#You don't need to justify having an abortion to anyone and you don't need to feel bad about it. Ever. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hero-israel · 6 months

Note

i know i'm stating the obvious but:

the thing that gets me is that. erasing jews' indigenity to the levant and casually claiming israel is committing genocide and apartheid… it's all untrue and completely wrong and horrible. and obviously that needs to be recognized.

but at this point there is a part of me that is like "it doesn't even matter whether or not israelis are Colonizers."

because even if it WAS true, even if israel was doing every horrible thing some of these people claim, NONE of that justifies celebrating rape, mass murder of civilians, child murder, and harassing and committing violence against jews globally.

i don't know how to talk to anyone who thinks labeling people "an oppressor" means you can justify anything to them, even war crimes and the worst kinds of human rights violations. i thought it was obvious that was unacceptable, at the very least among people who purport to care deeply about human rights.

i suppose it's naive of me, but it truly was a shocker to find out how much of the Left's commitment to human rights was a complete lie. i expected antisemitic responses in the form of "whataboutism," in downplaying what happened, and even denial, but not this. i thought there would be some people acting like hamas were oppressed freedom fighters and denying their atrocious tactics... i didn't expect SO MANY people to outright celebrate the horror.

i guess it's just making me realize how many of these people don't actually give a damn about human rights, about human suffering and justice, they care about being Right, and finding righteous targets to hate and attack. i always knew that existed, but i assumed that was a small, vocal minority mainly online. the rot goes so much deeper than i realized, and i have no idea what to do about it.

While it certainly does matter that the "colonizer" frame is a complete lie, you raise a good point about the significance of a supermassive surge in leftist advocacy for the death penalty and corrective rape. These are often the same people who want prisons and police abolished, but it turns out they held far more enthusiastic lust for gory revenge than your average Texas governor. They increasingly talk like abortion clinic bombers.

They have no principles, only a vocab list. Every woman Donald Trump grabbed was a colonizer, as were all the protestors Kyle Rittenhouse shot in Waukesha or James Fields rammed with his car in Charlottesville. John Wayne Gacy preferred targeting white males. It would take perhaps 3-6 words to make them into left-idpol heroes. What happens when a school shooter figures out to say "colonizer"? No, really. The man who beat Sarah Halimi to death in her Paris apartment said he saw Hebrew writing on her walls and it made him feel persecuted and oppressed.

#Leftist antisemitism

46 notes · View notes

anamericangirl · 6 months

Note

In #America you can’t be forced to give your organs to anyone, even if you caused the need for organs, the government cannot ever legally force you to donate a kidney or tissue or blood plasma, even if you are the reason someone needs it. So it follows that you can’t force someone to use their uterus to undergo a pregnancy that they don’t want. You don’t have to like abortion or think it’s moral, but making laws that people can’t choose to have autonomy over their own organs is fundamentally dangerous. You don’t have to think abortion is wrong, you can clutch your pearls and you can wind up reasons why fetuses are people, but it doesn’t take away that people are supposed to be granted medical autonomy and a person cannot be forced to use their organs in a way they don’t want to

It does not follow that you can kill your child if you're pregnant just because you can't be forced to donate an organ.

Y'all really need to stop with that organ donation argument because it is not comparable to pregnancy in any way. They are completely different situations that involve entirely different actions and the fact that's the default pro-abort argument just illustrates you guys don't know what you are talking about.

You are trying to say that not saving the life of a dying person is no different than intentionally killing a healthy person who would have continued to live without your interference.

You are trying to say that donating one of your organs is the same as one not donating an organ and having an organ in your body work for its intended purpose.

You are saying parents have no more responsibility to protect their children than they do to protect a stranger.

You are saying because you don't have to donate an organ to a sick person that translates to being able to violently murder your own child.

Pregnancy and organ donation are not the same and it's time to stop pretending they are.

You can think women not being able to kill their children is wrong and you can clutch your pearls and dehumanize the preborn to justify their murder but it doesn't take away the fact that bodily autonomy has limits and those limits are in place when it would directly harm or kill another person. It doesn't take away the fact that is the direct and intentional killing of a human child. The right another person has to live always trumps the right to bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is not the right to commit murder.

If the woman didn't want her uterus to be used for its intended purpose then she shouldn't have had sex and made the baby. You are in fact responsible for the life you create.

So cry harder.

#anon #answered

42 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 2 years

Note

I would love to know your defense of Democrats supporting anti-abortion dems in their own party over pro-choice progressives. Nancy Pelosi went to campaign for Henry Cuellar, an anti-abortion dem, over a progressive pro-choice challenger! Why do I have to keep supporting a party that only uses Roe and abortion rights as a fundraising tool instead doing the bare minimum of pushing their own members to the party platform the way republicans do.

Republicans are absolutely fantastic as forcing their politicians into line and it's something that establishment Dems will berate you for trying to do. Please take an honest look at the dem party before launching into full throated defenses of them. And before you ask, yes I did vote for Hillary and Biden despite being a "Bernie Bro" and yes all the other Bernie supporters I know also voted for them

Sigh. Look. I'm going to try to answer this honestly and politely, because I recognize that there's a time for snark, rants, and angry rageposting, and there's a time for genuinely reaching out and trying to teach/discuss/find common ground. But if I enter into your ask with an open mind, you're going to have to return the favor, and actually think about what I say, instead of just repeating the favored leftist talking points over and over. And if I sound frustrated, it's because I am. We have been trying to explain this since 2016, while a lot of people remained willfully obtuse and continue, even now when Roe is literally gone, to repeat the same old (false) ideological canards in the name of Twitter/social media clout chasing. So if this is a genuine attempt to learn, okay. I'm happy to oblige. If it's just because you still want to believe what you believe regardless of anything I say, it's not the best use of anyone's time. But I'll do it anyway, since I have a decent amount of followers and it may help someone else. So.

First, why do you assume that I haven't "taken an honest look at the dem party before launching into full throated defenses of them?" Is that really the criteria you want to use, given that certain segments of leftists have utterly abandoned any realistic or honest assessments of the Democratic party in favor of constructing an all-powerful evil anti-progressive boogeyman that they clearly hate far more than the Republicans? I am entirely open to criticism of Democrats on actual grounds for real things that are actually their fault, and are not overheated, rebaked QAnon propaganda that calls Joe Biden a senile old rapist and portrays the entire party as the exact same threat to America that the right wing thinks that they are. That's not progressive; it's just Democrat Derangement Syndrome that makes you sound no different from a ranting fascist on Fox News. If I can't tell the difference between my enemies and my supposed allies, there is something wrong here.

