#... oppressive beliefs

[avicecaro]

“you think you made all the right choices and became the perfect woman who would be safe and loved and okay but NEWSFLASH your husband will reveal his misogyny once you’re used up and ugly and he’ll cheat on you to feel powerful and he’ll abandon you when you’re sick or pregnant and won’t you regret registering republican THEN” is not a sick own to conservative women.

that is what evil men do. they lie. they trap you. they drain the life out of you. and this is what women do, we try to make the very best choices with all the information we can get. and one day you may be forced to come to the realization that there is no perfect formula to living as a woman in a world that is dangerous for women. it is not just conservative women who might have their lives and convictions fall apart around them. do you think liberal men do not LIE? that liberal men do not also convince women that they’ve found the one good guy and the one safe marriage and then reveal their misogyny when you’re stuck? do you think your liberal politics have saved you from male violence — and if you do, why do you think you’re different than the conservative women who say the same about theirs?

[branwinged]

not to gotpost but my god they hated catelyn. like it was quite obvious they were not comfortable adapting a mother character who was emotionally abusive to one of the children in the household, and they either didn't have the time or didn't care enough to talk about the systemic prejudice bastards suffer in westeros and how that intersects with the disenfranchised status of noblewomen and the fundamental inequality of marriage, which obviously doesn't excuse catelyn's behaviour towards jon but gives you context to understand why she is like that. instead they framed it as an exclusively interpersonal conflict wherein catelyn was sort of made to look like the only one in the blasted continent who took issue with bastards and then this was turned into half of her personality which is how we got that incredible monologue about everything bad that has ever happened to the starks is because she 'couldn't love a motherless child'. now the really insidious thing about this is i'm certain the writers thought they were doing her character a favour, making her more likeable by having her expound on her flaws, because to them nothing was more discomfiting than a woman who would go to her grave completely unrepentant about being an inadequate mother, and i think this is also why they made her out to be so passive, constantly wanting to leave robb so she can return home to her youngest, because isn't that what a good, devoted mother would do? having littlefinger trick her into releasing jaime instead of it being a conscious and risky gamble because god forbid she exhibited any agency, even the agency to make mistakes in a tragedy. they turned her into a poor helpless woman who exists largely in the background for some audience sympathy, which is arguably the genre expectation her character is intentionally set up to fly in the face of in the books. because the northern war effort in books 1-3 was never robb's story, it was catelyn's. and they didn't get it. they didn't get it.

[nintendont2502]

btw i will forever recommend just. refusing to engage in discourse. its free its easy and you literally arent missing anything LMAO - 99% of discourse on here is just on the most pointless petty shit that literally doesnt mean a single thing to anyone in real life (i am looking directly at you "pRo/AnTi" shippers), and the other 1% is genuinely important shit... that isnt going to be solved in any productive way by insulting '''the other side''' online. arguing with strangers online never changes anyones mind all youre doing is making yourself *and* your cause look annoying as hell :thumbsup: maybe chill out. find a hobby.

[lanadel-heyyy]

jennifer lawrence is a middle school drop out raised in the imperial core who always talked about the hunger games being about “one person standing up for what they believe in” which is….not what it was about ever at all. of course she has terrible politics. katniss would probably look at her with pity like a little dumb capitol pet.

[hadesoftheladies]

everytime people rush to defend a male (usually accused of abuse) for the character and humanity they projected on him i just marvel at how many grown ass adults genuinely don't consider the fact that men can lie

like men can lie

[frittercrittern]

I am feeling entirely normal and nothing is going on at ALL in my brain about this triangle and his horrible awful dimension he is from

[creature-wizard]

Whats your take on people who believe that the life they live is according to the choices they took before being birthed?

I don't believe in reincarnation, or some sort of pre birth plan, still I do enjoy to see others opinions on this sometimes. Some people have a reasonable idea on this, while others try to justify every bad thing is some sort of test that once passed will make them stronger.

For some this can be empowering and make them go further, while for others it can make them feel weak and give up because why would they pick that life.

