#if anything that bullshit should be abolished
Text
The last 3 asks I have receive was just wild, from asking me about Meghan and Harry, to another anon coming to ask me if I was doing fine cuz I talked about Seduce the Villain's Father (DADDY ERUDIAN) to literally a Taylor Swift hater now.
What the fuck dude. Why would y'all???? Like??? Is this timeline okay???
#personal#aside from the cute anon that came to check on me and being wholesome#sorry I can't say the british monarchy is my favorite subject when you don't put the crown on the table#if anything that bullshit should be abolished#Charlie is a king that wanted to be a tampon!!!!! a fucking woman's tampon to be USED!!!!! HE'S NASTY!!!!!!! A NASTY NASTY MAN#aside from upholding a white supremacist founded institution like the British monarchy itself of course#but nasty noneless#like you asked about the monarchy to someone who lives in brasil my country was a colony and is still treated as one#of course I would think it should be abolished
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
When I say I’m a Zionist, all I mean is that I want a country that already exists, that has existed for 75 years, to continue to exist. Not the current government, just the country itself. That shouldn’t be a controversial stance.
It’s not normal to need an entire movement around wanting an existing country to keep existing. It’s not normal that there’s an entire movement dedicated to the complete destruction of one singular country and no other.
Even if you insist on comparing Israel to the most evil regimes; Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa - which you shouldn’t because it’s false and antisemitic, but even if you did - the Nazis were defeated, the Nazi occupation of other countries was defeated, but Germany is still a country. Apartheid ended, but South Africa is still a country. British colonies have fought for and won independence one by one, but Britain is still a country. In the US, slavery ended, segregation was struck down, but the US is still a country. It’s only Israel where people pose the ridiculous question of whether a country should still be a country.
And to everyone who says “I don’t think the US should exist either,” bullshit. You’re not doing anything about that. There is no movement to abolish the United States, and last time there was, that movement was comprised of the racist slave owners.
The fact that the argument over Israel’s existence has been normalized when there is no such argument about any other country in the world, is ridiculous. It’s insane that non-Jews can’t talk about Israel the way they talk about every other country, that they can’t criticize its government, military, or policies without jumping right to “and therefore Israel should be destroyed.” They say this about the one Jewish country and no others, and they really pretend they don’t see anything wrong with that.
Not to mention that abolishing a country is completely impractical in ways that have never occurred to them. Like there’s a sign on a border gate that says “Israel” that they can just paint over to say “Palestine” and that will be that.
Step 1: replace all the flags
Step 2: ???????
Step 3: utopia
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
You can't say that you want people to be free from the oppression of gender whilst emphasizing the importance and significance of gender, and making sure that everyone has a word that describes them in terms of gender, and fixating on what type of gender different activities, roles, preferences, and aesthetics go along with, and treating gender identity as a neutral, innate property of people's beings whilst ignoring the fact that gender itself is a harmful and arbitrary social construct with deep roots in patriarchy.
Not only are you not doing anything to the loosen the chokehold that gender has on society, you are actively helping to keep it in place by ensuring that people are always defined socially by their gender and that gender dominates a person's conception of their identity. Your way of approaching and conceptualizing of gender ensures that the gender binary not only stays in place, but stays strong and polarized, because how else can people be transgender? "Feminine" must continue to be a relevant term, one that means something entirely different from and opposite to "masculine," and both must continue to be conceptually distinguishable from "nonbinary," or else the whole thing falls apart.
What you claim constitutes "fighting against gender" is the equivalent of "fighting against capitalism" by buying an overpriced t-shirt made in a sweatshop and sold by a mega corporation that says "eat the rich" on it. You are not helping to abolish the system. You are painting the gears and sprinkling the pipes with glitter and declaring the result to be something new and better while the actual workings of the system chug on unfazed. You are doing just as much to uphold traditional notions of gender as conservatives.
If you really want to rob gender of its power to harm, then instead of encouraging people to pick the gender identity they're most comfy with, you should be encouraging people to do away with gender altogether. You should cast aside the idea that "man" or "woman" are terms that necessarily must indicate something about someone beyond denoting their physical sex, that gender as a concept is valid and real and useful and needed. Because it isn't. Gender is bullshit, it is arbitrary, it is equally as objectively real as stock values, it cannot indicate or represent any kind of innate truth, and it is fundamentally interwined with patriarchy. True liberation and freedom of identity and expression can only come from true liberation from the idea that gender must be part of that identity and expression, from recognizing oneself as complete and valid without relying on an outdated and ultimately useless concept that is inextricably linked with oppression and harm.
#trans#transgender#lgbt#lgbtqia#queer#nonbinary#genderqueer#mtf#ftm#gender#gender abolition#feminism#discourse#queer discourse#queer discussions
364 notes
·
View notes
Note
(Screenshot anon)
ok so that might've been a classic move for an alpha in like 2003 but times have changed and literally no alpha acts like that nowadays. even if he WAS trying to court Dream he wouldn't have done in a video like that - his reputation is entirely at stake.
taking care of someone when they're sick literally isn't posessive though???? Like ok Jimmy's head alpha of the pack and has to kind of fight to assert dominance because al of them (except Nolan) are also alphas but that has nothing to do with Dream??? if anything he was being a good friend and taking care of someone who was sick. they shared a tent so he could keep an eye on him. that's literally just normal friend behavior - he probably discussed it with SNF earlier and had Karl hang with them so they could enjoy antarctica without having to constantly take care of Dream.
He's literally just doing regular pack leader behavior - and he appears to be really good at it - taking care of a sick member, making sure everyone's not freaking out because a member of the pack is sick, keeping an eye on everything. Dude sucks sometimes but at least he's a good alpha.
As SC Anon (sorry, are we good to use nicknames ?) said, the video was HEAVILY edited. Like, we see Dream and Mr Beast going in for a hug when they get back from the moutain but it cuts ; Nolan sleeping in between the two so that the proper space and third party rule is respected (and like. SC anon said it themselves, Nolan is the only non alpha aka the only one not "threatening" ?? I don't think that is a coincidence) ; at the start of the video they're always next to each others ; that comment Dream makes about knowing MrBeast is pantless ?? Like how ?. We could even see in Dream's longer version (bless its soul) how close the two were originaly.
