#and i'm not saying kindness doesn't have a place in leftist politics or even in deprogramming

[freakoutgirl]

said this in the tags of my post before but I feel like it's worth repeating. the thing about this argument that leftists (and specifically feminists) being mean to cishet white men is what's driving them to the alt right is that it's ignoring the fact that these men have women in their lives who are already nice to them. they have mothers, sisters, aunts, coworkers, neighbors, even sometimes girlfriends and wives. there are very, very few men out there that are totally isolated from women that will treat them with kindness. and yet these men will still not see these women as people. they still vote to ban abortion, they will still feel entitled to women's time and bodies, they will still insult perceived "beta males" for not exhibiting their same behaviors. women's kindness does not have a significant material effect on their politics. as long as women will get jobs over men, as long as women are able to say "no" to men, as long as women assert they are people, there will be those men who choose (and I specify choose so people don't misinterpret this as saying it is an "immutable trait") to turn to patriarchal supremacy, and specifically white patriarchal supremacy as long as people of color also make any social headway. that's why the term "reactionary" exists.

[moniquill]

I think one of the disconnects between people learning about 4B for the first time since the election and people who recognize that as a movement it has problematic elements (transphobia, homophobia, authoritarianism, purity policing) is that we live in entirely different fucking universes.

I, a leftist living in a blue state, am vaguely appalled at the idea of pigeon-holing all men based on the actions of the kind of men who voted from Trump... because I never had those men in my life in the first place. I've never had one of those men be brave enough to say to my face that he's a trump voter. I cannot really comprehend the idea of a grown-ass adult who until this very moment has actually been living in the Shirley Jackson/Virginia Woolfe dystopia that was presented to me in Women's Studies in college 20 years ago. I do not know even one woman in my life under the age of 75 who doesn't have a job (unless it's for disability reasons) - I come from a social class where you start working under the table/on the side at elementary school age and you're expected to get a job that pays wages as soon as you turn 16.

In the universe I've lived my life in, OF COURSE I wouldn't sleep with a conservative guy! Discussions of politics and stances on key issues are things that happen BEFORE the first date. "I found out he held [a conservative view]" is a relationship-terminating dealbreaker every single time.

The men that I know, that I'm friends with, even the ones that I'm related to are comrades - lots of them are some flavor of queer, the majority of them are nonwhite, they are capable of being platonic friends with women.

I'm 41 years old and have had zero pregnancies, and no one CLOSE to me, whose opinions I actually respect and care about, has ever given me meaningful push-back about it. The 'Oh you'll change your mind' comments have always come from peripheral people like coworkers and teachers (and I dropped off sharply when I passed age 30)

I was never A Desirable Woman (tm) during the age of social media. I was 33 when Tiktok was created. I did not live in this panopticon, and cannot relate. All I can do is A: Believe the testimony of the women who have had these experiences and B: Advise them on ways that I have avoided those experiences.

"Don't be cruel or hateful to entire categories of human beings based on the way that they were born." does not translate in my head to "You are required to coddle and cater to those people." At all. I don't really understand how anyone makes that leap.

How the fuck have you been in the cage for so long?

[triviallytrue]

What do you think of Hamas or PIJ

I've saved this ask for like three months now because I think it's interesting, so here's an attempt at answering it.

I'm going to truncate this to being solely about Hamas - I don't have an independent opinion about the Palestinian Islamic Jihad that doesn't fall under their association with Hamas.

So to start with the obvious - Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist militant organization, which is not a tendency that I have a very high opinion of. At the same time, I believe in the right of Palestinians to live without Israel's boot on their neck, and they are more or less the only game in town for anyone who wants that - the PLO is horrifically corrupt and collaborationist, and no one else has stood up to become a leftist secular organization in favor of the Palestinians. I think a Palestinian state governed by Hamas would be preferable to the status quo, but that is less an endorsement of Hamas than an indictment of the status quo.

Beyond this background, it's worth taking a look at October 7th specifically, both as a world historic event and the most significant example of Hamas' strategy in its war against Israel.

I tend to evaluate this kind of action on two axes - the morality of the action and its effectiveness at accomplishing the overarching goal. Unsurprisingly, I think the decision by Hamas to target and kill Israeli civilians is wrong, and I find the justifications that have been put out about why this would ever be okay to be both unconvincing and disturbing.

I also don't believe there is an argument that Palestine is better off than it was on October 6th. I want to be very clear about this - I do not hold Hamas morally responsible for the devastation that has been unleashed on Gaza. That responsibility rests entirely on Israel. There is no "justification" for doing what they're doing. But I do believe that when we evaluate an organization's effectiveness at achieving their goals, we need to take a blind eye toward moral culpability and examine cause and effect, and I don't think it's controversial to say that Gaza would not be in ruins right now if not for Hamas' actions on October 7th.

So when I examine Hamas, I see an organization that has done heinous things, not in service to a greater good, but rather to the ultimate detriment of the people they are fighting for.

And normally I would end the post here, and that would be that, but I think there's more to say here. When I critique an organization, I like to offer some sort of alternative path, a way that I believe they could be better or smarter. And the problem I have with "condemning" Hamas the same way I would another organization is that I just don't see a path forward for them.

I think Hamas could resist violently or peacefully or not at all and none of it would matter. If Palestine one day is free, it will be because of internal changes in Israel politics (vanishingly unlikely), internal changes in US politics (very unlikely), or collective pressure from the rest of the world against both (somewhat unlikely). The Palestinian people have been denied a say in their own future by Israel, the US, and the rest of the world (in that order).

Even if Hamas doesn't attack on October 7th, Gaza is still a very unpleasant place to live, and the noose just keeps tightening. The US is flipping the Arab countries one by one, relationships with Israel are normalizing, and no one seems to care. The fate of the Palestinian people is in the hands of politicians that would snap their fingers and kill them all, if they thought they could get away with it.

In this situation, then, it is not so surprising that Hamas does things that are violent, immoral, or counterproductive. When you are out of productive levers to pull, you start grabbing at the other ones, just in the hope that something will change. So, yes, I "condemn" Hamas, whatever that means - I mourn the Israeli civilians they killed just as I mourn the 30x (40x? 50x?) as many killed by the IDF. But I don't really think of Hamas or October 7th as surprising. I think it is an entirely predictable result of Israeli policy in Gaza.

[liskantope]

I've been feeling devastated about last week's disaster of a debate (among other political developments) and see it as evidence that Biden was never a fit candidate for reelection. And at this point I really don't think he has it in him to stick out a job like the presidency all the way until 2029. But I think a lot of people are really overreacting in terms of what kind or variety of weakness it exposed in Biden. I'm a little stunned by how many people -- not generally Republicans or anti-leftists or leftists who have a bias against Biden already, but moderate-left-ish types such as Scott Alexander and Kat Rosenfield -- who seem convinced of things like that the debate shockingly but obviously "proved" that Biden is completely senile, has a clinical level of dementia, is unfit to be president right at this moment (let alone for 4.5 more years), obviously isn't acting as president but must be sitting around dazed while others do the work for him, that the Biden team's insistence that Biden is fundamentally fit has now glaringly been exposed as a complete lie, etc.

