hellyeahheroes
Hell Yeah Heroes
We support diversity and progressive causes in real life and in popculture, with slight emphasis on comics. Was formerly Hell Yeah Teen Superheroes but we expanded in scope
53125 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
soniarten
Fanartiste ´:)
babyangelles
ৎ 𓈒 ֹ 𝓔sther De 𝓐lbuquerque 🪽 ੭
umthisistheonlyusernamenottaken
all opinions here are mine and entirely correct
rookedpaperbird
whoops I am still here teehee
star-trekking-on-a-hellsite
wake up babe star trek exists
Text
Your emotional reaction to an injustice is not the criterion you should be looking at to determine whether you are living up to your values, or the values you'd like to hold.
Your actual response, in words and in actions, and how that response impacts others, is what you should be evaluating.
Having a strong emotional reaction to injustice isn't a guarantee that you'll actually do anything about it. Sometimes people, distressed by their emotional response, choose not to see injustice so they don't have to feel that way. Sometimes people focus so much on their emotional response that Feeling Things is the extent of their interaction with that form of injustice.
Having a calm and rational-feeling reaction to something isn't a guarantee that you're actually seeing The Bigger Picture. It can just mean you aren't having a big emotional reaction; it doesn't mean you're actually being logical or that you're well-informed about a situation.
Sometimes people assume that their emotional reaction is enough to tell them what would help, and their completely uninformed attempts to help can make the situation worse. Finding out what would actually help takes work. Feelings can't do that work for you.
Having All The Right Feelings about something isn't activism, and not feeling an emotional connection to an injustice doesn't automatically mean you can't or won't contribute meaningfully to addressing or alleviating it.
Your feelings are only relevant to injustice if they help you to actually do something constructive, or if they get in the way of you doing anything constructive.
In and of themselves, they're just feelings. There's no moral or ethical aspect to them, any more than there is to hunger pangs or an itch. You don't need to feel guilty based on feelings alone, and you have no right to self righteousness based on feelings alone.
Your feelings don't help or hurt anyone; your words and actions do.
502 notes
·
View notes
Text
One thing that really pisses me off is the people who ONLY bring up collective action of any kind to try to shut down anyone suggesting that people do literally anything to try to improve a systemic problem.
(Except maybe voting. A lot of these types love to talk about how voting is the only thing you can really do.)
Like over half of the times I've seen this "well actually, individual actions don't make much difference" phenomenon, it's been in response to calls FOR collective action, calls TO organize, or to join and support existing mass movements.
(I've literally seen people call it "Americanized individualism" for an existing activist movement to ask people in general to take part in an organized boycott!)
The whole point of collective action is that a lot of individuals pulling in the same direction, and encouraging others to join in and help out, can make a big difference.
The whole point is to direct your efforts to areas where you can get a whole lot of other people pulling the same direction as you!!
It's not "well I'm not literally 20000 people so I guess I can't do anything at all!!
(and if you try to do anything (or worse, ask me to do anything), you must just not understand about collective action 😌)"
46 notes
·
View notes
Text
it's important to distinguish between "i think this is sometimes/often/always harmful", "I don't see how this could be harmful but it bothers me and i wish people wouldn't do it", and "i think this should be punished with violence and/or imprisonment and/or some other denial of safety or autonomy"
33 notes
·
View notes
Text
direct action means someone actually DOES the thing and accomplishes the goal themselves
so like, if your goal is to shut down a prison, doing actions, however bold or strategic or successful, to pressure the government to shut it down, is definitionally not direct action.
It's indirect—your group didn't shut it down directly, you did something to get the government shut it down.
in this example, direct action would be storming the prison and releasing the prisoners. that's you actually directly achieving your goal.
sometimes indirect actions are the smart play! they may be the most effective thing you can do in your specific circumstances with your specific resources.
that does not make them "direct action" though.
169 notes
·
View notes
Text
was talking to my gf about my fear of dying young for being trans and my mom putting my deadname on my gravestone, and she said "i hope that never happens, but if it does, i will carve your name into your grave myself if i have to." and i think theres something extremely raw about that sentiment and trans community in general. you can kill only our bodies, but you cant kill transsexuality
149K notes
·
View notes
Text
The way twitter and tiktok talk about dopamine responses you would think everyone was posting from a convent
You can make anything you hate in a "pathology" by writing about how it triggers a dopamine response: food, sex, social media, pop music, whatever.
And because you use big words, people will take it seriously when you speak, even if what you are saying is "doing something enjoyable is bad because it weakens your moral fiber." Because you didn't say those words, you said "this behavior rewirses your brain by triggering a dopamine response."
When quite literally any form of pleasure triggers a dopamine response! When I beat someone online at chess, it makes me happy. Does that mean chess is "the same as any addictive drug."
I joke, but the funny thing is, people did used to say this about pleasures we now see as enriching or classy. Reading novels was supposed to rot your brain, and Beethoven was too stimulating and could ruin your morals.
371 notes
·
View notes
Text
what's going on in the congo since there's also a genocide happening over there as well:
to sum it up, people in the congo are literally being worked as slaves to mine for this material called coltan, which is very valuable as its used for things like phones, laptops, just electronics in general. Congo is the number 1 producer for this material and the places behind this genocide is America, Britain, France, and Israel, wow what an absolute shocker. The worst places probably to ever exist benefit from a genocide. These places are funding Rwanda and Uganda military groups, to go into the Congo and kill MILLIONS of people. This has also been going on for YEARS. Many women have been SA'd and men are forced to work in INHUMAN conditions, resulting in their death and the colonizers are absolutely benefitting from this. 6 MILLION people have been killed and half of them are literally kids. Many of the Congolese people have also been displaced.
Please speak out about and raise your voice
20K notes
·
View notes
Text
I think an easy way to sum up american domestic architecture is that if you are remodeling and older bathroom you have to watch for razor blades in the walls
35K notes
·
View notes
Text
Sabotage time it is
-Admin
Supreme Court refuses to hear case that allows states to ban mass protest
You can’t protest in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas anymore. And there will be more states to follow in their example.
You know what time it is?
4K notes
·
View notes
Text
i learned about Tim Wong who successfully and singlehandedly repopulated the rare California Pipevine Swallowtail butterfly in San Francisco. In the past few years, he’s cultivated more than 200 pipevine plants (their only food source) and gives thousands of caterpillars to his local Botanical Garden (x)
133K notes
·
View notes
Text
I rly hate the Satanic Panic & the moral panic surrounding violence in video games in the 90s, coz it's now impossible to talk about the social implications of violent video games in a realistic sense.
No, violence in video games does not create serial killers in the way most people imagine it would.
However, it's very important to notice how after 9/11, a lot of violent video games pivoted their content from silly gratuitous cartoon gore to more realistic military shooters set in the Levant from a US American lens. It's also important to notice the connection of these games & their toxic online multi-player voice chats to Gamer Gate in 2014.
It's obviously not as black & white as it was presented in the 80s & 90s, I dont think everyone who played early Call of Duty games is a white supremacist who wants to join the military to kill people in the middle east, but I think it's dangerous to pretend like video games or any media can't have an impact on the way people think about violence.
I think what makes all the difference here is how that violence is portrayed, what the message behind it is, what the motives are behind the people who crafted that message, who the victims of that violence are, how they are portrayed & the greater cultural context that surrounds it.
10K notes
·
View notes
