korrasera

[korrasera]

Reblog to give prev a fucking break holy shit y’all

[korrasera]

[korrasera]

[korrasera]

i cannot hate myself into a version of me i will love.

[korrasera]

I just haven’t seen anything to convince me that it would be reduced to zero

@bluejaysfeathers, I just wanted to point something out to you about the argument you put above, in addition to what @fandomsandfeminism already said about the way no system will ever be perfect.

I've seen many people argue like you have, using that logic to say that we shouldn't change the systems we live with. "We can't change the system!" people say, because the proposed alternative would not be perfect.

I want to ask you to stop and consider what that kind of argument actually means, using the discussion above.

It's not saying that prisons are good and we should keep them.

It's not saying that prisons work and we should keep them.

It's not even saying that the proposed alternatives are bad and we shouldn't adopt them.

It's saying, quietly, "I'm scared of changing things so I don't want to change them."

Out of that, people will invent endless excuses not to make a needed and necessary change.

That's why so many people don't want to learn about the alternatives, it's easier to live with what you already know. That's why so many people oppose even common sense changes they agree with, because it's easier to live with what you already know. That's why so many people fight to keep any change at all from happening, because it is so much easier to live with what you already know.

Here's what I'm saying. It's important for us all to reflect on a simple question:

Am I against making this change because it's bad? Or am I against it because I'm afraid of change itself?

[korrasera]

We aren't at the phase of their fascism where voting for the Democrat is a capital offense, so they're just celebrating. Given the kinds of responses being seen on social media, I also don't think that Republicans were widely expecting the kind of blow back they've gotten.

People on the right cut people out of their lives when said family member is identified as a valid target (coming out, marrying outside of race, etc) or when said family member crosses some arbitrary line.

Also, they don't engage in this kind of behavior when they're losing. Instead of cutting people off, they jump straight to violence instead.

[korrasera]

something has gone deeply wrong when "focusing pragmatically on issues you can influence and working to make life better for yourself and your community" is considered an unserious distraction while "endlessly exposing yourself to media about distressing situations you can't control" is considered political engagement

[korrasera]

This list is incorrect in one case:

Irregardless is a word.

The word irregardless has been in use since at least 1795 and it's a common synonym for regardless. Use it freely, it is not a double negative. Just be aware that people will try to correct you regularly, as the idea that irregardless isn't a word is a widely held misconception.

The misconception comes from the way that irregardless violates a common rule of English, using prefixes to alter the meaning of a word. The problem is that this rule is not universal, like all linguistic rules, and you can see that in the way that other words follow the same pattern. Flammable and inflammable both refer to something that easily catches on fire.

Remember, language is a living, natural thing, defined by usage. As such, language is not completely consistent and both natural and proscribed rules are not able to fully describe it. You will always be able to find words, phrases, and even entire ways of speaking that violate the rules that you're familiar with.

Irregardless, have fun using irregardless. Just be ready for the people who will line up around the block to try to correct you.

Commonly misused phrases!

idioms or sayings that people say more often than they write, so when they write it it's usually wrong.

Once in a while, not 'once and a while.'

Per se, not 'per say.'

For all intents and purposes, not 'for all intensive purposes'

Irregardless is not a word, actually, it's either 'regardless' or 'in regards'. ir- as a prefix means 'without' but so does the suffix 'less'. So if you write 'irregardless' you are writing 'without a lack of regard' which means 'in regards to.' double negative, yeah?

By and large, not 'by in large'.

I could care less vs I couldn't care less. First one means 'yeah I don't mind it, it's whatever.' second one (correct) means "I fucking hate that thing my opinions are in the basement of hell."

"much to be desired" correctly is "lacking in appearance/utility", not "beautiful." What it means is, "that thing is so bad, it does not satisfy my aesthetic/utilitarian needs for it and I desire something better." not, "I desire that thing so much because it's gorgeous."