One particular narrow range of skills was on display at the debate, and I'm not sure exactly what succinct term to use for it, but it was something like "smooth articulation ability", and it's something I think about a lot as a communicator in my own professional context. There have always been certain mental states I get into (often triggered by stress or sleep deprivation) where words and sentences don't come out as clearly, get caught up in the moment on the wrong beat and get sidetracked, and struggle to get wrapped up without becoming run-ons that lack in a conclusion, where I mumble and stammer easily, and where I have trouble recalling particular words and phrases on the fly, and these contrast dramatically with my moments where the opposite is the case. This especially affects my teaching: it used to fairly often be the case that I had "bad days" where I could tell right from the start of the 75-minute class period that I wasn't going to be able to form thoughts as well as on my "good days". With more experience I've gradually learned how to minimize the "bad days", but I'm still prone to it if I'm not careful. Yet, even at my worst moments of this, it says nothing about my knowledge of the topic I'm teaching about, nor about my fitness in general. It's a very narrow aspect of my mental abilities.

Now one could point out that a huge part of being a politician is being a absolute world-class "smooth articulator". And that's true, and Biden certainly was once, and clearly old age has eroded his ability at this. But it's kind of beside the point when someone is suggesting that stumbling a lot at a debate is evidence of having dementia and being too old for one's job, other than that our being accustomed to politicians being extremely skilled at articulation is obfuscating the fact that for a typical person (whether old and senile or not), having to express one's ideas on the fly in the style of a presidential debate is incredibly difficult. I believe the great majority of adult humans -- including those who are dismissing Biden now, including a lot of the very intelligent and generally articulate among us, including myself -- would probably not be able to do much better than Biden did at that debate if we were placed in his position, and it doesn't say much about our ability to make decisions in the role of US president or about our dementia status.

All that said, what matters most in a presidential debate is the vibes each candidate gives off, and Biden definitely gave off "doddering old man" vibes in just about the worst way possible, which will certainly make a lot of people not feel okay about voting for him, whether or not they've seriously reflected on his capability of performing the actual non-public tasks required of a president.

[nerdby]

I'm starting to realize that all these antis and "leftists" spouting shit about how we (Americans) shouldn't vote for anyone in the 2024 presidential election -- that is white supremacist rhetoric by the way; it's voter discouragement and you spouting that shit is giving the Republicans exactly what they want -- are probably the result of conservative gentle parenting. Meaning helicopter parents who tried their darnedest to protect little Lily and Tommy from every bad thing in the world.

Now, Lily and Tommy are all grown up and they're having an existential crisis cause it's just beginning to dawn on them that world is a very fucked up place. They don't understand that compromise is a necessary, ugly part of life. I mean, it isn't always ugly. Except for when it comes to war, politics, relationships, parenting -- okay, no it is always ugly.

And you know what, peeps? I'm sorry. I really am sorry.

We all have these moments in life where reality comes CRASHING down on us and we realize that life isn't fun. We learn to separate fact from fiction, and that's a lesson we usually learn the hard way. For me it was when my best friend since the second grade got popular YEARS later, and she stopped calling and stopped inviting me to sit with her at lunch. I had grown up thinking friendship was magic and that people didn't grow apart because REAL friends didn't abandon each other.

That's not true. At all. And I never knew that until then.

And that's not the same thing at all as having to choose between a fascist or a warmonger. It's not at all. I'm just saying that I can relate. Kind of. Maybe the time I moved away from my abusive mother to live with my abusive ex would have been a more apt comparison. I don't know.

But I am sorry.

Because you are the result of a failed social experiment. That's such a fucked up thing to say. I hate myself for saying that.

I just mean it shouldn't be so fucking hard. On you. Or any of us. And I'm so sorry that this stupid fucking election is the moment where reality dawns on you.

And that's why -- this going to sound incredibly fucking cheesy -- I am asking you guys to be brave.

Face your fears.

Do the hard thing.

Read the book with trigger warnings.

Watch the movie that scares you.

Because you might love it and even if you don't it will make you braver, and you'll have something to talk about afterwards. At least.

Don't close yourselves off from the world. Just because something seems scary or strange doesn't mean that it's bad. Remember what Magneto said?

"Mankind will always fear what they don't understand."

Please, move past those fears.

Explore, be selfish, be curious, and question everything.

[dvasva]

I have a sincere question.

How will not voting for Biden help? Threatening not to hasn't worked to make him do anything to stop this monstrosity and I'm sure Trump will be (however slightly) worse.

I'm just wondering what you're proposing as a solution here? Are you just saying that it's selfish or something to care about how much worse things will get in the us while there's a genocide going on, or is there some alternative to voting for Biden that will actually help because I want to help whatever I can to stop the genocide.

/genuine

I'm gonna be genuine and honest when I say this; at this point, if you don't already dislike Biden and feel the same way I do, I doubt anything I will say will convince you one way or another, and I can tell your question is coming from this fearmongering rhetoric that was born during the 2020 election of 'Vote Blue no matter who', that I didn't agree with back then and I definitely don't agree with now.

I'm gonna level with you right up top, answer your question first, tell you what I think about all of this, even though it's not the most cheery thing. I don't think there's anything that will make things better. I think we are living in a rotting corpse that is like at most 6 months away from exploding from the built up pressure of gasses. I honestly don't know why you even asked me of all people. I can only really support community outreach, community building and mutual aid to mitigate the inevitable harm this whole clusterfuck, either way, will cause to the most vulnerable people, and can only urge you to do the same. We cannot have any political action until people start building community outside of online spaces. That is the biggest flaw of modern leftist political praxis, the lack of community. This is why the college protests are fantastic, because it is a small scale general strike amongst students, with people organizing and providing mutual aid to make organizing easy for the most amount of people possible. That's my solution. Mutual aid.

And, despite how I feel about questions like this, (especially considering aside from a few replies in various posts, and a generally active reblog and tag life about Palestine and Biden, I haven't made any original posts about this and I'm like... a rando with like less than 200 followers, so it's weird that you're coming to me with this question) I will treat this like a genuine question.

That being said, I did vote for Biden in 2020, despite my reservations. So, anything that happened during his presidency puts blood on my hands as much as anything.

I'll kind of start with saying that I am a hispanic, mexican, nonbinary person with a uterus and disabilities from Texas. My current governor is Greg Abbot and a lot of the most heinous conservative bills and debates regarding immigration, police, free speech, lgbt issues, abortion, etc, have taken place in my state where I live, and I am distantly related to Linda Coffee, one of the Roe v. Wade lawyers.

So, I'm not like. Some cishet white guy from Wisconsin who has never seen or witnessed oppression and who doesn't have any stake in any of this, and thinks the edgiest thing I can do is not participate in the system.

I come at this issue from multiple angles, and these are not like... the official political opinions of everyone who has ever agreed with me, this is just mine.

To start with, 1. I'm still voting in local and state elections, and 2. I don't believe in rewarding bad behavior. You said 'Threatening to not vote for him hasn't done anything to change his behavior' and so I'm going to carry through with my threat. Consequences and all that. Not that it really matters what I vote in presidential elections anyways. I live in Texas, a winner take all state. As we have seen multiple times, the popular vote is meaningless, and the only thing that matters is the electoral college. Texas is gerrymandered to all hell, and it's districts are drawn in a way that will always favor republicans. Until our corrupt ass state can finally manage, by some fluke, to vote in a non-republican who is actually willing to redistrict the state and prevent gerrymandering (which they wont do cause they're all chickenshit), all of Texan electoral college votes will go to the Republican candidate. I know we're not supposed to say our vote doesn't matter cause 'every little bit helps' but my vote literally does not matter in a real, tangible, way.

