#and like i disagree with the ban for moral/political reasons

[spencereid]

horrible day for people with no hobbies and no sense of individual identity

[wander-wren]

almost escaped the anti-ao3 posts this donation round but of course today i get smacked with a few, so i go hunting for this year’s arguments, which, as expected, touch a lot on palestine.

what i’m seeing here is a shitton of inflammatory language and very few sources, and even fewer sources that aren’t screenshots of That One Tweet. most of the arguments from both sides are made on things that aren’t entirely true. i dislike this. so let’s clear the air a bit, hm?

1) ao3 is a racist/zionist organization

ao3 has had its scandals, including the 2023 management scandal in its full glory, which you can read about at the linked fanlore article. that covers several different areas where ao3 messed up. i will not defend these instances. i will, however, point out that very few of the current anti-ao3 posts mention them.

additionally, there is this fanlore article specifically about the issue wherein a volunteer was told to remove “from the river to the sea, palestine will be free” from their status, which is the singular piece of evidence referenced for ao3’s zionism. it has been spread that the otw banned or kicked out this volunteer, which is untrue; they left voluntarily. the otw also offered to allow the volunteer in question to change the status to “i stand with palestine,” communicating the same message in a less polarizing way.

you are allowed to dislike this decision. i do. but the otw slack is first and foremost a professional space, and they are within their rights to ask for political discussion to be kept out—or, in this case, to a politics channel so it can be opted out of. i am not currently aware of anyone having asked the otw board to ban or otherwise address pro-israel sentiments in the slack server, so i cannot actually make any statements about unequal decisions, because those decisions were not made.

ultimately i do not disagree that otw/ao3 have made poor choices rooted in racism in the past, but i also believe many of these posts discussing it now are performative, inflammatory, and misleading, which is not helpful

2) donating to ao3 during a genocide is bad/selfish/racist/etc

there are always problems in the world. this is literally the same argument as every previous year with new paint on it. people can care about more than one thing.

3) ao3 is a scam/mismanages money/gets more than they need/is horrible for not paying volunteers

here is a post i made last year breaking down ao3’s budget. what’s funny is, i saw a post going on for paragraphs about how they “calculated” that ao3 has 2.8 million in reserves (assuming their 2023 numbers shook out, it is like $1.5 million at best. these numbers are public and easy to find) and that they have “no idea” what to do with it and are deliberately not being transparent about it (they have publicly stated in news posts exactly what that money is for).

one very confusingly-worded post seemed to argue that it is morally wrong to have volunteer library workers, which is the same as ao3? something about master’s degrees? i just thought that was funny because. like. what. do you think the volunteers are the ones with a master’s in library science, friend?

also, people have said it’s a scam because they don’t update the site, and i’m like….what do you want them to update, exactly? i just want more tags wrangled. i suppose that translates to me wanting an update on the servers or whatever bit of hardware is limiting the tag system. otherwise i don’t see why you have to fix a good thing.

4) ao3 hosts evil bad fanfiction

ah, the age-old “child porn” argument. or racism is a big one this year. do i have to get into this one? it’s so goddamn annoying. just read the about page or a wiki article with your eyes. anti-censorship. yada yada yada. also, if you use the phrase “child porn” i do not respect you or take you seriously.

okay, first of all, fanfiction does not meet the definition of csam. it’s fanfiction. it’s fiction. there are tags for a reason. none of it is illegal. most of it has been published in real books for money before. you can hate it, but it deserves to exist, and with the way explicit material is getting deleted off the internet (see: wattpad’s new policies, google drive’s new policies), ao3 is a last bastion in the storm.

5) you should check out end-otw-racism for more helpful info

honestly i thought this movement was dead by now, but i’ve seen a lot of it mentioned today so i went to check. some things i found, scrolling alllll the way back to august:

a pinned post from SEVEN months ago that is several paragraphs of back-patting from the mods about how much “work” and “goals” have been accomplished and how grateful they are to the community. no mention whatsoever of what those goals were or what specifically was accomplished. also says the mods are going on break for a while, which presumably is still in effect

a few posts about the otw’s board meetings for various months, each rehashing how a board meeting runs and when the next one is being held. no information about what questions or comments the organization wants to focus on for each meeting or specific actions supporters should take

post about substack being a nazi site now (this is the only post i fully respect)

more board meeting reminders of no substance

a post reviewing the board elections, going over each candidate. the post acknowledges that no candidates mentioned the campaign or its specific goals, and instead grasps at vaguely related topics as if to show the volunteers are listening to them and they have done something

more board meeting reminders

a post about an update to the board’s strategic plan for 2023, which also acknowledges that the update does not really do anything end-otw-racism wanted it to do. many instances of “could have been a great opportunity to” do what they wanted. this one DOES finally state eotwr’s “recommendations” for the next strategic plan update, which literally all boil down to “more transparency,” which i suppose is fair enough

absolutely NO mention of palestine whatsoever

post on the weibo scandal, which is fine but generic, and again, not something brought up ever again despite being made in AUGUST

here i will give you a reminder that some of eotwr’s goals, particularly the ones around moderation and censorship, were unrealistic given the otw’s mission. while i believe eotwr started with good intentions, it seems to have rapidly dissolved into something performative and did not have solid enough organization to actually make any difference. their silence on palestine (and they are still posting despite the “break”) also makes bringing them up in convos about otw’s potential zionist leanings very weird.

at the end of the day, support ao3 or don’t. your morals and reasonings are your own. just don’t lie about them in ways that can be easily disproved, mkay?

this discourse also made me realize it’s been a minute since i reblogged a proper donations masterpost for palestine, so i am on the hunt for a good, up-to-date one now. feel free to link me any you know of.

[chaoskirin]

I have a slightly weird question and I'm sorry if this comes off in any way negatively but I'm worried as all fuck.

