#Republicans don't know how science works

[thedepressedjuggalette]

Marjorie Taylor Green doesn't know what science and context are. I don't know how this woman hasn't been kicked out of office.

[toraoistired]

let's talk about project 2025 and smut.

bc I've seen some of my favorite authors already state they aren't writing any more smut due to the mere threat of project 2025 going into effect. And hey, I'm a simple person who likes to read abt sexy times.

pls read through all the way and share if ya like any of what i wrote here - i don't want panic to be spreading through the writers of tumblr/ao3 like wildfire unchecked.

qualifications: BA in political science focusing on domestic policy, activism and ethnic studies.

Part I - what is it?

project 2025 at its core is a roadmap. it was created by the Heritage Foundation (an extremely far right disgusting think tank), and plenty of people associated with the previous and incoming Trump presidency. its like 900 pages of alt-right, christian nationalist bullshit.

but its not uncommon.

think tanks like the Heritage Foundation often create roadmaps like this to plot out what they would most want to see in a future presidency or period of political control. it isn't even particular to right-wing think tanks; left wing ones do it too! the difference in this case is the magnitude and attention paid to the manifesto.

the heritage foundation is a vast organization with a lot of money, and has had a part in US politics for a long ass time now. because of this, what they say/do carries a bit more weight. combined with the fact that dems in the past election used project 2025 as a common refrain (instead of like, developing their own policy but whatevs), you get a general public who is aware of the buzzword "project 2025" but not knowledgeable about what it contains.

what it does actually include is certainly worrying, but among the new freaky shit is a ton of stuff that has been on the republican party's to do list since day one, like dismantling the department of education. just reading that seems really shocking, i know, but if you look back to when the department was created, you will find evidence of republicans trying desperately to dismantle it.

i find the media flurry around project 2025 to be a bit concerning, because while i understand dems wanting to show voters how dangerous this shit can be, its also made it into something far more important than it could actually be. as i stated earlier, these types of policy blueprints are extremely common among think tanks. its like their entire job!! and yes, this one is scarier and more visible than others, but it

a.) isn't the official policy of the incoming admin (and if you look at their actual policy statement, its very clear they don't rly have policies, so who knows what that's gonna look like)

b.) isn't united states federal law

Part II - what's it gonna look like?

i'm not gonna sit here and say you shouldn't be worried about project 2025, bc a lot of whats in it is freaky asf. but that freakiness is what (in my opinion) will be its primary challenge. since its so out there, the extreme right wing republicans are going to have to work their asses off to get the votes they need to pass these things.

which brings me to another point-- project 2025 is a whole list of proposals. its not like republicans can put forth one bill that has the entirety of project 2025 in it and pass it all at once. for a whole laundry list of reasons, that's not possible. the process of getting one bill passed through the house and senate is an excruciatingly long one, and doing this process for 900 pages worth of plans ain't gonna be easy.

i should mention that donald trump has yet to endorse the plan as his own, so there's the real possibility that he wont even want to implement any of the ideas included. i could 100% see him ignoring the entire plan because he doesn't like that someone else came up with it tbh. and while i don't believe he has never heard of the heritage foundation, as he has claimed in the past, i think it is important to note that there hasn't been any confirmation from him that project 2025 is his roadmap.

the plan includes rollbacks of rights for every minority group possible, restrictions on immigration, access to morning-after pills, restructuring of the federal government to allow for easier hiring and firing based on little/no evidence, etc. all in all, not great.

but again, project 2025 isn't united states federal law

Part III - what does it mean for fanfic authors?

the section that has the fanfic-consuming/creating world in a tizzy is the bit about outlawing pornography. this is a concerning policy propsal, but not because of possible fanfic bans. rather, bc project 2025 and the heritage foundation at large sees queerness as inherently and exclusively sexual.

"pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children" (The Heritage Foundation, p.5)

thus, if they ban pornography (with a definition that includes/focuses on queerness), they can effectively ban expressions of queerness in the united states.

that shit is scary. and while i never want to rely on foundational documents when the people interpreting those documents (court justices (esp those appointed by the previous and incoming trump admin)), i will hesitantly say that this is gonna be a tough sell. both from a constitutional standpoint, and from a broad base support standpoint.

for the first of the two points, arguing that the first amendment doesn't "apply" to something is always a slippery slope, and defending that point is extraordinarily difficult. obviously this isnt always the case, but especially relating to pornography and obscenity, proving that a work fails the Miller test (a three part test created in Miller v. California (1973) to determine if something is obscene or not) is, like, really hard (heh).*

while the miller test is precedent for specific cases that come up in the court system, if some version of the porn ban goes into effect, the US court system is going to be dealing with challenges from every state, every form of media, every fandom.

which brings me to the second point. broad base support.

while the headline about Grindr crashing in Milwaukee during the RNC wasn't true in 2024, republican events in previous have brought an influx in users to the area in which the events are held if ya know what i'm sayin👀

on a real note though, getting a pornography ban passed in the united states would be exceedingly hard (no pun intended). especially one that includes forms of media like written pornography, not just visual. in terms of feasibility, a ban on video pornography is incrementally more likely than one on all forms of pornography. arguments against porn are weak at best, and the anti-porn movement in the US (usually religious) has been trying, and failing, for decades to ban pornography. most content about porn bans also refers primarily to video-based porn, not written smut.

let's just say worst case scenario something like this does go into action. anything you've written before the law goes into action cannot be used as a way to prosecute you. that would be an example of ex post facto punishment, which is explicitly prohibited in the constitution and by court precedent.

*note: i'm not endorsing the way the US court precedents around porn/obscenity look, as they are another symptom of purity culture and anti-sex culture created in the US

Part IV - what do we do?

well, giving up before a bill has even been proposed ain't it. it makes me deeply sad to see so many writers saying they wont be writing smut anymore because of the vague possibility of this plan. not only does it make me sad, it makes me angry. because that means people have seen so much misinformation about what project 2025 is and how it works that they are too scared to do anything about it. let me repeat again.

project 2025 is not law in the united states of america, nor is it in the process of becoming so. act accordingly.

so go forth, write smut, be gay, do some shit to make the heritage foundation angry today. and don't give up before the battle has even started. bc that's how they win. and i know shit seems really scary, but community and mutual aid is how we are gonna make it through this, so do your due diligence and research what you're scared about! knowledge is power and you gotta wield that sh*t.

i'd like to end with a quote from Timothy Snyder, who everyone and their mother has been quoting recently, but i still think it has value.

"Do not obey in advance. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do. Anticipatory obedience is a political tragedy." (Excerpted from On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder, 2017)

[Note - i have cited sources where appropriate, but this is also based on my (important to note, informed) opinion. please treat it as such, thank you]

[mostlysignssomeportents]

What Americans want

Tomorrow (Oct 19), I'm in Charleston, WV to give the 41st annual McCreight Lecture in the Humanities. And on Friday (Oct 20), I'm at Charleston's Taylor Books from 12h-14h.

