serpent453

[serpent453]

never forget that we could have had robust trolley/tram system in many american cities still if it weren't for General Motors (this is not a conspiracy theory it's quite literally an actualized conspiracy that went to court)

[serpent453]

Wait, beneath the sea floor?

OUGHGH??

OIUOHGHHVOIH!!!!!

[serpent453]

love when ppl defend the aggressive monetization of the internet with "what, do you just expect it to be free and them not make a profit???" like. yeah that would be really nice actually i would love that:)! thanks for asking

[serpent453]

Most Americans learn a history of U.S. military dominance. Narratives of triumph in two world wars, a one-sided fight in the first Gulf War, and rapid invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan all support the belief that through most of the 20th century and no small amount of what we have seen thus far from the 21st, the United States has been the inevitable victor when its enemies are brave enough, or perhaps foolish enough, to meet it on the field of conventional warfare. On closer examination, however, history provides little obvious support for a narrative of American military dominance.

The United States played a valuable role in World War I and World War II, but was not the primary combatant in either conflict. Americans fought hard, sacrificed, and made a key difference in both wars, but did so as part of large alliances that included other powerful states, not as a military titan crushing its enemies. During the World War I, the U.S. military tipped the balance of power against Germany, but did not dominate, or have the military or industrial power to dominate the Western Front. Instead, the French, British, and Russian militaries each bore a heavier burden. World War II arguably made a much greater impression on the American narrative, whether measured through recent remembrance on the anniversary of D-Day or the number of Call of Duty games the war is featured in. However, the narrative of American efforts during the “good war” often leaves out the efforts of other nations. During World War II, the United States played a major role in North Africa, Italy, France, and the Pacific, but the Soviet Union destroyed the largest portion of the Nazi military and defeated the Army of Manchuria, Japan’s strongest ground force.

The 1950s through the 1970s are less commonly portrayed as a period of military dominance, but still affect how Americans see their military. The Korean War is rarely mentioned. When it is, stories of Chinese human-wave tactics control the narrative rather than depictions of a stalemate against an adversary with occasional small numerical advantages at the theater level. The United States’ struggle to accomplish its objectives in Vietnam is typically described as a dark point in an otherwise bright history. Instead of a reminder of the limits of American military power, Vietnam is often part of a parallel narrative about the hazards and frustrations of fighting unconventional forces. Instead of challenging American conventional dominance, that narrative is used as a demonstration that the American military has so much conventional power that its enemies may choose to avoid it on the field and fight as insurgents.

Defense planners during the 1970s believed that even the combination of America’s powerful nuclear arsenal and conventional military power was unprepared to face increasingly capable Soviet forces. The planners believed Soviet armor could quickly penetrate NATO lines and destroy its tactical nuclear weapons, “and prevent NATO from mounting a nuclear defense entirely.” The resulting technological, doctrinal, and operational reforms, labeled the second offset, created the military that fought in the first Gulf War.

The first Gulf War mostly reversed whatever doubts the Korean and Vietnam Wars created. The United States and its allies outperformed expectations in Kuwait and Iraq. Instead of taking the projected  10-20,000 casualties, the United States and its allies steamrolled the Iraqi military. At the time, the victory seemed to prove both the value of post-Vietnam reforms and emerging information technology capabilities. President George H.W. Bush captured the spirit of the hour when he announced the United States had finally beaten Vietnam.

Unfortunately, the first Gulf War was not a strong indicator of American military power compared to other major powers. The conflict was heavily balanced towards the United States and its allies. The Iraqi military fought mostly in open terrain where the American military could use its technology far more effectively than in cities or forests. The United States led a massive coalition against a much smaller Iraqi military, which was in relatively poor shape from a long war with Iran that had exhausted their military rather than forging a battle-hardened force. Saddam’s purges of his officer corps also degraded his army’s effectiveness. On top of these issues, the Iraqi military was not committed to defending their occupation of Kuwait, an action some Iraqi soldiers found immoral. With all of those factors weighed, it would have been surprising if the United States and its allies had not quickly driven the Iraqis from Kuwait. However, military and political leaders often portray the conflict as an indicator of a revolution in military affairs and a new era of American military dominance.

The same factors were in play during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003. While both campaigns were impressive victories in many ways, they were fought against small, poor states, and are better indicators of the fate of small, poor states that fight against large, wealthy states than indicators of American military prowess.

The United States has not fought many well-trained or well-resourced militaries since the end of World War II. The United States has fought against North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Libya, Iran, Panama, Iraq, groups in the Balkans, the Taliban, the Islamic State, and many insurgent groups. The only well-trained enemies were the Vietnamese, North Koreans, and arguably the Iraqis. During these conflicts, the United States has performed well against much weaker forces, but has a mixed record against even moderately strong adversaries.

[…]

This is not to say the U.S. military isn’t powerful. Large, well-equipped forces with the ability to project force globally provide a type of power that few states can rival. History, however, provides no evidence that American military power translates into genuine dominance of adversaries, leaving the comparison of conventional military power uncertain. It would be an exaggeration to say that Americans tend to enter wars as part of massive coalitions fighting against weak or exhausted enemies, then remember themselves as world champions of warfare. But it might not be as much of an exaggeration as most Americans would like to admit.

