"Radical leftists have never accomplished anything because they're inconsistent snowflakes"

Bitch what do you think the American revolution was??? Nobody thought you could do government without a monarchy, the idea of the people picking who ruled was wild!!! The sons of liberty were literally left wing terrorists. And just btw we spent several years trying to talk king George the dumbass into keeping life liveable in the colonies (mainly Boston) but he just kept making things more and more extreme. So we played dirty. Guerilla warfare. We stole everything that wasn't nailed down and grabbed some hammers and stole some of the stuff that was.

So don't pull the "haha weak leftists will never come together to do anything patriotism strong we love America and the founding fathers" shit like they wouldn't be rolling in their graves at the current political climate.

Hey I like a lot of the takes you have regarding the pirate show so I wanted to ask for your opinion on smth that's been bothering me for a while:

I have a deep seated dislike for Hamilton. Twinkifying the fucking founding fathers, romanticizing slave abusers and overall villainizing the wrong people while others (Hamilton at the front naturally) gets sung at. Speaking of singing - I really hate it. Shipping (i want to repeat) the founding fathers, the blatant white washing bla bla bla. Anyway those are all known problems and better people have said it smarter before and that isn't really my point

It's the fact that a friend of mine recently brought up that Ofmd pretty much is the same and I shouldn't scream so loud in my glass house. Inaccurate historically speaking, the blatant ignoring of the slave owning that the real Stede and Edward did and so on and so forth. Minus the singing perhaps if we ignore Frenchies and Izzys

So. Does it make me a hypocrite to like ofmd so much but despise the mere mention of Hamilton? It's a thing I'm really stressed about lately and that kind of ruined my joy about finally getting season 2. I would love to hear your opinion. or that of your followers for that matter.

Thank you 😊

oh thank YOU because I do feel that this is an interesting thing to examine and we do not talk about it enough.

I have never seen Hamilton, or listened to the songs (except some snippets). I have never been involved in the fandom. I really, really can't speak to what the musical itself did wrong and right. But I will say this: There was a reason it got as popular and received the critical acclaim that it did. I can't speak to how it addresses the systemic injustice baked into the USA from the very beginning, and I do have a suspicion that it glosses over a lot of uncomfortable truths. But I also feel it is important that we divorce the source material from the fandom it spawns because ultimately, Miranda isn't responsible for Hatsune Miku Binder Jefferson, or the whole hivliving debacle.

Just as David Jenkins isn't responsible for the handwaving of slavery in fanworks, or the great Izzy Hands Debate, or whitewashing in fanart, or shitty, racist headcanons of the characters of colour, or whatever deranged scandal is yet to come to light. This is true for all fandoms; criticizing fandom dynamics is a very different conversation from criticizing the canon.

Let's focus on the canon here, though, because defending the fandom is pointless, and not something I want to do. Curate your experience.

The first thing to say is: If you like ofmd but don't like Hamilton, that's not hypocritical at all, that's first and foremost a matter of taste. Things are good when we like them and bad when we don't. We don't have to find objective reasons for it.

If the fact that the historical Stede Bonnet was a slaveowner, and the historical Blackbeard also participated in the slave trade, are dealbreakers for someone, that's valid. People have every right to be uncomfortable with that. The conversation could end at this point, if we want it to (I don't because I love to hear myself talk).

If we look at the historical figures a little closer the first stark difference is the cultural context in which they exist. The founding fathers seem to be extremely mythologized in the american consciousness but also, are understood to be real historical people. The founding myth is fundamental to the way in which the USA perceives itself (that is, as a beacon of freedom and democracy), and it's pretty hard to reconcile that with the bloodshed and human misery it was founded on. It's uncomfortable; and it's not just an American problem. Every western nation/former colonial power has quite literal corpses in their closets they'd rather not talk about (just so you don't think I'm getting on a high horse about the famed Erinnerungskultur here; go ask a german person about Lothar von Trotha and what he did to the Nama and Herero to receive a blank stare). The difference is, that the founding fathers are too prominent and too important to just not talk about, so instead, they are sanitized to a degree that can be straight up historical revisionism.

That's not Miranda's fault. Nor is it the fault of any one particular piece of historical fiction, biography, documentary, or what have you. But it is the context in which Hamilton exists and, from what I understand, a culture to which it contributes. Especially since it's based on a biography of the real Alexander Hamilton, and (again, to my understanding) claims to tell a more or less accurate story.

Pirates, on the other hand, are perceived completely differently. They are mythologized, but not for ideological reasons, not as state-building propaganda. Pirates are more like folk heroes; cultural icons (near) completely divorced from whatever historical figure once lived. They are "real" in the sense that they are based on real people, but engaging with them, from the start, has a layer of removal from reality that engaging with figures like the founding fathers hasn't. Blackbeard is from a saga. George Washington is from history.

ofmd, specifically, makes clear at every turn that what we are told is a fictional story that has very little to do with any real events. It's openly anachronistic, it has absurd internal logic. Life-threatening injuries are walked off. There's actual magic. Dinghies are treated like spawn points in a video game. Everything, from the costumes to the vernacular to the story beats, tells the audience that none of this is real.

You wouldn't accuse, idk, A Knight's Tale, or Mel Brooks's Men In Tights of whitewashing history. I feel like ofmd plays in a similar league; it's a comedy very vaguely based on history, and it makes sure the audience knows we are not about to be told anything true. If you watch ofmd, you know this isn't about the real, historical Stede Bonnet or Edward Teach.

So. Let's examine the actual story, yes? The story that is told here is anticolonialist, antiracist, and challenges oppressive power structures as much as is possible for a production like this. It addresses these things and condemns them, both explicitly and in its underlying message. (I'm not gonna explain all of this, enough ink has been spilled about it by people smarter than me)

I do not know what Hamilton is about at its core. I know Our Flag Means Death is about authenticity in the face of the whole world telling you there's something wrong with you. It's about resisting dehumanization and reclaiming your personhood. It's about love, in a radical, system-destroying way, about breaking the cycle of abuse, about healing, and finding joy.

Yes, the real historical figures it's based on were all horrible people. Again, if that's a dealbreaker, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone who is deeply uncomfortable with that fact; it's perfectly understandable.

However, for me, personally, the story as a whole is so far removed from reality, and so firm in its message, that I feel this is forgivable.

(Oh, and a lat aside, I also feel like likening ofmd to Hamilton seldom seems to come from a place of genuine criticism. Often it seems to be more along the lines of "Hamilton is cringe, and if I say ofmd=Hamilton ppl will be too embarrassed to defend it" which yk. feels kinda disingenuous to me.)

Hey, I think you have a good premise in your reasoning on regarding the past and history and stuff but like. You can be as proud accepting and noble of your nations or your own history as you want but when it come down to living your life. Those things that happened can still hurt (or help)the way we live today. No I’m not advocating picking at the wound. But at like some point the reality of the way things were should be acknowledged, like yeah the founders did some objectively bad things along with the good. And we can still like the good things they did while condemning the bad? The past doesn’t need to be handled with kid gloves. I think where things go south is obsession personally.

i appreciate the message.

i explicitly said in at least a few different answers that i'm not suggesting we just deny parts of the past. in the example i gave, i acknowledge that many founders were slaveowners. my whole point was that everyone already knows this. we learned this in the third grade. it's not esoteric knowledge. when people bring it up they're not saying anything new or insightful. they only ever say it to demoralize and delegitimize as they lash out.

i am fine with acknowledging things that happened in the past. but my point is about what we focus on. in our education system, in our popular consciousness, in our civic mythology, etc. our civic mythology should be unifying and empowering, not divisive and demoralizing. leave the "nuance" for the academics to argue about.

i'm not suggesting we erase history and destroy all evidence the george washington was a slaver. and obviously the past affects the present, so in order to address present issues it requires some reckoning with the past. obviously.

i'm just saying that people should be able to celebrate george washington without constantly having some bitter loser in the crowd killing everyone's vibe by pointing out his flaws (which everyone is aware of) for no other reason than the fact that misery loves company. people who do that should be shamed and feel bad about themselves.

i mean, that is quite literally slave morality. just like nietzsche described it. slave morality gains power by demonizing what's noble and subverting and undermining it. it doesn't even want to raise itself up. it only wants to tear down what's noble. it is just all around sick and poisonous.