I'm Irish, living in Ireland, but American politics has a huge influence over here. Conservative groups here pay folks from American lobby groups to come speak at their events to push banning abortion or queer/trans rights or denying asylum seekers. Not to mention the reach of social media and how a bunch of far right/fascist groups over here get riled up by people on the other side of the Atlantic to start riots and shit.

The prospect of trump being re-elected terrifies me because as bad as it is now, it was even worse when he was in power. Even if Biden didn't have a blue congress for this term it was still better. I'm sorry if this sounds like fear mongering or being unreasonable or naive but that's just way it seemed to me.

I don't know how to help y'all across the pond, I don't know what I can do from here. But is there anything we can do?

Hey, I thought about how to answer this for a while, so sorry it's taken almost a day to get back with you.

The reason I am so outspoken about Americans voting (and people from ALL countries who have a chance to stop fascism from taking over) is that there are FAR more progressive people than there are fascists. The fascists are just louder.

The problem is that progressive people are not playing the same game as fascists. The right wants total domination. They want to be able to jail or kill people who disagree with them. Whereas the left wants fairness, a right to choose, and peace.

The right has no qualms about using less than savory tactics to achieve their goals. Among these tactics are jailing people who disagree with them, denying those people the ability to vote, and engaging in voter suppression. The left believes that if they hold the course and play by the rules, everyone will eventually fall in line.

And, worst of all, the left currently believes in moral victory over damage control. A moral victory to the progressive left means voting for someone who has no bad marks on their record, and they continuously fail to see that that person does not exist. Whereas the right treats their chosen candidate as a god despite what they've done. The right will rally behind one person regardless of their actions, and that makes them terrifying.

In the United States, Republicans only make up about 25% of the population, and yet they account for half the vote. This is, in large part, because of voter suppression. But it's also because there are a lot of progressive voters who are refusing to vote because they believe this sends a message.

The best thing you can do is get the word out to everyone you know that not voting ONLY sends a message to the people who will be harmed by the result. One vote does not make too much of a difference. But a hundred votes? A THOUSAND votes? Every single vote adds up to something that WILL make a difference. And right now, the important task for everyone, both in the United States and abroad, is to impress on just how important it is to stop fascism from spreading.

Biden has done a lot of good things, but people tend not to listen to this. What they see is a man who allowed genocide. What they see is a man who has committed war crimes. A man who has allowed the transportation of weapons to Israel for use in this massacre. And they are all RIGHT.

But the alternative is worse. One of two parties will take the presidency. This is not in question. There has NEVER been a true independent candidate who has won in the history of the United States. And although people will point out that different parties HAVE won, it is only because they were backed by a political machine, and those parties then went on to become the current two party system we suffer with today.

An election year is not the time to challenge the electoral system, but it's only during election years that it seems to be brought up. So besides encouraging your American friends to vote against fascism, you should encourage them to work between elections to change the electoral system so that different parties have a chance at winning, and so the popular vote means more that the numbers achieved through the electoral college.

That's the most important right now.

[iteratedextras]

It would be easier to credit your concerns if the coalition you represent weren’t committed to strangling mothers with their babies’ umbilical cords and shoving queers into razorwire. Perhaps you might have a point if your program didn’t inflict 50 Rotherhams worth of misery on people you dislike. Until it doesn’t, I’m throwing my lot in with the child rape apologists.

So, for the first part of this...

to strangling mothers with their babies’ umbilical cords

Abortion is now a state issue in the United States, and public opinion polling does not suggest a total ban, but probably something like a ban on third trimester with an exception for rape, incest, and health of the mother.

Some organizations have apparently been denying care even when what the laws actually say does not require them to do so. It sounds like political hardball.

As such, this appears to be mostly, though not entirely, fake.

shoving queers into razorwire

This sounds almost entirely fake, unless you mean that the US needs to re-adopt its colonial mission in Afghanistan. The one that it fucked up so badly that the Taliban took back the country. That colonial mission.

If you understand what would be required for the US to actually succeed in its colonial mission in Afghanistan, then you will understand why I don't want the US to resume bombing Afghanistan.

So there are, let's say, two things I'd like to explain to you...

First, do you remember "Kamala is the border czar" followed by "Kamala was never the border czar, that's evil right-wing propaganda"? Likewise "moral clarity," the replication crisis, years of demonization, and so on.

Part of convincing people involves connecting them to an information network. A fact might be true, but you may have no path by which you can actually connect me to that fact.

Second, if you've been following my accounts for long enough, then you probably realize that I tried to use the abortion issue to get leverage on US Democrats in an attempt to convince them to drop their promotion of "race conscious" policy and racial conflict ideology. I see both of these as much more hazardous over the long term than abortion restrictions.

Democrats constantly scream about abortion, so that should have worked, right?

Well, actually, no. There is no structure inside the Democrats that can convert any amount of threatening abortion rights into giving up on "race conscious" policy and its associated legitimizing ideology.

There is no counter-party with whom to negotiate a binding agreement.

The Democratic coalition is utterly baked out. They're completely dependent on social power and ideologically coasting on inertia. Their intellectual vanguard consists of... Matt Yglesias. And that's basically it.

So you need to understand, you can't threaten me with Rotherhams, because you cannot credibly commit to stopping the Rotherhams.

So I have two options.

Option one is that I use every scrap of power at my disposal to ensure that the contemporary US right and the Republican party win so thoroughly and completely that they wipe out the Democratic party electorally for a generation.

As you can imagine, that would have side effects. Not only is this plan unrealistic, but have you seen how badly California is governed lately? Do we want to have a one-party-dominant state that's 100% trad tech bro going into the arrival of the two most important and civilization-shaking technologies of the mid-century?

Option two is that I create another another option.

I've provided you with about 1,200 words on discursive maneuver theory or rhetoric today, discussing some of my general tactics and techniques. I've discussed how to overcome a tactic that I myself use.

A young person asked me to explain myself on here about a year ago. What I said was very compressed, but once I explained it at greater length, they listened. They still disagreed, but admitted my point was reasonable.

