Article 13 is going into it’s final stages of voting.
If this gets through, it will allow many, many companies to abuse and misuse this article to take down as many memes, fan works, and even other independent creators on sites like YouTube, Facebook, and other websites INCLUDING Tumblr.
THE FAIR USE LAW AND SAFEHARBOR LAW WILL NO LONGER APPLY IN THE U.S OR IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
IT HAS ALREADY PASSED IN SEVERAL OTHER COUNTRIES.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THEM TO TAKE AWAY WHAT WE BUILT FOR THE INTERNET SO FAR.
So here is what you need to do to drag this article down.
1. Spread the word
I can’t stress this enough. The more attention this gets the more people we can get to take this down.
2. Make your own content
Make your own content on the matter and make sure it is clear to others that Article 13 is bad for every internet user involved.
3. If you live anywhere in Europe, contact your MEPs
Ask them if they approve of the article and why. If they do approve of it, try to convince them in a clear, reasonable, and most sensible way possible that this law is BAD.
The article itself is way to vague about what it’s conveying to its people.
Saying that as long as the use of said internet memes or content is good as long as it’s in “good faith.”
We cannot let some shoddy government tell us what we can and cannot post.
FREE SPEECH IS A HUMAN RIGHT. NOT A PRIVILEGE.
Here’s a video on Article 13 that Film Theory made on the matter. It will explain things better than I can.
THE VIDEO LINKED IS FROM YESTERDAY (24/11 2018) THIS IS ALL FRESH PLEASE SPREAD!
To my fellow ‘mericans that don’t understand Article 13 and why it’s important, watch the video. MatPat breaks is down in a very easy way to understand why it’s important and why it will affect all of us. You might think “naw, I’m not in the EU, doesn’t matter to me” (which is a crappy way of looking at it in the first place) but guess what, it will.
Also, I feel like people are pushing the importance of this to memes, but honestly it goes SO well beyond that.
I know it’s not hard to point out reactionaries hypocrisy when it comes to like safe spaces or hug boxes or whatever but genuinely how much of an echo chamber do you have to exist in for you to think this is a reasonable thing to say
reblog if attacking fascism is really the hill you want to die on
this is literally like one of the most justified and honorable hills you could die on??? lol??
Metal is the best kind of music yet devised by the mind of Man and you’ve got me fucked if you think I’m gonna just let the boneheads have it.
If you stop and think about it for like five minutes you’ll notice that there’s nothing metal about fascism. Fascism in the United States is the revolutionary movement of the professional-managerial middle class. It doesn’t threaten anything that the wider society or the powers-that-be hold dear; in fact it reinforces all those things. It’s not subversive. It’s the ultimate normie-good-boy political position.
There’s nothing metal about fascism. Fascism is for posers.
“Orthorexia nervosa symptoms are highly prevalent among patients with AN and BN, and tend to increase after treatment. ON seems associated both with the clinical improvement of AN and BN and the migration towards less severe forms of EDs. It is necessary to clarify if ON residual symptomatology can be responsible for a greater number of relapses and recurrences of EDs.”
What’s going on in this small (but in my experience representative) study is that, unsurprisingly, people with bulimia and anorexia had high levels of orthorexic traits. What’s really alarming tho is that the severity of their orthorexia increased 3 years after treatment, presumably 3 years into recovery. The authors of the study are highlighting the fact that a transition to orthorexia during/after treatment – as opposed to what I’d call a full recovery effort – might be responsible for relapses back in to anorexia and bulimia.
Basically, many ED patients are turning orthorexic instead of recovering, which leads right back into more severe eating disorders.
It’s not the ED patients who are responsible for this trend! It’s fatphobic, diet-culture-indoctrinated clinicians and treatment centers that eschew evidence-based protocols in favor of a wellness aesthetic.
Hey @ Wikipedia, if you could not list a trans person’s deadname right after their name that would be great.
Hey @ literally every piece of media in the universe you too
Excellent news! Editors who retain deadnames in articles are violating Wikipedia’s Gender Identity guidelines, at least implicitly. You are fully empowered to, and absolutely should, remove any deadname you find on Wikipedia. Editors who tell you otherwise are simply incorrect, and you should refer them to the relevant entry in the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
Wikipedia does actually permit, and indeed encourages a trans person’s deadname to be included in biographical articles in the following clause: “In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be
included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under
that name”.
