#hashtag democracy or whatever | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nqynhhh · 2 days

Text

Is Tumblr a healthy public space?

These days, it's hard to ignore the progress of digital technology; every day, new tangible and intangible creations are being developed. The advancement of digital technology is booming, and That being said, more and more places are going digital. Now that anyone can say whatever they want online and remain anonymous, the question becomes what factors determine the health and suitability of that online public space for users. In this piece, we'll examine whether or not Tumblr is a healthy public area, which is the goal of the social networking site.

Imagine a giant digital town square – that's kind of what philosopher Jurgen Habermas (1991) had in mind with the public sphere. It's a space where everyone can freely chat, debate, and shape public opinion. Think of it as a key ingredient for a healthy democracy. But does Tumblr measure up?

On the plus side, Tumblr gets a big thumbs up for giving a voice to the unheard. From feminists and racial justice advocates (Hillis et al., 2015; McArthur, 2017) to LGBTQ+ groups, Tumblr offers a platform for those who might otherwise struggle to be seen. This inclusivity is exactly what a public sphere should be about – welcoming a variety of viewpoints.

But here's the rub: Tumblr also lets users huddle up in little online echo chambers, surrounded by people who already agree with them. This means they might miss out on those crucial dissenting opinions that spark lively discussions. Some folks worry this creates a filter bubble effect (Highfield, 2016), where you only hear what reinforces your existing beliefs. Habermas also stressed the importance of reasoned debate.

Tumblr's structure, with its focus on sharing and reblogging content, can be great for spreading ideas and getting conversations going. However, critics argue that the platform's "call-out culture" and "cancel culture" can sometimes prioritize outrage over actual discussion (Phillips & Milner, 2017). Not exactly the recipe for productive public discourse.

On the bright side, Tumblr has demonstrably played a role in social movements and political action (Bonilla & Rosa, 2015). So, it can be a forum for important conversations and civic engagement.

To sum up, whether Tumblr is a healthy public space depends on how you use it. If everyone behaves responsibly and respects diverse viewpoints, it can be a thriving digital town square. On the other hand, if people just use it to preach to the choir and shut down dissent, it can quickly turn toxic. The choice is ours!

REFERENCES:

Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the united states. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4–17.

Civitate. (2018, February 9). Healthy digital public sphere. Civitates. https://civitates-eu.org/healthy-digital-public-sphere/

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere : an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Massachusetts Institute Of Technology.

Highfield, T. (2016). Social media and everyday politics. Polity.

Hillis, K., Paasonen, S., & Petit, M. (2015). Networked affect. The Mit Press.

Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2017). The ambivalent Internet : mischief, oddity, and antagonism online. Polity Press.

#mda20009 #week3 #blog

1 note · View note

thundergrace · 2 years

Text

Please take a step back from the situation, because we are dealing right now with a series of bad choices: The US State Department and whatever private attorneys or negotiators are involved have called for silence: no grassroots movement, no international uproar, no upsetting what they clearly see as a delicate situation. Their strategy has brought us to a point where Griner is facing years at a labor camp. The need to switch strategies and the need to let Russia and Putin know that the whole world is watching when Griner finally sees the inside of a court room May 18 has never felt more pressing.

[...]

Yes, it’s time for the rallies, the hashtags, the petitions, and the press conferences. Does the State Department truly believe that raising up Griner’s name will make the situation worse? How much worse can it possibly get? By raising Griner’s name up to the light, at least we have the hope of creating an untenable situation for Putin as he continues a war in search of an off-ramp. It’s not just democracy that dies in darkness. Political prisoners quite literally die when their names are swallowed in our throats instead of shouted to the heavens. Free Brittney Griner. Bring her home. Stop the sports media blackout. And end the tactical silence.

Read the whole article. Please.

America is dangerously "out of sight, out of mind". The silence isn't just potentially a way for Russia to do what it wants with Brittney because we're clearly not paying attention, we're also not applying ANY pressure to the State Department with this silence. We're trusting them to do all they can to get a queer Black woman home??? People talk about how much BG is a symbol of everything Russia hates, did they forget America is anti-Black and homophobic, from the top down or...?

I understand the silence as a strategy to prevent her from becoming a pawn but was it ever considered that if the US appears not to care about her she's useless as a hostage? Useless hostages don't just get sent home.

Also, American citizens are not being silent about a queer Black WNBA player being held as a political prisoner as a tactical strategy, they just don't care. They never needed to be told to stop talking about her, rallying for her freedom, writing about her, posting about her, they just..... never were. And those that do care well, the distractions are endless and something awful and terrible is in the news everyday. That's where journalism is supposed to come in and remind us all that we have a woman in a very dangerous situation, in a very dangerous place.

#brittney griner #hell of an opening sentence lol #*sigh* okay #wnba

118 notes · View notes

brotheralyosha · 3 years

Link

While canon formation has historically been shaped by bigotry it is not a fixed thing and people have been working on canon expansion, particularly with an eye to including underrepresented groups, for decades now. The canon doesn’t exist apart from the classroom, hovering as a celestial sphere from which teachers pluck holy ancient texts. It is—as it has always been—constantly shifting, accommodating new texts and quietly dropping others, as teachers decide what to teach and what to skip. So if today’s students are not, in fact, trapped in the musty archival Hell of a classics-only curriculum—and if they’re not reading only novels, but essays, speeches, and poetry—what is everybody so upset about? And why does the “throw Gatsby in the garbage” stuff get louder every year? I suspect it’s because these arguments are not really about what high school students should read; they’re about how these adults feel about their current reading habits. And because some of these Fitzgerald-haters aren’t simply readers, they are Book People.

A reader is someone who is in the habit of reading. A Book Person has turned reading into an identity. A Book Person participates in book culture. Book People refer to themselves as “bookworms” and post Bookstagrams of their “stacks.” They tend towards language like “I love this so hard” or “this gave me all the feels” and enjoy gentle memes about buying more books than they can read and the travesty of dog-eared pages. They build Christmas trees out of books. They write reviews on Goodreads and read book blogs and use the hashtag #amreading when they are reading. They have TBR (to be read) lists and admit to DNFing (did not finish). They watch BookTube and BookTok. They love a stuffed shelf but don’t reject audiobooks and e-readers; to a Book Person, reading is reading is reading.

Book People tend towards anti-elitism born of the belief that any fiction is transformative and redemptive, flattening YA, Middle Grade, sci-fi/fantasy, romance, and whatever we can agree literary fiction is into a single, unquestionably worthwhile genre: The novel.

But with this commitment to generic democracy comes defensiveness; Book People often feel they’re being demeaned or mocked for liking genre fiction or listening to audiobooks. They also tend to buy into the idea that books are a kind of empathy machine—that reading good books can make you a better person—which makes books that explore ambiguous morality nothing short of dangerous. That’s how you end up with long threads of librarians vowing never to read Lolita due to its offensive content, as though to read the book would be to condone child rape by verbose, smug perverts, as Nabokov allegedly does.

The habit of reading became an identity and culture in response to a growing sense—and fact—that fiction-reading is endangered. Indeed, book reading’s popularity declined over the last few decades; TV decimated reading rates at the end of the last century and the percentage of adults who read at least one book per year has dropped 5 percent since 2011, with fluctuations in between. If reading is threatened by our ever-increasing access to alternate diversions, and if the e-reader and the audiobook lure us away from the physical page, then the book-as-object must be made more precious. The bookshelf becomes a shrine, the book a fetish. This could be why those arguing that classic books alienate young readers suggest 21st Century titles as substitutions: if we want to keep the book alive, we have to read, and more to the point buy, the books being produced now.

