#and i mean HOW. can one claim that we know democracy

[nabaath-areng]

Fuck Sweden as a nation for turning the woobification of our history and culture into one of our greatest exports, pretending to be wholesome and peaceful while profiting from conflicts elsewhere. For never having the fucking spine to take any stance ever and acting high and mighty for being "neutral", all while frothing at the mouth to get a piece of that colonial cake from the cool kids table where the superpowers are seated. For recognizing Palestine's sovereignty only to then consider a withdrawal of said recognition in response to the current genocide. For allowing islamophobia to get to the point it is now and then pointing fingers at jews as a whole. For giving less of a flying fuck about swedish jews during WW2 and until now, yet patting ourselves on the back and taking credit for heroic deeds done primarily by individuals.

I wish nothing but absolute hell and misery for Ulf Kristersson, who is even more spineless about his inaction than I thought possible. Who had nothing to say about the burnings of the torah and quran, only to claim that he stands for fighting antisemitism. Who puffed up his chest and was acting so tough about the things he would do once he became prime minister, only to hold up on none of his lofty promises in true conservative fashion. Both he and his lackeys (as well as their fanclubs of raging screaming bigots) deserve nothing but hurt and hell for continuing to destroy the lives of all marginalized groups in Sweden, all while shamelessly increasing their own salaries blatantly in the open, to then have the sheer and utter gut to declare that actively supporting genocide is within our best interests.

This country's audacity is one that only became possible because we sacrificed our neighbours safety for the sake of maintaining our own, because when your most recent war was in 1809 it's apparently not possible to even try and comprehend the horrors of modern warfare. That is, besides producing the tools for it to happen elsewhere.

[lwcina]

the fact that the us government can continue funding and arming a genocide despite massive public opposition really highlights how inherently non-democratic the united states is

[demeterdefence]

even ignoring everything else wrong with lore olympus (which in itself feels impossible) there is just something really egregious and insulting at the way a "modern retelling" over an ancient greek myth just full-heartedly whitewashes the entire culture and mythos.

and it's not like rachel is the first to do it - greek myths and legends have been whitewashed for centuries, depictions of the gods have been categorically stripped of their ethnicity and origins long before rachel got a hold of them. it's the fact that rachel goes out of her way to insult the original myths whenever she can, that she emphasizes and pushes a western-centric mindset and viewpoint over and over and over and not only reinforces the whitewashing, but continues it down the line.

like, this is the first episode.

rachel goes out of her way to mock the original styles and wardrobes of the ancient greek world, and i get her attempt was to make persephone feel "out of place" with the more "modern" clothing that the other gods wear, but it really just does more to a) demonize demeter, who is almost always in traditional clothing, b) sexualize persephone.

go even broader with it, move away from the clothing itself, and rachel doesn't even bother to use any of the ancient traditions that are core to the myths. like for the love of god, she uses a christian wedding for persephone and hades!

greece is the birthplace of modern democracy and had a powerful judicial system, and rachel instead uses the modern / western iteration of court because ... why not

(completely unrelated but the inserts of everyone except eros and aphrodite come from the stupid zoom session zeus had back when he first charged persephone with treason, meaning we have proof yet again that rachel isn't drawing the characters into the scene, she's making pngs and sticking them into pre-arranged backgrounds downloaded from stock images)

and there are ten thousand more examples i could pull, because this is just the whole entire comic. you can look at a lot of modern adaptions and see where things have been modernized respectfully, and where they are done with disdain for the source material - no one is claiming percy jackson, for example, is perfect, but the author took a great deal of care in his research, and the love for the original myths and culture shine through. lore olympus has zero respect for the original stories, exemplified in how rachel demonizes demeter - the actual crux of the myth. it's bad writing and bad research and further attempts to whitewash a rich and storied culture that had people from so many walks of life, who existed in full spectrum of lgbt identity, who did not conform or even know of the world that exists today. you can modernize without erasing it, and rachel's refusal to do so is one of the many issues tacked to lore olympus.

[fairuzfan]

Sorry one more thing I wasn't going to talk about but if you had asked me about the binational state/land thing maybe... in 2016, I might have given a somewhat positive answer but I think that since then, Israeli society has become exponentially more racist and anti-Palestinian. Since then we had the Abraham Accords, Sheikh Jarrah, Massafir Yatta, the highest child martyr count in years, and now finally a full blown genocide. Many Palestinians who previously advocated for equality in a single state look at all this, especially in recent months and think "how can I live side by side with these people?"

The vast majority of Israeli society is not against war for the sake of the Palestinians, they're against war for their own safety. They say as much. Hell, look at standing together. The founder guy says "our security is tied in with the Palestinians'". So if it wasn't tied with the Palestinians', you wouldn't care? And I get sometimes you need to introduce people to ideas gently, but their entire organization language emphasizes "shared pain" when there is an oppressor/oppressed dynamic they aren't even hinting at. How can anyone achieve safety if you won't even admit you have power over your Palestinian org members?

Even Brothers in Arms claims to want to "strengthen democracy" but they completely ignore Palestinians have never experienced democracy in "Israel". So what's the point strengthening your own standing when the most disadvantaged still are at rock bottom?? Plus your whole group represents the IOF reservists/members, you have no intention of helping Palestinians when you are the primary oppressors. And this is not an insignificant group in israel!

Not many Israelis are willing to put themselves on the line to protect or even advocate for Palestinians. I mean 7+ months into a genocide and what did israeli society do other than protest *netanyahu*? Hold up flour bags during the flour massacre??? The people serving in the idf are your friends and family and community. Tel Aviv is an hour away from Gaza. Surely you can do *something* physical!! They had people at their Gaza borders starving Palestinians on purpose and people just... watched it happen. Not to mention the IOF, which many Israelis are a part of, participates in the genocide and has been lauded for their "heroism". I look at that and I think "how can I expect you to seriously consider my rights as a person? How do I know you won't miss your old status and reclaim it?"

We've seen Israelis *celebrate* and *ridicule* our martyrs and people. So like where us the good faith in all this? Where can we work with some of these people and think "Yeah I believe they'll respect my inherent dignity as a person"?

Which binationalism relies on this. You need to have good faith between communities for this to actually happen. But when one community won't even acknowledge it's status as an oppressor at the height of oppression? Then what?

Israel as a country has never faced any retribution for its actions for 75 years. No one is holding them accountable. The country teaches propaganda in its schools about the Nakba. There is not serious consideration for Palestinian rights in Israeli society. Why would they suddenly decide to participate in a project that puts Palestinians as equal to Israelis when they learned all their lives that Palestinians are ruthless, unreasonable people who can't be reasoned with, and Israelis are logical, poor victims who are actually the ones who need protection from the Palestinians!

It just is mind boggling because I see people constantly complain about the way they hear things from Palestinians these days like "all Israelis need to leave". And they go on to say "why would you be so hateful/why would you say that" and don't think for a minute they're experiencing a televised genocide of their people (which they could have ended up in their shoes! People forget that Gaza has multiple refugee camps! Any one of us could have lived there!) And conversely are looking to Israeli society for them to do anything and they see nothing. At least think for a moment why they would say these things given the context of the situation. There's a genocide going on! And you're worried about what the people who are experiencing their people's genocide are saying because you're worried for the society conducting said genocide?? Let's deal with the matter at hand first!!!!!!