Who would you trust to write a new constitution?

I could count all the politicians whose authority I would trust on the subject on one hand, with fingers to spare. I can't even imagine how the colonists must have felt during the Revolution, having their founding document drafted by a cabal of rich southern slaveowners and their enablers. It would be like if we let a bunch of billionaires and CEOs make all the decisions today (gee, how awful would that be?)

Politicians (local, state, federal), judges, lawyers, political scientists, pundits, journalists, advocates, philanthropists, protestors, religious leaders, businessmen, doctors; are any of them up to the task? Frankly, anyone who would want to rewrite the constitution probably doesn't deserve to rewrite it. Is there such a thing as an objective meritocracy? Who are our experts, and by whose authority do we define their expertise? Experts I trust aren't going to be trusted by everyone else, and I certainly don't trust the nutjobs my neighbors trust, so how can we be sure that the voice of the people cuts through all the lobbyists and special interest groups trying to sway public opinion. Evil people can so easily manipulate the gullible and impressionable.

What's best for the country isn't necessarily what's best for specific individuals, so how can we fight the polarization and get people to come together for a greater good? How can we convince assholes to think about others for a change? I've made concessions based on what I want versus what other people want, so how do we make this a national phenomena? How do we teach empathy to millions of people who love to hate? Not everything I believe is 100% correct 100% of the time, I can admit that, I can work around that, but how do we fix the imbalance of power when half the country's leaders are notorious for compromising and ceding ground while the other half steps all over them to get what they want at all times? We need to abandon the two party system because a lot of people are single issue voters who throw all their support behind candidates who have none of their other interests at heart, just because they wear a tie that's one color instead of the other color.

These are the questions we need to find answers to, but none of our leaders are working on them because they don't want to acknowledge the issues at hand. They don't think things are as bad as they really are. They want to believe that their colleagues across the aisle are all good people, even though they would gladly sell half the country up the river to make a quick buck. Just because you've worked with someone for a long time, just because you're personal friends, doesn't mean they are a good person who deserves to have a seat at the table. They don't deserve to be the ones in charge. They don't get to choose who lives and who does.

My sympathies lie with the left, so as long as we're stuck with the two party system it seems we will need to work (begrudgingly) through the lens of the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean "VoTe bLuE nO MatTeR wHo," accepting the authority of establishment centrists and moderates. No, it means we need to infiltrate and party leadership and overhaul it from the top down; if Donald Trump can completely co-opt the Republican Party in half a decade, surely someone magisterial enough could take the reigns of the Democrats Party. The problem is that anyone who has the (for lack of a batter word) "charisma" necessary to take control of a party is not going to be the type of person who gives up that control and does what's best for the people. There's no such thing as a benevolent dictator. We don't need a leftist strongman to combat the right wing strongman. We need a system where individual strongmen can't consolidate enough power to rule by decree in the first place.

This means we need to abandon the old system and the old leaders, but they won't go quietly. That said, there are very few absolute monarchies left in the world. If the people can reject the divine right of kings, so too can they reject the infallibility and intractability of our current political climate.

I always wondered what's your thoughts on Hamilton? And add on the question, I was wondering what happened to the rep the show on here Where it became a critical darling on here, to the next "omg we can't believe we liked this cringey shit" criticial mocked fest va la Hetalia and Steven Universe

i mean.....its kind of tricky for me to objectively say whether hamilton has a positive or negative influence bc...im white. it doesnt affect me the same way.

i do really love the music and lyrics, and i respect LMM’s intentions of using a story about american history to point out the issues in our current political climate, and i like its theme about how taking action is what starts change as opposed to being a centrist bystander, and it does criticize people like thomas jefferson for their involvement in slavery and even points out the faults of its title character.....

but it’s still heavily nationalistic and does romanticize these figures a bit much, even hamilton despite showing the casting adds subtext for sure but the mainstream audience just kind of goes “wow cool founding fathers!” and you can see the godawful influence it’s had on the fandom who end up refusing to believe the fucking founding fathers of the 18th century could be ~problematic~. plus i know the original draft was like 5 hours but some of the details that get twisted or brushed off are a little eh to me, like erasing all the spy work done by hercules mulligan’s slave cato by making it all mulligan. also i like how many new people it got into broadway but i hate that its influence wasn’t convincing people to bring more diversity to broadway but causing another big price bump in the broadway market, though that isn’t its fault.

all in all i guess i wish i had seen in the heights when it came out, it showcases LMM’s heart and talent for writing music and lyrics much better without that pesky romanticization of slaveowners.

(also i was thinking about that whole “see it it’s diverse -> if you like it you’re racist” dichotomy earlier bc i remember feeling bad for not listening to hamilton and then afteri listened to it people started pointing out the problems....tumblr just has an issue with putting shit on a pedestal. maybe white folks hyped it without realizing the issues? or maybe it’s a matter of growing up and being more aware? idk i don’t remember. either way i see the flaws of the show but i don’t believe it’s nefarious or anything, just not the most effective method for the message LMM intended.)

George Floyd was murdered. Many, many people of color have been murdered by police in recent decades. To call Mr. Floyd’s death anything other than murder is an obfuscation. There is a long history of interpreting the deaths of people of color to suit white sensibilities, but murder is still murder, regardless of how many facts are bent, how many circuitous arguments are voiced to interpret it in a more positive light. The murder of innocents is wrong and, in this country especially, is symptomatic of the institutionalization of racism.

“Racism” has become a bit of a catchphrase of the left. While the word itself is fairly self-explanatory, it is now mired in politics. This is not fundamentally bad, as there is no way for a discussion of racism in this country to remain apolitical. However, the political nature of this subject matter can lead to the rejection of these concepts based on their political affiliation alone, with no regard to their merit. For this reason, I ask the reader to momentarily set aside their political assumptions as I attempt to contextualize current events within a larger, historical framework, as perceived through an anthropological lens.

Firstly, “race” is a cultural construct, stemming from a long, misguided Western tradition. This tradition was highly typological in nature, seeking to classify and rank kinds of people based on physical characteristics. Invariably, the white race was placed at the top of the hierarchy, with all other races being below the white race. This supposed biological superiority was evidentially supported by the “fact” that the white race was the most intelligent, the most artistically inclined, the most culturally refined of all the races (this was the argument which was used to justify the enslavement of people of color and the invasion and genocide of the Americas and, startlingly, is still employed today to justify historical and current atrocities).

These assumptions, which were the original basis of racist and ethnocentric beliefs, are inherently unsound. Race is not biological. The physical characteristics upon which racial typologies were built are not discrete variables, but rather, continuous. This is to say that traits such as skin color do not fall easily within a small number of groups (for example, Johann Blumenbach’s five races). There is far more variation in human skin tone than that. Human variation in general is incredibly vast, a result of the incredibly adaptive nature of our species.

Secondly, Western (white) civilization is not superior to any other culture. The accomplishments of Western culture are certainly great, the Mona Lisa is beautiful and Beethoven’s Fifth is powerful, but the appreciation of these things is also shaped by our culture. For this reason, the artistic and intellectual accomplishments of one culture cannot rightfully be compared to those of another—the Indian musical scale is not the Western scale. To the Western ear, Indian music will sound strange, because aesthetic sensibilities are culturally shaped. Of course, the world has changed considerably since the time in which the original arguments were made. The world has become increasingly globalized, so cultural differences such as this are not as jarringly obvious as they would have been at the time. But that is a discussion for another time.