But let’s not fool ourselves that these conversations are practical. After all, this latest iteration of the canon wars finds a home on Twitter, where Book People, authors who are required by their agents and publishers to maintain social media presences, and academic Book People-—English teachers and professors invested at both the career and emotional level in the power of the book—go to transmute their anxieties and resentments into discourse. This discourse evinces a conflation of both book-reading and online posting for activism; as has been pointed out, the terrible, embarrassing lure of The Discourse is in convincing us that we’re doing something other than what we’re actually doing, which is posting. Our posts do not, it turns out, affect text selection policy even if it feels like they do.

These complaints represent an outsized emphasis on formal education as bestowing all of a person’s ethics, prejudices, and the breadth of their knowledge. But the properly morally-tuned novel taught at the appropriate age and scaffolded with the optimal lesson plan isn’t a bulwark against teenagers becoming racist or hopeless or violent; after all, students leave the classroom and enter the rest of the world, where they’re influenced by their parents, their peers, their experience and the wider culture. And what a relief! Teachers don’t need that pressure. We just figured out how to do custom breakout rooms on Zoom.

Books aren’t holy, and declaring in capitalized, weirdly baroque curse words that you don’t like certain popular or well-regarded ones isn’t particularly scandalous or interesting. They are, after all, just books. Some are great, some are middling, and six of them are by Chelsea Handler.

#god yes fucking thank you #twitter #ya literature #ya lit #literature discourse #elitism in academia discourse #jezebel #joanna mang #long post

143 notes · View notes

crossdreamers · 4 years

Text

Has J.K. Rowling been misunderstood or is she really transphobic?

There is an interesting discussion on the Rowling supporting Forstater case over at CDL, where one member asked the following pertinent question:

how would it be possible for someone to say 'we must be allowed...' without them being interpreted by commentators such as yourself as 'wanting to invalidate trans women'? you close down respectful discussion by presuming an ugly motive, by seeking to disqualify any opinion other than 'transwomen are women, as much as ciswomen are' as being too offensive to be considered. having been thus insulted, gender-critical feminists are likely to retaliate with genuinely offensive responses, and the dialog gets still uglier. this is so typical of internet discourse.

Here’s an edit of my response:

Rowling is invalidating trans women. The tweet is clearly in support of a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). She is even using TERF hash tags. So I am not presuming an ugly motive. It is clear and out in the open.

I have been discussing trans issues with TERFs for some years now, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that they are aggressive transphobes who are actively trying to make the lives of trans women a living hell.

Deconstructing the tweet Here is the tweet as she wrote it:

“Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya#ThisIsNotADrill. "

It is pretty clear what it means: 1. The first part is the traditional TERF pseudo-acceptance. "By all means dress up as women! We are liberal and open minded, after all. But you are not women." In other words: This is not in reference to a philosophical discussion about what constitutes womanhood, this is in reference to a political and cultural movement that is established to attack trans women. As we know, TERFs think trans men are deluded lesbian women, androphilic trans women are misguided effeminate trans men and gynephilic trans women are perverted "autogynephiliacs". There is no common ground that makes an open, tolerant and informed discussion possible here. 2. The second part is a TERF lie. Women are not forced out of jobs for stating that (biological) sex is real. One woman was forced out of her job because she actively promoted the idea that biological sex and gender is the same (which is not true, by the way) in order to invalidate and harass trans women. And yes, forcing trans women to use men's bathrooms, stay in men's prisons, be excluded from the right sport teams and use male identity papers are deliberate and hostile acts meant to force them back into the closet. 3. #IStandWithMaya is a TERF hashtag, used to propagate the view that trans women are men. The hashtag refers to a court case Maya Forstater filed in London against her former employer — and which she lost.

The judge concluded that this was harassment In a 26-page ruling, the judge wrote that Forstater is “absolutist in her view of sex, and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”Here's more about Forestater's opinions.

Slate writes:

Forstater’s contract with the Center for Global Development was not renewed due to a series of transphobic comments made in multiple forums. She repeatedly tweeted statements like, “I think that male people are not women. I don’t think being a woman/female is a matter of identity or womanly feelings. It is biology.” In a workplace Slack she wrote, “But if people find the basic biological truths that ‘women are adult human females’ or ‘transwomen are male’ offensive, then they will be offended.”

Forstater also purposefully misgendered a nonbinary councilor on Twitter, and when they complained, she wrote, “I reserve the right to use the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘him’ to refer to male people. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy, no one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not believe.”

TERFs are not debating, they are waging a war

I am all for an open and fair discussion, if your opponent believes in at least some of the same fundamental values of democracy and an informed debate, but fundamentalists and extremists do not, and if that is the case they do not deserve my respect and patience. In Norway TERFs have published photos of the child of a trans friend of mine, one of the leading trans activists in the country, implying that she is a male child molester. This is not about having (or not having) a democratic debate; this is about defending trans people against bigots who threaten their right to be themselves, who threaten their families, their dignity and their health. As far as I am concerned, Rowling might as well has come out in support of the Klan. It is that bad.

Rowling has had the chance to explain herself

Let me add one more thing: Several LGBTQA sites and organizations have tried to get Rowling to elaborate on her tweet. They given her a chance to explain herself and present a more positive approach to trans people. She has said nothing, and refused all comments. And given all the criticism that is for me another clear sign that she is on the side of the TERFs. Please remember that the British feminist scene has become toxic because of the TERFs, much more so than in the US, where a new generation of compassionate intersectionalist feminists are dominating the debate.

You cannot force NGOs to hire bigots

Forstater worked in an organization called Center for Global Development. This is a non-government organization (NGO) working for the realization of the UN sustainability goals. They note that they are "committed to transparency, diversity, and professional and personal integrity." They "value mutual respect, a collegial work place, and a healthy sense of humor."

As I see it, you cannot force an NGO with an agenda of tolerance and inclusion to employ someone with the exact opposite values. You cannot, for instance, force an anti-racist civil rights organization to keep someone who is a racist or a nazi on board, nor can you force a feminist organization to hire a male misogynist. You can read the ruling here. As you will see the judge has concluded that Forstater's argument that sex is unchangeable is not a philosophical statement in this context, but harassment.

I agree.

Rowling is not stupid. She knows what she is doing. She knows how to read. This was a deliberate act from her side. Too bad.

Se also: J.K. Rowling’s betrayal of trans people is also a betrayal of her own books

#transgender #trans #transphobia #lgbt #lgbtqa #terf #gender critical

135 notes · View notes

geezerwench · 3 years

Text

QAnon Woke Up the Real Deep State

To the QAnon community, and others involved in storming the Capitol:

The Deep State is real, but it’s not what you think. The Deep State you worry about is mostly made up; a fiction, a lie, a product of active imaginations, grifter manipulations, and the internet. I’m telling you this now because storming the Capitol building has drawn the attention of the real Deep State — the national security bureaucracy — and it’s important you understand what that means.

You attacked America. Maybe you think it was justified — as a response to a stolen election, or a cabal of child-trafficking pedophiles, or whatever — but it was still a violent attack on the United States. No matter how you describe it, that’s how the real Deep State is going to treat it.

The impact of that will make everything else feel like a LARP.

The Real Deep State

I’ve been teaching college students about the Deep State for years, and have interacted with it on occasion. By “Deep State,” I’m referring to executive branch agencies populated with unelected officials, especially those involving national security, law enforcement, and intelligence. The non-nefarious name for it is “the federal bureaucracy,” with the subset that includes the military, CIA, and FBI known as “the national security state.”

