Fund The Transition And Survival Of A Dominican Trans Girl

talesofterrorfromfishf1y:

talesofterrorfromfishf1y:

basically i’m been wanting to get on hormones for a min now but i’m too broke to even buy my own food and can’t get a callback for shit. but i don’t wanna wait any longer. please share and donate! any amount counts and would be greatly appreciated!

thank you so much to all the shared this and donated. i really appreciate it. please keep it up!

Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant

by Adam Davidson

So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls. If there were suddenly a whole lot more oranges, we’d expect the price of oranges to fall or the number of oranges that went uneaten to surge.

But immigrants aren’t oranges. It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.

We Need To Talk: Responding to “A Note on Call-Out Culture”

lexarcher:

So I read your piece on call-outs yesterday, and on this particular issue I have to say I think you’ve got it more than a little backwards, and that the continued spread of your essay is actually doing more harm than good.

Which, yes, amounts to me calling you out. Publicly.

And, if you want to respond, please do, though my call-out is not meant as a demand for a response, because you have as much right to your own silence as you do to your own voice. But your piece comes across as a demand for silence from people who are trying to use their voices to combat real harm. And I just can’t let that go without talking back. 

I do want to say that I agree with your basic definition of a call-out: it is clearly and concisely explained for those who have not heard the term in this context, “the tendency among progressives, radicals, activists, and community organizers to publicly name instances or patterns of oppressive behaviour and language use by others.” Spot. On. But in the very next sentence you swivel your focus, slightly, subtly:

“People can be called out for statements and actions that are sexist, racist, ableist, and the list goes on” (emphasis mine).  

And I’m like wait, no. Seriously, no! That’s not what it’s about at all. And as I read the rest of the article, I found myself more and more vexed by the mischaracterization of call-out culture I found there.  

We need to talk about fundamentals, because what I see in your piece is both an incorrect portrayal of call-out culture from an individualistic perspective, and a suggestion to eliminate something absolutely vital to the kind of social change that will benefit people who are far too often silenced.