If you aspire to be a Very Serious Person (and whomst amongst us doesn't?) then you know why we can't have nice things. The American people won't stand for court packing, Congressional term limits, the abolition of the Electoral College, or campaign finance limits. Politics is the art of the possible, and these just aren't possible.

Friends, you've been lied to.

The latest Pew Research mega-report investigates Americans' attitudes towards politics, and honestly, the title says it all: "Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics":

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-dismal-views-of-the-nations-politics/

The American people hate Congress. They hate the parties. They hate the president. They hate the 2024 presidential candidates. They loathe the Supreme Court. Approval for America's bedrock institutions are at historic lows. Disapprovals are at historic highs.

The report's subtitle speaks volumes: "65% say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics." Who can blame them? After all: "63% express not too much or no confidence at all in the future of the U.S. political system."

"Just 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely or very well": that is to say, there are more Americans who think Elvis is alive than who think US politics are working well.

There are differences, of course. Young people have less hope than older people. Republicans are more reactionary than Democrats. Racialized people trust institutions less than white people.

But there are also broad, bipartisan, cross-demographic, intergenerational agreements, and these may surprise you:

Take Congressional term-limits. 87% of US adults support these. Only 12% oppose them.

Everyone knows American gerontocracy is a problem. I mean, for one thing, it's destabilizing. There's a significant chance that neither of the presumptive US presidential candidates will be alive on inauguration day:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/01/designated-survivors/

But beyond the inexorable logic of actuarial science, there's the problem that our Congress of septuagenarians have served for decades, and are palpably out-of-touch with their constituents' lives. And those constituents know it, which is why 79% of Americans favor age limits for elected officials and Supreme Court justices:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/how-americans-view-proposals-to-change-the-political-system/

Not all of this bipartisan agreement is positive. 76% of Americans have been duped into favoring a voter ID requirement to solve the nonexistent problem of voter fraud by imposing a racialized, wealth-based poll-tax. But even here, there's a silver lining: 62% of American support automatically registering every eligible voter.

Threats to pack the Supreme Court have a long and honorable tradition in this country. It's how Lincoln got his antislavery agenda, and how FDR got the New Deal:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes

The majority of Americans don't want to pack the court…yet. The race is currently neck-and-neck – 51% opposed, 46% in favor, and with approval for the Supreme Court at lows not seen since the 2400 baud era, court-packing is an idea with serious momentum:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/21/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-fall-to-historic-low/

66% of Democrats want the court packed. 58% of under 30s – of every affiliation – favor the proposal.

And two thirds (65%) of Americans want to abolish the Electoral College and award the presidency to the candidate with the most votes. That includes nearly half (47%) of Republicans, and two thirds of independents.

Americans believe – correctly – that their elected representatives are more beholden to monied interests than to a sense of duty towards their constituents. Or, as a pair of political scientists put it in their widely cited 2014 paper:

Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

So yeah, no surprise that 70% of Americans believe that voters have too little influence over their elected lawmakers. 83% of Republicans say big campaign donors call the shots. 80% of Democrats agree.

Which is why 72% of Americans want to limit political spending (76% for Democrats, 71% for Republicans). The majority of Americans – 58% – believe that it is possible to get money out of politics with well-crafted laws.

Americans truly do have a "dismal view of the nation's politics," and who can blame them? But if you "feel exhausted thinking about the nation's politics," consider this – the majority of Americans, including Republicans, want to:

abolish the electoral college;

impose campaign spending limits;

put term limits on elected officials and Supreme Court justices;

put age limits on elected officials and Supreme Court justices; and

automatically register every eligible American to vote.

What's more, packing the Supreme Court is a coin-toss, and it's growing more popular day by day.

Which is all to say, yes, things are really screwed up, but everyone knows it and everyone agrees on the commonsense measures that would fix it.

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/2023/10/18/the-people-no/#tell-ya-what-i-want-what-i-really-really-want

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

[tripod-fish]

conservatives want to genocide trans people & imprison sex workers in the next election - cis people are in danger as well. nobody is talking about this, so REBLOG IT.

REBLOG THIS. i do not care if this doesn't fit with your blog. conservatives, if the next president is republican, want to implement things that involve killing/jailing trans people, information control, actively stopping efforts to stop climate change, etc. if a twitter thread is more digestible, you can find one i made here. RETWEET IT.

https://twitter.com/nuniyoa/status/1698534141472727358

so fucking nobody (that i've seen) is talking about this and i've only seen 1 tumblr post about it with less than 6k notes. @asterosian was the one who brought this to my attention, and here's his post: https://ganbreedings.tumblr.com/post/727921195127865344

the document, which can be found below this paragraph, is ~1000 pages long and i know nobody on tumblr has the patience to read that. use ctrl+f on this pdf (link is to view it in browser) to look up specific topics. in this post, i will be briefly discussing some of the things said using textual evidence and citations. https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

just some of the things this document talks about are:

wanting to imprison trans people for existing, make discrimination of people legal in the workplace, punish education about the existence of trans people, make sex work illegal, make education about sex illegal, make contraception unaffordable, ban the week-after pill, imply fatherhood is a requirement, ban education on real american history, ignore other governments, seal the borders, enforce the death penalty (including for trans people for just existing), stop efforts to end climate change, fund the military, claim OAR science is theoretical and downsize it and NOAA, eliminate critical race theory in education, want to eliminate teaching of critical race theory based on a gross misunderstanding, eliminate diversity, the teaching of marxism's existence, "deleting" words regarding queer and reproductive topics, and so much more.

we trans people are called pornography:

"Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology sexualization of children..." (page 37)

and conservatives want to outlaw pornography and say those who distribute it should be imprisoned. if trans people are pornography, is not going about our day outside distributing porn?

"Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned" (page 37)

they also support the death penalty and say that "child sexual abusers" should be given that. i am not disagreeing that CSA is bad; it is. i'm talking about how they're going to classify trans people as that for exposing minors to "porn" for simply going out in public. by saying this, they are using roundabout language and logic to say trans people should be given the death penalty.

"It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes...crimes involving...sexual abuse of children..." (page 554)

they don't want people to be taught about our existence. and they don't want sex taught at all; even safe sex.

"Educators and public librarians who purvey [porn] should be classed as registered sex offenders..." (page 37)

sex education needs to be taught, period. and if they're going to ban abortions and contraceptives, it especially needs to be taught.

"HHS should rescind...preventive services...preventive services include contraception..." (page 483)

"Eliminate the week-after-pill..." (page 485)

they want to ignore what other countries say.