In 2017, conservative writer David Frum quipped that if you replaced “Deep State” with “rule of law,” you’d have a better understanding of Trumpist complaints.

There’s some truth in that. Federal agencies and their mandates were created by law, their annual budgets are determined by law, and they’re overseen by elected officials. Their main job is executing U.S. law, and one reason they’ve clashed with the White House is being asked to do things outside their legal abilities, or to not do things that are legally required.

So rule of law is part of it, but it’s not that simple.

The president appoints and the Senate confirms top officials, from the Secretary of State to the five members of the Arctic Research Commission, over 1,200 in total. Every other executive branch employee — over 4 million if you include the military, over 2.7 million if you don’t — is hired or recruited, not elected or appointed. This means that the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, the intelligence community, and federal law enforcement are staffed with people the agencies hired themselves.

Their mandates are broad. For example, the FBI is supposed to “investigate federal crimes and threats to national security.” While there are laws giving the FBI certain powers (e.g. to arrest people) and limits (needing warrants), a lot is open to interpretation, especially regarding national security threats.

It’s fair to say the FBI, CIA, IRS, CDC, and other federal agencies have, to some extent, taken on lives of their own. So has the military, and the larger defense-industrial complex. They’re under control of elected and appointed leaders, but also not, acting according to established laws, established regulations (many of which they wrote themselves), and individual judgment calls. You could call that “the Deep State.”

National Security

If you want to understand the real Deep State, the biggest thing you need to know is it’s institutional, impersonal, and operates on a national scale.

The law enforcement-intelligence-national security bureaucracy doesn’t really care about a lot of the little things people think it cares about. It’s mostly focused on terrorists, serial killers, narco-traffickers, and foreign governments. Threats to the nation.

Previous QAnon activity wasn’t on that scale, but the Capitol attack is. I don’t think this has sunk in yet. It wasn’t 9/11, but it was bigger than, for example, Benghazi.

Americans storming the Capitol to prevent Congress from carrying out election law hasn’t happened before. When four Puerto Rican nationalists shot at Congressmen from the House balcony in 1954, they were rightly called terrorists, convicted in federal court, and imprisoned. And that was just four attackers, no one died, and it wasn’t encouraged by a losing presidential candidate to disrupt the peaceful transition of power.

The Capitol attack was a unique event in American history, something they’ll teach about in high school. National security analysts are comparing it to last year’s FBI-thwarted plot to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, which came a few months after armed demonstrators forcefully stopped business at the Michigan statehouse. There have been armed post-election demonstrations at multiple statehouses, and reports of plots to storm them next week.

It’s a pattern. And after the Capitol attack, the Deep State is going to take it seriously.

U.S. code defines “sedition” as using “force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” That’s what you did. And the legal process you tried to stop is one of the most important in American democracy.

Five people are dead, and it could’ve easily been more. You beat a police officer to death and injured others. You set up a gallows and chanted “hang Mike Pence.” While some goofy attention-seekers attracted the most focus at first, it’s increasingly clear that some who stormed the Capitol, likely members of far right militias, were searching for Vice President Pence, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and other national leaders, and would’ve killed them if they had the chance. That’s terrorism, fortunately thwarted by Capitol security and luck.

Compare that to, for example, riots this past summer. Looting is bad, but it’s a problem for police and insurance companies. Trying to burn down a police station or courthouse is worse, but that too is a law enforcement problem, perhaps one requiring federal assistance. Storming the Capitol, forcefully hindering the execution of U.S. law, and trying to kill top elected officials is a national security problem.

What you did was on another level, and the reaction will be too.

After the Capitol Attack

By “you,” I don’t mean you personally (unless you were there), but your movement as a whole. QAnon’s fingerprints are all over this.

A 35-year-old woman named Ashli Babbitt, shot by Capitol police as she climbed through an opening near where elected officials were hiding, was a QAnon believer who thought she was taking part in the prophesized “storm.” The guy in the horns who traipsed through the Senate chamber is known as the “Q Shaman.” QAnon slogans and hashtags, such as “where we go one we go all,” can be seen on shirts and signs at the riot, and on tons of related social media posts.

This means that, for the first time, the Deep State cares about you.

No matter what anyone’s told you, Deep State operatives weren’t spending their time messing with your internet discussions. That’s below their radar. It wasn’t until May 2019 that an FBI intelligence bulletin warned of the potential for terrorism from “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists,” using QAnon and Pizzagate as examples. But it didn’t become a law enforcement or counterterrorism priority.

I should know — I’ve been trying to get them to take QAnon more seriously. This past August, after Trump publicly acknowledged the movement, I warned of the potential for election violence in a national security publication called Defense One:

Win, lose, or too close to call, Trump will be in a position to activate the violent subsets of QAnon, deliberately or inadvertently. The president has been insisting, without evidence, that the election will be rigged, blaming an ambiguous “they” or a rotating cast of villains. The conspiracy-minded QAnon community makes for a receptive audience.

If Trump starts tweeting things like “RIGGED! They’re trying to take your country. Don’t let them! THIS IS IT! Second Amendment!” — let alone if he uses QAnon lingo like “the Storm is upon us” — there’s a risk that some violence-embracing QAnon followers decide to act. And if some do, it could encourage others.

That’s basically what happened. If anything, I think I guessed low.

But now that QAnon was involved in violent sedition, the national security state is paying attention. Arrests of people caught on camera storming the Capitol have already begun. Prosecutions will follow. Big tech companies — who, while powerful, are weaker than, and have a healthy fear of the government — are now treating QAnon almost like how they treat ISIS. A giant federal apparatus built to fight al Qaeda will shift some capacity to fighting you, especially the white nationalist and anti-government militias in your orbit.

You cheered on lawyers who said they’d release the Kraken. But now you’ve poked Leviathan.

This is what you need to absorb: QAnon and “stop the steal” are forever associated with a violent attack against the United States. Maybe that’s not what it’s meant to you, maybe you think that’s a misread of last week’s events, but that’s how the real Deep State, a lot of elected officials, and much of the public sees it.

If that isn’t what you signed up for, now would be a good time to get out.

https://arcdigital.media/qanon-woke-up-the-real-deep-state-72bbfcb79488

#QAnon #deepstate #deep state #conspiracy theories #CapitolRiots #CapitolInsurrection #Josh Hawley seditionist #sedition #CapitolSedition #MAGATerrorists #TrumpTerrorists #CapitolSeditionists #three percenters #proudboys #boogaloobois #WhiteNationalists #WhiteSupremacists

1 note · View note

blogaholik · 4 years

Text

Digital Citizenship 1: political engagement

First of all, we could start by discussing how everyday social media use by ordinary people and by political or social activists, is enabling users in disparate locations to be connected.

These established connections could be emotional or affective ones, seen as a mutual feeling of empathy or distress that assists with impelling digital mobilization and to create a civil society. The obscuring of the boundaries by social media platforms between emotion and rationality, private life and public life, is a significant feature of the acknowledgement of a civil society.

As anyone might expect, not every person is similarly optimistic about social media-driven contemporary support and mobilization or the even networking influences for new forms of politics. Some have reliably pointed out that it is those individuals who have digital skills and literacy who stand to gain the most in using the internet for campaigning or activism. Online political activities are infrequently illustrative of the various groups comprising society. This is a significant test to the principle of equality, fundamental to all democracy models (Breindl, 2013).

