#Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jessie Appleby

Published: Mar 15, 2023

The free-speech fallout at Stanford Law School continues after last Thursday’s headline-making, administrator-endorsed shoutdown of a federal judge by students who said his views were too “harmful” to be aired on campus.

Hundreds of students dressed in black and donning face masks emblazoned with the words “counter-speech is free speech” lined the halls of Stanford Law on Monday to protest Dean Jenny Martinez’s subsequent apology to Fifth Circuit judge Stuart Kyle Duncan for the treatment he received when he attempted to speak at the school last week. 

The Washington Free Beacon’s Aaron Sibarium reported that the whiteboard in the classroom where Martinez teaches constitutional law was covered in flyers defending the students who shouted down Duncan.

And when Martinez’s class adjourned at 11 a.m., Sibarium said, “[p]rotesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read ‘counter-speech is free speech,’ stared silently at Dean Martinez as she exited [the room.]” 

The same report said nearly a third of the law school joined Monday’s protest. Additional reporting by Fox News said hundreds of black-clad students surrounded the dean:

“They gave us weird looks if we didn't wear black” and join the crowd, first-year law student Luke Schumacher said. “It didn't feel like the inclusive, belonging atmosphere that the DEI office claims to be creating.”

Another student, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, said the experience was “eerie.”

”The protesters were silent, staring from behind their masks at everyone who chose not to protest, including the dean,” the individual said.

Of course, this kind of peaceful protest is protected by Stanford’s strong free speech policies — the same policies that also protected Duncan’s speech when these students demanded that his speech be canceled due to the “harm” his appearance and message would cause to Stanford.  

As FIRE wrote yesterday, Duncan, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, was invited to speak at a Federalist Society-hosted event, “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter,” last Thursday at Stanford. But when Duncan attempted to speak, he was shouted down and heckled by student protestors. When the judge eventually requested that a university administrator restore order, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach stood up and delivered a prepared speech accusing the judge of harming students by his presence. 

On Saturday, Martinez and Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne issued a formal apology to Duncan for the disruption to his Thursday speech. The letter said the students’ right to protest did not include disrupting an event and acknowledged Steinbach’s mishandling of the situation. 

Several student groups issued statements in response expressing their anger at the apology and defending the actions of those who disrupted Duncan’s speech as merely the exercise of the students’ own First Amendment right to protest. And Monday’s student protest of Martinez followed. 

Stanford’s own policy, as well as California’s Leonard Law, provides Stanford students First Amendment-like free speech rights. But contrary to the argument of the Stanford protestors on their masks and flyers, shouting down an invited speaker is not free speech. It’s a heckler’s veto — and it’s censorship. 

Unlike the disruption of Duncan’s speech last Thursday, there is no evidence Monday’s protest of Dean Martinez was disruptive. Yet students protesting on Monday also demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of free speech and the First Amendment in their claims that silencing an invited speaker is within students’ free speech rights and that their dean was wrong to apologize for the event’s disruption. 

FIRE routinely defends the free expression rights of both invited speakers to speak and student protestors to protest a speaker. FIRE also defends students’ right to ask pointed questions or make rude or uncivil comments during a Q&A session. But students’ right of protest does not include the right to disrupt an event to the point that it is unable to proceed as planned. Counter-speech can’t happen if the speaker is censored.

It’s clear that Stanford’s promises to enforce their non-disruption policies won’t be enough to ensure a thriving culture for discussion and debate on campus. Students have to know what free speech means, and that it is a force for good. The elite students of Stanford Law must come to learn that free expression is the most powerful tool for social change ever devised — one they could quite capably use to their advantage. But that won’t happen if they keep begging administrators to protect free speech rights only for them.

==

Yet another law school produces students who don't know the first thing about the First Amendment.

If these children are so fragile that they can't stand for a judge they don't like to present at an event they didn't have to attend, how in the world can they be expected to advocate in front of, and take orders from, such a judge in the real world? Do they think they get to choose which judge hears the case?

This should be an automatic fail.

[prettieinpink]

 ♡ PRETTIER HIERARCHY ♡

HAPPY 1.2k+ TO PRETTIEINPINK! Thank you guys for the support, here’s a lil gift from me to you. 

If you don’t want to read all of this, I created a hierarchy of everything you need to do to glow up, right at the end!!! But I recommend reading everything first <3

I’ve been trying to ‘glow up’ like forever, but there was no actual content out there that helped me glow up. Most people sugarcoated, or their lifestyles of glowing up just weren't sustainable for me. So, I created this post for everyone planning to glow up or maximise their prettiness! 

DISCLAIMER – THIS POST IS NOT DETAILED. I wanted to do a simple outline to give you guys an idea of what to do to maximise your pretty. A little help to plan, especially as we enter 2024, but I’ll expand on these individual topics in the future. 

GRADE 1 – HEALTH

Being healthy can make you SO pretty. Being healthy is the foundation. There are other ways to be physically healthy, but after doing these 4 the rest usually fall in place.  Here are some simple ways to become healthier, and then eventually prettier!

HEALTHY EATING.

 I'm not going to go super deep into this, as no diet fits everyone + Please consult with your doctor before taking any extreme advice. Though, I'll tell you a bit of things that helped me !!

Stop drinking soda. Please, it's so unhealthy and it's full of so many sugars. Even the ones that are 0 cal, have weird chemicals that I don't trust. Many more alternatives taste just as good, like coconut water, herbal drinks, smoothies etc! Especially because nowadays most large calories and sugar intakes are from sugary drinks 

Stop restricting, moderate it. I am a big fan of dairy, yoghurt, milk, and cheese, I love it all. However I acknowledge that dairy isn’t the healthiest, so instead I always ensure I'm eating in moderation. E.g I put a tablespoon of shredded cheese in my omelettes instead of a handful. You will enjoy healthy eating so much, but only if you're not restricting. 

Have one serving of fruit, vegetables, or both with each meal. It provides so many good nutrients, makes you fuller and keeps you hydrated. Measure with your palm to ensure you’re eating enough. 

Know that just because one food has fewer calories than the other, does not mean it is the healthiest. I struggled so much with this, especially because many weight loss accounts will mention this, but it is so wrong. White bread has fewer calories than brown bread, but brown bread is higher in nutritional value. 

Plan snacks. Planning snacks for throughout the day, instead of spontaneously eating is so much better. I recommend this for anyone who gets hungry during the day but not enough for a meal (like me!)

Drink more water. Not 1L a day, because it is so much more ideal for you to have a glass of water with each meal + when you feel thirsty. 

Start educating yourself. This is as much as I can tell you, im not a nutritionist or a dietitian but if you plan to ensure that healthy eating becomes your lifestyle, educating yourself is essential!! 

EXERCISING.

Once again, I'm only going to go surface level with this because it is only based on my personal experience + Consult with your doctor before doing anything extreme. 

Start aiming for 5k+ steps. I see a lot of people advertise 10k+ steps as the standard, or what's active, but it's not sustainable If you're a busy person with a sedentary life or a beginner at exercise it is gonna be hard to sustain that. But walking is so good for you and simple too.

Join your local sports! Such a fun way to socialise while still exerting energy. 

If you can't do that for whatever reason, there are many ways to exercise at home. Research and pick a workout that you like and is sustainable. E.g. jump rope, pilates, home exercises, weightlifting, biking

Start standing more, it exerts energy. While very little, it still is very good. 

That's it, but remember to always start small with exercising, and RESEARCH!

BETTER SLEEP

To me, it doesn’t matter how much sleep a person is getting, but much more rather the quality of said sleep. So, here are some tricks and tips to get better at sleeping!!

Investing in a good quality pillow is so good for your sleep, the more comfortable you are, the better + it reduces the chances of poor posture or hump necks 

Research about different sleeping positions, as some positions at night promote back pain, difficulty breathing or poor posture. 

Start sleeping in complete darkness. Remove all sources of light or invest in good light-blocking curtains OR binders. Though, binders seem to be much more effective but are more pricey. If you cannot do either of that, buy a good sleeping mask. 

Sleep in the cold. Your body easily falls asleep if your environment is cold, and you’re less likely to wake up in the middle of the night. 

It is ideal for you to stop using devices an hour or two before bed, but if it is not sustainable for you, wear red blue-light-blocking glasses instead of clear ones. Red ones are more effective. 

Avoid large physical or mental tasks before bed, use that time to unwind and tell your body it's time to go to sleep. 

Avoid napping for longer than 30 minutes, or it can disrupt the sleep you have at night. 

Go to sleep at similar times every day. If you go to sleep earlier or later than this, you will ruin your sleep schedule and feel groggy. 

I expand more here. 

ORAL HEALTH

This is a step many people will neglect, but the most important in my opinion. Your teeth are the only body part that fails to regenerate after a certain age. Here's how I take care of mine!

Brush your teeth for longer. Brushing your teeth should not be a sped-up process, put actual thought into it. 

Start flossing. Floss removes plaque, and reduces the chances of your teeth yellowing! Do this ideally after each meal.

Brush your teeth before you eat. Brushing my teeth is the first thing I do when I wake up because brushing your teeth is supposed to protect your teeth from the food, not wash away your food. 

If you have the means, buy an electric toothbrush, as this gets in the little nooks and crannies that a regular one cannot. 

Use a tongue scraper or your toothbrush to get rid of any bacteria on your tongue. 

Use straws to drink coffee or any heavily coloured drinks. This avoids the premature yellowing of teeth. Make sure you put the straw on the side of your mouth to avoid your teeth. 

Use good mouthwash. A total game-changer, makes your breath fresher and your gums healthier. 

If need be, definitely use a purple teeth serum as a whitening treatment.

GRADE 2: STYLE 

I do not mean literal clothes and style, that's in grade 3. This is all about basic grooming and such. This is 2nd most important, especially if you're somebody who’s never been invested in beauty.

SKINCARE 

Get a basic skincare routine, cleanser and moisturiser.

If you have other skincare concerns e.g. dry skin, hyperpigmentation, acne, or blemishes, invest in a serum. 

Avoid touching your face frequently.

Wash makeup brushes & pillowcases often.

Dermaplaning to help skincare absorb better. 

Use sunscreen!

HAIRCARE

 Invest in a good shampoo and conditioner for your hair type.

Use a good hair oil, it doesn’t have to be for growth, but just for nourishing your scalp

Sleep with a good quality bonnet on.

Find which type of hairbrush works the best on you!

Use warm water to remove product build up and dirt, but use cool water to rinse.

