Did you see the CPS trying to prosecute people for bin dipping under the 1824 Vagrancy Act?

"Public interest", my ass.

You know what, since all they did was drop the charges, all the other poor schmucks will have to face the same bloody risk as these three lads. I have seen rozzers staking out bins over here, no chance in hell they're not doing it over there as well.

I'd like the Guardian, or anyone for that matter, to sink their teeth into this shit and find out who thought it was in the public interest to go after them for skipping. All this pre-Victorian behaviour is a fucking disgrace.

Only other oil miniatures I ever saw during rendering were from an Asian chick at SFAI, a student there doing a series of tiny oils of steam-punked-Victorian-era women....frikkin' intense...very detailed...and so tiny! Wish I could see the color with that trained-eye-I can't blend shades for shit!

@ReverendTed @vaire2ube Akin was suggesting that we can somehow tell if a rape is real based on whether the victim get's pregnant or not. It's not about determining the facts of a case based on evidence, criminal investigation, or whatever, it's because he's using some Victorian superstitious bullshit idea about what constitutes a "legitimate rape".

So no, in that regard we shouldn't be trying to parse rape into "real rape", "fake rape", "date rape", "man rape", "butt rape", "legitimate rape", "illegitimate rape", or any other kind of rape.

Care of The Onion: Pregnant Woman Relieved To Learn Her Rape Was Illegitimate

this cat i was watching after it got treated at the vet, had a victorian collar, and passed out from the medication with its head in the bowl.... i thought it was still eating so i petted it and it woke up and ran all around like a maniac until it passed out again drooling... i wiped that drool and talked it through the trip... it wouldnt blink for hours, i had to pet its nose to make it blink.

the end!

oh yea i took a video, i called it "sophie as david from the dentist". i cut the collar down significantly but this was right after getting home and before that.

It's possible he has always done this in front of mirrors. Then again, he may be the only intelligent cat in existence and just feels that Victorian is so 19th century.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't like clutter. I don't like victorian buildings with fretwork, cornices faux columns etc. Nooks where dust collects and never leaves. Long planes of molded concrete surrounded by trees appeal to my aesthetic sense. >> ^kymbos:

As an architect's son and a former Canberran, I can only disagree with you on the architecture front. With the notable exception of the members bar of Old Parliament House - that thing is gorgeous.
Good luck in the Can. The place is empty over summer, as the public servants exodus to Bateman's Bay takes hold.

You don't have the right to defend yourself from a police officer enacting the law in a lawful manner, which they were doing. Legal positivism is a bitch. We derive our laws from a greater moral concern, apparently, but then the law trumps all other moral concern until a precedent is set in court or governments change it. In this case the government has non incentive to change it and judges cant rule retroactively so any changes, however unlikely, are only forward looking. If you fought back here you get in big shit and Victorian cops are like the LAPD of Australia.

I have friends who were both in this crowd at protesters and a friend in the Vic cops. Being in the police force gives you such an adversarial attitude towards those who stand against you. As such these cops have reduced capacity to differentiate between villains and champions. Funnily enough, the police had a minor strike (a form of protest) just 2 weeks ago. Oh the irony.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'The Raveonettes, Danish, Alternative, heart of stone, animation, music' to 'The Raveonettes, Danish, Alternative, heart of stone, animation, steampunk, victorian' - edited by calvados

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?

I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.
For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).
So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.
This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?


Not really.

If all state-influences (regulations and subsidies et cetera) to all businesses are gone, how can a small competitor then compete with a larger competitor? (I'm working under the presumption that there had not been a null-setting of all capital.) Would the large competitor not be able to be more efficient and therefore cheaper? Would not the workforce of any of these businesses be working under worse conditions? (than in a regulatet environment)

>> ^DerHasisttot:

@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?


I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.

For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).

So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.

This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?

@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."

How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.

How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?

1) The Victorian / Steampunk elements looked amazing.
2) The points that the female game designer makes are 100% correct. Immersion is ruined by lack of player influence on the world. The fact that they can articulate this so clearly gives me confidence that they can fix it to some degree. Blizzard realizes the problem, as well, which is why they've started to rely so heavily on phasing. Arguably phasing is a more seamless solution to the problem compared to phasing. Both are a bit unnatural, still.

They didn't show the part where Maggie fired the parrot from its government job, started a nationalistic war to get it to vote for her and lectured it for not showing true Victorian values.

And she also didn't mention that the avant-garde comedy she is referencing would never be allowed in her status-quo dream society. Funny that.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think that's a key point. When the US has eschewed "socialist" welfare state programs as it has generally done over the last 30 years - in favour of free enterprise and privatisation - the result has been to concentrate wealth at the top of the spectrum with the country club set. I don't see any free enterprise solution to this.

Victorian England had a lot of concentrated wealth at the top, and a huge pool of poor workers and very little regulation. That led to work houses and rampant pollution. It also (thankfully) led to a strong labour uprising that redistributed that wealth with a progressive tax system, creating a large middle-class. Bad for the rich? Absolutely. Vastly better for the whole country? Definitely, yes.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, you offered the following as your utopian idea for new government:
1. regulated market.
2. welfare state
That's exactly what we have now. Exactly. Government regulates every single industry. Every one. We have a massive welfare state. Our economy is also going to shit and entrepreneurs cannot stay afloat with all the regulations in order to create more jobs. It's a recipe for failure.
Why not give free market Capitalism a chance? Your regulated markets and welfare state spending simply is not sustainable.

I'm starting to get curious, do you ever read my comments all the way to the end?
Maybe I need to be less whimsical. My point was that today's flawed reality is a utopia compared to your utopian proposals.
As for "why not give free market capitalism a chance", I may as well say "why not give Marxist Communism a chance"? I mean, obviously real communism has never been tried -- just ask the modern communists.
There's been no radical boost to growth during America's 30-year march to the right, and shrinking the welfare state and dismantling unions hasn't boosted the median income, so why would we ever keep marching on until we get to the ultimate extreme?
The modern progressive movement isn't on a march towards communism, it's trying to optimize society through an iterative scientific process. We look at things that have failed, or things that have worked elsewhere, and try to learn from them, and build a better mousetrap.
I don't really know what the end-state of modern liberalism looks like. I think it will always be looking to change and evolve over time as new problems and new solutions present themselves.

I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time I can see the other side. Often what is considered polite and courteous is offensive. I'm not a delicate princess and I do take offense when I'm treated as such all the time. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy it when my romantic interest opens doors and whatnot, I just don't want to fight tooth and nail to be able to pay for something. Sort of ruins the romantic gesture.

I'm a badass, not a flower.

>> ^CheshireSmile:

>> ^bananafone:
>> ^CheshireSmile:
chivalry is dead, and feminism is the box they're gonna bury it in

A. Chivalry never existed. It's a myth invented by the Victorians.
B. You really think women being second class citizens will make men treat women better?
C. I hate it when feminism is blamed for all societal woes. Feminism is awesome and has brought about a better world for me and for my children to live in.

what i was actually saying was that it seems more and more often, whenever a guy tries to be polite for a girl, she mistakes it for him acting like she's below him (not dissimilar to the misunderstanding you just made), and talks about how she doesn't need him and whatnot. feminism is fine. really. i'm all for equal rights and wages and whatnot. just often i see the facts skewed by feminazis to look worse off than they are. with that in mind it seems like these days feminism isn't fueled so much from a thirst for equality as much as from, say it with me, misandry.
of course, everyone has their reasons.