#and my policy is just b clear and polite

[dreamyberry]

/3.11.24

[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]

[aifsaath]

I am continuously perplexed at how a show as objectively bad and problematic as hotd keeps inspiring outstanding fanfics like yours and @gwenllian-in-the-abbey’s. Truly it’s a mystery to me, especially considering that the books covering the dance are supposed to be quite mediocre as well from what I’ve perceived. Just so you know,with that trailer out now I’m gonna completely blend out the events of the show and consider our fathers clad in red canon

@gwenllian-in-the-abbey AAAAAAAAAAAAAA, I think George's gonna order a hit on us:D

I'm glad you like our slightly destructive approach to teh canon. I'm mostly fueled by spite and my dislike for George's and HBO's complete disregard for the historical context of the stuff they draw their inspiration from (you can't do the Matilda vs Stephen showdown and expect the same sense of injustice, when your main conflict is about Viserys' imbecilic approach to rules, Rhaenyra's weak-ass claim and papa/dragons being her go-to solution to all her problems, Daemon being a chaos gremlin, Corlys' malignant ambition and the Hightowers being the only ones who actually care about the rule of law.)

A lesbian romance doesn't automatically turn a story into a feminist manifesto, nor does a girlboss who's treated by the narrative as the second coming of Christ. Context matters and it's a mistake to view the Dance through the lens of modern ideals about egalitarianism.

GRRM's hubris when it comes to "Aragorn's tax policies" is just another thing that enrages me and Gwenllian, because the man completely misunderstands the medieval legal codes. Just because they were complex that doesn't mean they were fucking contradictory on their own; no one wanted civil wars breaking out each time a monarch died.

Problems happened when two countries with generational beefs worked on two different principles of succession, ie. England (male-preference primogeniture) vs France (male-only primogeniture), or if there was some dynastic fuckery that completely messed up the clear-cut succession lines with usurpations and cousin marriages (Yorks vs Lancasters).

Had Richard II (the son of the Black Prince) died peacefully without issue, the succession would have followed through the line of the Duke of Clarence, with Edmund the Earl of March eventually becoming the king (and he was Richard's heir, btw).

But that's not what happened. The son of John of Gaunt usurped the throne and it was then passed down through his line, because he was the crowned king. Now, you can argue whether or not he had any right to do the usurpation in the first place and whether or not he was the legitimate king and you bet people back then argued about that too. This ambiguity is how you create a proper narrative about actually conflicting claims. The only thing propping up Rhaenyra against her brother is the fact that Viserys is a moron.

How the fuck can I take F&B seriously and without the Dead Sea's worth of salt, when it pretty much blows Jaehaerys' posthumous dick about his wisdom when he "let" the council of 101 decide the succession (while politely ignoring the fact that Jaehaerys' own claim is legit only in the cases of either full salic or semi-salic succession, ie male-only), while never once it calls out Viserys out on his extremely dangerous decision. He gets to die venerated as the peaceful grandpa and all the blame for his incompetence is piled on Aegon II and Alicent.

Let's go through the possible succession systems, shall we?

If we follow male-preference primogeniture, the legitimate line of kings ends with Aerea because she was the eldest child of Aegon the Uncrowned, Maegor's eldest nephew. Only after she and her sister die without issue, Jaehaerys can become the king. Jaehaerys' canon ascension works only because Rhaena gave up her daughters' claims. The next in line would be Aemon and after him Rhaenys. But that's not what happened.

If we follow the salic law (male only), the legitimate line of the kings goes Aegon I -> Aenys I -> Aegon Uncrowned -> Jaehaerys I -> Viserys I -> Aegon II. This is probably what Jaehaerys wanted to ensure, since he challenged Maegor's kingship in the first place.

If a crowned king can choose his heir, then Jaehaerys was never a legitimate king and Aerea was the true queen, because Maegor, who had won his crown in the trial by combat, chose her as his heir.

What about the principle of seniority? Cognatic seniority where men and women have equal claims is out of the question since Aegon I was the crowned king, not Visenya. Male-only seniority would go Aegon I -> Aenys I -> Maegor I (uncontested!) -> Aegon Crowned This Time -> Viserys the Not Tortured to Death -> Jaehaerys I -> Aemon (only if his uncle Viserys has no issue) -> Baelon -> Vaegon -> Viserys I -> Daemon (EW).

Notice the distinct lack of Rhaenyra.

Team Black keeps mentioning the widow's law, but that's a bulk of nonsense. I suppose the misunderstanding originates from a (willful) misinterpretation of this passage. The book says:

Now, I highly doubt Jaehaerys intended for the law to mean that a daughter from the first marriage should come before the sons from the second. The wording is a bit unlucky, but I suppose the intention was to establish the legal position of the second wife and her children as united with the position of her step-children - she has the same duties towards them as if they were own, and the same goes the other way. Which would make sense. Because otherwise, no one would be desperate enough to marry a widower with daughters. Since we know that title and land ownerships have remained in the same families without changing hands once or twice since the implementation of the law, I really doubt the team black's literal interpretation of the passage was the one intended. Ffs, Viserys was pushed to marry again because he had only one daughter, meaning, this law wasn't viewed the way the Team Black wishes for. And I'm not even delving into the fact that this would be a female inheritance hack penned by Jaehaerys, if that was the case. Talk about ooc.

So, yeah, we're taking Gyldayne's interpretation of the past with so much salt our hearts are gonna fail.

[librarycards]

Hi! just want to preemptively say sorry for dumping such a big personal question on you (and also for how rambly this is), its just that everyone i try to talk about this with in real life doesnt seem to have the perspective id find useful on this. and also sorry but if its not too much hassle could you answer this without publishing the ask?

Do you work for a university by any chance? Because I recently received a job offer for a job with a university. In the haze of desperation to leave my current/now old job i accepted & went through the majority of the onboarding process. but now that ive calmed down a little, im realising im really struggling with how to reconcile my politics & ideologies & especially my understanding of the importance of divesting personally as much as possible from systems of oppression with like. the act of working for a university (and in specific one of the old universities in the uk, which are all so deeply steeped in the structures of colonialism & which are actively in partnership with companies integral to the genocide in palestine, among other things).

the job itself is basically my dream job (helping run the undergrad teaching science labs). but i cant see a way to go through with taking the job without some kind of compromise on my part of politics/moral lines. if you do work in a university, how do you do it? how do you reconcile and balance the understanding of what these institutions are and how they function in the large scale vs the act of deliberately existing within them & even benefiting or enjoying it as it pertains to your personal life, as someone opposed to colonialism/imperialism/etc?

(oh i shouldve mentioned earlier but of course if you dont want to answer this feel free to ignore or delete it! i dont want you to feel pressured or anything. thank you !)

so, i definitely relate to a great deal of this, as i am teaching and finishing my phd at an R-1 institution in the u.s. - i.e., the most supposedly 'elite' genre of university with the highest research output, done, of course, directly on the backs both of exploited research subjects and overworked, underpaid precarious knowledge workers (myself included). it's strange to be in this position, with a job in one of the few places i feel like i can do material good, and yet also knowing that it is a site of immense material harm.

no choice you make is going to be morally pure, and i think perhaps the bigger hurdle is not the question of whether you should take the job or not (i think you should, personally) but how you'll keep yourself generatively uncomfortable throughout your time there. that is to say that we should not be chill with being faculty -- enforcers, even on a small scale, of university policy -- when university policy facilitates genocide. equally, we need to be clear-eyed about the fact that there are students at our universities who need intellectual support and guidance, and that our abstaining from providing it does not make things better. in fact, a mass-quitting of faculty like ourselves would simply usher in the employment of more militaristic, zionist, reactionary faculty, for whom university-sponsored genocide is values-aligned.

we can both acknowledge that we are in a trap and make use of the opportunities it affords us - bringing lectures to encampments, giving students accommodations regardless of diagnosis, introducing conceptual frameworks to marginalized students that were quite literally not imaginable beforehand.

so, tldr, i think that my (and your) job is to teach, and i think we should do our jobs. i think that a lot of the teaching you do will be outside the formal purview of the lab, and i think you should take every opportunity to get students aware and active about the role of the university/scientific institutions in genocide. get organized with faculty and staff in and beyond the lab, too! share resources to which others lack access! from a position of being what Moten & Harney call "in, but not of, the university," we can do a lot. i know i'm trying to be a helping hand to students of all stripes committed to a better world, and teaching is a huge part of that. best of luck.