There were definitely some moves made. And I'm pretty sure it's intentionnal Karl was so much with Sapnap and George, to distract them from their newly reunited pack mate.
Also I disagree with the "terrible public move" bc nothing untoward happened, Mr Beast was a gentleman on all regards.
But 1) he made it clear to Dream in survival conditions he was reliable and a good option 2) he showed it to the world ? Like call that neon flash of "Omega gets sick in Antartica, I manage to keep them perfectly healthy", that was a good boost for his reputation as a carer (not that should matter for alphas, and it pushes bad stereotypes, but that's how traditionnal - and they represent à good part of Mr Beast's audience - saw it). So it was a win for him on every point
And it appears a third anon has entered the fray,
(I'm third completely unrelated anon in the MrBeast saga)
FUCK THE BEAST, OKAY. Look we all cringed and laughed about that freak over here who posted the Dream clone switcharoo bullshit in the main tags but now I'm seeing that shit from another angle! How the fuck else would you explain him switching secondary genders that fast?! That shit takes time, no meds or surgery is that good already. Beast did something I'm 100% sure of it, he already dabled in curing the blind, what if he asked Dream to test out a new drug or procedure? I wouldn't put it past him to use guilt tripping tactics, he just went oh please please do it for the poor people that can't have the way more complicated and way more expensive procedures done and Dream agreed.
The beast having drolo moments, him staying close to Dream during Antarctica, him talking to George during the football charity match???? That shit confirms it. Motherfucker was keeping tabs on the process and how Dream was reacting to the change, if there were any side effects or complications. He wasn't seducing a sick omega or being a leading alpha or trying to find a partner, he was looking out for his bottom line!
And some of you might try to refute it because its been a century since the omega testing facilities have been abolished but guess what, Omegan Healthcare Regulations, Section 14 Subsection 8 clearly states that its LEGAL to use omegas for testing specific substances and or procedures if the omega gives informed consent before any substances or procedures are administered. Even if the Beast got caught, and he will because Dream's immune system is weak as shit and will reject whatever the fuck was done to him pretty soon, he would still get no legal backlash because Dream the idiot would for sure back him up in saying it was fully consensual and that he was informed on all sides and still took the risk. This is a lose-lose situation and I fucking hate it so much!
34 notes
·
View notes
Note
is there anything we should know about the “barbary slave trade”? am i right in thinking the western nations went to war twice over white slavery and ended it before they abolished atlntic african slave trade?? Also what abought Tamazight/ Amazigh nationalism? Sorry if this is too much
TLDR:
Barbary slave trade did exist it was different from the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism actually didn’t happen to stop it. They used it as an excuse long after because it sounded better than the truth.
The majority of what people identify as Amazigh nationalism is actually not nationalism but legitimate demands that are nothing more than simple rights. The rest is complete bullshit that often comes from diaspora kids in Europe (especially France) who are filled with internalized racism and have an identity crisis.
More details below the cut it’s long beware 😂
First thing first when one think about slavery the first thing that comes to mind is the transatlantic slave trade so I will start by explaining how the Barbary slave trade was DIFFERENT. Different does not mean good it means different.
The Barbary slave trade wasn’t based on race and the majority (not all) of the slaves were sailors whose ship had been seized by the Barbary pirates. The pirates would then decide if it was a better option to sell the prisoner or to ask for a ransom and go ahead with said better option. The Ottoman Empire had a rule forbidding taking a fellow Muslim as a slave, the « Barbary coast » aka the North African coast was part of/allied with the Ottoman Empire depending on the time and region so the pirates respected that rule. Those who reverted or those who were already Muslims were automatically freed. It was approved by the local rulers for two reasons they didn’t mind and the pirates were not people you should anger they would totally organize coup against the rulers they disliked.
Now the West especially France LOVES to pretend the colonization of Algeria happened to stop the Barbary pirates to take white slaves. This is a fucking lie. They colonized Algeria for two reasons first and main one is that they owed a ton of money to Algeria. During the Egyptian campaign Napoleon’s troops ended up lacking in food/wheat at the same time the south of France was lacking in food/wheat so bringing the wheat from France wasn’t an option. Algeria was the granary of Africa so Napoleon asked for some wheat Algeria was like « okay we can sell you wheat » Napoleon was like « meeeeeh I don’t have the money right right now give me a loan » Algeria said no. A family in Algeria decided to not mind their business and get into it. Algeria accepted to give the loan. 29 years later Algeria still didn’t have the money. France refused to pay saying that the debt was contracted by Napoleon not the current king (Charles X) anyway so why should he pay. It wasn’t even the same regime… France sent a consul with the order to NOT accept any deal. The Dey of Algeria got angry and he gave a slap with his fan to the consul (he used a fucking feather fan meant to fan away flies… even with ALL his strength it wouldn’t have been painful). France takes it as an opportunity to call it a declaration of war and attack Algeria. The second reason is that Charles X was losing power he needed a win on top of it the British empire wasn’t doing that bad so Charles X thought Algeria could be that win.
So they didn’t even colonize North Africa to stop the Barbary slave trade. It’s just that later they figured it sounded better to say it was to stop slavery than to admit it was about trying to save a dying reign and to avoid paying a debt.
I’m mentioning specifically Algeria and France because that’s what I know best AND because to my knowledge only France tried to justify colonialism with that argument and I know for sure it’s bullshit. It’s common knowledge that it started with the « coup d’éventail » but somehow France managed to rebrand it as a fight against slavery because it sounds better.
As for Amazigh nationalism. I’m an Arabized Algerian. I do have an Amazigh culture but it’s mixed and Arabized. So I am not the best to answer. That being said there’s two types of « Amazigh nationalism ».
The first one is not even nationalism in my opinion but it’s often wrongly identified as such. It’s not really Amazigh nationalism because their demands are just legitimate obvious stuff I don’t call that nationalism and because Imazighen are composed of multiple tribes with similarities and differences. While people often support each other their demand are specific and different. This first group is the more common the ones that just want to be recognized as such they don’t want to be Arabized they acknowledge that the ones who have been Arabized are not actual Arab colonizers. From what I saw and know those are the majority. I 100% support them. I’m friend with many of them some are my family members. I learned a lot with them. Honestly regardless of my personal experience and opinion what they are asking is perfectly normal and I would be a fucking bitch if I denied that it wasn’t nothing more than a simple right. Having the option to fill paperwork in their language, having classes in said language… it’s totally legitimate.
