Europe seriously considered making abortions illegal for decades***. Important nonetheless. I’m a philosophy student, so my opinions on abortions and the moral status of an embryo have more to do with ethics and metaphysics than with feminism, but I suppose very few people would agree with me on that. Tumblr activists tend to see the pro-life position as white republican men trying to oppress women by forcing them to have babies and valuing the life of a fetus more than its mother’s. Not true, pro-life and pro-choice opinions are pretty evenly distributed among genders, although there might be some truth to the assumption that most pro-lifers are religious/Republicans.

Misandry:

Not officially a part of feminism, but unfortunately there are branches of my movement in which ‘smash the patriarchy’ turned into ‘kill all men’. You know, ‘let’s stop misogyny by hating an entire gender and now that science has evolved this much, we can have babies without them anyway. Also, men obviously can’t be feminists, since they’re the oppressors… all of them, at all times.’

Very much vengeful irrational sexist thinking, very unproductive, very bad for our reputation, very ‘I want to shake them and make them sit in the naughty corner until they have come back to their senses’. And sadly, very teenage tumblr activism.

Side note: Some feminists think that misandry is not a thing and doesn’t affect men. It is and it does. More than you know.

The friend-zoned fedora wearing cishet white neckbeard nice-guy virgin:

'CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE, MATE! NO UTERUS, NO OPINION!'

I jest, I joke, I kid. It’s a popular strawman for every MRA (men’s rights activist) or more generally any man who disagrees with or questions tumblr feminism. Because attacking them for their supposed virginity and choice of clothing just makes us so much better than slut-shaming men *facepalm*

Also, the friendzone…. only a problem if the friend-zoned person actually thinks they are entitled to date you because they were nice to you. Most people who were rejected by someone they like don’t think that way. They might be hurt, sad and disappointed and not want to be around you and be your friend for awhile because of that reason, not because they think that if they can’t fuck you, you’re a bitch.

And nice guys do not finish last, girls are not exclusively into assholes. Nice guys always get the girl in the end, provided they have more going for them than just being ‘nice’.

———————————————————————————————————

*I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but I am far from agreeing with some of those things. People who are very very much into all of them are called radical feminists, or radfems… or, in some cases, hypocritical sexist bitches (my 2 cents right there).

**I strongly recommend you all follow her and read her Feminism Master Post

***Ireland had a complete ban on abortions until very recently and that is terrible and wrong. When I wrote this post, I didn’t know about that, but you can read a little bit more about it here.

Lastly, DO NOT JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR ANY OF THIS. Research it yourself. There are tons of studies and statistics out there and I, as well as any other feminist, anti-feminist, egalitarian, MRA, and everyone else who will post something on feminism on this site, am not a completely objective source. Don’t let me be your only one.

This was a very sensible, well thought out bit on modern feminism and it made me smile.

(via captain-wobbles)

theleakypen:

nikkidubs:

k2e4:

bregma:

kevinrfree:

charlienight:

commanderbishoujo:

bogleech:

prokopetz:

johnlockinthetardiswithdestiel:

truthandglory:

assbanditkirk:

whoa canada
someone needs to turn down that sass level

Two things to know about Canada!
We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
We are sorry if you don’t

fun story about the reason they do that (at least in America)
once this lady spilled her McDonald’s coffee on herself and ended up getting like 3rd degree burns and since there was no warning on the cup she was able to claim she didn’t know it would be hot (or at least that hot) and won a lawsuit against McDonald’s for $1 million

That’s what the media smear campaign against her would have you believe, anyway. The truth of the matter is that the McDonald’s in question had previously been cited - on at least two separate occasions - for keeping their coffee so hot that it violated local occupational health and safety regulations. The lady didn’t win her lawsuit because American courts are stupid; she won it because the McDonald’s she bought that coffee from was actively and knowingly breaking the law with respect to the temperature of its coffee at the time of the incident.
(I mean, do you have any idea what a third-degree burn actually is? Third-degree burns involve “full thickness” tissue damage; we’re talking bone-deep, with possible destruction of tissue. Can you even imagine how hot that cup of coffee would have to have been to inflict that kind of damage in the few seconds it was in contact with her skin?)