[juliens-bakery]

hi sorry this is so long ! this question may seem out of the blue, apologies, but why are so many boygenius fans on here, like, shameless liberals who won't tolerate any criticism of Biden? to be clear I'm not talking about your blog, I scanned it and it was so refreshing to see someone actually critical of the Dems and their instrumental role in the genocide. like, I see popular blogs in the fandom making aggressive posts that are basically “you HAVE to vote blue” and *yet, crucially*, they haven't reblogged anything actually critical of Biden? it seems the only time they talk about politics is to proselytise about how you HAVE to vote blue despite the *genocide*, and nothing negative about the actual policies, just scolding anyone to the left of them and saying hey biden's actually not that bad domestically !

i'm a POC boygenius fan from the global south and it's just something I've been observing keenly knowing that the external policies of that country will always hang over my head like a looming threat, whether blue or red is in power internally. and when young voters in that country do, for once, take cognizance of the devastation enacted on *our* countries by their govs, these liberals crawl out of the woodwork to scold them, then go back to posting about the latest julien-lucy sighting or whatever. it's surreal to see.

again, sorry for the unprompted rant, it's just been eating at me for so long and this blog just seems like one in the fandom that I can still trust. I just needed to get this off my chest. i fell in love with bg in 2020 I'll go back to streaming them now <3.

hi! thank you for this ask, it's been very thought-provoking for me, and i really do appreciate the trust. and no worries about the length, i'm about to one-up this shit.

it is a little hard for me to answer this question fairly. for one, the boygenius-sphere has changed a LOT since i started here (7 years! it's a long time!), and so a lot of my mutuals that i've had since are no longer here (shoutout @remembermydog though, we still here <3) and a bunch of new people have come through. so i'm really not as plugged in with the broader fandom space as i used to be, and i don't really follow a ton of new blogs these days, so i can't really say that i've seen everything that you've seen for myself.

that being said, even if i've had less ability to share your experiences, i do think what you're saying has a lot of truth to it. the obvious thought is that boygenius fans are disproportionately white, which naturally lends itself to that sort of optimism about the extant systems of power. fundamentally, i think, it is very difficult for a white person in that country to reconcile themselves with the idea that the extant systems of power were always bad to begin with and have never been fit for purpose, b/c they've always worked well enough for them. like, there's no innate moral value with being white or not, but it's not the most surprising correlation either. (and yes, i'm aware that boygenius fans are also disproportionately queer women, which counterbalances that optimism to a very real degree).

the frustrating thing is that there are so many people who refuse to even entertain the idea that some people have a moral line over which they will not cross. and i do think that there can be a moral obligation to do an unpleasant distasteful or "bad" thing in order to achieve better ends. but there's always balance between the depth of the wrong and the value of the ends. and everyone has to decide for themselves where that balance lies for them. if i was american, i don't think i would vote this year, for a bunch of reasons. i don't think i would begrudge anyone voting for biden, especially if they thought that trump would send even more bombs (although frankly i have no fucking idea what trump would do). i've voted for trudeau in years when i really didn't want to because of the voting patterns of my particular district. i am about to be an extension of the canadian legal system, which has inflicted incredible amounts of harm to indigenous people and many others.

voting for biden and not voting for biden are both moral compromises. the only question is: how much blood are you willing to get on your hands as you fight for a better world? everyone's line is different (and not everyone's line is acceptable). i think i'd be more comfortable with not voting, because i think joe biden is among the very guiltiest people for this genocide. so maybe i don't want to support and reinforce that guy! and fundamentally, a party that wins elections has much less incentive to change. and the thoughtless and condescending dismissal of these ideas that really infuriates me. so i am really sorry that your experiences of this space have been tainted in this way. there are lots of good and thoughtful people, and these years have been the most fulfilling period of my internet life. but it's a space full of people on the internet just like any other, and so i don't really think it's uniquely bad, but neither is it uniquely good. i've made a nice little space for myself, and i really hope you can find that too <3.

thanks for the ask. there were a lot of things i needed to get off my chest.

[hypnoticcastiel]

With not much time left to persuade ANY indep/undecided voter and both factions bombarding swing states with ads and events, i can only wonder as a european in what kind of fantasy lala-lands/bubbles the greatest democracy on earth has plunged itself into. On one side you have (and this is all puzzled together according to recent interviews on mainstream media like CNN) a way too strong focus on women issues/female rights with maybe too much celeb performances and too few Harris policy-plan infos. It's one thing to use the catastrophic RvW bs that Trump is responsible for in a targeted form to give women hope but how much does an extreme focus help when data shows/would later show that it also drew away male voters bc they couldn't connect with this 1-topic campaign. On the other you have a strong focus on the so called hyper-masculine (mostly white but recently also black) male voters, religious bigots of a specific kind of christian worldview and of course anti-liberalism nutjobs who think that the country is under the control of jewish space reptiles.

What a fierce combination. Oh how much the small Green party must hate all of this. How many moderates, middle-ground average Joe americans must hate all of this. But the soup is totally overcooked after 8 years, after the Rep party decided behind closed doors to go full force extremist language, extreme prejudice and extreme ways of scheming (including collusion with russian assets) to get Trump into power and keep him there. Bc that's better than losing to social progress and other factors in the world that can't be pushed aside with a classic conservative slogan.

I could write more but neither would it change the head-to-head race til Nov 5th, nor would it matter to BOTH factions. The Dems are in trouble bc they stopped or seem to have shifted focus away from the most average of american(s) and their daily struggles while absurdly trying to make life better for all?! And the Reps sold their little bit of empty brains to the fastfood-fascism in golden TRUMP letters. It was clear that they could win (except the popular vote.....) some races and maintain power in an increasingly divided nation. But they did not foresee or what's the word that the single most egoistic pseudo- politician in american history would throw all of them AND the country's fundamental principles under the bus as long as it gets him a profit, or a free pass from rotting in jail for that horrifying insurrection attempt.

My closing thoughts are about a random average Joe who is a black union car worker in some rustbelt region whatever, who openly admitted to CNN interview that his entire family asked him to not vote for Trump. His reaction should be a warning for all sane americans. He shrugged it off, he said he just wants to provide for his family and that Trump can't literally be as bad as it seems. The Dems can flood his inbox with 100 emails, but a person must have a a basic moral compass and basic intellectual capabilities. This man clearly never read a newspaper with a good investig. report about Trump. This man doesnt care much about the bodily autonomy of his daughter... and so on. Some things can't be changed within one political campaign. You can't win back some complete idiots (despite B. Obama giving a stark message to fellow american black men after recent allegations that sexism prevents them from voting for Harris). My point with this example is: The Dems can't waste time with niche-groups of complete idiots (whether male or female), but must focus every bit of campaign energy on halfway educated middle-class people in the suburbs.

*STOP TRUMP* = *STOP RUSSIA'S ATTEMPT TO DESTABILIZE THE U.S. WITH THEIR ORANGE PUPPET*

[centrally-unplanned]

VOR on the other Progressive Presidents -- Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson?

Not a strong areas for me, so my low confidence quick appraisals: Teddy: Probably mid-low, C+? A lot of his progressive economic actions were either very much in the zeitgeist and similar actions would have been taken by others, who didn't have that much impact all said and done (like his monopoly 'breakups'). He is an ideas man though for sure, and I think on conservation in particular that wasn't something any old president would have done and has had as very long legacy, so he gets points for that. I also guess handing Wilson the presidency after splitting the vote in 1912 was not something anyone else could have done lol.

Taft: I think the consensus is right on him being low VOR. I want to credit what he was trying to do - seeing growing radicalism in Roosevelt, and growing corruption & reactionary politics in the right-wing of the Republican party, and chart a new course. He just failed at it in the end, and didn't do much that stands out to me as having lasting import or wasn't what many would have done in his shoes. Lets go with D.

Wilson: More confident on this one, quite high VOR. Foreign policy is always an area where US presidents have more VOR opportunities - they have more agency and are less constrained by domestic political factions. Wilson took that to the absolute hilt. Intervening in WWI is not that high VOR, to be clear - in the end the majority was for it after repeated German (foolish) violations of US policy around sea trade. But reshaping WWI into an ideological battle for nationalism and republicanism absolutely was his project and not at all the default state of things. And he did is very, very actively - you can assign a good amount of the credit/blame for the dissolution of Austria-Hungary on Wilson for the ways he pre-committed nationalist factions to independence or bust, for example. All his domestic policy is washed away by this imo. Though in the end still just an outside factor on all this, so I would go with B+.

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.7.3 Why is the existence of classes denied?