I know a lot of people are scared of having their rights stripped away, sure, but none of you have listened to POC, especially to POC living in southern states. All of this stuff that Trump is threatening? The more police, the border stuff, anti-trans bills, abortion? It's already happening in this country. I don't have abortion rights, I don't have freedom of speech on college campuses, I don't have a right to form a new union, I don't have trans rights, and if the police wanted to, they could pull over anyone in my family and arrest and deport them simply because of the color of their skin, regardless if they're actually an immigrant or not. Cop Cities are popping up around the world, the police is militarized and think it's ok to violently arrest peaceful protesters on college campuses. Meanwhile, the rich keep getting richer. Rafah was invaded last night, tanks placed on the border preventing anyone from leaving into Egypt anymore, and all the while the richest fuckers in this entire country, many of whom have voiced open and intense support for Israel, all met up with their tickets that cost 75k to take pictures in their pretty outfits and ignore the ongoing genocide.

All of this stuff is already happening regardless of who's in charge, and the only difference between Trump and Biden, to be honest? Northern Liberals will actually care about what's happening if Trump is in office. If Trump did everything that Biden did, there would be mass outrage about Palestine from every single Vote Blue No Matter Who person who's around. It's easy to blame the people whose rights have already disappeared for the threat that your rights might disappear as well. This Vote Blue No Matter Who thing is a cry for comfort. It is the people who are not feeling the effects of the crumbling empire we live in crying out, screaming 'Let me feel the comfort for a little bit longer, I don't want to be subjected to the things that others are already subjected to! I just want to be comfortable for a little bit longer!' And I honestly am not interested in voting for white northern comfort just because the other guy is threatening to take that away too.

And you are right. I do think it's selfish to try to focus on your own comfort while ignoring the active genocide of Palestinians, the ethnic cleansing being done with American Money, the thing that puts blood on every taxpayers hands, a true example of Taxation without Representation. Palestine is not the sacrificial lamb that we are entitled to trample over to ensure that we are comfortable. To think so is so monstrously dehumanizing, to say 'I can't focus on that cause I have to worry about me' while actively funding it. That's the biggest catching point for me. We have a responsibility to oppose Biden, to not vote for him and to actively call for him to step down and allow a different person to run, if not dismantling the system entirely, because this blood is on our hands.

Other people have said a lot more clever things about this than me, but Palestinian oppression is directly linked to all oppression around the world. Police in the US train with IOF soldiers, use the same methods on american citizens as IOF use on Palestinian citizens. This is not a case of 'two random countries that have nothing to do with us duke it out'. Israel is acting with the direct and explicit blessing of Joe Biden and the United States Government. He is, even for the standards of Democrats who like to say pretty words while bombing brown people, a warmonger. Like, violently so. Biden is legitimately more dangerous than anyone is giving him credit for, and is actively and openly funding blatant and obvious war crimes. That should honestly get him arrested and tried in an international criminal court.

Anyhow, that's all that from an American perspective. If you wanna really figure out what to do to help, seek out voices who actually know what they're talking about instead.

I recommend Imani Barbarin:

Also, check out my pinned post for ways you can provide a bit of support or learn more about the active ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Especially check out Esims for Gaza. Aid has been inconsistent at best, but if you can't find anything else to do, send esims to help keep Palestine connected to the world.

[coffeeman777]

Do you believe God may be using Donald Trump to serve as the best presidential candidate to serve your country? A lot of people have been saying his assassination attempt was “an act” which is very disrespectful to those who were involved, got injured, and the lives that were taken too soon that day. The media is also desperately trying to antagonise him to ensure he does not get elected.

He also seems to be expressing his faith in Jesus more which I think is excellent. We all need Jesus regardless of what our circumstances are. And even though God knows what his true intentions are, I keep looking back at that one quote in the Bible where as long as the message of Christ is shared for all to see, it’s worth rejoicing about.

That’s my take on the matter anyway. If you do not want to get involved with political matters you don’t have to respond to this publicly. I’m more than happy to have a conversation with you in private.

Heya! I don't mind answering publicly.

Donald Trump is the best option we have right now, surely. And if America is going to survive, Donald Trump has to win this election. I'll be voting for him.

Donald Trump is arrogant. He's not sufficiently prolife. He's very supportive of LGBT stuff. I'm not sure his faith in Jesus is real; he doesn't seem to be displaying real fruit of salvation.

That said, Trump is a very strong person. He was an excellent President the first time around, and I have no doubt he'll be excellent this time around. He's smart and capable. Most of his policies will be great for the nation. Trump will ensure that America remains the kind of place where the Gospel can still be openly preached and Christianity can be openly practiced, and that's of primary importance.

I don't believe that either of the assassination attempts were faked. I think both of them were the work of the leftist deep state. Trump is a threat to them, and they're desperate to keep him from reclaiming the Presidency. I wouldn't be surprised if they try again, if they fail to imprison him before the election.

[she-is-ovarit]

I need to rant to a radfem, even though ig this is a relationship problem...my boyfriend is leftist, it's clear that he's leaning radfem ally, which is nice, but I feel like he protects leftist men way too much in the way of misogyny.

I was talking about how performative men are when they posture hatred for pedophilia/rape, and he want on to say that "conservatives just do it more." I agree that conservatives definitely support institutional rape and pedophilia, but obviously progressive men are engaging in it as well if it's still such a widespread problem (I also have first hand experience with more than one progressive man in this regard).

He eventually agreed with me at the end, but most of the conversation he kind of seemed to be defending leftist men as if they don't contribute to rape statistics at all, just because they don't appear to support institutional misogyny.

The whole thing just put me off, and this isn't the first time he's had a take like this. It kinda just makes me wanna stop engaging with him politically at all, at least when it comes to radical feminism.

I am sorry to hear you're going through that, that sounds like a frustrating place to be. I don't feel that I can provide you with fresh wisdom or a very relational perspective as I'm not currently in a relationship and I'm homosexual, nor do I generally hang around men much anymore. However, I can say I would likely be upset too if I was in your shoes. It is distressing to have female-centered perspectives on issues dismissed or ignored just generally, but especially by people within our intimate circles. Men across any political ideology do not generally consider things from a female-focused lens and are less inclined to do so when a group they associate with or their core beliefs fall under scrutiny. Political polarization certainly doesn't help with this.

[morlock-holmes]

@rationalismizationism

This terrible article is an example of a grift very similar to the one it is satirizing.

A big part of my break with mainstream leftist politics is the inability to explain the "crypto" in crypto-racism.

"You see, you’re missing the main point here. Woke is a secret code word, a whistle of sorts, that alerts people who look and think like me that we’re on the same side without ever having to use a racial slur in public."

Why?

No, really, why not just use the racial slur in public? Why not just advocate for segregation? Or slavery? People were able to do that for the vast majority of our nation's history, so why wouldn't Ron Desantis just start quoting Bull Connor?

"Well, he knows he'd get into trouble if he did that..."

