I LOVE PUNCHING
WHY WAS I UNAWARE OF THE FACT THAT “DISGRUNTLED” IS, IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE OF “GRUNTLED”
WHY DOES NOBODY USE THIS WORD
NFL Linebacker suspended for using Hamon on fellow players. Coach Lisa Lisa leaves game furious.
no context needed
glub-on-it said: are you writing an essay on bourne identity
Nope, Safe (1995). I swear I’m being rused here because apparently some doctor named Safe published a medical study the same year about the same phenomenon that surrounds the plot of the film (health problems due to modern widespread pollutants).
Ah yes, the title of your film is a single, extremely common noun and occasional surname. My ability to find analytical articles as references for an essay is now greatly hampered. Good job, fucko.
i actually think the whole model of a petition that has to reach a certain number of signatures and then ~something vague will happen!~ is really harmful
i’m not against petitions in general, honest to god i’m not. but in my understanding, apart from this model, there are basically two types of petition:
- petitions that are judged to be successful once the thing they’re petitioning for has actually happened. example: residents petition their regional manager of post office operations not to close their tiny local post office. the petition is successful when it’s announced that the post office will not be closed, regardless of the number of signatures collected.
- petitions that are judged to be successful once they’ve reached a certain number of signatures, but only because that will trigger something to actually happen, usually by law. example: someone wants their proposed state law or constitutional amendment (such as prop 8) to be put on the ballot for a statewide vote in california, so (after formally drafting their law and requesting a title and summary of it from the attorney general) they circulate a petition proposing it. once that petition reaches 504,760 signatures (for a normal law) or 807,615 signatures (for a constitutional amendment) it will be verified and the proposed law will appear on the ballot in the next election and have the chance to actually become law.
both of these models keep the organizers’ eyes on the prize. they know what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. they know what constitutes success and what does not.
whitehouse.gov-style petitions complicate this. they allow organizers to avoid thinking about what their actual goal is, who they should be petitioning and why. and they provide a false goal, encouraging people to focus not on their actual end goal, but on an arbitrary number of signatures that has no guarantee of achieving anything of real value. and since that arbitrary number is high, they encourage people to put a lot of work into this false goal, to the exclusion of other efforts, without even acquiring supporters’ contact information which would be invaluable for future campaigns. then, if the signature threshold is reached, they allow people to have a false sense of accomplishment—they’ll get the feeling of success without having actually changed anything, meaning that many of them will no longer feel motivated to act on this issue.
this seems to me like one of the worst organizing endeavors one could undertake. it almost feels as though this process was specifically calculated with the aim of undermining causes by distracting organizers and supporters with a carrot on a stick. and considering that this is a service voluntarily offered by the white house—a seat of power which, whether held by democrats or republicans, is invested in protecting the status quo—that may just be the case.
if you haven’t read house of leaves, read house of leaves
you should really read house of leaves
Sorry I don’t want neck cramps :/
i’m like 80% sure books can be rotated
Also the entire book isn’t like that- in the beginning the text is normal, then it starts going weird little bits at a time until you normalize it.