This means that a whole lot of notable trans people, Chelsea Manning, Caitlyn Jenner, and more all have their deadnames displayed in their articles, while for example the article on Laverne Cox only displays her real name.
It is notable however that wikipedia also has been really inconsistent with this. For example on Kim Petras’ article, her birth name is listed, despite having transitioned at a very early age and thus not having been a well-known person under her deadname. Seemingly, this would be in violation of wikipedia’s guidelines on changed names, yet despite several editing requests her deadname has been allowed to remain on the article.
It was just after 10 p.m. on an overcast September night in Los Angeles, and L. was tired from a long day of class prep, teaching, and grading papers. So the 57-year-old anthropology professor fed her Chihuahua-dachshund mix a freeze-dried chicken strip, swapped her cigarette trousers for stretchy black yoga pants, and began to unfold a set of white sheets and a beige cotton blanket to make up her bed.
But first she had to recline the passenger seat of her 2015 Nissan Leaf as far as it would go—that being her bed in the parking lot she’d called home for almost three months. The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was playing on her iPad as she drifted off for another night. “Like sleeping on an airplane—but not in first class,” she said. That was in part by design. “I don’t want to get more comfortable. I want to get out of here.”
L., who asked to go by her middle initial for fear of losing her job, couldn’t afford her apartment earlier this year after failing to cobble together enough teaching assignments at two community colleges. By July she’d exhausted her savings and turned to a local nonprofit called Safe Parking L.A., which outfits a handful of lots around the city with security guards, port-a-potties, Wi-Fi, and solar-powered electrical chargers. Sleeping in her car would allow her to save for a deposit on an apartment. On that night in late September, under basketball hoops owned by an Episcopal church in Koreatown, she was one of 16 people in 12 vehicles. Ten of them were female, two were children, and half were employed.
The headline of the press release announcing the results of the county’s latest homeless census strikes a note of progress: “2018 Homeless Count Shows First Decrease in Four Years.” In some ways that’s true. The figure for people experiencing homelessness dropped 4 percent, a record number got placed in housing, and chronic and veteran homelessness fell by double digits. But troubling figures lurk. The homeless population is still high, at 52,765—up 47 percent from 2012. Those who’d become homeless for the first time jumped 16 percent from last year, to 9,322 people, and the county provided shelter for roughly 5,000 fewer people than in 2011.
All this in a year when the economy in L.A., as in the rest of California and the U.S., is booming. That’s part of the problem. Federal statistics show homelessness overall has been trending down over the past decade as the U.S. climbed back from the Great Recession, the stock market reached all-time highs, and unemployment sank to a generational low. Yet in many cities, homelessness has spiked.
It’s most stark and visible out West, where shortages of shelter beds force people to sleep in their vehicles or on the street. In Seattle, the number of “unsheltered” homeless counted on a single night in January jumped 15 percent this year from 2017—a period when the value of Amazon.com Inc., one of the city’s dominant employers, rose 68 percent, to $675 billion. In California, home to Apple, Facebook, and Google, some 134,000 people were homeless during the annual census for the Department of Housing and Urban Development in January last year, a 14 percent jump from 2016. About two-thirds of them were unsheltered, the highest rate in the nation.
At least 10 cities on the West Coast have declared states of emergency in recent years. San Diego and Tacoma, Wash., recently responded by erecting tents fit for disaster relief areas to provide shelter for their homeless. Seattle and Sacramento may be next.
“No one is in charge”
The reason the situation has gotten worse is simple enough to understand, even if it defies easy solution: A toxic combo of slow wage growth and skyrocketing rents has put housing out of reach for a greater number of people. According to Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored housing giant, the portion of rental units affordable to low earners plummeted 62 percentfrom 2010 to 2016.
Rising housing costs don’t predestine people to homelessness. But without the right interventions, the connection can become malignant. Research by Zillow Group Inc. last year found that a 5 percent increase in rents in L.A. translates into about 2,000 more homeless people, among the highest correlations in the U.S. The median rent for a one-bedroom in the city was $2,371 in September, up 43 percent from 2010. Similarly, consultant McKinsey & Co. recently concluded that the runup in housing costs was 96 percentcorrelated with Seattle’s soaring homeless population. Even skeptics have come around to accepting the relationship. “I argued for a long time that the homelessness issue wasn’t due to rents,” says Joel Singer, chief executive officer of the California Association of Realtors. “I can’t argue that anymore.”
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.