So we're going to try the path of peace.

If you become strong enough to actually make the deal you appear to be offering (abortion rights and some variety of protection for queer people in exchange for termination of racial/ethnic conflict politics in Western countries), then you should be able to negotiate peace.

[horuslupercal]

Discovered your block, saw I'm literally everything you hated (Don't care about primarchxprimarch shipping, in the weird spot of being considered transphobic by tumblr standards for thinking gender isnt real but being called "tranny apologist" by 4chan stereotypes for telling them to just leave people alone, vaugely pro Isreal purely due to hamas but knowing it's very complicated issue and I'm not NEARLY knowledgable enough to form a solid opinion other than "leave civilians alone, hamas can burn in hell") but the posts of you playing games with your cat just look so cosy and "this could be me" and I just had this weird philosophical feeling of "This seems like the sort of personality I would be friends with if I met them irl but online they explicitly dislike me for xyz opnions"

Do you ever get the feeling/see cases of people putting all sorts of conditions up online for who they interact with but when you see the same person in real life they comparatively just... don't give a shit. Like you see "stereotypical tumblr user" hang out with people who makes occasional edgy jokes but don't mean them. I think on the internet, espcially on websites with a generlly cohesive culture (tumblr/4chan/etc) it's easy to isolate yourself by making "morally good people" the ones who have the same answer to everything that you do rather than differing solution to the same problem, unlike real life where you undoubtedly have friends/family you WILDLY disagree with on something but you still consider them a good person.

Sorry for the ramble, I'm adhd and bad at expressing myself with brevity. I just got weirdly philosophical over this. And I just hope people who agree on the fundamentals of "do what you want as long as it dosen't hurt anyone" but not the specifics on politics could bond more over the more... human? things. Like at the end of the day, were all someone who want to cuddle up and play games with our cat.

yeah man see I have this thing called principles. regardless of personality matches and shared hobbies, I will also call this stuff out it irl and it will impact my opinion of you. I have done this to family, I have done this to acquaintances, and I will continue doing it. and the reason people get so strict about it on the internet especially is that there is literally zero incentive to tolerate stupid shit. I'm here to relax and there are a million people I can do that with who aren't going to make me spend my time and energy debating with them

I will admit the shipping ban is an issue of annoyance more than anything else, because Warhammer fans don't seem to have ever encountered the concept of "do what you want in your own time, don't make me see it in mine". I have repeatedly had people knowingly overstep my boundaries about it when I state it more nicely so, if a policy of aggression means they stop trying to show it to me, I'm for it. but issues like supporting an ethnostate currently committing genocide? I am very, very serious. no amount of "well maybe they'll get Hamas" excuses the actively ongoing genocide. actions are everything.

[quirkless-fanboy]

my rant on complex characters

Unpopular opinion, but I'm sick of people calling complex characters "problematic", and I'm sick of problematic characters being viewes as a negative, because:

Most of the time they aren't actually even actually problematic, they're just realistic as in they make mistakes and do things they shouldn't, quite often growing from this.

You can be complex without being problematic and vice versa. If you think a character is problematic, think about why you think that, and then why you think it matters. If problematic people exist in the real world, they should exist in fiction, too.

What's the point of art if not to explore the world/reality, INCLUDING problematic themes and characters?

A lot of people with trauma and/or OCD benefit a lot from reading/watching/creating things you find problematic, as it's a safe way to experience certain topics and deal with the emotions they bring up. It can be [retty cathartic, and it's never okay to villainize someone for that.

It's FICTION. It's not going to hurt you, I promise. Worst case scenario, you get upset and have the choice to stop reading/watching.

Good writing is often inherently controversial. Some of the greatest books in the world are banned in Texas (including certain dictionaries). You're not going to change the world by being polite and socially acceptable.

Art has always been a conversation (insert all the million reasons why AI art is bad). It's not even about being right or wrong, it's about having a place where we can talk about things that aren't deemed "nice conversation" in any other context. Art gives us a place to process and to learn about things that are often considered taboo without art to begin the conversation.

Telling people what they can or can't read/write/watch is a slippery slope, and can always come back to get you.

You don't have to like everything, and that's okay. You aren't always the target audience, and if you don't like something, it's perfectlu alright to just stop reading/watching it.

It is NEVER okay to harrass someone, no matter how much you disagree with them. You can hate morally grey characters, you can hate problematic themes and dark stories, but there is never a good reason to harrass someone. The only thing you should ever be pointing out (aside from requested concrit of course) is if someone left out an important tag or trigger warning, because that's a safety issue. Other than that, just don't engage with content you don't like, it's already hard enough being a writer/artist without that.

I'm not saying that every piece of media ever created handles complex characters well, because there are definitely books and shows that don't ever hold characters accountable for their actions or even acknowledge that you shouldn't behave like that, but that can be done well, too, because guess what? Bad people don't always change or apologize in real life. Sometimes they get away with it and everyone loves them.

Also not everything in existence has to teach a lesson. You should be able to be a good person even if you read something about morally grey characters. If you're that influenced by what kind of content you engage with, it's your responsibility to filter that, not other people's responsibility to stop creating art you can't handle.

We need to fight back against purity culture, because real life is messy, and we need art to express and understand that. Burning books and censoring ourselves and each other isn't going to make anything better, it's just going to make us all struggle alone instead of together.

Remember to eat, drink, and sleep today!!!

[agnaeoh]

So I don't actually care too much about snow white or anything. I didn't care who got the role because I never intended to see the movie either way. Not a political thing, just no interest. Snow White was never my favorite anyways.

But I do think you have a double standard here. Namely, you're upset that people are "cancelling" Rachel and her movie because they don't like what she has said about it and they don't like her. Yet, you're perfectly alright with Gina being "cancelled" because YOU disagree with what she said and you don't like her. Seems like the same thing to me.