These false assumptions were used to justify slavery, which led to the development of more stereotypes and more prejudice. Unfortunately, the whole system of slavery became a vicious cycle, as inequality becomes embodied, which seems to support and perpetuate existing prejudice. This notion is complex, so I will attempt to unpack it via the use of examples. Under the terrible conditions of slavery, it was common for enslaved people to be denied sufficient nutrition and education and generally experience incredible amounts of both physical and psychological stress. The notion that such stress can result in physical changes to the human body is one of the key tenets of the field of bioarchaeology and, as such, has been very thoroughly investigated. One result of such stress is increased susceptibility to disease and increased morbidity. For enslaved persons, this may have been interpreted by slaveowners as evidence that enslaved people possessed weaker constitutions and could not survive outside of slavery. The result of the denial of a (Western) education to enslaved people meant that they were often ignorant of many seemingly basic skills (such as reading). This led to the perpetuation of the stereotype that enslaved people were stupid. On and on the cycle goes.

Many of the prejudices which arose before and during slavery were enshrined in Western culture. Although slavery ended in this country in the nineteenth century, the old prejudices live on. Inequality continues, and its impact on the bodies and lives of people of color is still very much being felt. It is felt in the knee of a white man on the neck of a black man, in the startling minority of people of color in academia, in the vague notion that because a neighborhood is predominately black, that it must be a bad neighborhood. Racism is institutionalized based on the vicious cycle which has continued since the days of slavery—it is not that laws are made for the explicit purpose of being racist, but they are made in such a way as the end result is overwhelmingly negative for people of color. The cops that murder innocent people because of the color of their skin did not wake up that morning and think to themselves “today I’m going to kill a black kid.” These people have loved ones and friends, they go to church on Sunday, they coach their kids’ teams, and yet they murdered innocent people who “just happen to be black.” How is this possible? The answer is the naturalization of stereotypes.

Most people no longer think that white people are just plain better than black people, after all, that’s racist! Racism is bad! I’m not a racist, because I’m not a bad person! However, racist sentiment has been enshrined in our culture for a very long time. Prejudice has become naturalized. As a white kid who grew up in the South, I learned to be afraid of black people, because “lots of them are thugs… not all of them, but a lot.” But in the same breath I would proudly declare that “I’m no racist! White people aren’t better than black people!” This kind of thinking was not at all uncommon when I was a child, and it is still very much present. Racism, to so many, is simply the notion that African Americans are bad because of the color of their skin. As I have discussed, however, racism is much, much more complicated than that. The prejudices which are based on observed reality (for example, that many African Americans in my home town were poor) feed into the vicious cycle. Poverty and crime are often linked, because of the limited options available to those in poverty (this is yet another topic for another more in-depth discussion). The idea that black folks in my home town were dangerous because of their poverty likely led to the continuation of their poverty, as the stereotype meant that it was harder for African Americans to find a job, which perpetuates their poverty (this is merely a simplified example… no official studies have been done on this in my hometown, to my knowledge).

The cops which murdered people of color were embedded in this culture. It was their expectation, their prejudice, that people of color are more likely to be criminals, to be dangerous, than white people, which led to their responses. What, for those cops, was one instant of culturally-conditioned response (be it fear, weakness, or the rush of power), ended a human life forever and sends out further cultural ripples. I see so many people calling the rioters and protesters thugs, decrying their violent reactions. They are human beings who are hurting and suffering and desperate for change. Calling them thugs is to gloss over their complaint and to perpetuate the cultural image of the black person as violent criminal. Is the destruction of private property wrong? Of course it is, but in this instance it is justified. People of color have been peacefully protesting for years, but they were ignored. Many people are still trying to protest peacefully, in spite of everything that is going on. But of course we fixate on the violence alone, without paying attention to the context and the rationale. The destruction is regrettable, but the loss of innocent life is a thousand times more regrettable.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security… In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”

That was the opening salvo of the Declaration of Independence. The actions of the rioters are not socially acceptable, they are radical, they cause harm to the livelihoods of people, but they are justified—it is their right, it is their duty, to make their voices heard, to evince change for the preservation and betterment of their lives. They are following in the grand American tradition of dissent and, to be honest, they suffered a much longer “train of abuses and usurpations” than did the founding fathers. Again, the destruction of private property is regrettable, but the death of innocents and the cultural oppression of millions is far more regrettable.

Finally, I have seen many, many testimonies of people of color describing their fear of the police, of their fear of just existing in this culture which is so sneakily hostile to them. Many people are ready to disregard these testimonies, to say that they are not true or that these people are overreacting. That is an incredibly privileged position to hold as a white person. Of course your lived experience is nothing like that! Of course it seems to you like everything is fine, because you indirectly benefit from enshrined prejudice! For this reason, when people of color describe a lived experience which is so different from the white experience, we must LISTEN to them and BELIEVE them. These rioters are sending a message that something is very wrong in this country. It is the same message which peaceful protesters have been relaying for years. How many innocents must die before enough is enough? The rioters and protesters are saying NO MORE. Why don’t we listen? The only way to end the violence on both sides is for us to listen, to discuss, and, finally, to come to a solution together.

Why Warlock is the Objectively Best Class - A Critique on Every Class in Dungeons and Dragons

I will be listing the reasons why every class is bad, what strong points it has, and why it is inferior to the Warlock class. 

Barbarian - The barbarian is a relatively simple class, and basically “Hit it until it dies”. There’s definitely some room for creative choices, but the class itself is rather bland unless you find magic items or you spec in a weird way.

Bard - The bard, along with the warlock, is one of the two classes that will destroy campaigns singlehandely at least once in your life. While the bard typically goes for the route of “talk your way out of everything”, the Warlock’s route is “criminal your way out of everything” which has many more options. You can kill the guy, frame him, rob him, etc. when in a sticky situation, while the bard is limited by his ability to talk. 

Cleric - Clerics serve gods rather than making deals with gods. Tell me, who gets the better end of that deal? The god that gives a few of his powers in exchange for downright servitude, or the god that offers powers in exchange for a simple contract telling the user to carry out the god’s will? Plus, when you think cleric, you think healing, whereas when you think warlock, you think badass evil wizard. ‘Nuff said. 

Druid - Treehugging know-it-alls can’t even hold a torch to the awe-inspiring power of the warlock. If you go a natural route as a druid with vines and trees, you’re weak to fire, one of the most common things in the DnD universe (what with wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks running amok). If you choose to be a furry instead, you have versatility, but there’s a reason tigers and such aren’t commonly seen today. Anyone with moderate combat training (which is almost as common as fire) and a good set of armor / weapons (common among adventurers) can beat up nearly any animal that a druid of similar level shapeshifts into. 

Fighter - The fighter is probably the most versatile class, with archetypes ranging from the sellsword to the spellsword. You can have a nimble, speedy fighter, or you can have a goliath fighter donned in a huge set of armor that just yeets any foes. You know what other class is versatile? The warlock. Yeah, you can beat me up, but what if I just open this portal and summon M̸̀͝Y̷̨͠͝͡ ̸̸̕P̸̧̧̢͢Ą͘Ţ͟R͠͞O̷͟Ń͘ ҉̧̡̨͠Ǵ̶̛͜O̸̢̢͟D̀̀͢͜͠ ̷̛Y̢͞͡͞O̶̵͢͠G͟͡'̶̵̨S̢͠͏͜O̸̢̧T̨̧͡H̀͢ƠT̶̢̨̛͡H̷͏̨ and just vaporize you instantly? You might ask “what about a warlock that isn’t that powerful?” Well, in that case, they can just cast Eldritch Blast every three seconds while running away because fighters need close range. If you’re fighting a fighter that uses ranged weapons, or a speedier fighter, just use your highest level spell slots and they’ll fall like twigs. The dexterity required to run circles around an opponent or fire a bow comes with an inverse correlation with protection. 