"Leaving little to the imagination" means you can see/understand all of it. it does not mean 'modest', idk which one of you fucks started that but no. wrong. A sweater leaves a lot to the imagination because you can't see any of the person. Lingerie leaves 'little to the imagination' because you can see everything, you don't have to imagine it. in terms of understanding, 'little to the imagination' would be a very thorough explanation rather than a vague outline.

if you have any others you want me to include, lmk!

xox byeeee

[korrasera]

The indoctrination never stops.

Conservatives need a minority target to keep their followers focused/unified on hate. As the followers obsess on hate, their lives/emotions are much easier to manipulate.

Conservatives always vow to restore the country to some distant past that never existed.

It's an endless loop of failure.

[korrasera]

If you don't think Vampire, and by extension all of the World of Darkness, can't get as nutty as the whackiest DnD campaign, I have two words that will probably put a shiver down the spine of any White Wolf fan:

Samuel. Haight.

I always find it a shame that people assume Vampire: The Masquerade has to be a serious, gritty game and ignore the huge amounts of absolutely batshit stuff in that setting.

Al capone is a vampire, as was Rasputin. At one point in the middle ages there was a bloodline of secret vatican vampire necromancers working for the inquisition. There's a malkavian combo-discipline to turn into a scary clown. There are multiple versions of "the fleshcrafting discipline is actually a mind-controlling disease from space." Lasombra pirates in nuclear submarines. There is an evil ttrpg company that infects you with evil spirits if you play their games.

Not stupid enough for you? There is a Banu Haqim pro-wrestling tag-team duo called 2Hot Nation of Harlem Ghetto Posse Gangsta Experience.

Vampire is an extremely silly game at times.

[korrasera]

[korrasera]

That's not what earning a vote means. It's not transactional. It's not about who deserves what.

It's about motivating people to want to get out and vote because they know that you respect their needs and will fight to govern the way they want to govern. You have to show that they matter too, because they do.

If someone is living paycheck to paycheck and food is getting more expensive but you ignore them to go talk to the Republican voter across the street? You didn't earn their vote. You didn't give them any reason to believe you were going to care about their suffering too.

You cannot ignore the individual for the sake of the collective, just like you cannot ignore the collective for the sake of the individual. You have to work to protect both.

The greater good isn't about sacrificing people, it's about sacrificing of yourself for the people.

If you want to ask people to support the greater good, you have to show them that they have value too. That any pain they suffer is worth it.

going insane hearing talk about whether harris did enough to "earn" votes. no candidate has ever or can ever earn my vote because a vote is not a payment i send to a politician and it's stupid to think about it like it is. exact same thinking error that leads to people talking about not voting like it's a boycott. if anyone earned my vote it's the people i tried to use that vote to protect

[korrasera]

This is one of the reasons people talk about the Democrats abandoning the working class. Because of this problem.

People needed to hear real plans on how the Democrats were going to help deal with this specific problem and they didn't.

The reason Trump won is largely the same reason nearly all incumbent governments in the developed world lost. They happened to be in power when inflation was high, even if the inflation had nothing to do with them and there wasn't much they could do to reverse it.

The US actually had the best results in combating inflation out of all developed economies. But it didn't matter. Prices were high and that was enough to swing the election.

[korrasera]

Unfortunately, this post and posts like it misunderstand what it means to say that the Democrats abandoned the working class.

Because they did.

And no, the working class didn't abandon the Democrats.

I'll explain.

First, the list of the accomplishments of the Biden administration is a long one and it's absolutely true they weren't getting the coverage they deserved. That's a true point, and a good one, but it's not not how the Democrats abandoned the working class.

Next, the working class didn't abandon the Democrats. The working class voters that always vote Republican voted Republican because voters don't switch sides and they weren't up for grabs, no matter what a Democrat strategist thought.

Of the working class voters that vote Democrat, they didn't abandon the Democrats, the Democrats took them for granted and didn't give them a reason to vote to support Harris. And it is very important to give people a reason to vote.