"International organizations and agreements that erode our Constitution, rule of law, or popular sovereignty should not be reformed: They should be abandoned" (page 12)

they want the border SEALED and illegal immigration ended:

"Illegal immigration...ended...the border sealed..." (page 12)

and, of course, more xenophobic shit about china:

"Economic engagement with China ended..." (page 13)

"[Universities funded by the CCP should] lose their accreditation, charters, and eligibility for federal funds" (page 13).

they want to stop efforts to end climate change:

"Repeal climate change initiatives..." (page 508)

and downsize funds given to the government division (OAR) that forwards its information on climate change to the NOAA, and they want climate change research "disbanded":

"...[OAR climate change research is] theoretical..." (page 676)

"...disbanded..." (page 676)

they want critical race theory and gender ideology erased from schools because they "poison our children". they are erasing things from being taught; and critical race theory isn't about affirming one's characteristics. it's for showing that white people are on top and that it needs to change:

"...'critical race theory and 'gender ideology' should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country..." (page 5)

"These theories poison our children..." (page 5)

"...affirm the color of their skin fundamentally determines their identity and even their moral status..." (page 5)

and they straight up don't want america's history being taught. america is founded on racism, tears, oppression, etc. they don't want this taught because they don't want people knowing real american history. so they can't see history repeating itself:

"...racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda [in] America's classrooms" (page 8)

they want discrimination based on queer status and "sex characteristics" legal. this is said in regards to the military, but it won't stop there. and "sex characteristics" means YOU, cis people. you can be denied things just for having boobs or a beard. even if you're cis:

"Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics" (page 585)

"...abolish newly established diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and staff" (page 103)

and misinformation is present of course by saying gender-affirming care causes irreparable damage:

"...'gender transition' procedures or 'gender-affirming care,' which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them"

and, quite abhorrently, and i quote, they want words related to queerness DELETED:

"This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity ('SOGI'), diversity, equity, and inclusion ('DEI'), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights..." (pages 4-5).

there is... SO much more i could cover. but i need to cut it short somewhere. and remember: this affects everyone.

cis people, you can be discriminated against for "sex characteristics", which includes things like breasts or facial hair. transphobic queer people, you can and will be discriminated against for your sexuality. your children are at danger of being taught deliberate misinformation at school. america is sealing itself off in a fascist bubble; as much as it hates countries like china and north korea, it is doing the exact same thing. and climate change regulations want to be repealed and climate change science is called "theoretical". this isn't even just about america anymore; this is about the whole world.

vote in the 2024 election. vote democrat. don't let the "mandate of leadership: the conservative promise" by the heritage foundation make this shithole country even worse.

[ismellpestilence]

So what now?

Yesterday I went to a talk hosted by three political science professors at my university. I figured, if anyone would know what's going to happen, it would be people who have studied this for their entire lives.

Here's the basic(ish) summary of what they said:

This term won't be like the first one. Trump's coming in with more experience, the popular vote, a Republican party shaped in his image, and 3 supreme court justices. He didn't have any of that in 2016. This is concerning.

That being said, Trump only has 4 years. Repealing the 22nd Amendment is close to impossible. Republicans may have a majority, but they don't have that kind of majority. This means that Trump can only do what the time limit allows. Government bureaucracy is frustrating, but it's part of the checks-and-balances system. He can't just executive order his way through this term.

The American people are in favor of abortion, and so it is unlikely that there will be an outright attack on that. I think the same for repealing the Respect for Marriage Act. Homophobia is on the rise, but not enough to ban gay marriage. However, this means that they will be limited to things that are:

1) Vastly popular. Certain aspects of immigration, trans rights, and environmental/health regulations will probably get the most obvious changes.

2) Convincing to the average unformed person. These will be sneakier attacks. They may not be able to ban abortion, but they can, for example, make it impossible for minors to access medical care without parental consent. If they phrase it as "parental rights" and "common sense", they'll be able to get more people on board.

3) Within his reach through things like executive orders and such. He's already promised to bring back the Travel Ban, which his did in his first week in 2017. On the flip side, his promise for mass deportations will be harder to achieve through this, as that will require a lot of planning.

To make it more complicated, Trump and his people have to consider how hard to push the states. The professors said that it is possible that state governments may refuse to comply, and in some cases it might be better for Trump's government to let them be.

As for the Trump's promise to get rid of whole departments, once again, bureaucracy is on our side. Reagan said he would get rid of the Department of Education in 1980, and yet it still stands. Trump can't just lay off 4,400 people without going through the right procedures. That being said, there was still fear among the professors that this would happen. Somethings will probably change.

In summary, we won't be fucked on day 1, but it's not going to be easy, either. How this impacts you will depend on a lot of variables. The biggest concern that we all need to have is how we as a nation, not as individuals, are going to get through this. We need to all have our shit together if we want to make it to 2028. We need to deal with the fact that roughly 10 million of Biden's voters from 2020 did not vote this year. We cannot let this happen again in the midterms or the next election. We have to get to work.

[drunkenskunk]

So, despite knowing that it's probably futile, I called the office of my senator once again, in the vain hope that the staffer I talked to will pass on the message and get her to see reason in regards to KOSA.

Trouble is: how? Catherine Cortez-Masto is a cosponsor of the bill. I couldn't appeal to her sense of morality, as she's a politician; she had her ethics surgically removed before coming into office. I couldn't appeal to the stated goal of the bill, protecting kids, because if she had spoken to a single cybersecurity professional, she would know that the bill is dangerous to kids, adults, and anyone wanting to use the internet. I couldn't appeal to the Constitution, because if she actually gave a shit about the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights, she would already know its a blatant, flagrant violation of both the 1st and 4th amendments, and be trying to kill the bill, not cosponsor it. And I probably couldn't appeal to the fact that the bill was dreamed up by the same republican think-tank that dreamed up Project 2025, the plan to turn what little remains of our democracy into a theocratic dictatorship run by evangelical christians; she probably believes she's wealthy and influential enough that it will insulate her from the worst effects, assuming she isn't already in on it anyway.

It was a puzzler. And then I had an idea. This is what I said:

"Do you know who Steve Sisolak is? You do? Good. Do you want to know why he's the former Nevada state governor, and not the current one? It's because Sisolak was, without exaggeration, the most unpopular politician I've ever come across. No one liked him. Democrats hated him, republicans REALLY hated him, libertarians hated him, and even people like me, who have never felt represented by any of the major political parties in the state but still vote in every single election because we consider it our civic duty as American citizens, didn't like him either. I can't think of a single person who ever had anything positive to say about his tenure as governor, and as a result? The voter base in Nevada was willing to do anything and vote for anyone just to get him out of office.