Monk - As if a warlock could ever lose to a monk. Monk is the dumbest D&D class, hands down. Like, seriously. You hear of evil bards looking to seduce everything in sight, druids corrupted by the demonic taint of the land they’re in, fighters that simply wish to earn a quick buck with your death, clerics and paladins tainted and corrupted by evil magic, bloodthirsty barbarians, crazy wizards and sorcerers, evil thieving rogues, and warlocks that wish to take over the world. But when’s the last time you’ve heard of a monk villain? That’s right, never. Let’s look at other media franchises with monk classes. Diablo 3 has monks, but they’re painfully terrible, using their fists at first level (and later levels in some builds). Compare that to the necromancer, who summons bones from the ground at first level, or the wizard, who shoots missiles of arcane. Want another example? Warcraft. The three “specs” (for those who don’t play Warcraft, this is basically the three unique playstyles of the class) are Brewmaster, a tank that uses beer to take hits, Windwalker, a class that uses the air sometimes I guess but mainly uses their fists, and the Mistweaver, which uses soothing mists to heal their friends. Yeah, even in a game like Warcraft, that makes no sense. You’re telling me that by drinking beer, I can survive hits from raid bosses like Ragnaros, ruler of the Plane of Fire? Yeah, chug down a few beers and jump into a volcano, tell me how that goes. The other specs aren’t much better. Windwalker uses fists and legs, rarely using weapons at all. I highly doubt that even as trained as you are that you’ll be able to kill someone as fast as a guy with a gun (such as the Hunter). Mistweaver makes about as much sense as Brewmaster. Are you telling me that if I spray someone with Febreze it’ll cure their wounds? “Ah, yeah, found how to cure my patient’s bronchitis. Let me just spritz their lungs a few times”. The warlock may use magic and stuff, but at least it makes sense with the rules of the DnD universe. The monks are the laughingstocks of all the base DnD races, and that’s for good reason. Screw monk. 

Paladin - Paladins are like fighter clerics. They worship gods, but have the same problems as clerics (with weaker spells) and don’t have the versatility of fighters. Honestly, paladins are kinda dumb, almost as dumb as monks. Seriously, who even designed that dumb class? It was in the game since THIRD EDITION. Meanwhile, the Warlock got into the game in 4e. Are you kidding? Wizards of the Coast, this baffles me. You can’t seriously believe that some shirtless guy with fists and discount Jesus deserves inclusion over a class who gets their power through a demonic pact. Honestly, if Monk is still in 6e whenever that comes out, I’m going to be very upset. The class has no redeeming features, yet despite having two chances to cut the dumb idiot out, the monk continues to stay in the  game. 

Ranger - The ranger was one of the five core classes in AD&D 1e, along with the fighter, thief, magic-user and... oh fuck this.

Rogue - Turns out, the Monk was in the game since first edition and my 3e source was wrong. This is the dumbest thing ever. The sorcerer wasn’t in the game yet, the barbarian wasn’t in the game yet, Druid was still a subclass of Cleric, there were only around seven races, and there wasn’t a warlock yet. Hell, in Dragon Magazine 53 a D&D fan named Philip Meyers argued that the Monk was the weakest class;

“Of all the character classes in the AD&D™ game, the class of monks is the most difficult to qualify for. A monk must have exceptional strength, wisdom, and dexterity, and — if he or she wishes to survive for very long — constitution. The odds of rolling up such a character, even using the various “cheating methods” listed in the Dungeon Masters Guide, are not favorable. Given this, one would expect a monk to be a powerful character indeed. At first glance this would appear to be true. The Grand Master of Flowers can reasonably claim to be the most powerful fighter around, able to inflict 128 points of damage in a single round. This superiority, however, is more theoretical than real. In actual practice, the monk is the weakest of the character classes, not the strongest.“ - Dragon Magazine #53

This is downright insulting. They gave the monk overpowered abilties (128 damage in a round!!!!) and still the class was absolutely terrible, just like it is now. When’s the last time you heard of a monk that bards told tales about? Of the five DnD 1e classes, which of the five is not one of the four main archetypes in popular culture? 

Sorcerer - Hell, why would the monks even have the abilities they had? Clerics make sense, they have faith healings which originate in the real world. Bards are a stretch, but the idea of a song inspiring someone isn’t anything new. But fucking MONKS lived in monasteries in medieval England, and that’s what they’re most known for. What would a realistic monk have the ability to do in D&D? The ability to copy things from a book quickly? Oh, wait, the Printing Press kinda fixed the need to do that. Good party trick, I suppose. The ability to form a self sufficient house with multiple members? Alright, but you’ll need a lot of money, a lot of other people, and slaves. Did I mention monks were slaveowners? And they pretend to be a good force of light or whatever. 

Wizard - Wizards learn with books, warlocks don’t need to learn, they have patrons. Guess what other class reads a lot? Monks. Except they don’t get the cool benefits of Wizards, they just get “closer to god” or whatever. Unfortunately for you, MONKS, the D&D world isn’t your monotheistic fantasy world of Jesus. There’s multiple gods, and they’ll kick your god’s ass in a fight. 

(Sidenote about that last paragraph, I’m making fun of monks in the D&D world, not real Christians, and I don’t intend to be hating anyone for their religious views)

So I hope all of you liked my writeup! Sorry it took so long, it was hard trying to find objective reasons for a lot of these (and I had to rewrite the Druid class a lot of the time to avoid calling them “vegan pieces of shit” which is a lot harder than it sounds). Anyway, choose Warlock the next time you make a new character.

Rey’s Parentage Reveal In The Last Jedi is OBJECTIVELY Inaccurate

So buckle up, my folks. We’re about to take a trip down Logic Lane with a few stops along the way at The Force Awakens Way, Force Vision Terrace, and Skywalker-Solo Circle.

Where to begin?

Ah, I have it.

So, since The Last Jedi allegedly gave us an answer as to who sired young Rey and (spoilers) they’re supposed to be junk traders who sold their daughter for drinking money and then died in the sands of Jakku, a good portion of the fanbase has been up in arms, some simply dissatisfied, but some to the point of a vehement rebuke of the information, for various, very justified reasons. 

However, there is the minority of the fanbase that is satisfied with the information and moves on from it, pretending like everything is okay...which it isn’t.

Because who was said to be her parents is objectively inaccurate based on The Force Awakens, cinematic tells, and logical deductions from the current two movies in the Sequel Trilogy.

I’m not going to lie so I’m going to come right out and say it, I am emphatically Anti-The Last Jedi because of several things that are wrong, unexplained, or simply bad about the movie. Like, if I could personally strike it from canon, I would. However, I have another whole series (#the last jedi sins) you can read, if you’re interested. I am here to talk solely about how Rian’s vision for Rey’s parentage is inherently incorrect.

As has been discussed dozens of times, it was originally intended for Rey to be the daughter of of Leia and Han, in early concepts for The Force Awakens. However, so much has changed anyway, so I will not be staking anything on that debatable evidence. Instead, I will go for the more tangible evidence that we can all see.

Aside from the fact that The Force Awakens did, in fact, emphasize many, many, many parallels between Rey and Luke’s emergence in the saga, causing most fans to speculate who her father was, there is even more to talk about. You can read my extensive dissertation on that here, or just go to my blog and /tagged/rey-skywalker and see everything I have on it.

In TFA, Rey had a Force Vision of her, being held by the hand, calling out to whom we’re lead to believe are her parents, yelling at them to “Come back!” as they fly off of Jakku in a spaceship. 

Drunk junk...traders have their own, high-class spaceship? That’s fucking news to me. Like Rey, for all intents and purposes, lead a similar work life to her parents, and she had nothing...how did drunk junk traders have a spaceship? 

Apparently, they had sold their daughter for drinking money, also. 

W-why d-didn’t they sell their spaceship first? 

Now I get it, some people are turds, but...really? You sell your own daughter before you sell your ship? Your flesh and fuckin blood? 

Moreover, she was allegedly sold to Unkar Platt/Plutt for drinking money. 

But...nowhere in The Force Awakens did I ever get the impression she was a slave, which is what is implied from being “sold” to someone in exchange for money. It makes that person a slave.

Slaves, typically, aren’t allowed to go wherever they please, when they please, live wherever they want, and give what they choose to their master. The fruits of a slave’s labor are typically considered the property of the slaveowner. 

Also, slaves don’t usually sell things to their slaveowner. That’s not usually how slavery works. I mean, yeah, she’s selling it for food and supplies, but...it’s still not usually how slavery works.