Buy spray suncsreen to put on your scalp during hot weather.

Once again, research. Hair is just too much of a broad topic for me to thoroughly talk about.

EYEBROW & LASHES

Trim your eyebrows regularly to avoid too many stray hairs

Tint your eyebrows and lashes. If you already have dark eyelashes and brows, try a lighter look. I seem to prefer a dark brown look to a black 

Invest in a good lash & brow serum or use any oil

Don't use Vaseline on your eyelashes.

 Limit how much you wear mascara. 

I talk more about this here. 

BODY & HANDS 

Have a daily shower routine which consists of washing, exfoliating and moisturising your skin. 

Using scented products is such a game changer, smelling good is like being a magnet 

Doing manicures, my routine is a cuticle scrub, file, buff, polish, paint then cuticle oil. 

Shave on the areas you want to. Having smooth skin is nice, but to ensure your shave lasts longer, watch a video. 

I post about creating a good shower routine here. 

LIPS

Invest in a good, portable lip balm. I prefer the ones that burn your lips to give it a more fuller effect

Make your lip scrub. Sugar, honey and turmeric are my go-to. Helps remove dead skin.

If you have hyperpigmentation around the lips, use glycolic acid, only a little.

GRADE 3 – FASHION

My favourite grade, because it is so fun and focuses more on the aesthetic side of things. However, they're not essential, which makes it all the more fun!

CLOTHES 

 I have a post about wardrobe essentials here. 

Find out about what season colours you are. This helps with using colours in fashion to enhance. ( if you don't like your colours it is okay, it doesn’t change much if you do not wear them) 

Figuring out your undertone colours for jewellery. 

Figure out what works for your figure. Experiment with necklines, bottom length etc. 

Find out your general style too, what you feel confident in and more assured. 

MAKEUP

Research and only watch tutorials of women who look like you (trust me). 

Dear Peachie has a bunch of videos of how makeup works, for beginners to more advanced artists!

Then make your signature look for every using your knowledge. 

FRAGRANCE 

Invest in a good eau de parfum and eau de toilette. Cheap fragrances suck. 

Invest in a good-scented lotion. My favourite brand is Vaseline.

Using a good nice fabric softener for laundry makes you feel and smell fresh

Using an expensive scented body wash doesn’t matter, invest in a good body lotion. 

HAIR STYLING 

Hairstyles that enhance your face shape, not shield it. 

Having a simple signature look for everyday

Experimenting with your hair is ideal, but if you can't for whatever reason once again research.

GRADE 4 – PERSONALITY

The way you seem to others can make you so much prettier. Fake it till you make it as always~

POSTURE

Having good posture makes you stand out, makes you look prettier and is generally good for your health

Chin is parallel to the floor, shoulders are down and relaxed, rib cage is elevated, pelvis is tucked in, your knees straight and flexed, and the weight on your feet should be in the center.

You can stretch for good posture, there are many videos on this on YouTube.

Ensure your sleeping position is promoting good posture, not poor. 

Buy a back brace to reinforce good posture.

BODY LANGUAGE

Learn how to move your body during conversations to seem more self-respected and confident.

Train your facial expressions for different situations, but especially for taking photos.

There are tons of books and videos on this, won’t expand because this is all about how you want others to perceive you. 

ELOQUENCE

Improve the way you communicate with others. Be fluent and clear to understand 

Expand your vocabulary, know how to substitute words on the spot and make sentences. 

Knowing what to say in like any and every conversation makes people like you more, and the best way to be more eloquent is just practice. 

There are so many good books about this.. read.

GRADE 5 – MIND

Personally, having a good mindset does boost your self-perception of your prettiness + being happier in general makes you more inclined to take care of yourself = being more pretty!!!

MENTAL HEALTH

Start journaling as a way to organise your thoughts and to truly analyse your emotions. There are a lot of journaling prompts on Pinterest and such!

Meditation as a way to clear the mind when needed is so good. There are a bunch more meditations for other purposes though like body image, productivity, focus or just general relaxation.

Go to therapy, or just have at least one person you can talk to when life becomes tough.

Cut back on social media. There's misinformation, trolls and a lot of content that isn't nourishing your mind. 

Get some sun! Simple and doable, but has a huge effect on the body. It can improve the current mood. Wear sunscreen. 

Start learning how to process situations, instead of bypassing the emotions that come with them. 

Start surrounding yourself with like-minded people. Seriously, being around people who are just too different is draining. 

MINDSET

Embrace growth and reject all forms of comfort. Being uncomfortable with something is growth. 

Don’t do things because you ‘have’ to do this, do them because they benefit you and see it in that way. E.g ‘I’m going to clean my room because I deserve a clean place to rest and work’ instead of ‘I have to clean my room’

Become detached. Stop letting everything that happens in your life affect you, start observing instead of consuming. 

Self validates yourself. Tam Kaur did a wonderful video on this that I think everyone should watch.

Stop believing that everything and everyone is out to get you. Your subconscious mind believes this, do not feed it, starve it.

There's a lot to say about mindset, but I recommend watching some mindset YouTubers who explain everything in depth.

and now,,,, here's a ANOTHER gift from lanny because u read her post. And liked it. And reblogged it. And followed her.. pleaseee

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How the kleptocrats and oligarchs hunt civil society groups to the ends of the Earth

It's a great time to be an oligarch! If you have accumulated a great fortune and wish to put whatever great crime lies behind it behind you, there is an army of fixers, lickspittles, thugs, reputation-launderers, procurers, henchmen, and other enablers who have turnkey solutions for laundering your reputation and keeping the unwashed from building a guillotine outside the gates of your compound.

The field of International Relations has studied the enemies of the Klept in detail: the Transnational Activist Network is a well-documented phenomenon. But far more poorly understood is the Transnational Uncivil Society Network, who will polish any turd of sufficient wealth to a high, professional gloss.

These TUSNs are the subject of a new, timely scholarly paper by Alexander Cooley, John Heathershaw and Ricard Soares de Oliveira: "Transnational Uncivil Society Networks: kleptocracy’s global fightback against liberal activism," published in last month's European Journal of International Relations:

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:5e5a3052-c693-4991-a7cc-bc2b47134467/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Cooley_et_al_2023_transnational_uncivil_society.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article

The authors document how a collection of institutions – some coercive, others organized around good works – allow kleptocrats to take power, keep power, and use power. This includes "wealth managers, company providers, accounting firms, and international bankers" who create the complex financial structures that obscure the klept's wealth. It also includes "second citizenship managers and lawyers" that facilitate the klept's transnational nature, both to provide access to un-looted, prosperous places to visit, and boltholes to escape to in the face of coup or reform. It includes the real-estate brokers and other asset facilitators, who turn whole precincts of the world's greatest cities into empty safe-deposit boxes in the sky, while ensuring that footlose criminal elites always have a penthouse to perch in when they take a break from the desiccated husks they've drained dry back home.

Of course, it also includes the PR managers and philanthropic ventures that allow the klept to launder their reputation, to make themselves synonymous with good deeds rather than mass murder. Think here of how the Sacklers used charity to turn their family name into a synonym for culture and fine art, rather than death by opioid overdose:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/11/justice-delayed/#justice-redeemed

Beyond providing comfort to "Politically Exposed Persons" and "High Net-Worth Individuals," TUSNs are concerned with neutralizing TANs. Activists in these transnational networks play an inside-outside game: in-country activists will recruit peers abroad to bring attention to the crimes of their local kleptocrats. These overseas partners target the klept in the places they go to play and spend, spoiling their fun – and if they succeed in getting corrupt leaders censured abroad, then in-country activists can leverage that bad press to fight the klept at home.

To fight this "Boomerang Effect," TUSNs seek to burnish corrupt officials' reputations abroad, getting their names on humanitarian prizes, beloved sports teams, cultural institutions and great universities. They seek to capture international governance institutions that might wrong-foot kleptocrats, co-opting them to enable and even celebrate looters.

When it comes to elite philanthropy, TUSNs are necessarily selective. Kleptocrats' foundations don't fund anti-kleptocratic groups – they stick to "education, public health, the environment and the arts." These domains steer clear of human rights questions that might implicate their benefactors. Russian oligarchs love children's charities and disability rights – provided they don't target the Russian state.

If charitable giving is reputation laundering's carrot, then "reputation management" is the laundry's stick. Think of organized copyfraudsters who clone websites that have criticized their clients, then backdate the articles, then accuse the originals of infringing copyright in order to get them de-listed from Google or taken offline altogether:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/23/reputation-laundry/#dark-ops

Reputation managers also spend a lot of time in court. In the UK – the world's leader in libel tourism, thanks to a legal system designed to let posh monsters sue muckraking journalists into silence – Russian oligarchs have perfected the art of forcing their critics to shut up and go away:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/04/londongrad/#enablers

Indeed, London is a one-stop shop for the global klept, a place were forelock-tugging Renfields will buy you a Mayfair mansion under cover of a numbered company, sue your critics into silence, funnel your money into an anonymous Channel Islands account:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/07/the-klept/#pep

They'll sell you whole galleriesworth of "fine art" that you can have relocated to a climate-controlled container in a Swiss or Irish freeport:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/14/poesy-the-monster-slayer/#moneylab

They'll give your thick-as-pigshit progeny a PhD and never check to see whether he wrote his thesis himself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSE%E2%80%93Gaddafi_affair

Then they'll hook you up with a cyber-arms dealer to hunt your enemies by capturing their devices:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/27/gas-on-the-fire/#a-safe-place-for-dangerous-ideas

But don't let Brexit stop you from shopping for bargains on the continent. The Golden Passports of the EU – available in a variety of flavors, from Maltese to Cypriot to Portuguese – offer the discerning failson access to the luxury good shops and fleshpots of 27 advanced economies, making it a favorite of the Khmer Riche – the junior klept of Cambodia's ruling faction:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/cambodia-hunsen-wealth/

But golden passports are for amateurs. Skilled klepts travel on diplomatic passports, which offer the twin benefits of free movement and consequence-free criminality, thanks to diplomatic immunity. The former Kazakh dictator's son-in-law enjoyed a freewheeling diplomatic life in Vienna; one daughters of the dictator of Tajikistan had a jolly time as an envoy to DC; another, to London (where else?).