And I'm sure you'll say that deplatforming Gina is okay cause she is transphobic. Oh wait! You did say that. "Gina and her fans directly blame Rachel for her being banned from Twitter. Again, I really don't think that matters as she's harmful to the trans community and shouldn't have a platform."

You later said: "It's one thing to call out celebrities and hold them accountable when they're doing something actively harmful, but that's not what this is about." But who are you to decide what is actively harmful or not? I don't see how writing anything in a Twitter bio can be seen as active harm. And if writing words on Twitter DOES count as active harm, then it stands to reason that anyone who disagrees with a Twitter post made by Rachel could claim "active harm" perpetrated by her. Since harming someone no longer needs to meet any legal or moral requirements, no one need even prove any claims, they just need to make them. Because again, Gina's comments, while unpopular, hurt no one by any measurable means, and yet she was deplatformed.

What I am trying to say is, you do actively support deplatforming and speaking out against people who say things you don't like. So why get upset when people speak out against Rachel? People don't have to have justifiable reason to go after someone, and you support that.

Why You're Wrong About Rachel Zegler

This is a long post, but there's a lot of context missing from the Rachel Zegler "discourse" that I thought I could add with my history of watching this unfold from the beginning.

The Snow White Thing

You probably know this part. There's a curated video of Rachel going viral, framed to make her seem like she's never seen Snow White, she hates the story, she hates the character, she's ungrateful, and single-handedly ruined Disney's brand. The clips from these videos are not new— they were released nearly a year ago in September 2022 and nobody cared about them at the time. Why? Because all the full interviews she did that day at the Disney Exo in 2022 showed a young, charming woman who was excited and proud to be cast in an iconic role. The interviews were very well received and it was a non story. Now that it's been edited down and cut together in a malicious way, and the people sharing them are purposefully misquoting her, they've twisted the context. Normally, this would be a non controversy. Even if that video wasn't taken out of context and spliced together to make her seem like she hates the film, most people wouldn't care. The issue is the response to the video.

Let's get this out of the way: Rachel Zegler doesn't hate Snow White. She relayed that she was afraid of the forest scene as a child and didn't revisit it again until after she was cast in the role. She has since then watched it several times and has expressed for YEARS before that interview came out that she was incredibly honored and grateful to be playing such an iconic Disney princess. If you watch the full videos that those clips came from, this comes across immediately to anyone with their own mind. If you hate someone for being scared of something as a child, I don't know what to tell you. If the role was being given to the biggest Snow White fan, you would be correct that she doesn't deserve it. Unfortunately for you, this role requires talent and Rachel has the Golden Globe and critical acclaim from people who matter within the industry (her peers and critics).

You know who does hate their beloved characters in beloved franchises but the general public still applauds them? Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Daniel Craig, and Robert Pattinson. They've all expressed outright contempt for the roles and the films they were part of, but nobody cared. People had fun with their quotes but they still respected them. Rachel said nothing even closely resembling their remarks, but she's being torn to shreds. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Rachel never said a single bad thing about the character or the animated film— she said that it was outdated and that set people over the edge, foaming at the mouth to have her burned at the stake. If you think it would be perfectly fine to have a movie about an abused 14 year old girl run away to play housemaid for a bunch of men, get kissed in her sleep/death by an adult man, and then wake up to fall into his arms in 2024, that's certainly a hot take. If you're against remakes, direct your ire at Disney. But if you truly think that plot would work with young girls today, you're the one who's out of touch. It would do far more harm than good to portray a young woman in that light.

She also never said that there was anything wrong with romance or love. She said that the new Snow White wasn't only dreaming of that. I can't stress enough that this wasn't her decision… she was describing the plot of the new film that was written by Greta Gerwig and approved by Disney. There's a prince in the film and he will also have a more developed personality and storyline. If you have a problem with the writing, wait until it comes out so you can write your strongly worded letter to Greta. If you have a problem with the concept in general, take it up with Disney. There's no need for you to be defensive over hurting the legacy of a multi-billion dollar company or a 87 year old cartoon written by a proud racist antisemite. This is the most confusing part of the hate campaign to me because it wasn't even her opinion— she was literally describing the plot of the film she had nothing to do with. It also isn't a new thing. Disney actors have been promoting their newer films this way for years.

It's perfectly okay to like things that are problematic. It's becoming an issue that we refuse to acknowledge that maybe some things we love are harmful. What we can't do is justify why it's not problematic, and in fact everyone who calls it out is the problem and NOT their precious cartoon. The 1937 Snow White was an amazing feat of animation. It's a classic for a reason. But it was also Hitler's favorite film and was directed by a white supremacist (the one who is "rolling in his grave" due to Rachel's existence, according to his son). Things don't exist in a vacuum and we can't ignore the bad parts.

How We Got Here:

The thing that everyone is missing is the source of this campaign. This started in September of 2020 when transphobic actor Gina Carano made fun of trans people by changing her pronouns to beep/bop.boop. Rachel indirectly called her out by coming to the defense of the trans community.

She never called out Gina by name (though she rightfully could have). Mind you, Rachel's first film hadn't come out yet. Nobody knew who she was outside of those of us who were anticipating West Side Story and were fans of her covers on YouTube. She was a "nobody" in the industry. Take this part with a grain of salt because I can't confirm it, but Gina and her fans directly blame Rachel for her being banned from Twitter. Again, I really don't think that matters as she's harmful to the trans community and shouldn't have a platform. What does matter is that fans of Gina (which, let's be real, are just fans of transphobia) have been stalking Rachel's every move since then. Unfortunately for them, there wasn't much they could use against her other than to call her woke and #snowbrown when she was cast a year later as the Disney princess. The noise has always been there, but unless you were a fan of hers, you probably didn't hear about it. It wasn't until two years after this that they had something else against her.