For me, Rey was someone who was simply trying to survive after being abandoned. In this little settlement, she works/scavenges for food and supplies.

Also...thinking about it...if she’s a slave...doesn’t that make all the people selling stuff to Unkar Platt/Plutt slaves too? Because she was exactly like them. 

Furthermore, she could not have been a slave because when Unkar took interest in BB-8, she chose to not sell BB to him. Slaves- objectively- cannot do that. The slaveowner will take whatever their slave has, whether they like it or not. 

Unkar sent someone after her to get the droid, but that establishes Unkar has henchmen, not that she is a slave. Because she would have been obligated to agree to BB-8′s sale as soon as he was interested, if she was a slave. 

So she’s not a slave, therefore she could not have been sold for drinking money. She must have been abandoned or left there by someone.

Someone who cared about her, probably because in the Force Vision, she was wearing pauper’s clothing, but it wasn’t dirty or damaged. It was just clothing, basic clothing. Her face and hair looked clean. I’m actually watching this on repeat while writing this because I’m making sure my memory is clear and yeah, she looks in good health and hygiene. So her parents obviously did care about her. Certainly more than to sell their daughter before selling their ship for drinking money. 

Also, going back to the very beginning, her parents were allegedly junk traders. But drunks. If they were able to own and pay for the upkeep of a ship that size, they had to have been pretty well-off or at least comfortable. They would have had 

1. no need to sell their daughter to get drunk

2. been successful enough to actually have the money to do those things.

So, something is definitely amiss there. All of it is amiss from a logic and storytelling perspective. 

Additionally, it is canon that Kylo Ren does recognize her in The Force Awakens. In the novelization, there is a mention of Kylo Ren saying or thinking ‘it’s you’ when he interacts with Rey. That is completely unjustifiable if she is some nobody from Jakku. Kylo knows her. That is proof enough that Rian’s interpretation of her parentage is objectively incorrect. It directly contradicts text canon. 

Since we’re talking about Kylo anyway, let’s delve into the reveal again. I talked about it at length here, if you’re interested for a more in-depth analysis.  

When Kylo was trying to get Rey to know the “truth” about what turned him, although it makes no sense and is inconsistent with characterization and plot elements, he removed his glove, in a gesture of vulnerability and honesty when they touched hands. However, when he “validated” that her parents were nobodies, he kept his glove on and immediately pressed for her to make a decision to join him, through coercion, saying that she was nobody and has no place in this. It was clearly dishonest and manipulative, seeing as she wanted someone to “show her her place in all this”.  Also, look at the look in his eyes! There’s something else he’s not saying. (This is why Adam Driver is such an amazing actor!) He either never saw her parents or was manipulated just like Snoke manipulated Rey to believe he could be turned. 

And Leia sent Rey to acquire Luke from Ahch-To, even though she had been looking for him for fifteen years. Why her? Yeah, she’s Force-Sensitive, but so is she...but that hug in TFA? That’s more than an “I just met you, but I feel you” kind of hug. Leia buries her head in the notch of Rey’s neck, that’s a clear sign of familiarity. Most people only do that with people that they deeply, intimately know. Rey, on the other hand, keeps her chin on Leia’s shoulder, but as the hug goes longer, she moves her chin into the nook of Leia’s neck...there’s a familiarity growing inside Rey too. Leia knew, but Rey’s coming to know. This is body language and basic psychology, my guys. I’m not even reaching here. On Ahch-To, when Luke turns around, the look in Luke’s eyes is soft and haunted when he sees this girl standing before him. He already knew. 

With all of this in mind, she can’t be a nobody. Kylo wants her on his side..there must be some reason for that...especially because it is canon he recognizes her. She was never a slave and her parents couldn’t have been drunk junk traders because it fails the logic tests. And all the parallels made between her and Luke...can’t be a red herring. Why would they be there, if there was no point? It’s bad storytelling. 

In conclusion, Rian Johnson did not watch The Force Awakens, nor does he understand basic storytelling practices or logic. There is no logical precedent for her to be Rey Nobody, so she must be Rey Somebody. Even Rian admitted that they may undo what he did in VIII in IX, probably because he might have realized how much he fucked up with not making her Rey Skywalker/Solo/Kenobi. Rey’s parentage in The Last Jedi is objectively inaccurate.

You're a fucking star for even bothering to compose a coherent reply to that antisemitic asexual "oppression" nonsense, thank you so much

Honestly at this point, I have nothing to lose, and too much frustration to keep letting this shit slide. I’ve already had other conversion students defending this kind of gentile nonsense (or acting foolish themselves) block me for being a big meanie “aphobe” to their friends/people they were encouraging when I said that continuing calling Jewish people paranoid or saying they were overreacting or must be bigots over the “dovecourse” was antisemitic.  And when I pointed out making a block list that combined actual nazis and predators with Jewish people was fucking evil and dangerous (and then someone said they felt objecting to this list of nazis alongside Jewish people was an abuser tactic, which like, alright…then. That’s between them and their converting rabbi, I guess.)

it’s not a secret or a surprise that much of the discourse that revolves around asexuality has had a whole lot of people being antisemitic as fuck, being racist as fuck, or being homophobic and transphobic as fuck. I think by a lot of definitions I count as “ace” but this shit has been on-going for years now, and hasn’t really improved an ounce. And all it does is hurt ace people by demonizing healthy ways of dealing with, approaching, or discussing sexual needs/wants/desires or lack thereof! and also…yanno…hurting people with all the racism/antisemitism/homophobia/transphobia. 

[Follow-up where the dovecourse people continue to mock people by implying a pokemon is a nazi eagle because haha upsetting Jewish people is hilarious!, and people try to claim the post was from “months ago” and not…literally four days before that post. ] 

Plus there was an article that concluded the issue was that Jewish people were just bigoted! That’s the real problem!

No really, here’s the text:

while few Jewish people have indeed expressed discomfort at the supposed similarity, they are generally, if not always, also aphobic.

And because in addition to being willing to write off all Jewish people, they’re also a complete dingus, they used the Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Prussia as an example of one of a “number of other birds [reminiscent of the Reichsadler] I assumed aphobic tumblr would have focused its efforts on by now that have gone unnoticed.” 

Just like…did no one tell them Prussian empire preceded the Prussian Republic, which SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!! was overthrown by the Nazi party in Germany? Of course the Prussian coat of arms looks like the Nazi Reichsadler you mildewed pierce of toast, it is THE SAME GODDAMN BIRD!!!!!!!!!! No one argues that the Nazi Reichsadler is “reminiscent” of the Prussian coat of arms because it is literally the same exact thing except for sometimes it’s head is turned in a particular direction or it has a swastika holy shit. 

Or wait, even more follow up of the first person comparing people who might be uncomfortable being called q-eer (due to a history of dealing with homophobic abuse) is pretty much like using the Nazi playbook! (Awhile later they maybe claimed they were going to convert so….here’s hoping they realize how awful they were being for mocking Jewish people over this.) 

Making claims of antisemitism or concern about it was made into a complete joke - followed by a rapid increase of Godwin’s law over everything: here, here, Courteousmingler (who harasses rape survivors) claiming objecting to the dove is a fascist technique, also that “we’re just like the jews!!!” forgetting of the holocaust post, more on the accusing of jewish people of being paranoid, more, and more - it’s not as if they weren’t told nicely. These may be 10+ months old now, but don’t worry, peregeisisvoid is still using ill-thought out images, like this one placing Anne Frank alongside slaveowners. And also they made badly written tentacle porn kink fanfiction and then tried to claim that aphobes thought it was just as bad as the “perceived antisemitism” talked about in the dovecourse meaning the jewish people who complained were the REAL! antisemites!!! 

Or how about the person who tried to use the word “Goy” in order to prove some kind of point about….well, I don’t really know, the unrelated word allosexual? Because why not use Jewish people and ideas as your irrelevant prop?

i swear i don’t have the patience to accept this tripe. 

Statue of Limitations

Roving gangs keep us safe by ripping down statues enchanted with evil magick. The figures drag down humans. We're such ingrates that we won't even build new ones to revere our guardians. Our nation can't laud anyone who had faults, according to those who think there's nothing good about it in the first place. Their solution is easy, in its way.