Regardless of whether it empowers or discourages any specific individual, the belief that your present life is determined by past life choices ultimately serves to justify systemic inequality and oppression. It's another form of the just-world fallacy.

[t4tails]

you don't have to answer this at all, but i was just wondering from one of your last posts- what's wrong with being a radfem? obviously i know what's wrong with being a TERF, but are all radfems terfs? sorry, again you don't have to answer this at all, i'm just struggling to find an answer online because everywhere i look defines radical feminism differently and i was wondering if you had any thoughts

i dont have very in depth thoughts about it rn but the frank answer to "are all radfems terfs" is that in my experience even radfems who say theyre trans inclusive will still not account for trans women in their feminism, and always still be willingly chummy with outwardly transphobic and tranmisogynist ones, and often hold bioessentialist beliefs they have no urge to analyze or work through

[deservedgrace]

"Being victim to christian indoctrination is a personal failing bc there are people that were also exposed to christianity as a child and still didn't take on the views 🙄"

Were they exposed to other points of view? Did the adults in their life not take it very seriously? Was it taught as an option rather than fact? Were other people's faiths (or lack thereof) seen as valid and okay? Were they allowed to have relationships with people outside the church? Were they taught critical thinking skills? Were they allowed to develop their own morality? Were they allowed to research other viewpoints and come to their own conclusions? Were they not metaphorically dangled over the flames of hell every second of their life?

Being "exposed" to it and being forced into it to the point that your physical and emotional safety is at risk if you fall out of line are entirely different things. Did you go to church on Easter every year, or did the only people you were allowed to be around (which you had no say in) manipulate how you think and dictate your reality and morality and beliefs and undermine your ability to think critically so you wouldn't stray?

[gunkbaby]

Waiting for the day when i see an anti-vegan claim that some animals actually want to be farmed and eaten you guys!!!!

[morninkim]

"Years of fighting. Bots and Cons falling left and right. Dying on our behalf. No more. We settle this now, Megatron." "Just the two of us then? To the death? Ahh, brings me back to the pits all those centuries ago. Very well then, today will be the day the great Optimus Prime finally falls by my hand." "Only one of us is walking away from this rock functional, old friend. It will not be you."

~ Audio from Optimus Prime's remains at the sight of his final confrontation with Megatron that ended the Great War. circa 2003.

Audio encoded by Soundwave, Memory bank recovered by Ratchet

[communistkenobi]

kinda hilarious seeing some transmascs getting themselves tangled into such a ridiculous discursive knot that they end up arguing trans men can never benefit from patriarchy because we aren’t really men, that nobody will ever view us as men no matter what we do, and that we are doomed to be shackled to our wombs and wide hips for the rest of our lives. this is not a novel transfeminist position but rather the logical conclusion of the reactionary doom spiral that begins when you believe misandry is real

[lesbianjudasiscariot]

someone: women are oppressed and women are allowed to feel anger towards that oppression and their oppressors

losers online: idk sounds terfy i'm scared

[dykedvonte]

thinking abt what you said with house viewing Benny as a son and I’m obsessed. Like. The man spent most of his life before the war presumably alone, and then after the bombs fell he was alone again, save for AI he himself devised. Then he decides to pull in some Tribes, and one kid shows promise! So sure, treat him well, train him, groom him to be his protege, then next thing you know UH OH he’s got developing paternal feelings towards this guy. Wanting some semblance of a family when the time has long since passed, yet fostering that feeling all the same seems so accurate for him. Benny meanwhile only views him as a boss, and not a particularly good one at that. makes me wonder how House must’ve felt when he found out about Bennys plans

I view it as House blames only himself for this, cause he kind of does in canon (strap in this is a long one).

When reflecting on the issue of Benny, House chastises himself first and foremost for not acting quickly enough when it comes to priming Benny. He describes Benny as being ambitious, ruthless and capable; compliments coming from a man like House. House has an ego and while he is logical enough to understand there was never any evidence Benny saw him as a father-figure, he lacks the humility to admit he let his own views on his relationship with Benny blind him to the activities happening behind the scenes.