Oh, so people like you have the leverage to get national opposition party presidential candidates to tailor their speech to some extent?

If the answer is "yes" or "no" we both get to some awkward places.

If Ron DeSantis avoids saying racist things, even though he doesn't care about what the lefties think, then we might be forced to confront the idea that he, you know... isn't actually itching to say racial slurs?

If he is itching to say them, but he doesn't because he's scared of the woke left, then...

Clearly they actually have a lot of power?

The clearly stated central idea of this piece is that people who disagree too strongly with the author is probably just a secret racist.

So, can you get in trouble for being a secret racist? Is disagreeing with the author (Or a certain teacher, activist, HR person, coworker etc) sufficient evidence of being a secret racist that it could get you or me into trouble?

If the answer is yes, we've kind of just found a pretty good non-racist reason for concern with wokeness.

If, on the other hand, a lot of people disagree with this author for non-racist reasons, then they are part of a fairly large group of demagogues passing along a completely false view of America, which is also a non-racist reason for concern.

Don't think I'm letting the right wing off the hook here, they have a very similar problem which is that if they defined "woke" in a coherent way and followed that definition to the end, they'd have to acknowledge the ways in which the "woke" have been politically marginalized for the last half-century and their own fear based grift would fall apart.

That's what I was saying below; if the national Democratic party has been completely co-opted by woke people, and wokeness is (as @whitehotharlots said) a desire to Defund the police, abolish prisons, create restorative justice, enact hate speech laws, enact gun control laws, and create an atmosphere where you can get fired for suspicion of racism, why aren't they, you know, doing most of that?

How do we explain the complete inaction by the national Democratic party on prison and police abolition?

The political aims of both the woke and the anti-woke require the cultivation of a sense of powerlessness against an enemy.

But if that enemy were defined concretely either side would be essentially required to admit that they *already* wield significant power in *some* areas, to the point where they've already succeeded in boxing that enemy out of key areas (cultural and administrative power belong to the woke, political power to the anti-woke).

Why this admission is so impossible is my major obsession right now.

[warwickroyals]

so the ruby article got me curious... there's a section about "husband's sexuality" and "relationships" as well as "anti-fascist and socialist ties" 👀 what was ruby and george's relationship/marriage like, and are these things related to why they never had children? hypothetically, if george had survived and became king, would louis (his nephew) ended up as king eventually anyway because of this? was 1930s sunderland society more left-leaning or were ruby and george kind of unusual for their anti-fascist and socialist beliefs?

I'm going to answer this question in chunks because that's what's easiest. This is actually really helpful because next year I plan to do story posts about past generations of Warwicks! I have a bunch of notes:

George's sexuality: He was most likely bisexual and had some gender/cross-dressing stuff going on. Ruby knew about this and so did members of his direct family. The public did not know. His mother, Queen Anne, treated it as a weird but harmless quirk, his grandmother Matilda Mary encouraged the cross-dressing as a form of artistic expression, but his dad . . . uh, wasn't so understanding. George was prohibited from expressing his gender and sexual identity the way he pleased, but Ruby was generally supportive of George, and he was attracted to her. They were very much a love match. So she wasn't, like, his beard, she was just in a relationship with a bisexual man who maybe sometimes liked wearing pantyhose. They still faced some prejudice from upper-class circles: Katherine and James mocked Ruby about George's sexuality even decades after George's death.

Kids with Ruby: I think they would have had children. As I said before, there was intimacy between the pair and Ruby wanted kids. The main reason they didn't have any was because George was killed before she could get pregnant, just three years into the marriage. I feel like George, even if there was no attraction there, would have kids to prevent James (his brother and polar opposite) from reaching the throne. George and Ruby were probably waiting to have kids once the War was over, and when the world was a more stable place. They were looking forward to their future together.

1930s Sunderland: Was not left-leaning in the lead-up to WWII, in fact, the previous King Nicholas had cracked down massively on leftist political movements on both an institutional and grassroots level (all behind closed doors, of course). Nicholas hated communists more than anything and tried really hard to uproot them from Sunderlandian society. This would ultimately create the social conditions that would lead to George's assassination, as Sunderland became dominated by moderate Conservatives who were toothless against the spread of fascism. This doesn't mean everyone was a Nazi sympathizer, but they had sort of an indifference that made them complicit: The average Sunderlandian wanted to stay out of the war, they didn't want a repeat of WWI, and although they were allies with the British and French, direct involvement didn't seem worth the risk, even if it meant not standing up to the far-right extremists in their communities. Plus, their opposition to the Axis powers was more circumstantial than ideological, let's say. I mean let's take a look at the United States of America in the 1930s and 1940s. Did America ultimately fight against the Nazis? Yes. Does that mean they were friendly to leftist ideology and had no ethno-nationalist movements of their own? Absolutely not. Sunderland was much of the same, they had their own issues with far-right politics becoming mainstream. The tide only turned after Pearl Harbour, when it became clear North America was not safe from an invasion. Standing up to the Nazis became its own Nationalists movement.

Ruby and George being socialists: These were rumours because they were so outspoken about the Nazis and fascism in general. Also, Ruby having Jewish ancestry made her an easy target of anti-Semitic Cultural Bolshevist narratives. I think Ruby and George hung out in more progressive and radical circles than most of the royal family, but weren't officially socialists. Their outspokenness was unprecedented for members of the royal family. The rest of the family, mainly King George II and Prince James, were reluctant to voice any political opinions (this was more out of a fear that they would instigate things against the Axis powers than any personal political beliefs). Their fears were justified: George was the one who was vocal against Nazi Germany, George was the one who pushed his father out of his Isolationist mindset following Pearl Harbour, George became the scapegoat for Sunderlandian racists and fascists, George was the one who was shot dead as a direct result.

[donnerpartyofone]

I've been doing a lot of research on a certain form of esoteric religious art, and I'm dismayed to discover that one of the most important and informative books on it is written in a voice that I find really irritating. I wouldn't say it's *badly written* by any means, but I have a hard time with a certain kind of self-righteous, aggressively worldly, hippy-dippy attitude that so often accompanies subjects and causes that are of genuine value. I'm taking this reading as a training exercise in separating values from aesthetics, something many of us find hard to do, and a lot of dysfunction comes from this problem.