If you've recently seen a video of Rachel crying circulating that claims to be her reaction to the recent Snow White backlash, it's an old video. It's from a vlog from her youtube channel posted in June 2022. It was in response to these exact same transphobic anti-woke conservatives who thought that they had something when she did an interview on the red carpet of the Shazam premiere. When asked why she joined the DC universe, she responded "I needed a job." It was generally well received by most people who thought it was cute and funny, but those who were waiting in the shadows latched onto it as an excuse to send her death threats.

The video was also about a month after she was invited to present at the 2022 Oscars and was made to seem like she bullied the Academy (as a no name newcomer, mind you) into letting her attend. In reality, a fan left a comment on her Instagram asking what she was wearing to the event. She responded that she wasn't invited but would be rooting for everyone from her couch in her boyfriend's pajamas. It was the public who demanded she get an invite and the Oscar's must have agreed that it was very odd that the lead actress of a film that was nominated for Best Film wouldn't get an invite. Whether it was an oversight on their part or a scheduling issue with Rachel's filming, I truly think there was no malicious intent from either party. Keep in mind, she used to be very active with her fans (she's a huge fangirl of things herself and has always had a strong relationship with her fans) and she wasn't used to her comments becoming articles and national tv segments. This was the first time it happened to her. It appears she learned that she's not just a girl who posts on YouTube anymore and she's going to be put under a microscope for every move she makes. She has since shut down her Instagram comments and rarely interacts with fans outside of liking comments these days because of this.

I know this is long, but I need people to understand where this is all coming from. It didn't just happen out of nowhere. It's an orchestrated campaign built by violent conservatives, and thousands of women who saw Barbie this summer are hopping on the bandwagon to beat another woman into submission because they have a lot of internalized misogyny to deal with. She's not smug, you just hate women. It's okay to find people annoying, but it's valuable to look into why you think that. If you see a confident young woman expressing views that don't actually harm anyone and you think she needs to be "humbled" and "put in her place" by the entire internet dogpiling her, you've lost your mind. Using "body language experts" (fake job) to diagnose her as a psychopath is so vile. Everytime someone mentions her name online, the comments beneath it are full of the most violent, misogynistic, racist things I've ever seen. If you're contributing to that, you've chosen your side. Reevaluate or seek help.

I'm tired of seeing this happen to young women. We let this happen to Jennifer Lawrence, Brie Larson, Millie Bobby Brown, Halle Bailey, and Jenna Ortega. It's one thing to call out celebrities and hold them accountable when they're doing something actively harmful, but that's not what this is about. That's never been what this is about. We pick these girls to pieces and examine them and pull them apart to justify our hatred of young women who rise to success too quickly for our liking. We dogpile and try to stamp out the flame before they burn too bright. Barbie is still in theaters and you all loved it, yet you're demanding that a bright girl with a big future be small and submissive and humbled because you have issues. That's not feminism. You're just the girls who would have bullied Weird Barbie for using her hands too much when she talks.

[poetessinthepit]

Numbers 5 is not advocating abortion in the "pro-choice" sense. It is literally saying if you, the husband, suspect your wife to have been adulterous, the priest can force her to drink a concoction that will induce a miscarriage - because your wife is your property. She has no say in the matter whatsoever. She is not having an abortion because she doesn't want to carry a baby - her husband is killing the baby because he suspects her of infidelity. This is a punishment. It is also worth noting that many elements of Numbers, and other Old Testament law books, are not followed by Christians because Jesus brought forth a new covenant.

Nowhere did I say that Numbers 5 is advocating for abortion "in the pro-choice sense" nor would I ever argue that. You're putting words in my mouth. The pro-choice movement is a modern phenomenon and it would be pretty ludicrous to look at ancient law and try to apply a modern socio-political context to it. However, the so called "pro life" anti-abortion movement does exactly that when they try and use the Bible to justify their stance. There is nothing in the Bible that condemns abortion and this particular verse is arguably reccomending or advising and at the very least neutrally describing the performance of what is essentially a chemical abortion in the case on a woman who has committed adultery. It gives the exact steps on how to perform this procedure. Nowhere does this say that this act is sinful, immoral or wrong. In fact, it's performed by a priest! It's seen as a just punishment for adultery which is actually specifically condemned in the Bible. It essentially refutes the premise that abortion is wrong according the Bible. I personally do find this verse to be barbaric and sexist but I also don't use this book to justify my political positions. I'm not advocating women who get pregnant through adultery be punished with abortions. I merely advocate that all women have the right to an abortion if that is what they seek.

I'm also well aware of the new covenant and that verses like this one in the old testament amongst others are the reason that most sects of Judaism consider abortion to be fine and actually think it should be protected. Religions disagree on the morality of abortion which is why one could argue that it violates religious freedom protections to ban abortion.

I don't think the new testament nullifies this verse. This is the only place in the Bible where abortion is specifically mentioned and it's not in a negative way. I think that is significant.

[adifferenttime]

Andrew Ryan vs. Robert House

On almost every House post I make, someone in the notes will reliably reference Andrew Ryan. I totally get it - they look similar, they're based on the same guy, the parallels are so clear that the NV dev team added an achievement for killing House with a golf club - but I think these commonalities tend to engulf both characters, blotting out some of their more interesting ideological/personal differences. It's useful to examine them in relation to one another, but part of that is figuring out what distinguishes them, which is just what I’ve attempted to do.