An argument by Dumitrica comes to mind, highlighting that the networked use of social media does not guarantee political change. The affordances of new social media platforms such as Twitter, may make it easier to engage in politics, but should not be understood as independently leading to equality or democracy, whatever the case may be. The actions of people collectively, the possibilities of inclusion and questions of where political power is based, all still matter (Dumitrica and Bakardjieva, 2017).

Take for example, the twitter movement hashtagged #MarchForOurLives, this is a well connected movement, however, requires people's action and the drive to fulfill the physical execution of the movement. This connected society has given rise to much needed awareness leading to murder investigations, for example, the disturbing murder of Breonna Taylor. The current investigation into this murder resulted to no charges: https://twitter.com/AMarch4OurLives/status/1308889184036433929. Indeed, networked use of social media does not guarantee intended social or political results. However, a true sign of misfunctionality of policing in America.

Social media use is changing political participation in the traditional sense - from citizens using it to engage their governments and demanding better societies, to campaign leaders using it to craft their autobiography as well as organizational narratives.

It is notably visible how some of these political campaigns are comprised of strategies aimed at 'targets' that are mostly shifting beyond government to include non-governmental entities or corporations.

Reference List

Breindl, Y. and Briatte, F. (2013). Digital Protest Skills and Online Activism Against Copyright Reform in France and the European Union. Policy & Internet, 5(1), pp.27–55.

Dumitrica, D. and Bakardjieva, M. (2017). The personalization of engagement: the symbolic construction of social media and grassroots mobilization in Canadian newspapers. Media, Culture & Society, 40(6), pp.817–837.

Ariadne Vromen (2017). Digital citizenship and political engagement : the challenge from online campaigning and advocacy organisations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

#MDA20009 #WEEK5

1 note · View note

catharsis-in-a-bottle · 4 years

Text

So I know hardly anyone is gonna see this BUT, as an attempt to spread any info and petitions possible across all platforms, here’s a linktree with links related to blm:

I’m glad that democracy allows teenagers to have an impact even if they can’t vote, I mean look at the tiktokers who bought tickets to draw people away from trump’s rally, fucking power move. But anyway I’ll probably rant about my thoughts on *gestures vaguely towards planet* /this shit/, because with 90% of people irl I’m not permitted to give passionate orations (aka stuttering improvised speeches but whatever). I also have a couple of posts with petitions on my Instagram (@al.rysk) in case I can reach anyone with this post through hashtags, I mean probably not but every name counts peeps. Peace out

#blm #black lives matter #petition #petitions #blm movement #blm petitions #hello to the probably only one person who sees this #blacklivesmatter

1 note · View note

devil-spit · 5 years

Text

Random Legacy Challenge!

Ok @llamapyxels is doing this so i’m making Caleb and Damien my first gen legacy.

THE RANDOM LEGACY CHALLENGE

I have been wanting to do this challenge for years now but I really never do, so I decided since I purged all my stuff (because I’m nuts) and all my BC is queued up, I would start it! *I DID NOT MAKE THIS CHALLENGE, IDK WHO DID!*

So I am going to make this my first post of the legacy with all my challenge rollings and such that will be done in advance!! Just in case you are wondering, for this challenge rollings I use random.org.

NOTE: This is going to be a LONG post, so I will include everything under the cut. You DON’T have to read this, its mostly just so I can keep track. If you want to copy and paste all this and use it for your own use to keep track go ahead! Tag me if you do I would LOVE to follow long your legacy!

Choosing an Heir

I rolled Random Succession Law, I clicked the link & then I rolled in each category.

Gender Law:

Strict Patriarchy: The Founder must be male. Only boys are eligible to be named heir. Female children cannot, under any circumstance, ever be the heir to the next generation.

Bloodline Law:

Traditional: Children who are naturally born from the previous generation are eligible to be named heir. Adopted children are ineligible to be named heir unless there are no naturally born children, at which point they become eligible for that generation.

Heir Law:

Democracy: This rule may be used if you are displaying your Legacy Challenge in some public way. Either via Let’s Play, Livestream, blog or other format where people can leave comment. The heir is chosen by your viewers/readers from among the pool of eligible heirs. (Meaning you guys VOTE!)

Species Law:

Tolerant – The species of the child has no impact on their eligibility for heir status

Marital Status

I rolled 10; 6-15: Couple - Your heir must obtain a romantic live-in partner. They do not have to be married.

Number of Children

I rolled a 7; 3 children. Note you cannot make any children in CAS, they need to be made naturally and/or adopted.

Primary Career (founder)

I rolled a 3; Unconventional Career (roll C2)

Unconventional Careers

I rolled a 11; Professional Gamer – Create computer games(programming 9), livestream and compete in gaming tournaments to earn money.

Secondary Careers (roll if you have a spouse and/or helpers)

I rolled a 6; Unconventional Career (roll C2)

Unconventional Careers

I rolled a 1; Freelance Painter - Paint whatever you want whenever you want and sell it to collectors.

Generation Goals (generation one, different roll for every generation I will update it with each generation!)

I rolled a 13; Memorial - The heir, along with any spouses or helpers, must be memorialized this generation, by a sim with maxed skill in the relevant crafting skill(painting, photography or writing). Memorials may consist of: a painted portrait, a photograph, a biography, or a book of life. Each memorial can be crafted by a different sim if you want, and they don't have to all be the same type, though they should all be displayed together.

Miscellaneous Fun (Also generational, refer above.)

I rolled a 16; 6: My Precious - When your sim finds something they like, it's hard for them to let it go. Pick one of the options below to build a collection over the course of your heir's lifetime. The collection must be displayed somewhere on the legacy lot, so it may not be kept in an inventory, until the generation is complete.

I picked option B) So bright, so beautiful, my precious - Once a week, your sim must purchase something beautiful and shiny from the decorations tab in buy mode. This should be something that exists only to look awesome, and should be displayed all together(or as trophy centerpieces in each room or something), not decor that "blends in" such as toilet paper rolls in the bathroom or a pan rack in the kitchen. If your sim is insane and decides to build a "bathroom shrine" in their living room, that's totally legit, but it should be done to add to the story, not just because you couldn't be bothered to find a better idea than buying misc decorations for your bathrooms to fulfill this fun.

Thank you if you took the time to read, the hashtag will start by #McKayGen1

#McKayGen1 #McKay Legacy

9 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

Obama Moves Off Political Sidelines, Earlier Than He Expected https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/politics/obama-2020-candidates.html

Obama Moves Off Political Sidelines, Earlier Than He Expected

By Glenn Thrush | Published Nov. 20, 2019, 1:18 p.m. ET | New York Times | Posted November 20, 2019 |

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama had a plan of sorts for the 2020 presidential primaries, according to several allies and advisers: Stay out of the way, offer advice when asked, promote voting rights, finish a new memoir — then jump back into politics after Democrats picked their nominee.

Things haven’t worked out like that.

After three years of largely steering clear of divisive internal Democratic fights, Mr. Obama is increasingly moving off the political sidelines and trying to play a new role: elder statesman for a party grappling with its post-Obama identity. Associates describe a former president impelled by his belief that the diverse electorate he once unified is being split by “Medicare for all” and immigration proposals — ideas that he thinks could alienate moderate voters in the 2020 election.

From appearances before party donors to conversations with activists and lawmakers, Mr. Obama is going public with a message for his fellow Democrats he had previously made in private to allies and a handful of friendly journalists: Focus on defeating President Trump, ditch the ideological purity and the “cancel” culture, or face the abyss.