Right now, I am also intensely frustrated with the constant leftist attempts to desperately find a way to still blame the Democrats for a singular political action that is demonstrably and directly the result of Republican bad actors making choices to support obvious Republican policy goals. Why is it so important to you people to Also Blame The Democrats, by relentlessly nitpicking every minor detail and shortcoming of a flawed but generally reasonable political party, rather than consistently and uncompromisingly opposing the open fascists? Why do you feel the need to give Republicans cover for this heinous action and fuel the "Both Sides Are Bad!!!" false equivalence whipped up by the media and constantly reinforced to the active detriment of the well-being of everyone in this country? So if we're talking about taking "honest looks" at things and being open to justified criticism, why don't we start there?

Next, so you're blaming the left's OTHER favorite scapegoat, Nancy Pelosi, for campaigning for one singular House incumbent. ONE Democrat in a conservative-leaning district in goddamn Texas, when it's already going to be an incredible fight for Democrats to hold the House? One of the reasons Obama didn't "codify Roe!!!" during his brief (4-month) period of having an 60-vote supermajority in the Senate was because there simply were not 60 pro-choice Democrats in the Senate in 2009. (Back then, there were Democratic senators from ruby-red states like South Dakota and Nebraska, if you want an illustration of how much things have changed.) Those are seats that a Democrat is not going to win again for at least a generation in the post-Trump political landscape, and red-state Blue Dog Democrats were not going to support it. Besides, as people have pointed out a thousand times, even if Obama had succeeded in passing this law, the Supreme Court could still overturn it! That is literally their job! That is the power that the Constitution grants them! So why are you complaining about a theoretical action that Obama probably couldn't have realistically taken anyway, and still could have been overruled in the exact same way even if he did, rather than the actual action that was taken by a completely identifiable and Republican group of people?

The Democratic party overall is VASTLY more pro-choice than it was in 2009. Joe Manchin is the only anti-choice red state Democratic senator left, and as for Cuellar? Let's take a look at his ratings on abortion for this year (you can find his entire record here and track how his voting pattern has consistently shifted to be more pro-choice):

So... the Christian fundie FRC and National Right to Life anti-abortion advocacy group give Cuellar dismal ratings (9% and 7%, respectively) whereas NARAL Pro-Choice America now gives him a whopping 100%. Planned Parenthood Action also gives him a solid 80%, which is a steady and continued climb from his previous ratings hovering in the 50s. So even the one, ONE personally anti-abortion Democrat you have identified by name, over and against LITERALLY EVERY MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, has, for the most part, followed party orthodoxy and voted in a pro-choice fashion, regardless of what his individual beliefs might be. And yet, according to you, Democrats "berate" their party members for falling in line, or actually don’t force them to fall in line, or... something?

The Democrats have shifted their policy drastically on abortion over even the last ten years. What exactly is your evidence for the statement that they only use Roe and abortion rights as a "fundraising tool?" For one, they have had to do that because the Republicans would have overturned this much sooner if they could, and had to resort to Mitch McConnell's open evil law breaking to cram the Court after Trump managed to squeak out a win in a heavily interfered-with and non-popular-vote-winning election. For two, Roe was actually overturned THREE DAYS AGO, after the draft opinion was leaked in May. WHY HAVEN'T DEMOCRATS FIXED THIS YET!!! is not a valid critique. Once again, I repeat: why is it so important for you to blame the Democrats for this? Yes, we have gone over a thousand times why they’re flawed and why opportunities were missed and more could have been done. But when you’re faced with unambiguous, unassailable evidence that both parties are NOT the same, you... desperately try to find a way to let Republicans off the hook for it? Why? WHY?

As I said, I am entirely open to criticizing the Democrats for actual things that are actually their fault. Biden needs to take a lot more executive action and not just rely on “vote in November!” as a message, even if we also have to do that. We also have to see Senate and House Democrats making more organized efforts to force the Republicans to completely own an action that 67% of American women strongly disagree with. This could be a generational moment where the Republicans, in finally achieving their cherished dream, finally fly too close to the sun and get their KKK hoods whipped off. Maybe, in that case, we can stop treating them like a valid political party in a representative democratic republic and properly label them as the Christofascist white supremacist domestic terrorists that they are. So why the hell aren’t progressives throwing their weight behind their most significant opportunity to break the power of the right wing that has existed in America since its founding? Taking down the Republican party is vital to our survival in any number of ways, so... I suggest, with all due respect, that you and everyone finally get with the program. You want a revolution? This is fucking it. If you seize the chance.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

440 notes · View notes

theconstitutionisgayculture · 1 year

Note

It has become clear to me that pro-choicers (specially pro-aborts) are SO adamant about abortion being available because they see themselves as children, and they think "I could never handle this responsibility! It's way too scary!"

To some degree, I think there's a level of empathy there: they're thinking, "women with hard lives shouldn't have to deal with a scary pregnancy or the responsibility of a baby too!", but ultimately it still comes down to their own childish feeling of being unable to handle adversity, and the assumption that other people are similarly unable. As if they don't think that anyone could ever (or should ever have to) rise to the occasion.

Anyway, I'm disappointed that so many of my friends are so immature, and that's why I'm ranting in your inbox. Hope you're having a good day, anyway.

It's not just that they're mental children, it's that the have this ridiculous expectation that life, by default, is supposed to be easy and stress free. You see it in the way they justify pretty much every single one of their political and social stances. No one is ever supposed to experience harsh words, so we have to limit free speech. Guns scare them, so they need to be banned. Men and white people scare and upset them so they need to be segregated. Work is hard so work should be abolished and we should all live on government handouts. Pregnancy is scary so we should be allowed to kill children at will. Etc, etc, etc.

