#and i mean HOW. can one claim that we know democracy

[nabaath-areng]

Fuck Sweden as a nation for turning the woobification of our history and culture into one of our greatest exports, pretending to be wholesome and peaceful while profiting from conflicts elsewhere. For never having the fucking spine to take any stance ever and acting high and mighty for being "neutral", all while frothing at the mouth to get a piece of that colonial cake from the cool kids table where the superpowers are seated. For recognizing Palestine's sovereignty only to then consider a withdrawal of said recognition in response to the current genocide. For allowing islamophobia to get to the point it is now and then pointing fingers at jews as a whole. For giving less of a flying fuck about swedish jews during WW2 and until now, yet patting ourselves on the back and taking credit for heroic deeds done primarily by individuals.

I wish nothing but absolute hell and misery for Ulf Kristersson, who is even more spineless about his inaction than I thought possible. Who had nothing to say about the burnings of the torah and quran, only to claim that he stands for fighting antisemitism. Who puffed up his chest and was acting so tough about the things he would do once he became prime minister, only to hold up on none of his lofty promises in true conservative fashion. Both he and his lackeys (as well as their fanclubs of raging screaming bigots) deserve nothing but hurt and hell for continuing to destroy the lives of all marginalized groups in Sweden, all while shamelessly increasing their own salaries blatantly in the open, to then have the sheer and utter gut to declare that actively supporting genocide is within our best interests.

This country's audacity is one that only became possible because we sacrificed our neighbours safety for the sake of maintaining our own, because when your most recent war was in 1809 it's apparently not possible to even try and comprehend the horrors of modern warfare. That is, besides producing the tools for it to happen elsewhere.

#the complete disdain for compassion and humanity is abhorrent #not to mention incomprehensable #im sorry im all over the place bedridden cause bad pain day which makes me even more angry #because i want to strangle everyone in riksdagen with my bare hands #and like im sorry not to be a state hater or anything (sike) but how #and i mean HOW. can one claim that we know democracy #when the people who supposedly represent the rest of us #can just go ahead and do these types of things willy nilly as they please #how can we claim to have free will when the burdens of having to earn the right to life #by working to death and being left to die if we cant adapt to the system #and being actively drained too dry to dare take risks standing up #how can that ever be freedom? #seeing everything coming out of gaza in video audio images all of it #and feeling hopeless? powerless to do anything? #how is that NOT suppression? to break people down to the point they cant find the spirit to fight? #to cast other regular people as villains so that all energy is spent falling into bigotry? #social media is hell but its also one of our greatest tools now #its like being able to zoom out and see the greater overview of the stranglehold capitalism and colonialism has on the world #im not coherent at all and my thumbs are dying now i just #but sooner or later somethings gotta give re: the way our society is built as a whole globally

[demeterdefence]

even ignoring everything else wrong with lore olympus (which in itself feels impossible) there is just something really egregious and insulting at the way a "modern retelling" over an ancient greek myth just full-heartedly whitewashes the entire culture and mythos.

and it's not like rachel is the first to do it - greek myths and legends have been whitewashed for centuries, depictions of the gods have been categorically stripped of their ethnicity and origins long before rachel got a hold of them. it's the fact that rachel goes out of her way to insult the original myths whenever she can, that she emphasizes and pushes a western-centric mindset and viewpoint over and over and over and not only reinforces the whitewashing, but continues it down the line.

like, this is the first episode.

rachel goes out of her way to mock the original styles and wardrobes of the ancient greek world, and i get her attempt was to make persephone feel "out of place" with the more "modern" clothing that the other gods wear, but it really just does more to a) demonize demeter, who is almost always in traditional clothing, b) sexualize persephone.

go even broader with it, move away from the clothing itself, and rachel doesn't even bother to use any of the ancient traditions that are core to the myths. like for the love of god, she uses a christian wedding for persephone and hades!

greece is the birthplace of modern democracy and had a powerful judicial system, and rachel instead uses the modern / western iteration of court because ... why not

(completely unrelated but the inserts of everyone except eros and aphrodite come from the stupid zoom session zeus had back when he first charged persephone with treason, meaning we have proof yet again that rachel isn't drawing the characters into the scene, she's making pngs and sticking them into pre-arranged backgrounds downloaded from stock images)

and there are ten thousand more examples i could pull, because this is just the whole entire comic. you can look at a lot of modern adaptions and see where things have been modernized respectfully, and where they are done with disdain for the source material - no one is claiming percy jackson, for example, is perfect, but the author took a great deal of care in his research, and the love for the original myths and culture shine through. lore olympus has zero respect for the original stories, exemplified in how rachel demonizes demeter - the actual crux of the myth. it's bad writing and bad research and further attempts to whitewash a rich and storied culture that had people from so many walks of life, who existed in full spectrum of lgbt identity, who did not conform or even know of the world that exists today. you can modernize without erasing it, and rachel's refusal to do so is one of the many issues tacked to lore olympus.

#anti lo #anti lore olympus #i didn't grab the best screencaps bc there was literally so many to choose from lmao #but the wedding always bothered me SO much #ur in ancient greece!!! why are u doing this!!! #like i don't think it's wrong per SAY to have phones or tech in a story about ancient cultures #provided you explain how / why they're there #but of course there is ZERO world building in lore olympus

[iberiancadre]

Blaming job precarity on labour protections, thay is some real neoliberal shit for a post tagged "real marxist hours". Are you sure there aren't any other causes? Like, I don't know, the recessions and crashes of 2008/2012/2014/2020, tolerance of employers who hire and pay under the table, insufficient protections for people affected by the practice (especially non-EU workers), relative disregard for unions in labour law negotiations, inequalities in infrastructure distribution and so on? None of those things are essential parts of social democracy, they're the consequences of right-wing attacks on it, and Spain's specific failures at social democracy are not universal nor a reflection of the system in general.

And the issue of colonial and post-colonial exploitation wasn't addressed sufficiently in marx's very works either, or under any application of socialism in a country already high-up in the hierarchy of imperialism (remember when a certain socialist country became one of the largest fossil fuel producers by drilling oil on indigenous land, effectively turning most of "its" territory into a settler colonial regime servicing the state oil industry? Talk about funding public expenses through imperialism!)

All of what you're saying sounds great and would be valid if they weren't objectively false. I don't think you're usamerican (the target audience of the post you're replying to) but you sure sound like one. If you aren't, we'll I'm sorry but you're just ignorant:

btw this is in relation to this post in case anyone wants to read it

"Blaming job precarity on labor protections sounds like neoliberalism" If by protecting labor you mean legalizing and protecting a type of work that allows workers to spend most of the year effectively unemployed, unable to claim unemployment because they're technically employed, and also prevents them from getting a second job because they are at the mercy of their first employer's needs? Then yeah, I am blaming labor protections for job precarity. This is one especially egregious example of what the socdems in this country have done, and it's funny you mention neolibs because this new law allowing "fixed discontinuous" work is a direct continuation of the 2012 labor reform done by neoliberals. I am blaming a precarious form of work which already has millions of contracts under it for precarious work.

I'll remind you also that marxists/communists are not just the people to the left of socdems or progressives or how you may call it. We reject the very system all those other ideologies operate within, therefore any criticism aimed towards social-democracy isn't comparable to neoliberalism because it's levied from a completely different framework.