I have a conservative relative who is addicted to a certain website that aggregates TikTok videos of whiny, spoiled, egotistical Gen Z'ers, many of whom just so happen to be trans; the collection is meant to prove that being insufferable is a native component of being young and trans, but of course if any of the video subjects were to stop being oversensitive exhibitionistic assholes, it wouldn't change the year they were born, or their relationship to their bodies. Actually, beyond condemning the generational and gender identities in question, the collection is really meant to condemn leftists, as if this form of insufferability has a causal (and contaminating) relationship with issues like civil rights, social welfare, and environmental protection. This is like saying that a person can become more or less republican with the addition or subtraction of country music from their cultural diet, or that enjoying NASCAR can make you more or less caucasian or American for that matter. I remember the night George W. Bush was elected, one of my more performatively lefty classmates (who was secretly really sexist and racist but we discovered that later) stomped around screaming "That fucking TEXAN! That fucking TEXAN!", as if being associated with a cowboy state were the worst thing he could think to say about W--who in fact was born in Connecticut, went to boarding school in Massachusetts, and graduated from Yale, one of the Ivy League schools that is the target of so much spite from anti-intellectual right wingers who hate on leftist elitism (and which is much more respected than the school we were in at the time, setting issues of class/money/nepotism aside). Just because certain cultural elements appear to coincide more with certain positions on the political spectrum, doesn't mean that the former is a necessary and proprietary consequence of the latter. These connections are just attractive because political orientation stirs up so much ire that it's exciting when you see a really obnoxious, embarrassing example of a person who you assume votes a certain way. It would be nice to be able to say that e.g. leftist thought is bad because of white people with dreadlocks and drum circles and poor hygiene, but those things aren't any more "left-wing values" than being a toothless illiterate yokel is a "right-wing value". These things are all just rude, generalizing distractions whose only content is emotional. The craziest version of this kind of red herring that I saw recently was a thread right here on tumblr dot com insisting that the monolithic Left is angling to legitimize pedophilia. The evidence at hand was a positive WaPo review of a play about the private agonies of pedophiles, and OP tried to further the idea that child sexual abuse is a historically leftist occupation by identifying NAMBLA as a left wing organization. Which is like, just not a really useful or lucid way to think about what NAMBLA wants and who in the fuck would ever support them, besides the fact it's not at all hard to find legions of protected pedophiles in the church and the monarchy and various other not-very-lefty places. BUT I DIGRESS. I must read this pompous-sounding religious art history book, I must absorb the information in it, even if I think the author's voice is a little too smug, a little too condescending, and a little too drum circle-y for my taste. She still has a point to make and I still need to hear it.

[mitchfynde]

I agree with some of what you're saying and I disagree with other parts, some parts vehemently. The talking point about the primaries being rigged... it just doesn't work for me. This was not an example of it being rigged, because there flat out was no primary. There was nothing to rig. Since timing was short, they chose the VP. It's the most obvious choice, as it's the person people already technically voted for when they cast their ballots for Biden.

Another thing about the primaries is that parties don't owe you those in the first place. You can choose to vote for whichever party or independent you want. The parties don't owe you a separate democratic process for choosing their candidate. Simply don't vote for their candidate if you don't like who they chose. That's what happened this time around, clearly.

Sorry, that topic is just a pet peeve.

The assumption of "vote blue no matter who" was definitely wrong and I definitely agree it was a problem. I believe the reason they tried so hard to court moderate Republicans is because they probably were aware of the fact that public perception of the party right now is that they are too far left, as funny as that is to anyone on the left.

Honestly, I think it's hard to energize the Democrat or leftist voters. The leftist media sphere is very anti-America and anti-electoral politics. They mock the idea of voting. They are embarassed to support the candidates, as they view them as an extension of the colonizer state that they loathe so much. I don't have as much insight on why it's hard to energize the moderate left, true Democrats, but I'm sure someone out there knows.

Republican voters certainly don't have a monopoly on being dumb or voting based on emotion. I would certainly never claim that everyone who votes Democrat are intellectuals. Hell, even some of the people who ARE intellectuals voting for the Democrats are people I'd consider dumbasses. People who rallied behind Kamala while still insisting that she was genocidal come to mind.

THAT BEING SAID, I do sort of resent what you said about Democrat voters being histrionic. Voting for the guy who tried to steal the previous election sets a very scary precedent. Especially if you have any knowledge about how it was done. And it seems like the fears of what kind of administration he'd run are already proving to be correct, based on who he is nominating.

The Republicans are, right now, more fanatical and fundamentalist than they've been in awhile. Abortion already got flipped to the states. Trans issues have been center stage for years, primarily because of right wing media keeping it there. It's a scary time if you have any progressive values whatsoever. And those fears are not at all unfounded. The same cannot be said for the opposite side.

For your short list:

Don't agree with your phrasing, but I agree with you on the optics. It was definitely a bad move to skip the primaries, but I wonder if Biden stepping down so late sort of doomed them regardless.

They definitely need to energize their base more.

Appealing to Republicans certainly didn't work this time, although I think it should still be done. Biden had some success with it.

The smugness angle certainly needs to be addressed, but it's difficult with such a huge double standard in demeanor between the parties.

Wasn't even aware they scapegoated minorities, but if they did that certainly isn't a good play either.

I personally like the DNC, but they need a big refresher on strategy going forward. I have some confidence they'll at least have a better attempt next time. If they lose again this brutally, it will be crazy, but that's assuming USA has any more elections lol.

[primalspice]

Leslie: A1, A5, A9, A14, A20, B2, B7, B9, B15, C2, C5, C8, D2, E3, E4, E8, F2, F7, F10, G3, G4, H4, H5, I1, I5, J1, J4, J8, L3, L4

Leslie

A1: What of the Meyers-Briggs personality types they most fit into? INFP, ENFT, et cetera…

INTJ apparently. i'm not 100% certain on that but pretty sexy of her if true.

A5: Are they good at handling change in their life?

she'd say 'Yes Absolutely' and be somewhat correct about it since she's had such a life full of changes, but i think she takes the unexpected changes pretty hard. she's adaptable n all but she's gonna be pissed off about it the whole time. especially if the change is a certain SOMEONE being completely irrational and unhelpful when theres SHIT TO DO.

A9: Does your OC make a lot of excuses? For themselves? Others? 

She'd be more likely to come up with an excuse for herself before someone else, but generally speaking she doesn't do much of that at all. More like an explanation than anything. Big believer in taking responsibility for one's actions <3

A14: Is your character empathetic?

Not at all but that is ok :)

A20: Are they harsh on themselves?

Yes but in the same way I mentioned Selma being in that she's like 'i'm doing everything right so why is everything so wrong'. plus there's the added pressure of coming from a semi-famous family. I think she's the only person who actually really cares about that, but she does very much feel the need to make a better reputation for herself because of it.

B2: Do they get frustrated when lines at places like pharmacies, check-outs, delis, banks, et cetera, are moving slowly?

yes and she doesnt care about how leftist unionizing justice slay it Isn't. hurry the fuck UP.

B7: How do they respond to babies crying in public?

shut that baby the fuck UP.

B9: What kind of humor does your OC like the most? Slapstick, ironic, funny sounds, scare pranks, xD sO rAnDoM…

Definitely into dry humor, sometimes bordering on mean humor LOL on the flipside she'd probably also chuckle and say so true to work/leftism related classic impact font memes tho if she were alive today bcz she is like 45 years old.

B15: Does your OC enjoy social events, such as parties, clubs, et cetera..?

she doesnt LOVE them she'd much rather be at a smaller gathering of friends than a whole event, but she goes anyway bcz Collaboration And Community Is Important or whatever. she can appreciate bigger gatherings for that purpose. bonus points if there's alcohol or something....

C2: Would your OC feel bad if they acted against their morals? If not, would they find a way to excuse themselves for it?

Yea she'd feel bad about it. She might look for an excuse, but more like an explanation for herself since she so rarely does such a thing.

C5: Do your OC’s morals and rules of common decency go out the window when it comes to those they don’t like, or when it’s inconvenient? Aka, are their morals situational?

she can get real mean but I don't think her morals ever included not being mean <3 in fact, she sticks to what she thinks is right even if it requires being mean in the process (or when someone is challenging her, being mean to her, etc). she simply does not have the time to worry about compromising for people.