It is clear, then, that classes do exist, and equally clear that individuals can rise and fall within the class structure — though, of course, it’s easier to become rich if you’re born in a rich family than a poor one. Thus James W. Loewen reports that “ninety-five percent of the executives and financiers in America around the turn of the century came from upper-class or upper-middle-class backgrounds. Fewer than 3 percent started as poor immigrants or farm children. Throughout the nineteenth century, just 2 percent of American industrialists came from working-class origins” [in “Lies My Teacher Told Me” citing William Miller, “American Historians and the Business Elite,” in Men in Business, pp. 326–28; cf. David Montgomery, Beyond Equality, pg. 15] And this was at the height of USA “free market” capitalism. According to a survey done by C. Wright Mills and reported in his book The Power Elite, about 65% of the highest-earning CEOs in American corporations come from wealthy families. Meritocracy, after all, does not imply a “classless” society, only that some mobility exists between classes. Yet we continually hear that class is an outmoded concept; that classes don’t exist any more, just atomised individuals who all enjoy “equal opportunity,” “equality before the law,” and so forth. So what’s going on?

The fact that the capitalist media are the biggest promoters of the “end-of-class” idea should make us wonder exactly why they do it. Whose interest is being served by denying the existence of classes? Clearly it is those who run the class system, who gain the most from it, who want everyone to think we are all “equal.” Those who control the major media don’t want the idea of class to spread because they themselves are members of the ruling class, with all the privileges that implies. Hence they use the media as propaganda organs to mould public opinion and distract the middle and working classes from the crucial issue, i.e., their own subordinate status. This is why the mainstream news sources give us nothing but superficial analyses, biased and selective reporting, outright lies, and an endless barrage of yellow journalism, titillation, and “entertainment,” rather than talking about the class nature of capitalist society (see section D.3 — “How does wealth influence the mass media?”)

The universities, think tanks, and private research foundations are also important propaganda tools of the ruling class. This is why it is virtually taboo in mainstream academic circles to suggest that anything like a ruling class even exists in the United States. Students are instead indoctrinated with the myth of a “pluralist” and “democratic” society — a Never-Never Land where all laws and public policies supposedly get determined only by the amount of “public support” they have — certainly not by any small faction wielding power in disproportion to its size.

To deny the existence of class is a powerful tool in the hands of the powerful. As Alexander Berkman points out, ”[o]ur social institutions are founded on certain ideas; so long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism.” [“Author’s Foreword,” What is Anarchism?, p. xii]

Unsurprisingly, to deny the existence of classes is an important means of bolstering capitalism, to undercut social criticism of inequality and oppression. It presents a picture of a system in which only individuals exist, ignoring the differences between one set of people (the ruling class) and the others (the working class) in terms of social position, power and interests. This obviously helps those in power maintain it by focusing analysis away from that power and its sources (wealth, hierarchy, etc.).

It also helps maintain the class system by undermining collective struggle. To admit class exists means to admit that working people share common interests due to their common position in the social hierarchy. And common interests can lead to common action to change that position. Isolated consumers, however, are in no position to act for themselves. One individual standing alone is easily defeated, whereas a union of individuals supporting each other is not. Throughout the history of capitalism there have been attempts by the ruling class — often successful — to destroy working class organisations. Why? Because in union there is power — power which can destroy the class system as well as the state and create a new world.

That’s why the very existence of class is denied by the elite. It’s part of their strategy for winning the battle of ideas and ensuring that people remain as atomised individuals. By “manufacturing consent” (to use Walter Lipman’s expression for the function of the media), force need not be used. By limiting the public’s sources of information to propaganda organs controlled by state and corporate elites, all debate can be confined within a narrow conceptual framework of capitalist terminology and assumptions, and anything premised on a different conceptual framework can be marginalised. Thus the average person is brought to accept current society as “fair” and “just,” or at least as “the best available,” because no alternatives are ever allowed to be discussed.

[malkaleh]

You know what two things I'm really curious about your political power trio?

How they are each individually viewed by both the court nobles but also the wider population in London and the countryside, as well as how they are viewed together.

How politically active Anne is, especially in regards to not letting her gender stop her and also opening up pathways for women and her charity works that IRL are part of the reason she was killed. (Pretty sure her being made Marquess of Pembroke was the first time a woman had been lifted to that in their own right. Does that still happen in ur AU?)

These are some of my headcanons about this because it’s delightful - thank you so much for asking <3.

Individually it’s like:

Tom Cromwell: a lot of the court is kind of like Will Someone Please Arrest This Commoner For Being A Commoner, though it lessens because (a) it’s pretty clear he isn’t falling out of favour here (b) at a certain point he actually steps away from being Lord Chancellor (what they’d think about the fact that this is because he secretly married the King and Queen and is thus, being an advisor consort is probably not printable ;)). But, in this world the dissolution of the monasteries doesn’t happen so things are much much less controversial and Thomas in general, thus much less so. And there are people who genuinely admire how competent/loyal he is. The general population is, okay so one thing I know is that the people who live in the Dukedom of Essex (especially on the estate) actually love him because he’s a really good land owner etc. Some of it is indifference, some of it is ‘oh yeah, that guy, he’s cool’ (Londoners are divided between ‘upstart’ and ‘love him’).

The country it varies between UGH HIM and indifference.

Anne: BELOVED. One of the history things I thought about is that in this world Anne often gets kind of flattened in popular history to ‘devoted wife and mother who reconciled Henry with his first wife and eldest daughter’ which is true but leaves out her being politically active co-ruler of brilliance/patronage of intellectuals/scholars. But no, she’s beloved. Because in this world, she was able to do the above, she’s a symbol of stability, of pride etc who also does a lot of charity. Henry actually makes her Duchess of Pembroke in her own right in this universe (Elizabeth inherits her title). I think it’s also that people are far far less uneasy about her religion because of The Great Settlement which means genuine freedom of worship (initially just for Christians) and she’s not Held Responsible For Everything That Is Wrong. I think particularly loved by women.

And oh, oh. She funds girls schools! (I also got this from the fact that I read that both Hurrem and Mihrimah Sultan funded girls schools (they also funded universities/medical schools for women) and I was like ANNE WOULD :D. Almost certainly founded/was patron of a college in Cambridge or Oxford, very politically active - Henry has her attending privy council meetings, makes her regent (because of the above people embrace it/her), cultivates an intellectual/creative circle, including women. I’m almost certain she composes a body of music. Also very much involved in expanding the rights of women in law.

(There’s an early incredibly good law on child abuse/sexual assault that is actually largely Thomas Cromwell’s work but Anne absolutely works on expanding rights for women in law in general).

Henry: Genuinely, also beloved. He gets so much more of a chance do some really meaningful policy/reforms (some he actually proposed historically), he’s ensured stability. I think Henry is especially popular with everyone. Yes there’s whispers about his Promotion Of Commoners but it’s only whisperings and it’s definitely not blamed on him (though the rebellion that happened in his reign here was around Indignation About Cromwell’s Status in part but even there, I think it might actually have been a ‘get rid of Cromwell and we can talk’ in part). The Great Settlement is controversial but also because it means people can just like, Do The Church They Want it also isn’t if that makes sense?

Collectively like, they are considered very much ‘co-governors of the kingdom’ before anyone knows about them as marrieds. Tom Cromwell actually gets called ‘the third king/the commoner king’ (as an insult but Henry and Anne are like YES OBVIOUSLY :D) - it’s considered a great governing partnership.

[interruptingmooshroom]

It’s 1 AM and I’m sick as fuck with the worst flu I could have gotten ever but Imma make a post I’ll prob delete later

This sort of stuff bothers me, and to be clear, VOTING SHOULD BE MANDATORY. Worse case, nothing happens. Best case, it matters enough to change life for the common people. So yes, vote, it’s cool and based and it’s accessible even if you can’t for some reason leave home.

That being said

Critics of Kamala Harris/the Democratic Party are not inherently saying that you shouldn’t vote for them. The reason people vote against them in polls within the party is to apply pressure to political figures so they figure out “Hey people really don’t like the whole genocide thing” and might listen to the people like they’re supposed to.

The Democratic Party has recognized for awhile they can get away with a lot of bullshit simply by being the lesser evil. When the Republican Party was, for example, talking about shutting down the border and dealing with “illegal aliens”, the Democratic Party has decided to copy this stance since it seemed popular to a certain voter base. This is a low risk situation because no matter what, they recognize they’ll get a majority of the vote out of being the lesser evil.

As a consequence, the Republican Party has since decided “Actually, let’s just do mass deportation” which if you don’t know, would be having people in concentration camps (not to be confused with death camps) and removing them from families and established lives. So yeah, much worse. A lot of this messaging also includes “legal aliens”, because they’re totally mad about immigrants and not racist at all.

This is a perfect example of the ratchet effect. People smarter than me have explained this better, go look at the wiki, but in summary it’s when the Democratic Party doesn’t go back from a farther right standing as the Republicans slowly become more and more insane. Since they don’t actually do anything 99% of the time and rely heavily on being a lesser evil, they naturally follow a political sphere that has suddenly nudged a bit more to the right. Ideally they could change this, and move us back to something normal and sane. They do not do this, because taking action is not how the democrats win votes for a lot of people. They win them by allowing the republicans to be insane, so their empty promises and still-harsh policies look appeasing.