Yeah I’m tired of people joking about either the “stupid” woman who didn’t know coffee was hot or the “greedy” woman making up bullshit to get money.
She was hideously injured by hideous irresponsibility, it was an absolutely legitimate lawsuit and the warning on the cups basically allows McDonalds to claim no responsibility even if it happens again. Every other company followed suit to cover their asses.
So they can still legally serve you something that could sear off the end of your tongue or permanently demolish the front of your gums and just give you a big fat middle finger in court. “The label SAID it would be HOT, STUPID.”

obligatory reblog for the great debunking of the usual ignorance spouted about this case
obligatory mention that the media smear campaign to twist teh facts on this case and get public opinion against the victim was deliberate and fueled by the right wing tort reform movement
it was seized upon to limit the rights of consumers to hold giant corporations accountable for wrongdoing
watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it lays out all of the facts and examines the response to this case and explains why everything you think you know about this case is bullshit, and explains why tort reform is bullshit in an entertaining and informative manner

The woman injured in Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants was 79 years old at the time of her injuries, and suffered third-degree burns to the pelvic region (including her thighs, buttocks, and groin), which in combination with lesser burns in the surrounding regions caused damage to an area totaling a whopping 22% of her body’s surface. These injuries that required two years of intensive medical care, including multiple skin grafts; during her hospitalization, Stella Liebeck lost around 20% of her starting body weight.
She was uninsured and sued McDonald’s Restaurants for the cost of her past and projected future medical care, an estimated $20,000. The corporation offered a settlement of $800, a number so obviously ridiculous that I’m not even going to dignify it with any further explanation.
The settlement number most often quoted is not the amount that the corporation actually paid; the jury in the first trial suggested a payment equal to a day or two of coffee revenues for McDonald’s, which at the time totaled more than $1 million per diem. The judge reduced the required payout to around $640,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages, and the case was later settled out of court for less than $600,000.
Keep in mind that at the time, McDonald’s already had over 700 cases of complaints about coffee-related burns on file, but continued to sell coffee heated to nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit (around 90 degrees Celsius) as a means of boosting sales (their selling point was that one could buy the coffee, drive to a second location such as work or home, and still have a piping hot beverage). This in spite of the fact that most restaurants serve coffee between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 71 degrees Celsius), and many coffee experts agree that such high temperatures are desirable only during the brewing process itself.
The Liebeck case was absolutely not an example of litigation-happy Americans expecting corporations to cover their asses for their own stupidity, but we seem determined to remember it that way. It’s an issue of liability, and the allowable lengths of capitalism, and even of the way in which our society is incredibly dangerous for and punitive towards the uninsured, but it was not and is not a frivolous suit. Please check your assumptions and do your research before you turn a burn victim’s suffering into a throwaway punchline.

#don’t fricking get me started on Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants the level of misinformation floating around is staggering#I know that it’s an older case but it still makes me really mad that people treat it as this big dumb thing?#the fact that the media took a serious case and turned it into what it is to us today should piss people off#the level of distortion of facts is astonishing and upsetting and nobody seems to hear about it?#sorry I’m done I just#it upsets me when a legal travesty like this is just dragged out for some#’haha americans are sOOOOOOOo dumb!!1!’ humor#I MEAN GODDAMN IF YOU’RE GOING TO MAKE FUN OF AMERICANS AT LEAST MAKE FUN OF US WITH FACTS OKAY