Then there’s the second category. Those are a small minority but oh boy how loud they are. They often live in France. They know nothing about their history and culture they just spit bullshit out of nowhere to calm their identity crisis and internalized racism. Very often the first category of Amazigh nationalists joke and ask them « do your parents even know that your Amazigh? » because they often come from Arabized family.
Basically France labels all North Africans as Arabs and France hates Arabs. So when they have an identity crisis the non Arabized North Africans resent that forced Arabization imposed by France and they resent the Arabized because he is either an Arab colonizers or he is a traitor who labels himself as Arabs and is the reason why they get labeled as Arabs themselves and get hated because of it. The more common one in this second category is the one who is Arabized he internalized all that racism and then one day he realized his ancestors were most likely not Arabs and he ran with it. They mix everything their parents don’t even know their child is amazigh. They be like « Us Imazighen people do X » and it’s something very specific from one tribe but if you have the audacity to say « hey just a heads up it’s not all Imazighen who do that it’s only these tribes » they feel insulted and say you misunderstood them and start being super condescending. Nobody likes them and they are only popular in far right western space who want to use them to absolve themselves of colonialism and to destabilize North African countries and in white liberal spaces who think they are representative of their region and will then turn around and attack OTHER NORTH AFRICANS who disagree…
Anyway it’s long and I’m rambling at this point. So I’ll stop I don’t even know if I answered your questions.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
Traintober 1: Free Day - Duck and Diesel and Oliver and Sonny
It's a lazy Sunday so have an Engines in Sidings alternative events chat about a scene I don't plan to write for Traintober Day 1.
DJ: I was also lookin' at my Sonny chapter for Engines in Sidings and thinkin' about that point at which Duck and Diesel finally are forced to talk.
Ray: I saw that at the top of my list when I was looking at the list of docs on my phone the other day so I was wondering if you were fucking with it, lol.
DJ: And I don't think I'm gonna actually put this in because I think it's a better story if Duck never knows about how Diesel came to get bought. But supposing he asked, because he would have been curious. Diesel would tell him that Hatt thinks he let a steam engine escape his old yard. And of course Duck asks if he did, because he's hip to Diesel's evasive bullshit by now. To which Diesel would just rattle off the line again. "It was dark and we're all painted black." Which tells Duck nothing conclusive but is a very strange way to put it. And he rather thinks Diesel would outright deny it if it he hadn't. So Duck guesses at it. "So… yes?"
Which Diesel finds annoying, but at the same time, he'd not have thought Duck would even entertain the thought that he would have helped a steam engine. So he huffily elaborates. "I didn't help him escape. I just didn't stop him either." Which Duck has nothing to say to that, but he thinks quite a lot.
Tells Oliver about it later, wants to know what he thinks of that. And this is after Sonny has explained to the two of them that diesels helping him is how he made it to Sodor at all. If Diesel is telling the truth, Oliver thinks that's more than you could rightly expect of a diesel back then. Doesn't think they should be super friendly with Diesel about it or anything. Just that, assuming it's true, it's surprising.
Ray: Oliver doesn't hate Diesel the way Duck does, because he wasn't there, but he knows enough to know how Duck feels about the situation and after hearing only Duck's side of it for so long, I think he'd be a little surprised to hear this about him.
DJ: No, and Duck is a smidge annoyed because he was hoping Oliver - with his history with diesels - would validate his wish to be more uncharitable with this story. But if Oliver - and apparently Hatt - is willing to entertain it, then maybe Duck should too. Which is so funny because you'd think yourself a fool to do that otherwise.
Ray: Oliver doesn't hate diesels in specific, he's just… wary, I think. He knows he's safe on Sodor, but Duck doesn't have that kind of history with the island and also never had to run for his life. From an outside perspective, you'd assume Oliver would take his side, but it's not that simple. Oliver also has more experience with diesels in general, I think he'd know that their behavior in Diesel's story checks out.
DJ: It's because Sonny tells him about the diesels at the power plants who found coal for him. Oliver's escape would have been so much easier if diesels had been like that in his day instead of actively hunting for him. But knowing that they are apparently like that now, and this scrappy little steam engine made it all the way here after years of steam being abolished… Oliver has to imagine that diesels didn't just decide to be helpful one day.
Ray: Oliver putting 2 and 2 together to get 4 and Duck like "I'm not doing that math. I simply won't."
DJ: Will. Not! Which, to be fair to Duck, that math actually doesn't check out for Diesel in particular. That Diesel's story is as it is, that's all just happenstance. If there was some gradual change in the wind re: diesel aggression, Diesel himself was not actually a part of it.
Also, it's kinda nice for Diesel to get to say this, because he always has to spin this story for the audience, but Duck is sort of special in that Diesel assumes Duck will take whatever he says in bad faith anyway so it doesn't matter if he actually tells the story as it really happened. But it is very strange that Duck is the one party he's ever been able to tell the story straight to as well.
Ray: Lifts the burden of having to make yourself look good when you know the other party won't buy any of it. It's frank, no bullshit. Which Duck does not associate with Diesel at all.
It's a shame we can't use this because I really want to. Nobody fucking writes Oliver and Duck stuff.
DJ: Well, part of why I think I shouldn't actually go this way is because I think it takes away from Duck and Diesel just coming to an understanding in the contained sense. The overall story isn't actually about them coming to terms, but Sonny learning that not everyone has to be friendly as long as they're getting their work done. And also because functionally, this'd not be as detailed a conversation between them as all this, because they are dumbass trains.
Ray: Yeah, I know. Just mad is all.
DJ: But I told you this so that you could enjoy it, even if others will not.
Ray: I am enjoying it! :D Love our OC Oliver.
DJ: God, Sonny trying to get Diesel a second chance with Duck because he's the Second Chance engine, not realizing Diesel's actually on his fourth. And Diesel not wanting to tell him because this friendship is precarious enough as it is.
Ray: Sonny wouldn't mind. It's his Second Chance with him, which is what's important. Sonny isn't the arbiter of morals, he's only counting what he was here for.
DJ: Yeah, but Diesel doesn't know that. And also if Sonny annoys Duck enough to make him complain, it won't matter what chance he's on with Sonny. At least to Diesel's thinking. And Diesel thinks his place is also precarious.