I doubt that House was as aware as he makes out about what Benny was doing, he knew early on but certainly not early enough to stop Benny from hacking and obtaining a securitron along with getting the chip in the first place. I take it he was distracted by all the possibilities he was calculating of Vegas' success and growth with him steering and Benny as the new figure head, not because of any normal affection for Benny but the admiration of his capabilities. It's to be noted that House believed menial incentives (likely caps, booze, basic needs, etc..) were enough to keep Benny tame like the other Chairmen but, as evidenced by the Omertas and Mortimer in the WGS, this is not enough when it comes to more driven Vegas citizens. This implies he still undervalued Benny and created a space in which Benny felt the need to rebel.

House in my eyes is not sentimental in the traditional sense. I can imagine his pride was severely scorned as someone he certainly deemed dumber than him was, albeit only for a little, able to out-gambit him. It would definitely hit home seeing how his brother also betrayed him but I feel like that's why he's so apathetic when he tells the Courier to do as they see fit with Benny. I doubt the way he terrorized his brother brought him any emotional satisfaction other than a "Now who's in charge!" ego boost. Putting that same emotional intensity towards Benny isn't worth it because who does it benefit? Wasted time, wasted planning, and most importantly wasted potential are all he gets from continuing to be hands-on with Benny. I say the closest example is not being able to throw out old toys due to the memories attached but knowing it's necessary as they are broken or just taking up space for new ones, and then asking someone else to do it so you don't need to get caught up in the feelings of throwing something you put so much effort into. It's not Benny House cares about in my mind, not in a way that sounds healthy to any non-emotionally constipated individual, but what he could've represented for him, which is why he so quickly offers the same position to the Courier.

As for Benny's view on all of this, it was a long time coming. Benny didn't and doesn't believe House is a completely shitty boss. He admires what he's been shown and admits House knows how to run the strip, but disagrees with the directions. Ideologically, House is an anarcho-capitalist while Benny is just an anarchist. House wants to run the strip to profit, though money is not what he's concerned with being rich with anymore. Benny wants a free state that he wishes to become a place for the people, except for the Chairmen who would be on top (I like to remind people that Benny's motives were selfish but not for personal gain/power as was it for the people he actually saw as family). Benny was never looking for a father but a future. He was not interested in being adopted, or having the chairmen adopted, as bigger names still overshadowed in House's legacy.

Truly, it's easiest to summarize as House feeling strongly and thinking positively enough of Benny to start incorporating him into the future of Vegas (a huge honor actually) while Benny was so disillusioned by House's ego and indifference that he thought the only way Vegas could be the future is with House gone.

[v-arbellanaris]

i dont think im done talking abt this, actually. i'm going to try and explain how stupid this whole thing is because there's always SOMEONE going on about how if it wasn't for the circles, and the parallels of the circles to real-life atrocities, "the mage-templar debate" would be a two-sided issue.

actually, it's not.

the "mage-templar debate" is not an issue of ethics even before addressing the conditions of the circle, because you have other options.

the basic premise of the argument is "mages are inherently a danger to themselves and everyone around them. is locking them up to reduce the harm they pose to the general population the correct ethical decision?" but the entire concept is already bullshit even before you address the conditions of the circle, which is where most people claim the civil rights movement comparisons come from.

because. CANONICALLY. you have other options. you have options within the context of the games to reduce the "threat" or "danger" of magic. there's no cases of mass abominations in rivain. there's no cases of mass abominations (as we know understand & abominations anyway) amongst the avvar. there's no cases of mass abominations in tevinter. from the get-go the idea that "mages have to be locked up for their and everyone's safety" is already bullshit, before you even touch the issue of the circles. even before you get to the conditions of the circle, the very existence of mages in rivain and nevarra and the avvar and tevinter already renders the argument null and void.

from it's very inception, the entire premise -- mages are inherently a danger to themselves and everyone around them -- is proven to be a belief, not a fact.

[martyrbat]

habeas corpus – detective comics #1086

(ID in alt!)