C8: Is your OC more practical or ideal morally? I.e., do they hold people to high expectations of behavior even if it’s not realistic for the situation, or do they have a more realistic approach and adapt their morality to be more practical?

definitely ideal. out of the ivy/leslie/selma trio she probably has the highest expectations on others. not that her politics are especially more radical or anything, she's just very uncompromising. a lot of it comes from the expectations she has for herself after leaving her family's legacy n all. a "if i can do it then you DEFINITELY can do it, stop making excuses" approach. sometimes a "well i wouldve done it THIS way and ur just a dumbass" approach. it's unrealistic and unsympathetic but SOMEONES gotta do it.

D2: Do they believe in an afterlife?

Nah but it's not rlly a popular belief around here anyway. It'd probably make things a little easier on her if she did :/

E3: How many languages do they speak?

Just English

E4: Did they enjoy school if they went to it?

Yea i mean she enjoyed going and she excelled at it, her only hangup was/is the political implications of being like the third generation of famous military doctor family, being taught by your famous military doctor parents at your family owned military doctor school....as someone who is staunchly anti-military LOL. Otherwise tho she really enjoyed having a chance to do the more abstract/research side of things instead of hands-on. odd for a surgeon who's entire job is built on being hands-on but sure.

E8: What’s one of your OC’s biggest regrets?

her biggest regret is not having the intuition to be at ivy's office on the day of the Killing and Maiming. NO she could not have realistically been there even if she wanted to, YES it still makes her mad.

F2: What’s their ideal home look like? Where is it?

Her ideal home would be somewhere completely foreign to Region Zero. maybe somewhere warm. it'd be just big enough to live comfortably and it wouldn't be surrounded by toxic sludge. the bar is pretty low. she'd live with ivy and selma again too if she could :/

F7: What’s their “dream career” or job situation?

surgeon who researches and only performs surgeries that interest her instead of 20 tumor debulkings per day. or if its not allowed to be doctor-related, commie zine writer. yea she contributed too.

F10: Do they engage in any of the arts? How good do you intend them to be? Would they agree they are?

art of collab commie zines. she probably only really writes data reports (in laymans terms ofc) and maybe some autobiographical stuff so its not particularly the most artistic thing, but she's ok at it. she doesn't think shes very good at it but I think she gets the job done.

G3: Does your OC find their family supportive? If not, what would be an example why not?

they were supportive before she disowned them LOL she should probably give them a little more credit considering she wouldn't be where she is now without them, but fuck those ppl 😤 she was a grown adult tho, so everyone just kinda said what the fuck is wrong with u and left her alone after that. it was explosive for like a month bcz of the betrayal of it all (she was ok with this she'd been holding the cuntyness inside for like 30 years) but they just dont talk anymore it is like she never existed to them.

G4: What kind of childhood did your OC have?

privileged and bougie LOL aforementioned family were government/military affiliated doctors that founded their own medical school at the Conception of the region. so shes always been quite rich and well-educated. luckily she never got sick of the doctor thing either, shes been training since BIRTH. I'm sure she took part in whatever sort of extracurriculars they present for a bougie little child.

H4: Does your OC believe in love in first sight?

not particularly, i think shes a little more practical about it.

H5: Does your OC believe in marriage (or their culture’s equivalent)?

the contrarian in her says NO thats SILLY but i mean. she would partake if asked *blushes*

I1: What are their favorite kinds of flavors– Sweet, salty, sour, spicy, creamy, et cetera?

she strikes me as someone with absolutely offensive taste in foods. region zero genetically modified spicy pepper. region zero moonshine. sweet+sour combinations that absolutely should not go together but she acts like its normal. she'd probably enjoy those blue takis or spicy mountain dew or peeps pepsi if she lived here today. that combined with the cigarettes truly cannot be good for her intestines but shes still kickin.

I5: Are they a good cook?

See Above 😬 she can cook but god forbid she do it for anyone but herself.

J1: Where does your OC stand most politically? What would they align with most?

her views are pretty similar to selma's minus the extreme pacifism. its kinda a result of them Collaborating and leftist infighting for so long together. i think she's a little most focused on the health crisis above all but not really by Choice (fuck you selma fuck you selma). Otherwise I think her top concern would be military/gov corruption since that hits pretty close to home. its alllll intertwined tho the priorities dont matter that much.

J4: Is your OC the sort to fall for fake news? If not, do they ignore it or make a point to clarify that it’s wrong?

NO SHES QUITE ANALYTICAL BUT. MAYBE IF IT WAS RLLY GOOD LOL. SHE'D DEFINITELY MAKE A BIG DEAL OF CALLING IT OUT.

J8: In reality-based or applicable worlds, do they believe in global warming? Do they recycle?

shes not as informed on the environmentalism as selma but Absolutely to both

L3: Did you create the character to be like yourself, did they end up being like yourself, or are they very different from you?

she was beamed into my brain with a very specific cunty purpose in mind. i could only dream of having a fraction of her power

L4: Would you hang out with your OC if you could?

i probably wouldnt hang out with her she'd criticize me too hard but i think shes cool.

[moogieandadhd]

fml. - A Personal Note on ADHD and Capitalism

disclaimer for this post: my personal political views are mine only and do not represent my educational institution or my employer. if you have different views, or don't agree, i'm open to discussion if you want to talk about it. however, this blog is not about politics. this blog is about existing with ADHD. please engage in friendly debate only. thanks!

if you're an ADHDer in the world of leftism, you may have heard or been asked the question "would ADHD still exist under capitalism?". if you're like me, you probably were a little taken aback by this question. my initial thoughts were, "capitalism sucks, but this disorder that has seriously fucked with my life is not seriously being reduced to just an anti-capitalist 'gotcha'?"

i was pretty bothered by that question. i slept on it, thinking about it forever before i thought about what the question was really asking. first, we have to understand the leftist theories in what happens in late-stage capitalism as well as how ADHDers have always existed in this country (USA, for my international pals).

the general societal expectation is to go to school, get your license and buy a car, graduate high school, get a job maybe while you are still in high school, take out some thousands of dollars of loans to go to college, get a degree and start your career, get successful and maybe even rich. you can start a business if you want to, trade crypto and buy stock, get filthy rich, and die. we are expected to consume, consume, consume. there are 14 different brands for the same kind of canned chicken noodle soup, made in the same factories. all for our consumption, under the illusion that we have choices and that there is individual freedom in those choices. this is a super brief summary, but definitely look into more leftist/marxist theory if you are in interested. this is a good quick read.

now, how does this tie in with ADHD? under this same lens, ADHDers are diagnosed based on our disruption and inconvenience to society. we are all over the place. stereotypically, we don't sit still. we have trouble with authority. classrooms are either a constricting hell, or the one safe place we can simply be. we have an increased risk for addiction. we are more likely to be arrested than neurotypicals. we are at risk for developing comorbidities, such as anxiety and depression. we are more likely to drop out of schooling, and more likely to not pursue college. our divorce rates are higher than average. we are more at risk for getting into debilitating debt. less likely to get promoted at work, or keep a job for a stable amount of time. more likely to have our lives reduced to a statistic.

it's pretty fucking depressing, right?