[duchess-of-mandalore]

Star Wars, friends. I know this is not why you follow me, but please make this my most shared post.

You are here.

We're living the lead-up to Revenge of the Sith, and it scares me so much a) it feels like there is so little we can do, and b) young people are acting as if there is nothing we can do.

If you don't know what's going on, I need you to wake up and get engaged.

I have two history degrees. My whole life I've always been the person saying, "When people say, 'This is the most important election ever," it just shows how little they know about history.'"

So please believe me when I tell you that THIS is the most important election (cycle, not just presidential race) that you will likely ever be a part of.

Trump is not Hitler. He's too stupid to be Hitler.

But our democracy only held together in 2020 because of a few people like Mike Pence who were willing to stand up against Trump when it was truly the last line of defense. I know that's hard for some of you to hear, but whatever you think of his beliefs, Pence showed he has integrity and stands by the Constitution.

There will be no Mike Pences this time around. Trump will not make the mistake of surrounding himself with those who are not fully committed to him.

Trump is a convicted felon. He is running to avoid his convictions and likely jail time more than anything else. If he wins, he will be able to pardon himself of his federal crimes, but he's going to keep acting like Donald Trump. If he's still alive in 2028, do you think he will leave the White House peacefully and just submit to further cases against him?

Please watch John Oliver's recent expose on Project 2025 and Trump's Second Term. It is linked in a comment below.

Trump and his administration are already putting in place plans for sweeping reforms that truly will make America look like The Handmaid's Tale. Presidents usually will push for more when they're in their second term because they don't have to worry about another election campaign, but this is different. This is about dismantling the democratic system so that it only benefits the most radical conservatives and Christians.

Christians, I am one of you. I was raised Evangelical (capital E meaning politically motivated culture warrior), and I am still evangelical (lower-case e, referring to theological beliefs). This is not the posture of Christ-followers. There is no good that comes from state-mandated religion, which both coerces people to claim that they are believers for social and cultural clout AND waters down the true religious fervor of the church because most people are only nominal believers.

There is NOTHING about Christian Nationalism that is in the best interest of Christians or in the best interest of the neighbors Christians are called to sacrificially love. If you need a reminder of who your neighbor is, read Luke 10:25-37.

Please start talking with your friends. Young people, please register to vote and bring your friends to do the same.

I know so many of you are disillusioned. I am too. Things that are going on in Palestine and Ukraine and so many other places make it very hard to vote for people with "D"s behind their names (especially after the recent presidential debate).

But punishing Joe Biden is not the revenge you want to pursue here. Are you unhappy with him giving Israel $12.5 billion? I am too, but do you think that number won't be repeated multiple times under Trump? Again, I was raised Evangelical. A staple of (politically-focused) Evangelicalism is that Christians (and thus America) must support (the modern state of) Israel no matter what because they have a hyper-literal understanding of the verse where God tells Abraham that he will bless those who bless him (including his descendants who became Israel).

Do not underestimate the importance of that view in their ideology. Nearly every member of my biological family has shunned me for suggesting that this is not a blanket endorsement of every action the modern state of Israel takes.

Trump is a criminal running for president to save his skin. He supports Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel who is now himself wanted for war crimes. Trump has aligned himself with the authoritarian leaders/dictators of Hungary, China, North Korea, and Russia. He is open about his love for Russian president Vladimir Putin's authoritarian regime and stands against Ukraine's democracy and national sovereignty.

This is what happened before World War I and World War II.

I know this isn't what you follow me for.

But George Lucas was showing the dangers of authoritarianism. He shows that democracy is hard. It's frustrating trying to negotiate with people you disagree with vehemently. It may seem like nothing gets done.

Go and watch the Naboo picnic scene. Go and do it. And after chuckling at all the funny memes it's given us, let me tell you why it scares me so much.

Because Padme laughs.

Anakin tells her who he is, and she laughs.

She passes it off as a joke, or as flirting, or maybe even as just the ignorant views of a boy who views life as far more black and white than she knows it to be.

But the alternative to all of that frustrating democracy, all that gridlock in the Senate, all those choices and compromises you have to make in order to benefit the people at all ... the alternative is a dictator who says, "I will make all the decisions for us."

That's why there are people who applaud Palpatine. That's why we as viewers see Bail and Padme as the reasonable ones and think it's crazy that anyone would applaud, but they do.

The applaud because Palpatine says, "You don't have to be frustrated anymore. You don't have to be worried about those who disagree with you anymore." Safety and security and ease are powerful temptations when you live in a polarized society, and Palpatine offers them all of those things.

That's why many people applaud Trump, too.

There were also people who applauded Palpatine who did see the danger of what he was doing. But they applauded because it was easier to do so. He had already amassed power because they didn't stand up to him before. They applaud him now because standing against him now would have dire consequences they wouldn't have faced if they had stood against him before.

So vote. And get your friends to vote.

If there is any part of you that believes Star Wars has important things to tell us about real life, then I need you to fan that flame into a fire.

Otherwise, you won't be living in the prequels anymore. You will be living in the time of the Empire.

Vote.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Michael de Adder, Halifax Chronicle Herald

* * * *

Trump promises to eliminate future elections

July 29, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Last Friday, Trump told Christian rally-goers that “You won’t have to vote any more” if they elect Trump in 2024.

Let that sink in. A presidential candidate promised to eliminate future elections.

The media yawned.

Actually, the media ignored the story (except for The Guardian) until commentators on social media and the Harris Campaign shamed journalists into acknowledging Trump's antidemocratic threat—which they did in a dismissive, begrudging manner.

It is tiresome to highlight the media’s failings, but this incident is so egregious that it is important on many levels. Most importantly, it underscores that Democrats cannot relent in their effort to warn the American people that Trump hopes to end fundamental democratic norms—like the peaceful, regular transfer of power as prescribed by the Constitution.

Among the issues that should drive voters to the polls in 2024, Trump’s repeated promises to end democracy should be the most alarming. But concepts like “democracy” and “tyranny” strike many voters as “abstract.” Taking away the right to vote is not abstract; doing so would render all other rights illusory.

Let’s turn this incident against Trump by convincing voters that Trump really, truly wants to eliminate the right to vote after 2024. And we must not let him (or his surrogates) weasel out of the plain meaning of his words.

What did Trump say?

 At a rally in Florida on Friday, Trump said,

Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it any more. You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians. I love you. Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.

See The Guardian, Trump tells supporters they won’t have to vote in the future: ‘It’ll be fixed!’.

Like most of Trump's statements, it is simultaneously inscrutable and blazingly obvious. He is promising the end of democracy if he is elected. “In four years, you won’t have to vote again.”

The same words uttered by most other politicians might be susceptible to innocent interpretations. But those words uttered by this president can mean only one thing: He wants to eliminate elections in America. He tried to override the will of the people in 2020 by canceling their votes through coup and insurrection. He says he will do so again if he is re-elected. We should believe him.