jesus, i actually didn’t know about any of this, thanks for clearing that up

So someone mentioned the documentary Hot Coffee, which I watched just last night, and I want to share some tidbits with you: 
In the US, people’s right to sue has been getting steadily eroded and things like making people believe the hot coffee case were frivolous are part of it. That’s how they get people to actually vote for limitations on their own rights to sue, or for caps on damages, when in fact ‘tort reform’ laws usually end up, e.g., reducing the amount you can get in a malpractice suit.
And there’s also a lot of sneaky shit like people unknowingly signing away their right to sue in the fine print (or being told they have in a ‘supplementary package’ of fine print delivered to them AFTER they signed the contract), and ending up in ‘binding mandatory arbitration’. You’ve probably signed dozens of contracts like this, e.g., for your cellphone and credit card. You have basically ‘agreed’ that is you have any dispute for any reason you cannot sue for damages, you have to have a secret meaning with an arbitrator hired by the person / entity that harmed you to act as judge.
There was some really striking examples in the documentary. One was a kid born with severe brain damage because he wasn’t delivered properly, resulting in oxygen deprivation for about 8 minutes during birth; professional estimates for his cost of living (including numerous surgeries and physical therapy, starting at just one year old) for the rest of his life was about $6 million. The jury awarded $5.6. That’s doable, right?Well, except in that state (Nebraska) there was an award cap of $1.25 million, which, after paying legal bills and the already accrued medical expenses, left the kid with just a few hundred thousand. So, he’s now on medicaid to pay for his therapy, surgeries, and basic living expenses. The cost of his treatment has basically been transferred to the taxpayer, and should anything happen to his parents they have no idea what would happen to him or who would take care of him.Another was a Haliburton employee who went to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Miss Jamie Leigh Jones. (Warning for the next paragraph: discussion of rape.)Long story short: she was lied to about her accommodations and ended up housed in barrack with 400 men. She was sexually harassed and threatened. She complained about it, twice, and was told she’d ‘get over it’. She ended up being drugged and gang raped. She needed reconstructive surgery for anal and vaginal tearing. What do you think happened next?
She was locked in a shipping container with two armed guards for days, until one of them, out of sympathy and in defiance of orders, let her borrow his cellphone. She called her father who called some congressman and got her out of there.
She then spent 4 years fighting for her day in court, because unbeknownst to her she’d signed a binding mandatory arbitration agreement. She was 19 when all of this happened.
So, conclusion: the myth of frivolous lawsuits is kinda like the myth of the welfare queen. There have probably been a few that occurred sometime, somewhere, sure, but I bet you’d be hard-pressed to find them. Most people who file a suit have damn good reasons, and if they don’t the suit usually gets thrown out of court by a judge before they even waste time assembling a jury.(Oh, another bit of shady shit discussed in the movies: big businesses trying to influence judge elections, or defame / dethrone already elected judges, if it seems they’re actually in favour of the common people’s right to civil litigation. During Judge Oliver Diaz’s election, he was subject to a massive, multi-million dollar smear campaign. When he won anyway, he was subject to another smear campaign: because a friend had co-signed a loan with him, he was accused of accepting a bribe, even though he had never presided on any case having to do with this friend or his law firm. In effect, his reputation was ruined and he couldn’t get elected again. This was not an isolated incident.)
Meanwhile, laws and ‘reforms’ to curb ‘litigation abuse’ do more harm than good. If you hear a politician talking about ‘lawsuit lotteries’ and a need for ‘tort reform’, think of Reagan talking about ‘welfare queens’; think about how the vast majority of people on welfare do, desperately, need it.
What we’re really looking at is people eroding our social safety net, because they’re lucky / wealthy enough to view it as inconvenient.

I will never not reblog this when it shows up on my dashboard.

Every time this shows up on my dash there is more (and worse) information. I’m so angry about corporations in this country.

theleakypen:

nikkidubs:

k2e4:

bregma:

kevinrfree:

charlienight:

commanderbishoujo:

bogleech:

prokopetz:

johnlockinthetardiswithdestiel:

truthandglory:

assbanditkirk:

whoa canada

someone needs to turn down that sass level

Two things to know about Canada!