"The recessions of 2008/2012/2014/2020 are a cause of precarious work and a consequences of right-wing attacks" it's funny you mention 4 crisis because it leads very well into the point about recessions. Capitalism, because of the anarchic nature of its production and focus on maximizing profit, has cyclical recessions regardless of who is managing capitalism at the moment. Recessions in capitalism have occurred since capitalism first took form, because of mechanisms like overproduction (capital tends to produce too much, inflating stockpiles and eventually necessitating a sudden drop in prices) and the falling rate of profit:

The rate of profit is the total portion of value that capitalists as a class are able to extract from the working class after paying off their costs. Because of reasons too complex to explain here (but you can look at graphs and verify that it always tends to fall), the rate of profit tends to fall and diminish. The only times it ever increases is because of destruction of capital and/or productive forces, such as during a war, or because of superprofits enabled by imperialism. This rate of profit has been getting smaller and smaller, it temporarily rises after recessions and it also means capitalism will either destroy itself or destroy the human race in an effort to raise it. The rate of profit is not applicable to individual companies or even sectors, it is a capitalist class wide trend.

Going back to the point of recessions, they aren't the sole reason for precarious work. they certainly worsen it, but the point of the post is that social-democracy not only does not alleviate this particular problem, but they are also fully capable of worsening it. They are doing this in Spain and in other countries too.

"Tolerance of employers who pay under the table is a cause of precarious work and a consequence of right-wing attacks" First of all, this wasn't the kind of precarious work I was talking about in the post innit?. Apart from that, who do you think is tolerating extralegal work. Is the right-wing forcing social-democrat governments across the world to tolerate this? Of course not. Work that isn't regulated by a contract is useful to the bourgeoisie because it keeps a portion of the working class in a limbo between unemployment and employment, allowing the reserve army of labor to not shrink while also exploiting a part of this reserve army and generally lowering costs. Social-democracy tolerates this because it is just one manager of capitalism, and they fundamentally serve the class interests of the infrastructure because they are part of the superstructure. This is true regardless of how much they like to talk like pro-worker communists and how much welfare they instate.

"Insufficient protection for people under irregular work contracts or no contracts, especially inmigrants, is a cause of precarious work and a consequence of right-wing attacks" This is also not the kind of precarious work I was talking about in the post. Regardless, the reason for this is similar to the one I explained above, it is convenient of capitalism to have workers halfway between employment and unemployment, and social-democracy protects capitalism. It's really insidious of you to bring up non-european workers and their exploitation while defending social-democracy, since the various European progressive and left-of-center governments have all contributed one way or another to NATO's interventions in SWANA and West Africa, the very places these inmigrant workers come from, escaping the violence these governments have caused, sponsored and benefitted from. I've already addressed who benefits from the cheap labor these inmigrants and refugees produce.

"Disregard of unions in labor law negotiations is a cause of precarious work and a consequence of right-wing attacks" Oh boy have I talked about unions on this blog. In short, unions are not the magic wand which makes exploitation disappear that so many people on this website and app seem to think they are. Their only function is to achieve temporary better working conditions while staying within the bounds of capitalism and salary work. This is also a point that's really funny to make while talking about the social-democrat precarious labor reforms because they signed it with the full approval of every big labor union in Spain. Another aspect of unions that I addressed in the linked post is that they also serve as the lapdogs of social-democracy. Something that happens in every single country where social-democrats are in power including the usamerican leftist's crush, the nordic countries.

Socialism-communism isn't when UBI, good wages and beating the capitalists at their own game. It's the complete overthrow of a bourgeois system to replace it with a proletariat system, it is rejecting the workings of the game at which social-democrats and labor unions pretend to try to win.

"Inequalities in infrastructure distribution is a cause of precarious work and a consequence of right-wing attacks" I'm not exactly sure if by infrastructure you're referring to like, roads and railways, or infrastructure in the sense of the avenues through which the state provides welfare, subsidies, etc. Either way, the inequality in the distribution of things like communication networks, utilities and state programs is one of the many contradictions inseparable from capitalism. I thought the point of "inequality is inherent to capitalism" was like, leftism 101. Is anon aware that social-democracy is still capitalism? Universal healthcare and government programs are not going to solve the unavoidable effects of the capitalist mode of production. That's what revolutionary marxism is for.

"So many more things are a cause for precarious work and a consequence of right-wing attacks" I can't answer if you don't give me more concrete examples, sadly. But I hope it's become clear to the reader why social-democracy is not the way to solve all of this issues, and why it is actually interested in keeping it around.

"None of those things are essential to social-democracy, and Spain's particular case isn't reflective of social-democracy in general" If I were a lesser man I'd say you sound like what "tankies" sound like to anti-communists when we address the mistakes and failings of proletariat states. But I don't think this would be a good answer to you, and I get the point you're making. Social-democracy is one variant of government in bourgeois democracies.

For this point to make sense to you, anon, (im really trying to be patient here, if I come across as condescending it's not intentional) you have to first understand that marxists believe, noht without reason, that the primary character of any state is the economic system that it protects. In our case, this system, the infrastructure, is capitalism, so the state and any party that governs it (part of the superstructure) will keep protecting capitalism because that is what's in its class interests. Individual people are able to go against class interests, but individual actions are close to irrelevant when we talk about the infrastructure.

It's not that every aspect discussed is essential to social-democracy, it's that social-democracy is essential to capitalism, which in turn ensures the existence of these problems. You're putting the cart before the horse.

With that denser part out of the way, regarding Spain's case. The post you're replying to wasn't meant to be an exhaustive treaty on the class character of social-democracy. It's a rant complaining about seeing usamericans championing the very fucking same talking points and policies that I see every single day fail. I know that social-democracy across various countries is different when it comes to these particular cases. But their class character is the same and their function within imperialist capitalism is the same.

To the second part of the ask now.

"The issue of colonialism wasn't very discussed in Marx's works" Yeah I know. Maybe you're under the impression that marxists are blind followers of Marx, I understand. But if you ask any actual marxist or communist, they'll acknowledge that Marx and Engels lacked in a lot of places (especially Engels in anthropology, he was very racist and uninformed in that regard). Which is why we also recommend people read other works such as Lenin's, which as far as I'm aware popularized the term of imperialism as a descriptor for capitalism, and the concept of dividing capitalism into stages, so many pseudo-communists like to say. There is also a myriad of work about imperialist capitalism written by colonialized people, such as Frantz Fanon or Eduardo Galeano. These are the places where marxist theory is most developed regarding colonialism, and it's where the idea of social-democracies in imperial core countries benefitting from imperialism in every instance comes from.

As a side note on marxism, the reason it's called that is not because we treat every work of Marx like holy texts, but because the analytical framework that his works establish and develop is the basis for any analysis and criticism of class conflict and revolutionary communism. We do not blindly follow what he says, we take his works (or any marxist work for that matter), instead, we analyze, critique and explore the ideas presented.

"The USSR was imperialist" (this is basically what anon is saying in the last portion of the ask) Imperialism is a specific stage in the development of capitalism, characterized by the export and tendency to monopoly of capital. It is a concrete economic descriptor that is useful to a specific timeframe in history. It is not, however, when a big country does something in a small country and expands. This definition, while simpler and more useful to the liberal status-quo, is functionally useless to define a state when it can be applied to the Greek colonization of the Mediterranean in the 6th century BC, the trading kingdoms of South East Asia, the Roman state before Caesar and the prinicipate, the germanic tribes that moved into souther Europe, the mongol state (and later states) that stretched from the sea of Japan to Hungary and from the arctic circle to Persia, the Incas and Aztecs, the HRE, the Iriquois confederacy (I'm not that sure on this one, but I'm including it because they were quite big and that's what qualifies as an empire to some people), the various rich kingdoms of west Africa, the modern USA and a long etcetera.