Ray: lol
DJ: Very funny how Hatt is the villain in all these stories.
Ray: Hatt would be over the fucking moon to hear his engines are trying to work things out between them like fucking adults.
DJ: He'd be very interested and intrigued to hear that Duck and Diesel are doing anything more than avoiding each other. Not that he minds them doing that now, but it'd be interesting to hear otherwise. And if he found out the details of why, that Diesel was trying to keep Sonny out of trouble, he'd be very proud.
Ray: He loves these machines so much in his way.
DJ: I honestly love that when he comes upon the scene with Sonny and Diesel, he fuckin' bullshits them about the fish first.
Ray: It's so… Old Hatt 🥁
DJ: Like, you KNOW he saw Diesel off the tracks, Sonny haulin' him back with the chain. And it's Diesel so you also know some bullshit is a-fkn-foot here. So let's just ask about the fish first and foremost. See what these hooligans have to say for themselves.
But it would just come back around to what he says at the end of the scene. If there's one thing more important than being really Useful, it's taking care of your fellow engines. And here Diesel is, doing it. Even going so far as to try and smooth things over with Duck.
Hatt maybe didn't think he was making a good investment in buying Diesel on the basis of heresay, but he at least thought he was making an interesting one. And look, it's paid off. Even if he's the villain in the fucking story again for reasons he can never fathom. Hasn't scrapped an engine in years, nor ever sent one away and fucking yet. Dumbass trains.
What's also hilarious is Hatt probably thought to hisself "Oh no, not these two together" when he came upon that scene. Because he didn't arrange for Sonny and Diesel to end up hanging out. But it's actually been so good for both of them. Amazing. Even Hatt would never have thought.
Ray: No. I think I said it before that, if given the choice, he'd have liked to have kept them apart. But engines will literally never stop surprising him. It's why he likes them so much.
DJ: Hatt loves engine bullshit.
Ray: "Hobbits really are amazing creatures. You can learn all there is to know about their ways in a month and yet after a hundred years they can still surprise you." -Gandalf, but also replace "hobbits" with "engines" and it's Hatt.
DJ: Duck would probably also be a little proud of him despite himself. That's some Great Western activities right there. Oliver fuckin' ribbin' him about it. Imagine you try to teach this tin pot railway your Ways and this fucking guy ends up demonstrating them so astutely. Rood.
Ray: He'd be proud but he'd immediately cover it up with "Well, he didn't know that. Sir Topham Hatt told him because he's very wise and knows Our Ways. Diesel just happened to be doing what was expected of him. Unusual, but nothing to write home about."
DJ: I don't think he'd play it off. Duck's not the sort to not acknowledge when he's wrong or when he's been surprised. But he'd probably not say so much about it, which is why Oliver's poking him about it. More like Oliver's slyly commenting on how GWR this whole thing with Diesel has been, and Duck being like, "Well, I suppose even he could learn after a century."
Ray: "And Sonny, picking it up so quickly!"
DJ: Sonny's a natural. He's a fuckin' gangster too.
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
Can I be happy for 5 minutes without the regime's lobbyists fuckin it up?!!! apparently not! I watched the Time video yesterday and then went to Instagram to see a lot of posts like this. I realized I haven't read the article which unlike the video was filled with misinformation. Halfway through it takes a wild turn into lying. I knew I shouldn't have trusted Time. Seriously, you almost did it but then you didn't.
This is the nth time a misleading or misinformative article is published in western Media. This is how the regime manipulated west for so long. I remember years ago, when Iranian feminists tried to talk about all the sexist misogynistic ways of the islamic republic, people like Azadeh Moaveni were there to shut them up with sophistry and fallacy. Claiming wild lies like "it's our culture". Misogyny is no one's culture. It's a cancer. And when women try to fight it you should stand with them not against them.
This is Hoda Katebi, a NIAC member. She has posed as such a good poor Muslim woman of color in west for so long. No one dared to criticize her because they'd get an islamophobe label fast if they challenged her. Look how unashamedly she lies here. How she defends the mandatory hijab and undermine the violence Iranian women deal with everyday in Iran. She's wearing clothes that are NOT considered a proper hijab in Iran. Back then the hijab rule was if not more, as strict as today. You've seen Mahsa Amini clothes when she was arrested. Her style was more modest that what Hoda is wearing here and is claiming "not tempting for lashing". But even if she wasn't unabashedly lying, that's not the fucking point. If only a certain group of women are safe in Iran, aka hijabi women, it's discrimination and IT'S NOT OK.
People like Hoda and Azadeh have tried to show a mellow image of the regime for years in west. Showing pictures of women with loose hijab to west to say "see this is how women dress in Iran and no one bothers them". While in reality even if some women dressed like that, they were doing something illegal, and were in danger of getting arrested and punished. I hope you've seen the morality police brutality videos that ended up getting so out of hand it caused a young woman's death. In reality I had to check "Gershad" app on my phone everytime I wanted to leave my house even though my clothes have always been a lot more modest that what Hoda has shown in her pictures of Iran. (Gershad is an app that was developed by people for people. It's a map where you can report anywhere you see a morality police car so that others can avoid them. It wasn't always 100% accurate, but it helped!)
In another blood boiling bullshiting by her, she suggested the way to help iran is to disband sanctions and "don't worry because NIAC is on it"! Because that makes sense! How can we stop a regime that's murdering women and children and violates every human rights ever?! By giving them financial and political power!!!!! So that they can violate human rights better and with less worry!
youtube
Farnaz Fassihi is another NIAC member who tried to convince USA to lift the sanctions by writing that notoriously misleading "out of reach dreams" article in new york times. And I just realized her co-writer, Vivian Yee was the journalist who wrote the other misleading article about morality police getting abolished.
In case you don't know what NIAC is, it stands for National Iranian American Council. It's a council that unofficially aids the islamic republic regime to push their propaganda in USA and west. Their number one priority is to fight anything that could lead to a regime change. Therefore they try their best to convince west that Iranians are only protesting for reform. Meanwhile we're screaming revolution here.
NIAC influence needs to be restricted in US so that Iranian people and activists can raise their voices. But we've seen the opposite of that happening. They get invited to various interviews and conferences and they have journalists in famous publications like new york times. Please share the word to help stop their reign.