It's difficult for me to talk about Randian objectivism because I don't think it's sound enough to address on its own terms, but considering this is the philosophy Andrew Ryan has adopted, I kind of have to. What I’d identify as the core premise of Randian ethics is this: altruism is a moral wrong. Some Randians have argued that isn't really what they believe - that the real point is anything resembling altruism is self-interest in disguise - but they're departing from the beliefs of their icon when they make those claims. Per Rand:

The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice – which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction – which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

The way Rand defines altruism is by linking it to self-sacrifice, which she uses to differentiate it from kindness or benevolence. Aiding others at no cost to yourself is benevolent, but not altruistic, and therefore not evil. Sacrificing your happiness to help another human being is, from Rand's perspective, evil, as is any philosophy that prioritizes the other at the cost of the self. This whole idea has been broadly rejected by most scholars on account of it being really fucking stupid. What justifies the leap from "man is naturally selfish" to "selfishness is good"? If selfishness is moral, wouldn't the most moral behavior be to exploit others through whatever means necessary, favoring force over the market? Rand defines happiness as "using your mind’s fullest power," achievable only when you "do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal," but why is this the only definition? What if your only options are self-sacrificial in nature? How do you weigh them if neither sacrifice is linked to values, individual achievement, or "your mind's fullest power" at all? Rand didn't care because she was too busy trying to ethically justify cheating on her man with her best friend's husband, but nonetheless, this is the philosophy Andrew Ryan’s adopted. He claims that "Altruism is the root of all Wickedness," in what's almost a direct quote from Rand herself.

To that end, Ryan builds a system that doesn’t just accept selfishness but actively incentivizes it. Every other principle he expresses is subservient to the ideas that selfishness rules man, and that for Ryan to act on his own selfish impulses is the highest good in the world. His lesser political principles (individual liberties, negative rights, the creation of a stateless society) don’t matter to him as much as the central precept from which they stem: that selfishness is his moral imperative.

What is the greatest lie every created? What is the most vicious obscenity ever perpetrated on mankind? Slavery? The Holocaust? Dictatorship? No. It's the tool with which all that wickedness is built: altruism.

It doesn't come as a particular surprise to me when he starts imprisoning dissidents or executing rivals or banning theft (standard practice in most societies, but not what an egoist would pursue; if you can get away with taking it, you deserve to have it, or so the thinking goes). I’ve seen him described as a hypocrite, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true considering everything he does is in line with his opposition to altruism. He'll adhere to his other principles only if they don’t sabotage his pursuit of personal power. This is evident in the fact that he only adopts a negative perception of Fontaine when his own interests are threatened, but doesn’t give two shits what Fontaine might be doing to sow conflict and harm people before that point. A guy named Gregory asks Ryan to step in against Fontaine early on before Fontaine's fully established himself as a threat to Ryan's power, and Ryan's extremely blase about it.

Don't expect me to punish citizens for showing a little initiative. If you don't like what Fontaine is doing, well, I suggest you find a way to offer a better product.

Contrast this with how he reacts when Fontaine has risen as a genuine business rival. This is from the log titled "Fontaine Must Go."

Something must be done about Fontaine. While I was buying buildings and fish futures, he was cornering the market on genotypes and nucleotide sequences. Rapture is transforming before my eyes. The Great Chain is pulling away from me.

This double standard is the natural outgrowth of his prioritization of self-interest. If your most deeply-held belief is that you should never give up your interests for others, ancillary rules become flexible in times of personal crisis, and Bioshock makes the case that putting someone like that in charge of a city will leave you with a crumbling, monstrous ruin.

Superficially, House has some similarities. Ryan executes political rivals; House has you blow up a bunker of his ideological opponents. Ryan is the highest authority in Rapture; House is the absolute monarch of Vegas. Their goals and moral codes, though, are almost diametrically opposed. When you ask House why you’re expected to trust him when he’s openly admitting to installing himself as the despot of the New Vegas Strip, he says this:

I have no interest in abusing others... Nor have I any interest in being worshipped as some kind of machine-god messiah. I am impervious to such corrupting ambitions.

Most of his resources are devoted to large-scale, impersonal projects, aimed either at building the power of Vegas or securing his long term goal of “progress” as he sees it. He’s rejected selfishness as a moral good because House is very far from Randian objectivism. He's a Hobbesian monarch.

In that respect, he shares an outlook on human nature with Ryan that I deeply disagree with (that human beings are essentially selfish), but in terms of what that means for the structure of a utopian society, House takes a very different position. From his perspective, human nature breeds suffering, not industriousness, and the only way to stamp out conflict - and, in a post-nuclear age, ensure the continued survival of the human race - is through a strong sovereign. The purpose of a state as laid out in Leviathan aligns very, very closely with the one House expresses.

...the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men...

The monarch's successes are reflected in his society and the well-being of humanity as a whole. To subvert his goals is to subvert society's goals, and to doom humanity to the war, death, and suffering that exist in a state of nature. When you destroy his Securitrons/kill him, he doesn't plead for himself or get offended on his own behalf. He accuses you of betraying not him, but mankind.

Single-handedly, you've brought mankind's best hopes of forward progress crashing down. No punishment would be too severe. Fool... to let... personalities... derail future... of mankind? ...Stupid! Slavery... the future of... mankind? What... have you... done?

An important corollary of this idea which again distinguishes House from Ryan appears in Leviathan’s description of the political/moral responsibility of a monarch to his subjects:

...that great Leviathan, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority... he hath the use of so much power that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad.

Hobbes and House give the monarch virtually unlimited power but match it to the monarch's duty, which he lives to fulfill. His obligation is to speak for the people, act for them, and protect them from all threats, internal and external. House generally abides by this, orienting his decisions around his goals for society irrespective of the personal cost (the negative consequences of his actions are a product of his fucked evaluations of what’s best for society, not personal greed). It’s not just a departure from Ryan’s philosophy but a complete refutation of it. He's almost died for what he's misidentified as the greatest good.

Given that I had to make do with buggy software, the outcome could have been worse. I nearly died as it was…. I spent the next few decades in a veritable coma.

This is not the behavior of an egoist. This is the behavior of an extremely arrogant but marginally altruistic (from a Randian perspective lmao) guy. This is some distorted “from each according to his ability” shit if you’ve managed to convince yourself your abilities exceed those of everyone else who has ever lived and that you can get the Mandate of Heaven by being really good at statistics.