All this globetrotting serves a second purpose: when rival elites seize power back home and force the old guard into exile, those ex-monsters can show up in the lands they called their second homes and apply for asylum. It turns out that even bomb-the-boats UK will welcome any asylum seeker who enters via the private jet terminal at City Airport (to be fair, these "refugees" have extensive properties in Zone 1 and country places in the Home Counties, so they won't need housing).

This stuff works. After Kazakh state goons murdered at least 14 protesters at a Zhanaozen oil facility in 2011, human rights groups around the world took up the cause. But they were effectively neutralized by TUSNs, with former UK PM Tony Blair writing on behalf of the Kazakh government to the EU condemning any kind of international investigation into the mass killings (add "former Prime Ministers" to the list of commodities for sale in the UK to sufficiently well-resourced murderer).

The authors close their paper with two case-studies. The first is of the daughters of Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov, Gulnara and Lola. And President Karimov was indeed a dictator: he trapped his population within his borders, forced them to use unconvertible scrip in place of money, and ordered the murder of hundreds of peaceful protesters, plunging the country into international isolation.

But while Uzbeks were sealed within their borders, Gulnara Karimov became an international player, running a complex network of businesses that mixed the products of the nation's oilfields with her family's fortune. She solicited – and received – bribes from Teliasonera, MTS and Vimpelcom, who were all vying for the contract to provide service in Uzbekistan. All told, she extracted more than $1b in bribes, laundering them through Latvia, Hong Kong and New York. She acquired real-estate in France and Switzerland, and her spree continued until her father collaborated with Uzbek security to seize her assets and place her under house-arrest.

Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva was Gulnara's estranged younger sister. She and her husband Timur Tillyaev ran the Dubai-based SecureTrade, which did extensive business with "opaque Scottish Limited Partnerships," laundering more than $127m in a single year to offshore accounts in the UAE and Switzerland. They acquired many luxe assets – a jet, a Californian villa, and an LA perfumier.

Lola styled herself as the face of the Karimovas abroad, a "philanthropist and cultural ambassador." She was a UNESCO ambassador and commissioned works of monumental art – and also sued the shit out of news outlets that reported factual matters about her family repressive activity at home. She organized AIDS charities in the name of Uzbekistan – even as her father was imprisoning a writer for publishing a book explaining how to have safer sex.

The second case-study is on Isabel dos Santos, "Africa's richest woman," daughter of Angolan dictator Jose Eduardo dos Santos. Isabel's vast fortune stemmed from her personal capture of vast swathes of the third-largest economy in Africa: "telecommunications, banking, diamonds, real estate and cement, among many others." Isabel enjoyed seemingly limitless access to state credit and co-investment, and was given first crack at newly deregulated industries. Foreign firms that invested in Angola were required to "partner" with Isabel's businesses.

Isabel claimed to be a "self-made woman" – a claim credulously parroted by the western press, including the FT. She used her homegrown fortune to become a major player abroad, especially in Portugal, where she was represented by the leading Portuguese law-firm PLMJ. Her enablers are who's who of corruption-loving lickspittles: McKinsey, Ernst and Young, Boston Consulting Group, and the Spanish BigLaw firm Uri Menendez.

Isabel cultivated a public facade of philanthropic giving and public spirited activism, serving as head of the Angolan Red Cross. She attended Davos and spoke at the LSE (she was also invited to Oxford, but her invitation was subsequently rescinded). On social media, she dismissed critics of her wealth and corruption as "colonialists," decrying their "racism" and "prejudice."

Isabel dos Santos's corrupt sources of wealth were finally, irrefutably exposed through the Luanda Leaks, in which the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists mapped the network of "top banks, management consultants and legal firms that were central to dos Santos’s operations."

Both case studies shed light on the network of brilliant, driven enablers and procurers without whom the world's greatest monsters would falter. It's a rare window on a secretive world, one that is poorly understood even by its inhabitants. As Michael Mechanic wrote in Jackpot, his 2021 book on vast, intergenerational fortunes, the winners of the lucky orifice lottery often lack any real understanding of how The Money is structured, grown and protected:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/13/public-interest-pharma/#affluenza

This point was reiterated by Abigail Disney, in a brave piece on what it's like to grow up subject to the oversight of these millionaires who babysit the children of billionaires:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/19/dynastic-wealth/#caste

This is an important contribution to the literature. We naturally focus on the ultrawealthy individuals whose reputations and fortunes are the subject of so much attention, but without the TUSNs, they would be largely helpless.

Going to Burning Man? Catch me on Tuesday at 2:40pm on the Center Camp Stage for a talk about enshittification and how to reverse it; on Wednesday at noon, I'm hosting Dr Patrick Ball at Liminal Labs (6:15/F) for a talk on using statistics to prove high-level culpability in the recruitment of child soldiers.

On September 6 at 7pm, I'll be hosting Naomi Klein at the LA Public Library for the launch of Doppelganger.

On September 12 at 7pm, I'll be at Toronto's Another Story Bookshop with my new book The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/24/launderers-enforcers-bagmen/#procurers

Image: Sam Valadi (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/132084522@N05/17086570218/

CC BY 2.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

--

Colin (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palace_of_Westminster_from_the_dome_on_Methodist_Central_Hall_(cropped).jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[aturinfortheworse]

Manifesto of the Committee for the Sick and Useless

Those of us with disabilities form an interest group with an immense number of seemingly abled people. Everyone whose culture, beliefs, age, personality, sexuality, language, immigration status or other inclination makes them less useful to society belongs with disabled people in the fight to exist without justification.

The Committee for the Sick and Useless believe it is the innate and inalienable right of all people to:

       Do Nothing

       Help No One

       Feel Awful

And above all else

       Be Useless

In this age of increasing productivity and accomplishment, we too often sacrifice the most sacred right of all living things: to simply exist, asking much and contributing nothing. We sacrifice this right not just for ourselves as individuals but for all life on Earth present and future. 

Our existence has been made conditional on the work we are expected to do, whether that work is employment, education, or caring for the home. Even plants and animals must now earn their right to exist by producing food, providing beauty, cleaning our air, warming our hearts. The ugly, unpleasant and useless are abandoned.

We, the committee, do not consider ourselves at odds with health, joy and usefulness. Rather we are united with all good and joyful people in our fight against the demand for productivity. Our enemies are those who demand that the land produce wealth, that the workers produce profit, that the sick produce medical certificates, that children grow up and the elderly make themselves scarce. 

The right to exist is the foundation of all human rights and duties; it cannot be made conditional, lest all rights be made conditional. We support the right of everyone, everywhere, to live.

In this admittedly revolutionary goal, we have many allies. These include, but are not limited to: queers, cripples, drug users, the unemployed, the mentally ill, the anti-colonial, the incomprehensible, the celibate, the ugly, mutes, mystics, pessimists, mosquitoes, cats, children, teenagers, the elderly, speakers of suppressed languages, and people without a driving license.

This is Chapter 31 of Redefining Disability, with very minor edits. I held off on posting this until it was published. It is now in a real physical book that they cannot take away from me so here you all go.

If you would like a copy of this or any other chapters from the journal, there is a pinned post on my blog with free download details. I would also be happy to email them to you.

[noctivagantpodcast]

I Live On Stolen Land

Consider donating to one of these wonderful charities dedicated to preserving the cultures, livelihoods, rights, and dignity of Indigenous peoples.

First Nations Development Institute. Information taken from their 'Our Programs' page: Grantmaker dedicated to addressing financial inequality and its many, many negative impacts. In additional to financial aid, FNDI provides job training and participates in policy-making and advocacy, often focusing on environmental concerns, food insecurity, and tribal sovereignty. Some examples of current projects include "Fortifying Our Forests" AKA restoring and protecting sacred land in partnership with the Forest Service, Native Language Immersion Initiative AKA ensuring the survival of Native languages, and Native Farm To School AKA connecting Native youth with traditional means of growing and harvesting food.

Native American Rights Fund A registered non-profit that provides legal representation in matters of Native interest, be that a single individual or an entire tribe. Since their inception, they have won cases that made critical contributions to the advancement of Native rights in the United States. Their efforts have helped uphold tribal sovereignty, compelled museums, universities, and other institutions to return the remains of Native ancestors, and protected the voting rights of pretty much everyone.

Redhawk Native American Arts Council This organization's primary focus is on the preservation of Native American arts through educational programs. We can also thank them for granting scholarships to Native students seeking higher education, and for running a youth program which aims to help Urban Indigenous youth connect with their heritage through the arts.

Seventh Generation Fund A "fiscal sponsor" for smaller community groups that are run by and for Native tribes/individuals, with the focus of preserving heritage and defending tribal sovereignty, as well as continued survival post-genocide. One example of their work is the Flicker Fund, a disaster fund dedicated to supporting Indigenous communities during times of crisis, be that a pandemic, extreme weather, or a severe drought. Another is the Traditions Bearers Fellowship, which provides financial support to tribal community members who carry on pre-colonization traditions.

Quiluete Move To Higher Ground Stephanie Meyer committed a serious of egregious acts of cultural appropriation and exploitation, and made a very large fortune off a very real tribe. This very real tribe now finds themselves living in a tsunami zone and unable to afford a move to a safer area. As of 2022, the move of the Tribal School, the most important phase, is complete, but there's much more work to be done.

Indigenous Women Rising Abortion Fund A fund to provide Native individuals and family access to abortion care, menstrual hygiene supplies, and midwifery. Here are two separate articles verifying their status as the ONLY indigenous specific (and Indigenous led) abortion fund. For more information on how the destruction of Roe V Wade has negatively impacted Indigenous women, look here and here.

South Dakota Historical Society Foundation So, this isn't a Native led or Native specific organization, but, they work closely with Indigenous communities in South Dakota to preserve their heritage alongside the state's history. I recently had a lovely conversation with one of their representatives about the Ghost Shirt their society is sheltering until such a time as the tribe it rightfully belongs to can house it safely. Article about the shirt's repatriation with some cool info on the shirt's history is here.

[cooki3face]

My sister said something to me earlier today that further solidified the idea that generations before mine have been constantly made to feel intimidated or afraid of this government and the horrible people who work for it and push its agendas. “They’re watching your social media if you’re not careful about what you say they won’t allow you to get a job or be successful.” Is one of the main things they’ve taught my sisters generation. I told her that you couldn’t intimidate a generation of people who’ve never had this countries protection, care, or protection. I couldn’t give a fuck less if I’m being completely honest with you right now. There’s absolutely nothing this country or the people in it could threaten me with in order to make me shut the fuck up about what they’re doing and the shitty choices they’ve made as a collective. You’ve told generations of Americans that if they don’t shut up and submit to what you’re doing and pushing that their family members would need to move into a state of fear and be afraid for them and that they should be afraid for their livelihoods, their success and their ability to create and build foundations for themselves and it’s about time people get to hear that loud and clear. The fear mongering and the oppression and the silencing of people in this world has got to stop and you only stop cycles of behavior by no longer participating them and changing the way that you behave and react.