Critics of the Democratic Party and Kamala Harris are completely expected and should be encouraged. Shutting down this conversation by saying it “Discourages voting” or “So what? I cant vote for the other guy” IS EXACTLY THE FUCKING POINT. You can vote for them while trying to actually hold them accountable and be louder about your complaints on shit like “Supporting Genocide and the apartheid state of Israel is wrong” or “Immigrants are people just like us and should be treated as such” or whatever the fuck.

You can still vote, while holding people accountable. You miss the point when you either

A) Decide “my vote doesn’t matter”, which is already incorrect for a number of reasons Im not diving into at 1am

B) Shut down critics of the Democratic Party because you think they’re discouraging people from voting.

When you see something dissing the democrats, don’t think it’s to make it seem like there is no hope. It’s to actually try and hold political figures accountable for what they do, something that Americans forgot was the main point of a representative.

Ramble over if you actually read all that here’s a cookie. 🍪

sorry for resorting to a meme about this but people are making me mad 👍

[mysoulsjourney]

My person

If my person truly existed in this lifetime, I believe they most likely would be older than me by nearly a decade. This is because I noticed that most people my age are so behind when it comes to basic mature adult shit.

For example, many people my age are just now getting into politics meanwhile there goes 19-year-old me, deep into presidential debates and such. Actively interested in learning about policies which affect socioeconomics etc. and then there goes my peers saying things like "I don't do politics".

Eventually people reach an age where they realize that these "politics" affect their everyday lives and that is when they finally start to pay attention.

This is just one example of many other things which makes me feel like my true person would have to be older than me just so that we could somewhat be on an equal level of maturity for basic adults things.

It honestly makes me cringe every time Pisces comes to me and speaks of concepts that I thought of when I was 15. I try my best to not show my disgust and disinterest because it's like, girl...where have you freaking been?! She is now into the presidential debate and politics and such when at the beginning of our relationship, all she cared about was what was going on with cardi b and offset and other low vibrational shade room bullshit.... Which she still entertains by the way.

Anyway, more on what my person would be like..

They would have similar interests such as spirituality, nature, science, and of course leveling up with the goal to have enough money to have more free time to do whatever we wanted.

It would be someone who could teach me things and tell me random facts about whatever.

They would be naturally clingy like I am and would prefer cuddling and having an "us against the world" mentality.

I would be all that they really needed, they would be all that I needed, and our family would be all we really need. Of course we'll still have our friends and loved ones on the side... But they would be the side. We would be best friends. Putting our family and partnership first would never be an issue.

My person would be naturally horny and would want to make love frequently. They'd naturally love physical touch and would be very hands on every day.

Hold up, let's be clear, this person would be a black woman with locs. Lol.

But to continue, she would let me fuck her to my hearts desire.

She would be a natural romantic and would write me random love letters just because.

She would communicate and communicate well.

She would be confrontational like me, with the goal of wanting to resolve an issue immediately instead of avoiding it and hoping it would go away.

She would be funny and love cracking random jokes... Even ones where she's able to make fun of herself.

She would be a creative... And have the imagination and passion to create art through whatever medium she chooses.

She would be fearless and wouldn't be afraid to speak up for what's right and wouldn't give a shit what people think.

She would be self aware and would be able to self-assess whenever she has done something wrong... And then take accountability and offer a solution to fix it.

And lastly, she would be obsessed with me. Duh.

[demystify-2025]

The Advisory Board

There are 54 groups listed on "The Project 2025 Advisory Board". While most of them are relatively straightforward, there are a few that I don't truly have the background to understand without doing a deep dive. Those are noted in the summary of the group.

Here we go. I hope you all understand just how confused my FBI agent must be right now. (Hi, Ken.)

Alabama Policy Institute: its mission statement claims it "honors the principles of free markets, limited government, and strong families." Looking further down their About page, they support the right of a person to be protected from "liberalizing social conventions". Their "abortion and adoption" page offers a list of Pregnancy Resource Centers and proclaims the "Pro-Life Legacy". Curiously, I am unable to find anything regarding "strong families" under their 'social policies' section.

Alliance Defending Freedom:The main link on Google takes me to a page asking me to "Become a monthly partner and help defend your God-given rights year-round!" I have to delete everything after the ".org" to see their website and any other page, which is a) terrible website design and b) a violation of Google's Terms of Service regarding obfuscating links. Anyway. The ADF's feature article on 7/15/2024 is about challenging the current Title IX, which would include gender identity as a protected class under sex-based discrimination. They are a conservative Christian lobbying group.

American Compass: A conservative economics group that believes "markets require rules and institutions to work well, that they are a means to the end of human flourishing and exist to serve us". This is a group that I don't have the economic background to truly understand, but their "family" page prioritizes marriage and children. Refreshingly, it doesn't say a word about religion or what constitutes a family. I'll have to dig more deeply into this one.

The American Conservative: A magazine that's exactly what it says on the cover. The blog posts seem reasonably fair; one of the ones I read regarding the dismissal of Trump's document mishandling case took care to note that Cannon, the judge in question, was appointed by Trump. According to Wikipedia, TAC "opposes unchecked power in government and business, promotes the concept of the nuclear family, free markets, and supports realism and restraint in foreign affairs based on America's national interests."

America First Legal Foundation: Quote from their front page: "With your support, we will oppose the radical left’s anti-jobs, anti-freedom, anti-faith, anti-borders, anti-police, and anti-American crusade."

American Accountability Foundation: A group that "deploys aggressive research and investigations to advance conservatism, while heavily scrutinizing politicians, political appointees, establishment organizations, and government policies. Every day, our work is exposing the truth behind the people and policies of the Biden Administration that threaten the freedoms of the American people."

American Center for Law and Justice: A group focusing on legal challenges to unconstitutional oversteps. Their "About" page mentions successes that are examples of clear overreach, like people being banned from the National Archives for wearing a shirt reading "March4Life". However, from their "Life & Liberty Drive" page, their underlying philosophy beomces clearer: "Israel is under violent attack, as Biden betrays our ally. The Left is waging war on our Christian faith, banning Bible studies...And Planned Parenthood is using your tax dollars to expand abortion on demand, as the Deep State shreds the Constitution."

American Cornerstone Institute: Again, the link on Google goes directly to a donation page where I'm unable to access the rest of the website. Terrible design choice; I'm trying to learn more about you and your first step is asking me for money. From their About page: "ACI will remain a non-partisan, not-for-profit institute". Their website prominently promotes faith-based solutions.

American Council of Trustees and Alumni: ACTA's mission is to "promote academic excellence, defend academic freedom, and ensure accountability". Their members have testified before Congress about student disruption of guest speakers that "prevent speakers from voicing disfavored (generally, conservative) viewpoints".

The American Main Street Initiative: The 'about' page of AMSI says they focus on issues that matter to most Americans, but gives no details on what those issues are. The front page list COVID conspiracies and claims "Americans are no longer safe in their cities".

American Moment: AM believes that "he American family, rooted in faith and tradition, is the bedrock of this nation and must be supported" and that "Government has a moral responsibility to foster public virtue". The other 8 priorities they list include immigration, China, law & order, trade policy promoting the middle-class lifestyle, and limiting the power of "multinational corporations".

American Principles Project: The APP bills itself as "America's top defender of the family" and proclaims, "We want to impose a political cost on the Left’s anti-family extremism. If they want to attack parental rights, confuse young children about changing their gender, undermine the ability of parents to protect their children’s innocence, or drive a wedge between parents and children in education, then they are going to be punished at the polls."

Center for Equal Opportunity: CEO claims to promote colorblind agendas in hiring and diversity. In February, they announced that they had sent a letter to the American Bar Association taking issue with the fact that their Diversity Clerkship Program gave preferential treatment to minority groups - POC, women, and people who are queer, disabled, or come from a disadvantaged background.

Center for Family and Human Rights: You already know what they stand for, solely by the name. One of their core values is "Fidelity to the teachings of the Church" (capitalization theirs); their mission is "To defend life and family at international institutions and to publicize the debate."

Center for Immigration Studies: Per their About page, "The Center is animated by a unique pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted." Their 'topics' menu links to "Biden Border Crisis", "Sanctuary Cities", "Welfare Use", "National Security" and both Legal and Illegal Immigration pages.

That's just the first fifteen! I have to break up the block of bullet points because it turns out Tumblr has a 4096-character limit on these things. Go drink some water.

Center for Renewing America: Their "mission is to renew a consensus of America as a nation under God with unique interests worthy of defending that flow from its people, institutions, and history"; "God, country, and community are at the heart of this agenda."