To repeat: A presidential candidate has promised that 2024 will be the last time that Americans will vote because “everything will be fixed.” That is the equivalent of a five-alarm fire for democracy.

How did the GOP, the media, and the Harris campaign respond? You can probably predict their responses, but let’s look for ourselves.

The GOP response

In typical GOP fashion, the GOP response was (a) he didn’t mean what he said, (b) he said the opposite of what you think you heard, and (c) Trump says weird things all the time, so chill out!

The typical Republican response was delivered by New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, who laughed off the statement by saying, (a) it was “hyperbolic,” (b) Trump was trying to make the point that “We want everyone to vote in all elections,” and (c) it was a classic “Trumpism.”

Saying that the statement was hyperbolic and “a Trumpism” are. not serious responses because they do not address the substance of what Trump actually said. Trump incited an insurrection by telling people to “Fight like hell” moments before the attack on the Capitol.” We are long past claiming that Trump's words should not be taken seriously and literally.

Claiming that Trump's statement means the exact opposite of what Trump said is depraved. Sununu’s interpretation of “We want everyone to vote in all elections” vs. Trump's “You’re not gonna have to vote again” is depraved. The depravity of Sununu’s perverse interpretation is not diminished because Sununu delivered the lie with a hearty laugh.

Other Trump apologists (on social media) argued that Trump was saying only that Republicans would not need Christian evangelical votes after 2024 because Trump would do such a great job of fixing all problems in America, “you’re not gonna have to vote.” That explanation makes no sense; even if Trump “fixed” all the problems in America in the next four years, the Constitution still requires an election in 2028.

There is simply no reasonable interpretation of Trump's words other than his declaration that in four years, he intends to eliminate elections (if he can).

The media’s response

As noted above, The Guardian gave serious coverage to Trump's statement. US media outlets, not so much. See, for example, Lucian K. Truscott IV’s description of the NYTimes’ pathetic response. As Truscott notes in his Substack, the Times relegated the statements to “a few lines in a wrap-up piece about what’s happening in the presidential campaign . . . and they buried it on the Times website.” The Times then breezily moved on to pedestrian coverage of the campaigns as if they were reporting the details of an itinerary rather than one of the most shocking statements ever by a major-party candidate for the presidency.

Perhaps even worse was the pathetic interview of Chris Sununu by Martha Raddatz on ABC. Raddatz asked Sununu, “What the heck did he [Trump] mean there [in the statement]?” As noted above, Sununu responded,

(a)  The statement was hyperbolic; (b)  Trump meant that everyone should vote in every election; and (c)  That statement is a Trumpism.

Sununu’s pathetic response was enough to satisfy Radattz, whose follow-up question was, “Ok. Let's turn to President Biden and Kamala Harris.”

I won’t pick on Raddatz (much). Almost every journalist on mainstream media is as pathetic as Raddatz. The inability to ask follow-up questions to ludicrous rationalizations of attacks on democracy is staggering. Most are entertainers, not journalists. Their presence on “news” shows is insulting to their viewers.

Raddatz’s failure to challenge Sununu’s answer and her immediate transition to a question about President Biden and Kamala Harris demonstrates the media’s dangerous addiction to mindless “balance” and false equivalency. Nothing Kamala Harris did over the weekend deserves to be in the same news block as a story about a presidential candidate promising to end the need for elections. Nothing.

Having watched the media fail miserably for seven years with Trump, nothing should surprise us. But the guy tried to overturn one election already and is saying he will do it again. What will it take for the media to realize that Trump is a unique threat to democracy who deserves coverage that applies only to aspiring dictators?

Even if the Times and Raddatz believed that Trump's remarks had a benign explanation, they failed to acknowledge the more plausible, malign interpretation. Instead, they were willing to assume that Trump's remarks were harmless “Trumpisms.” They are not. We saw what happened after Trump told his followers on January 6, 2021: “We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.”

So, continue writing those letters to the editor and comments to stories highlighting the media’s failings. And become a messenger for Harris by amplifying her campaign’s messaging. Read on!

The Harris Campaign’s response

Kamala Harris’s campaign organization has been reacting to Trump's missteps and threats like a rapid response force to each. Early Saturday morning, the Harris campaign posted a clip of Trump's comments and attached the following statement:

Statement on Trump's Promise to End Democracy When Vice President Harris says this election is about freedom she means it. Our democracy is under assault by criminal Donald Trump: After the last election Trump lost, he sent a mob to overturn the results. This campaign, he has promised violence if he loses, the end of our elections if he wins, and the termination of the Constitution to empower him to be a dictator to enact his dangerous Project 2025 agenda on America. Donald Trump wants to take America backward, to a politics of hate, chaos, and fear —this November America will unite around Vice President Kamala Harris to stop him.

The Harris campaign’s statement is spot-on for several reasons. First, the campaign issued the statement just after noon on Saturday morning, showing a willingness and ability to rebut Trump quickly. By responding within the same news cycle, the Harris campaign shaped the social media response, which ultimately prodded the major media to acknowledge Trump's threat.

Second, the Harris campaign identified Trump's threats in plain language, including

“Trump's Promise to End Democracy.” “Last election Trump sent a mob to overturn the results.” “He has promised violence if he loses” “He has promised the end of elections if he wins” “He has promised to terminate the Constitution” “To become a dictator” “To enact dangerous project 2025”

Dangerous threats demand plain language. The Harris campaign rose to the challenge.

The campaign’s statement was strong in another respect: In identifying Trump as a threat to democracy, it identified Kamala Harris as the point of unity to stop Trump. A very smart move! Kamala Harris is giving Democrats the antidote to Trump's cult of personality. The campaign is fashioning Kamala Harris as a champion of democracy. And it is working!

Concluding Thoughts

Trump's threats present a dilemma. Should we take them seriously? Or does our attention give them credence and heft they do not carry on their own? As with most things in life, there is tension in truth. We must take Trump's threats literally and seriously. But we must not ascribe superpowers to Trump or self-executing inevitability to his threats. By taking his threats seriously, we can prevent them from coming to fruition. So, do not despair or cower in fear. Raise the alarm as we work to defeat Trump and stop his dark plans.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to rally around Kamala Harris. She held her first fundraiser in Pittsfield, MA at the Colonial Theatre. The event was sold out, with an overflow crowd in front of the theater. Kamala Harris spoke after an all-star warm-up that included former Governor Deval Patrick, Senators Warren and Markey, Rep. Neal, and Heather Cox Richardson.

According to those in attendance, the evening was “electric.” The crowd was so enthusiastic, Kamala Harris had difficulty quieting the cheers so she could say “Thank you.” She gave a great speech and pumped up the crowd even further.

In eight short days, Kamala Harris has unified and inspired Democrats in a way that has defied expectations of pundits and career politicians. She is doing so at the precise moment that Trump's veneer of invincibility is cracking. We need to sustain the wave of enthusiasm for Kamala Harris and spread it to others—so that we can push Trump’s downward trajectory past the tipping point of no return. We can do that!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[cimerran-714]

I figured that it would be helpful to call out ten of the most common pro-choice arguments that you might notice online. I'll preface it by saying that I am not a philosopher (or at least not yet), but I am a person with common sense, and you can see through these "arguments" if you have two brain-cells left.