"I tell you this, because if Senator Cortez-Masto does not change course, and continues to cosponsor and vote yes on the incredibly unpopular, incredibly dangerous, blatantly unconstitutional KOSA bill, then she will make Steve Sisolak's year, as he will no longer be the most reviled politician in the state of Nevada. If she does not reverse course, she will be committing political suicide on a scale hithertofore unknown to science. If she votes yes, then she might as well pull a Mitch McConnell and announce her retirement right now, because any of her political aspirations for the future, at least among the Nevada voter base, will be dead in the water.

"Now, I don't know how many phone calls you've gotten about KOSA. But I suspect it's not as many as you should. Most people in this state don't have time to call their senators. Most people are working two or three jobs to make ends meet with stagnant wages among the rising cost of living and landlords finding any excuse to increase our rent. Hell, I'm calling you on my lunchbreak right now. But despite all that... people here still find time to vote. And if there is one thing I've learned about voters in this state in the 18 years I've been able to? It's that if you piss us off, the people in this state will absolutely vote entirely out of spite, just to burn everything down. KOSA is so incredibly unpopular among the voter base of this state, that when she's next up for reelection? She will find herself out of a job, mark my words.

"Make sure you tell the Senator that, word for word. And if you can't remember, just play her this phone call that I already know is being recorded."

Will this do any good?

I don't know.

Probably not.

But it made me feel a bit better, at least.

[beardedmrbean]

ITHACA, NEW YORK – Jewish Cornell University students reported that many of their peers on campus have been questioning their allegiances to left-wing student groups after some came out in defense of a professor who called the Hamas terrorist attack in Southern Israel "exhilarating." 

Fox News Digital spoke to "Cornellians" on background and on the record who said they were aware of a political shift among Jewish students. Some of them are questioning their ties with various progressive groups – and some with progressivism as a movement itself. 

"A lot of the students that come to Cornell are liberal, and I think this is making a lot of Jews that would consider themselves liberal really question that," a student studying statistics and computer science, who wished to remain anonymous for safety reasons, said. "What they will be doing is silently reflecting and shifting who they would vote for in the future…. They're paying attention to… the Republican primaries to see who supports Israel the most even though that contradicts their previous values." 

One of those students currently going through the dialectic – who has not yet found a political home – is Isaac Bloomgarten, a freshman studying engineering. 

CORNELL STUDENTS REACT TO SUSPECTED 'HAMAS FIGHTER' ARREST BY DOJ: 'TERRIFYING TO BE ON CAMPUS RIGHT NOW'

Bloomgarten said he feels "betrayed" by the left with whom he always stood. 

"I've always been an ally of the left. I've stood with LGBTQ people. I've stood with trans people, nonbinary people. I've always stood with them against forms of hate and discrimination. But I feel like they won't do the same for me," he said. 

He has seen some of those same friends, including those he considered close, "make posts commending Hamas for what they did, declaring them as freedom fighters and how they were liberating their people by murdering Jews." 

BILLIONAIRE HEDGE FUND MANAGER DOESN’T WANT TO HIRE HARVARD STUDENTS WHO BLAMED ISRAEL FOR HAMAS ATTACKS

"It's so hard to comprehend this level of hatred," he said. "And they sit next to you in class…I have to hope that people are just uneducated and don't know better and that they are not actually evil." 

Ezra Galperin, a freshman who plans to major in government, said, "I think people for good reason are very much questioning their involvement with progressive organizations on campuses that have effectively justified Hamas' invasion." 

CEO MARC ROWAN CALLS ON UPENN LEADERS TO RESIGN, ALUMS TO HALT DONATIONS OVER ALLEGED ANTISEMITISM

Galperin is questioning his ties to certain progressive groups on campus after some came out in support of Professor Russell Rickford. Rickford is currently on leave after saying he was "exhilerat[ed]" following the Hamas surprise terror attack that left 1,400 dead, including women, children, and elderly civilians. 

Galperin said the comments and the outpouring of support for Rickford was as "regressive as it gets." 

"I know without a shred of doubt that we as a Jewish community, we stand behind oppressed people… It's not all the progressive organizations on campus. I don't even know if it's most of them. But… we can't work with organizations that openly advocate for people who are exhilarated by the rape and murder of our families," he said. 

CORNELL PROFESSOR WHO WAS 'EXHILARATED' AFTER HAMAS ATTACK ISSUES APOLOGY FOR 'REPREHENSIBLE' REMARKS

Galperin added that he hopes progressivism will reform away from being willing to associate with antisemitic groups. 

"But I don't think any of us believe that that stops us from advocating for progressive things. You know, we can be Jewish and progressive. We can hold those beliefs… we're not going to let this stop us from advocating for a better world," he said. 

Amanda Silberstein similarly said Rickford's comments and student groups' responses are "causing some more progressive Jews on campus… to reevaluate how much they adhere to certain ideologies." 

Netanel Shapira explained that part of what is causing some of the shift is that Jewish students, who consider themselves a minority group, feel abandoned.

Shapira explained that he cannot support Black Lives Matter as an organization, though he does support Black liberation, because that particular political group is virulently anti-Israel.

"I find that pretty unfortunate if they're willing to side with people who are literally terrorists," he said. 

Shapira said he is not alone in questioning ties to certain progressive groups. 

"You want to believe that in a moment of despair where you were slaughtered, your people were raped, burned, murdered in cold blood, brutally on video with evidence. You'd like to think that the world was saying there is something wrong with that. And we stand by you in this moment of pain. Not only is there not that reaction. You have people who also have suffered horrible things in their history… justifying it. They're saying, ‘Oh yeah, it was fine because of X, Y, Z,'" Shapira said. 

Sam Friedman also said that Jews are feeling left out of progressive politics, causing them to ask themselves "serious questions" about their alliances. 

"The whole idea of the sort of liberal progressive movement is to be more caring and be more considerate of other people. But they're realizing that while a lot of minorities are getting good treatment… the Jewish people are not. They're almost treated… not worthy of consideration. And so I think… the progressive [Jews] are taking some serious questions… Either [to] make the progressive community more supportive… or be less involved." 

Josh Rosenheim agreed, saying Hamas alignments from some progressive circles may be causing "political realignments" among Jews. 

"I would hope we could go beyond scoring political victory points surrounding that issue and come together in the recognition that everyone, all students, should be safe on college campuses," he said. 

Another student speaking on the condition of anonymity, who is studying biology, said the progressive left co-mingling with Hamas supporters is not only causing Cornell students to question their political ties, but the wider community.

"I definitely think that that's been happening not just on Cornell's campus. I think in general Jewish people feel that," she said. 

[free-range-hadrosaur]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be a downer, but I feel like everything I see in response to the recent fascist takeover of the US is either people dunking on their republican relatives or messages like "It may be hard, but the best thing you can do is to keep surviving and keep being yourself 🥰". And sure, yes, these things are good, these things are necessary to give people some hope and drive right now.