Everything they don't like now needs to go away. But they have zero ability to understand bigger concepts like natural rights, freedom, personal responsibility. They either don't know or don't care that banning speech and guns and work gives people power over them and their lives. And if they do know, they justify it to themselves by saying that they trust the people in power now so it's okay, never going one step further and realizing that any power you give to the government will eventually be wielded by people you don't trust and who are actively acting against what you want.

We desperately need history, civics and philosophy to be the focal points of all our education. We need to teach children to think about large concepts and understand that things can't always be solved quickly or from the top down. The ability to divide or diagram a sentence means nothing if you can't accurately understand the world around you.

87 notes · View notes

marimayscarlett · 2 months

Note

Zoran did some great work with Till. He might be an asshole but it doesn't take away what he did. Praise Abort, Le Jardin des Larmes, Alle Tage ist kein Sonntag, Knebel, etc. Let's not attack his work because of his words. And people being mad at Till for doing what he wants? He doesn't have to justify himself, his solo work is his solo work. People forget he could just leave Rammstein but he's still there. If you can't separate the two it's your problem, not his. He wanted to leave the band at 50 and he could have but he's a team player and the others needs him for Rammstein to continue. He scarified more than anyone else in the band and you all tend to forget it. Let's just be happy Rammstein is still touring after 30 years.

Hi and thank you for your message 👋

I will try to keep this short, since I summarized my thoughts on this already yesterday. Plus I don't want to go in too deep again, since this topic in general is not one which creates good feelings, at least not for me.

I can only say this, regarding Zoran's work as well as Till's solo project: 1) everyone's taste is of course subjective, some like it, some don't and 2) of course both artist can work and create art as they want (like you said, Till's solo work is his work). Simple as that. Yet they can not expect their art to be liked by everyone (which I think both Till and Zoran are aware of), or that people just don't care about the consequences of it when it is at least somehow connected with Rammstein.

I think some people are just a bit taken aback by Zoran's bold statements in his interview, which you can read here, since it kind of emits the feeling that he starts attacking Rammstein out of the blue.

Not only Till wanted to leave the band at some point, and while I absolutely agree with you on the fact that he most likely sacrificed a LOT for this band (like other band members to a certain degree did, too), I on the other hand would like to point out that Till definitely benefited from the success of the band. Till can do his solo work so successfully (without having to build up a fan base at first) because of the success of Rammstein. Without Rammstein, a Till Lindemann from Leipzig would probably have had a more difficult start as a solo artist in the art world and would have had to start from scratch like the band did back in the 90s (as always, these are just my subjective thoughts).

"Let's just be happy Rammstein is still touring after 30 years." Wholeheartedly agree here. Wholeheartedly. And this is due to many different factors: People in the band making compromises, cutting back on things, sticking together in difficult situations and all of the members being in mostly good health. And that's honestly the most important thing.

#rammstein #ask #till lindemann #zoran bihac

15 notes · View notes

madqueenalanna · 3 months

Text

sorry (lie) to defend hate crimes md but. i think a lot of 2020s discourse misses the context within which the show originally operated. and this is NOT to say "well racist jokes were funny back then" cause that is NOT my point. my point is all the stuff that isn't the racist jokes

like, house md started airing one year before supernatural and bones, two other shows i'm deeply familiar with. supernatural is rife with casual homophobia, racism, misogyny, you name it. bones is so deeply entrenched in boot-sucking post-9/11 government that it's almost unwatchable these days. house... isn't very topical. he makes a lot of 80s references, or older. there are maybe two troop episodes? but let's be real we've been in the middle east so long that hardly dates it. and like, what does the show house md have to say beyond house's personal bad actions?

prisoners on death row deserve respect. homeless people deserve the same treatment as anyone else. mental health conditions like schizophrenia (presumed or otherwise) or munchausens don't disqualify people from actually being sick. being fat is sometimes a symptom instead of a cause, and people overlook genuine health concerns in favor of blaming obesity for everything. orthodox jewish beliefs deserve respect, while christian grifting should be mocked. there is significant, murky overlap between chronic pain and opioid addiction and there is no easy middle ground (the show itself muddles this point repeatedly, to be fair). autism is more akin to another language than anything else, and autistic people deserve to be met where they're at. abortion UP UNTIL BIRTH is acceptable, even desirable given circumstances. it is acceptable, even preferable, to repeatedly defraud insurance companies and bureaucracies if it's in the best interest of the patient. eating disorders are dangerous/fatal and should be treated as such

like, i get it. a lot of aspects of this show have not aged well, particularly the main sell of "edgy epic atheist" house, which WAS a very mid-00s type of character. and i'm as guilty as anyone as doing pepe silvia on this show to make it sound epic (like here) but i do genuinely believe i'm not wrong. even if you don't read house/wilson as romantic, and you don't need to, their relationship is so intense that it eclipses either of their various romantic entanglements. wilson went through 3 ex-wives and an ex-fiancee, house gave up on at least 3 significant relationships. house gave up his vicodin, his medical license, his entire life so that wilson didn't have to die alone. how can that not be poignant, even now? how can anyone deny the emotional impact of that? fuck your destiel, fuck your good omens. you didn't earn eight years of THIS

rambling as usual but i'm right. this show can be a really difficult watch at times for cringe reasons but it can also be so unusually astute that it takes the breath away. what other show, especially in 2005, was giving the circle speech from "lines in the sand"? that episode aired the same year as supernatural's racist truck or bones' "troops did friendly fire but iraq was still justified" penultimate ep. can i say house was a GOOD show? idk. but it raised a lot of interesting points and had a lot of against-the-grain compassion that i still find sorely lacking even now, 20 years later

#House #And what I really respect is that through Good Doctor. David Shore is still learning and growing #Like he fucked up on intersex supermodel and fucked up again (but lessser) on intersex basketball kid #So he tried AGAIN on trans people in GD and it's better! At least in the ep I saw I'm not caught up #It's not often you get a creator so openly willing to adjust their beliefs to the current era so. Thank you David #And I've said it before and will say it again. I think it matters that David Shore is Jewish cause the show just makes more sense #Than it would from a Christian context. Esp the orthodex ep and House vs God but even casually?#Life is worth preserving? Protect the existing pregnant woman over her fetus? That is NOT a Christian belief generally #I'm not Jewish so I don't want to speak too much BUT I'm deeply familiar w Christian-led media and it sucks worse. Sorry. Not

9 notes · View notes

clonehub · 11 months

Text

The risk of being forcibly labeled as pro or anti something is why discussions on racism in works on both of a character and meta and textual and literal level get shafted so easily.