Also, I understand that there are good PC arguments out there (although they are of course not successful, for a strong argument doesn't necessarily have to succeed). I am only arguing some of the most insane and ridiculous ones you'd spot.

If you want to go through some really good claims made by pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates, I'd recommend David Boonin's 'A Defense of Abortion'. It'd help you instead of you having to regurgitate whatever you are spoon-fed by the leftist cult. Go check out that book even if you're pro-life, because it's a great one.

Let's get started, shall we?

A human embryo/fetus is not human:

Yes, it's both human and alive. Biologists agree with this (including pro-choice biologists), and even pro-choice philosophers acknowledge this. This is basic empirical reality. And you only have to open an embryology textbook to know how wrong you are. Also, these people can never explain what species the fetus belongs to if not "Homo Sapiens".

2. It's just a "clump of cells".

All of us are made up of cells. Some are "clumpier" than others. And plus, it's not merely a clump of cells: the embryo is a human organism in its earlier stages of development, and very soon is also differentiated as it grows. That's like saying that it's okay to destroy a car because it's just "a bunch of metal thrown together".

3. It's not a person/sentient, yadda yadda:

Irrelevant and it's the same logic that slave-owners used to own people. Human rights is species-based, and the embryo/fetus is human. That's all that matters. These people love to make up ridiculous, arbitrary criteria to justify their bigotry.

4. You cannot force people to donate their organs...

Not the same thing at all. You cannot be forced to save people, but that doesn't mean you can actively kill them. This is the difference between killing someone and letting them die. There is a significant moral difference between deliberately pushing someone off a cliff and not saving someone who's hanging off a branch at a cliff. Abortion is the former.

5. Women would die...

All states have life-threat exceptions built into it, so this is just deflection. And yes, there are doctors who refuse to perform entirely legal abortions, but that is their fault. It IS legal. They're just cowards, and you can't blame the law for this because they already make this exception.

6. You cannot force your views onto others:

If you support democracy (and, you know, voting) you're forcing your views onto others. That's how law works.

7. The child would grow up in poverty, yadda yadda yadda...:

We don't kill born children because of these reasons, so it's a ridiculous claim. You don't solve poverty by killing the poor.

8. They are just pro-birth:

Statistics show that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats. Also, just because they don't agree with your method of helping people doesn't mean that they don't care about born people. You see, it's like saying "A fire-fighter rescued someone from a fire, but they don't want to pay out of their pockets to look after them throughout their lives. They don't actually care!"

9. Showing pics of fetuses belonging to other species as a gotcha:

Yes, mammals of different species look the same in their earlier stages, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between them. This is, once again, bigoted slaver logic (to want to kill people based on their looks).

10. Men cannot have a say because:

As men are directly affected by this, they absolutely have a say. They are fathers too, and remember that they're the ones who have to pay child support.

There you go. I am not expecting you to be pro-life yet if you are not, but I hope that I have cleared your head up somewhat.

[rrcenic]

sorry for posting so much about the neil gaiman thing im very opinionated but heres my general take on neil gaiman (TW FOR S/A AND SU1C1D3!!!!)

good omens fandom please read this. yall need it

i wanna start with: believe victims. it might not be as bad as it was claimed to be bc the reporter was an anti bdsm terf who considers all bdsm 🍇 (including the bdsm w neil), but there was still clearly manipulation, weaponized power imbalance, and dubious consent. even if it wasnt s/a, it was fucked up. neil did some fucked up things

while we dont know if he actually s/ad those women, neil gaiman is clearly flawed

ive seen time and time again that his fans (specifically the good omens fandom) can get so viciously defensive of him that they refuse to see any flaws he has

as someone who was ruthlessly attacked because of neil, i hesitate to give him the benefit of the doub

when i had just turned 13, id just gotten on tumblr. i was thrilled that good omens season 2 was coming out. i was even more thrilled to see neil gaiman on tumblr. so i sent him an ask where i asked if crowley and aziraphale would kiss. i get why that was annoying. he probably got those asks all the time. but i worded it respectfully, and i was genuinely unaware that he was annoyed by this question

he responded to my ask with a multi paragraph callout post talking about how sick of this question he was. harsh, but not necessarily nefarious

the response wasnt the problem. it was that i got so many hate comments and death threats and people telling me i didnt deserve joy and i was ruining neils life and so many fucking anon "kys" asks that i had to quit tumblr. i tried to apologize to neil, i sent him countless apology asks where i begged him to ask people to stop cyber bullying me, but he never responded. it took years before i was able to communicate to him all the hate id received. his response was a basic "sorry for the miscommunication" and that he wished there was a way to convey tone on the internet (someone said "there is! tonetags!!" and he responded with "i dont like those"). the SAME COMMUNITY who told me to kms was suddenly saying "oh neil your such a saint" (THE TERM SAINT WAS USED MULTIPLE TIMES!!!!!) and "this poor ignorant child"

i was a kid and i was bullied off the internet and neil didnt respond to my pleas for forgiveness for almost 2 years. i was also in the most unstable time of my life. i was EXTREMELY suicidal. people telling me to kms deeply affected me

plus he reblogs a ton of "vote blue no matter who" stuff. i dont agree w that statement but i think its okay for people to say if they actively support palestine. but neil gaiman doesnt post about palestine ever other than reblogging posts that say "sure maybe the stuff in palestine is bad but if you dont support biden 100% democracy will crumble!!!" also im pretty sure he never apologized for some older zionist posts

ive seen a lot of stuff where people are saying "hey shhh its okay i see good omens fans getting sad bc of the stuff with neil but its ok!! youre still a good person even if you ignore this issue!!" and like. huh??? i dont think ignoring it makes you evil but its certainly fucked up to not be critical of the media you consume. pretending nothings going on is immature. you all sound like jk rowling fans smh

his general attitude towards fans makes me uncomfortable. ive seen people bare their souls in his asks (all of them start with something along the lines of "oh sir mister gaiman sir i am nothing but a disgusting peon compared to you you saved my life id die for you!!!") and he gives rude cold responses. i mean of course he gets annoyed and of course he gets spam but no one is forcing him to respond to asks. he doesnt seem to care very much??? this doesnt make him a bad person ofcourse but it does give me the ick

summary: even if he didnt s/a those women his fans need to grow up. he is not a pure perfect person. he might not be evil but he makes some extremely damaging choices. hes not a saint and never has been. at the end of the day, hes a rich cishet white man

[queerprayers]

Today is (for many of us) the feast of Christ the King, and I wanted to take a moment to honor that. I was baptized on this feast, and I've always been drawn to it. Originally instituted by the pope in 1925 as a response to growing nationalism and secularism, making it the newest element of the liturgical year, most Lutherans and other liturgical Protestants also honor this day.