Ps, most iranians are pro sanctions at the moment at least because we're trying to break the regime financially, therefore the calls for national strikes. Anyone with a little common sense would understand that sanctions help the cause now. Other than that, sanctions sound sinister because they've made people poor. But almost all of them directly targets IRGC, the terrorist organization that kills people in iran and in middle east, while using their share of profits in almost every industry in Iran. They're killing people with rubble bullets! Do you think with lifting sanctions they'd use money, power and nuclear energy for humanitarian causes?!
#Youtube#iran#iran protests#iran revolution#politics#human rights#mahsa amini#help iran#iranian#iran news#women's rights#muslim women#middle east politics#middle east matters too#feminism#misogyny#islamic republic vs iran#don't trust ny times#ny times#how do people sell their souls like this#women against women#twitter#tumblr#news#democrats#republicans#us politics#police brutality#morality police#human rights violation
42 notes
·
View notes
Note
Re: "do you see any practical reason why we should exclude trans people from the feminist discourse?"
I think you meant to specify transwomen / male humans who consider themselves women, right? Because all radfems agree there are good reasons to include female trans people- we care about all women, even if they don't like to call themselves women. Assuming I'm understanding your question right, then I wanted to ask,
What practical reason is there for including men, any kind of man, for any reason? Feminism exists to help women, and only women. Do you see a reason why "including" transwomen would help actual women? Because helping them for their sakes, if it doesn't do anything for women or feminism, is a waste of effort and resources.
There's a lot of pressure put on women culturally to think of everyone else's needs and coddle everyone else's feelings. To be welcoming, warm, gentle, loving. I'd rather see women be strategic, efficient and on-topic. So I guess I'm asking, are you responding to internal pressure to be a good girl and love everybody, or do you see a strategic avenue towards feminist goals that we're missing?
Hi!
Alright, so you seem to be of the classic TERF opinion that trans women should be excluded from radical feminism. I see this a lot, and the reason appears to be fear of compassion - fear that showing another group of people compassion will lead to them overtaking and destroying our (women's) spaces.
Look, I get where you're coming from. Women in a patriarchy are constantly told to internalize the feelings of men. We are brought up to cater to the needs of others and never prioritizing or listening to ourselves. This structure is definitely something that radical feminism should aim to abolish, and a goal I fight towards every day.
Aiming the argument that I may be too lovable at me in particular is a bit misdirected, although I get that people here don't know everything about me based on my bio. In short, I'm a butch, gold star lesbian with absolutely zero tolerance for men's bullshit and my motherly instincts are nonexisting. Like all women, I've often been told to cater to men's egos, which mainly just pisses me off.
So, why do I insist on including trans women in radical feminism? Simple - it's intersectionalism. As a radical feminist, my goal is to abolish oppression caused by the patriarchy, and all types of forced gender roles and gender expressions are included in that from my perspective. I cannot and I will not tell another person what sex or gender they are unless I view them as being an oppressor, and I reserve that role almost exclusively for cis men. Joining the conservative, patriarchal forces that want to discriminate against and control our bodies and expression is not an alternative.
3 notes
·
View notes
Note
involving the police increases the likelihood of someone, especially BIPOC or mentally ill people, getting shot or killed or arrested on unjust charges. it isn't safe to call them in most situations. that's what ACAB means, not "oh they're useless", they kill people. police abolition means "not bringing racist murderers into people's lives unless there is absolutely no other option", not "call the police but don't expect them to do anything". the thing they are most likely to do is ruin someone's life - even if they've committed no crime or done no wrong. please reconsider before saying things like this, especially in a community with lots of marginalized people who face police brutality (i'm not any anon who's sent any other asks about this, for the record)
I feel like some people don’t know what I mean when I talk about sometimes calling the police. When I say call the police, I mean when you are witnessing something illegal that is harmful. No shit the police hurt marginalized groups, that’s why they need demolished and replaced with a better group that actually cares about people.
I’m just saying, if someone is being molested, getting beaten, being robbed, etc. You either take it in your own hands, leave it, or call the authorities (which will lead to police being involved). I’m not talking about calling the police whenever you want for whatever reason, I’m saying when you are witnessing and have proof of a dangerous situation. If someone takes it into their own hands, often they then can be charged because normally intervening can turn into illegal actions and if you leave someone to suffer, you often are a shit person.
I hav witnessed police injustice against my own family which are POC, I’ve seen how after I was hit and kicked out of my own home and reported as a runaway they do nothing, I’ve seen how they fail at protecting people. But I’ve also seen how some people sit there begging for someone to call the police for them, begging that someone will save them. I’m not talking about whatever bullshit is happening on Radqueer tumblr, I’m talking about horrific events that someone should intervene in. I understand why people don’t want to intervene but the fact that you people would rather walk away instead of at least trying to get someone help, says a lot. When you say “abolish the police” you are telling people they should be abolished but when you say “don’t ever call the police” means you don’t want people to get help. Most cases that have fire fighters or first responders, will also have police involved. Saying to not call the police, encourages people to not call them too.
I do understand it’s no simple. You can’t always just call the police and I don’t want people to always call the police. I just think it’s incredibly dangerous to tell people to never call the police. You can teach people the dangers of calling and still make sure they know they can call 911 in emergencies.
#tw abuse#tw molestation#tw racsim#tw discourse#tw cops#triggering content#it’s people with this mindset that lead to so many deaths around me#even as an adult I sit there and cry because nobody would ever call the police#rq safe#radqueers please interact
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
re the person who just messaged me that i can't reply privately to because this isn't my main:
hi, I’ve been seeing a lot of ai art discourse and honestly I’m not sure where I stand on it (gotta learn more) but I have heard from someone that its illegal to copyright ai art and I was wondering if that’s true? and what you thought about it? I know there’s also a lot of discourse about potential changes to art copyright laws because of the surge in ai art but I need to learn more about that too.
point #1 (it's illegal to copyright ai art) is bullshit. a couple of ai artists have copyrighted things they have made at least in us copyright courts successfully, but more to the fact is that we just kind of don't know and it's all a big legal gray area right now. My Lawyer has informed me that i'll be fine but he's My Lawyer so, grain of salt.
point #2 (what do i think about it) i think copyright as a system should be abolished because it's bad, basically universally benefits corporations exclusively, and yes, I would download a car
point #3 (we should learn more about it) also true. you should always be striving to learn more about anything in general.
cheers
30 notes
·
View notes
Note
harm reduction is not a term that has anything to do with politics. harm reduction as a concept was created by and for addicts to talk about their experiences with addiction and treatment and to imagine and create safer more compassionate places to use and to seek treatment. stop using terms with established, specific meanings to justify bullshit liberal politics.