Also personally i do despise pro/anti divides for every damn thing, it juvenile as nick said, it's needlessly polarizing, and in all honesty what the fuck does it mean to be "pro" a show ship or character or "anti" a show ship or character? Those labels make sense for being pro and anti abortion, for instance, because that is a real phenomena with real impacts and material harms and means of being actionable about them. If you're pro abortion you march, you legislate, you organize in favor of abortion rights. It's a legitimate position with legitimate philosophy to back it up.

But when people apply something like that to fandom, it becomes not about ideology but about frankly very trivial things like ships or characters or groups in a tv show. The neverending pro/anti Jedi debate comes to mind, along with a worrying lack of nuance and painfully obvious lack of a "solution" to the stance that doesn't negatively affect the interpretation of every other event in Star Wars or outright justify/deny genocide (or that doesn't baselessly accuse the "other side" of believing the Jedis genocide to be okay).

Now that basically any and all critiques about fandom get shoved into oversimplified positions of being pro or anti fandom (or the things within fandom), people (especially Black people) get forcibly labeled as activists of varying types, especially by racist white people who then want to criticize our activist actions as if they're in any position to be doing so. What also happens is that people think critique for something = outright hatred for the thing, to the point where if hypothetically given the power, the assumption is that the "anti" would zap the thing they don't like from existence.

Ive had this issue with tbb stans who take my critiques of it's racism as a personal issue that can only be resolved by destroying the show -- basically, I'm "anti tbb" even though I think that's a weird way to position anyone's opinion about a text when the critique in question is about racism. I've joked about just cancelling the show before of course, but I've also quite plainly stated that if the series wasn't super whitewashed and wasn't ableist and wasn't antisemitic, I'd be a fan of it (mediocre writing aside). For years my position hasn't been "cancel the show" it's been "change the show".

This difference isn't taken into account by people who can only view any opinion through strictly black and white lenses of supporting everything something has to offer (and thus seeing no issues in it, at least not serious ones) and hating everything something has to offer, and thus thinking it needs to be scrubbed from memory rather than fixed. This has led to even hardcore tbb stans being terrified of critiquing the writing in the show (not the racism) because people so frequently leave no room for critical analysis of any kind that doesn't reaffirm and support what's being presented in the series (or what's support by the fandom, even if not by canon).

I've been flipping back and forth between racism and gen critiques. For the record, me personally I'm not pro or anti anything. I have my opinions, i understand nuance, and there's definitely shit that i hate that I'd rather not see. I've never once subscribed to that model of fandom interaction outside of maybe (MAYBE) tagging something anti tbb, and that was more for engagement and for the sake of the tbb stans who somehow keep following me.

#ch posts #its all over the place but itll do

26 notes · View notes

thedawningofthehour · 7 months

Note

I just saw a video from one of my favorite content creators, called My little pony: a new generation. the banality of facism, it sounds ridiculous, but that's why I like it. in general, besides summarizing facism to your Daddy/Mommy issues turned into your political ideology and how capitalism opens its arms until it gets stabbed, it talks about how facism is a self-destructive ideology since it is sustained by the fear of the 'other', but once this 'other' is defeated, facism has to look for someone else to call 'other' and so on until they end up killing each other. (the video is in Spanish, so I can't really recommend it).

Draxum seeks to found a Utopia based on facism, which is impossible, spreading hatred and terror towards humans in order to put the Yokai as the superior race, Draxum believes that once the majority of humans are mutated, there will no longer be discrimination by race, however, facism is not a fire that goes out just like that, it will seek to continue burning and look for its next target: the mutants.

I don't remember which was the chapter in which Gale and Draxum have a conversation about this, in which Draxum can't understand why the Yokai and mutants would fight each other.

You've posted about this before, and it's made clear in the story that the many Yokai who follow Draxum see mutants as only one step above humans, which isn't much either.

I know the story is about Donnie and his family trying to get him back, that the whole war thing came later. But I really, REALLY need Draxum to have his reality shock at the end, especially since I know it would hurt him. I don't know how he would do it, maybe Bishop would be the one to give him the talk (wouldn't that be ironic) that depending on him being an ally of the turtles and having a relationship with immortality, in which case, he would have experience.

It's really interesting studying anthropology, learning how different social stratas formed across history and regions and the different factors that influenced it. People will start categorizing themselves no matter what you do, and they'll come up with bullshit to justify one category being better than the other. This fact is pretty much constant throughout all of history, but the details change. I could write a whole paper on the evolution of ethnic groups throughout history and remnants of tribal mindsets-in fact, I did start, but I was writing a lot and just kind of info-dumping, so I'm not gonna do that.

We're seeing the whole 'fascism needs a scapegoat' right now in the U.S., (and all the places influenced by our media) with the repeal of Roe v. Wade and the trans panic. Because the American far-right has been using RvW as a rallying cry for decades-like, literally, the fact that abortion is even controversial in the first place can be traced back to conservative political groups needing to find a thing to unify them and draw their voters together, because the only thing their ideologies had in common was 'progress bad' and they weren't gonna last on that. Anti-trans rhetoric has been in the media for a while now, but it's ramped the fuck up in the past year-because conservatives no longer have RvW to scream about. They had to scramble to find something, because if they give their base two seconds to think then they might start to realize that their political party isn't actually standing for anything.

Draxum is trying to create like...a reverse ethnostate, where literally anyone is welcome and equal aside from this one particular group. Which holds all the fallacies of real-life attempted ethnostates, and is also just extra stupid on top of that.

#doth asks

8 notes · View notes

archivalofsins · 6 months

Text

Wanna see the funniest thread of texts to wake up to ever-

It's either go back to college and get the psych degree or do what you're doing but not like that. The average viewer would go,

"Does she know what you're doing?"

The answer to that is yes, kinda, I think she does. I told her that I already talk about Milgram online and plan to make videos about it. So, I have to assume she knows.

Oh then no problem-

She does not want it to be about Milgram and is basically asking me to do intermediate counseling similar to an advice column in a daily newspaper. Something that came about yesterday. Because we were having a conversation about media due to discussing Milgram. A work she has deemed inappropriate for kids and society.