Claremont Institute: "We take the lead in DC through our Center for the American Way of Life, which is devoted to restoring political liberty by arming the Right with moral confidence, ideas, and new policies, while working to undermine the Left's hold over America's institutions and conscience."

Coalition for a Prosperous America: CPA is "a bipartisan coalition of farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and labor organizations that make and grow things in the United States. Our members believe that America’s strength and well being is based upon growing America’s productive capacity and quality employment more than cheap consumption."

Competitive Enterprise Institute: The tagline is "40 Years of Eliminating Excessive Regulation and Unleashing Human Potential". They don't provide an easily-findable summary of their major positions to see how their actions back up their tagline.

Conservative Partnership Institute: "CPI provides a platform whereby citizen leaders, scholars, and activists who are committed to conservative values and principles can be connected with the conservative movement, and with Congress, congressional staff, and organization leaders in Washington, D.C.  " They're a networking group.

Concerned Women for America: CWA "protects and promotes Biblical values and Constitutional principles through prayer, education, and advocacy".

Defense of Freedom Institute: DFI is another "Constitutional"/"First Principles" group. From their Civil and Constitutional Rights page: "America is facing a historical moment, when many are pushing for policies that violate core constitutional and civil rights essential to a free society. DFI exists to defend the Constitution and the rule of law and protect civil liberties at school and work."

Ethics and Public Policy Center: EPPC works to "apply the riches of the Jewish and Christian traditions" to public policy.

Family Policy Alliance: FPA wants the USA to be a nation where "God is honored, religious freedom flourishes, families thrive and life is cherished!" (Snarky side note: Nothing says 'religious freedom' like promoting one religion to be honored above all others.)

Family Research Council: FRC wants to "serve in the kingdom of God by championing faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview."

First Liberty Institute: First Liberty "has been leading the fight to reclaim religious freedom in America." You may recognize them from defending the baker who wouldn't make a cake for a gay wedding.

Forge Leadership Network: FLN is a networking group who wants its members to "examine public policy and ethics from a Judeo-Christian worldview".

Halfway there! Just 27 more to go. Now's a good time to stretch it out.

Foundation for Defense of Democracies: FDD is a nonpartisan, nonprofit national security organization. In their individual policy pages, they imply that COVID was a biological weapon.

Foundation for Government Accountability: FGA claims to "advance policies that improve lives." At the same time, they are against ranked-choice voting and claim, "Mail-in and absentee ballot are a big problem when it comes to election fraud and ballot harvesting"

FreedomWorks: FW is a bland website that talks about individual liberty, draining the swamp, and smaller government. They're light on actual policies that they back, and several of their internal links are broken.

The Heritage Foundation: If you're reading this far into a post about the contributors to P2025, you exactly who THF is. Their mission statement: "Heritage’s mission is to formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

Hillsdale College: A private religious college with about 1400 undergrads that proudly boasts it was the first to admit both women and men. From their statement, "The College values the merit of each unique individual, rather than succumbing to the dehumanizing, discriminatory trend of so-called “social justice” and “multicultural diversity.""

Honest Elections Project: THey describe themselves as "a nonpartisan group devoted to supporting the right of every lawful voter to participate in free and honest elections". They also want "fair, reasonable, common sense measures" in place to protect against fraud.

Independent Women's Forum: They claim to focus on educating women about relevant policy. Their front page prominently displays anti-transgender messaging. They also back JD Vance as Trump's VP pick.

Institute for the American Worker: A group that claims to protect workers' rights. Going into the 'news' section reveals them to be anti-union.

Institute for Energy Research: They believe that "freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions" and that "Government policies should be predictable, simple, and technology neutral."

Institute for Women's Health: From their "What We Do" page: "The Institute for Women’s Health is committed to building coalitions that revolutionize women’s access to care." Looking through their op-eds, they are primarily an anti-abortion group.

Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Their header proclaims, "Your time at college is too important to feel isolated or attacked for questioning the ever-narrowing range of debate on campus. Get the education you deserve. Explore intellectual conservatism; Join a vibrant community of students and scholars; Defend your principles".

James Madison Institute: Not to be confused with James Madison University, JMI believes in "free markets, limited government, and economic liberty".

Keystone Policy: A group focused on "bringing leaders together". They focus on education, civic engagement, and tribal policy.

That's 40! We're almost through.

The Leadership Institute: TLI "provides training in campaigns, fundraising, grassroots organizing, youth politics, and communications. The Institute teaches conservatives of all ages how to succeed in politics, government, and the media." They furnish lists of their recruits to other conservative organizations.

Liberty University: A private religious college.

National Association of Scholars: From their about page, "We expect that ideas be judged on their merits; that scholars engage in the disinterested pursuit of the truth; and that colleges and universities provide for fair and judicial examination of contending views. We expect colleges to offer coherent curricula and programs of study."

National Center for Public Policy Resarch: NCPPR is a "non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think tank" whose mission is "to grow the freedom movement by taking our message to new constituencies to secure liberty now and for future generations."

Pacific Research Institute: PRI claims, "public policy is too important to be left just to the experts." Their mission "is to champion freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility for all individuals by advancing free-market policy solutions".

Patrick Henry College: A "conservative Christian college" that is "equipping Godly leaders".

Personnel Policy Operations: PPO believes "There are many opposition groups to the policy implementation of an America First agenda, such as the radical left, corporate media, tech companies, leftwing NGOs, and other activists". They firmly believe in the America First ideology.

Recovery for America Now Foundation: An addictions recovery group who believes "the Miracle of Recovery should be available to all. Our foundation was born out of our belief that all human beings possess intrinsic value, and that nobody is too sick to recover." They are currently working to repeal IMD, which limits recovery options available to Medicaid subscribers.

1792 Exchange: They work to "develop policy and resources to protect and equip non-profits, small businesses and philanthropy from “woke” corporations, to educate Congress and stakeholder organizations about the dangers of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) policies, and to help steer public companies in the United States back to neutral on ideological issues so they can best serve their shareholders and customers with excellence and integrity."

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America: An anti-abortion advocacy group.

Texas Public Policy Foundation: "The Foundation’s mission is to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise" (emphasis theirs). Their front page mocks Democrats for not winning a statewide election in 30 years, then their about page says "The public is demanding a different direction for their government".

Teneo Network: The Teneo Network believes in limited government; a "transcendent order" based on religion, philosophy, or tradition; strong national defense; and free enterprise.

Young America's Foundation: Another group decrying the state of conservatives on college campuses. They want to make sure that American students "understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values."

And that's it for the listed contributors! Next post, we'll be getting into the meat and potatoes of Project 2025.

[karanseraph]

Also, I'm sure we know, but in case we don't, that if we're here on Tumblr we're seeing a certain version of events.

Like, I'm in this awkward living situation where I live with an older family member who watches Fox News three times a day at least, every day. And I will just walk past a room where it's on and here all sorts of stuff I would need to fact check because I've seen the opposing claims already. I know there's a discrepancy there to question.

But I think a lot of people (maybe by choice because who wants the stress) don't regularly get exposed to such wildly differing takes and opinions. They don't regularly practice critical thinking or fact check everything.

(I heard someone use the phrase 'scarfed down' for eating and had to immediately look up the etymology of why scarf and scarf look and sound the same but are very different things and it turned out to be this whole thing with scoff or scaff(?) and North Americans saying it scarf.)

And people in media and politics know this. So, they can make outrageous (clickbait in some cases) headlines and hope people don't really look into the issue.

If people don't check claims, then you can make whatever claims you want.

And sometimes there's a kernel of truth, but it's often not really like what the headlines says.

Like recently Fox News spent a whole segment chatting between talking heads about how Harris had 'flip-flopped' on so many issues.

But it was not like she'd really changed that much on the big things most people care about. It was just those 'gotcha' moments of soundbites in which it seemed a position had changed on a specific thing.

But I suspect, *IF* there were changes, it was related to a difference between Kamala Harris and Kamala Harris official Democratic party nominee. Like, it's like if you are employed and a customer or client asks you questions and you have to give the approved company response now. Regular people can understand that. I've had to do that. It's not my policy on returns and exchanges, but also, I probably wouldn't let a woman return pants that had already been distressed because 'her daughter bought pants with evil skulls on them' even if it were up to me. We can sometimes agree or disagree with a party line and still be expected to five it.

But then out in media headline land, people will act like a slight rephrasing or sometimes and actual policy shift is gotcha evidence of A lying or B flip-flopping.

Whatever that means. Because, yeah, it can be disappointing when it's clear someone is giving you approved company line to get sales/votes. But that's the system we're in. But, generally speaking, change of position itself isn't inherently bad. We should actually change our conclusions if we do get new evidence.