He is expected to amplify these concerns about the 2020 race on Thursday at an event with party donors in San Francisco, an aide said, giving him a fresh chance to reflect on Wednesday night’s Democratic debate in Atlanta. (Several of those interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity to describe his private views.)

“What’s happening is he’s seeing the campaign move to a different stage, and he’s reacting to it,” said David Axelrod, a longtime Obama adviser. “He sees himself as a ref, not a player. What he’s saying is, ‘Hey, let’s not put so much passion into the intramurals that we forget to show up for the actual game.’”

Mr. Obama made that point in the bluntest possible terms last week to an audience of Democratic donors who had expected him to offer reassurances about the strength of the Democratic field and the durability of the party’s leading moderate, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

After praising the field and suggesting any of them could defeat Mr. Trump, he issued a warning that appeared aimed at Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the two leading liberals in the 2020 race, who have proposed far-reaching changes to the American economy and health care and education systems.

“The average American doesn’t think that we have to completely tear down the system and remake it,” said Mr. Obama, appearing onstage at the annual meeting of the progressive Democracy Alliance in Washington with Stacey Abrams, the former Georgia Senate candidate. “There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who they just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff.”

Mr. Obama voiced similar concerns two weeks earlier, calling on young Democrats to move past “woke” culture, which he sees as an impediment to creating a coalition that includes moderates, independents and Republicans who don’t share their opinions on some issues. “That’s not activism,” he said during an event for the Obama Foundation in Chicago, that was disparaged by some critics as paternalistic. “That’s not bringing about change.”

Mr. Obama is hardly undertaking a full-on intervention, and modulating criticism with statements of reassurance: He is not calling out Democrats by name, and by all accounts he has chosen not to get involved behind the scenes in playing favorites among the candidates.

Yet Mr. Obama, who foreshadowed his public warnings in a closed-door pep talk for newly-elected House Democrats last spring, is clearly trying to make the case for a moderate and inclusive brand of politics — a message that helped him win in traditionally Republican states like Indiana and North Carolina in 2008. It is a viewpoint reflected in findings by a recent New York Times/Siena College poll of six battleground states showing that Democratic primary voters prefer candidates who pursue moderate, as opposed to liberal, policy goals.

“He’s trying to set a tone,” said Robert Wolf, a friend of Mr. Obama and former chairman of UBS Americas, a part of the global investment firm. “He cares first about electability, whatever is second is a very distant second.”

Mr. Obama’s coming remarks on Thursday will be part of an onstage interview with Thomas E. Perez, the Democratic National Committee chairman, at a fund-raising event in California. He has no plans to speak about the 2020 race for the rest of the year, according to the Obama aide who described his plans for Thursday.

The former president’s comments also reflect his own policy legacy, which has come in for modest questioning and criticism at times by some Democrats in the debates and on the campaign trail. (One friend said Mr. Obama had brushed off debate criticisms, joking that the eventual winner will “come back to me when they need me.”)

Mr. Obama was initially reluctant to attack Mr. Trump after he left the Oval Office, in part because he wanted to embrace the informal practice adopted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, of not attacking a presidential successor, former aides said. But he was also concerned that going after Mr. Trump would play into Republicans’ hands by prompting a backlash, they added.

By the 2018 midterms, Mr. Obama abandoned that reticence and campaigned aggressively against Mr. Trump, emboldened by the president’s halfhearted response to his attacks.

He also offered vague praise for the large-scale health care policy that Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren are now championing. “Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, but they’re running on new ideas like Medicare for all,” he said in a speech at the University of Illinois in September of 2018.

The big difference now is Mr. Obama’s willingness to publicly criticize others in his party, however indirectly, something he had avoided.

Katie Hill, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, said that he was not targeting Mr. Sanders or Ms. Warren in his remarks last week, and that his public declarations in support of the Democratic field and a diversity of opinions are the core of his message.

“Since leaving office, President Obama has worked to stay out of the political fray in part to let other, new voices in the Democratic Party rise up,” Ms. Hill said on Wednesday. “Just like in 2018, he’ll be out on the campaign trail next fall working hard for whoever our nominee is.”

But Mr. Obama made it clear in his remarks to the Democracy Alliance that he sees the Medicare for all plan as a threat to the party among moderate voters, many of whom fear they will lose their private health coverage — giving them an excuse to support Mr. Trump in 2020.

Mr. Sanders, responding to Mr. Obama’s remarks last weekend, said: “I’m not tearing down the system. We’re fighting for justice.” Ms. Warren did not push back, and said she was “grateful” for Mr. Obama’s passage of the Affordable Care Act. But some on the party’s left, including Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota were less accommodating, tweeting out the hashtag “#TooFarLeft” in disapproval.

Mr. Obama has also quietly expressed concerns, as have many other Democrats, about the performance of his former vice president, Mr. Biden, especially in the debates, according to two Democrats with knowledge of the interactions.

His unfinished book, a memoir spanning his eight years in office, is also weighing heavily on Mr. Obama, who sees it as his principal legacy project, a literary bookend to his highly-regarded 1995 autobiography “Dreams From My Father.”

The former president, a meticulous writer and chronic procrastinator, has blown through several self-imposed deadlines — he told Ms. Abrams it was “a pain” — and no one quite knows when it will be finished, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

The process of reliving his presidency day by day, writing in longhand and revising it with his speechwriter Cody Keenan, has put him in a reflective and, at times, feisty mood, associates say, making him more willing to express his thoughts to a wider audience.

Mr. Obama has taken great care not to express his opinions about particular candidates — at least in earshot of anyone who will leak them — and has told people around him that he wants to avoid even the slightest perception that he is “thumbing the scale” for any candidate, as he did by tacitly backing Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign in 2016.

He has, nonetheless, offered personal support to Mr. Biden but has been careful to cast his efforts in personal, not political terms. Earlier this year, he described his motivation, telling Mr. Biden’s brain trust that he did not want to see Mr. Biden “embarrass himself.”

Mr. Obama’s relationship with Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders has been more distant, but cordial. Both reached out to Mr. Obama shortly after they announced their candidacies earlier this year, and he offered each a bit of individualized advice, counseling Mr. Sanders to espouse “mainstream” ideas, a person close to the Vermont senator said. He urged Ms. Warren to embrace party “unity,” according to two people close to the Massachusetts senator.

He has a deeper connection to former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a close friend who has served on his foundation’s board, and discussed the possibility of a campaign with Mr. Patrick last year, people close to both men said. But he now believes Mr. Patrick’s entrance into the race last week came too late, these people say.

Mr. Obama is acutely aware of timing when it comes to his own actions. His appearance at the conference was intended to reassure nervous donors that he had confidence in the ultimate outcome of the 2020 election. He added his warning to an outline of his remarks only a few days before the conference, a person involved in the planning said.

“There are a lot of people who have been wanting him to get out there and mix it up more with Trump,” said Gara LaMarche, president of the Democracy Alliance. “People miss his voice. Even people in the room who didn’t necessarily agree with what he had to say were happy to have him back in the fray.”

#2020 candidates #2020 election #2020 presidential election #obama legacy #obama #michelle obama #barack obama #potus44 #democrats #democracy #democratic party #democratic debate #u.s. news #u.s. presidential elections #u.s. politics #us politics #politics and government #politics

1 note · View note

berniesrevolution · 6 years

Link

Editor’s note: On the outside, Spenser Rapone’s West Point graduation uniform looked like all the other cadets’. Underneath his dress uniform, however, was evidence of his political views: a T-shirt bearing Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara’s image, and a cap that read, inside, “Communism will win.”