After she explained why she believed that which I explained,

"The complaints you have aren't about the media but media literacy as a whole. A piece of media can only go as far as the person viewing it allows it to."

This led to a conversation about the younger generation, which again tied back to media literacy. Then I woke up to these after do not disturb cut off at seven in the morning. Just to think,

"Boy, do I have a surprise for you-"

Wait, hold on to stop admitting you were at the devil's sacrament to our mother each time you talk to her. She looked up the series last night and is baptist we are going to get it, bro. Literally shut up about Milgram for ten seconds, I'm begging- Yeah, well, beg harder- because this task keeps getting failed.

I fully plan to bring it up when I go to clean at my grandma's house Friday. Vacuuming my grandma's room,

"Grandma, do you think there's anything that can justify or excuse someone killing another person?"

Our sweet old grandma (80s), whose first love is religion, and did volunteer work at our family church up into her seventies probably would say,

"No, though I'd suppose it'd depend on the circumstances."

She would also probably laugh at the question. The family response to Milgram has consistently been well- I have to know why they did it first to judge it. Like elaborate. Or in my mom's case oh that's so dark the things your generation gets into I swear. I like to ask my family's opinion on this stuff because I just genuinely want to know, and it makes for good discussion.

Since my family members are all very opinionated people. Except for my older brother, he's very chill and just usually lets the characters get away with it because whatever it is simply is not his business. Talking to people with various different circumstances on what they think about milgram is very interesting. Because half the time I can just go ah I see why you see it that way. Like my mom was like,

"Well, how can you prove her murder wasn't the abortion?" In regards to Yuno because her first song doesn't show anyone else there. Then I said there are other people implied to be involved, though. She again said implied but not shown. This is without watching it, but listening to me discuss her case. Her whole thing is since we don't really see Yuno with any other people outside of the implication she is with others it could rightfully make it difficult for people to believe she's in here for killing anyone at all and it's not like abortion counts as murder so no crime has occurred here.

Then I brought up how it'd be nice if that's true but guilt by association is a thing. We know at least several people within Milgram have killed directly and one bluntly asks why someone would bring a bunch of acquitted murderers together. For any of them to be acquitted evidence of a crime or at least probable cause something that ultimately implies the death of a living person has transpired for one would be needed to take them to court at all.

Now this character could be lying but the character that the stand in for the audience is subordinate to says if this was just about the law then we wouldn't need to be here. Making it more like that Kazui is telling the truth about the acquitted part. Since if they were all legally acquitted of any wrong doing already then if we were just going by modern law we would not need to be here. Abortion is also still legal in Japan so they couldn't criminally charge Yuno for using one of her legal rights. That'd be odd.

At which point she went, yeah, given that information, it does become more questionable if abortion is her crime or not and I wouldn't really think it was myself but still this all so dark. It's like it's teaching people how to get away with murder. Circling into what we discussed at the beginning of this post.

Though it was a really fun conversation. Also, no- I haven't told my mom about Mikoto. I would like to tentatively know peace.

#gunsli rambles

5 notes · View notes

taylorswiftstylequestions · 2 years

Note

On the topic of the taylor/abortion thing even if she does say something at this point people will just use it as way to say she’s being performative bc she was called out, or that she’s only saying something now bc she got backlash or bc her fans told her to. People would make it out like she didn’t do it at her own volition bc she was “forced/bullied” into it. It’s sad bc she can’t win no matter what she does. 1. She jumps the gun and is the first to say something - “she’s overreacting” 2. she waits - “she only did it bc we told her to/she only did it bc she got called out on Twitter” 3. she says nothing - “she’s so performative and fake with her selective feminism.” She’ll never please everyone no matter what she does.

Me personally, I think she should wait until an official verdict has been handed down, right now it’s just a leaked draft. Even though I know it’s likely the final decision, I just think she should wait for it to be official to make some kind of move. I think someone mentioned this yesterday or maybe it was even you Sarah I can’t remember. We know how she feels and we know her stance. And honestly I don’t see her making a statement on the matter right now anything but some form of virtue signaling or way to announce where she stands on the topic, which again, we already know.

Overall I think we need to be little kinder and cut her some slack, for all we know something could going behind the scenes in her life like something with her mom and speaking up on social issues may not be her biggest concern rn. Not saying that to excuse anything, but we can’t know for sure. As we’ve learned with other celebrities they can be going through some shit and we’d have no idea. Outward appearances aren’t everything and maybe her silence is justified rather than tone deaf.

Hi! Thanks so much for this. I think (for now) these are the last thoughts needed on the subject.

To that, I think most of us can agree that the window of time where if she were going to say something has passed and that we are no longer talking about when she is going to say something at this juncture. The consensus atm on TSS is the next opportune time to talk about the issue would be upon the final release and/or midterms. Which time shall only tell.

I don't mean to overlook the genuine lose/lose situations Taylor and a lot of women (famous or not) are put in for basically every facet of our beings - that is real and that happens often. But no, imo she would not have been accused of jumping the gun or overreacting if she had released a statement. And even if she were, she would be in the company of dozens of other public figures and tens of thousands of outraged and upset people reacting to the news. I also genuinely don't think if she announced a significant financial donation to PP services that it would be seen as virtue signalling - which I take to mean saying something simply to say it but not backing it up with action. Again, I'm not saying she should do that now or that it's off the table at key moments in the future - just my personal thought on if she had done something that I don't think she would have gotten flack for it.

Lastly, for me personally I really feel strongly that we should stop evoking Andrea and the state of her health as a possible reason to explain away Taylor's inactivity. While it's certainly possible and you are absolutely right in that we don't know all that's going on behind the scenes (with famous people or anyone - our lives are not meant to only be consumed on social media) ((nuance: It is absolutely possible Taylor made a private PP donation and chose not to advertise it on her social media which is certainly something she could have done)), it makes me uncomfortable to see her used in this manner as a fallback to justify why Taylor may or may not be doing something. And maybe that's a personal reaction to it that is just on me, having been through something similar with my own mom. But it just makes me so uncomfy. And in this particular instance, I think it's safe to assume that Andrea's possible health is not the reason for Taylor choosing not to say something on Roe v Wade (which is her willful choice to not do) - given she used her Instagram Stories to plug CWF (don't @ me - I'm not saying she shouldn't plug it, it's her partners most significant small screen role and I'm sure she's very excited about it and has reason to be).