The more popular definition of imperialism, the one that somehow tries to coherently categorize all of the examples above and more under the same word, essentially boils down to territorial expansion. It should be called expanisonism, not imperialism. So if you're using that definition, and it looks like it, then yeah, the USSR was expanisonist. Extending the proletariat state against bourgeois states is good, actually.

I don't know what you think settler-colonialism is, but extracting fossil fuels definitely isn't it. Also, the oil and gas was extracted by the corresponding republics within the USSR. Many smaller republics, such as Turkmenistan, could specialize in fossil fuel extraction because the USSR guaranteed that the goods they didn't produce would reach them regardless. This is one of the reason the capitalist shock therapy posg-1991 forced onto the ex-soviet republics was so catastrophic, their production was organized under the assumption that they wouldn't need to sell off half their country to access basic consumer goods from a capitalist market.

Goddamn was that a long post to type on a phone. If anyone, including anon, replies to this with a low effort insult or to what they think I said instead of what was written on the post, I'm going to block you without exception. you've all been warned

#real marxist hours #you better fucking read this anon

[queerprayers]

Today is (for many of us) the feast of Christ the King, and I wanted to take a moment to honor that. I was baptized on this feast, and I've always been drawn to it. Originally instituted by the pope in 1925 as a response to growing nationalism and secularism, making it the newest element of the liturgical year, most Lutherans and other liturgical Protestants also honor this day.

I have differing opinions on secular rule/the separation of church and state (and evangelism, for that matter) than the founders of this feast did, but I can appreciate the yearning for more world leaders/political groups/religious groups to recognize our true callings as human beings--to each other, to Love. And I love the concept of combating nationalism with allegiance to a higher power!

"King" has a lot of political implications, and mostly negative associations for anyone like me, so I wanted to point out how the original encyclical describes this title of Jesus's, by quoting Cyril of Alexandria: "Christ," he says, "has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature." Today is the reason I'm not a monarchist--there is no earthly ruler that has my allegiance. There is no earthly rule established without force. My allegiance is to Christ, the ruler of the only valid kingdom; to God's house, the only state without lines on a map; to Love which is the universe, the only empire that includes people by embracing them rather than conquering them.

We can only understand so much of who God is. We separate out God's roles; we can only focus on one tiny piece of the universe at once. (This is why we have holidays--to honor pieces of our religion in human time.) The king we are called to serve is only called "king" because that's one of the closest words we have in our language to describe what we're talking about--the old-fashioned meaning of king, one born for the role and called to die for the role. A romanticized meaning perhaps, one that has never been true in any society, one that has caused so much harm, but nonetheless one used throughout centuries to get across one of the ways we approach God--along with "father" and "friend" and "bridegroom" and "creator."

We pray for God's kingdom to come because that's an idea we can understand--we can logically process that a new kingdom coming, a new empire conquering, means everything changes, the rules are turned upside down. We hold this language while acknowledging there is so much more to it. If you can't stomach using these words, if they are filled with violence for you, I encourage you to sit with that truth, consider what it would be like to take earthly ideas and fill them with Love, and also acknowledge you do not have to use this language. We try to hold God with our words and fail over and over. We come to God from our culture and language and time and we squint at the universe. We see in a mirror dimly, for now.

As we encounter earthly nationalism and imperialism and colonialism and warmongering, as we see people claim that their nation-state is chosen by God, we honor power turning on its head today. We see Jesus revealing what kingship, what ruling, what power is when Love is the center of the universe. Jesus, who had more power than any human, fed the hungry, hung out with the oppressed and misunderstood, threatened the powerful without violence, was killed by earthly empire, and conquered death with life.

May we, as members of God's kingdom, under Jesus's rule--by choosing this as our practice--serve the only king who has ever deserved our allegiance. We work to bring our communities and religious groups and, yes, our nation-states, closer to the image God has set for us, but ultimately we know we are creating and navigating human-made borders between things that will one day be one.

You already know what God has asked of you. It's not a democracy but neither is it a monarchy, really--it's something else. Something you have to opt in to, but don't really get a choice in. Something you can run from but never escape. Something that once you see clearly, you'll never be satisfied without. You are technically free to abandon the work, but you would be abandoning the only thing that will make us whole. Call your government representative. Go to a protest. Give money to the person by the side of the road. Read a book. Hug your lover. Feed the birds. Denounce your country in favor of your community and every single human being. You are a citizen of the universe, which is God, which is love. Christ the King, the reign of Christ, means what rules us is Life.

(We look down the road to Advent--to new year, rebirth, apocalypse. "Apocalypse" meaning unveiling, revelation, disclosure. We see in a mirror dimly, and then--thy kingdom come--we see face to face. All at once, awfully, blindingly, daylight after years of darkness. Christ the King says, what if New Year's Eve was a surrender to time and power? What if before you even remembered Christmas exists, you were confronted with the reality of your calling? This is the feast of victory to our God. Alleluia!)

#having a lot of thoughts!

[cimerran-714]

I figured that it would be helpful to call out ten of the most common pro-choice arguments that you might notice online. I'll preface it by saying that I am not a philosopher (or at least not yet), but I am a person with common sense, and you can see through these "arguments" if you have two brain-cells left.

Also, I understand that there are good PC arguments out there (although they are of course not successful, for a strong argument doesn't necessarily have to succeed). I am only arguing some of the most insane and ridiculous ones you'd spot.

If you want to go through some really good claims made by pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates, I'd recommend David Boonin's 'A Defense of Abortion'. It'd help you instead of you having to regurgitate whatever you are spoon-fed by the leftist cult. Go check out that book even if you're pro-life, because it's a great one.

Let's get started, shall we?

A human embryo/fetus is not human:

Yes, it's both human and alive. Biologists agree with this (including pro-choice biologists), and even pro-choice philosophers acknowledge this. This is basic empirical reality. And you only have to open an embryology textbook to know how wrong you are. Also, these people can never explain what species the fetus belongs to if not "Homo Sapiens".

2. It's just a "clump of cells".

All of us are made up of cells. Some are "clumpier" than others. And plus, it's not merely a clump of cells: the embryo is a human organism in its earlier stages of development, and very soon is also differentiated as it grows. That's like saying that it's okay to destroy a car because it's just "a bunch of metal thrown together".

3. It's not a person/sentient, yadda yadda:

Irrelevant and it's the same logic that slave-owners used to own people. Human rights is species-based, and the embryo/fetus is human. That's all that matters. These people love to make up ridiculous, arbitrary criteria to justify their bigotry.

4. You cannot force people to donate their organs...

Not the same thing at all. You cannot be forced to save people, but that doesn't mean you can actively kill them. This is the difference between killing someone and letting them die. There is a significant moral difference between deliberately pushing someone off a cliff and not saving someone who's hanging off a branch at a cliff. Abortion is the former.

5. Women would die...

All states have life-threat exceptions built into it, so this is just deflection. And yes, there are doctors who refuse to perform entirely legal abortions, but that is their fault. It IS legal. They're just cowards, and you can't blame the law for this because they already make this exception.

6. You cannot force your views onto others:

If you support democracy (and, you know, voting) you're forcing your views onto others. That's how law works.