The reason these guys develop such similar structures and hierarchies despite the ideological gulfs between them is because both of them are elitists who’ve experienced a massive failure of self-consciousness. They’re unable to conceive of other people as being fundamentally like them. Ryan separates people into the clearly-delineated classes of “producer” and “parasite,” ignoring the fact that everything he’s ever “produced” was reliant on a huge, coordinated effort between workers, architects, accountants, middlemen, and others, all of whom, in conjunction, contributed more to the realization of his dreams that he ever could have alone. Rather than realizing his own position is more parasitic and reliant on other people’s labor than that of anyone else in Rapture, he adheres to his doctrine of selfishness even when it’s not reflective of reality and is ruining the the lives of an entire city of people. He deludes himself into believing he’s a superman among ants instead of one flawed man who is reliant on the goodwill of others to help him survive, as are we all.

House, too, thinks he’s exceptional. Unlike Ryan, he acknowledges the necessity of the worker to a functioning society, but while he’ll accept his reliance on that labor, he doesn’t trust the laborer enough to share political power. House knows he’s invested in humanity’s survival and the creation of a better world, but he refuses to consider that he might not be alone in this goal. He chalks up the existence of the Legion to fanaticism/the ambitions of a sultanistic dictator and attributes everything the NCR has done to greed, without it ever occurring to him that the massive harm these nations have done was partially motivated by the same goals he’s devoted himself to - and that the atrocities he’s committed since his rise to power are, in some respects, very similar. House knows himself to be invested in the well-being of humanity, but he’s too arrogant to ask himself if his methods are wrong or trust other people to build a new path, one that doesn’t necessitate his complete control over the land and people of the Mojave. Ryan and House’s worldviews are distinct, and their flaws, as highlighted by their respective narratives, say some interesting things about how each set of devs view power and the pitfalls of elitism.

Anyway. If you put these two men in a room, they would probably try to murder each other, and I think that’s great.

[stormyykat]

stormy . stormy can you tell me more abt aka. he is silly to me and i love his divorcecore swag in the akalum ship

OK SHURE !!!

hes one of my many fail losers who i hate very much..

-full name aka ravenway. omnisexual probs. at least 5 ft tall. fox guy but can shapeshift a little. "father" of savari [dont mean that in a omg he isnt father way but in a he sucks way].

-divorced 3 times over [first with koko. they broke up because of disagreements on how to lead skywaiy. second with tiki whose name i still need to change, they honestly just weren't compatible. and third with calum. they were actually in love but calum started to politically and morally disagree with aka more and more and he couldn't take it anymore, so he kickstarted the resistance and then ofc aka tries to kill him by stealing his face and also curses him + his sister. love loses.]

-he's an incredibly angry and awful bitch who sucks. hes constantly trying to create the perfect world. because he has creation powers he can't exactly destroy things like he wants to, so he just sends unwanted things to the void where they are stuck in space hell forever. he puts announcer up there too as a watchman but kinda forgot abt him so... this is also where he sends calum after the divorce event.

-he usually tries to force others to do his destruction work for him, when he cant just send the problem to the void. he struck gold with ithna [god of loyalty] and monte [sad and alone] and they are his two most trusted officers. ithna was the one who destroyed the vasselott kingdom and monte is the one who deals mostly with the resistance.

-during the story of douselfend hes the main antagonist, trying his best to stop his daughter's mission to wreck his shit. his first attempt at this was actually pinecone [assassin for hire] but he failed and got befriended. his reach on savari becomes very limited once she goes to planet toolah, as that is the planet tiki rules, and he is banned from there. [technically speaking he could still go there but. tiki is the god of war i dont think that would go well.] most of the story is him preparing to stop savari once she makes it back to skywaiy.

-the reason he wants to kill his daughter is because she is actually one of aka's attempts to create a perfect living thing, but savari finds this out and isnt very happy about it! who knew treating ur daughter like a test subject would make her not like you??? human interaction is so difficult /eye roll......

-for the period of time after he almost kills calum he is very disarrayed and depressed. he absolutely HATES feeling bad about what he did to him because in his mind, calum deserved it and more. however, a part of him regrets it deeply. it takes awhile for him to recover but when he sees calum again after he comes back because of all the story shenanigans, its enough to send him into a complete spiral of emotional destruction. this leads to him deciding the best way to be free of this is to just. destroy the process that allows the people of douselfend to exist [soulbelt, holds all the souls so people can be reincarnated, also allows current souls to be stabilized and supported] and start his vision for perfection from the ground up. calum pulls his epic gamer move [send every god somewhere else other than douselfend] and aka ends up in. uh idk maybe at a furrycon i actually havent decided where to put him.

and yah <3

[arcticdementor]

Nonsense. This all just proves how deeply you're still trapped in the populist delusion, "one of the most thoroughgoing of all delusions."

Obviously, both of these matter.

No, they obviously don't both matter. "Cash, respectability, a communication advantage" definitely matter, but "millions of Trump votes" is NOTHING! Votes do not matter:

Power is top-down. Democracy is an illusion. At best, one can say that this or that group of elites gets their friends elected. Power is never bottom-up, never comes as the result of a government-sanctioned street protest, a ratio, the fact you got 20,000 likes on Twitter, or because you ‘redpilled the normies’. When I wrote The Populist Delusion a couple of years ago, it was to teach these fundamentals of power. Many thousands of people read this book, but alas its lessons were not, in the end, internalised.

Reread this until it sinks in.

Winning the election moves Trump to a position of higher leverage within the system.

No, it doesn't. It moves him to a higher fictional position in the fake clown show for the smooth-brained rubes. It's like thinking Captain Kangaroo being promoted to Admiral Kangaroo would give him "higher leverage."

You'd think the Biden "presidency" would have demonstrated this. A rock could do the job of POTUS. It's all fake.