But I keep seeing this stuff and thinking, OK, how. HOW do you want me to keep surviving. I feel like i am staring down the barrel of Project 2025 before it obliterates everything I've been working toward.

Student loan forgiveness programs are on the chopping block, along with income driven repayment plans. Career-based forgiveness programs could be cut, too, which means that working a federal lab job (something that was a good option for me) will not lead to loan forgiveness.

That's not to mention that science funding will be drastically cut, so museum or education jobs may not exist. The CarbonSAFE program, part of the Inflation Reduction Act, funded almost all of my internship last summer (which was my main fallback) and it's also a target. And they're talking about cutting the entire EPA, which means even if the federal lab jobs would still be good, many of them won't exist.

All of this, and healthcare, housing, and employment are all probably going to take big hits across the board. Tariffs will almost certainly drive up the cost of everyday stuff like groceries (we import a huge amount of food here in the US).

And I know, I KNOW, I'm not the most at-risk demographic. I'm not pretending like this all impacts me more than anyone else. Other people are at risk of increased hate crimes, sexual assault, and deportation, just to name a few of the horrible things that are on the rise. Rights could be taken away from marginalized groups who fought hard for them. People who need reproductive care could lose access to it. I am not at risk in these ways like some other people are.

But I don't know how to help them. I'm broke! I have have nothing to give that can make a difference. I don't even know how to help myself. And it feels like I built a ship just for someone torpedo it indiscriminately. It feels like everything I'm working for, the degree I'm working toward so that I could actually have a future, is going to be worthless. And like when I graduate, whether I go to grad school or not, it's going to be too unaffordable to live. I've felt like I've barely been able to keep my head above water as it is, but now I feel like I'm still barely treading water and I'm being sucked toward a waterfall.

So what do I do? HOW do I survive? None of the "the biggest act of resistance is to keep on living" bullshit is helpful. And I can imagine that people who are worried about even bigger existential threats feel the same way. What the FUCK do we DO?

[iam-the-wild]

Gonna hit this once more, and you don't have to post/respond if you don't want to- no worries. I just don't want to litigate this further on my blog since I think it was pretty streamlined there, but I'm willing to try again here, if you want. Do-what-the-knight-tells-you

I hold no ill will towards you because you are not wrong to be sick to your soul (if we have such things) about the genocide in Gaza and the broader region, as I am too, and you're not wrong to not trust Harris or the Democratic party with a 10 foot pole. I also agree!

.

If both candidates are the same on an issue, then I look at other issues to decide who is the better option. That doesn't say anything about whether that one issue is serious or not.

If there was a candidate who stood a chance of winning who was currently calling for an arms embargo, that would be a different conversation, but there isn't.

In other elections there have been pushes to vote 3rd party, and it has not improved the standing of third parties yet-

And elections with low turnout have historically 1. Not benefitted lefty folks, nor 2. have they inspired much change at the national level.

So knowing that not voting or voting 3rd are neither effective "protests", then there remains no reason not to try to pick the lesser of two evils.

(which in this case is the person who isn't planning on dissolving the department of education, who does believe in science-backed public health, who is more likely to continue backing antitrust work, who admits climate change is real and a problem it behooves us to take seriously, who is not planning to legislate trans folks out of existence, who is not planning to kick all undocumented folks out of the country, etc)

again, if I agree with the position that Harris is an equally bad option for the Palestinian people, then that means that no vote I do or do not cast in this cycle will improve that situation, so I must evaluate on other grounds, and those other grounds indicate that Trump (the person Netanyahu wants to win) will be terrible for gazans, and Also terrible for millions more.

And I agree that the US is not great and is getting worse about protesting, and what an acceptable "form" of protest is (which is really more about how threatening they find the subject of protestingnand who's doing the protesting), but it is not accurate to say Trump won't be worse than a Democrat on this front- famously he once asked if it was legal, if the national guard could just shoot out the legs of protesters to get them to leave, "just the legs".

Walz has been criticized from both sides of the aisle for how he handled the George Floyd protests, and the fact that he repeatedly gets flack from the right, his own legislature censuring him for not calling in the National Guard sooner, for not being harsher, for not stepping in on the city response Before most of the arson etc, for prosecuting those officers involved, says more about where the republican position on protest is, and how much more dangerous (and less useful as far as moving their opinion) it would be to protest under their control.

But even if I were to grant that the Harris/Walz stance on protest being part of democracy and the utility of the police state are the same as Trump/Vance...

That Still would mean that that's a subject that's a wash between them, and so my vote has to be cast on other grounds.

.

Again, none of that has anything to do with how bad things are in Gaza, or valuing american lives over Gazans, or anything. The Biden Administration will forever be remembered for it's aiding and abetting a colonial apartheid state in committing genocide, and this will rightly outweigh a lot of the good the administration has done, even in the face of the supreme Court and the house both curtailing the scope of what the presidency even gets to do at this time.

But if no vote or non-vote in this election can help them, then I have to do other things to help them (like protesting. Like donation. Etc) and I also have to set that aside as not a useful tool to use to make a decision about voting.

.

Now, if the actual goal is to get Trump elected, because people have wagered that another trump presidency will break down the system, will punish the libs, and will hasten the collapse of the political structure in the US, and that all the additional people in the US and elsewhere who die and are harmed in this process are acceptable casualties for the greater good of starting a new and better system, then that's a separate conversation (which also does not help Gazans in the meanwhile).

(addtnl note, the Stein campaign have said this is their goal, to make Harris lose and trump win)

But if the goal is to help Gazans, and the argument is that Trump is not worse on this than Harris is, then that means no act of voting or not voting will help Gazans, and therefore the decision to vote or not vote should be made on other grounds.

.

And the following is not intended as a defense of Harris as a person, or of her campaign's choices, or of Democrat priorities, but rather an explanation of the political calculus as I understand it-

The Harris campaign is making the choices they think will lead to them getting elected.

All campaigns at this level who are serious about actually getting into office must do this.

For her own political success she obvs wants to win, but also another Trump administration is an existential threat to democracy, and so she feels she absolutely must win.

And she and her team sat down, and ran the numbers and have come to the (right or wrong) conclusion that things like boycotting Netanyahu's speech and agreeing with someone's assessment of genocide without saying the words herself etc are as close to coming down on the situation as she can get, and so she's hoping that that little bit of light between her and the idealogically Zionist Joe Biden will convince enough folks that she will be better, without loosing the Zionist faction of the Dems or the middle/middle-right vote she calculates she needs to win.

(and, in the wake of AIPAC money amongst other stuff, successfully primarying more outspoken leftists like Cori Bush, Harris didn't want to risk inspiring additional funds to be spent against her on this front.)

I think you said something like "if Harris can't even call for an arms embargo while running, why would she in office", or something to that effect?