7. The child would grow up in poverty, yadda yadda yadda...:

We don't kill born children because of these reasons, so it's a ridiculous claim. You don't solve poverty by killing the poor.

8. They are just pro-birth:

Statistics show that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats. Also, just because they don't agree with your method of helping people doesn't mean that they don't care about born people. You see, it's like saying "A fire-fighter rescued someone from a fire, but they don't want to pay out of their pockets to look after them throughout their lives. They don't actually care!"

9. Showing pics of fetuses belonging to other species as a gotcha:

Yes, mammals of different species look the same in their earlier stages, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between them. This is, once again, bigoted slaver logic (to want to kill people based on their looks).

10. Men cannot have a say because:

As men are directly affected by this, they absolutely have a say. They are fathers too, and remember that they're the ones who have to pay child support.

There you go. I am not expecting you to be pro-life yet if you are not, but I hope that I have cleared your head up somewhat.

#pro life #anti abortion #abortion #reproductive rights #pro choice #abortion is healthcare #abortion rights #bodily autonomy #roe v wade #leftist #us politics #american politics #conservatism #liberalism #usa news #united states #conservatives #fuck maga #donald trump #liberal hypocrisy

[the-far-bright-center]

There's a very annoying trend I am seeing on tumblr lately where people are calling Padme 'crazy', 'insane' or even 'a freak'....all because she chooses to be with Anakin. I'm sorry, what??? Padme is not crazy, nor is she a 'freak' for falling for him. To claim so is to totally misunderstand Padme's character and her love for Anakin. She is not somehow 'turned on' by his flaws and she doesn't view him as some kind of 'bad boy'. Nor does she just pretend he's not flawed simply because she finds him attractive. She sees his flaws quite clearly...but she ALSO sees his good qualities, and GENUINELY LOVES HIM. 

Is someone ‘insane’ or a ‘freak’ for loving a flawed but good-hearted person? Is someone 'crazy' for being compassionate and forgiving towards them? Not only is such a mentality deeply unfair and dismissive, but it also stems from fandom completely misunderstanding Padme’s character, motivations, and the development of her feelings for Anakin in the first place. I get the sense that people want to oversimplify Padme in their minds into some kind of ‘yass queen slay’ girlboss (simply because she’s a fashion icon who cares about democracy), and thus the fact she ‘strays’ even slightly from this imagined ‘girlboss-hood’ can only mean one thing…that she must have totally lost the plot, become unhinged, or gone insane. (Feels so insulting to even type that out, omg.) In reality, Padme is simply a young woman (she is 24 in AotC) who finds herself in a position of great responsibility, and who has been living with the weight of her entire world on her shoulders since she was a CHILD. She had originally planned to retire from public service after her time as queen was over, and only continued to serve in a political capacity because her successor, Queen Jamillia, asked her to. While she certainly cares about the Republic, deep down she wishes she could start a family of her own. All of this is already on her mind before she even reunites with Anakin at the beginning of AotC. Despite the fact that Anakin and Padme come from very different backgrounds, they are both in very similar positions at the beginning of that film. Both have commitments/careers in which they are expected to serve the Republic, and yet both are feeling that something is missing in their lives. Deep down, they are both longing for love and family. And while they care about each other’s respective careers and are supportive of one another, they also wish to be together. And on top of it all, there’s the fact that...Anakin genuinely loves Padme. She senses the depth and sincerity of his feelings, and this is one of the reasons she ultimately decides to be with him. She knows that he truly sees her, and loves her for herself, not just for her position. 

If that is seen as ‘unhinged’ on Padme's part, then that is a very depressing indictment of how hypocritical fan attitudes can be. Somehow fandom can understand and accept various other characters in Anakin’s story as being able to love him, but not Padme? It’s also baffling because fictional stories are FULL of examples of compassion towards monsters, villains, and antagonists, and yet somehow Padme loving Anakin (who is neither of these at this stage in the story) is beyond people's comprehension. Anakin Skywalker is a tragic hero. And as such he has both positive qualities, as well as flaws that lead to his downfall. But the point is that he is not without positive qualities. People need to realise that their view of everything that happens in the Prequels-era is coloured by dramatic irony. We, the audience, know what is going to happen. We know that Anakin will become Vader. But the characters don’t know any of this. They are just reacting to their immediate situations, circumstances, and interactions with one another armed only with the knowledge of the present moment. So even Anakin’s flaws and mistakes are not something that overrides the rest of his positive qualities from the perspective of someone like Padme, who genuinely loves—and is loved by—him. 

#padme amidala #anakin skywalker #anidala #fandom completely misunderstanding Padme and Anakin...what else is new #fandom's all about shipping Anakin with certain *ahem* other people #but Padme's the only one they think is 'insane' for loving him?? #even though Anakin and Padme are canonically each other's one and only true love??? #side-eyeing tumblr sw fandom so hard right now #padme is not insane tag

[qqueenofhades]

Think what strikes me about something like "we can't vote because the system is rigged! Ban the electoral college!" is the big underlying implication of it.

That there is no multiple solutions or paths, only the one correct path and everything else is worthless.

And that's incredibly frustrating because there are two levels of problems with it:

is the utter dismissiveness of anything other than their specific solution, which ignores how any degree of positive change cannot occur with only just ONE idea, it's usually the result of many ideas that lead to change.

The fact that it feels like they're skipping every step in between the current situation to this end result, or actively fixating on themselves having the correct solution, but only by literally getting everything in between completely wrong in the process.

Like, the latter point in particular is like a complex math equation: Just because you got the right answer doesn't mean you can just ignore every difficult step in between, or just assume that all of the WRONG processes become validated retroactively because you stumbled into the correct answer. You'd literally get failed and be forced to redo the problem if you tried that shit in math.

I saw a poll the other day claiming that support for abolishing the Electoral College had now reached 65% of all Americans. Now, I take all polls, whether good or bad, with a grain of salt, but this does reflect a growing awareness that the EC is a horrible racist anti-democratic dinosaur only applied to the presidential election and only used for electing Republicans who don't win the nationwide popular vote, and that there's a genuine groundswell of support to abolish it. See the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which could possibly collect enough state-by-state ratifications to go into effect into 2028 (in the best-case scenario). So even all the bitching about how "the system is rigged" (which. WE KNOW! WE KNOW! There's not a single Democratic voter going to vote like WOW I LOVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE CAN'T WAIT FOR MY VOTE TO DEPEND ON HOW MUCH IT COUNTS THANKS TO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WHEE OLD DEAD WHITE GUYS!) blatantly ignores that a possible seismic change IS possibly in the offing, because people put in the work to make it happen!!! The fact that the EC might soon be superseded or disempowered is FUCKING MONUMENTALLY HUGE!!! It has existed literally since the beginning of America and arbitrated every single presidential election!!! And let me tell you, the people working to make that change and fundamentally reshape American democracy are absolutely not the Online Leftists, whose grasp of civic and political theory starts and ends at "wah the system is rigged I do not vote I am very smart!"