They’re trying to make your children uneducated and ignorant by stopping the creation of educational television programs and creating shows and media meant for them that start fucking with their minds from an early age, our teachers are severely underpaid, the curriculum in schools is lacking, they pass laws to take race theory out of the curriculum and stop teaching about the history and oppression of people of color. They ban and attempt to sell apps to American companies so that they can better censor the content that over 1 billion people are consuming every single day that has allowed the truth to spread faster than lies for the first time since this country was founded.

You fucked up letting our generations students with progressive and out of the box ideas into Ivy Leagues to climb your elitist ladder and subjecting generations of individuals to generational trauma and oppression. People have been waiting over forty years for this generation to come into existence. We’re here now. It’s too late.

[edenfenixblogs]

Reminder! But be aware that many Jews use the term Zionist/Zionism in a way that you do not understand it/are not familiar with! Many Jewish people who you would define as Zionists and/or people who have all the same politics as you may:

1. Call themselves Zionists because it is a term with deeply individual meanings for many Jews

2. Not call themselves Zionists, but bristle at hearing the term “Zionist” be used as a pejorative because the history of the word Zionist being used as an antisemitic dogwhistle in leftism, communist Russia, and Arab extremist organizations (and because I am Jewish and on the internet I will state explicitly that no, of course I do not think all Arabs are extremists. I do not think all Muslims are extremists. I do not tolerate Islamophobia in any way on my blog or in real life. If I see a single even somewhat questionable instance of maybe Islamophobia in any replies here, you will be blocked and reported. I am taking the time to educate about Zionism as a dogwhistle, because I have chosen to tolerate a certain amount of feedback as a Jewish person. I am neither Arab nor Muslim so it is not my place to extend an olive branch of understanding regarding Islamophobia to you nor do I have any interest in doing so. I wholeheartedly condemn anti-Arab and Islamophobic hatred. As we all should)

3. Actively call themselves anti-Zionists because they define the term Zionism in a way that includes occupation, genocide, and expulsion

4. Actively call themselves anti-Zionists but still believe that Jewish people as an ethnoreligous group are inherently indigenous to the lands around Jerusalem while ALSO considering Palestinians to be indigenous to that same land.

5. Actively call themselves anti-Zionists because they oppose the formation of any religious state whatsoever, but still believe that Jews deserve to reside where they are right now without forced expulsion.

For non-Jewish people using the term anti-Zionism, I urge you to really think about what Zionism actually means to you as a term. Like what do you think that word is? What kind of person do you think a Zionist is? What assumptions are you making in the use of that term and is it fair to expect every Jewish person to agree with that definition and why do you feel that way?

And before anyone comments on me or makes assumptions about my stance.

I do not call myself a Zionist!

I deeply oppose the current government of Israel. I had the opportunity to go on a birthright trip to Israel, and declined to go because I do not support the subjugation of Palestinians. I also chose not to go, because at the time there was a spate of bus bombings. I have family in Israel that I have never met and cannot meet because I refuse to go there out of both personal fear AND political unrest AND political/moral opposition.

I support sovereignty and equal rights and liberation and self determination for all Palestinians. I believe Palestinians are indigenous to the land.

I also believe Jewish people are indigenous to the land. Since Hadrian’s expulsion of the Jewish people from Israel/Judea in 135 and the resultant formation of Syria Palestina, there has been no place that Jews have existed that has considered them foundational parts of society or that has not expelled us. We have always been considered settlers. There is no other place in which we could even conceivably BE indigenous besides the levant. I believe that the “whiteness” of modern Jews of European descent is a product of millennia of expulsion, resettlement, and relocation. I know for a fact that PoC Jews have also REMAINED in the region since the expulsion in 135 and if they’re not indigenous to there, then who on earth is?

I believe that indigeneity does not expire. I believe that the fact that Jews sing daily prayers about their history in Israel/the levant is pretty strong evidence that Jews all over the world have never lost their connection to the region. I believe that two thousand years is a long time.

I believe that it could not matter less whether Jews or Palestinians were there “first.” What matters is the strong cultural ties BOTH cultures have to the levant. What matters is that civilians have a safe government that they can trust not to commit genocide against them. To expel them from the land of their ancestors. To banish them to settlements.

I believe colonialism is wrong. I believe imperialism is wrong. I believe there’s even more I need to learn even after living in this conflict and diaspora my entire life. I do not believe that the land that exists there right now needs to be called Israel. I only believe that there needs to be safeguards in place at a governmental level that explicitly protects the sovereignty, safety, and legitimacy of Palestinians and the Jews who live there. There must be guardrails to prevent genocide against both groups. There must be some formal institutional mechanism to ensure the safety of both parties.

I believe that none of these ideas are in conflict with one another.

Anyone telling you that the solution is straightforward is lying or has plans to harm a large number of people. You are not special. You did not invent the perfect idea that no one thought of that magically solves the issues of statelessness, fear of displacement, expulsion, or genocide. If your plan only involves helping one group without regard to the needs of the other, it is a bad plan. If you don’t believe that Jews should be expelled from Israel, is that Zionism? If you believe Jews should have self determination and representation within government that protects their interests, is that Zionism? Even if the same self determination and representation exists for Palestinians? If you are a hardcore anti-Zionist and believe that Jews do not belong in i/p at all, where do the Jews go?

Where are the Jews indigenous to that isn’t Israel? Where do they go. Europe doesn’t want us. The rest of SWANA doesn’t want us. We certainly are not indigenous to the Americas. It’s been awhile since there were expulsions from Asia (as far as I know), but they did happen there. And Asian countries have very rich indigenous histories of their own that we have no place in. The United States is increasingly violent to us and is certainly nobody’s idea of a Jewish homeland.

If your argument against Zionism is that Jews don’t belong there, where do we belong? If your argument against Zionism is that Jews don’t deserve to ever leave diaspora and should not have self determination or protection, why not us too? Again, I have no desire to go to Israel!!! I have actively rejected offers to visit Israel!!!

I don’t call this set of beliefs Zionism. I don’t believe there is a term for this set of beliefs. But someone else might disagree. And that’s the point. I’m not shaming anyone who does or does not call themselves a Zionist.

[fandomtrumpshate]

FTH 2024: Supported Nonprofit Organizations

Here are the nonprofit organizations that will be supported by this year's FTH auction. Many of these orgs will be familiar from last year's list, but we've cycled in some new groups as well. In particular, because it's a major election year in the US, we've brought in (or brought back) organations focusing on voter enfranchisement.

If you are a FTH creator and you want to ask your bidders to support an organization that’s not on the list, please read our policy on outside organizations here.

Bellingcat *

Bellingcat is an independent investigative collective of researchers, investigators and citizen journalists brought together by a passion for open source research in the public interest.

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center *

The Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC) is a nonprofit legal organization that fights for liberation and equity through the lens of intersectional disability justice.

In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda *

A national-state partnership focused on lifting up the voices of Black women leaders at the national and regional levels in our fight to secure Reproductive Justice for all women, girls, and gender-expansive individuals, NBWRJA delivers proactive advocacy and policy solutions to address issues at the intersections of race, gender, class, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Life After Hate

LAH provides support to people leaving hate groups, and providing pluralism education and training to vulnerable young people.

Middle East Children's Alliance *

MECA is a nonprofit organization working for the rights and the well-being of children in the Middle East. They collect funds in order to provide direct aid, financial support for community projects, water purification systems, and university scholarships, and also create educational and cultural programs in the US and internationally to increase cultural understanding.

National Network to End Domestic Violence *

NNEDV offers a range of programs and initiatives to address the complex causes and far-reaching consequences of domestic violence.

Never Again Action *

A Jewish-led mobilization against the persecution, detention, and deportation of immigrants in the United States, NAA takes on campaigns against detention centers and ICE training programs, and organizes mutual aid and deportation defense.

Razom *

Razom initiates short and long-term projects, or collaborates on existing projects with partner organizations, which help Ukraine stay on the path of fostering democracy and prosperity

Sherlock’s Homes Foundation *

SHF provides housing, employment opportunities, and a loving support system for homeless LGBTQ+ young adults so that they can live fearlessly as their authentic selves. Within these homes, young adults learn about responsibility, accountability, financial independence, life skills, and how to love themselves

Spread the Vote

STV helps eligible voters make their voices heard through voter education, supporting voters through the process of getting necessary ID, and advocating against voter suppression laws.

Violence Policy Center *

VPC works to stop gun death and injury through research, education, advocacy, and collaboration; exposes the profit-driven marketing and lobbying activities of the firearms industry and gun lobby, and offers unique technical expertise to policymakers, organizations, and advocates.

VoteRiders

VR works to help all citizens exercise their right to vote. It informs and helps citizens to secure their voter ID as well as inspires and supports organizations, local volunteers, and communities to sustain voter ID education and assistance efforts.

Umbrella: Environmental orgs

For the past four years, FTH has supported one “umbrella” cause: we invite participants to donate to their own local grassroots organization, while also suggesting a handful of exemplary organizations working in communities where the need is especially acute. This year our umbrella category is environmental organizations.

Pollinator Partnership *

Deploy/Us *

Together Bay Area

Wildlands Restoration Volunteers

Coral Restoration Foundation *

++

Organizations marked with an asterisk (*) allow for international donations directly through their websites. The orgs without asterisks may take international donations through a paypal or venmo account. If you are a non-US-based bidder/donor and you are having trouble finding an organization to which you can donate, please email us directly at fandomtrumpshate @ gmail . com.

[sonics-atelier]

Professor Sonic here to educate yall why Rhysand Hiding vital information about Feyre's body from her was wrong

1. Lack of informed consent : By withholding vital information about Feyre's pregnancy and the risks associated with childbirth, Rhysand denied her the opportunity to make an informed decision about her own body and reproductive health. Every individual has the right to know and understand the potential risks involved in pregnancy and childbirth, and Rhysand's failure to disclose this information deprived Feyre of her autonomy and agency.