I have differing opinions on secular rule/the separation of church and state (and evangelism, for that matter) than the founders of this feast did, but I can appreciate the yearning for more world leaders/political groups/religious groups to recognize our true callings as human beings--to each other, to Love. And I love the concept of combating nationalism with allegiance to a higher power!

"King" has a lot of political implications, and mostly negative associations for anyone like me, so I wanted to point out how the original encyclical describes this title of Jesus's, by quoting Cyril of Alexandria: "Christ," he says, "has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature." Today is the reason I'm not a monarchist--there is no earthly ruler that has my allegiance. There is no earthly rule established without force. My allegiance is to Christ, the ruler of the only valid kingdom; to God's house, the only state without lines on a map; to Love which is the universe, the only empire that includes people by embracing them rather than conquering them.

We can only understand so much of who God is. We separate out God's roles; we can only focus on one tiny piece of the universe at once. (This is why we have holidays--to honor pieces of our religion in human time.) The king we are called to serve is only called "king" because that's one of the closest words we have in our language to describe what we're talking about--the old-fashioned meaning of king, one born for the role and called to die for the role. A romanticized meaning perhaps, one that has never been true in any society, one that has caused so much harm, but nonetheless one used throughout centuries to get across one of the ways we approach God--along with "father" and "friend" and "bridegroom" and "creator."

We pray for God's kingdom to come because that's an idea we can understand--we can logically process that a new kingdom coming, a new empire conquering, means everything changes, the rules are turned upside down. We hold this language while acknowledging there is so much more to it. If you can't stomach using these words, if they are filled with violence for you, I encourage you to sit with that truth, consider what it would be like to take earthly ideas and fill them with Love, and also acknowledge you do not have to use this language. We try to hold God with our words and fail over and over. We come to God from our culture and language and time and we squint at the universe. We see in a mirror dimly, for now.

As we encounter earthly nationalism and imperialism and colonialism and warmongering, as we see people claim that their nation-state is chosen by God, we honor power turning on its head today. We see Jesus revealing what kingship, what ruling, what power is when Love is the center of the universe. Jesus, who had more power than any human, fed the hungry, hung out with the oppressed and misunderstood, threatened the powerful without violence, was killed by earthly empire, and conquered death with life.

May we, as members of God's kingdom, under Jesus's rule--by choosing this as our practice--serve the only king who has ever deserved our allegiance. We work to bring our communities and religious groups and, yes, our nation-states, closer to the image God has set for us, but ultimately we know we are creating and navigating human-made borders between things that will one day be one.

You already know what God has asked of you. It's not a democracy but neither is it a monarchy, really--it's something else. Something you have to opt in to, but don't really get a choice in. Something you can run from but never escape. Something that once you see clearly, you'll never be satisfied without. You are technically free to abandon the work, but you would be abandoning the only thing that will make us whole. Call your government representative. Go to a protest. Give money to the person by the side of the road. Read a book. Hug your lover. Feed the birds. Denounce your country in favor of your community and every single human being. You are a citizen of the universe, which is God, which is love. Christ the King, the reign of Christ, means what rules us is Life.

(We look down the road to Advent--to new year, rebirth, apocalypse. "Apocalypse" meaning unveiling, revelation, disclosure. We see in a mirror dimly, and then--thy kingdom come--we see face to face. All at once, awfully, blindingly, daylight after years of darkness. Christ the King says, what if New Year's Eve was a surrender to time and power? What if before you even remembered Christmas exists, you were confronted with the reality of your calling? This is the feast of victory to our God. Alleluia!)

[mokeonn]

Fuck it, I'm swinging at the hornets' nest.

I need someone to explain to me what the use of voting in the presidential election is. Since America is a republic and not a democracy, the popular vote doesn't actually determine who wins, the electoral college does. The representatives of each state have the final say over who they vote for regardless of what their citizens say.

And I understand that in a swing state, voting would be more likely to have an impact on what your state representative chooses, but let's face it, some states are set in stone. California's representatives are going to vote blue. Texas' representatives are going to vote red. Even if a significant portion of their voters say otherwise, they're very specifically "red states" and "blue states", and that's not going to change.

So my questions are all related to these facts. We do not have a democracy, we have a replublic, our individual vote does not have the power to decide who is president. We have seen MULTIPLE times that the popular vote can lose. Most notable, in 2016 when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost the election overall because Trump got 304 votes over Hillary's 227.

In fact, there's literally a term FOR representatives who claim they will vote for one party and then actually vote another or abstain instead (faithless votes)

Really, I want to know, why does voting for president matter? Why does it matter if I "vote blue no matter who"? In the end it seems to me completely out of my hands, especially since I am currently living in a non-swing state.

Now, I want to make it clear to anyone reading, yes. Voting in general matters. Since we live in a republic, it's up to us to decide who represents us and our local governments from a state level down to a city/town level. My question is not related to the usefulness of voting in America in general, it is just related to the usefulness of voting for the president.

Every day I am CONSTANTLY bombarded with the sentiment that I MUST vote in this election and that I MUST vote for a specific candidate (online it's vote blue and offline it's people telling me vote red.)

But ever since 2016 when I looked into and learned about the electoral college, I've had a very difficult time understanding what the impact of voting in the presidential election means. One moment I have it explained to me that by definition my vote doesn't matter when it comes to deciding the president, and every time I look into how the electoral college works it seems to feed into that idea, but everyone around me is acting like if I don't vote or decide to vote based on my beliefs rather than a 2 party system (aka voting 3rd party), then I am suddenly basically giving a vote to the other guy (which doesn't sound correct at all???)

So yeah, I have a million more questions when it comes to things like 3rd parties, but right now I want to focus on this. I have yet to receive an answer that helps me understand why voting for president in a republic matters. So far the answer I have been receiving from research is "it doesn't", but everyone around me has been screaming from the rooftops that it does and saying otherwise would make me a bad person.

Also please take this whole thing in the best faith possible, I am not saying this to sealion or be obtuse I'm just genuinely confused because the attitude around me is not matching the information in front of me. It's very confusing to me.

[the-far-bright-center]

There's a very annoying trend I am seeing on tumblr lately where people are calling Padme 'crazy', 'insane' or even 'a freak'....all because she chooses to be with Anakin. I'm sorry, what??? Padme is not crazy, nor is she a 'freak' for falling for him. To claim so is to totally misunderstand Padme's character and her love for Anakin. She is not somehow 'turned on' by his flaws and she doesn't view him as some kind of 'bad boy'. Nor does she just pretend he's not flawed simply because she finds him attractive. She sees his flaws quite clearly...but she ALSO sees his good qualities, and GENUINELY LOVES HIM. 