This also reminds me of the recent idiots in my notes complaining that Biden was a) not "genuine" in supporting the striking auto workers, that b) Don't You Know He Broke The Rail Strike (the follow-up where he gave the railworkers what they most wanted with that strike was conveniently never mentioned), or c) that he wasn't "doing it for the right reasons" (whatever the fuck that means). Which accurately reflects their belief that the way you do politics, or praxis, or anything at all, is just by having the Really Goodest Mostest Purest Intentions really hard, and that's it. Like. Aside from the fact that it's impossible to prove why Biden is privately motivated to do anything, we have a long track record demonstrating that he is a person of genuine Catholic faith who has been moving more and more to the left overall, and has been the most pro-union, pro-labor president in American history. So first of all, complaining that "he's not GENUINE!!!!" in supporting the strikers is impossible to prove, and contradicted by actual evidence. But the Online Leftists gotta feel More Gooder Than Him somehow, so.

Likewise: as I said in one of my previous posts about Hillary Clinton: I do not give a fuck if she was privately the most Neoliberal Corporate Centrist Shill Ever To Shill (and as I also said, none of those words means what the Online Leftists think they do). I do not care about the American monarch president's personal feelings, unless they reflect directly on the policy that they make and the real-world effects that it has. I don't care if Clinton killed puppies (or dreamed about killing puppies, which for the thoughtcrime police is equally bad), as long as she appointed 3 new liberal justices to SCOTUS and throughout the courts, instead of the hacks that Trump forced onto the bench and literally everything else he did. In the same vein, Biden could secretly be like "hahahaha fuck all workers BIG CORPORATIONS FOR LYFE but I gotta support the workers and get them their rights so they'll vote 4 meeee" (not that I actually think he is, but still) and hold onto your hankies, children: I DO NOT CARE! Because the tangible real-world effects of that policy that he is working hard on making results in a better economy for those workers and substantial redistribution of capital away from the oligarchs for the first time in a generation! Not to mention, I kind of like the idea that a president decides to make himself most appealing to workers instead of bosses! But for the Online Leftists, if this action isn't done with the Sufficiently Pure Motives, it is Wrong and Bad and Not Good Enough and Blah Blah Biden Sekrit Republican.

Anyway. Yes. That. The end.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

[gotta-bail-my-quails]

I would like to preface this post with an acknowledgement that I have blocked the user who originally posted this. The main reason is because nothing would convince them to change their mind (especially because they seem to be intent on "changing minds" but only if it is from a Pro-Palestine to Pro-Israel mindset). That being said, this post I'm making may seem superfluous—why make a response if I don't want the person to see it? Mostly, I want to warn others of the rhetoric used against support for Palestine and—as I will soon address—because these people dared to bring up a subject personal to me and I will not stand to let it to be appropriated for this purpose.

I will be addressing one main post and a few other arguments used against Palestinian resistance.

The main post was posted on Tumblr, and was a respost of a post from Reddit. It is in image form below, but I will add the text if asked in a reblog. My response summarizes the points I address. Also I'm going to have to add my full response in multiple reblogs due to character limits.

The arguments can be summarized as thus:

The methods Western leftists use are ineffective and/or immoral due to idealism and radical approaches. The suggested solution is to give funds to "the Israeli left" and supporting a "reasonable solution" meaning a two-state or one-state under Israel solution, with a "humanitarian end" with a "unilateral Hamas surrender"

Here, they compare the "dream scenario that will never happen" to the situation in Vietnam. I presume they mean the opposition to the war, while the government continued to bomb the country more than all of Europe in WWII combined despite knowing full well they would lose and that they do not mean to make an analogy using the war as a whole. If they had, then I would like to make a snide comment here about the North winning despite the South having the US's support, but I will refrain. More than that, I would relate this to a later argument the poster makes about the "destabilization of Western democracy". Considering the poster is American, I will address this within a US context (although we should really explore the ways other Western countries are acting). This is a reflection of the failure of the power structures within the US as a whole, and not the ineffectiveness of the protests. The war in Vietnam was vastly unpopular but the executive department has historically used presidential power to push war—evidenced by the war power acts previously and Biden forcing through funding for the conflict now. The US is a republic, not a true democracy, and it is self-evident that the same reason the poster claim protests don't work invalidates their claims of an otherwise functioning Western democracy. I would go so far as to suggest revolution is being implied, but the poster evidently thinks resistance is hardly reasonable.

I am curious as to how the poster thinks positive changes have occurred, if they consider boycotts and the like are ineffective (they only say "it doesn't take a lot of thought" to see their point, but it seems to me they are avoiding the issue under the excuse of "common sense" and "brevity"). Most Americans (and most in general) do not have a direct hand in the government—California excepted, perhaps, given the proposition system—so, we turn to utilizing economic power and force. Unions, for one, have earned better treatment for workers for decades (remember the recent SAG-AFTRA strikes?) through the threat of withholding labor and therefore profits. After all, our world is one based heavily in economic-morality (which I am currently writing a separate essay on and which we may point to the response to Yemen right now).

1/5

#free palestine #ceasefire now #please ignore the duplicate text

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Chris Britt, Florida Politics

* * * *

President Biden meets with Yulia and Dasha Navalnaya.

As Trump and the GOP twisted themselves into knots to avoid admitting that Putin assassinated Alexei Navalny, President Biden met with Navalny’s widow—Yulia Navalnaya—and his daughter, Dasha Navalnaya. It is worth pausing here to acknowledge that Biden has proven himself to be a compassionate and empathetic person capable of understanding the suffering of others.

Those qualities are strikingly absent from Trump's warped personality—and from his MAGA supporters, who take their cue from Trump in all things. America deserves and needs a president capable of understanding the suffering of others.

After meeting with Yulia and Dasha Navalnaya, Biden said

Today, I met with Yulia and Dasha Navalnaya – Aleksey Navalny's loved ones – to express my condolences for their devastating loss. Aleksey's legacy of courage will live on in Yulia and Dasha, and the countless people across Russia fighting for democracy and human rights.

Biden later said,

This morning I had the honor of meeting with Alexey Navalny's wife and daughter. As to state the obvious, he was a man of incredible courage. And it's amazing how his wife and daughter are emulating that.

Meanwhile, Trump maintains his silence on the assassination of Navalny and his minions dodge questions about Putin’s responsibility by saying they “Don’t know enough to answer.” Hmm . . . these are the same people who raged endlessly against Biden based on an unverified, quadruple-hearsay document from a confidential informant who was not believed by his FBI handlers.

The embrace of Putin by the Republican Party is troubling because of the implications for the defense of Ukraine and the integrity of the 2024 election. We have already seen one attempt by Russia to interfere on behalf of Trump, and we are witnessing the real-time betrayal of Ukraine on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to pretend as though Alexander Smirnov never happened. Read on!

House Oversight Committee removes references to FBI informant under cover of night

Speaking of the now-discredited FBI informant, his GOP champions in the House initially responded to his indictment for lying by claiming that his information was only a portion of the evidence they had against Joe Biden.

But actions speak actions louder than words. On Thursday, the House Oversight Committee quietly removed all references to Alexander Smirnov’s statements from the Oversight Committee’s website. See Meidas Touch Network, House GOP Quietly Deletes Russian Disinformation from Impeachment Website.

It is not enough for the House impeachment caucus to surreptitiously remove references to a Russian plant from its list of evidence against Joe Biden. Republicans should acknowledge their error and apologize—but they will not. The US media, however, should be a different story. They amplified and promoted the Russian lies about Biden—and are having a difficult time admitting their error.