The term "harm reduction" is primarily used to describe an approach to sex and drug use that focuses on, well, reducing potential harm, rather than eliminating the underlying behavior. Common examples include free STI testing, promoting condom use, needle exchange programs, and safe injection sites. (I can't find any information indicating that addicts themselves first coined the term, but it seems likely enough.)
In that context, harm reduction has always been a public relations pitch to the right and center. It's historically been very difficult to get them on board with making sex or drug use safer. They figure that we should simply eliminate the risky behaviors, usually for moralistic reasons unrelated to the danger, rather than provide safeguards for people taking part in them. The main difficulty in advancing harm reduction programs has been in convincing those right- and center-aligned people that, even though they have moral issues with recreational sex and drug use, it's still better for people engaging in those behaviors to be safe than not.
There are two big reasons that's been a hard sell. First, conservatives like to think that the risks associated with sex and drug use serve as natural disincentives. Essentially, if the consequences suck bad enough, people will stop fucking and getting high. People convinced of this worldview work to make these behaviors more dangerous, both by removing safeguards and by imposing artificial penalties (think War on Drugs). Not only is that incredibly unethical, it's also ineffective at reducing the prevalence of the underlying behaviors.
The second big inhibitor to harm reduction programs is a problem of moral purity. Even if you convince someone that these programs are the best way to reduce harm, they may hold out on moral grounds, insisting that it would be wrong on some level to "endorse" behaviors that they disagree with by providing support.
So with all that in place, let's return to the original point of your ask: Why has "harm reduction" become the term of choice for leftists trying to convince other leftists to vote for the least horrible candidate with mathematical chance of winning? We're trying to negotiate with a group of people who generally have a strong moral opposition to the existing political system (which many of us share!), who feel that participation in that system amounts to endorsement, and who often believe that abolishing that system is the most effective way to alleviate the harms it causes. We're coming to those people and saying "as long as this thing you don't like exists, why don't we do this incredibly simple thing to make life suck less for the most vulnerable people living in it?"
I think I can see why the term caught on.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
So, there's a huge problem right now with people who see the Internet Archive being sued by big labels acting impulsively and declaring that copyright shouldn't exist because "art is meant to be shared."
While I understand what you guys mean and that you're all upset, I need you all to know that this is an extremely dangerous viewpoint for artists and is part of the reason the art community is currently plagued by AI stealing our work and using it without our permission.
Current copyright law is shit, I agree, but it needs to be reformed, not abolished. There aren't enough protections in current copyright law for small artists, but what protections do exist are what allow artists to get paid for their work, to earn a living, to survive. If you abolish copyright law completely, you take away an artist's right to earn money for their hard work, open them up to being constantly stolen from, and for our works to be used in whatever the next bullshit is that computer science comes up with, without our permission. If you abolish copyright law, artists will have to live in a world where we can't even protect what we've created with our own, carpel-tunnel assaulted hands, and art may cease to exist altogether. I'm not joking. I know so many artists personally who have felt the desire to give up creating art because of AI stealing their work, and if AI is just the beginning or our rights to our own work are taken away? A majority of us will just stop creating. You won't have art to share anymore.
Personally, I believe copyright should always go to the artist, not the corporation who hired the artist. There was a story going around on tumblr recently about how the creator (Muriel Fahrion) of Strawberry Shortcake, one of the most great-selling icons of the toy industry, never received any money from her creation despite how well it sold, because American Greetings (the company who hired her) retained all the rights to the designs. If copyright went to artists instead of corporations, Internet Archive wouldn't be in the mess its in. Media preservation would be much more successful. Companies could still have limited rights to sell their products which the artists who designed them are being PAID for, but they wouldn't get to sue preservation archives because they wouldn't actually own the copyright, only the license to sell, and internet preservation isn't selling anything.
Only giving corporations the license to sell has its own issues, of course, many of which come to mind but that I won't discuss here because that's an entirely different matter on corporate rights and capitalism and piracy, among other things.
But my point in making this post is this:
Please, PLEASE do not advocate for the elimination of copyright law. You're going to hurt artists in the process and most likely result in the loss of art as a medium altogether.
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
When it comes to prison abolition I wish people would focus on specific crimes or types of crimes instead of this binary approach. There seems to be no space for nuance in western leftist thought these days, you have to go all the way in one go or it isn't worth doing.
Okay the current system isn't perfect but it's better than letting pedos, rapists and sex traffickers get away with continuing to abuse women and girls. Domestic violence too, there's just so many areas where justice already doesn't exist for victims. Until abolitionists can provide a good answer for those crimes they should admit that their theory doesn't yet work in every scenario.
Let's go back to focusing on drugs, theft and other crimes against corporations, the imprisonment of those suffering from severe mental illnesses and general anti social behaviour. Crimes where imprisonment does unjustly impact people's lives and we do already have noncustodial solutions we can implement.