2 . Endangering Feyre's health : Pregnancy and childbirth are inherently risky processes, and concealing information about potential complications puts Feyre's health and well-being at serious risk. By keeping her in the dark about the possibility that childbirth could be fatal, Rhysand failed to prioritize Feyre's safety and disregarded her right to access necessary medical care and support.

3. Emotional and psychological harm : Discovering the truth about the risks associated with childbirth after becoming pregnant can be deeply traumatic and emotionally distressing. Rhysand's decision to withhold this information not only endangered Feyre's physical health but also inflicted significant emotional harm, as Feyre was forced to grapple with the fear and uncertainty of facing a life-threatening situation without adequate preparation or support.

4. Lack of trust and communication : Healthy relationships are built on trust, honesty, and open communication. By choosing to hide vital information from Feyre, Rhysand undermined the foundation of trust in their relationship and created a barrier to effective communication. Feyre's ability to trust Rhysand and confide in him was compromised, leading to a breakdown in their relationship dynamics and exacerbating feelings of isolation and loneliness.

5. Sensory deprivation and isolation : Rhysand's decision to shield Feyre from everyone and everything, including crucial information about her pregnancy, subjected her to sensory deprivation and emotional isolation. Deprived of access to external support systems and resources, Feyre was left to navigate the challenges of pregnancy and impending childbirth alone, exacerbating her feelings of vulnerability and helplessness.

In summary, Rhysand's actions in hiding vital information about Feyre's pregnancy, including the risks associated with childbirth, were deeply wrong and harmful. They deprived Feyre of her autonomy, endangered her health, inflicted emotional trauma, undermined trust and communication in their relationship, and subjected her to sensory deprivation and isolation. It is essential for partners to prioritize honesty, transparency, and open communication in matters concerning reproductive health and to respect each other's autonomy and agency.

[cy-cyborg]

Disability 101: The language of Disability

Trigger Warning: this post contains discussions of disability slurs (specifically the C and R slurs), and the history of disabled people's use in medical experimentation, including specific (but brief) examples.

Most of the content on my blog is aimed specifically at authors, artists and other creatives, but I've been noticing for a while now, that many of the people who come here to learn about writing and designing better and more compassionate disabled representation are often missing what I would consider to be pretty fundamental knowledge of the disabled community, or have gotten said information from a questionable source, for example, through corporate sensitivity training, who's given them just straight-up incorrect information. This isn't surprising, nor is it really the fault of the people seeking to learn more, rather, it's because of the way society at large talks about (or I suppose, doesn't talk about) disability. However this lack of foundational understanding often leads to creators accidentally including harmful tropes, using damaging or unnecessarily coded language or just including misinformation about our community into their works, often in ways that are quite hard to change by the time they realise there's an issue.

But before we continue:

The disability community is massive and we have a lot of history most people are totally unaware of which influences a lot of these fundamentals. It doesn't help that there are a lot of "allies" to our community who completely ignore and speak over us, many of whom have bigger platforms that actual disabled people, so their advice is seen and shared by more people, muddying the waters even further and making it difficult to discern what is and isn't "good information". Because of that, I understand that it can be hard to know where to start, so while most of my content is dedicated to specifically talking about disability representation in media, and how creators can include better representation in their own works, I also want to take some time to talk about some of the fundamental information about the disabled community I feel everyone (creator or not) should know.

Today I'm going to start on what I think trips people up the most when they're first trying to learn: The language surrounding disability. What terms we (generally) prefer, what terms to avoid, all that. I don't think this is necessarily the most important thing to know right off the bat, but it is probably one of the topics non-disabled people are the most confidently incorrect about, and where general misinformation is the most rampant.

Disclaimer: Before we go ahead, it's important to remember that the disabled community is not a monolith, especially so when we are talking about something like language and preferred terms. This post is designed to be a starting off point, not a rigid set of rules or all-encompassing guide. Different individuals may prefer different terms, possibly even ones listed in this article as words to avoid. Articles like this should always be taken as a general guideline but you should always be respectful of an individual's preference and refer to them how they have asked you to refer to them, even if it goes against general advice you've been given. However, it's important to bear in mind that just because that individual has a preference for a less popular term or even a term others find offensive, doesn't mean every disabled person is ok with it. It's also important to consider that different communities, cultures and countries, as well as people who speak different languages or even dialects of the same language, will have different general preferences, and so it is crucial to do further research on your own.

Disability and disabled are not dirty Words, it's ok to say it

If you grew up in the 1990's or later, like I did, you very likely heard words like "special needs," "differently-abled," "Special education" (often shortened to SPED). There's a very good chance that if you worked in education, healthcare (especially for children), with some disability charities or even if you were the parent of a disabled kid during this time, you were likely told to use these terms as a replacement for words like disabled, because "disability" and specific terms like "autism," "amputee," "downs syndrome," "paraplegic," etc put the focus on the things the person doesn't have or can't do. Calling them "disabled" implies there is something wrong with them, whereas these alternatives put a focus on the idea that folks with these conditions are "different, not less". At least, that's what a lot of people are told.

This is what we call coded language, and it's an issue because a lot of disabled people despise it. There are exceptions, of course, I know a few people who are indifferent, but I honestly can't recall anyone who was disabled themselves who preferred it outside of very young children who's parents insisted it was better (though most chose to move away from it as they got older).

But why? well, because of something that I'm sure you'll notice is going to be a pattern throughout this post: we didn't create these terms, and they weren't made for us, not really.

Most disabled people don't really see using the term "disabled" or any of the modern diagnostic terms (for the most part) as an issue. Yes, many do, by definition, focus on things we don't have, can't do or might struggle with; the definition of an amputee is someone who is missing a limb, the definition of paraplegia is someone who has paralysis in their lower body and legs, meaning they might not be able to or might struggle to move them. The definition of a disability is a little more complex and varies from country to country, but the American CDC defines it as "Any condition of the body or mind that makes it more difficult for the person with the condition to do certain activities and interact with the world around them."

These definitions sound negative, but it's not a bad thing to acknowledge someone doesn't have something most other people possess, or struggles with things others don't. It doesn't make someone "less" to acknowledge they have a barrier others don't. It's just acknowledging a part of our lived experience and acknowledging that our lives, because of these barriers, can sometimes look different, in both big and small ways.

However, a lot of people who are not used to being around disabled people get deeply uncomfortable with this, and this refusal to use straight-forward words like disabled is a symptom of that. This discomfort comes, in my experience, from a lack of understanding of disability as a whole, and potentially misplaced sympathy. They don't know how we do things they see as important, how we could do without the things they have, or what technology or services is available to help us bridge those gaps. This unknown makes a lot of non-disabled people scared, uncomfortable or makes them sad for us, even when it's not necessary. They see that we can't do something they can, like move our legs for example, and make a series of assumptions based on incomplete information. They imagine a life like ours and don't know how it could possibly be fulfilling, because they are missing so many vitally important pieces of information, making our lives look empty, bland and sad.

They don't have the full picture, but ironically, this discomfort stops them from learning more. If you go into a topic like this, assuming it will be depressing and bleak, why would you want to double check? For many, the fact that it doesn't take much for them to become disabled too adds to that feeling of discomfort and fear, so they turn away and try to pretend we're just "different" and insist on replacing the "scary" words that acknowledge the challenges and barriers they too will have to face if they become like us with things that comfort themselves, not us.

All of this is especially important to remember in the cases of disabled people who are severely limited by their disabilities (whether it be due to the disability itself, or the lack of accommodations for it) and who's disabilities do have negative impacts on their lives. It's important to acknowledge that for some of us, the negative stigma around our disabilities is mostly misinformation and an incomplete picture, like I mentioned before, that altering how something is done or approaching things differently can completely remove those barriers for some of us (e.g. like building ramps instead of stairs), but it won't for everyone. terms like "differently abled" completely ignore and dismiss the experiences of this part of the community, all they do is remind the person that you are uncomfortable acknowledging what they are dealing with. "disabled" on the other hand is inclusive of us both.

Person-first vs Identity-first language

Another aspect of the language surrounding disability that causes confusion in a lot of non-disabled people is whether or not you should be using person-first or identity-first language.

Person-first is where you put the person before the name of the disability, for example "Person with a disability," "Person with autism," "person with amputations," etc. Identity-first language, on the other hand, is where you put the person's disabled identity first, so "disabled person," or in the case of some disabilities, you might drop the need to say person at all, so it would be "autistic" and "amputee".

Unlike the last section, the answer to which one you should be using varies a lot on who you ask, and both types of language have their own benefits.

Person-First

Chances are, if you've done any kind of work that would have put you into contact with disabled people in the last few decades or so, you were instructed to use person-first language. weather you are a journalist, a doctor, an educator, a government employee, or were part of many, many other industries, chances are that you were taught to use it.

The reason for this is that, before the introduction and widespread use of person-first language to describe disability, non-disabled people were much less kind in how they spoke about us. Many people openly used slurs, even in formal settings, or referred to us (individually) as "the disabled," "the wheelchair," "the blind," "the downs syndrome," etc. e.g. "the wheelchair over there asked for assistance," or "I'm seeing the downs syndrome at 3pm."

This was especially prevalent in the medical field, with healthcare professionals often exclusively referring to their patients in this (or similar) ways, refusing to acknowledge their personhood, the value of their lives or their lived experiences beyond their disabilities. The medical field often mistreated and abused disabled patients, and before the introduction of laws protecting the rights of disabled people, this was not only completely legal to do, but was sometimes encouraged. On top of general mistreatment, disabled people, specifically, those being kept in mental institutions, asylums, and other places dedicated to their "care" (or containment) were often used as human test subjects.

There are countless examples throughout history, such as when Dr Henry Heiman infected two boys with gonorrhoea without their consent or the consent of their parents in New York in 1895, one of whom was only four years old with epilepsy and the other was 16 years old with unspecified intellectual disabilities. Dr Thomas Francis infected multiple disabled individuals with influenza in 1941, and George L. Fitch who infected six children under 12 living in the "Hawaiian Leper Colony" with what he thought was Syphilis in 1833. The personhood of the victims of these studies were often ignored or downplayed, so it's not too surprising then, that when the disabled community was finally able to start pushing back against their mistreatment in the late 1900's (The specific decade varies depending on which country you're talking about), they advocated for language that put their humanity and personhood first and foremost, making it much harder for people to forget that they were, in fact, still people and deserved to be treated as such.

Today, person-first is still preferred by parts of the community who still face more dehumanisation than most in the disabled community. for example, it's still very popular among people with downs syndrome. Of course, generalisations are just that: generalisations. There are many people with disabilities who experience very extreme dehumanisations, and still prefer not to use person-first, and vice versa.