As Josh Marshall wrote in his editor’s blog in Talking Points Memo,

The story here isn’t that the “Biden Crime Family” nonsense didn’t pan out. That was always transparently bogus. The story here is how the U.S. again got bamboozled by transparent foreign manipulation and how the U.S. political press bought into it pretty much whole hog. That doesn’t mean they accepted all the claims. But they treated it as reasonable, worthy of a presumption of seriousness, a serious story to be covered as such. Even with the veritable forest of red flags.

Donald Trump and his MAGA legions have spent years shock-training reporters not to bring up anything else about Russian disinformation programs aimed at helping Donald Trump. But they’re real. They’re continuing. They’re actually working. . . . Reporters have been conditioned to ignore the clear implications of what we’re learning.

So, the House Oversight Committee can try to slink away under dark of night to conceal the obvious effort by Russia to interfere in the 2024 election . . . but the media should not allow Trump to do so. As Marshall writes, Russia’s efforts to interfere are “real, continuing, and working.”

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

#Biden Administration #Robert B. Hubbell #Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter #U.S.Political press #House Oversight committee #GOP House Putin Caucus #GOP Maga extremists #Putin #Russia #collusion #Putin's misinformation campaign

[thekimspoblog]

Women's rights are more important than democracy.

If I am locked in a room with 99 guys. And we take a vote on whether it would be ok to rape me. It wouldn't matter if there was a 99% majority consensus. All that would mean is that I would need to kill 99 men so that the consensus matches what's in my best interest.

Thankfully, it hasn't come to that: abortion rights are what the majority of Americans want, and supporting a democracy furthers the pro-choice agenda. But just keep this thought experiment in mind, because it's not just about abortion.

Democracy is not some sacred cow, not something you can simply stamp as "the best system of governance" and end the lesson there. Democracy is - at the end of the day - a dilution mechanism. A system of checks and balances is a somewhat effective means to slow a tyrant's ability to do whatever tyrannical things they wished to do. But there is a flipside to that; maybe if an intelligent and idealistic older woman was plucked from the very bottom of the card deck and given absolute power to rule as she saw fit, she would quickly resolve a lot of the crises currently threatening our world. Because she would have empathy and first-hand experience that a lot of the incumbent powers don't. After all, it is not actually absolute power which corrupts, but the pursuit of power. Power corrupts, because no matter the good intentions a politician may have when entering a democratic system, the plutocrats who have already staked their claim are extremely savvy about playing the shell-game with her causes; they know they can force the idealist to compromise her values on one progressive issue, in order to get their permission to advance another aspect of the progressive agenda. So by the time the politician reaches any noteworthy rank in office, she has been so turned around that she has forgotten her original purpose.

What's more, no matter how liberal a democracy, there's one thing you must remember: dead men cast no votes! A system which hears everyone's voice is still only able to respond to those still alive enough to voice their concerns. The plutocrats understand this and have integrated it into the shell game. So our democracy has never been an alternative to violence, because the system we have still rewards direct and indirect violence as a tactic to silence dissent and force a specific desired outcome. On some level, we all know this: it's common sense, and yet still we preach that democracy is some sort of alternative to anarchy and violence. It's not! The parameters of what sorts of questions are up for debate, and who gets to debate them, are still drawn in blood.

And so, my platform is simple: abortion is not up for vote. Abortion is not up for debate. Pro-choice is the only acceptable position for the world to hold, and anything that threatens that conclusion must be crushed with an iron fist. Free speech be damned, misogyny must be intimidated into submission, until our sons never even think to question whether a life-saving medical procedure should be banned. If promoting majority-rule is the fastest way to ensure this future, I will promote democracy. If installing a feminist authoritarian from a minority group in a life-long position of unilateral power starts to look like a faster or more certain way of creating that future, I will do that instead.

Women have the right to defend themselves against exploitation; nothing we do, no matter how violent or short-sighted, will leave us as the villains of history when we have been backed into a corner like this.

#feminism #leftism #critical authoritarianism #alt-left #anarchism #critical authoritarianism = when you agree with anarchocommunist goals but don't have enough faith in humanity

[lukiverse]

(Australians please read this) The Indigenous Voice to Parliament

Okay, so the basic idea of the Voice to parliament is adding a section to the Constitution (the laws that can't be changed except with a referendum) so that there is an Indigenous Advisory Board. This is something that First Nations people want and need, and the idea originated in the Uluru Statement From the Heart (https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/ it's less than a page long). 

These sorts of advisory boards aren't weird. Australia has over 110 of them for things like blood borne viruses and STIs, each containing qualified experts. Previously several attempts have been made to start Indigenous Advisory Boards but they've all been disbanded by successive governments. This is why we need to change the constitution. No matter who is in power, there will always be a group of elected Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people to give advice pertaining to their needs. (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-04/how-different-would-the-voice-be-from-other-advisory-bodies/102880116)

One of the no side's main arguments is that there aren't any details about the Voice. This is actually a good thing. The power to decide how it works will be in the hands of the parliament, meaning our democratically elected representatives can vote on how the Voice works. The Voice also will not have veto power, not will it add unnecessary and costly beaurocratic delays to government processes. It will simply give advice and make recommendations pertaining to First Nations issues. 

The Government doesn't even have to listen to the Voice, although public records will be made of who agrees and disagrees with them. The public then has the power to cast scrutiny on whoever they think is in the wrong (which will probably be the politicians). 

Reconciliation Australia's polls have found that 86% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people believe the Voice is important. (https://www.reconciliation.org.au/reconciliation/support-a-voice-to-parliament/)

Right now Indigenous Australians aren't in a great place. They are the most incarcerated race in the entire world compared to their total population (https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-first-australians-the-most-imprisoned-people-on-earth-78528). Aboriginal males have a 40% higher suicide rate than non-Aboriginal males. Right now our government is failing to address these concerns, and they've been failing for the past 50 years. A permanent advisory board composed of Indigenous leaders elected by Indigenous Australians can best represent their interest and will ultimately save lives. 

On a final note, this affair has seen a huge amount of misinformation and conspiracy theories, with wild claims that Indigenous Australians want us to pay rent or bypass our democracy. These claims are wildly untrue. (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/12/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-misinformation-fact-checked). Also note that in Australia it's legal to lie in political advertisements and campaigns (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/why-is-it-legal-to-tell-lies-during-the-voice-referendum-campaign/2wxd2gfec), so take any extremist, fear-mongering claims with a grain of salt. No side campaigners also claim that "if you don't know, vote no". This is absurd. If you truly want to excercise the power of democracy that you (or your parents) are extremely lucky to have, then please do your research and come to an informed conclusion. 

Further reading - 

Every Australian household has received a booklet containing information about the Yes side and the No side. I would recommend reading The Guardian's annotated versions of these, where they elaborate on certain points and call out incorrect or disputed claims. 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2023/jul/20/the-vote-yes-pamphlet-referendum-voice-to-parliament-voting-essay-aec-published-read-in-full-annotated-fact-checked

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2023/jul/20/the-vote-no-pamphlet-referendum-voice-to-parliament-voting-essay-aec-published-read-in-full-annotated-fact-checked

The Guardian and their independent journalism are honestly a tremendous resource, providing free and accurate information about the latest developments and clearly explaining everything for those who haven't kept up. 

I also urge everyone to read the Uluru Statement From the Heart, which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has committed to in full. 

Thanks for reading, hopefully I've helped clarify what the referendum is about, and maybe helped you make your decision. 🖤💛❤️

#australia #voice to parliament #yes23 #yes23au #referendum

[what-even-is-thiss]

I don’t actually think that money is inherently bad or the cause of all ills. Money is a tool that represents the value we put on things. It also represents debt, which existed before money. It’s a very useful tool if you ask me. Just for practicality’s sake in any large international society.