Is someone ‘insane’ or a ‘freak’ for loving a flawed but good-hearted person? Is someone 'crazy' for being compassionate and forgiving towards them? Not only is such a mentality deeply unfair and dismissive, but it also stems from fandom completely misunderstanding Padme’s character, motivations, and the development of her feelings for Anakin in the first place. I get the sense that people want to oversimplify Padme in their minds into some kind of ‘yass queen slay’ girlboss (simply because she’s a fashion icon who cares about democracy), and thus the fact she ‘strays’ even slightly from this imagined ‘girlboss-hood’ can only mean one thing…that she must have totally lost the plot, become unhinged, or gone insane. (Feels so insulting to even type that out, omg.) In reality, Padme is simply a young woman (she is 24 in AotC) who finds herself in a position of great responsibility, and who has been living with the weight of her entire world on her shoulders since she was a CHILD. She had originally planned to retire from public service after her time as queen was over, and only continued to serve in a political capacity because her successor, Queen Jamillia, asked her to. While she certainly cares about the Republic, deep down she wishes she could start a family of her own. All of this is already on her mind before she even reunites with Anakin at the beginning of AotC. Despite the fact that Anakin and Padme come from very different backgrounds, they are both in very similar positions at the beginning of that film. Both have commitments/careers in which they are expected to serve the Republic, and yet both are feeling that something is missing in their lives. Deep down, they are both longing for love and family. And while they care about each other’s respective careers and are supportive of one another, they also wish to be together. And on top of it all, there’s the fact that...Anakin genuinely loves Padme. She senses the depth and sincerity of his feelings, and this is one of the reasons she ultimately decides to be with him. She knows that he truly sees her, and loves her for herself, not just for her position. 

If that is seen as ‘unhinged’ on Padme's part, then that is a very depressing indictment of how hypocritical fan attitudes can be. Somehow fandom can understand and accept various other characters in Anakin’s story as being able to love him, but not Padme? It’s also baffling because fictional stories are FULL of examples of compassion towards monsters, villains, and antagonists, and yet somehow Padme loving Anakin (who is neither of these at this stage in the story) is beyond people's comprehension. Anakin Skywalker is a tragic hero. And as such he has both positive qualities, as well as flaws that lead to his downfall. But the point is that he is not without positive qualities. People need to realise that their view of everything that happens in the Prequels-era is coloured by dramatic irony. We, the audience, know what is going to happen. We know that Anakin will become Vader. But the characters don’t know any of this. They are just reacting to their immediate situations, circumstances, and interactions with one another armed only with the knowledge of the present moment. So even Anakin’s flaws and mistakes are not something that overrides the rest of his positive qualities from the perspective of someone like Padme, who genuinely loves—and is loved by—him. 

[itsallpoliticsstupid]

Throughout the election, I maintained to my boyfriend that I couldn't call who would win. Because it was just too close. I think that was always untrue, in my heart I always knew that Kamala didn't have a chance at becoming President.

I think there are a number of reasons for this. The car crash of a Presidential debate between Biden and Trump; the way she became the democratic candidate; her stance on the Israel/Gaza war, which turned away a lot of her more 'traditional' voters; the fact that, outside of abortion, there didn't seem to be any other real issue that she was running on - I mean I could literally go on and on. But it just felt everything was against her.

For me though, it boils down to 3 major issues:

The Economy

The fact Biden decided to run for a second term

'Democracy' (e.g. the way she became candidate)

And other Political Analysts will likely disagree with me, but I'm used to it.

The Economy

We look first at the economy. This is a huge motivating factor to why somebody would vote for a candidate. Under the democrats cost of living has increased, and people are struggling to maintain a good quality of life.

An average voter is going to ascribe that to the Government, and in this case the Democrats.

They're not going to know, or care, that the cost of living increase is a global issue caused by world events. Such as the War in Ukraine, War in the Middle East and Climate Change making large scale production more difficult due to the instability of the land.

So if the opposing Political Party are using that big issue to their advantage, claiming that they will help lower taxes for the normal working family, of course that's going to be an incentive to vote for them regardless of the other issues surrounding that candidate/party.

Biden's decision to stand

I think the moment Biden decided to go for a second term was the moment the democrats had no hope of winning the election.

It had become apparent quite late on in his presidency that he was struggling with his neurological health and it should have been advised much earlier that he shouldn't run for a second term.

Had he stepped away much earlier, they could have bought in a candidate who could run from the off. Somebody who would be able to put what they stood for across much earlier, and could really make an impact in an election.

Because really, who knows what Kamala stood for? Outside of the abortion rights, I can't tell you one thing. Yes, I wanted her to win, but that's because I do believe Trump will cause damage globally. But, I don't know what Kamala's policies were. Or what she really stood for. It felt like the democrats were more interested in damaging the Republican party's image than really showing what they were about.

In essence, negative campaigning. Which came to a head when she referred to him as a fascist.

And it just goes to show that negative campaigning doesn't work.

Democracy (How she became the candidate)

This leads me to the final point. How Kamala became candidate. In a parliamentary system, nobody would blink twice if you had a change of leader candidate half way through an election. Because you vote for the party, not the candidate.

I think changing the candidate half way through this election process made people feel a bit...off. And is probably why so many people said that threat to democracy was a core issue for them. Because, if it was mainly democrats answering the threat to democracy being a core issue, the election would have been a hell of a lot different.

Anyway, that's just my opinion and assessment.

It sucks right now but, as I said in my country after Brexit, you will get through, whether in the US or in another country. It will be a deeply uncertain, challenging time, but all you can do right now is have faith that things won't be as bad as we all believe.

Take care of yourselves in America. I may wait for the next 4 years to pass before reconsidering relocating over there for work.

[qqueenofhades]

Think what strikes me about something like "we can't vote because the system is rigged! Ban the electoral college!" is the big underlying implication of it.

That there is no multiple solutions or paths, only the one correct path and everything else is worthless.

And that's incredibly frustrating because there are two levels of problems with it:

is the utter dismissiveness of anything other than their specific solution, which ignores how any degree of positive change cannot occur with only just ONE idea, it's usually the result of many ideas that lead to change.

The fact that it feels like they're skipping every step in between the current situation to this end result, or actively fixating on themselves having the correct solution, but only by literally getting everything in between completely wrong in the process.

Like, the latter point in particular is like a complex math equation: Just because you got the right answer doesn't mean you can just ignore every difficult step in between, or just assume that all of the WRONG processes become validated retroactively because you stumbled into the correct answer. You'd literally get failed and be forced to redo the problem if you tried that shit in math.

I saw a poll the other day claiming that support for abolishing the Electoral College had now reached 65% of all Americans. Now, I take all polls, whether good or bad, with a grain of salt, but this does reflect a growing awareness that the EC is a horrible racist anti-democratic dinosaur only applied to the presidential election and only used for electing Republicans who don't win the nationwide popular vote, and that there's a genuine groundswell of support to abolish it. See the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which could possibly collect enough state-by-state ratifications to go into effect into 2028 (in the best-case scenario). So even all the bitching about how "the system is rigged" (which. WE KNOW! WE KNOW! There's not a single Democratic voter going to vote like WOW I LOVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE CAN'T WAIT FOR MY VOTE TO DEPEND ON HOW MUCH IT COUNTS THANKS TO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WHEE OLD DEAD WHITE GUYS!) blatantly ignores that a possible seismic change IS possibly in the offing, because people put in the work to make it happen!!! The fact that the EC might soon be superseded or disempowered is FUCKING MONUMENTALLY HUGE!!! It has existed literally since the beginning of America and arbitrated every single presidential election!!! And let me tell you, the people working to make that change and fundamentally reshape American democracy are absolutely not the Online Leftists, whose grasp of civic and political theory starts and ends at "wah the system is rigged I do not vote I am very smart!"