"there seems to be no space for nuance in western leftits though" youre certainly right abt that and its annoying as all hell. there are prison reformers who hold more nuance on this generally, but many prison abolitionists act like they're almost traitors for not being fully on board
and it bothers me that the keep treating this part of the issue as some sort of annoyance, thing we can think abt afterwards, or minor issue. or on the other side they wanna treat rapists the same way theyd treat some poor person who stole food,,,,,,like no, all of these things are actually incredibly common, and sadism and predatory actions are not same at all as many crimes. as far as im concerned theyre much less explicable than even many cases of murder and i will 100% vouch for the reform of a murderer than a rapist, particularly a pedo. and my conclusion frankly is i dont think these ppl rly care abt the saftey of children, girls, or women much
like, as you said. ill admit any day the system is fucked too. and yes the system is the consequence in america of colonialism and slavery, and in many parts of the world the prison system implemented by imperialists has been a tool of opression. and yes the system puts at a disadvantage and targets certain kinds of people and for certain kinds of offenses it makes no damn sense. like i think were all on board with this part of things??? and clearly countries like the semi-socialist northern euro ones have shown that better, more humaine systems can be implemented. im all on board for reform when it comes to 98% types of offenses, and generally i think prison reformists make very good, grounded points which seem feasible. and they suggest changes which we may actually see in our lifetimes
but then prison abolitions want to take it to such...... levels that it stops making sense. to an extent i get it, like i definitely get wanting to abolish the system and implement something new, the issue is that that "something new" makes little sense when you hear them speak. because they define annny form of incarceration or being restricted in movement as prison essentially, and we must get rid of that. so, frankly, by their own logic i dont even know if they could force rapists and pedophiles into """"recovery programs""" for any period of time - maybe theyd just let them go immediately and theyd have to voluntarly show up our of their own good will 🥺 (im sure thats gonna happen) - because anything else would be taking away their bodily autonomy.. ...really, truly, even though these ppl call themselves leftists this is such a ??? western individualistic opinion to hold?? like putting individual bodily autonomy and "rights" in any damn case, no matter how dangerous, above the wellbeing of society at large strikes me v v much as western individulism taken to an extreme
.. they dont have answers. they just dont. its either deflection, minimizing the issue, acting like youre the crazy one for asking, or some completely unrealistic bullshit abt making these men see the light - as if they dont already understand they should rape or beat women and children - or reintegrating them into the same communities that they traumatized. prison abolitionists wont admit that they have no real damn solution because, like western leftits in general in most cases, they a)dont actually care abt feminism b)dont have a fully understanding of what theyre talking about and are just screaming slogans and saying what sounds good to be right and woke and make themselves feel good and enlightened c)are allergic to actual nuance and discussion or being challenged
it also pisses me off too because ive seen a lot of them pull that woke version of noble savage shit, in which they pretend like the nonwestern world or the world pre-colonialization was this lovely perfect place with no issues no violence and everyone sat in a field and braided flowers in each others hair and talked abt their feelings. or something. when in fact, the concept of punishment for certain things has Definitely existed pre colonialization??? for gods sake even chimps, apes, several other animals have a concept of "actions have consequences" and they punish, either physically or through social exile, members of their species who have crossed a line. Several native american tribes had quite physically harsh and borderline torturous forms of physical punishment for what they deemed to be crimes, or would exile ppl (which in certain cases, like in winter, may as well have been a death sentence for some). In phillipines before colonialization for certain communities the punishment for rape was death. For gods sake islam too,,,, like,,, have these ppl never read qur'an and seen that physical punishment is one of the forms of punishment prescribed for certain offenses which are seen as affecting community negativity? Theres obviously a million other examples out there. I dont know what these people are smoking to think that the concept of "actions have consequences" was invented by the white man or whatever
8 notes
·
View notes
Note
hi!! ik you've read the communist manifesto and I plan to compile a list of books like it for my own reading, so do you have any recs?
hi! thank you so much for asking! this is going to be a kind of long post if that’s okay, because I want to give a little synopsis of each book so that you know what you’re getting into. but if you want a straight-up reading list:
Discourse on Inequality — Rousseau
Vindication of the Rights of Women — Wollstonecraft
Wealth of Nations — Adam Smith
Prison Notebooks — Gramsci
Neo-colonialism — Nkrumah
The Accumulation of Capital — Luxemburg
Why Not Socialism? — Cohen
so, first you’ve got the three main influences of Marx and Engels: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Adam Smith.
Rousseau wrote about the general will, and how the concept of “civil society” is unnatural. Rousseau is… pretty unpalatable to most modern audiences, and he’s hard to read, so only read him if you’re really curious about where Marx was coming from.
Wollstonecraft wrote about gender — how women aren’t naturally weak-willed and men aren’t naturally strong. she came up with the idea that people become what society expects them to become. for her, the way out of this was free and equal access to education (abolishing private schools and single-sex schools)
Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, which is essentially the capitalist manifesto. you won’t find a lot of socialists recommending it because it’s very much not a socialist text. but I think it’s important because it tells us what communism/socialism is responding to, and why people thought that capitalism was a good idea in the first place
then there are the socialists/communists who came after the Communist Manifesto. my favourites are Gramsci, Nkrumah, and Luxemburg
Gramsci’s focus is less on the economic side of capitalism, and more on the social and cultural sides. he figured out that the communist revolution would have to come along with a lot of cultural change, because capitalism is really good at convincing people that capitalism is good and right
Nkrumah wrote about colonialism, and how the dynamic of capitalism is different in colonised nations than in coloniser nations. this is a really important piece of the puzzle that a lot of socialists ignore (which we really shouldn’t)
Luxemburg was killed by the unionists by being too radical, and if you read her work you'll see why. she thought that the introduction of the welfare state was a ploy by the bourgeoisie to appease the masses, and that real communists should be against anything that encourages people to support capitalist institutions. it goes way too far for my liking, but it's an interesting read
THEN there are the “no bullshit Marxists”. these people are a lot more modern (some of them are still alive). the main guy died in 2009 though, G.A Cohen. Cohen was a supporter of the Universal Basic Income, as a way to bridge the gap between unhealthy levels of capitalist competition and the true socialist nature of most people. his work does a really good job at deconstructing common counter-arguments to socialism, and while I may not agree with him on everything, I think it's a worthwhile read
BASICALLY there are lots of books, articles, and essays out there. it's up to you how deep you want to go down the socialist/communist rabbit hole. I wish you all the best in reading the Communist Manifesto (it's definitely a bit dense in parts!), and I hope that this long mess of an answer is helpful
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
Do it All the Time
Chapter 9: Loose Lips Sail Ships
Virgil's little slip-up at the end of chapter 37 has consequences.
Words: 1,005
Content Warnings: None
Ships: Prinxiety/Moceit
Rating: T+ (16+)
Genre: Nonsense, Sass
Additional Tags: Empathy is a bitch
Between 37 and 38
“Virgil, that’s not you, is it?” Roman asks in a confused voice, holding his hand over his chest.
“No, when it comes to embarrassment, it’s usually Patton,” Virgil answered with a small sigh, feeling the bright, sharp shame pinching at her under her sternum another time this afternoon. “Should we ask why it keeps happening?”
“And possibly make it worse? No, thank you,” Roman scoffed, waving his hand. “I have homework, anyway,” he muttered miserably, kicking at his desk leg.
“No motivation to do it again?” Virgil asked.