A lot of the actual problem is and always has been people trying to hoard power. Before money and in societies without money, people hoarded food, soldiers, access to water, access to religious spaces, access to land, and used their influence to hurt others in various ways.

Capitalism, communism, socialist democracies, dictatorships, are all relatively new things. And in the future something new will show up. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know if money will be involved. Whether it is or it isn’t, someone will probably try to game the system and hurt other people for their own benefit.

I’m not the sort of person who tries to plan out a new system and tie my politics to that. I’m the sort of person who looks at individual policies and practices and tries to figure out what good they can do and how they can be fixed and what that might lead to down the road.

When I look at money I don’t really think that the idea or item itself is causing the problem. Requiring people to buy food and other necessities wouldn’t be an issue if we made sure that everyone always had enough money to do at least that and heavily regulated or nationalized the industries selling those necessities.

I like money. Not through any love of greed or material objects, but as a practical thing. I don’t know everyone and I don’t want to. If we want to exchange goods and services around fairly, money is a nice practical way to do that.

And a lot of people like billionaires that people claim are hoarding money aren’t really doing that as their main crime against humanity. They’re hoarding land, housing, and partial ownership of the means of production in the form of stocks. People who hold a lot of stocks have actual voting power in large companies. None of this is just about money. It’s about who gets the power. And in this day and age money just happens to be the scale we use to conceptualize that power. We don’t even look at the number of people in a military as much anymore. We look at the size of military budgets. The amount of money spent on weapons. As the public these abstract numbers are how we understand the scale of certain things. But that number representing the stuff isn’t the problem itself. It’s the stuff they’re making and hoarding and how they project power with that stuff and hurt others.

There’s a lot I disagree with Marx about but one thing I think he was totally right to focus on was the means of production. Because that’s one thing that’s being controlled right now in large quantities. Agriculture for example is increasingly homogenized and controlled by only a few big corporations. And other things are being hoarded as well. Like the distribution of electricity or internet. Or space in major cities that could be used for affordable housing. Or housing itself.

I don’t think there’s one thing we can abolish or fix that can change all of this. But I personally center my politics on one thing at a time. Harm reduction and taking away bit by bit the ability of a very small portion of the population to hurt the rest of us.

The economic pain and other societal ills we’re all suffering from in one way or another are too complicated for one dingus or another to fix even in a purely abstract sense. But I do think it’s all more complicated than “money bad”. Because I don’t think that money is bad. Like I said at the beginning, it’s a tool. And a hammer can be used to both create and destroy.

#rambling #roman said a thing

[lunargracklepersonal]

It occurs to me that we're in a collective abusive relationship with our government. We have the chance to elect a government composed of one of two main forces. One is openly abusive. The other is covertly abusive.

There exist other forces we could elect to make up our government, but as a result of the first-past-the-post voting system most people don't consider these viable options.

Look, I come from a (relatively mildly) abusive family. If I had to choose to vote between my mother or father, one of who is less abusive than the other, and those were always my two choices, eventually do you know what I'd still realize? This is an abusive family. Does that mean I am obligated, morally, to vote for the less abusive one, and that things will in time stop being abusive as a result?

Now, imagine my siblings, some of whom are periodically being gaslit to be convinced no abuse is taking place, also get a vote.

Do you get where I'm going with this?

I'm essentially trying to get this family to vote for Uncle Mike, just long enough for us all to realize what's going on.

Failing that, I'm trying to get enough people to vote for Uncle Mike to trigger - something, anything, that gets real change. Maybe the abusive elements of the government will try to illegally crack down on people who voted third party and folks will riot. Maybe somebody more charismatic than I am will use that as the impetus to start a movement. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Better than waiting around for politicians to magically start growing a conscience.

But that's beside the point.

Do you see why I can't get behind the democratic party now?

This is still an abusive situation, just covertly instead of directly. These people are still fascists, just subtly instead of openly. And given a choice between Hitler and Mussolini the moral choice is not Mussolini as was proposed in a post that floated across my dash a few days ago.

I still believe in voting as a tool of democracy. Just consider voting third party - any third party you feel comfortable with will do. Vote for a joke if you can't find a good one. The point is to convince the people in power that you're still willing to put time and energy into democracy. Voting third party is a threat to them. A roundabout way of saying 'fuck your two party system'.

The argument of the split vote effect becomes irrelevant when both parties are abusive and you do not want either to win.

Someone somewhere is muttering, still, vote blue no matter who. Fuck that. Relegate it to the depths of hell where it belongs.

Do you realize how far right the blue has gone?

Even basic criticisms of wealth inequality have gone from a basic milquetoast centrist position anyone from the center right to the left could hold back on the 1990s to being considered actively leftist. (Oh, democrats, my dear sweet summer child, if you think a leftist is someone who criticizes wealth inequality and maybe has pronouns you're in for some shock when you fuck with any actual leftist.)

And do you know how we got here?

By voting without criticality.

A claim to blue-ness is a nothing claim. It's like claiming to be a nutritionist (as opposed to registered dietician) - anyone can do it, it's a nonregulated term. There are no official criteria. There is no test. No battle of wits with your predecessor or even a swearing in.

In other words, infiltration is really, really easy. Especially when your base keeps chanting 'vote blue no matter who'! So is just... Enshittification. We could have done so much better if we had held our side to a higher standard.

As far as I'm concerned, it's already over. Don't bother trying to convince me there's a chance to push the dems farther left or god forbid, rehabilitate Biden. I am an anarchist.

Tl;dr fuck 'vote blue no matter who'.

#anarchism #us politics #democrats #democracy #voting #vote third party

[mask131]

And one last post about the whole Israel situation, before I delve back into my regular schedule.

I already talked about this, but I feel it needs to be repeated since people love spreading misinformation, and it is SUPER simple to remember.

The reason why France stands with Israel and is against the Hamas is very simple and can be explained in a few sentences.

Israel is a democracy. No matter how fucked up of a democracy it might be, it is one. The Hamas is a terrorist organization. The Hamas attack on Israel was a terrorist attack onto a democratic government, no matter the how and whys surrounding it.

France, as a democracy who has been the victim of terrorist attacks all throughout the past decades, who is still the target of numerous terrorist organizations and groups - France, who had teachers beheaded, people crushed by a truck during the national holiday, policemen knived, journalists and artists shot to death, Jewish people attacked, Christian priests with their throats cut, bombs exploding in shops, concerts ending up in shootings - France, as a democracy that has been wounded by and is still under the threats of terrorist attacks, cannot possibly support or show any sympathy for the Hamas. France is the enemy and victim of terrorists, and thus cannot possibly show any kindness or understanding for a terrorist group.

France has to stand by the side of the victim of a terrorist attack, and has to support any democracy threatened by terrorists. As simple as that.

EDIT: Because one needs to clarify EVERYTHING on Tumblr and people are so happy to jump on misinterpreting, I want to explain that when I talk of "France", I do not say "we". I do not speak of the French people - and the heavens know that a part of French people are antisemites who refuse to see the Hamas as terrorists (or even antisemtimes who agree the Hamas is terrorist but say "But they kind of do the right thing though...".

When I say France here I mean France as a government, as a political entity, as a nation.