Some didn't vote because they wouldn't vote for a woman, because bigotry is everywhere.

Some people didn't vote because support for an incumbent party drops when the economy is doing poorly. Despite the Biden administration giving us a soft landing that avoided a recession, income inequality is up globally and for the average person, that means the economy sucks right now.

But that's not how the Democrats abandoned the working class either.

The Democrats abandoned the working class because they squandered the initial surge of enthusiasm for Harris's announcement by following it up with:

A campaign that focused on Trump's threat.

An emphasis on trying to court Republican voters.

Basically no real messaging about what the Democrats would do to try to help the working class voters survive right now.

They didn't talk about the minimum wage or support for unions. Even with the Biden administrations support of unions, which was surprisingly good for a US presidential administration.

It was great to finally hear someone say that Trump and JD Vance were weird, but that's just an appetizer. It's not the entire meal.

Do you see what's missing? Democrats can't win on the idea that the other guy is a threat. They need to run on the things they can do to make everything better. And they need to do so with specifics, not aspirational messaging.

Harris's speeches talked about the need to cut taxes for the middle class, but didn't get into specifics. She didn't talk about solid policy positions. The Democrats weren't giving any answers on what to do about the next Trump or the next Bezos or the oligarch that decides they want half of everyone's paycheck.

They didn't talk about how they were going to take the boot off our necks.

In hindsight, some of this should have been easy:

"Vote for me and I will eliminate student debt!" "Vote for me and I will make the minimum wage a livable wage!" "Vote for me and I will stop evictions and fix housing!"

Even if they weren't going to keep those promises, talking about them with specific plans is what people needed to hear and it's exactly what people didn't.

And while they weren't talking to the working class Democrats and their needs, they were going after wealthy donors and Republican voters, which made those working class voters feel like the Democrats were taking them for granted.

After all, why do you need to speak to someone's needs if you know that they're going to vote for you? You're their only option, right? Makes sense when you think like a Republican, but people who vote Democrat do so because they don't think like Republicans. The Republicans follow the leader while the Democrats build coalitions.

Finally, if anti-trans ads were a pivotal factor in Harris's loss, then you would have seen Trump's support increase. It didn't. He stayed flat, the Republican base supported him just like they were always going to. He was always going to be able to use fear and bigotry to motivate them.

Don't get me wrong, Trump is absolutely trying to stoke a full blown moral panic against trans people. And his hateful message galvanized his base. But if it hadn't been us it would have been immigrants. Or another kind of queer folk. Or socialists. They will never want for an enemy because they're afraid of literally everyone not like themselves.

The Harris campaign failed because the Democrats played bad politics when they needed to bring their A game.

They needed to give Democrat voters real answers about real help. They needed to give people a reason to vote. And they didn't.

dropping this here

[korrasera]

[korrasera]

I finally made the meme I've had in my head for over a year

[korrasera]

A very useful thread on Bluesky:

(There is a lot more. Rather than give you all the images, I've copied the full text below.)

Meredith Rose‬ ‪@mrose.ink‬ November 8, 2024

This is not going to be a repeat of 2016-2020. It will be better, it will be worse, but most of all it will be different. Here are things I want every single person to keep in mind as we head into round 2 of a Trump admin.

My credentials: I’m a queer female public interest attorney working on tech policy in DC. I’ve been doing this for a decade--longer than some, not as long as others. I had to navigate three different administrations, as well as Congress, regulatory agencies, courts, and the advocacy world.

FIRST: don’t let despair override your media literacy.

The left has grifters, just like every other movement. If you’re able and compelled to donate, give to orgs with established track records. Avoid giving to individuals, especially anyone who emerges overnight with a one-weird-trick “plan.”

The left is not immune to misinformation, and everyone—EVERYONE—falls for it sometimes, present company included. There is no shame in it. When (not if) it happens to you, you should acknowledge it; delete or retract the post to reduce the spread; and move on.