#opinion

41 notes · View notes

homosociallyyours · 2 years

Note

hi this is kinda random but i just wanted to share my piece on this and i’ve seen you talk about it before so i thought this would be a good place. i’ve been seeing so much blatant misogyny and ageism around here lately and it’s really taken a toll on me. like no matter how much you try to justify it as a moral thing, if you spend your days calling olivia wilde a cunt, narcissistic asshole, bitch, and talking shit about her age you ARE being misogynist. you’re not obligated to like her. i personally am not the biggest olivia wilde fan. a little background story, i was obsessed with booksmart when it came out, so as we often do with micro obsessions i deep dived into all things involving the movie, and that of course included olivia. i watched all the press interviews, read all the print ones, and i thought she was awesome. but as a trans lesbian, i always tend to search for celebrities’ stances on those issues before i start to actively support them and their work. not because i want or need celebrities to be activists, i just need to know they’re not assholes about things that are important to me. and that was when i found olivia’s comments about considering considered “a soft kind of lesbian relationship, just gentle kissing and scissoring” when she was lonely after the end of her first marriage, and not using too much make up because she can easily “go tranny” and the overall brand of trans-exclusionary and overly simplistic white feminism she stands for, and that of course was really hurtful and disappointing to me at the time. but still, i will NEVER ever sit around calling her names and talk about her with so much vitriol like most people around here do while intentionally digging up things from her past to try and make that behaviour somehow justifiable because people don’t want to admit how misogynistic and hateful they really are. but just an fyi, we can see right through it and not only is your deep rooted hatred for women crystal clear, but this rage against beards also makes you look str*ight lmao

Hello nonny!! As you may or may not know I'm a big fan of tea and this is like a steaming pot of Yorkshire Gold, so thank you♡

I know that posting this might upset some friends and mutuals, but i think everything you've said is so important and should be heard. I love everyone i follow, even if i don't agree with their stances on everything, and am not shy about having direct conversations about a thing that bothers me instead of indirecting folks or sending anons, so hopefully anyone who disagrees here will do the same.

I think in particular i really feel you on talking about Olivia's particular brand of white feminism, in large part bc it's one of the more common reasons given by people talking about how much they hate her. Your statements are accurate; she has said some things that lead me to mistrust her politically and that feel very deeply entrenched in cis white privilege. She also seems to vibe pretty hard with a lot of pretentious white male auteurs (she recently reposted stuff about John Cassavetes, for example), and in my experience i just. Don't gel with people who do that.

HOWEVER the thing that always gets me is that Harry presents some of the very same white feminist tendencies, albeit, frankly, worse than Olivia? I love him, but he repeats earnest yet empty platitudes about not letting anyone tell you what to do with your body and donates $. It's nothing award worthy, and although i do appreciate that he wants to be careful what he puts his voice behind, it means that he actually says/boosts very little.

I know people dismiss it as performative activism, but i do actually think that celebrities sharing links to resources can be really helpful. Just to use the most current thing that comes to mind, Harry sharing a link to abortion funds (as Olivia did) would've gotten a message about their existence to a lot of people. A message of support isn't nothing, but it's certainly not evidence of top tier feminism.

I think if i saw more critique of Harry's (or any 1D member's) politics from the "i hate her for her white feminism" crowd, i would feel differently. But as it is, it appears that women are held to a high standard while men get the bar set on the ground and a medal if they trip over it 😬

Also, I wish more people understood that you don't actually have to give reasons for disliking someone! Olivia doesn't have to be a narcissist or have terrible politics for you to hate her. It's fine to just... Not like her. And then maybe not talk about her? Not joke about her violent death. Not make fun of the way she looks (she's ugly because she's a bad person/she's way too old to wear/do that thing so I'm gonna laugh at her).

Set misogyny aside for a second if you've got to-- it's just a horrible way to behave toward anyone, and the target (Olivia) is too distant to be hit by the negativity anyway. Instead those comments can end up hurting the people who read them and making them self conscious. For what?

It's not a popular opinion, but i personally view the beards in a generally positive way at the moment. I choose to believe that Harry and Louis have talked through what they want and made some decisions about how to handle their images. This isn't 2014/15 anymore, and the young men who I think did very much want to come out back then are in massively different places in their careers. There's no road map for an ex-boybander coming out and being successful. There are very few examples of successful solo artists who came out early in their careers and continued to find success afterwards. Harry and Louis are navigating an extremely difficult path, whether they're working toward coming out or not. I don't envy that aspect of their lives.

I think it's likely that the women who Harry and Louis are seen with were chosen (by them!) for reasons that i can't or won't be able to see/understand right now. And as I've said before, there is literally no woman in existence who could be liked as a beard in this fandom. No set of behaviors will lead to people not critiquing these women, and that's evidenced by searching tags on some of the blogs who talk loudest about the beards. (Spoiler alert: not one of them has been palatable if she stuck around for more than a couple days!)

And that's the real sign to me that unfortunately this is misogyny at work. If you can name more women associated with 1D who you hate/dislike than women associated with 1D you do like, why is that? How do you feel about it? Is that reflected in your other social circles or interests? Jamila Jameel asked a similar question on her Instagram a few years back and absolutely changed my perspective on misogyny. Would love it if that could happen throughout this fandom.

#long post #1d #on fandom #i don't wanna tag this as discourse but that's probably what it is #fandom misogyny #stunt mention #bearding #it's ok if you wanna unfollow me for this folks i know it feels bad to read critique that feels pointed #but pls know this isn't directed at a single blog/blogs #it's something pervasive in this fandom that has bothered me more and more over the years #also bc i feel like it'll happen: you are welcome to call me a white feminist-- i am white and a feminist and #i do not consider my feminism above criticism #i do my best to think about intersectionality and to de-center myself when it comes to politics #but i also know i don't succeed sometimes so. yeah. absolutely ready for that criticism here

47 notes · View notes

lercymoth · 2 years

Text

As someone who is pro-choice, I think we need to have an important discussion. You can be pro-choice but also anti-eugenics, and I think a lot of people see abortion as a black and white subject where if you're against any form of abortion. I say this because I've had multiple other pro-choice people get mad at me for questioning this.