The shirt and hat made waves in the U.S. military community after Rapone posted photos of them on social media in September, and now he has been given an “other than honorable” discharge. According to The Associated Press, he was charged with “conduct unbecoming of an officer” after an Army investigation determined that he “went online to promote a socialist revolution and disparage high-ranking officers.”

In the following statement for Truthdig, Rapone explains his political beliefs.

I am a combat veteran with the First Ranger Battalion, a recent graduate of West Point and a former second lieutenant who was stationed at Fort Drum, N.Y. Since identifying myself as a socialist, there has been much controversy generated by a number of my public statements.

It began with my post on social media, in which I expressed my full and enthusiastic support of former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick in his fight against racial injustice, white supremacy and police brutality. After revealing a picture of myself in uniform with the hashtag #VeteransForKaepernick, I was met by solidarity from my fellow soldiers, as well as harsh blowback from my chain of command.

To this day, I stand by my convictions, despite the efforts of ranking officers to pressure me into silence. I believe that standing up for the exploited and the oppressed is the most honorable thing we can do as people. No job should hinder or repress this pursuit, which is why I decided to resign my commission as an officer in the United States Army. My conditional resignation was denied by the secretary of the Army. Instead, the military forced me into either submitting an unconditional resignation or appearing before a board of inquiry—an adversarial trial in which a jury of senior officers would determine my fate. Rather than submit to the antics of what amounts to a show trial at best, I tendered my unconditional resignation. Passing judgment on me one last time, the military determined the character of my service to be “other than honorable.” Despite the brass prolonging my time in service, I have come to the conclusion that leaving the military altogether, whatever the circumstances, is the only moral way forward. During this ordeal, I have learned that I am far from alone in my feelings of disillusionment and betrayal within the rank and file of the U.S. military.

As a teenager, I believed the United States military was a force of good for the world. I thought that I signed up to fight for freedom and democracy, to protect my loved ones and my country from harm. My experiences showed me otherwise.

After bearing witness to the senseless destruction in Afghanistan during my combat deployment to Khost Province in the summer of 2011, I knew that our wars must be stopped. I was assigned to my platoon as an assistant machine-gunner. I took part in missions where human beings were killed, captured and terrorized. However, the horror wrought by the U.S. military’s overseas ventures is not limited to combat engagements alone. Some nights, we barely did anything at all but walk through a village. As such, the longer I was there, the more it became apparent that the mere presence of an occupying force was a form of violence. My actions overseas did not help or protect anybody. I felt like I was little more than a bully, surrounded by the most well-armed and technologically advanced military in history, in one of the poorest countries in the world. I saw many of my fellow soldiers all too eager to carry out violence for the sake of violence. There is no honor in such bloodlust; quite the contrary. I saw firsthand how U.S. foreign policy sought to carry out the subjugation of poor, brown people in order to steal natural resources, expand American hegemony and extinguish the self-determination of any group that dare oppose the empire. Idealistic and without a coherent worldview yet, I thought that perhaps pursuing an officer’s commission would allow me to change things and help put a stop to the madness. I was wrong.

(Continue Reading)

#politics #the left #foreign policy #imperialism #military intervention

149 notes · View notes

dragoni · 6 years

Video

youtube

Obama's full speech on the state of American democracy

Sure it’s an hour long but worth every minute because...

This is what leadership looks and sounds like. A leader with grace, eloquence, integrity and wisdom. It’s so refreshing to listen to a President speaking in complete sentences with focused coherent thoughts — and a genuine sense of humor not out for cheap laughs. A speech that was created and delivered to Students with clear unifying goals of restoring America values, institutions and Democracy. #WeThePeople #TakeItBack

In a nutshell.

“If you thought elections don't matter, I hope these last two years have corrected that impression.”

“What happened to the Republican Party?”

“Better is always worth fighting for”

“What are YOU going to do?”

“Thirty minutes. Thirty minutes of your time. Is democracy worth that?”

VOTE

So if you don't like what's going on right now -- and you shouldn't -- do not complain. Don't hashtag. Don't get anxious. Don't retreat. Don't binge on whatever it is you're bingeing on. Don't lose yourself in ironic detachment. Don't put your head in the sand. Don't boo. Vote.

Voting is resistance. Change can only happen by voting. #StandUp #Vote #Vote2018 #Vote2020

tl;dr - just watch

Former President Barack Obama gave a speech at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on Friday, September 7, 2018, urging Americans to vote this November.

Skipping ahead for Republicans, Libertarians and Evangelicals — I-L-L!

It shouldn't be Democratic or Republican to say we don't target certain groups of people based on what they look like or how they pray. We are Americans. We're supposed to standup to bullies. Not follow them.

We're supposed to stand up to discrimination. And we're sure as heck supposed to stand up, clearly and unequivocally, to Nazi sympathizers.

I am here to tell you that even if you don't agree with me or Democrats on policy, even if you believe in more Libertarian economic theories, even if you are an evangelical and our position on certain social issues is a bridge too far, even if you think my assessment of immigration is mistaken and that Democrats aren't serious enough about immigration enforcement, I'm here to tell you that you should still be concerned with our current course and should still want to see a restoration of honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government.

“I complained plenty about Fox News — but you never heard me threaten to shut them down, or call them enemies of the people.”

Back to the proper order and key segments:

Dividing Americans and Why

Sometimes the backlash comes from people who are genuinely, if wrongly, fearful of change. More often it's manufactured by the powerful and the privileged who want to keep us divided and keep us angry and keep us cynical because that helps them maintain the status quo and keep their power and keep their privilege. And you happen to be coming of age during one of those moments.

It did not start with Donald Trump. He is a symptom, not the cause. He's just capitalizing on resentments that politicians have been fanning for years. A fear and anger that's rooted in our past, but it's also born out of the enormous upheavals that have taken place in your brief lifetimes.

Tax Cuts, Balanced Budget and Fiscal Conservatism

So that with Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, without any checks or balances whatsoever, they've provided another $. trillion in tax cuts to people like me who, I promise, don't need it, and don't even pretend to pay for them. It's supposed to be the party, supposedly, of fiscal conservatism. Suddenly deficits do not matter, even though, just two years ago, when the deficit was lower, they said, I couldn't afford to help working families or seniors on Medicare because the deficit was an existential crisis.

What changed? What changed? They're subsidizing corporate polluters with taxpayer dollars, allowing dishonest lenders to take advantage of veterans and students and consumers again.

Conspiracy by Secret Insiders #AdministrativeCoup

And, by the way, the claim that everything will turn out okay because there are people inside the White House who secretly aren't following the President's orders, that is not a check -- I'm being serious here -- that's not how our democracy is supposed to work.

“These people aren't elected. They're not accountable. They're not doing us a service by actively promoting 90 percent of the crazy stuff that's coming out of this White House and then saying, Don't worry, we're preventing the other 10 percent. That's not how things are supposed to work. This is not normal.”

These are extraordinary times. And they're dangerous times. But here's the good news. In two months we have the chance, not the certainty but the chance, to restore some semblance of sanity to our politics.

The antidote to a government controlled by a powerful fear, a government that divides, is a government by the organized, energized, inclusive many. That's what this moment's about. That has to be the answer.

"You cannot sit back and wait for a savior. You can't opt out because you don't feel sufficiently inspired by this or that particular candidate. All we need are decent, honest, hardworking people who are accountable - and who have America's best interests at heart.”