I argue that her campaign has calculated the opposite- that Saying she's for an embargo would lose her more votes than it would win her, and would be against the policy of the admin she is currently VP of, but that if she is elected, she can do it then if it seems the appropriate move (which it obvs does) when she's less vulnerable to loosing the country to Trump

And I'm not saying their numbers are right, but that seems to clearly be the calculation they are making.

.

To make more change, to get a national candidate who's actually a leftist and also stands a chance of winning, either the system has to come down, or we have to reform how voting and governing happen in this country (likely through things like ranked choice voting, etc)

But until that happens, until the two-party grip is broken or we start doing coalition governments or something, (and also improve our voter education ) the choice will probably continue to be a Lesser Of Two Evils calculation. Because as long as large enough segments of the voting public hold bad and dangerous views or positions, as do the monied backers of campaigns, then a representative leader will try to represent them too.

.

And all of the above is why folks who are formally part of uncommitted have said things like "I don't endorse Harris, but I will vote for Harris". They are not signing off in support of how moral her choices are, but they do acknowledge that a Trump presidency will be materially worse, and that they will be more effective continuing their work/protest/activism under a Harris administration than a trump one.

I get it if you want to vote for Harris because you think she's better than trump.

To me, when you actually take the time to look at her policies, I don't see how they're any different than Trump's. She wants more police, she wants a stronger border, she can't even say she wants transgender rights. She's campaigning with the Cheneys, and refuses to condemn genocide. None of these policies make abandoning my morals worth it. I don't know if trump will be better or worse, I think he'll be the same as Democrats on their fundamental policies, but he just won't lie about it. That's the only difference in parties to me, one parties co-opts progressive language and pushes better propaganda and the other party just tells the truth. Either way, they both support genocide. There is no policy that would make me accept and normalize genocide to protect myself because that's a lie!

If Harris can't condemn a genocide because she values her position of power too much then I don't have any hope she'll be any different in office when war profiteers are gearing for her to continue to commit genocide, which she's been actively apart of.

There is no democracy worth saving if it forces you to choose genocide to protect yourself. There's no democracy if your only options are genocidal candidates.

More people were killed by police under the Biden administration! There is no difference in the parties.

Also that's great Kamala says she believes in climate change, that means nothing when she talks about how she's in favor of fracking and the Biden administration has continued to approve large oil and gas projects.

Biden even ended covid restrictions in the name of profit. I'm disabled so either way both parties want me dead, they're not different, they're two different sides of the same coin bought out by war profiteers and corporations.

How many more elections are we going to put genocide aside so we can stay comfortable? How many more genocides are we going to accept before we finally realize it's time to abandon the system? How many more genocides will we decide is inevitable and not the time to do anything about? I'm done pretending that the parties committing genocide care about human rights, the only rights they care about are whoever's filling their pockets. So vote or don't, it won't change anything, the people still can't afford rent or to eat. The systems collapsing regardless of who wins.

If democrats want my vote they'd have to actually earn it, fear mongering doesn't work when the population has run out of energy to be afraid.

Also I don't know how I'm expected to believe the party starving millions of people and killing children and bombing hospitals and schools and kidnapping healthcare workers gives any shit about the value of human rights. Why should I expect the party committing genocide to view me as human? Why should I validate the party that says my human rights must come at the cost of others? How long until they decide our rights are going to be on the chopping block next? There is no difference between us and Palestinians, just where we happened to be born. I refuse to normalize and accept what's happening to them.

2023 was the deadliest year for homicides by law enforcement in more than a decade!!!

How is either party any different? They work for corporate interests, they don't give a fuck about anything but money and power, and they'll sacrifice whatever they have to for it.

[thechembow]

Why monster hurricanes like Milton are happening in the Gulf. It’s not geoengineering

Oct. 10, 2024 - Miami Herald

True, it's not :geoengineering," as the mainstream and alt media like to call weather modification. But I think this article is the mainstream media's way of saying they disagree with my hurricane and tornado theory.

Meteorologists have no framework to understand how the weather is weaponized because they don't recognize the root cause of weather, the push and pull or orgone energy (OR) and deadly radiation (DOR) in the atmosphere. It is not through jet exhaust or hypothetical heavy metal "spraying" the alt media promotes that weather is weaponized. It's through the cell tower arrays which suppress rainfall. Neither the mainstream or the alt media can understand this fact because neither has any foundation in the true science of weather, orgonomy.

By "turning off" thousands of active cell towers all at once in a hurricane prone region, the rain suppression of the towers can be released, and a dramatic OR rush can take place. We know this because of the effects we've seen over ten years of neutralizing cell towers on a large scale, but not so many at once that it causes destructive weather on the level of a hurricane. On the scale we work, up to a few hundred towers over a few days in a new area, we see OR shifts that cause extreme weather like thunderstorms and flooding. It stands to reason that if many more towers than we neutralize at one time are all neutralized at the exact same time by those controlling them, very destructive weather could result.

[aikoiya]

You know... I can't help but wonder...

Like, forget what "side" you're on for a moment.

What would you do if you learned that your side was wrong?

Like, I can't help but think that it's important to really contemplate stuff like that.

Republicans/Conservatives? What would you do if it turned out that Trump really was guilty of all the stuff they accuse him of? Rape, treason, sedition, ect.

Now, Democrats/Librals? What would you do if it turned out that Biden was guilty of pedophilia, treason, ect? If the Covid crisis really was a hoax & Fauchi is poisoning us & legitimately trying to depopulate the world by force? If it turned out that the previous election really was rigged? If Pride really has been hijacked & turned into something dispicable even though the large majority of LGBT individuals are honestly just people who just wanna live their lives? What if infants are alive from the moment of conception? What if there never was a party switch? (To be fair, I know more about this side of the argument, but my point stand. This is not meant as an attack.)

What if it turned out that we were all being lied to? What if both parties want the same thing? To do the right thing. What if the only real difference between us is the way we think we should go about it?

Because, I think it's important to be willing to see the truth even if that truth isn't necessarily something you wanna hear.

Yes, it may hurt. But pain has a purpose even if it doesn't feel good.

I would like to bring up Cromwell's Rule. “I beseech you, consider that you might be mistaken.”

So, what if you are mistaken?

And, honestly, this goes for most every faction on earth. No matter the situation.

What if you were wrong about something you really & truly believed in?

I'm talkin' politics, science, philosophy, religion, whatever.

What if you were wrong?

For me, if God ever made it clear to me that Trump was truly everything awful that a bunch of people have been saying he is & He made it clear that He is not with him, then I'm fully prepared to drop him like he's on fire.

Because, while I do like Trump, from my personal perspective, God's will is much more important.

In my mind, I don't trust either side fully (or at least, I try not to) because both have incentive to make who they support look great & who they don't look terrible. So, it's very possible that we've all been misled.