This also reminds me of the recent idiots in my notes complaining that Biden was a) not "genuine" in supporting the striking auto workers, that b) Don't You Know He Broke The Rail Strike (the follow-up where he gave the railworkers what they most wanted with that strike was conveniently never mentioned), or c) that he wasn't "doing it for the right reasons" (whatever the fuck that means). Which accurately reflects their belief that the way you do politics, or praxis, or anything at all, is just by having the Really Goodest Mostest Purest Intentions really hard, and that's it. Like. Aside from the fact that it's impossible to prove why Biden is privately motivated to do anything, we have a long track record demonstrating that he is a person of genuine Catholic faith who has been moving more and more to the left overall, and has been the most pro-union, pro-labor president in American history. So first of all, complaining that "he's not GENUINE!!!!" in supporting the strikers is impossible to prove, and contradicted by actual evidence. But the Online Leftists gotta feel More Gooder Than Him somehow, so.

Likewise: as I said in one of my previous posts about Hillary Clinton: I do not give a fuck if she was privately the most Neoliberal Corporate Centrist Shill Ever To Shill (and as I also said, none of those words means what the Online Leftists think they do). I do not care about the American monarch president's personal feelings, unless they reflect directly on the policy that they make and the real-world effects that it has. I don't care if Clinton killed puppies (or dreamed about killing puppies, which for the thoughtcrime police is equally bad), as long as she appointed 3 new liberal justices to SCOTUS and throughout the courts, instead of the hacks that Trump forced onto the bench and literally everything else he did. In the same vein, Biden could secretly be like "hahahaha fuck all workers BIG CORPORATIONS FOR LYFE but I gotta support the workers and get them their rights so they'll vote 4 meeee" (not that I actually think he is, but still) and hold onto your hankies, children: I DO NOT CARE! Because the tangible real-world effects of that policy that he is working hard on making results in a better economy for those workers and substantial redistribution of capital away from the oligarchs for the first time in a generation! Not to mention, I kind of like the idea that a president decides to make himself most appealing to workers instead of bosses! But for the Online Leftists, if this action isn't done with the Sufficiently Pure Motives, it is Wrong and Bad and Not Good Enough and Blah Blah Biden Sekrit Republican.

Anyway. Yes. That. The end.

[arabellasleopardcoat]

im so dissapointed you used to be so neutral and now are hard team black

Am not! I am not on anyone's team. The Blacks have had a much more compelling writing this season, because whoever is writing the show has a thing for them. It's pretty obvious. My comment of the episode last night responds to that, because the Blacks had so much screen time it was impossible to say anything about the Greens.

The only "great change" in stance I had is regarding Alicent. Her writing has proven inconsistent, and she wallows in self pity a bit much. Pretty human of her, but not my thing. As always, I refuse to call any character OOC, because the writers of the show make canon, not me, but in this case I have a hard time reconciling season 1 Alicent with season 2 Alicent.

I am never against cunty women. I am in favor, actually (God knows I loved Cersei) but she rubs me the wrong way and can't explain it. Probably because of the highs and lows of the Criston thing. At first it was strange, having so many sex scenes of them. Then, I was invested and then he got sent away. The lady of the lake scene and the camping trip did nothing for me. Did we really had to use two scenes to see her moping outside the city? They served no purpose on moving the story forward or making her interesting as a character. Neither do some of the Black scenes, but this was higlighted for me because that was they decided to show us of the Greens in a Black-centric episode.

My personal like of dislike of a character doesn't mean I am on their team. I am in constitutional monarchy team. The more I think about the issue, I think you can pull precedents for both teams and that complicates things, which makes me want to scream they need an organized law system. Why? Well, during the Middle Ages, since the nomotetic power was not concetrated in a single clear organ (Like now in the parlament, or the parlament and the president in some countries), there were so many laws contradicting each other that it was impossible to make a sense of things. Most countries when exiting the Middle Ages notice this and the codification movement (Let's write all our laws down as easy to understand as posible) starts after a brief trial run of benevolent absolutism. In England, since they consider the judge as a guarantee against the King's power, it doesn't, but they still organize things.

What I mean with all this is that my gut instinct tells me Viserys' word as an absolute monarch should prevail (Because the King's word is law) but I am unsure of the role Jaehaerys' Great Council plays on this. Since I am familiar with modern constitutional theory and not, you know, canon and feudal law beyond a brief overview, I am unsure of how good a rallying point it is for the Greens. It's not an end-all argument, but I am trying to figure out if it is a weak or strong one. And I still sustain Viserys' word should have been law. We have to understand, even if it is a strong argument, that since he is an organ that produces law, he is modifying it by making Rhaenyra his heir. A new law beats the former, but not if the former is of higher rank. I still think Viserys is above every other law because he is an absolute monarch. They are only nitpicking because they don't like the change he made, sed lex dura lex and all. The team issue for me comes down to legal claim, and not aptitude to rule, thanks to my modern democracy values. If I were to make a choice based only on morality, I would abolish monarchy. If I were to make it based on legalese, I would tell you my (And any law student's) favorite phrase: It depends. You can always find an argument for both.

[lunargracklepersonal]

It occurs to me that we're in a collective abusive relationship with our government. We have the chance to elect a government composed of one of two main forces. One is openly abusive. The other is covertly abusive.

There exist other forces we could elect to make up our government, but as a result of the first-past-the-post voting system most people don't consider these viable options.

Look, I come from a (relatively mildly) abusive family. If I had to choose to vote between my mother or father, one of who is less abusive than the other, and those were always my two choices, eventually do you know what I'd still realize? This is an abusive family. Does that mean I am obligated, morally, to vote for the less abusive one, and that things will in time stop being abusive as a result?

Now, imagine my siblings, some of whom are periodically being gaslit to be convinced no abuse is taking place, also get a vote.

Do you get where I'm going with this?

I'm essentially trying to get this family to vote for Uncle Mike, just long enough for us all to realize what's going on.

Failing that, I'm trying to get enough people to vote for Uncle Mike to trigger - something, anything, that gets real change. Maybe the abusive elements of the government will try to illegally crack down on people who voted third party and folks will riot. Maybe somebody more charismatic than I am will use that as the impetus to start a movement. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Better than waiting around for politicians to magically start growing a conscience.

But that's beside the point.

Do you see why I can't get behind the democratic party now?

This is still an abusive situation, just covertly instead of directly. These people are still fascists, just subtly instead of openly. And given a choice between Hitler and Mussolini the moral choice is not Mussolini as was proposed in a post that floated across my dash a few days ago.

I still believe in voting as a tool of democracy. Just consider voting third party - any third party you feel comfortable with will do. Vote for a joke if you can't find a good one. The point is to convince the people in power that you're still willing to put time and energy into democracy. Voting third party is a threat to them. A roundabout way of saying 'fuck your two party system'.

The argument of the split vote effect becomes irrelevant when both parties are abusive and you do not want either to win.