all of that goes pretty hard against the expectations for capitalist society. but, i always had this theory that our society was not built for anyone who doesn't fit that specific standard. cisgendered, white, Christian, traditional, rich, attractive, non-disabled, no mental health issues, generally a convenience, whatever that specific standard is. having undiagnosed ADHD until i was 18, i experienced that in such a rough first-hand account.

if you don't want to read my personal story and get back to the topic, skip down to the dashed line. there's a lot that i wrote on my personal experience, i kind of word vomited. but if you wanna read that, it starts now!

typical burnt-out gifted kid. always had my nose in a book. was reading at a 12th-grade level in 4th grade. then something changed. maybe it was trauma, maybe i was just bored because i had done it all, who the hell knows! my grades went from straight-A's to D's and F's. i used to say that i would off myself from embarrassment if i ever failed a grade in the 6th grade. then i failed the 9th grade, my freshman year of highschool. then i really did try to. then i was depressed. then i did stuff for attention and couldn't stay interested in a hobby and got into all sorts of trouble. run ins with police, addiction, all that very fun stuff. then i got my ass handed to me by the cops and my parents and i tried to save the shredded ribbons of my high school career. i left public school and homeschooled. i made it to my junior year before i crashed again and dropped out. tried to get a job, because i couldn't be a bum and live at my parent's house without doing anything. got fired after 3 months.

then, i was forced to go to therapy. again. i was first in therapy in middle school after the first cracks were appearing - slipping grades, general lack of care for the future, and the self-harm and the eating issues jesus h christ. i won't go into detail for the sake of sticking to the topic and to prevent triggers, but you get the picture. i was a mess before my life even really begun. that therapist helped me to an extent. she helped me sort out my feelings and trauma. then i was "stable" until what i call the Crash and Burn Era of my life. definitely humbling.

anyway, this new therapist was pretty interesting when i told her everything i had been through. the ADHD conversation went something like this:

me: "im just not really sure what's wrong with me. i feel so different from everyone else. i take stuff too far. i know the right things to do, but yet i do the complete opposite."

therapist: "do you like coffee? or, energy drinks maybe?"

me: "yeah. i drink them all the time. they don't really give me energy, but they're good, so."

therapist: "have you ever taken Adderall? or Vyvanse? anything like that?"

me: (instantly thinking about all of the drugs i experimented with. yes, definitely did those several times. didn't understand the hype.) "um, i dunno..."

therapist: "i'm not gonna tell your parents or report you. you mentioned having issues with drugs, so i just wanna know if those ever crossed your path." (she has a serious face on when saying this).

me: "um, yeah. i've done both of those. uh..."

therapist: "how did that go for you?"

me: "i'm sorry, i don't think i understand?"

therapist: "it's a straightforward question. when you took stimulants, how did it make you feel?"

me: "well, uh... everyone said it makes you feel like, super euphoric and super focused." (worried at this point anything i said would be used against me in a court of law) "um, i had friends who took it and were able to pull all-nighters with homework and stuff, but, like, i was just kinda tired actually."

therapist: "have you ever heard of ADD or ADHD?"

me: "yeah of course... how do you think i got the Adderall? haha." (insert painfully awkward laugh here.)

therapist: (actually laughed at my joke attempt, making me feel less like im being interrogated) "i'm gonna schedule you an appointment with a psychiatrist. i can't believe you haven't been tested for ADD or ADHD yet."

....and thus, the can of worms was opened. i was diagnosed with combined type ADHD (both hyperactive and inattentive) two months later. i researched as much as possible: books, scholarly articles and studies, ted talks, blogs, anything i could get my hands on. and everything just fell into place so perfectly. it was like the time when i got eyeglasses for the first time and i put them on and saw so clearly. (i remember saying, "is this how everyone sees?")

then i was angry. my own perception of ADHD was misinformed, but research on it was severely underdeveloped, and media portrayal was just garbage. i just happened to get randomly lucky. the universe conspired to get me back on track and damn, was it a doozy. i was angry because after my weeks of research, it all became so obvious. but i wasn't a disruptive little boy who was always running around and breaking rules. my parents couldn't have thought it was so obvious. but i was angry at them anyway.

then i was angry at the world. angry because the typical public school system isn't designed for kids like me. angry because i was always treated so differently and always behaved so differently, but i was given the same solutions as everyone else and expected to just get on with life. i learned masking. i learned how to blend in. but it was never right, was it? otherwise it would have worked.

------------------------------------------

but then, what does ADHD look like if we took away all the structure and all the expectation of society? what is ADHD when i'm alone in my room? that is the answer to the question, i think.

and the answer i have come up with is: ADHD would still exist without capitalism. but, we wouldn't be punished for it. i remember my hyperfixation phase on greek mythology and inevitably, the percy jackson series. notably when they discussed ADHD early on in the first book. percy, the main character, has a best friend named grover (who is a satyr). when he finds out he is a demigod (mortal mother, his dad is posideon, pretty crazy), grover explains that his ADHD isn't a weakness.

"....And the ADHD - you're impulsive, can't sit still in the classroom. That's your battlefield reflexes. In a real fight, they'd keep you alive. As for the attention problems, that's because you see too much, Percy, not too little."

i gotta hand it to rick riordan: that man gave millions of ADHD kids solace in his series. god bless that man.

but, that's the essence of it. ADHDers are not a product of late-stage capitalism; we are a product of a brain that is wired differently. if our means of personal value was not based on how much we can produce, how much money we made, if we were not made to feel guilty for resting, if the modern-day boring classroom was no longer, if we were given rehabilitation for addiction, and prisons are indeed obsolete... those symptoms would not go away. a quick google search brings up these typical symptoms (disclaimer, not every ADHDer will have every single one of these symptoms):

being unable to sit still, especially in calm or quiet surroundings.

constantly fidgeting.

being unable to concentrate on tasks.

excessive physical movement.

excessive talking.

being unable to wait their turn.

acting without thinking.

interrupting conversations.

that would still exist. our motor mouths or goldfish syndrome wouldn't just magically dissipate. but it would mean our existence would be less burdensome. i can't really give you the full picture, because i don't know that utopia. but i can say, i believe there would be less comorbidity rates. there would no longer be a pressure to mindlessly consume and produce beyond our threshold and burn out. i believe we would be free of mindless consumerism and production, the handcuffs off. that would improve for everybody, ADHDer or not - but especially so for us. the unbearable weight that is capitalist expectation, the guilt and shame that many of us are familiar with, tossed to the side. we are not expected to have excessive material wealth to be considered worthy of respect. we are not to be obedient and blindly loyal dogs for corporations that are worth trillions and give us scraps to live off of, and we are slapped if we dare to ask for more.

ADHD is not a product of capitalism; but capitalism definitely doesn't like it.

[mywitchcultblr]

Why i don't have minor DNI.

So here's the thing fellas from what I gathered, DNI most of the damn time ain't working because when i put a big banner about bigots DNI, they still interact anyway, so it's feels silly to keep DNI on my acc. You can do whatever tho, it's just don't work for me...