[serpent453]

My doctor and therapist: now with this autism + ADHD diagnosis you need to learn to unmask because masking all the time will make you burn out again and feel like shit

Other people: well it's just interesting how after getting the diagnosis you suddenly start behaving like that I mean I'm not saying you're faking it's just funny how you suddenly cannot be normal like you were before

[serpent453]

How long until Dr Oz becomes Surgeon General

[serpent453]

I'm so used to seeing men hating posts on this site that I keep forgetting how much it drains me mentally. I understand it honestly but for real I need follow people who love men. I'm a trans man and I see posts all the time that are like "here are all the ways the world would be improved if men were gone 💖" and I'm gonna take better care of myself and unfollow people/ follow different blogs lol I want to follow more trans men especially

[serpent453]

[serpent453]

This article describes what is essentially a McCarthyist wet dream. Uncritical support for genocide and imperial expansionism has been made non-negotiable for the US Jewish community.

[serpent453]

[serpent453]

Nov. 21, 2024:

The national furor in recent years around banning books on race and gender in public schools is intensifying as President-elect Donald Trump threatens to shut down the Department of Education, emboldening conservatives to end ���wokeness” in classrooms. Battles over books in school libraries have become emblematic of the country’s larger culture wars over race, historical revisionism and gender identity. A new report by PEN America found book bans increased by nearly 200% during the 2023-24 school year, including titles on sexuality, substance abuse, depression and other issues students face in an age of accelerating technologies, climate change, toxic politics and fears about the future. Book censorship has shaken and divided school boards, pitted parents against parents, and led to threats against teachers and librarians. It is part of an agenda driven by conservative parental rights groups and politicians who promote charter schools and voucher systems that could weaken public education. The issue goes to the heart not only of what students are taught but how federal and state education policies will affect the nation’s politics after one of the most consequential elections in its history.

Read the rest from the Los Angeles Times.

[serpent453]

You unlock secret dialogue by being open about your kinks with friends

[serpent453]

Question 6 anon here, obvs u rlly don't have to but if u wanna argue w/ my comment pls do argue, if I'm full of shit I wanna hear it 👍 This question has been driving me up the wall for years I just want to know why ppl all seem to agree fandom racism is bad and agrees with all the arguments and yet everything's still so racist and would appreciate different perspectives

I just think that the idea you have, that the people who are racist and aren't don't hang in the same circles, is just fundamentally not true.

Like sure, Trumpers might not click on my blog to learn about designing Black characters lol. But a good majority of the antiblackness I've seen on this website has come from people who swear they're liberal or progressive or fight for some cause for something that they deem important... And then just don't apply that grace and logic to Black people. So you'll see people saying intelligent things... and hate negroes 🤣. And then you'll see those people being reblogged en masse by people who agree with their good takes... And maybe don't know about the antiblackness they were just spewing. Not that you can tell who does and doesn't, out of the tens of thousands.

So yes, y'all do hang in the same circles. Yes, the people who need this page very much are also people around you. We have to stop acting like they aren't. I have mutuals who reblog people that I won't follow, simply because I've seen those people keke-ing it up with antiblack, whitewashing bloggers. Even the distant connection there is enough for me to be like "nah, unfortunately I can't kick it with you", even though we're in the same fandoms and such.

Essentially, the call is more often coming from inside the house, and the unwillingness to approach it from within because "oh I'M not racist" is preventing it being answered. Every antiblack sentiment you see in fandom isn't gonna look like an overt slur. It's gonna be in the way people perceive and treat Black characters versus others, in the way they treat Black character design, the way they allow others to slide when they are racist because "their art is cool". That tolerance I've been talking about? That's where you see the line for people, and it's so much closer than folks think.

[serpent453]

i really think social media is radicalizing for people who are relatively powerful in society for a basic epistemological reason in that they are now being exposed to intercommunity or private or hell even just public but typically unheard conversations b/w members of oppressed groups that they hardly ever interact with meaningfully in real life. so a woman or a person of color or whoever it may be telling them to fuck off or even just describing their life experiences becomes this earth shattering and dangerous revelation when really they’re just getting to hear how they are generally perceived as a class in the eyes of those groups for the first time. and those random strangers have no actual power over them but it feels like they do because they make them feel bad. but that’s not fixable is it. unless of course you demand that the people speaking police themselves constantly as though they are being watched by lions so as not to hurt the feelings of people who benefit from their subjugation because god forbid those people are radicalized to subjugate them “even more.” even more than what? they’ve already got the power. they have literally already got the power. and if when alerted to that fact for the first time those people go crazy then that’s on them. the upside is some people don’t go crazy and those are the people who can actually become allies down the line after they’ve gotten over themselves. bc it means they are not foaming at the mouth to become reactionaries at the drop of a hat

[serpent453]

frustrating that the main takeaway from intersectional theory for many people is that you can shut down any discussion of misogyny by invoking another vector of oppression, when the whole point is that we need to be taking misogyny seriously in organizing around race and class, and taking race and class seriously in feminist organizing, and examining how they (and other forms of oppression) intersect and compound

[serpent453]