There is a crime in French law called "apology of terrorism" - when you express public support, public positive views and public understanding of terrorist organizations, no matter the organization in question, you can be accused of this. That's the law that prevents people from saying "9/11 was entirely justified and was a positive action". That's the same law that can punish those that claim the Hamas are the good guys. Because no matter the goal, the area, the time of the terrorist activity - the French law condemns any and all support of any and all terrorist activites and terrorist organizations. And that's it.

So once again, it doesn't break down to "good versus evil". It breaks down to "terrorist versus government".

#france #terrorism #hamas #israel #terrorist attacks

[marta-bee]

I've been ruminating (some would say obsessing) on that word I keep seeing used to describe the situation in Gaza. Genocide. Long post is long, so let's put this under a cut.

I know there's debate on some quarters on whether it's accurate; I'm not sure it is, but also think that question misses the point, because whatever else Gaza is, it's a humanitarian fuck-show. And it's caused, beside the obvious, by Israeli willingness to risk human life rather than tolerate a risk to their own security (which they're much better equipped to protect themselves from than the people of Gaza are), coupled with Israeli refusal to make lasting peace with their neighbor enabled by American military and cultural support. So yes, this one feels personal to me both as an American and someone with mixed Jewish-Christian heritage. People who claim to represent me are enabling said humanitarian fuck-show, which is nothing if not uncomfortable.

That said, every time I see that word it gets stuck in my craw a bit. Not because it's untrue but because mass human suffering caused by violence against an ethnic minority is hardly limited to Gaza, or to the present moment. So I'm questioning whether the Gaza situation is uniquely terrible. Not that it needs to be; I don't post about it much here because Tumblr is my refuge from the offline world, but I am doing quite a lot in RL to support Gaza, and to press my congressmen to take a stronger stance against Israel. I don't want to give the impression I'm not bothered or lukewarm just because I'm not vocal about it here.

But the fact that this suffering and violence isn't unique makes me really uncomfortable with that word because, let's face it, the language is intended to outrage people. I've been thinking about a phrase Fred Clarke (the blogger "Slacktivist" at Patheos, a moderate Baptist who often criticized Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism) used to parody fundamentalist stances on abortion. "Satanic baby-killers" - it was how the fundamentalists supposedly described abortionists and pro-life folks; not sure if they really used it or if Clarke invented it to make his point. The point being, even if you believed this was accurate of what abortionists were doing, the real reason to use it was to make abortionists and fellow citizens who happened to be pro-life seem so other, so --well-- Satanic, that it was morally impossible not to support them. It was meant to radicalize their own side and dehumanize the other.

I'm not so worried about dehumanizing Israelis and Jews more generally. I mean, yes, that's a concern, but it's possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, and this word at least doesn't play into all those old tropes, at least not in a way I can see. I'm more worried about how it shapes the way we think about our fellow Americans. Because America isn't as overwhelmingly outraged by the Gaza crisis as Tumblr and other left-leaning social media would make you believe. A recent Pew Research poll (results published 3/21/24) found that 31% said their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with Israel, and another 26% said they were equally sympathetic toward both groups. There are reasons for this, not particularly valid ones today but historically I understand why so many Americans (particularly older ones and more conservative ones) are primed to support, but for the most part those reasons are outdated, something they need to be encouraged to reconsider and move on from. Accusing them of supporting a genocide only puts them on the defense.

(The short version, based on my personal conversations with family and neighbors: they think of Israel as a democracy in a sea of dictatorships and monarchies, no longer true; Israel is our ally so it's unpatriotic to criticize them, would take more space to deconstruct but if we can't criticize our friends when they do shit like this who can; and they see Israel as a necessary safeguard where Jews can go to escape discrimination, which is vaguely racist and surely a much less humane and effective approach than addressing the anti-Semitism where said Jews actually live. As I said, not valid reasons, but reasons nonetheless I'm trying to help them grow out of through our conversations. Which means they need to feel safe enough to consider they might actually be wrong.)

The bigger concern for me, though, is what this does to the people using that language. That's why I brought up that "Satanic baby-killers" phrase. Because it ratchets up the sense that your neighbors are moral monsters. It dehumanizes them, so you don't see people who are wrong because they haven't educated themselves or even because they have some valid reason to support Israel I'm not seeing (I'm human, I'm fallible, and I always want to hear new ideas I haven't considered because I want to grow). Instead, they see someone despicable, someone who's wholly other from people like them. It dehumanizes them. And, speaking as someone who grew up in the American South in the '80s and '90s, so yes, I did live through that Satanic baby-killer mind set if not the actual language: that shit will mess you up. I'd rather my current friends not have to go through that.

On the other hand: Gaza is still a humanitarian fuck-show. And evil still needs to be opposed. I know that, and I do that. Possibly I should just get over my hang-up over that word and focus on the things that matter more in terms of RL consequences. Still, it bothers me, and -- being me -- I needed to take the time to unpack why.

#gaza #politics #marta blathers

[alatismeni-theitsa]

Because the West has it's society foundation based on Ancient Greece, they think they are familiar with it and think they can make changes for anything related to it.

The reason they don't do it to other countries' mythologies is because it's something foreigner to them like Indian, Asian mythology. They view it as something new, they will study it, but will never feel like they know it.

That's why so many USians and Europeans still make projects, movies, series, books still about Greek mythology, because they are more used to it.

Yup, that's the deeper reason I detect as well. I would also argue they don't exactly based their societies on ancient Greece. I mean, 1800 yrs ago of course they took some important elements and I don't deny it was transformative to some degree at the time and its echoes exist even today. But I feel as if the amount of ownership they feel over our heritage is borderline (negative) nationalistic. They are not familiar with the whole of ancient Greece, they actually only know by default something like 1% of it, which one would expect to be much more if their countries were based on that heritage.

They just point out a few ancient systems and boom! "Ancient Greece belongs to all of us". Franz, dear, you can't even suspect what these people ate for breakfast. Chill. Besides, there's a very good chance your medieval compatriots had no idea about these things until Greek war immigrants came to your land with the ancient texts they preserved.

Next thing imma say "Britain belongs to us" because at the moment our political system is parliamentary democracy (A quite removed democracy system from the one of ancient Athens), because Shakespeare had a huge impact on our theatre, because their poets and philosophers have radically influenced many of our important figures. Or I could say "the US belongs to the Greeks", because we are slowly Americanized in all aspects of our lives. Oh, it doesn't go like that? Oh, we need more than basic systems and a few trends to claim a culture?? How interesting!

And notice how they never say "based on" things about Middle Easterners, who did CRAZY good progress on astronomy, poetry, literature, physics, mathematics (they defined the form of the numbers we use today, like 1,2,3...!!), philosophy (they expanded Aristotle's and Plato's philosophy and became the next very famous school of thought), fucking ALGORITHMS and medicine (they freaking discovered that the heart pumps blood to the body which is hella important in my humble opinion 😂) Sure, sometimes Europe and the Middle East-Balkans were isolated but you cannot tell me Westerners took NOTHING of these basic inventions that define our world today. The site we converse on is based on an Algorithm. But there they can afford to make the distinction between "I take elements" and "I base my culture on theirs".

>> Obviously #notallwesterners and if one is a Classics student we are not gonna hang them from the sycamore (πλατάνι) of our village, or directly assume they are disrespectful. These discussions and rants take place so biases are detected and the field becomes better.

#I went on a rant but it wasn't directed to you anon #i just wanted to vent #answered #classics