As such, I'm inclined to believe that no matter which side of the isle you lean towards, if the only media you watch is your side or even if it's only the kind of media that you agree with, then it's very highly likely that you only have, at most, half of the story.

It's like how your eyes work. Both are looking at the same thing, but if you close one, it sees something slightly different from what the other does. It's only by seeing out both that you get a more accurate picture of what's actually happening.

Again, this is by no means an attack. But rather a simple question of, "are you ready to be wrong if you are? And are you ready to admit to that & change if it happens?"

I certainly try to be, but I can't be too sure until the moment comes. I hope to be humble enough to accept the truth regardless of what that truth might be.

Regardless of whether I like it or not...

I hope everyone else, regardless of sides, is strong enough & humble enough to do so as well.

[dumbestthingiveeverheard]

Dumbest Thing I've Ever Heard: 7/25/2023

Fifth Place: The Babylon Bee

Today, the right-wing satire website ran the article "Scientists Unveil Periodic Table Of Genders." Even ignoring the fact that this is the millionth or so time they've run a joke similar to this--you do realize what this implies, right? That the side in favor of transgender rights and who affirms non-binary identities have science on their side while you guys don't. In fact, this is even quite similar to a pro-transgender rights meme I saw posted a few years back.

Fourth Place: Matt Gaetz

The Hill reports today "Gaetz introduces legislation to end ‘unqualified’ birthright citizenship." Of course, given birthright citizenship has been upheld by the Supreme Court, repealing it would require a Constitutional Amendment, not just an act of Congress--something Matt would know if he took even the basic class on how our government works.

It should also be noted that Matt is trying to use this bill “to reflect the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clause,” which refers to a part which quite literally reads that citizenship applies to everyone “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  If the original intent of that language was not that everybody born in the United States is automatically a citizen, which was the understanding held by the Senate when the Amendment was passed (as seen by a Senate Judiciary Report regarding the Amendment) and by then-President Andrew Johnson, then somebody should really have told those who wrote it to use different words.

This is a small aside, but one thing you'll notice if you listen to the rhetoric the right pushes on the Constitution is that they always seem to think the people who wrote it put some Asterix next to each part that implies something they wish it didn't which the rest of us are just too blind to see but totally shows the amendment is counter to everything they don't like. Although I am not going to sit here and pretend like the left can be guilty of the same thing--especially regarding the Second Amendment--it is not only worth pointing out that the right does it far more, but also that the right does it exclusively to take away the rights and freedoms of American citizens--or, in the case of Matt right here, to take away the status of citizen from millions of people.

Third Place: Hillary Clinton

Regarding the recent heat wave sweeping the country, the former Secretary of State wrote on Twitter:

Hot enough for you? Thank a MAGA Republican. Or better yet, vote them out of office.

First off, why the MAGA Republicans specifically? Don't Reagan and Bush Republicans also have a great deal of responsibility? How about Gingrich Republicans--you know, the ones who literally did everything possible to stop the environmental progress your husband's second in command tried to make!

Let's not forget that this is the same woman who dropped references to Climate Change from her speeches during her 2016 Presidential Campaign after Bernie Sanders endorsed her, who refused to endorse a carbon tax, and who encouraged other countries to embrace fracking as Secretary of State.

Second Place: Greg Gutfeld

It's not everyday the Auschwitz Museum feels the need to condemn something said on cable news, but Gutfeld's provided just such an occasion. Specifically, the organization criticized the Fox News host's use of Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search For Meaning while defending Florida's educational standards which say that slaves learned useful skills during their enslavement, in response to the Jewish Jessica Tarlov bringing up a hypothetical similar situation related to the holocaust. His statement was the following:

Did you ever read Man’s Search for Meaning? Vik Frankel talks about how you had to survive in a concentration camp by having skills. You had to be useful. Utility, utility kept you alive!

Can we just talk about the implication that the Jews who died in the Holocaust did so because of lack of skill? What the fuck, Greg?

Winner: Ron DeSantis

I am honestly starting to believe that the DeSantis campaign is run by people who really don't want DeSantis to be President. Remember that ad late last month which called Donald Trump to much of an LGBT ally that was put out by a pro-DeSantis Twitter account? It turns out the DeSantis campaign made that ad internally and then gave it to this account in hopes of passing it off as something done by a crazed supporter. Said ad was mocked all across the internet both for the idiotic claim that Trump was some stern fighter for the rights of LGBT people and also because DeSantis was trying to run to the right on an issue that many Americans no longer agree with the right on.

At this point, all one really has to do if they one to debunk the idea of a DeSantis nomination is point out how badly Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz all did when they ran on platforms rather similar to DeSantis back in 2008, 2012, and 2016 respectively. The fact is that every Republican Presidential Primary for the past decade or so has featured one candidate who is the preferred President of the nutjobs and, although they do a good job being second place, they never progress past that. The average American--fuck, the average Republican--does not want what these people sell, and the reason is because they understand that hating other people isn't going to improve their lives, while hate is the only thing these people offer.

Ron DeSantis, you've done the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[jaybarou]

I keep seeing posts about not voting for Biden. And I understand why. I do. And here is where you can keep scrolling because I'm not even USian.

But I am from a country who not long ago only had two parties and minor third parties whose only purpose was to make either other party win.

Saying don't vote Biden is not enough because then your choices are not voting or the Republicans.

Read again. I'm not even saying it's bad, I'm saying it is not enough. You know why? Because In all the years I've been on this earth I have NEVER heard the name of a single third party, or a single other candidate.

Look at other countries, democratic countries even. They have green parties, communist parties, fascist parties... The US game is rigged to be red and blue and only red and blue. imagine your own flag with only red and blue.

Not voting Biden is not enough. See why people are afraid of the alternative and fight that fear. Learn why your democracy is rigged to think in black and white. Your opinion is not black or white, Great! Now do something about it.

Find out third parties and learn why they don't work. Spend time organising other people who also don't want to vote to Biden to al least vote to the same third party to have some bargaining power together. Spread the name of the alternative, give people hope instead of shaming them for taking part in a rigged game.

Learn what proportional representation is and learn about the alternatives. Fight it.

Organize to make an alternative viable and actually change the system you (rightly) complain about. Work for it in the upcoming elections, and then the next ones, and the ones after that even if none of them work. Use your four years to herd cats into a significant movement to change how voting works. Learn and teach. Recruit university teachers from Politics Sciences, from Economic Sciences, from Law School and make them your mouthpieces. Go to campuses and organize against apathy. It's hard work. It can be done.

If you are not ready to work to dig the US out of the voting catch-22 it's in, kindly let people choose between the one who will kill outside the borders and the one who will kill within the borders.