Decidedly imperfect humans are deciding who is no longer to be glorified. The lack of a democratic vote would seem to violate their own terms. That's odd, as there's nothing more rational than rampaging looters with ropes. Those leveraging destructions haven't created public art or anything else. But they're good at tearing down. The best ironies involve unawareness.

Of course, not everyone is worth memorializing by taking up park space. Critics of critics often cite erasing history as a reason not to smash reproductions of people. But castings are supposed to be of the commendable. Building one is not just to remember what happened: we want to look at a reminder of good things.

Some figures from the past don't deserve to be rendered in metal form. Those fretting about the past disappearing along with public displays wouldn't be so enthusiastic about locking arms around, say, a Che statue, which would only stand in Chazistan or on Bill de Blasio's lawn. But frenzied citizens aren't razing tributes to murderous commies.

Those who only put physics to destructive use would defend likenesses of history's most rabid community organizers. Meanwhile, topple that country-founding ghoul.  If you’re canceling George Washington, send me your dollars.

The podiums have been smashed, too. Those who have commandeered the public art selection process don't seem interested in discussions about subtle distinctions as they affix ropes to metal necks. Smashers of what others raised claim they were never listened to as they take destructive action and wonder why. Monument removal is one way to ensure nobody ever offers to have a heart-to-heart rap session.

Woke capsizers have to smash property belonging to others because they didn't accumulate anything on their own. It's part of their ideology. Meanwhile, I can list things that tick me off constantly; just check my tweets. I didn't realize I was supposed to react by breaking what others bought.

You vainly try drawing attention to how there's no distinction between fiendish CSA second-place generals and Thomas Jefferson, who was involved in some wacko libertarian gun-fetishizing militia. Forget noting how long it's been since the country allowed forcing labor, how common it's been been in human history, and how many hundreds of thousands of Americans died to end the supremely appalling practice of racist cheap-ass Southern plantation owners not paying for labor. Those lighting torches are not big on objections. Smear those who didn't live up to high ideals by having none.

The butterfly effect has taken even wilder turns than predicted. Take how a cop murdering a black man led to removing the statue of Teddy Roosevelt, who some may be surprised to learn hosted Booker T. Washington at the White House. The one certainty is that those ripping down would never have displayed such guts. If the portlier presidential Roosevelt isn't progressive enough, then nobody will ever be. And that's the point.

Rather active redecorators of other people's property aren't into subtleties. Purportedly righteous fervor makes it challenging to distinguish between guys who spent lifetimes as delinquents and those who had a detention or two. The general who defeated the Confederacy before taking on the Klan as president cannot stand, literally. And the guy who defeated Nazis just wasn't sufficiently opposed to fascism.

Reject anyone with faults, demand the perfect. I've got news for effigy-tearers, namely that their shortcomings exponentially outpace Winston Churchill's. Society doesn't build sculptures to those determined to not appreciate anyone who got us to this semi-civilized point.

Judging people by present standards is a sure sign of myopic sanctimony. And it sure doesn't make today feel more enlightened. Unforgiving condemnation is actually the present's defining characteristic. Ripping down tributes to others is particularly regrettable considering how today's supposedly enlightened era features ironic intolerance. Everyone better be hoping future generations are less judgmental of today than today's crusaders are about those who croaked in olden times.

Revolutionaries should be a little less literal about obliterating the past. The new Year Zero is even more stringent. Pol Pot would've been condemned for being insufficiently revolutionary. Tell the destruction patrol he's an American Founding Father to convince them to tear down his statue. Don't condemn slaveowners from the 19th century if your preferred system would leave everyone beholden to government in the 21st.

If you think honoring presidents looks bad, the absence is even worse. Empty plinths say everything about current days. Such likenesses celebrate those who created a nation based on liberty, which is a noble notion being destroyed. The impromptu redecoration is merely a literal expression.

Admirable accomplishments don't impress critics of public spaces. You must be purer than God's kid in order to be exalted with a physical reproduction, and even being the savior is insufficient protection against cancelation if you used plastic straws. Sure, those respected may have achieved great and good things despite personal failings that involved conforming to unfortunate moral standards of the time. But what kind of humans would we be if we understood with forgiveness?

Those clearing pedestals without a permit will be relieved to know they'll never have monuments. Sure, tearing down their own depictions might be amusing. But no committee will seek donations to immortalize someone whose top accomplishment is smearing people who pushed for liberty because they couldn't put negative characteristics in context. It's too bad, as public areas suddenly feel sparse.