(Note: This person got banned for this post. Don't support this crap.)

In light of recent events, abortion posts have been popping up more. And that's a good thing! But that being said, there is something we need to address in our movement. I've noticed a lot of people are saying "Women should unconditionally have the right to choose what they do with their bodies.", and that's valid! The state shouldn't have control over people's bodies. But that being said, there's a specific way in which people are supporting that, and we need to talk about it. People have been using abortion to support eugenics, specifically, a lot of people are trying to say it isn't eugenics to abort a fetus solely because the mother sees their traits as undesirable (traits like skin color, genetic condition like autism, etc).

I have seen multiple pro-choice advocates state that since women should have access to an abortion unconditionally, it's okay if the sole purpose that someone gets an abortion is that they were already planning on having the child, but then out of nowhere get their child screened, discover that they might have undesirable genes (being black or autistic), and then decide to get the abortion for that reason.

Not only is this hateful, denying births to a protected minority group because they're part of said minority group is eugenics. This has been practiced by governments before as racial eugenics. It's no different if it's practiced by individuals. The point of it being bad isn't "the government is doing it", the point of it is that eugenics is bad.

I think we need to talk about this because as leftists, we lean towards pro-choice arguments because our goal is social justice. Pro-choice arguments generally talk about situations where the pregnancy was always unwanted, and that's good, but we need to talk about situations where it was wanted from the beginning and then changed because of hate.

Now before anyone says it: No, abortion is not eugenics. Pro-lifers, fuck off. Don't use this to support your beliefs.

Another thing I see a lot of pro-choicers say is that "It isn't eugenics because it isn't being forced by the government / It is not a coordinated attempt by the state to wipe out an entire group"

Eugenics is neither of those things. A coordinated attempt to wipe out a protected class is genocide. Eugenics is an ideology. Think of it like fascism. Just like fascism, it started in Europe. It spread about in the UK and got us posters like these, supporting the idea of not having 'mentally defective' children (it then changed to be about race too).

This did lead to genocidal policies in the United States, where the US forced sterilizations on disabled people and enacted similar policies, but it also had general hateful policies like the Immigration Act of 1924, which barred immigrants based on race. Eventually, Nazi Germany picked it up but even then, it wasn't used to justify killing entire groups until later. At first, it was just about denying births to protected classes because they were deemed flawed, such as preventing births of disabled people and ethnic minorities. (It should also be mentioned that eugenics used to be about superiority and aborting fetuses just because they're 'unfit', but in modern times that is not always the case)

Why am I mentioning this? Because it seems like a lot of people have flawed perceptions on what eugenics is, and that's really bad because it leads to people accidentally supporting eugenics by claiming what they're supporting isn't eugenics.

I have seen a lot of people say this isn't a form of eugenics because it's being done by an individual and not the state. Well, the thing about that is eugenics was advertised as an individual choice, as a self directed thing. This is not to mention eugenics is an ideology, and ideologies can be practiced by anyone.

Lastly, I want to state that this is not about the fetus. This is about eugenics being bad, and that we shouldn't normalize it in leftist circles. We can't say we're fighting for social justice when we're normalizing eugenics talk. This is about minority groups. We can be pro-choice and anti-eugenics at the same time. But I feel like for a lot of people, they refuse to see what has been practiced as eugenics on a state level as eugenics when it's practiced by an individual. And for others, they hold "Women have the right to choose no matter what" so strongly that they're willing to put minority groups in the line of fire just to get that point across.

This is not okay, no matter what. This is not okay. This only goes to make us look bad. I've seen so many pro-lifers using this against us and I am tired of it. Stop giving them ammunition.

#eugenics #abortion #ableism #racism #genocide #tw nazi #tw holocaust #tw eugenics #disability #activism #social justice

37 notes · View notes

opencommunion · 2 years

Text

it is dangerously naive to believe it's possible to criminalize abortion in some cases but not in others. there is no way to effectively write, much less enforce, such a law. the idea that you can legislate abortion differently in cases of life-threatening complications, sexual abuse, etc contradicts medical and social reality. no one on god's green earth has the omniscience and authority to individually assess the "necessity" of every abortion. there is no way to coherently write into law the intricacies of your personal view of which abortions are justifiable. if you earnestly believe abortion should be legal in ANY case you need to fight for it to be legal in ALL cases. that might mean some people will have abortions that you personally object to. but if you can't handle what one person does with their reproductive autonomy, don't pretend you care about anyone's reproductive autonomy

#abortion #reproductive justice

30 notes · View notes

coochiequeens · 2 years

Text

(CNN)For many Black women, the reversal of Roe v. Wade last month not only stripped them of bodily autonomy, but created another barrier to economic security and choosing the course of their future.

For 49 years, women have had the right to terminate a pregnancy without needing to justify it, giving some a chance to pursue their educational goals, career aspirations and start families when they were in stable situations.

This has especially benefited Black women who continue to fight for an equal place in the US.

Black women are three times more likely than White women to die of pregnancy-related complications; encounter racism from health care providers at higher rates; face unequal pay; and are more likely than their White counterparts to lack health insurance.

Now advocates say millions will lose access to abortion care because their state has restricted it and they can't afford to travel for the procedure.

CNN spoke with five Black women about their decision to get an abortion in the past and why they say the fall of Roe v. Wade could have devastating consequences.

Miriah Mark was 15 weeks pregnant last summer when she made the difficult decision to have an abortion.

Mark, 31, said her partner had walked out of her life and she wasn't making enough money at her record label job to support a baby. The cost to rent a two-bedroom apartment in Chicago and the rising cost of childcare, Mark said, were not affordable.

It took her a month from finding out she was pregnant to decide that she wanted an abortion.

Mark said she had been raised by a single Black mother who worked multiple jobs, struggled to make ends meet and relied on grandparents to help care for Mark. She didn't want to repeat that cycle.

"I don't want to raise a child in a world that doesn't have every advantage," Mark said. "I know what it's like to see children growing up in poverty. I know what it's like to be a young Black girl not having a father, or the mom not being able to be home because they have to work. It was very scary to think about all of that."