Other Topics:

Why Obama is speaking out

Russia

Global Recession, Economy and Jobs

Affordable Care Act

Abuse of Power

Witch Hunt

Nazis

Paris Agreement - Climate Change

Fight fire with fire will further erode “our civic institutions and our civic trust”

Great awakening: citizens movement - marching, more younger, women and veteran first-time candidates

Complete Transcript

If you care about your future, #VOTE for it

3 notes · View notes

rotationalsymmetry · 3 years

Text

Oh, that’s what the dress thing is about.

You know, I think it’s really fucking annoying when Democrats don’t stand by their alleged convictions. When they refuse to stand by “defund the police” and instead use “tough on crime” language. When they refuse to stand by the vision of a less militaristic America and talk about wanting America to be “strong”. I think it’s annoying when they refuse to challenge the idea that the stock market doing well is the same as average people having secure, well-paying jobs, and I think it’s annoying when they buy into the idea that people should have to earn necessities through working for them, rather than things like food and shelter and health care and education being inherent rights. I think it’s annoying when they play up their Christianity to avoid offending religious conservatives, when they talk about how abortion should be “rare” to avoid offending conservatives, when they engage in the pretense that racism is primarily a result of poor rural whites getting left behind (granted, poor rural people getting left behind is a very real problem, it’s just… not why Trump got the election in 2016. Nor is that problem fixable by backing off on things like queer rights and immigrant rights. Anyways.)

So when a Democrat does the opposite of that and makes a clear, unambiguous, and indeed controversial statement about what they’re for? That’s a good thing.

AOC can’t win for losing. She’s simultaneously dismissed for being from a working class background (“go back to being a bartender”) and also demonized whenever she wears clothes that are typical of and appropriate for someone in her position. It’s bullshit and regressive, and it’s hard to imagine it’s not connected to her being a woman of color.

AOC isn’t some profound traitor to the cause or whatever. She’s not a demon. She’s not our savior either. She’s a human being like the rest of us with strengths and weaknesses who is attempting to make a certain type of change through the political process. People who are in favor of making that sort of change through those sorts of methods tend to like her and talk her up and that’s good and appropriate and consistent with their worldview. (And…while there are limits to the political process, there are also matters of life and death significance that happen though it whether you are engaging with it or not. There is a difference between someone like AOC being in the House and someone like, idk, whatever conservative is trying to pass the worst fucking laws right now.) People who are cynical about the method do best to give her as little attention as possible and focus on other things — union organizing, protesting, mutual aid, guerilla gardening, sharing info about where to get textbooks for free, figuring out how to show Bezos’ debit card number in Times Square, whatever.

(Obviously I am not advocating doing anything illegal because that would be breaking the law, and breaking the law would be breaking the law. Ahem.)

Realistically most people aren’t radical, and it is as irrational to expect progressives to be radicals as it is for progressives to expect radicals to have the same politics as them.

If you’re following a lot of people who aren’t personal friends and also don’t share your worldview, you’ve got a call to make over whether it’s worth putting up with them expressing opinions based on a different worldview. If there’s someone you have a good relationship with that has a different opinion on the effectiveness of the political process than you, or who thinks it’s ineffective but is stanning AOC anyways because sometimes people are inconsistent, maybe have a direct one on one conversation about that. But there’s really no reason for people on the left to get mad that AOC is making a political statement that at least approximately corresponds to our priorities.

(And there is no way to criticize someone who is making a political statement while doing a normal politician thing that she was going to do in any case, for, you know, wearing an expensive dress or whatever, without it coming across as you’re actually criticizing the statement.)

Sometimes people come to radical politics by a slide from liberal to progressive to radical. (I would have thought that was the only way, but from what some people say on tumblr I guess some people go straight from being raised conservative to radical with no in between? And some people do get raised radical. Anyways.) I think when people slide in the other direction, which can happen, it’s because of things like lack of community support and perceived ineffectiveness. Yelling at progressives isn’t really going to change those issues. Focusing on making the left strong and interconnected and effective is.

“Strong,” just shoot me now. Sigh.

There are some big differences between liberals/progressives and radicals/leftists. I think the core one is liberals/progressives tend to basically trust the system. I think it is actually really important for people with radical politics who were raised trusting the system, myself included, to intentionally unlearn that trust. Maybe for some people that involves a period of demonizing politicians to overwrite a basic tendency to trust the politicians that are on “your side”, idk, maybe this is somehow helpful for someone. For me I think it’s more effective though to take a mellower approach, and go back to core values. AOC is advocating wealth redistribution, and that is a value I share. I also have values that are not anywhere near the Overton window: open borders, land back, police and prison abolition, abolishment of corporations and nation states and capitalism and very specifically the United States as an imperial power, and I’m not sure how many of those AOC is in favor of on a personal level (I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s for open borders anyways), but definitely there is only so far the political process is going to be able to go in moving towards those goals. So regardless of what I think of her as a person or politician, there are some things that she’s not going to be with me on, and that’s ok. Most people aren’t. I can focus on the ones that are, and with the rest I can either focus on other values that we share or I can let them go their own way when they’re not actively standing in opposition to what I’m for. It’s ok.

It’s important to not swing back and forth between “this politician is amazing and the best and is going to change everything for the better” and “this politician is the literal worst” (when they’re actually better/less bad than most.) It’s important to see differences. There is a narrow range of what a given politician is likely to be able to do, and they act within those ranges and can only be sensibly evaluated within those ranges. If you want to go “but fuck all politicians though” that’s fine, there’s something to be said for seeing politicians as a class whose interests don’t align with the interests of people with less power — like landlords, like cops, like bosses. But if that’s your take there’s still no real reason to single out one specific politician who happens to be 1. a woman of color and 2. for that class, about as non-shitty as they come.

I mean, you can fundamentally not like bosses and still notice when a boss who’s a woman of color gets a lot more hate directed at her than the white male bosses, and find that kinda weird and concerning and probably reflective of how people saying those things treat women of color who aren’t in positions of relative power. Same for politicians.

Like yeah “we’re not going to girlboss our way out of this one” sure, but also…how relatively powerful women get treated and how powerless women get treated is not entirely unrelated. And if I can’t dance I don’t want to be a part of your revolution. (=misogyny (and racism and the intersection thereof) within leftism is still a problem actually.)

Anyways: you’ll notice I almost never post about politicians including AOC on here. I’m certainly not going to start stanning her. I don’t think that’s constructive. Democracy, to the extent that it’s a useful concept, isn’t about which horse you back. It’s about organizing and coming together and coalition building and taking to the streets and an awful lot of phone calls and mailing parties and meetings and talking and listening and research and attempting to translate legal text into something that makes sense and figuring out how to phrase things persuasively and supportive infrastructure like local newspapers and hashtags and days of action and petitions and saving your elected officials’ phone numbers in your contacts and showing up. (And so much fucking fundraising, endless fucking fundraising.) It’s often more about stanning laws and policy concepts (“green new deal”, “Medicare for all” etc) than stanning politicians. People who focus on politicians do not know how to do democracy IMO.