Someone somewhere is muttering, still, vote blue no matter who. Fuck that. Relegate it to the depths of hell where it belongs.

Do you realize how far right the blue has gone?

Even basic criticisms of wealth inequality have gone from a basic milquetoast centrist position anyone from the center right to the left could hold back on the 1990s to being considered actively leftist. (Oh, democrats, my dear sweet summer child, if you think a leftist is someone who criticizes wealth inequality and maybe has pronouns you're in for some shock when you fuck with any actual leftist.)

And do you know how we got here?

By voting without criticality.

A claim to blue-ness is a nothing claim. It's like claiming to be a nutritionist (as opposed to registered dietician) - anyone can do it, it's a nonregulated term. There are no official criteria. There is no test. No battle of wits with your predecessor or even a swearing in.

In other words, infiltration is really, really easy. Especially when your base keeps chanting 'vote blue no matter who'! So is just... Enshittification. We could have done so much better if we had held our side to a higher standard.

As far as I'm concerned, it's already over. Don't bother trying to convince me there's a chance to push the dems farther left or god forbid, rehabilitate Biden. I am an anarchist.

Tl;dr fuck 'vote blue no matter who'.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Dave Whammond

* * * *

Don’t be Glenn Youngkin. History will remember.

October 15, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

In a speech on Monday, Kamala Harris significantly ratcheted up her attacks on Donald Trump's ugly threats to persecute his political enemies. She described Trump as increasingly “unstable and unhinged.” Harris’s comments came four days after Trump called for the military to be deployed against the “enemy within”—enemies identified by Trump as the “radical left.” See MSNBC, Trump suggests using the military to address ‘the enemy from within’. Trump later identified Rep. Adam Schiff as one of the “enemy within.”

Trump made the following statements to Fox personality Maria Bartiromo in an interview last Friday:

I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. . . . It should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard — or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.

Trump's threats of using the military are not idle. During his term, he repeatedly ordered his subordinates to use the US military against civilians—including “just shoot[ing] protesters in the legs”—but those subordinates refused or ignored his orders. See, e.g., Council on Foreign Relations (6/5/2020), Trump’s Threat to Use the Military Against Protesters: What to Know.

In her speech in Eerie, Pennsylvania, Kamala Harris strongly condemned Trump's threats to use the military against political opponents. See CNN, Harris uses Trump’s ‘enemy from within’ comment to portray GOP rival as dangerous and unstable.

Kamala Harris’s new aggressiveness against Trump's promised despotism is something that many (frustrated) Democratic faithful have been hoping for. Harris’s full speech in Eerie is here: YouTube | Kamala Harris in Eerie, PA. It is worth watching the entire thirty-minute speech.

If you don’t have time to watch the entire speech, I urge you to watch the final ten minutes. Kamala Harris is on fire as she describes Trump as the threat to democracy he is. And she uses a video montage of Trump's repeated threats to persecute his political enemies. It is a “must-watch” moment of history. See YouTube | Kamala Harris addresses Trump's comments re "the enemy within".

Go ahead and watch the final ten minutes of Kamala’s speech, here. I’ll wait!

Using the military against civilians is the common tactic of fascist governments everywhere. It is a singular moment in American history when a major party candidate is using threats of military force against US citizens as a campaign promise.

How did we get here? Answer: Glenn Youngkin.

Why Glenn Youngkin? Because Youngkin spent Sunday excusing and defending Trump's threat to use the military against Americans. Trump makes such threats because spineless cowards like Glenn Youngkin not only refuse to condemn him but rise to defend him. In the absence of the Glenn Youngkins of the world (and his ilk), there would be no cover for Trump's obscene threats against Americans and the rule of law.

On Sunday, Jake Tapper read Trump's comments to Glenn Youngkin and asked the governor of Virginia to condemn Trump's remarks. In a tortured five minutes, Youngkin refused, repeatedly claiming that Tapper was “misinterpreting” Trump's remarks. When Tapper repeatedly said, “I am reading his comments verbatim, let me show you the video,” Youngkin refused to condemn the comments and suggested that Trump didn’t mean what he said.

See CNN, Tapper presses Youngkin on Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric. If you can, watch five minutes of this interview. Warning: You may nauseous.

Youngkin clearly (and wrongly) believes he has a political future that is dependent on not angering Trump's cultish base. Youngkin has made the political calculation that advancing his future political prospects is more important than protecting Americans against a threat of military force to achieve the partisan pollical goals of the president.

Can you imagine what the Framers would say about such a proposition?

Glenn Youngkin is, of course, a surrogate for every Republican politician who pretends to be a reasonable and moral leader with the nation's best interests at heart. In reality, they are faithless cowards whose only loyalty is to themselves. They represent the worst of America. They are depraved, soulless, and spineless. The are cloyingly self-righteous as they look straight at the camera and lie for someone JD Vance called “America’s Hitler.”

There will be a time (soon) when Americans will face a moral and political reckoning for the depravity of the Trump presidency and MAGA movement. There is no ambiguity in where the moral and political judgments will fall or how future historians will view Trump's supporters, enablers, and co-conspirators.

They are hoping only that they can delay that day of reckoning on which their white nationalism, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and depravity will be universally condemned. The historical precedents for such a reckoning abound.

On Monday, Kamala Harris began the process of moral and political reckoning. Good. She should keep it up until the major media begins every news cycle with this headline, “Candidate for US presidency threatens to use US military against Americans.” There is no story bigger than that—and it deserves to be at the top of the news 24/7 until Election Day.

Trump holds bizarre campaign rally that turns into a 39-minute Trump dance party

As Kamala Harris was calling Trump “unstable and unhinged” during her campaign rally in Eerie, PA, Trump was proving Harris’s point at his rally in Oaks, PA. Trump was supposed to host a townhall, but answered only two questions in his incoherent, non-linear, incomprehensible fashion. After two people in the crowd fainted, Trump said,

Let’s not do any more questions. Let’s just listen to music. Let’s make it into a music. Who the hell wants to hear questions, right?

 See WaPo, Trump sways and bops to music for 39 minutes in bizarre town-hall episode. (Accessible to all.)

The bizarre scene is described by WaPo as follows:

For 39 minutes, Trump swayed, bopped — sometimes stopping to speak — as he turned the event into almost a living-room listening session of his favorite songs from his self-curated rally playlist. He played nine tracks. He danced. He shook hands with people onstage. He pointed to the crowd. Noem stood beside him, nodding with her hands clasped. Trump stayed in place onstage, slowly moving back and forth. He was done answering questions for the night. [¶] . . . . Trump’s decision to cut the question-and-answer portion of the town hall short and instead have the crowd stay to listen to his favorite songs was a somewhat bizarre move, given that the election was only 22 days away. It also comes as Vice President Kamala Harris has called Trump, 78, unstable and called into question his mental acuity.

Trump is descending into madness. The major media should lead every news cycle with scorching questions about Trump's mental fitness—right after stories about his promise to use the military against the American people. Trump is unraveling in front of our eyes. Make sure everyone knows about this story. It is important—especially given that Biden was forced out of the race over a single debate performance.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]