( since when this DNI thing even trendy? )

It's like putting a yellow police tape for a rhinoceros speeding at 300 mph, it just can't do anything. So I just gave up on it, also i don't think i have to scream MINOR DNI DNI at every damn moment because first of all I'm not their parent, this is a public space and it is just a damn basic homosapiens common sense that minor shouldn't interact with NSFW stuff

( Well lots still gonna do anyway since they are curious. I did that when I was young and admit it all of you are doing it as well. Lurking around place you shouldn't be when you are younger )

The best thing adult can do is put a sign "hey this adult only thing" and not talking nsfw with minors also be mindful around them. That's it.

Which I said on pinned post that if you aren't an adult don't interact with post tagged nsft ( when I didn't tag that's because i forgot )

Even though sometimes I post some whatever kinky fandom stuff, those things are not main focus of this blog. This is not an nsfw blog nor super clean family friendly wholesome blog.

Just super random account

I throw a lot of things into this blog, especially leftist politics and analysis. I think it'll be terribly unfair if i say "i don't want any teens or anyone under 20 to interact ever! Even with my positivity post or informative post."

Ye I said DNI most of the time doesn't work and people gonna do whatever

Still... There's lingering sentiment... Like if I make a trans positivity post particularly about trans youth and I have minor DNI tag because I'm stressed over what kind of whatever minor might see. That's sounds unfair, no?

No one can micromanaging all minors, I get it that it's good people are more mindful and care about minor safety that's good.

But adults can't keep stressing about what minors might see 24/ we already do what we can with disclaimer and warnings etc etc. The internet itself is a public digital space that was not made for children. Like... it's random.

Also, I get it. Because many influencers or whatever exposed as dog shit pedo that's makes people stressed and worried about any minor interacting with adults even if just commenting in public space.

I get the public sentiment... Still many many adults are decent people who understands what one should and shouldn't do, and teenagers although naturally when you are young you'll do a lot of stupid shit... You'll say a lot of stupid shit... I know, I was a teen too once

But they are not braindead, they are not a jellyfish, I trust they knows about boundaries and stuff, also I already put a warning.

Adults already did their part...

Also I cannot verify the validity of every blog age okay? Especially if they have no age stated on their damn blog.

Unless it's blatantly obvious that they are minor. I'm gonna assume they are adults

[fierceawakening]

plznocopypastarino

But zionism isnt just an idea, its a government policy no? And currently that position has a history of kicking palistinians out of their homes and giving them new isreali arrivals, wouldent it be more akin to saying "im an austerite, a right to austerity"? its not just a idea of a return to a homeland, its a flawed political position thats been used to do harm

one-letter-man I’d expect for it to be called Jewish Nationalism or even Kahanism ( I don’t know wether Netenyhau specifically follows that idea or a variation of that, but Kahanism is specifically the «push-everyone-but-jews-out-of-Israel» ideology here.) to avoid using a dogwhistle on Jews, and avoid mixing it up with historical usage- we are in a way post-Zionism because Israel already exists.

(taking the links out because I don't want to at anyone and be accused of sealioning/"demanding" they reply)

This is actually the kind and tone of conversation I expected before people responded with rage: if Zionism *isn't* Kahanism, and we all (I hope!) agree that Kahanism is bad, what does Zionism actually believe?

Prismatic defined it (as far as I can tell; they got pretty emotional and it can be hard to see someone's logic when they're angry) as a belief in Jewish indigeneity, and a belief that follows from that about "self-determination in their native land." (Taking out the phrase "a right to" because people seemed to think I use that word wrong, and I don't think how I use that word is the central issue.)

Elsewhere, I've seen it defined as "a belief Israel has a right to exist." This was the phrase an influential person in the leftist circles I was in in the 2000s used to argue that *everyone* who doesn't hate Jews "is a Zionist," and we should all get used to calling ourselves that.

Based on this, for a long time I called myself "a Zionist" if asked, taking it to just mean something like "I believe I know less about Jewish people's oppression than they do, and that they should be listened to in leftist spaces."

What started to erode this for me was thinking about the phrase a little more (which is likely why I bring up the word "right" to a degree that's odd to readers.) A person has a right to exist, but does a country? What does that right look like? If a country is accused of being "settler colonialist," does that mean something about its "right to exist?"

Based on this, I realized that the US is (also? it's what's being debated!) settler colonialist, and that if settler colonialism is bad, the US may not "have a right to exist" either!

It DOES exist, and needs to be acknowledged as a place that exists with real people living in it, even if some of them are "settlers" (*raises hand*), but it might have come to exist illegitimately, so it may not have a "right" to exist.

So I decided I'm probably *not* a Zionist, after all, as mad as it might make the one person who taught me it was required to be an ally to Jews. But I didn't really get too deep into what that might mean, because I have friends on both sides of the I/P conflict and when I try to choose one, I feel inevitably like I'm betraying someone's trust or someone's memory.

Then this war happened.

I tried REALLY HARD to convince myself the response to 10/7 wasn't, or wouldn't become, a genocide. That no one who was part of the group "never again" is about would EVER be willing to be a party to genocide. It HAD to be something else!

Other people on my blog can attest to a whole OTHER (though less intense, because a well known blog didn't decide to spotlight me as Badwrong) shitstorm about how terrible it was I wouldn't use the g word yet.

I... eventually decided I *couldn't* deny that what I was seeing was genocide. That just having been genocided *does not* magically make people unwilling to do it to someone else.

Suddenly, the question of Zionism became less abstract to me.

So I left it at "I'm anti-Hamas, intensely anti-bigotry against Jews which is RAMPANT, but can't get on board with Zionism. The assumption that a country has 'a right to exist' has awful, awful consequences."

But I saw posts on my dash asseting, kind of as I remembered and kind of not, that "most Jews are Zionists" so "if you oppose Zionism, you oppose the majority of Jews."

That didn't sit right, so I read a few posts.

Whereupon I saw one that defined Zionism not as a right of Israel to exist, but of "Jews to live in a land to which they are indigenous."

Which perhaps I misread, as people keep acting like that has nothing to do with right of return and I don't know why. But I parsed that as "I get to go there if I want, as I'm a Jew and that makes me indigenous."

Which then had me head scratching, as I'd always ALSO heard that the Palestinians ate ALSO indigenous except for just now when Prismatic Bell asserted they're actually "Invaders."

If both are indigenous, then wouldn't a right to self determination on that land apply to BOTH groups?

Hence me asking if that's compatible with Zionism, as (hopefully) the opening point in a conversation about what beliefs being a Zionist requires you to hold, if any.

And getting told to Google.

Yay?

I mean I can read about Kahan and look at that one quote from... is it Herzl? about civilizing the Arabs and gross myself out again but I'm not sure that's gonna help me understand what people *on my dash* are trying to say.

“Being anti Zionist is inherently antisemitism because all Zionism says is that Jews have a right to live in their homeland.”

Do other groups all have the right to live in their homeland? What is “a right” in this context?

If I have “a right” to go live in Greece, as it is my homeland, what exactly is owed to me by the Greek government?

Every time I try to figure out what the other side is saying this concept of “rights” to “homelands” pops up and is discussed as if it’s obvious and I can’t even decode it.

I believe refugees from the Holocaust should absolutely have been given asylum somewhere safe for them, but I have no idea how that parses as “a right to live in their homeland.”

Im open to the idea that there exists a version of Zionism that does not include slaughtering the other people who also want to live in their homeland, but i don’t get how it looks when none of these terms are defined.