  1. We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
  2. We are sorry if you don’t

fun story about the reason they do that (at least in America)

once this lady spilled her McDonald’s coffee on herself and ended up getting like 3rd degree burns and since there was no warning on the cup she was able to claim she didn’t know it would be hot (or at least that hot) and won a lawsuit against McDonald’s for $1 million

That’s what the media smear campaign against her would have you believe, anyway. The truth of the matter is that the McDonald’s in question had previously been cited - on at least two separate occasions - for keeping their coffee so hot that it violated local occupational health and safety regulations. The lady didn’t win her lawsuit because American courts are stupid; she won it because the McDonald’s she bought that coffee from was actively and knowingly breaking the law with respect to the temperature of its coffee at the time of the incident.

(I mean, do you have any idea what a third-degree burn actually is? Third-degree burns involve “full thickness” tissue damage; we’re talking bone-deep, with possible destruction of tissue. Can you even imagine how hot that cup of coffee would have to have been to inflict that kind of damage in the few seconds it was in contact with her skin?)

Yeah I’m tired of people joking about either the “stupid” woman who didn’t know coffee was hot or the “greedy” woman making up bullshit to get money.

She was hideously injured by hideous irresponsibility, it was an absolutely legitimate lawsuit and the warning on the cups basically allows McDonalds to claim no responsibility even if it happens again. Every other company followed suit to cover their asses.

So they can still legally serve you something that could sear off the end of your tongue or permanently demolish the front of your gums and just give you a big fat middle finger in court. “The label SAID it would be HOT, STUPID.”

obligatory reblog for the great debunking of the usual ignorance spouted about this case

obligatory mention that the media smear campaign to twist teh facts on this case and get public opinion against the victim was deliberate and fueled by the right wing tort reform movement

it was seized upon to limit the rights of consumers to hold giant corporations accountable for wrongdoing

watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it lays out all of the facts and examines the response to this case and explains why everything you think you know about this case is bullshit, and explains why tort reform is bullshit in an entertaining and informative manner

The woman injured in Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants was 79 years old at the time of her injuries, and suffered third-degree burns to the pelvic region (including her thighs, buttocks, and groin), which in combination with lesser burns in the surrounding regions caused damage to an area totaling a whopping 22% of her body’s surface. These injuries that required two years of intensive medical care, including multiple skin grafts; during her hospitalization, Stella Liebeck lost around 20% of her starting body weight.

She was uninsured and sued McDonald’s Restaurants for the cost of her past and projected future medical care, an estimated $20,000. The corporation offered a settlement of $800, a number so obviously ridiculous that I’m not even going to dignify it with any further explanation.

The settlement number most often quoted is not the amount that the corporation actually paid; the jury in the first trial suggested a payment equal to a day or two of coffee revenues for McDonald’s, which at the time totaled more than $1 million per diem. The judge reduced the required payout to around $640,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages, and the case was later settled out of court for less than $600,000.

Keep in mind that at the time, McDonald’s already had over 700 cases of complaints about coffee-related burns on file, but continued to sell coffee heated to nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit (around 90 degrees Celsius) as a means of boosting sales (their selling point was that one could buy the coffee, drive to a second location such as work or home, and still have a piping hot beverage). This in spite of the fact that most restaurants serve coffee between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 71 degrees Celsius), and many coffee experts agree that such high temperatures are desirable only during the brewing process itself.

The Liebeck case was absolutely not an example of litigation-happy Americans expecting corporations to cover their asses for their own stupidity, but we seem determined to remember it that way. It’s an issue of liability, and the allowable lengths of capitalism, and even of the way in which our society is incredibly dangerous for and punitive towards the uninsured, but it was not and is not a frivolous suit. Please check your assumptions and do your research before you turn a burn victim’s suffering into a throwaway punchline.

jesus, i actually didn’t know about any of this, thanks for clearing that up

So someone mentioned the documentary Hot Coffee, which I watched just last night, and I want to share some tidbits with you: 

In the US, people’s right to sue has been getting steadily eroded and things like making people believe the hot coffee case were frivolous are part of it. That’s how they get people to actually vote for limitations on their own rights to sue, or for caps on damages, when in fact ‘tort reform’ laws usually end up, e.g., reducing the amount you can get in a malpractice suit.