Section 2: The Greed for Surplus-Labor, Manufacturer and Boyard Capital has not invented surplus labour. Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the labourer, free or not free, must add to the working-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production7 , whether this proprietor be the Athenian χαλος γαχαθος [wellto-do man], Etruscan theocrat, civis Romanus [Roman citizen], Norman baron, American slaveowner, Wallachian Boyard, modern landlord or capitalist.8 It is, however, clear that in any given economic formation of society, where not the exchange-value but the use-value of the product predominates, surplus labour will be limited by a given set of wants which may be greater or less, and that here no boundless thirst for surplus labour arises from the nature of the production itself. Hence in antiquity over-work becomes horrible only when the object is to obtain exchange-value in its specific independent money-form; in the production of gold and silver. Compulsory working to death is here the recognised form of over-work. Only read Diodorus Siculus. 9 Still these are exceptions in antiquity. But as soon as people, whose production still moves within the lower forms of slave-labour, corvée-labour, &c., are drawn into the whirlpool of an international market dominated by the capitalistic mode of production, the sale of their products for export becoming their principal interest, the civilised horrors of over-work are grafted on the barbaric horrors of slavery, serfdom, &c. Hence the negro labour in the Southern States of the American Union preserved something of a patriarchal character, so long as production was chiefly directed to immediate local consumption. But in proportion, as the export of cotton became of vital interest to these states, the over-working of the negro and sometimes the using up of his life in 7 years of labour became a factor in a calculated and calculating system. It was no longer a question of obtaining from him a certain quantity of useful products. It was now a question of production of surplus labour itself: So was it also with the corvée, e.g., in the Danubian Principalities (now Roumania). The comparison of the greed for surplus labour in the Danubian Principalities with the same greed in English factories has a special interest, because surplus labour in the corvée has an independent and palpable form. Suppose the working day consists of 6 hours of necessary labour, and 6 hours of surplus labour. Then the free labourer gives the capitalist every week 6 x 6 or 36 hours of surplus labour. It is the same as if he worked 3 days in the week for himself, and 3 days in the week gratis for the capitalist. But this is not evident on the surface. Surplus labour and necessary labour glide one into the other. I can, therefore, express the same relationship by saying, e.g., that the labourer in every minute works 30 seconds for himself, and 30 for the capitalist, etc. It is otherwise with the corvée. The necessary labour which the Wallachian peasant does for his own maintenance is distinctly marked off from his surplus labour on behalf of the Boyard. The one he does on his own field, the other on the seignorial estate. Both parts of the labour-time exist, therefore, independently, side by side one with the other. In the corvée the surplus labour is accurately marked off from the necessary labour. This, however, can make no difference with regard to the quantitative relation of surplus labour to necessary labour. Three days’ surplus labour in the week remain three days that yield no equivalent to the labourer himself, whether it be called corvée or 122 Chapter X wage-labour. But in the capitalist the greed for surplus labour appears in the straining after an unlimited extension of the working day, in the Boyard more simply in a direct hunting after days of corvée.10 In the Danubian Principalities the corvée was mixed up with rents in kind and other appurtenances of bondage, but it formed the most important tribute paid to the ruling class. Where this was the case, the corvée rarely arose from serfdom; serfdom much more frequently on the other hand took origin from the corvée.11 This is what took place in the Roumanian provinces. Their original mode of production was based on community of the soil, but not in the Slavonic or Indian form. Part of the land was cultivated in severalty as freehold by the members of the community, another part – ager publicus – was cultivated by them in common. The products of this common labour served partly as a reserve fund against bad harvests and other accidents, partly as a public store for providing the costs of war, religion, and other common expenses. In course of time military and clerical dignitaries usurped, along with the common land, the labour spent upon it. The labour of the free peasants on their common land was transformed into corvée for the thieves of the common land. This corvée soon developed into a servile relationship existing in point of fact, not in point of law, until Russia, the liberator of the world, made it legal under presence of abolishing serfdom. The code of the corvée, which the Russian General Kisseleff proclaimed in 1831, was of course dictated by the Boyards themselves. Thus Russia conquered with one blow the magnates of the Danubian provinces, and the applause of liberal cretins throughout Europe. According to the “Règlement organique,” as this code of the corvée is called, every Wallachian peasant owes to the so-called landlord, besides a mass of detailed payments in kind: (1), 12 days of general labour; (2), one day of field labour; (3), one day of wood carrying. In all, 14 days in the year. With deep insight into Political Economy, however, the working day is not taken in its ordinary sense, but as the working day necessary to the production of an average daily product; and that average daily product is determined in so crafty a way that no Cyclops would be done with it in 24 hours. In dry words, the Réglement itself declares with true Russian irony that by 12 working days one must understand the product of the manual labour of 36 days, by 1 day of field labour 3 days, and by 1 day of wood carrying in like manner three times as much. In all, 42 corvée days. To this had to be added the so-called jobagie, service due to the lord for extraordinary occasions. In proportion to the size of its population, every village has to furnish annually a definite contingent to the jobagie. This additional corvée is estimated at 14 days for each Wallachian peasant. Thus the prescribed corvée amounts to 56 working days yearly. But the agricultural year in Wallachia numbers in consequence of the severe climate only 210 days, of which 40 for Sundays and holidays, 30 on an average for bad weather, together 70 days, do not count. 140 working days remain. The ratio of the corvée to the necessary labour 56/84 or 66 2/3 % gives a much smaller rate of surplus value than that which regulates the labour of the English agricultural or factory labourer. This is, however, only the legally prescribed corvée. And in a spirit yet more “liberal” than the English Factory Acts, the “Règlement organique” has known how to facilitate its own evasion. After it has made 56 days out of 12, the nominal day’s work of each of the 56 corvée days is again so arranged that a portion of it must fall on the ensuing day. In one day, e.g., must be weeded an extent of land, which, for this work, especially in maize plantations, needs twice as much time. The legal day’s work for some kinds of agricultural labour is interpretable in such a way that the day begins in May and ends in October. In Moldavia conditions are still harder. “The 12 corvée days of the ‘Règlement organique’ cried a Boyard drunk with victory, amount to 365 days in the year.”12 If the Règlement organique of the Danubian provinces was a positive expression of the greed for surplus labour which every paragraph legalised, the English Factory Acts are the negative expression of the same greed. These acts curb the passion of capital for a limitless draining of 123 Chapter X labour-power, by forcibly limiting the working day by state regulations, made by a state that is ruled by capitalist-and landlord. Apart from the working-class movement that daily grew more threatening, the limiting of factory labour was dictated by the same necessity which spread guano over the English fields. The same blind eagerness for plunder that in the one case exhausted the soil, had, in the other, torn up by the roots the living force of the nation. Periodical epidemics speak on this point as clearly as the diminishing military standard in Germany and France.13 The Factory Act of 1850 now in force (1867) allows for the average working day 10 hours, i.e., for the first 5 days 12 hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., including ½ an hour for breakfast, and an hour for dinner, and thus leaving 10½ working-hours, and 8 hours for Saturday, from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., of which ½ an hour is subtracted for breakfast. 60 working-hours are left, 10½ for each of the first 5 days, 7½ for the last.14 Certain guardians of these laws are appointed, Factory Inspectors, directly under the Home Secretary, whose reports are published half-yearly, by order of Parliament. They give regular and official statistics of the capitalistic greed for surplus labour. Let us listen, for a moment, to the Factory Inspectors.15 “The fraudulent mill-owner begins work a quarter of an hour (sometimes more, sometimes less) before 6 a.m., and leaves off a quarter of an hour (sometimes more, sometimes less) after 6 p.m. He takes 5 minutes from the beginning and from the end of the half hour nominally allowed for breakfast, and 10 minutes at the beginning and end of the hour nominally allowed for dinner. He works for a quarter of an hour (sometimes more, sometimes less) after 2 p.m. on Saturday. Thus his gain is – Before 6 a.m., 15 minutes. After 6 p.m., 15 " At breakfast time, 10 " At dinner time, 20 " Five days – 300 minutes, 60 " On Saturday before 6 a.m., 15 minutes. At breakfast time, 10 " After 2 p.m., 15 " 40 minutes. Total weekly, 340 minutes. Or 5 hours and 40 minutes weekly, which multiplied by 50 working weeks in the year (allowing two for holidays and occasional stoppages) is equal to 27 working days.”16 “Five minutes a day’s increased work, multiplied by weeks, are equal to two and a half days of produce in the year.”17 “An additional hour a day gained by small instalments before 6 a.m., after 6 p.m., and at the beginning and end of the times nominally fixed for meals, is nearly equivalent to working 13 months in the year.”18 Crises during which production is interrupted and the factories work “short time,” i.e., for only a part of the week, naturally do not affect the tendency to extend the working day. The less business there is, the more profit has to be made on the business done. The less time spent in work, the more of that time has to be turned into surplus labour-time. Thus the Factory Inspector’s report on the period of the crisis from 1857 to 1858: “It may seem inconsistent that there should be any overworking at a time when trade is so bad; but that very badness leads to the transgression by unscrupulous 124 Chapter X men, they get the extra profit of it. ... In the last half year, says Leonard Horner, 122 mills in my district have been given up; 143 were found standing,” yet, overwork is continued beyond the legal hours.” 19 “For a great part of the time,” says Mr. Howell, “owing to the depression of trade, many factories were altogether closed, and a still greater number were working short time. I continue, however, to receive about the usual number of complaints that half, or three-quarters of an hour in the day, are snatched from the workers by encroaching upon the times professedly allowed for rest and refreshment.” 20 The same phenomenon was reproduced on a smaller scale during the frightful cotton-crises from 1861 to 1865.21 “It is sometimes advanced by way of excuse, when persons are found at work in a factory, either at a meal hour, or at some illegal time, that they will not leave the mill at the appointed hour, and that compulsion is necessary to force them to cease work [cleaning their machinery, &c.], especially on Saturday afternoons. But, if the hands remain in a factory after the machinery has ceased to revolve ... they would not have been so employed if sufficient time had been set apart specially for cleaning, &c., either before 6 a.m. [sic.!] or before 2 p.m. on Saturday afternoons.” 22 “The profit to be gained by it (over-working in violation of the Act) appears to be, to many, a greater temptation than they can resist; they calculate upon the chance of not being found out; and when they see the small amount of penalty and costs, which those who have been convicted have had to pay, they find that if they should be detected there will still be a considerable balance of gain.... 23 In cases where the additional time is gained by a multiplication of small thefts in the course of the day, there are insuperable difficulties to the inspectors making out a case.” 24 These “small thefts” of capital from the labourer’s meal and recreation time, the factory inspectors also designate as “petty pilferings of minutes,” 25 “snatching a few minutes,”26 or, as the labourers technically called them, “nibbling and cribbling at meal-times.” 27 It is evident that in this atmosphere the formation of surplus value by surplus labour, is no secret. “If you allow me,” said a highly respectable master to me, “to work only ten minutes in the day over-time, you put one thousand a year in my pocket.”28 “Moments are the elements of profit.”29 Nothing is from this point of view more characteristic than the designation of the workers who work full time as “full-timers,” and the children under 13 who are only allowed to work 6 hours as “half-timers.” The worker is here nothing more than personified labour-time. All individual distinctions are merged in those of “full-timers” and “half-timers”

Busting Myths About the Confederacy by Bernie Horn

As white supremacists and neo-Nazis crawl out of the woodwork and try to infest our communities with hate, it is important to contest their revisionist history.