There are also a number of disabilities that simply don't have names that work using identity-first language for grammatical reasons, such as people with ADHD (though some online communities use "ADHDers" in more informal settings) or people with BPD. Most often these are the disabilities who's names are acronyms, and so person-first is still used, but more out of necessity than genuine preference.

Identity-First

Identity first isn't technically newer than person-first language, but it's use, and it's name, has changed connotations recently as it has begun to become popular in parts of the community.

You see, for some people, their disabilities are an important part of their sense of self, or at the very least, their disabilities are so impactful on their lives, for better or worse, that they feel like they would be a completely different person without them. This is what we mean when we talk about disability as an identity, and what we mean when we say identity-first.

For some folks who prefer identity-first language, they feel like person-first is trying to distance them from their disability, often for the comfort of non-disabled people. It makes a disability sound like something you carry with you and that you could simply leave at the door if you could, not an important part of yourself. It sounds as strange as saying "A person with creativity" as opposed to "a creative person" or, to compare it to another identity of my own, "a person with gayness" instead of "a gay person".

This particular reason is popular among communities such as some parts of the autistic community, as autism impacts their brain, their personality, their interests, the way they communicate with others and more. If they were suddenly "cured" of their autism, they would be totally different people, and so they feel "autistic" is a better descriptor, as they simply can't be separated from their disability. It's a part of what makes them who they are. This is also popular among people born with their disabilities who have only ever known life that way, or those who have had their disabilities for a long time. Their disability, weather directly (such as autism) or indirectly (due to how people treat them, what opportunities or lack there of were available to them, the people they interacted with, etc) has impacted them so much that, once again, if they weren't disabled, they would have become a wholly different person.

Some prefer identity-first because they feel that they should not have to remind others that they are people. They feel it is unnecessary, and that if you need to be constantly reminded that any group of people you don't belong to are still people just because they are different to you, that's honestly just concerning. And then there are some in the community, who just prefer it because it's usually shorter and easier to say.

There's also a lot of people who don't really care either way. Personally, I fall into this category for the most part, as do most people I know. while I do lean more towards identity-first because it's easier to write and say, and because I agree, I think we as a society shouldn't need to be reminded of anyone's personhood so frequently in 2024, I also recognise that unfortunately, some people do still need that reminder.

It's important to note, that calling someone "the wheelchair," "the disabled," "The autistic," etc is not identity-first language, it's typically under the categorisation of objectifying language and you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who likes or prefers that. Using identity-first language for these disabilities might look like, "Wheelchair user," "autistic/disabled person" or "that person is disabled/autistic". A good rule-of-thumb is to just avoid using "the" when referring to individuals or even groups of people (e.g. the disabled, the elderly, the gays etc).

Slurs

I also want to talk about slurs briefly. A slur, in this context, is defined by Merriam Webster as "an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo," though it is often used specifically when referring to words of particularly strong impact, often with a lot of history behind why they have that impact.

For the disability community, many (though not all) of our slurs are somewhat unique, in that they were once considered medical diagnoses. While a lot of people do make this argument disingenuously, I do believe there are some people who are genuinely confused about this, which is why I quickly want to bring it up.

Words like "cripple," "retard," and many, many more I am not comfortable saying for a variety of reasons, all started as actual diagnoses. In fact, several of the sources I used even use them in this way, such as the sites and books I found talking about the two boys Henry Heinman infected almost always referring to them as being "mentally retarded" or "experiencing mental retardation".

I've talked about "cripple" specifically in detail before, but in all of these cases, the word went from a neutral descriptor (at least, in theory) to something that was used in increasingly negative ways, both by the medical professionals diagnosing people with these terms, and the general public. In medical settings, these words were often used to justify the horrible treatment directed at people with disabilities (Like we discussed before), and even after protections were put into place, the language kept its associations. In the general public, these words started being used as insults directly, both directed at disabled people and in general. If you went to school in the 2000's, you probably heard "retard" being used as an insult on the playground as a replacement for stupid or ridiculous. You can see how, when a whole generation starts associating a diagnosis with "ridiculous" it starts to become an issue. This would then feed back into how the terms were used medically. As much as we'd like to think of doctors and healthcare professionals as being unaffected by cultural norms, history has proven time and time again that this was not the case. If you'd grown up hearing a real diagnosis as a synonym for an insult, it's not going to make your opinion of the patients you're giving that title to particularly positive unless you're going to spend a lot of time deconstructing those implications, which, in my experience, many do not.

So yes, even though these might have been acceptable terms once, their use in overwhelmingly negative ways has caused a lot of disabled people to become deeply uncomfortable with them, and they have since been deemed slurs.

Of course, not every slur related to disability came from outdated diagnostic terms. The M-slur used against little people, for example, originated during the times where little people's only option for employment was in freak-shows and other demeaning rolls, such as being kept as pets by nobility. The M-slur was used to compare them to a type of small, annoying fly, a midge, as a way to further humiliate and dehumanise them.

There have been movements that attempted or are currently in the process of reclaiming some of these slurs, with notable examples like the "cripplepunk" community for physically disabled people (They do, however, ask that able-bodied people call the movement "c-punk" instead). Though other words like "retard" are more debated, and many people with intellectual and cognitive disabilities (who the slur was usually directed at) feel it is too early to start that process, or feel it should not be reclaimed at all. At the end of the day, it is the people with the disabilities impacted by these terms who get to decide if, how and when a slur is reclaimed, not outside forces and wider society.

Focusing back in on authors and creatives for a moment, if you're writing a disabled character, but you yourself are not disabled, I'd highly recommend against using slurs in your work, even if your character is part of the community that could reclaim it. Even if you are disabled in that same way, I'd recommend caution. I often call myself a cripple in a joking light, but I probably will never feel comfortable including it in any of my work (outside articles like this where we're discussing it, of course). If you really, really must include these slurs, make sure to get input from others in the community.

Outgroup Terms

Finally, one last thing I want to bring up is in reference to the "outgroup terms" disabled people use for people without a disability.

A very common misconception is that if you aren't disabled, you're able-bodied, but this isn't true! Able-bodied (sometimes shortened to A.B.) refers to people without physical disabilities specifically, so you can be able-bodied but still have an intellectual disability or some kind of neurodivergence like autism, dyslexia, or schizophrenia. Likewise, you can be neurotypical - the word for people who aren't neurodivergent - and physically disabled.

If you want to refer to people without any disabilities at all, the most common way to do that, and the term I've been using throughout this post, is just non-disabled. Some people also use the term "abled" but this isn't as widely agreed upon, as many people assume it's just a shortened version of able-bodied.

Conclusion

As I said in the beginning, this post is meant to just be a general guide, not hard and fast rules. The disabled community isn't a monolith, and we don't agree on everything and that's ok. Different people and groups will have different preferences and that's ok too. If you're an outsider to the community and you aren't sure what words or terms to use, just ask (so long as you're polite about it and/or it's relevant to the conversation at hand, it's fine) but always respect an individual's preference over a generic piece of advice like this post. Under no circumstances should you ever correct a disabled person on how they refer to themselves and their own community. If they refer to themselves as disabled, that's great. If they call themselves, a person with a disability, also great! I can not tell you how many non-disabled people who have told me I am "disrespecting myself" for calling myself an amputee, autistic or disabled.

At the end of the day, how any individual wishes to refer to themselves is their choice, but for creatives, especially those of you writing disabled characters as a non-disabled person, it's important to be aware of the reception and implications different words may have with your audience.

[Thumbnail ID: An image of overlapping speech bubbles on a blue background containing several terms, ranging from commonly accepted to offensive, used to refer to disabled people. Some of the more easily visible bubbles say things like "differently abled," "Disabled," "Special Needs," "Person With a Disability," "Special," "Slow" and many more. In the centre, the biggest bubble says "Disability 101: The Language of Disability." /End ID]

[therainbowwarrior4]

Project 2025 is a plan to, in the words of project Director Paul Dans, "...march into office and bring a new army of aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the Deep State".It is organized by the Heritage Foundation, to "muzzle woke propaganda at every level of government", "gut the administrative state" (HUD, FEMA, DOJ, DHS, the Federal Reserve, CDC, FDA, EPA, etc.) and concentrate power into the hands of the President (Leeja Miller, in a video that is linked below, goes into detail on how this would work).Their claim is that "Only through the implementation of specific action plans at each agency will the next conservative presidential Administration be successful".The plan includes a [180 Day Playbook](https://www.project2025.org/playbook/), described as "...a comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency."

The plan is "the conservative movement's unified effort to be ready for the next conservative administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025".Project 2025 promises to "rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left" and to "unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors".Project 2025 lists problems with America such as:* The breakdown of the family* Immigration* The "totalitarian cult known today as The Great Awokening"* The erosion of constitutional accountability in Washington* Children suffering the "toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries"* An "overseas, totalitarian Communist dictatorship" that is "not a strategic partner or fair competitor" and is "engaged in a strategic, cultural and economic Cold War against America's interests, values and people"* "Low-income communities" that are "drowning in addiction and government dependence"* "America's elites have betrayed the American People"* The left using climate change "to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty crushing regulations"They believe that "These are problems not of technocratic efficiency, but of national sovereignty and constitutional governance. We solve them not by trimming and reshaping the leaves, but by ripping out the trees -- root and branch."

Their broad goals are to:1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life, and protect our children2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people3. Defend our nation's sovereignty, borders and bounty against global threats4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely - what our constitution calls "the Blessings of Liberty"Dans states that "The long march of Cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass. The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before".Project 2025 is, in my words, a distinctly terrifying and highly detailed roadmap for:* Installing a Chriso-fascist oligarchy* Rolling back civil and human rights* Removing bodily autonomy from women and transgender individuals* The systematic eradication of minorities and other vulnerable groupsI don't use the words "systematic eradication" lightly or with hyperbole.

They obviously don't come right out and say it, but they state that:* Pornography should be outlawed* The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned* Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders* Telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shutteredThe real problem with the above, apart from the obvious, is that they label the existence of LGBTQIA+ people as "inherently pornographic". They say that pornography is “manifested today through the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology".They say that the fix "starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity ('SOGI'), diversity, equity and inclusion ('DEI'), gender, gender equality, gender awareness, gender sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists".They also state that "The president should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc."