“I am ready to burn all of it before my brain will even let me look at it. And I’m medicated, this is bullshit,” Roman mumbles, crossing his arms and pacing the room. “Speaking of… you mention it relatively often. Have you ever committed arson, Virgil?” Roman asked curiously.
“Be gay, do crimes,” Virgil responds with a salute and a smirk.
“Virgil, my vampiric darling, that doesn’t answer my question,” Roman insists, now standing over Virgil in her desk with his arms crossed.
“What are you, a narc? Don’t make me call my lawyer,” Virgil huffed, rolling her eyes at him.
“We are both dating your lawyer,” Roman pointed out.
“At least he’s not a narc,” Virgil stated flatly, drumming her fingers on the desk.
“When have I ever narced on you?” Roman asked, his arms slipping from their position.
“I plead the 13th,” Virgil states, turning away to look back at her laptop.
“Virgil, I’m not a history person, or whatever, but I’m pretty certain that abolishes slavery,” Roman said, sounding completely confused.
“Damn right.” Virgil nodded vehemently.
“You could have just said you don’t want to answer,” Roman said flatly, putting his hand on her shoulder. Virgil paused, listening and hearing a familiar pair of feet coming down the hall. “What is it?” Roman asked.
“Patton?” Virgil responded distractedly, gently pushing Roman out of the way to get up and open the dorm door. Patton is just standing there when she gets there a moment later, bright red in the face. Virgil doesn’t know what’s happening, so she steps out of the way and Patton walks in, holding themselves tightly, and Virgil closes up behind them.
“What’s up, Pat?” Roman asks, putting his hand on Patton’s shoulder.
Patton moves to collapse in Virgil’s chair, still biting their lip and completely red in the face. “Oh. You know. Logan just asked me to explain what a vampire kink entails,” Patton whispered, Roman’s back shooting straight with his eyes going wide. “He wasn’t teasing or anything. He was just curious. The problem was I just stammered out ‘teeth’ after three minutes of standing there like a deer in headlights,” Patton whispers. Roman snorts, his hand shooting over his mouth as he holds back the urge to laugh.
“Is teeth the thing?” Virgil asks curiously, honestly having no idea what exactly it was about vampires that Patton was into.
“That’s the other problem. He looked up vampires online. Showed me some art. Asked me to pinpoint what was sexy about it. I’m very tired from that exchange, and I am here to demand unshielded cuddles from Ms. Accidentally-outs-her-friend-as-being-into-vampires. Not answer more questions that I don’t really want to field,” Patton muttered, looking up at Virgil from the chair. Roman’s still holding back laughter, now also red in the face from holding his breath.
“Whoops,” Virgil muttered, dropping her shield automatically. Patton let out a soft sigh, already reaching out for Virgil's bond.
“You didn't,” Roman gasped, putting his hand over his mouth.
“I just didn't understand why Logan would want to be bitten by me, okay?” Virgil hissed out. “It was an accident, and I offered to fix it, but Logan wouldn't let me wipe his memory,” she muttered. “So, setting up the air mattress, I'm guessing?” Virgil asked, trying to change the subject and take care of Patton.
“Virgil,” Roman groaned, rubbing his face with his hand.
“What?” Virgil demanded, feeling incredibly ashamed all over again. Probably from Patton.
“Did you forget you're hot again?” Roman asked indignantly.
“I run cold, remember?” Virgil joked, moving to go set up the air mattress anyway. Patton seemed too red to respond.
“Not only do you look like some kind of alt himbo, you're about as smart as one, too,” Roman sighed heavily, running his hand through his hair. “Virgil. Get it through your hard skull. Humans don't need a vampire kink. You don't even need your fancy brain-melting voice. You're built like a damned marble statue. People don't need more than that,” Roman insisted vehemently, and Virgil paused, blinking at Roman.
“Are you sure Logan wasn't just being nice?” Virgil asked, feeling a little lost. She naturally scares people off.
“Probably a better conclusion to jump to than vampire kink,” Patton whispered, gripping their skirt in their hands.
“… Double whoops. Sorry, Pat,” Virgil apologized, rubbing the back of her head. In retrospect, that wasn't her best moment.
“It'll be fine. Just cuddle me,” Patton murmured, clenching the skirt in their hands.
“On it. Sorry again.” Virgil felt the heat in her face from Patton's blush.
Virgil set up the bed quickly, and Patton got up to nervously stand next to the bed while Virgil finished. She wrapped them up in her arms as soon as possible, pulling them down onto the bed and under the blankets without hesitating. Patton let out another sigh, their arms hesitantly coming up to hug Virgil back under the sheets.
“I’ll join you too in a hot minute, just need to finish this damn homework,” Roman huffed, kicking at the floor and going to sit at his desk.
“Was this the right motivation?” Virgil joked quietly as Patton nestled closer, curling into her chest.
“With Patton’s emotions like this?” Roman whispered near-silently. “I don’t think there’s anything better,” he said, a certain resignation in his voice as he started his homework. Virgil suppressed a grimace, holding Patton close. Though as far as consequences went, this wasn’t the worst outcome she’d ever had to face.
#tsss#sanders sides#ts sides#tsss fanfiction#sanders sides fanfiction#tsss fanfic#tss#tss fanfic#SaSi#SaSi fanfic#ts sides fanfic#ayri writes#plea for my new self
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
It’s amazing how little effort it takes to do some research. And still people choose to come online every day and spew bullshit. At this very moment, when people should be discussing how a country should begin thinking how to abolish the monarchy, fans of said monarchy are defending the old lady and coming to her defence on social media when rightfully angry people are trying their best to remind the world just how horrible she was. They’re screaming how she cannot be blamed for being born a royal and she’s not responsible for anything that past kings have done. How nothing is her fault. How she was the epitome of elegance and dignity and hard work and perseverance. And how the world is a little dimmer and how greatly the country prospered and I’m so amazed.
#I swear this was the last straw for me#I mean I know covid proved without any doubt just how horrible people are#but seeing these fucling celebs post pictures of her#fuck them all#fuck mark hamill#elizabeth ii#queen elizabeth
11 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
viviannefranncys
'Eis aqui uma Receita para a tua Alma'
marilynpalmer
grafomania
grimmseye
I Pet An Omen Of Death
llzehs
llzehs
towost
towost