Yes, take down the statues that were erected to whitewash the Confederate cause and directly or indirectly support white supremacy. Yes, take down the Confederate battle flags that were placed there for the same reason. Yes, rename schools, roads and parks that honor prominent Confederates.

But also, states, cities, counties and school districts should review the untruths currently taught in our schools about the Civil War and its aftermath. Many textbooks still incorporate these politically-motivated lies.

White Grievance

You’ve probably heard that Trumpism stems from white grievance, a series of lies that make less-educated whites believe they are the victims of discrimination.

This story is popular in far-right media, and diverts attention away from the real culprits – the rich and powerful who, over the past 40 years, have systematically redirected the fruits of American productivity away from workers and into their own pockets, destroying economic security by closing factories, outsourcing jobs, busting unions, abusing customers, and cutting middle-class wages and benefits.

But there is another right-wing story that has received little attention until recently. It is the myth of the Confederacy. And this series of falsehoods does not require the sponsorship of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or Breitbart – it comes directly from our grade-school history books.

Romanticizing the Confederacy

Didn’t your history book say that the Civil War was about “states’ rights” rather than slavery? Might it have referred to the “War Between the States,” a name that implies the two sides were equally to blame? Wasn’t Robert E. Lee described as a kind man who didn’t really believe in slavery?

Perhaps the Confederate battle flag was offered as a non-racist symbol of the south? And didn’t your history book assert that Ulysses S. Grant was one of our worst presidents, both corrupt and a drunk? Remember?

All of this – the entire romanticizing of the Confederacy and the demonizing of the Confederacy’s opponents – is fake news. It was invented for political purposes – like the cultivation of white victimhood today –  and in no way represents what people thought or said during the Civil War or its aftermath.

The Gallant South

Let’s revisit the Gallant South, and examine the real history of the Confederacy, point by point:

The Confederacy Was Formed, and the South Started the Civil War, to Protect Slavery

Modern historians, referring to the original documents and statements of the time, do not question that slavery was the primary cause of the South’s rebellion. As the Confederacy’s vice president explained in his famous Cornerstone Speech:

The new [confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution – American slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

The Name “War Between the States” is Propaganda

There was no war “between the states.” The Civil War was a rebellion against the central government – a revolution against the United States of America.

The phrase “War Between the States” was not in general use until after the war and not particularly well-known until the United Daughters of the Confederacy promoted the name in the 20th Century. The term, designed to absolve the south of blame, is simply false.

Robert E. Lee Strongly Supported Slavery and Was Not Kind to Black Americans At All

In fact, Lee was a rather cruel slaveowner. His army was ruthless to black soldiers and civilians. He publicly and privately supported slavery, argued that slavery was good for Black Americans. Lee strongly opposed emancipation. He was not kind, understanding or Christian to black Americans.

The Confederate Battle Flag Is a Racist Symbol

For more than 150 years, the Stars and Bars have been used to symbolize anti-black discrimination and violence, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow, segregation, and resistance to desegregation. There is really no debate that its re-adoption and use since 1948 has been an open statement of white supremacy and opposition to civil rights for African Americans. Non-racists should not display it.

Ulysses S. Grant Was Not a Bad President

My school textbook ranked Grant as the worst president. This is pure fabrication, based on the 20th-century writings of pro-Confederacy historians.

Modern historians rank Grant in the middle tier of presidents, while Americans at the time adored him. His memoir was a massive bestseller and his death in 1885 “brought a tidal wave of emotional eulogizing.” There is no objective evidence that, as a general or president, he was ever “a drunk.”

The Cost of Myths

These myths about the Confederacy have helped to fuel the current outpourings of hate. It is time for American governments to step up and tell the truth about our nation’s history.

Governments should be held accountable, and investigate whether Confederate myths are still foisted on our schoolchildren. When such myths are found, we should tear them down, too, and in their place build up a foundation for our culture that is based on historical accuracy.

Truth is the best remedy for hate.

Bernie Horn is the Senior Director for Policy and Communication at the Public Leadership Institute.

None or Nothing

Rejecting the notion of absolutes is a favorite hobby of those who loathe dissent.  Well, that doesn't add up.  Everything and everyone is all good or bad in one of the very subtle characterizations of our social media era.  People who use phrases like “My truth” sure think everyone who disagrees is as objectively evil as a straw-user.  Do you regret not being able to punch whales right in the face, you gasoline fan?

It's easier to proclaim divergent opinions as invalid.  We value consistency, right?  And who could be stupid enough to think something that goes against our very smart brains?  The notion of looking at an issue differently is so offensive that it should result in firing.  Please provide your employer's Twitter handle if you don't think so.

There's more dividing ideological foes than issues.  Mean close-minded conservatives think those who disagree are wrong, while same disagreers think everyone else is an orphan-devouring grandma-kicker. The notion that America could use slightly less debt is portrayed as crazed. There's nothing more diabolical than letting people keep their money and sticking to a budget.

Political observers find it uncanny how anyone who disagrees with social justice warriors is monstrous.  That's the byproduct of wanting to see the poor suffer for sport.  Inhuman extremism starts with thinking maybe a few million abortions is a bit too many.  Wait: whose side is that?

True ghouls don't want their Moloch worshipping disrupted.  Brett Kavanaugh is seen as a dastard because of how he sees the Constitution, not for whatever charges his frenzied opponents invented about him leading a rape gang in between kegs.  It's nice to invent an excuse as a measure of respect for protocol.

Applying today's morality to people who didn't get the benefit of decades of societal progress is as fair as yelling at school cafeterias for appropriating culture by serving delicious tacos on Cinco de Mayo. Modern white liberals totally would've sat on the other side of a segregated lunch counter after attending Negro League baseball games. Just ask them.

The commitment to excluding anyone who dares stick to the nation's rulebook is especially annoying for people who mock anyone with standards.  It's certainly courageous on top of the willingness to demonize historical figures. You'd think those who mock Bible-thumpers would be more open about acknowledging that humans can evolve.

Those who constantly smirk about history arcing toward justice or some other such pompous attempt to sound enlightened refuse to accept people in earlier centuries may not have been tolerant enough to condemn dressing as a member of a different culture for Halloween.

Humans can't evolve, claim those who believe our species is perfectible. There's nothing more urgent than to condemn persons who are flawed by purportedly modern standards, including purported civilizational heroes.  Winston Churchill literally defeated Hitler, but that racist jerk deserves our scorn.  We're too busy blaming Christopher Columbus for genocide to appreciate that his penchant for sailing past the horizon got the Western world started. And don't even get me started on slave-owning Founders who wrote this evil Constitution that prevents the miracle of single-payer from being installed.  There's nothing braver than condemning them years later while enjoying the benefits of their accomplishments.

There's nothing subtle like expressing admiration for something from the past means endorsing everything about it.  Bringing up something that went well in America in, say, the 1830s means you're cool with chattel. Modern liberals totally would've stood up to slaveowners.  That commitment to sanctimony is also seen in shrieking at Ted Cruz while he has the nerve to patronize a restaurant.

It's bad enough to hate the guts of anyone who voted differently.  At least laugh about who you despise.  The worst part is how lousy the ideas are of the most strident.  Maniacal social engineering paired with punishing success ensures everyone of every invented gender has to choose between a bus pass and two meals per day.  Note who claims the other side hates health care for sick infants as their communal scheming ensures kids will hit puberty before they're treated.  Maybe time in the waiting room will naturally cure them.

Look to the leader for why the evil Star Trek German parallel dimension has become reality.  The endless resistors have developed a thorough political philosophy based upon noting everything the president does is evil and stupid.  Donald Trump is installing the Fourth Reich, which is especially tricky considering how inept he is.  The incumbent makes George W. Bush look like Barack Obama.  Imagine how brutal the next Republican will be.  Each day of the term will be spent pushing unlucky chosen citizens down elevator shafts.

For now, amuse yourself by noting how often the most strident would agree with Trump's doltish economical meddling were his name not attached. They're not pernicious just because the fail to know how math works.