They want to "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family" which would remove protections for same-sex marriage.Leeja Miller helpfully points out that the above language does not simply include transgender individuals, it includes cis women as well. I'd argue that removing the DEI language also allows them to target anyone that isn't a white, cis, heterosexual, evangelical (or other approved flavor of Christianity) male.Some other points of note:* They want to eliminate the Department of Education* They want to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory* They want to bring back the practice of impounding funds

**References*** A direct link to a PDF copy of the project's Policy Agenda, aka their "Mandate for Leadership": [https://thf\_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025\_MandateForLeadership\_FULL.pdf](https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf), this can be found on the Policy page of the Project 2025 website.* A video from Leeja Miller: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k3UvaC5m7o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k3UvaC5m7o)* An NPR article focusing on the climate policy aspect: [https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192634090/if-republicans-win-the-white-house-in-2024-climate-policy-will-likely-change](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192634090/if-republicans-win-the-white-house-in-2024-climate-policy-will-likely-change)* A UC Berkeley write up: [https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2023/11/17/project-2025-democratic-doomsday/](https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2023/11/17/project-2025-democratic-doomsday/)* An article from the NECC Observer: [http://observer.necc.mass.edu/blog/2023/11/20/the-danger-of-project-2025/](http://observer.necc.mass.edu/blog/2023/11/20/the-danger-of-project-2025/)* An article from PBS: [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Bonnie Snyder

Published: Sep 15, 2021

[Excerpt from Bonnie Snyder’s new book, Undoctrinate: How Politicized Classrooms Harm Kids and Ruin Our Schools―and What We Can Do About It]

Gabrielle Clark was worried about her children. Something was off, but she couldn’t put her finger on the problem. Gabrielle was temporarily disabled and unemployed, so her son William worked as a fast food shift manager to help make ends meet while taking his high school senior classes remotely. As a single mom—William’s father died before he was old enough to know him—she had to figure this out alone.

One day, she decided to sit down and watch her son’s distance-learning classes from his magnet school. She tuned into a required course, “The Sociology of Change,” and what she saw on screen shocked her. Her son, unbeknownst to her, had been taught lessons that were completely antithetical to her family’s values...and common sense.

William’s deceased father was white, which means William is biracial. However, his light skin, light hair, and green eyes mean that some people assume he is white. He’s sometimes described as “the only apparent white boy in his class.”

Being “apparently white” was enough for his teacher to target him.

For years, schools have had “anti-bullying campaigns” to stop kids from picking on each other. But what if the bullying is coming from the teacher and school administrators? According to the family’s recently filed lawsuit, William was singled out and subjected to derogatory name-calling and hurtful labeling, based on his physical appearance. His teacher delivered regular “privilege checks” for William, which his mother described as “deliberate and protracted harassment” and “emotional abuse.” The classroom materials even implied that William’s white father probably physically abused his black mother, because—according to his lessons—that’s what white men do.

This is a far cry from Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a nation where people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Gabrielle claims her son, as well as the other students, were forced to profess their identities which were then subjected to open, official scrutiny that assigned negative character attributes and worldviews based on unchangeable personal characteristics, such as race and gender.

When students, including William, attempted to object, discussions were terminated and their speech effectively chilled. However, William refused to complete certain “identity confession” assignments or to avow certain politicized statements he could not in good conscience affirm.

That was enough to earn him threats of a failing grade.

As a senior, that was bad news. He had planned to spend the year applying to colleges and dreaming about his freshman year in which he’d study music. But this bad grade would put all of that in jeopardy.

Gabrielle had her attorney write a letter to the school, which prompted a meeting. But Gabrielle didn’t feel the school was taking her concerns seriously. “That’s when I withdrew my daughter and got the lawyers for my son,” she wrote. “I’m not playing with these people.” She filed a lawsuit against the school, claiming they violated the mother’s constitutional due process right to “family integrity and autonomy” by interfering with her “right and covenant to guide and direct the upbringing” of her children.

This case may have some of you scratching your heads. Others of you—having experienced similar interactions at school—might be nodding at how sadly familiar that story feels.

* * *

Our nation has a problem. Recently, in both urban and rural communities, young children are being indoctrinated, bullied, and harassed by their fellow students and teachers for not falling into line on various topics.

In Arizona, Roberto Sandoval, the son of a Mexican immigrant who worked hard to achieve the American dream, was alarmed when his teen showed him her high school homework. “I have an assignment that’s asking me how I am privileged,” she told him. The homework included statements such as “My skin color gives me privileges I didn’t earn … Your skin color gives you struggles you didn’t deserve,” and “No one is asking you to apologize for being privileged; people want you to stop using your privilege in ways that require an apology.” 

In Seattle, meanwhile, teachers explain that “Western” mathematics has been used “to disenfranchise people and communities of color.” Then, they attempt to “rehumanize” math by incorporating curricular content such as explaining “how math dictates economic oppression” and asking, “How can we change mathematics from individualistic to collectivist thinking?”

Third-grade students in Cupertino, California, were told to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, ranking themselves on the intersectional hierarchy from “oppressor” to “oppressed.” One scandalized parent objected, saying, “They were basically teaching racism to my eight-year-old.” When questioned, the principal acknowledged that the lesson was not part of the “formal curricula.”

The specific topics of parents’ complaints in the examples above change from year to year, or even from week to week. Over the past few years, the following issues have waxed and waned in intensity: global warming, Occupy Wall Street, weapons of mass destruction, voter suppression, immigration reform, the border wall, DACA, Black Lives Matter, gun control, same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, abortion, patriotism, election integrity, and the MeToo movement.

In all of these examples, well-intentioned people of good faith can agree on underlying problems, while disagreeing on what to actually do about them. Increasingly, however, children who are too young to have developed solid or informed opinions are being forced into premature ideological conformity with some teachers and administrators who seem intent on pushing their own particular worldviews in K–12 classrooms.

These kinds of transgressions are not limited to the political Left.

A Georgia teacher was yanked from class after telling the students that President Barack Obama was a closeted Muslim.

In Wisconsin, a high school social studies teacher was placed on leave after instructing students to watch a one-sided video questioning the integrity of election results. In a shared screenshot of the assignment, he also apparently made sure to inform students that he would be protesting what he saw as unfair election results because it was “too important” not to do so, in a pretty clear attempt to influence them on this issue.

In Alabama, a geometry teacher actually taught a math lesson by asking students to evaluate the best angles to assassinate Obama.

No matter the specifics of the heavy-handed ideological teaching, we should all be against it. “Citizens of both parties should adopt a legal corollary to the Golden Rule—fight for the rights of others that you would like to exercise yourself,” writes former president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and Persuasion advisor David French. “And one of the most important and vital of those rights is the right to speak and act in accordance with your deepest beliefs.”

In fact, I’ve noticed that liberal parents are—in some ways—even more alarmed over the rapid transformation of their children’s schools and surprised to find themselves opposed to it. If it ever was a partisan issue, the problem of school indoctrination has steadily worsened to the point that people across the political spectrum have found themselves allied against it.

* * *

Many of you don’t want to think about this, and I understand. You’d rather send your kids to school and trust implicitly in the system, as your own parents probably did. After all, it worked out okay for you. However, this fight will come to you, whether or not you want it. It doesn’t matter if you live in a city or the rural South.

As frustrating as it can be to hear from people who disagree with us, this is part of the temperament that productive citizens need to develop in order to take their places in our society. In order to achieve this goal, our schools must be populated with educators who model and practice appropriate intellectual forbearance worthy of emulation by the younger generation. Remember, it’s an imperfect world and we are all imperfect people: practice forgiveness and give others the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

All Americans, regardless of political persuasion or direct personal experience, should be alarmed at the path on which our nation is careening. We’re at a crossroads. It’s a good time—a necessary time—to see what is going on and to fight for the ideals our founders envisioned for us.

Bonnie Snyder is director of high school outreach at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the author of Undoctrinate: How Politicized Classrooms Harm Kids and Ruin Our Schools—And What We Can Do About It.

==

Reminder: The ACLU opposes curriculum transparency.

[winterr77]

☆4-step Study Framework☆

~watched Justin Sung's video recently and my current takeaways,

Step 1: Aim high:

think what would ______ do? e.g (could be an individual or career) What would a/an "overachiever/scientist/Albert Einstein" do?

Step 2: Cram early:

Cram the foundation of the whole semester in maybe around the first 2 weeks to be able to understand its relevance during lecture times.

Step 3: Build prior knowledge:

build prior knowledge so that you can consolidate the info during the time everyone else is learning.

Step 4: Be strategic with your resources:

have self-regulated learning skills (look things up and use self-explanation and generation) where you don’t ask simple questions, rather test hypothesise or check synthesised ideas.

→“Try to develop the skills to figure out the basic stuff by yourself, use expertise where expertise is needed.”

Make sure: Never compromise the non-negotiables:

Use a ‘solutions’ mindset, and make do with the resources you have and try to figure it out and make an educated guess as to what will be taught (you can get 70% right and 30% from lectures)

If you are making excuses for; I cant study at home, my commute is too long, I procrastinate too much etc.→ “Are you wanting help? Or are you just wanting validation for why it’s hard for you?”

will start my 3 hour study session now :)

good luck everyone <;3

~winter

ଘ(੭ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧₊˚

[ana-bananya]

Hi! My last donation post reached the 100 link limit so this is my new one. I'm going to work on getting individual lists for each cause and linking them here, so it's a bit more organized than the last one.

I will do my best to keep these updated with the fundraisers and their progress.

Palestine

Sudan

Congo

Tigray

Links to more causes:

‼️ indicates that a fundraiser has experienced a decrease in donations or has been without donations for some time

Uyghurs

Support an Uyghur orphan's education (79.10% raised) ‼️

Uyghur Human Rights Project

Haiti

P4H Global Education Development

Hope for Haiti

Rohingya Refugees

Action Against Hunger

Progression Society Art School Fund - A New Start ($2,548 CAD/$5,500 CAD)

Donate to help provide education to K-12 students living in the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. ($4,565/$15,000) ‼️

Stand with Rohingya Families Escaping Genocide in Aceh: The Rohingya Women's Network ($5,520 AUD/$10,000 AUD) ‼️

Qurbani Emergency Aid for Rohingya Refugees ($10,175/$12,000)

Nigeria

Donate to the Humanitarian crisis in northwest Nigeria ($1,935 CAD/$15,000 CAD - VERY low on funds) ‼️

Medical and sanitary supplies to support women & children in Congo, Nigeria, and Sudan ($350 CAD/$3,000 CAD - VERY low on funds) ‼️

Claire Aid Foundation

Action Against Hunger

[wardevilwins]

There Is No Such Thing As Justice With Chainsaw Man

正義の味方: the Ally of Justice. This is a concept that runs through Japanese hero stories, from cop dramas to Kamen Rider and now to Chainsaw Man. It begins in 1958 with the mysterious figure of Moonlight Mask.

