this is a drama-free blog.  take your plays and musicals elsewhere

(via bewbin)

39,518 notes • 10:17 PM


Happy Easter.

(Source: stevenyeon, via potatoforhair)

191 notes • 2:35 AM

(Source: godzilla-women)


No Surprises // Radiohead

543 Plays • 1:13 PM
" you who are no longer in the world’s present tense
but in an excess of night with hidden doorways
by  Amina Saïd, You who are no longer in the world’s present tense (via viperslang)

put me in charge of a poetry magazine and i will fuck this country up

11 Plays • 8:59 PM


Total Lunar Eclipse (April 15, 2014) | Matthew Crowley

(via urbancatfitters)

now back 2 the srs business of blogging

(Source: gretatatas)




I can’t believe they outlawed alcohol in the U.S but oh no GUNS we need that shit everyone should have them.

It’s as if the 1920’s never ended….


Here’s the deal.

Does the act of someone owning a gun initiate aggression on you? Is it somehow immoral for them to own guns? What about marijuana? Does the act of simply owning marijuana harm or threaten you in some sort of way?

Listen, if you are actually being aggressed over, or are under the threat of aggression, you might have an actual case here. Whether or not prohibition works is up for debate, but the legitimacy of ownership is of much more importance. That’s one of the reasons I fight for “gun rights” or whatever you call it when I’m allowed to buy a piece of property called a gun.

This is an interesting approach. Personally, if someone near me was carrying a gun I’d want to know why, I would feel an implicit aggression.
That’s distinct from ‘owning’ a gun however, and is also a personal response so isn’t a particularly valid argument. 
The way you construe ‘legitimacy of ownership’ is problematic however - is this a supreme right? Should I be allowed to own anything I want? Can I own a nuclear bomb?
What we’re really talking about here is liberty, does the state have a right to interfere in what I can and cannot own? Most philosophical accounts argue no - as long as you are doing no harm to others, the state has no right to interfere. Owning a gun is not ipso facto harmful. People however are often capable of doing harm, and a gun is a very effective tool for doing so. History shows that people can and will inflict harm on others with  guns. The question is whether restricting ownership of guns is too dire an imposition on the liberty of individuals to justify the advantage of a lot of people not dying.
I’d argue that it isn’t, and thus endorse a more paternalistic view in this particular case. You may well disagree, on one of two grounds.
1. More harm is done by banning guns than is gained by saving lives.
2. Paternalism is unacceptable in any and all cases - liberty has an absolute value.

Defending 1 would involve trading a lot of statistics: it’s a utilitarian calculation. Ultimately - even with the problems re: gun crime that outlawing firearms entails I think the value of human life comes out on top.
Defending 2 is more tricky - and dangerous, and would require a bit more philosophy than the average layperson is aware of. Again, ultimately I disagree that liberty is the paramount good.





I can’t believe they outlawed alcohol in the U.S but oh no GUNS we need that shit everyone should have them.

It’s as if the 1920’s never ended….


Because prohibition worked so well, didn’t it vhillheim? Surely, there was absolutely no alcohol left after we banned alcohol? Not a single drop consumed right? RIGHT?

Prohibitions always fail.

hey look I answered this:
Also re: “Prohibitions always fail.” I’d invite you to consider the humble nation of Australia, which, despite it’s many flaws, since outlawing almost all firearms in 1996 has not had a single mass shooting.

cerebralzero inquired were you not aware that Prohibition ended in 1933 because it was a terrible idea and nearly destroyed the US?

hey yeah I totally am, so like PSA, I’m not pro-Prohibition if you get what I mean, obvs that didn’t really work out. 
The post is more like - it’s kind of weird that Americans (at least some of them) were once cool with a paternalism that extreme, whereas now even minor measures like background checks have been characterised as being attacks on an individual’s liberty.
It’s somewhat baffling to me that alcohol was once considered dangerous enough to outlaw, but in the USA’s 250 year history similar legislation has never really come close to being enacted when we’re talking about things that are designed to harm or kill.

To be honest I don’t think the gun debate is really about liberty, I think it’s about power, and people wanting to feel powerful. Y’all are welcome to disagree with me, happily I live in a place where I don’t have to be worried about guns. 

i need to be controversial more often

Next up: Gay people - Why aren’t we using them to invade Ukraine? 




I can’t believe they outlawed alcohol in the U.S but oh no GUNS we need that shit everyone should have them.

Alcohol is not “outlawed”. You can buy as much as you want (have to be 21 years of age or older)

Now shut up and learn how to use google.

They tried to outlaw alcohol and it went so badly because hey, people really like alcohol, and they BROKE THE LAW to get it anyway.

Hey. Wait…

hoh yes guns we luv guns you know what else is great and also is responsible for over 30,000 deaths a year: heroin we should make that legal. Otherwise people might break the law to get it. 

but seriously in 250 years of being a nation you have never once tried outlawing things designed specifically to kill other things, though vodka cranberries, they were too dangerous to be left lying around.