If a source consistently shares half-truths or outright misinformation, it is not trustworthy, no matter how much “their heart is in the right place.” Unfollow and move on.

Prediction, analysis, and reporting are three fundamentally different things. Learn to identify them for what they are. Reject attempts by amateur “analysts” to predict the future. They know as much as you do.

Real subject matter experts know and acknowledge their limits. They’re also (usually) hesitant to try and predict the future. The best frame their predictions in terms of a range of possible outcomes. Subject matter experts may also disagree with one another! It happens!

SECOND: What we know for sure about how the Trump, how he operates, and how that will impact the next four years.

Trump is a narcissist who avoids reading and doesn’t care about details. He cannot be persuaded by argument or logic; he’s moved mostly by flattery, and will agree with the last person who flattered him. He can and will upend his own administration’s work without warning, often by tweet.

As a result, most policy experts—even those "on his side"—dread him taking an interest in their field. Ask any Republican staffer who worked in Congress during the last administration, and most of them will confirm that their greatest fear was Trump tweeting about anything related to their work.

As such, people who are serious about their work will do everything to make it as invisible and boring-seeming as possible. This is the policy equivalent of defensive camouflage. Lots of “normie” work will continue in silence. (The lion’s share of tech policy ends up in this bucket.)

If you have a niche issue that you care about, now is a great time to donate to orgs that work on it. Lots of money will be funneled to big legacy orgs working on headline issues: ACLU, climate change orgs, etc. Consider sending your donations where they matter most: local, niche, established.

Trump runs his cabinet like the Apprentice. He thrives on chaos and making people compete for his approval. Not only does he not reward collaboration between his subordinates, he actively undermines it.

Moreover, everyone who works with him knows that they’re vulnerable to being thrown under the bus at a moment’s notice, for any reason (or for no reason at all). His cabinet is going to be scorpions in a bottle. They will not be able to coordinate, for good or ill.

One scorpion can still do a lot of horrific damage. But large scale inter-agency coordination is unlikely, particularly after the first few months, by which point he will likely (prediction warning!) have gone through a handful of cabinet secretaries already.

FINALLY: The view from inside civil society heading into 2025.

In 2016, Trump was a largely unknown quantity. The left and establishment right alike wasted a lot of time trying to read tea leaves and make sense of this guy, because he was completely outside the realm of what anyone had dealt with. That’s not happening now.

He did us a favor by broadcasting his plans in advance (aka Project 2025). Civil society has spent the last 2.5 years strategizing around it. We’re not starting off flat-footed.

The Biden admin did a good amount to future-proof its own achievements. Folks can speak to their own areas of expertise, but clean energy and CHIPS and Science Act (investing in domestic semiconductor production) have benefitted from huge sunk investments. That money’s not getting clawed back.

OVERALL TAKE-AWAYS:

It's going to suck. But civil society and the political left have some advantages we didn't have last time. We know him, we know his angles, and we know who he's bringing in--none of which we had in 2016.

We'll get through this. It will be grim, but we'll get through it.

John Cutting‬ ‪@johncutting.bsky.social‬

Thanks Meredith. I really valued your analysis over the past few years, and I think this is a reasonable, actionable framework to think about the upcoming storm

Meredith Rose‬ ‪@mrose.ink‬

I really cannot overstate how much time was (necessarily) wasted in 2017 trying to figure out this guy and his influences. The fact that he's not only a known quantity, but ran the most over-studied administration in this nation's recent history, makes this a very different game.

John Cutting‬ ‪@johncutting.bsky.social‬

I bet we can weaponize his narcissism. Let's say some ghoul starts making progress with a mass deportation effort, if we start calling that ghoul that "shadow president" en masse, Trump would fire him in right away and appoint Hulk Hogan or something

‪Meredith Rose‬ ‪@mrose.ink‬

This is exactly why I don't think Musk will last very long. Trump is very clear that he's the only one in the room allowed to have an ego or any kind of brand name.