Moonlight Mask (月光仮面) is Japan’s first Superhero Tokusatsu (practical effects based film such as Ultraman, Kamen Rider, Godzilla, etc.) The series follows a simple formula, one of the “Skull Masks,” a group of international spies that wears well…skull masks, will be running some evil scheme in their effort to acquire the “Joe-engine Bomb,” a secret weapon developed by Japanese scientists.

When the Skull Masks’ villainous ways put innocents in danger, there appears the masked man, Ally of Justice, Moonlight Mask, riding on his motorcycle, with automatic pistol in hand. He only shoots to disarm, never to kill, forgives his enemies and never takes a life. He uses his superhuman (?) strength to protect the weak.

One interesting aspect of Moonlight Mask is that no one, not even the audience, has the hero’s hidden identity confirmed. It is implied through the storytelling that the great detective Juurou and Moonlight are one and the same, but even the credits don’t reveal his identity: Moonlight, played by “?”

This concept of Justice — a faceless, benevolent protector — is the foundation of Japanese super hero stories. You can see its influence in the Kamen Rider, Super Sentai and Sailor Moon, and you can see it’s negation in Chainsaw Man.

Denji is notable amongst Shonen heroes for his unclear ethics. More than his unfiltered sexuality, his lack of education or his meager material conditions, this is what makes him especially relatable.

Other heroes in the Moonlight Mask tradition are driven by a particular sense of morality, of Justice, and they act to protect that idea of what is right and wrong. But the rules they are bound by exist beyond the law and order of civil society. Moonlight Mask never kills, not because killing is illegal, but because it is wrong. His motto: “Don’t hate, don’t kill, forgive.”

Denji does not have a meaningful code. Nor does he have a particularly meaningful dream. His goals are mundane and his morality is common. He doesn’t want to hurt people, he doesn’t want to let them die, and he is kind. But this isn’t motivated by a coherent philosophy. And it doesn’t spur him to action. It is, if anything, a point of confusion.

This makes Denji realistic, because individuals rarely have a coherent ethical system by which they evaluate their choices. People make the choices that they do because of who they are, whether those choices are coherent or not. Choices aren’t computations or evaluations, they are the endpoints of a story.

This is Fujimoto’s brand of existentialism, not unlike Kierkegaard’s, but with less freedom. Denji creates the meaning of his existence from what he sees around him — he decides his own dreams — but this doesn’t grant him the sublime freedom to take a leap of faith. Rather, it is an act of necessity, something that you cannot help but do. You need to dream to keep moving forward.

Ethics, then, is not a dispassionate evaluation, but an encounter between a person’s intrinsic drive for a better life and the reality of the world. Regardless of choices being right or wrong, people still do what they do for reasons rooted in the life they have lived. This is the reality of how choices are made, rather than an ideal designed for passing judgement.

On the contrary, the villains in Chainsaw Man are exactly those people who believe that they can pass judgement. The Allies of Justice are not heroes who protect the weak, they are villains who use their moral code to justify selfish action. And that is the root of evil: they are dishonest with their selfish life.

Yuko is an example of this. Yuko wants to save Asa because she wants to be seen as a hero, like Chainsaw Man, but she justifies it by casting herself as an Ally of Justice, a protector of the weak, like Moonlight Mask. Unlike Moonlight Mask, she doesn’t follow some abstract code. Her inflated ego leads her to justify violence, and ultimately transforms her into a devil.

Asa, on the other hand, is genuinely selfish in her actions. She makes choices based on what she wants to be right, regardless of the outcome. She doesn’t hide her selfish intent behind a moral excuse; she is selfishly moral: she acts as she wants the world to be, rather than giving in to what it is.

This is closer to Kierkegaard, but again, there is no faith. Asa doesn’t have to believe the world is good. This is the selfish aspect. She decides what the good choice is based on her moral intuition, then tries to make that real, even if it is a risk. This is Fujimoto’s heroism: the bravery to be wrong.

This Justice, this heroism, is consistent but dependent. It’s not the same as relativism because Yuko was wrong. She wasn’t being honest with her dreams. She was selfish, but not living selfishly.

This is why there is no Justice with Chainsaw Man. Because what is right isn’t about an abstract Justice which you defend. The hero isn’t a faceless detective, stripped of his name, who appears from the shadows the save you from a similarly faceless evil. The hero is just a kid, just some girl, just a person who has lived a life which has led to a moment, and in that moment makes a choice, adds to their story.

Chainsaw Man isn’t a story with Justice, it is a story about Justice. A story about how Justice is created in the search for happiness. And right now, Denji has lost his drive. He has lost sight of who he wants to be — which is good to some degree, as he l still clings to sexual impulse — but has yet to discover what good he wants to create, what he wants to believe the world should be.

There is No Justice With Chainsaw Man

Yet.

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.2 Why do anarchists emphasise liberty?

An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin’s words, as a “fanatic lover of freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which the intelligence, dignity and happiness of mankind can develop and increase.” [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 196] Because human beings are thinking creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny them the opportunity to think for themselves, which is to deny their very existence as humans. For anarchists, freedom is a product of our humanity, because:

“The very fact… that a person has a consciousness of self, of being different from others, creates a desire to act freely. The craving for liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental and dominant trait.” [Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 439]

For this reason, anarchism “proposes to rescue the self-respect and independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority. Only in freedom can man [sic!] grow to his full stature. Only in freedom will he learn to think and move, and give the very best of himself. Only in freedom will he realise the true force of the social bonds which tie men together, and which are the true foundations of a normal social life.” [Op. Cit., pp. 72–3]

Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their own good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power of individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and their lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and diversity. This is because when individuals govern themselves and make their own decisions they have to exercise their minds and this can have no other effect than expanding and stimulating the individuals involved. As Malatesta put it, ”[f]or people to become educated to freedom and the management of their own interests, they must be left to act for themselves, to feel responsibility for their own actions in the good or bad that comes from them. They’d make mistakes, but they’d understand from the consequences where they’d gone wrong and try out new ways.” [Fra Contadini, p. 26]

So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of one’s individual potential, which is also a social product and can be achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and enrich the social relationships between the people of whom it is composed. Liberties, being socially produced, “do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace … One compels respect from others when one knows how to defend one’s dignity as a human being. This is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in political life as well.” In fact, we “owe all the political rights and privileges which we enjoy today in greater or lesser measures, not to the good will of their governments, but to their own strength.” [Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 75]

It is for this reason anarchists support the tactic of “Direct Action” (see section J.2) for, as Emma Goldman argued, we have “as much liberty as [we are] willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral.” It requires “integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free, independent spirits” and “only persistent resistance” can “finally set [us] free. Direct action against the authority in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism.” [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 76–7]

Direct action is, in other words, the application of liberty, used to resist oppression in the here and now as well as the means of creating a free society. It creates the necessary individual mentality and social conditions in which liberty flourishes. Both are essential as liberty develops only within society, not in opposition to it. Thus Murray Bookchin writes:

“What freedom, independence, and autonomy people have in a given historical period is the product of long social traditions and … a collective development — which is not to deny that individuals play an important role in that development, indeed are ultimately obliged to do so if they wish to be free.” [Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, p. 15]

But freedom requires the right kind of social environment in which to grow and develop. Such an environment must be decentralised and based on the direct management of work by those who do it. For centralisation means coercive authority (hierarchy), whereas self-management is the essence of freedom. Self-management ensures that the individuals involved use (and so develop) all their abilities — particularly their mental ones. Hierarchy, in contrast, substitutes the activities and thoughts of a few for the activities and thoughts of all the individuals involved. Thus, rather than developing their abilities to the full, hierarchy marginalises the many and ensures that their development is blunted (see also section B.1).

It is for this reason that anarchists oppose both capitalism and statism. As the French anarchist Sebastien Faure noted, authority “dresses itself in two principal forms: the political form, that is the State; and the economic form, that is private property.” [cited by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 43] Capitalism, like the state, is based on centralised authority (i.e. of the boss over the worker), the very purpose of which is to keep the management of work out of the hands of those who do it. This means “that the serious, final, complete liberation of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material and all the tools of labour, including land, by the whole body of the workers.” [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Rudolf Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 50]

Hence, as Noam Chomsky argues, a “consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.” [“Notes on Anarchism”, For Reasons of State, p. 158]

Thus, liberty for anarchists means a non-authoritarian society in which individuals and groups practice self-management, i.e. they govern themselves. The implications of this are important. First, it implies that an anarchist society will be non-coercive, that is, one in which violence or the threat of violence will not be used to “convince” individuals to do anything. Second, it implies that anarchists are firm supporters of individual sovereignty, and that, because of this support, they also oppose institutions based on coercive authority, i.e. hierarchy. And finally, it implies that anarchists’ opposition to “government” means only that they oppose centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations or government. They do not oppose self-government through confederations of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as these are based on direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to “representatives” (see section A.2.9 for more on anarchist organisation). For authority is the opposite of liberty, and hence any form of organisation based on the delegation of power is a threat to the liberty and dignity of the people subjected to that power.

Anarchists consider freedom to be the only social environment within which human dignity and diversity can flower. Under capitalism and statism, however, there is no freedom for the majority, as private property and hierarchy ensure that the inclination and judgement of most individuals will be subordinated to the will of a master, severely restricting their liberty and making impossible the “full development of all the material, intellectual and moral capacities that are latent in every one of us.” [Michael Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 261] That is why anarchists seek to ensure “that real justice and real liberty might come on earth” for it is “all false, all unnecessary, this wild waste of human life, of bone and sinew and brain and heart, this turning of people into human rags, ghosts, piteous caricatures of the creatures they had it in them to be, on the day they were born; that what is called ‘economy’, the massing up of things, is in reality the most frightful spending — the sacrifice of the maker to the made — the lose of all the finer and nobler instincts in the gain of one revolting attribute, the power to count and calculate.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, The First Mayday: The Haymarket Speeches 1895–1910, pp, 17–18]

(See section B for further discussion of the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of capitalism and statism).