Like, it's OK to ease back on putting solar panels on every house until we get better/more batteries in place to store that energy in a usable form that isn't messing with grid infrastructure. Solar is good, but infrastructure is the whole system of parts we need to make it work. It's not bad to change priorities if we get new info.

Anyway, I'm not like any level of expert.

But tl;dr some people don't fact check. Media and politicians and foreign powers uses this knowledge. There are legit reasons to change or rephrase positions. But it's OK to feel disappointed if someone seems to take on more of a party line aimed at attracting more support.

We should all still go vote when there's an election in our area and do our best to be informed.

dude.

[bucklemonster2]

Weird Letter I Got Rare Brief die ik kreeg

I found this letter in my mailbox a few days ago. I don't agree 100%, but I support free speech. Letters and opinions may always be posted. Does anyone know who/what the context is? (I also translated it into English using google translate, so there might be translation errors)

- Dutch -

Deze brief vond ik een paar dagen geleden in mijn brievenbus. Ik ben het er niet 100% mee eens, maar ik steun de vrije meningsuiting. Brieven en meningen mogen altijd gepost worden. Weet iemand meer wie/wat de context is? (Ik heb het ook in het Engels vertaalt)

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

World War 3 The course L 1. Definitions: a. From a philosophical point of view or level: WW 3 = the anomaly of humanity b. Sociological; conflict = the political fault line: the individual versus world government c. WW3 the last war on earth 2. The beginning of World War III defined as the Individual versus World Government started on December 21, 2010, after 26 year old Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire after police confiscated the market vendor's goods. In Sidi Bouzid (Tunisia). 3. From a military point of view, 1109 is not the start of WWIII, but rather the attack on the American embassy in Nairobi. Although these actions were announced earlier and the announcement actually counts as the starting date, i.e. February 22 or 23, 1998 (battle on a global scale). The fault line we use for this is Alguida versus a world government. 4. September 11th could be considered the starting date of the world government vs. individual rift, because it provoked a statement and policies that directly contradict Universal Human Rights. Bush introduced it openly for the first time on international media, with the term war on terror and going to smoke them out, or something like that. Now, from a historical perspective, this historical statement is terribly short-sighted. The oppression of the individual, especially the communist, or by extension the non-capitalist or politically dissenter, has run its course for generations. It is possible that the assassination of JFK and Franz Ferdinand of Austria and WWII can also be placed under the strategies and practices of the ruling power (the 1%), applied in order not to lose power. Please note: What we call the cold war has continued even after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the meantime, however, it is clear that people can no longer be kept stupid. As they mobilize hundreds of millions worldwide and rapidly increase their political impact, creating violence and chaos on a large scale is the last sick straw for the 1%. We should also note that we can already find this fault line: world government vs. individual. at the time of Moses and Jesus. We know that the Romans had manuals with instructions on pack management. Giving them bread, drink and games is a known consequence of this. This is to say, in addition to military supremacy. Those Romans are no more, but their manuals have remained and have been extensively expanded, partly due to psychology. Other families took their place. 5. classification of terroristic groups (powerpoint model) the prototype terrorist unit (Al-quida) knows 3 motives: - Nationalistic -Religious - Ecological Each one again to be subcategorised, respectively according: - geographical location - religion or belief amount of damage Once again to be subcategorised through time and space, until all attacks can be seen as, or reduced to, an individual political action.

6. Assuming that the operational terrorist cell is just about the only objective data from which you can start, first to enable an analysis and then to arrive at a problem solution, the PowerPoint model must be taken into account: Although 'respectively' would be a better choice of word in this context than 'respectively', this does not alter the fact that multiple motives may be present in one terrorist cell when characterizing the sub-categorization. That ideology is by definition a matter of faith, but therefore not a religion (false faith?). The difference in definition is a delicate exercise on a sensitive issue. (An ideology is always linked to the discussion about the organization of the state). The type of terror in which the state itself organizes the murders of its own citizens can also be placed under ideological - nationalist motives. The lack in the social fabric of well-founded and therefore reasonable counter-argumentation to doctrines based on prejudices is one of the biggest sore points in contemporary society (colonial capitalism). Partly due to the lack of expertise and position of the responsible services. Filling these shortcomings is a key point for solving the problem (WWIII) in the long term. In a parliamentary democracy, logical dialogues should lead to one well-defined final model. Although the normal functioning of the democratic process is thwarted, these negotiations can theoretically be simulated. The result is the elaborated version of the Organic Holan. (ref: Koestler + Nada). The problem with terrorism is that the perpetrator(s) usually only become known as a terrorist when he or she commits the terrorist act, often when it is too late. Beforehand, she or he is innocent until proven guilty. This problem is the cause of the paranoia among security services, which according to their responsibility and good intentions, can actually do little concretely, except optimize their organization, which emphasizes their former incompetence, and spy on citizens under legal standards. This is mainly because neutralizing the motivation, which in the long term gives rise to the terrorist act, falls under the responsibility of the politicians. It is inadmissible to adjust our legal model with regard to the question of guilt, as it is essential that guilt is proven before man imposes punishment on his fellow man. - Now it comes, apparently no one dares to say this. The announcement of the international jihad that several imams have called for is indeed a religious issue and therefore not ideological. The argumentation (of several imams, who also act as judges of their religious community), which I fail to provide here, is mainly based on a logical analytical criticism of the PAGE 2

international law and case law. This means that if the law is not applied to, for example, Israel, and others are obliged to comply with international law, the survival of an entire religious community is jeopardized. Genocide cannot be tolerated. The fact that these agreements were drawn up, among other things, to avoid violence and war only emphasizes the need to implement them. If these laws to which the various Nations have agreed are violated, these countries should have the righteousness to communicate the annulment of this right to their people, or, those countries which do not cooperate as required, to close down and impose economic sanctions. This is causally the result of their obstruction, as international law is also the basis for international action and the associated prerequisite, namely legal certainty. - Now, the argumentation of those Imams, among others, gives rise to acts of terror, because they, on their responsibility, guarantee that the sin of this act or acts (terror), as it were, will be remitted, as they state that these acts are committed against "the guilty" are not sinful. In other words that military law becomes applicable as a result of a provocation. Now, this argumentative can (theoretically) be undone in three ways, by: a- To organize our society differently, in respect for orthodoxy and international law. b- To allow geographical zones where coexistence can be organized on a different basis. c. Ask the imams concerned to withdraw their fatwa. (which is no longer possible because they have been liquidated by the Americans) - Del.R.A. as an example. Although there is clearly a religious component to this conflict that remains unresolved, colonialism is primarily ideologically motivated by nationalists. - Ockham says you could define everything under one heading. 7.The 1% is trying to convince you that WWIII will start when some major powers will start firing nuclear bombs at each other (or by other devious mechanisms to distract you from the truth). To clarify: Frequent use of nuclear bombs means the end of man on earth. An unexpected event like the one mentioned above can therefore better be captured under a different concept than WWIII. Because the end of humanity would also mean the end of war. Under that condition, WWIII would be more of a moment, and therefore not a war, since the definition of war involves at least two warring parties and a longer period of time. Moreover, if the use of atomic weapons were necessary to speak of a world war, then WW1 would never have happened.

8.Another line of reasoning that punctures the intrigue of the 1% goes as follows: If, according to the elite, it is the use of atomic bombs that defines the beginning of WWIII, which they claim is about to happen... then WWIII starts just as WWII ended (August 1945), and theoretically speaking, WWIII is already underway. No. In short. The definition of WWIII as used in some mainstream media is completely inconsistent and cannot be logically justified as a consistent sequence following WWI and WWII. A rhetorical trick is classically applied here, which equates the definition of one word (an apocalypse) with the content of the other concept (WWIII), as if they were synonyms, with the intention of thus distorting the pure concept of WWIII. Just as an aside, reducing the definition of WWIII to an imminent nuclear war really doesn't make sense. From a scientific point of view it is best to follow my definition. World War III as the anomaly of humanity, can be clearly analyzed along the political fault line: World Government vs Individual. 9. Ergo; In those cases the army is permanent and structurally operative in the public domain and/or semi-public domain; military law applies. Military law may apply in cases of emergency. (e.g. Existential threat to the state) May the situation of emergency be activated; then it is impossible - within democratic consensus - to organize elections. 10. Another interesting fact! If you have never served in the army, under this circumstance - in addition to the civil law that has expired - you do not have to answer to the military courts at all. Natural law as defined, among others, by de Groot Hugo (Grotius) then applies to you! 11. Further. If military law comes into force, which happens from the moment that soldiers are permanently active in the (semi-) public domain, which is in concrete terms the case (for Belgium), you as an "ordinary" citizen should not forget that this, among other things, This means that the ownership rights to, for example, your houses, cars, land, etc., lapse. This partly explains the half-hearted attitude of our governments. You can imagine that this knowledge could cost the traditional parties quite a few votes. The current result is that in many countries that belong to the U.S.A. military support through thick and thin, the emergency situation applies, without giving too much explanation and without telling you that WWIII is underway. 12. Chronological classification of the historical development of war: Vendetta or tribal war - Armies in alliance (see, among others, WWI and WW2) - The Third World War. Typical: a. Cold War: . War for knowledge .Economic war b. Guerrilla

[clareguilty]

Gabriel Reyes/reader, a/b/o and The Works™

this is the third kinktober prompt for this year!!!