Now, Mark said she has a chance to start her family when she's ready. She can get married and meet her educational and career goals before bringing a child into the world.

She worries, however, that with the reversal of Roe v. Wade, other Black women will either be forced to have children or resort to unsafe, illegal abortion procedures.

This could potentially worsen the outcomes for Black women, Mark said, who already face disparities with health care and pay.

"It's sad and it's scary because pretty much we are going backwards historically and it makes you feel like you're going back to a time where women didn't have rights or women couldn't vote," Mark said of the Supreme Court decision. "It lets you know that we are going in the wrong direction."

When Josephine Kalipeni found out she was pregnant sophomore year of college, she said her whole world came crashing down.

Kalipeni, who immigrated to the United States from Malawi at the age of 8, said she was trying to get out of an abusive relationship and she knew that completing her education was key to achieving economic security. She was working side jobs to pay for her classes and books while she studied sociology and political science.

"Having a kid at such a young age while in college... I hadn't seen anyone do it," Kalipeni said. "I hadn't been surrounded by a lot of single mothers who were making education and motherhood work. I knew my parents would be disappointed. It was such a bad and heavy situation for me."

To make matters worse, Kalipeni said she was hospitalized at two months with an ectopic pregnancy that had ruptured. An ectopic pregnancy happens when a fertilized egg grows outside a woman's uterus. The risks are internal bleeding, infection and even death.

She spoke with a doctor and they ultimately aborted her pregnancy. However, there are growing concerns in the medical community about how health care providers can treat an ectopic pregnancy with the Supreme Court ruling.

Kalipeni went on to become a social worker and is now the executive director of Family Values @Work. She vowed to continue advocating for women, mobilizing voters and she's urging lawmakers to protect women's rights.

Kalipeni said it's saddening to know that many Black and brown women with high risk pregnancies, financial insecurity and abusive partners won't have the abortion access she had.

"I am so angry," Kalipeni said. "And it's that mad, tearful anger. Because it just feels like there is a constant need to justify the humanity of being a Black woman."

Alana Edmondson was 21 years old and working a low wage retail job in Seattle to pay her way through community college when she found out she was pregnant. Edmondson said she knew having a child would make it harder to finish college -- she was already struggling to pay tuition and had suspended her studies several times. Edmondson also had bigger dreams. She wanted to some day go to Yale University and earn her Phd.

"It was already very, very hard and there were already enough obstacles in the way of me achieving what I wanted to achieve" Edmondson said. "It seemed like adding a pregnancy and a child to that mix would just make it harder, and why would I want to do that to myself?"

She and her partner decided to get an abortion.

Edmondson said the decision allowed her to choose the future she wanted. She finished community college, earned a bachelor's degree at the University of Washington and got accepted into Yale where she is currently in her third year. She said she is one step closer to having a career as a college professor.

Edmondson said it sickens her to know that Black women in many parts of the country won't have access to abortion care. Women with forced pregnancies may have to sacrifice their educational and career goals, Edmondson said. The impact, she said, could be Black women repeating the cycle of poverty or generational trauma in their families.

"It feels like they desperately want to trap us," Edmondson said. "It just seems like another way to poison Black communities and to trap Black women. And when you trap Black women you trap the whole family unit."

Kiah Morris is on the front lines fighting for women to have the right to choose abortion and to choose their future.

Morris, a former Vermont state legislator, traveled with a group earlier this month to protest the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Morris said despite Vermont being a state that protects abortion rights, she and other demonstrators felt an urgency to rally for women across the country. In addition to abortion rights, Morris has also advocated for low to no cost contraception for all.

"There's anger, there's frustration, there's righteous rage," said Morris who leads the nonprofit Rights & Democracy. "It's a whole cycle of emotions."

Morris said she knows firsthand that abortion access can improve the outcome of women's lives. She received an abortion her freshman year of college when she was in an unstable and emotionally abusive relationship. At the time, Morris said she was struggling with her mental health and her boyfriend had expressed he wasn't interested in having a family with her.

"It was the most difficult decision I've ever made," she said. "I knew I wanted to be in the right mental health space to (have a baby). I wanted to be in the right circumstance. A college freshman is not someone who is ready to raise a child."

Morris said the abortion allowed her to put off starting a family until later in life when she was mature, in a healthy relationship and mentally stable. She now has an 11-year-old son.

Abortion access, Morris said, gives Black women control over their own bodies and a chance to reach economic prosperity. Since slavery, Black women have suffered the consequences of unplanned pregnancies, she said. Historically, Black women have been conditioned to believe they should carry the pregnancy even if they aren't in an ideal family or financial situation, Morris said. Abortion gave them another option, she said.

"My concern is that the very little gains we've made are lost," she said. "Black women, we are still invisible, we are still forgotten within all of this."

When Jackie McGranahan learned that Roe v. Wade was overturned, she briefly lingered in her car before going into her Louisville office where she works as a policy strategist for the ACLU of Kentucky.

"I thought, in this moment, at this time, right now, while I'm in the car, none of it is real," McGranahan said. "Even though I knew what to expect and I knew that it was coming with the leaked opinion, it didn't make it any less traumatic in the moment."

McGranahan later cried with a colleague but quickly got back to work.

As the organization's first Reproductive Freedom Project field organizer in Kentucky where a judge temporarily blocked the state's abortion ban after the ACLU filed a lawsuit, she's in the center of the storm. McGranahan is tasked with lobbying state lawmakers to advance policies that protect reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ equality.

In addition to abortion rights, McGranahan champions Black maternal health, paid family leave and "holding the line on birth control."

The issues have a personal significance to McGranahan who was 22 years old and 10 weeks pregnant when she had an abortion.

McGranahan, who already had a son and a daughter before she turned 21, said she kept quiet about the abortion for fear of being judged for her decision.

She said she was struggling to make ends meet as a young mother and lived in a community that was largely against abortion.

"I was in college, and I worked full time," she said. "My partner was also in school. Our family depended on my financial support...I didn't know how we were going to feed our children."

McGranahan said her only regret was not sharing her abortion story so she could have been a source of encouragement and strength for others quietly trapped in what she describes as "a cycle of shame."

"When someone makes this decision, they should have support and respect and be treated with dignity," she said.

14 notes · View notes