[oh-my-damn]

Okay guys. I have been made aware that what I post on here is either a "downer" for those of you who want to enjoy my blog purely for the writing part, or can be "too much" for those who come here for my blunt opinions on a certain former Captain America.

Here's the thing though.

I never promised either of you that I would be either or. I never promised either of you that I would be both.

I never promised anyone that I wouldn't talk about politics or feminism.

I never promised anything, at all.

All I promised was that I would be me.

So here's what I'm going to say:

I apologize for being me. I apologize for being the problem.

....

No I don't. I don't apologize at all.

I wont ever apologize.

Here's the thing; I'm not going to ever, and I mean this sincerely, ever, apologize or change because you tell me to.

Whether you (threaten to) unfollow me or stop reading my shit, it won't affect me.

This isn't my day job..... Do y'all not realize this?

None of this has any actual real meaning.

I have a real, actual life going on outside of this. Some of it I have told you about (like going to Law School and it being my second degree. That part is real)

Some parts aren't, though. Like my name, or where I come from.

This is a blog. It's a blog where I express my feelings and opinions. And most of the time, you guys support me in it.

Sometimes you don't.

Sometimes, someone will barge in here, and try to pick apart who I am. Which is hilarious, because only a handful of people truly know who I am.

Here's the thing though....

It's me. Hi! I'm the problem. It's me.

If you're not cool with that, then go on your merry way.

I am perfectly okay with being the problem.

But even if you're not, I won't stop being it.

I will keep being the problem.

When it comes to people trying to justify misogyny, or age-gaps, or Chris Evans (and his current whatever girlfriend), racism, LGBTQ+ hate, republicans, not allowing abortion, America in general.

I won't stop being the problem.

I will continue to be the problem.

I'm not going away.

The problem will not go away.

Because it's me. Hi! I'm the problem. It's me.

I'll stare directly at the sun, but never in the mirror. It must be exhausting always rooting for the anti-hero.

And if that bothers you... If anything I've said bothers you....

Leave.

Because, and I mean this very sincerely and seriously, sending hate won't wear me down. It won't deter me.

I will not yield.

I will not go away.

I will persist.

You can send me death threats, you can say (without proof) that I am a descendant of nazis, you can say (once again, without proof) that my father molested me. You can tell me to kill myself over, and over, and over again.

It won't work.

And I know you truly don't want it to work. Because how would that feel? Knowing you were the cause of a life being taken?

To be honest, I don't care how you'd feel.

Because you're scum if you'd even send a message like that.

Either way, I'm here to tell you, it won't work.

I'll be around.

I'll stay.

I'll stick around.

FOREVER.

Do your worst. But know that some (and even, most) of it is illegal. And that I do study law. So if you hurt my friends, their lawyer friend will be coming after you.

And let me remind you, that their lawyer friend (me) also has a degree in computer sciences. And that you're not as safe as you think you are.

Anyway....

I'm just telling you now to save you from a lot of work in the future.

I AM NOT LEAVING. EVER.

[that-bluesybitch]

Okay, I want to tell a story about my ex and why it is important to give young conservatives a chance. I know that that intro doesn't sound promising but hear me out please.

Last year I was dating this guy (was then engaged for a week, but that is not important) and he was very conservative. He voted for trump in the 2020 election, was only ever going to go green if someone put a gun to his head, hated muslums and did not believe in black lives matter or anything of the sort including crt. ( Also anti-abortion).

We had an argument over him liking Donald Trump because the reality of it was that where my ex was financially, Trump didn't actually benefit him whatsoever. This led to an argument over why Trump was problematic over all.

I sat down with him and actually showed him facts and evidence and after looking over it he apologized and recinded his previous statements to the contrary. And this made me wonder why he ever thought Trump was good in the first place. So ofcourse I asked him and he told me that he was told by his teachers (He went to a Catholic school) and his parents (both republicans) that Trump was the good guy and liberals were bad. He had never been given any evidence of their statements, but if he did not agree he would get punished beause growing up, what the conservative adults said was required to be taken as truth and it made me realize something.

He never had a chance to not belive stupid shit until college. He was forced to belive incorrect statements that had been shoved down his throat by adults who used their power over him in a negative way.

I also want to tell you all about the issues he had with math class. See, he was required to take and pass a math class in college as a gened course, as was I. Before we dated, he had taken 3 because he failed them all, along with having to retake an accounting course because he failed that too.

He told me how much he hated math and science, and whenever it came up in everyday life, he would desperately try to avoid being the person having to do the work that involved said math.

I offered to take a math course with him, so that I could be there to help. When we took the course I noticed he actually was not bad at math at all. He was just not used to some of the work that comes with it and had not been exposed to the thinking and methods that come with doing mathmatics.

In highschool, many of his classes were religion classes and revolved only around the bible, he was given very little chance to understand math or science and when he had trouble his teachers had called him stupid.

The fact of the matter was that he was not stupid at all. He just needed a chance to be smart, to get good at math.

It was the same with his political opinions, he needed a chance to see evidence and think for himself. He was completly capable of thinking for himself but was never given a chance. This is because along with not respecting women, gays and blacks (amoung others) republicans don't respect their children. They do not even want children, they want obediant slaves for them to beat on or push around. If those children get out of line, they are forced to go through public and private beratement.

I tell you all this so that you know and understand something. Adults who are republicans, have no excuse. But if you meet a child who is just spitting out their conservative parents' opinions, please be the person who shows them the right way in a kind manner. They have been disrespected all their lives and have never been given a chance to use their brain, nor taught how to.

I hate what republicans are doing to others, but what they are doing to their children is just as bad. They are harming their minds and their future's just so they can feel as if they are important and in charge.

[montanabohemian]

i honestly don't know how many times i have to repeat myself that the u.s. is not a two-party system but is already a multiparty system. you're just being deliberately obtuse ignoring other legitimate parties that are not republican or democrat. you're just mad that the republican and democrat parties have spent literal decades building foundations to have a platform and raise a ton of money to run candidates across the country. if you want other parties to do that, then you have to actually put in the fucking work.

if any of you actually took two seconds to study comparative politics (or just looked at a multiparty system in action), you'd recognize that every single one operates the same fucking way: through coalitions. there are usually two major opposing parties and if one can't win a majority, they work with other parties to create a fucking coalition party. you fucking dumbasses are so thick that you can't be bothered to see that that is exactly how it works in congress in the united states (and in all state legislatures). most independent politicians are gonna lean towards the left and libertarians are gonna lean to the right (until the republicans piss them off).

it isn't fucking rocket science. politics is pretty similar across the world. but every single country is just a little different. and it has to be. because every nation is unique. their way of government cannot be cookie cutter same.

the real problem facing the united states elections is two-fold: money in elections and voter suppression.

stop getting your fucking information from idiotic memes about european countries that are wildly racist and xenophobic.