Gabriel Reyes/fem!reader | a/b/o, marking, biting, praise, all that jazz Rating: Explicit Word Count: ~3000

Jack Morrison was getting another medal.

It was everyone’s favorite joke at high command. It seemed like no one wanted to implement any serious policy or sign an actual resolution in favor of giving the golden boy of the Omnic Crisis another fancy award.

So Jack had been stressing himself out all week trying to write an acceptance speech that wasn’t passive aggressive, and you spent too long picking out a formal gown, and Gabe had sat on Reinhardt’s desk laughing and stuffing his face with carbs and fruit because his rut was due next week.

Jack took the teasing in stride and managed to come up with a speech that wouldn’t outright offend the Prime Minster of Russia. Everyone piled into the jet to Moscow with a garment bag and a carryon and a strong cup of coffee at four am the day before the banquet.

This was normal for you. In a world after the omnic crisis, head of Overwatch’s reparations department and mated to the commander of Blackwatch. You found yourself flown across the world dozens of times a year for negotiations and assemblies and ceremonies.

You and Gabe strapped in next to each other on the jet. “I haven’t seen the dress you picked out,” he nodded his head to the garment bag.

“I guess it will just be a surprise,” you purred.

He grinned and leaned in to kiss you.

“It’s too early for this,” Ana groaned from across the aisle. Gabe shot her a toothy smile and made sure to nip at the shell of your ear. You smacked his leg and shoved him back into his own seat.

The hotel was a beautiful historic waterfront building just across the bridge from the Kremlin in the heart of the city. The five of you piled out of the black SUV that had escorted you from the airstrip and made your way inside.

The hotel manager greeted you as well as an official from the Kremlin. Jack was the main recipient of ass kissing and pleasantries, so you simply smiled and nodded and shook hands wherever necessary.

The suite was entirely too big and fancy for a two night’s stay. You and Gabe poked around for a bit, but there were no fun secrets. You took the sitting room, and Gabe set up at the desk in the bedroom as you both buckled down on your work for the day. Gabe had operatives in Bolivia he needed to check in with, and you had a meeting with representatives in London.

He found you a few hours later slumped in the armchair with your head in your hands.

“They still being stubborn?” he asked.

“They won’t budge on anything,” you groaned.

“Change into something casual. Let’s go out for a little bit.” He was already in a hoodie and dark jeans, beanie sticking out of the back pocket.

You nodded and went to find a sweater.

Gabe’s impromptu date night in Moscow turned out to be a lot of fun. Ana and Reinhardt came to meet you at a bar for a little bit, and the two of you wandered around the city until sundown.

The next day was more meetings and frustration until you had to get ready for the banquet. You and Gabe slipped past each other in and out of the bathroom as you showered and shaved and styled your hair and perfumed and moisturized.

You shimmied into the dress half an hour before the car was due to pick you up. It was slim and black, sleeveless with one band that crossed over your collarbone and shoulder. You frowned when you realized it covered your matebite, but it wasn’t a big deal.

Gabe grinned salaciously as he zipped you up, unable to resist leaning down and nuzzling into your neck. “Cool it.” You shoved him off with a giggle. “I have to make it through a whole ceremony and dinner.”

He pulled on his jacket and the two of you made your way downstairs to wait for the car.

For some reason, the event coordinators split you into three cars. Jack rode by himself, you and Gabe in one car, and Ana and Reinhardt in the last. They looked intimidating in their dress uniforms, and you felt kind of ditzy in your sexy cocktail dress next to three enormous well decorated Overwatch officers.

The ceremony was only slightly dull, and you clapped at all the right spots and pinched Gabe when he looked like he was zoning out too much.

Dinner was much more enjoyable. You had been seated with people you knew from other events and assemblies, so conversation flowed well. A string ensemble played and a few people got up to dance or mingle once they cleared their plates. You caught sight of a British Parliament member speaking with a small group of tuxedoed men, and Gabe saw the determination in your eyes. 

“Go get him, sweetheart,” he kissed your cheek and pushed you towards the Lord. You excused yourself quickly and approached the older gentleman ready to push for your negotiations to take center stage in the Palace of Westminster.

The poor Lord was not expecting to be accosted by you at a banquet, but graciously listened as you explained your struggles in negotiating reparations in London.

“You’ve got some real fire in you,” one of the tuxedoes remarked as you shook the Lord’s hand and he scampered away sufficiently cowed. He had an American accent and shiny hair. He reeked of confidence and you knew it was a combination of his nationality and his status as an Alpha.

You cocked your head nonchalantly. “Takes a lot of persistence to get anything done in Parliament.” You knew he was probably referencing the fact that you, a tiny omega, had just approached a government official and demanded that he push for your cause, but you brushed it off. Most of the time people were respectful, but you still ran into pushback every now and then because of your status.

The American laughed, tossing his head back. “And wit to match!” A waiter came by with champagne and he snatched a glass to press into your hands. “What’s your name?” he asked, placing a hand on your back and guiding you back into the crowd of tuxes.

You tensed under his touch. This wasn’t your Alpha. It was extraordinarily rude to touch anyone without permission, especially an omega. But still, you had to be polite, so you introduced yourself.

“If you ever need any help getting through to politicians, you should give me a call. I’m on the UN Peace Council, you know? I was appointed during the crisis.” That information was probably supposed to impress you. It probably would have if you were anyone else.

You nodded politely, taking a tiny sip of champagne and glancing over your shoulder to look for Gabe. You had your own gripes with the UN peace council. Jack and Gabe butted heads with them nearly every other week.

“I’ll keep that in mind,” you smiled, attempting to turn and address the other men.

“Here,” the American pulled out his phone. “Let me get your number. Maybe we could meet up for drinks before we both leave Moscow?”

“Oh,” you found your escape. “I left my phone back at my table.” You turned to make your way back to Gabe and Ana, but the UN asshole grabbed your arm. You knew exactly what this was. This guy probably didn’t run into many omegas in professional settings, and he thought you would just go along with everything he said because he was some big shot Alpha.

Laughable. You were a high ranking member of Overwatch. A diplomat. The mate of Gabriel Fucking Reyes.

“Just put your number in and I’ll text you,” he insisted. You struggled out of his grasp and shot him the sternest look you could manage.

He laughed again. “I love how feisty you are!”

Clearly, everyone in the vicinity was also uncomfortable with the exchange. This was not the time nor the place to be asserting dominance over an omega.

Your blood boiled. You didn’t want to make a scene at Jack’s reception -- though he probably would have loved it -- but you were seriously about to deck this guy.

“Cariña,” a familiar voice washed over you and the effect was immediate. You leaned back into Gabe’s chest, taking a deep breath to slow your heart rate. “Jack was looking for you. He wanted to introduce you to someone.”

The American Alpha puffed his chest out, clearly ready to challenge until he took one look at Gabe.

“Commander Reyes,” he greeted. All of the bravado and pushiness was gone in an instant.

“Hello.” Gabe was stiff, clearly trying to hold his tongue. His arms snaked around your waist and he leaned in to whisper in your ear. 

“Would you hate me if we left right now?”

“Absolutely not,” you spun in his embrace so you could look up at him. His expression was stoic as always, but you could see the tension and the anger in his eyes.

You didn’t even look back as Gabe walked you to the table to collect your things. It was a little rude to leave without saying goodbye to anyone, and you weren’t sure if Jack had actually wanted to introduce you to someone, but Gabe looked ready to tear someone’s head off.

He stopped caring about decency the moment the car door closed.

There wasn’t a lot of room to maneuver considering how enormous your mate was in the tiny sedan backseat, but he pinned you to the leather seats and kissed you like his life depended on it. You wound your fingers into his curls, gasping as his hands slid under your skirt and up your thighs. The driver coughed, and you giggled at the slow whir of the partition motor giving the two of you some privacy.

“I can’t believe he touched you,” Gabe snarled.

You shivered both at the possessive edge in his voice and the disgusting memory of the other Alpha’s hand on your arm.

“Make me forget about him,” you whispered, hooking your leg around his hips.