And there’s also a lot of sneaky shit like people unknowingly signing away their right to sue in the fine print (or being told they have in a ‘supplementary package’ of fine print delivered to them AFTER they signed the contract), and ending up in ‘binding mandatory arbitration’. You’ve probably signed dozens of contracts like this, e.g., for your cellphone and credit card. You have basically ‘agreed’ that is you have any dispute for any reason you cannot sue for damages, you have to have a secret meaning with an arbitrator hired by the person / entity that harmed you to act as judge.

There was some really striking examples in the documentary. One was a kid born with severe brain damage because he wasn’t delivered properly, resulting in oxygen deprivation for about 8 minutes during birth; professional estimates for his cost of living (including numerous surgeries and physical therapy, starting at just one year old) for the rest of his life was about $6 million. The jury awarded $5.6. That’s doable, right?

Well, except in that state (Nebraska) there was an award cap of $1.25 million, which, after paying legal bills and the already accrued medical expenses, left the kid with just a few hundred thousand. So, he’s now on medicaid to pay for his therapy, surgeries, and basic living expenses. The cost of his treatment has basically been transferred to the taxpayer, and should anything happen to his parents they have no idea what would happen to him or who would take care of him.

Another was a Haliburton employee who went to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Miss Jamie Leigh Jones. (Warning for the next paragraph: discussion of rape.)

Long story short: she was lied to about her accommodations and ended up housed in barrack with 400 men. She was sexually harassed and threatened. She complained about it, twice, and was told she’d ‘get over it’. She ended up being drugged and gang raped. She needed reconstructive surgery for anal and vaginal tearing. What do you think happened next?

She was locked in a shipping container with two armed guards for days, until one of them, out of sympathy and in defiance of orders, let her borrow his cellphone. She called her father who called some congressman and got her out of there.

She then spent 4 years fighting for her day in court, because unbeknownst to her she’d signed a binding mandatory arbitration agreement. She was 19 when all of this happened.

So, conclusion: the myth of frivolous lawsuits is kinda like the myth of the welfare queen. There have probably been a few that occurred sometime, somewhere, sure, but I bet you’d be hard-pressed to find them. Most people who file a suit have damn good reasons, and if they don’t the suit usually gets thrown out of court by a judge before they even waste time assembling a jury.

(Oh, another bit of shady shit discussed in the movies: big businesses trying to influence judge elections, or defame / dethrone already elected judges, if it seems they’re actually in favour of the common people’s right to civil litigation. During Judge Oliver Diaz’s election, he was subject to a massive, multi-million dollar smear campaign. When he won anyway, he was subject to another smear campaign: because a friend had co-signed a loan with him, he was accused of accepting a bribe, even though he had never presided on any case having to do with this friend or his law firm. In effect, his reputation was ruined and he couldn’t get elected again. This was not an isolated incident.)

Meanwhile, laws and ‘reforms’ to curb ‘litigation abuse’ do more harm than good. If you hear a politician talking about ‘lawsuit lotteries’ and a need for ‘tort reform’, think of Reagan talking about ‘welfare queens’; think about how the vast majority of people on welfare do, desperately, need it.

What we’re really looking at is people eroding our social safety net, because they’re lucky / wealthy enough to view it as inconvenient.

I will never not reblog this when it shows up on my dashboard.

Every time this shows up on my dash there is more (and worse) information. I’m so angry about corporations in this country.

pr1nceshawn:

Masculine Ways to Do Feminine Things by Dave Mercier.

(via faisdm)