#long post #political #discourse

0 notes

davidjjohnston3 · 3 years

Text

1.Failure of teaching people who want to know everything or want to be everything or experience everything2.Dreamcatcher H------: 'affirmation.'3.All my dreams; a song from across the river about Christmas-trees. Everyone thinks Covid is a party or something.4.Biden lying and lying - bad sign for America unless it's some kind of metaphor I never understood. I feel like people are just disinhibited like drunken college kids.5.Explosion, gold, Face of Christ, sth abt anti-racism and abortion-culture.6.All my dreams of being part of some government organization.7.Yves, 'new.' For some reason I remembered today an Israeli poem about the ancient name of Jerusalem.8.Some idea of Ireland; 'I am with you always.' It's a Twitter Hashtag from Pope Francis but also a line from Revelation - THE line at the end of the whole Bible.9.Poetry and failure; preaching in the street. I don't know why some people are so opposed to doing the right thing. They're just afraid of (and worship) the government, military, Science, Capitalism, Communism etc. Also 'The Fascination of China' or why and how people will always explain away every evil in Chinese history - an endless debate I maybe shouldn't join, that keeps going back and forth.10.Christology: the super-personal. Everyone's trying to be someone and often try to be their neighbor or eat their son's soul. They also think poetry or art can help them be someone. They aren't interested in the Augustinian idea of Christ as Wisdom and only want human wisdom. A Korean theologian also wrote about Christ as Sophia and how this can counter-act unsatisfied resentments, though, justice or Judgment for the cases of the widow and orphan is part of Isaiah.11.I wanted to write all these poems about drawn swords... and 'dignity.' If I had had any idea how totally devoted people are to driving their tanks over others I don't even know. I again sincerely believe things could get worse before they get better because from what I can tell most Americans are determined to annihilate remembrance of Covid, turn it into a party of a WW2 reenactment extravaganza, Biden says whatever he wants like BoJo, sending kids to their deaths, making massive policy mistakes whatever they appear to understand. My whole family talks like political personalities such as Obama - is this result of all democracy, or all socialism, that people just steal parts of other people?

0 notes

maximuswolf · 4 years

Text

A cry for help from fellow anti-fascists in Tunisia. via /r/Anarchism

A cry for help from fellow anti-fascists in Tunisia.

Hello,

I'm sending this message on behalf of the antifascist, anti-oppression Tunisian community who's been, for the past few days, protesting on the streets of Tunis with little to no public and media support due to the common lack of awareness over the terms and implications of a new law proposal that is getting voted on in the parliament very soon.

The law proposal exists in its Arabic version and I would be happy to try and translate it if you'd like to read it, but the gist of it is granting more impunity to cops and law enforcement officers in cases of "justified " violence or even murder (goes without saying that "justified" is open to the interpretation of our violent, corrupt, megalomaniac police institution that is already oppressive enough as it is.)

As you may or may not know, Tunisia has its own history with police states. For the 23 years starting from late 1987 up to early 2011, we were under the dictatorship of Ben Ali, who used cops as a tool of oppression and keeping any attempt of disruption at bay (acts of murder, of unlawful imprisonment, of torture, etc). The people revolted in 2011 and a democracy was instilled, culminating in our first free elections in 2014 (and again lately in 2019).

The problem is, even though the progress that was achieved is huge, the economy has been suffering, and the whole nation has been in a state of great uncertainty for the past 10 years. Some people are starting to rethink the revolution and even reminisce about the days of the dictatorship, when the economy was fine and the country was stable enough (at the cost of free speech and dignity). This mindset is even represented in the parliament today.

The police are known to be violent and are quick to resort to using force on innocent bystanders. If one is lucky, he would only get completely humiliated on the streets, and hear every single swear word in the book.

What's even more concerning is that their unions' (yes, they have large unions too) Facebook pages keep on sharing photos and posts inciting violence, or literally about how they're our "superiors''. The sickening part is the comments section: Threats that range from bodily harm to arrests to death, perpetrated by officers and bootlicking citizens alike. Many people were arrested over their Facebook activity during the past few days, some merely for comments they’ve made. The police are going full egomaniac mode. All the abuse and the threats, and yet a big part of the public continues to stand by their side and join them in the abuse and even snitching on protesters and threatening them, because that’s just how things were for the longest time. Some do consider cops our superiors and willingly choose that hill to die on, unaware of what’s happening to people who even attempt to go against the rulers.

The indignation is no longer tolerable as it is, but it gets even worse.

Recently, a new law was proposed that would further legitimize the police’s malicious practices . It states in one of the chapters that an officer "is not legally liable when performing tasks or interventions related to his duties within the law". This proposal allows them to do whatever it takes to get the job done and get away with it completely. Officers already fabricate enough charges and make up enough excuses for bodily harm as it is, this law gives them the legitimacy they were craving. Already we’re seeing posts about how they can’t wait to crack down on those against the law enforcement institution: They see this proposal as their ticket to unbounded power over citizens. They would become judges, juries and executioners with absolutely no retribution.

The proposal also includes “twice the prescribed penalty for the crime” if a crime or a threat were to be committed against an officer (no matter his rank, officers in training and retirees included). This means that an officer could (and will) fabricate a claim based on how wide interpretations could get, and the punishment will be much more severe. This is very susceptible to becoming a tool of silencing innocent protesters, a tool of oppression and abuse typical to the Tunisian police institution.

Lastly, the proposal makes the state legally bound to provide legal assistance in any lawsuit that could be filed against an officer while performing his duty. The officers will therefore be protected by their unions, legislation, as well as the state, while their claims of getting attacked will make anyone - unfortunate enough to annoy a ticked off officer - face double time in prison.

Persecuting officers is already near impossible since you’d have to go through other members of the institution that is corrupt to the core. Their large number provides them with protection and impunity. Soon, if the proposal were to pass into law, so would the legislation.

This proposal sparked the ongoing protests, as well as the abusive and borderline criminal behaviour by the police’s Facebook pages. We are not giving in to their threats.

However, like I said in the beginning, we have so little media and public support. A big part of the country actually approves of this law as they also think cops are, in fact, our superiors, and that they deserve as much protection as they need. During the two peaceful protests we've had, the police's intervention spelled aggression and excessive use of force, as well as physical and verbal abuse. Slogans that were used are seen by the public (the bootlicking part of the public at least) as "disrespect", and the cops' Facebook pages as well as individual officers are sending threats publicly and privately. Even footage of police attacking innocent men and women with excessive force and attempting to make unlawful arrests is often deemed acceptable merely because the public ate up the cops’ posts. That footage as well as countless pictures is readily available to share with the world.

We are honestly frightened for our well-being as well as the future of our country, as this may as well lead to our devolving back to the days of 1987-2010. People have died for this land and for speaking up against the tyranny of the law enforcement institution. Police officers have committed countless horrific crimes even following the revolution. Tunisia has seen the abyss and has hit rock bottom and managed to pull through, this proposal passing into law would redefine rock bottom.

We were quick to start organising large scale online awareness and call to action campaigns. We have our hashtags on Twitter, and we're already unwearyingly trying to regain the public's support on Facebook and Instagram (the two most widely used social media apps here).

Our audience, however, remains far too small. We desperately need every voice and every helping hand there is in our fight to prevent the proposal from getting approved. This is as real as it gets. We would love to post a thread resuming what's happening in Tunisia and invite people to share our tweets, our photos, and our videos, to spread the word and gain the support of the international community against the oppressive police force. We would also be immensely grateful if you were to provide us with whatever help possible (possible contacts that could help, pinning the thread, etc). This is a make or break situation for Tunisia.

This will have real consequences on real life. This is a major event in the history of our country and it would be a shame to see the countless lives lost in 2011 gone as though they never were at all.

We hope our message finds you well, and we hope to have your full support as partners in the fight against fascism.

Here's a twitter thread further explaining and showcasing the happenings of the past few days.

We appreciate your help and support comrades!

Submitted October 09, 2020 at 09:15AM by 1337Exalius via reddit https://ift.tt/34JIV4I

0 notes