He rose to the challenge. Super soldier strength shredded your lace underwear, dress hiked up around your hips. He pressed a kiss to the inside of your knee, trailing up your thigh at a torturously slow pace. He had barely sucked a mark into the skin when the car stopped. A glance out the tinted window showed that you were back at the hotel.

“Thank you!” you called to the driver in your terrible russian accent as you yanked your dress back down and teetered on your heels on the pavement. Gabe half carried you with an arm around your waist as you breezed through the lobby to the elevator.

The elevator was another brief attempt to continue. You managed to get Gabe’s jacket and shirt open before the door slid open and you were staggering down the hall.

He dragged you into the bedroom, pinning you to the bed on your stomach so he could yank down the zipper on your dress. He couldn’t keep his lips away from your neck. The moment your matebite was uncovered he dragged his teeth over the mark. A shiver ran all the way down your spine.

“You’re never covering this up again,” he growled, rutting against your hips clumsily. “I want everyone to see that you belong to me.”

The words made your stomach flip. You wriggled your way around onto your back, pushing your dress over your hips and to the floor. “You’re going to hit your rut early.”

He didn’t seem fazed. “I’ll just fuck you until we have to leave for the flight.”

You figured Ana, Jack, and Reinhardt wouldn’t appreciate Gabe in the throes of his rut on the flight back to base tomorrow, but they had probably experienced it before. You could only imagine how bad he was back during the crisis. The thought only made you wetter.

He must have sense the spike in arousal, because he settled more of his weight on top of you. “What are you thinking about?” he demanded.

“You. During the crisis. Alpha Commander Gabriel Reyes.” You trailed a finger down his chest. “Were your ruts worse than they are now?”

He smirked. “They’ve gotten worse again since meeting you.”

You pulled him in for a kiss, mustering the last of your coordination to get Gabe undressed. He made sure you were laid out comfortably on the bed -- grabbing a few pillows to place under your hips and head -- before sinking all the way inside you to the swell of his knot.

Gabe always fit inside you so well. The perfect stretch. And he filled you so deep when he knotted you. You knew that his ruts could get intense, and you would probably be exhausted and sore by the end of it. Still, you had been mated for a few years now, so you had figured out how to manage.

“You feel so good.” You closed your eyes and lost yourself in the situation.

“Don’t worry, baby. I’m going to knot you so good.” He rocked forward, teasing you with the stretch.

“Please,” you begged, nails scratching at the shaved hair at the back of his head.

He shuddered and set an impossible pace as he began to fuck you. Sometimes you forgot that you weren’t just mated to an Alpha, but to a super soldier. No one else could fuck you like he did.

“You want my knot? Want me to breed you full? Want me to remind you who you belong to?” His words were low against you skin as he kissed along your neck. One of his hands was rubbing your clit, the other holding your thighs open so he could reach deep inside you with every thrust.

“Yours,” you gasped. “I’m yours.”

His teeth found the unmarked skin of your neck, just above your collarbone -- opposite the side of where your matebite was. The skin was practically electrified, especially when Gabe was fucking you like this. He didn’t bite down, but the sensation alone was enough to have you coming on his cock.

“Fuck,” he growled. “That was so good for me, baby. You’re so perfect.”

“Do it,” you begged. “Bite me. Please.” It was a little unorthodox. Normally couples only exchanged one bite. A bite on both sides was usually the sign of a triad or a pack. But you had just been touched by another alpha and Gabe was fucking you so good and you wanted him in every way possible.

He blinked, trying to think through the haze of his rut. “You want that?” He didn’t even wait for you to respond. The thought alone had him spilling inside of you, and he pulled you onto his knot. His teeth found that same patch of sensitive, unmarked skin, and he bit down just as he locked inside of you.

Nothing felt better than coming to the sensation of being claimed. It was the strongest orgasm you had ever experienced.

“Fuck you’re perfect. My perfect little omega. You wear my marks so well. Everyone is going to know exactly who you belong too.”

You couldn’t respond. Too busy marking Gabe’s chest with hickeys and lovebites. He was too massive for you to reach his neck, but you would make do. You were still coming down off the intense rush of endorphins, and everything was a little fuzzy and felt just a little too good too much too fast. You had come twice in less than the span of a minute, and Gabe was only just getting started.

He soothed the aching bite, holding you close as you were locked together. His knot probably wouldn’t go down for a while, but he was less riled up than before now that he had satisfied himself somewhat.

“I love you,” he kissed the top of your head, rolling so you could lay on his chest.

“I-” You cut yourself off, blushed, and buried your face in his pecs. You would happily die there.

“Yes?” He was curious now. You weren’t usually shy with him.

“I’ve been working on something. It’s super embarrassing.” You didn’t look up.

He lifted your head, forcing you to meet his eyes. “What’s embarrassing? I just dragged you out of a dinner party at the Kremlin so I could fuck you. I think I’m the more embarrassing of the two fo us.”

You laughed and kissed his chest right above his heart. Mustering all of your courage, you found your voice:

“Te amo. Me encanta pertenecer a ti. Tú eres mi mayor alegría.”

Your accent was decent, but you had no clue if your grammar was correct. The words were unfamiliar and clumsy, even though you had practiced them a hundred times. Spanish was not a language you were familiar with, but you knew that Gabe had grown up hearing it. You wanted to try and learn for him.

He understood immediately what you were tying to say, and you could feel the rumble of his laughter beneath you.

“Don’t laugh at me!” you whined, smacking him lightly on the side.

“I’m sorry,” he grabbed your hand, running his thumb over your knuckles. “It was very sweet. I love you too.”

“I need a lot more practice,” you pouted.

He petted your hair, staring at you with a dopey, lovestruck expression. “I can’t believe you let me bite you again.”

You shrugged, feeling the pull and ache of the new mark in the motion. “We can let one of them fade.”

He smirked. “What if I like you like this?”

You bared your own teeth. “Can I return the favor?”

You weren’t expecting to rile him up, but the words were enough to make his cock twitch inside of you. “Fuck,” he groaned. “You good to go again?”

You nodded, pushing up to a seat so you could ride him. He grabbed your hips, holding tightly as you slowly rocked against him. You knew the pace was probably no where near what he needed, but you wanted to take your time.

He didn’t give you the opportunity, rolling to pin you beneath him again and dragging your hips up to his. “You wanna bite me? You better earn it.”

[grison-in-space]

Wow. Holy non-related drive by anti-Semitism, Batman!

* Yisrael is being used here, particularly with that spelling, in its much older religious sense meaning "the body of the Jewish people" rather than any nation state or even necessarily a geographical location. You will see this literally wherever you see Jewish people talking. This is the equivalent of seeing someone casually say "Allahu Akhbar" and immediately screaming that they're an anti-American terrorist, just for an indication of the level of gross this is.

*This is a largely friendly discussion about the motivation and interpretation of Jewish law originating during the period in which the Jewish people were literally the current residents of the Levant, and following through internal argument and criticism through the subsequent thousand plus years. That is: this is purely inside baseball, largely being played among Jews.

*You literally do not know jack shit about the opinion of any person in this thread on the nation state of Israel, up to and including approval of Israeli politics, existence, choices, and war maneuvers. From this discussion, literally all you can extract from the conversations is that many people in this thread are Jewish.

(Including, if I can ever get my shit together to finish my beit dinh, me. Just so you know. You might want to unfollow, since you are so certain that "Jewish" == "anti Palestinian racist"; gross gross gross gross gross. For the record, my own opinion is that a) genocide bad, b) Lord Balfour has a lot to answer for, genocide included, c) this situation is way too fucked up to benefit from my dick getting stuck in it, and d) people yelling about absolutes sure aren't part of the solution, whatever it winds up being.)

*You saw a discussion about Jewish law and culture and you assumed it was pertinent to Israel/Palestine, AND you assumed that everyone in that thread held specific universal views without any evidence beyond the identification of Jewish. You are in fact a prime example of why so many Jewish people in the diaspora, who are otherwise primed to be critical of the ultra-Orthodox policies driving the decisions of the nation state of Israel, are nevertheless inclined to get defensive about criticisms of the state and particularly arguments that it should not exist. You are in fact creating opposition to the cause you're purporting to support by being like this.

I'm mortified and embarrassed to see so clear an example of gross anti Semitism introduced to, again, a wholly unrelated discussion by someone from my feeds. And then you look to me for approval! Oh, yuck.

listen to me very very closely: the biblical prohibition against mixing linen and wool is the most SENSIBLE THING IN THE WORLD, do not write it off as silly, unreasonable, or unnecessary. g-d didn’t tell us not to mix linen and wool for no reason, g-d told us not to mix linen and wool together because mixing them is an affront to textiles