Let us call this theory of power, ‘The Twitter Anon Cope Theory of Power’. Under this theory, people in power – let us say Elon Musk, JD Vance and even Donald Trump himself – genuinely respond to concerns, hopes and dreams of nameless people and deviate from what they really want to do because said people counter-signalled them on the internet. But, also under this theory, such corrective counter-signalling is unnecessary most of the time because, you see, you should have faith that you have backed the right guys, ‘our guys’, when you voted for them. When ‘our guys’ win, so we win. That’s how it works. And we should all like winning. Martin majors in this second part of the equation, viewing himself not so much as a political analyst but as a kind of morale officer rallying and cajoling the faceless horde. What is important, for Martin, are not tangible results in this or that policy area, real results in the real world, but rather how people feel and how they express those feelings on social media. Martin, you see, is a kind of wizard, a transmuter to be specific, whose one magic spell is to take any situation no matter how dire, and how obvious a loss, and to try to spin it into a win. In Martin’s world, what happened this past week was not that the world’s richest man told most of the MAGA base to ‘go and F themselves’ because they disagreed with his preference for using H-1B Visas for foreign tech workers or that he started banning and deboosting his critics or that Donald Trump promptly came out and supported him. No, this story (read: what actually happened) is only believed by ‘losers’ and ‘blackpillers’. In Martin’s world, the story was that Elon Musk in the face of mass resistance from brave Twitter anons backed down, that the widely reported story about Trump backing him is fake news, and that those people who are now saying ‘look, we told you this six months ago, we told you this was coming’ are, in fact, enemies because they lack faith and resolve in the face of adversity. So to recap in plain English and without the cope: the MAGA base is going to get the exact opposite of what it wanted, but if you point this out, you’re the enemy, because reasons. This sort of magical thinking has become endemic on the online and especially American right over the past year.

…

As I’ve pointed out countless times, there is no trade off. How it works is as follows: a big donor, whether Zionist, Tech Bro, or any other stripe, gives resources and in exchange they get what they want. You, dear voter, like the kids in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, GET NOTHING, YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR. The costs to Trump of not going along with H-1B Visas or uncritical and blind Israel support is billions of dollars and institutional support. The cost to Trump of betraying the voters? None. ‘This time it will be different, get in the crystal’, they will cry. To which I can only say, ‘do not be silly, no it won’t be.’

…

Even now I see people who should know better, people who basically never learn, busily double-thinking themselves into enthusiasm about a confirmed charlatan, and snake oil salesman, Nigel Farage. His recent social media run-ins with Kemi Badenoch are tired, fake, boring, and should have all the fanfare of one of those Netflix series that are pulled mid-season. Yet there they are seal-clapping in delight like seven-year olds watching pro-wrestling. It is hard to tell if the excitement is genuine or feigned, but this past year I’ve moved rapidly to the conclusion that, yes, people are that stupid, and, no, they will never learn. I have seen enough news cycles come and go to know that ultimately people cannot ‘come good’. The same people who fell for it last time and this time, will fall for it next time too.

Elon Musk can tell Trump voters to go F* themselves because he matters and they don't. There are no real populist moments, no real peasant revolts. The masses do not move elites, they are only ever moved by them.

What will it take to get you to understand that votes don't matter, and democracy is fake?

Great Men Surf the Tides of History

Does the fate of humanity rest in the hands of great men? Or are there only the inevitable tides of history?

thesis: great man antithesis: tides of history synthesis: great man surfing the tides of history

– our own TracingWoodgrains, 𝕏, 2023

From far away in the sky, a pyramid is a gigantic formation, yet from up close on the ground, a pyramid is made of many slabs.

[ @arcticdementor ]

Musk matters. The millions of "MAGA" voters? Don't matter at all, and never will.

The foundation of what is large is what is small. What is an elite? In a political system, an elite is someone who is in a high position of leverage. Leverage is produced using a formation. Formations are not unified wholes; they are composed of smaller parts, and generate force through synchronized actions.

The work of management is to reduce the context of a production problem until it can be divided into jobs that can be done by labor. The work of labor is to reduce the context of a production problem until it can be done by capital.

The nature of the world is that it is thick and high-dimensionality, while the nature of models is that they are thin and low-dimensionality. Everywhere in the world, there is the friction of time, space, and information. A production problem is divided due to limits based on time, space, and information.

When a production problem is handled by one person, it is subject to one agency. It is in tight synchronization. When a production problem is divided among multiple people, it is subject to multiple agencies. It is in loose synchronization.

Due to the loose coupling of a formation composed of multiple people, as well as limits on obtaining and processing information, leverage is not fully consolidated in a single executive. Rather, there exist nodes of intermediate leverage, positions within system with greater power than an outsider, but less power than the person at the top.

Obviously, power isn't best thought of as binary. It also isn't best thought of as a simple scalar, although that's better than thinking it as a simple binary. In terms of simple models, power is best thought of as an edge in a weighted directed graph, an arrow from one person to another with a number attached. I may control the HOA and have the ability to set the color your house is allowed to be. You may own the neighboring fitness gym and control what hours I can access the pool. We each have a power relationship with each other. Which one of us is "more powerful"? That depends on conditions.

"There exist only elites and nothings" is an overcompression of the power graph. There are gradations of power. There are directions of power. Officers. Intellectuals. Journalists. People at different positions within the system, with different levels of talent, which allow them to exercise influence in different ways.

In a market, consumers having demand for a product does not cause that product to automatically come into existence. Instead, it creates an incentive for an entrepreneur to come by, assemble a company or team (a formation), and create that product. If no entrepreneur comes by to create the product, then the product is not created, and if no product is created, then consumers cannot obtain it.

Consumers exercise a low amount of agency in this process, though not zero. Demand is generally diffuse. Many people take a small action (evaluating and buying the product). Production is concentrated. A small number of people take much longer or more intense actions.

War is a form of cooperative competition which destroys factories and tramples fields. It shatters weaker structures by killing the men who compose them.

Capitalism is a form of cooperative competition that builds factories and plants fields. Men work hard and fight together to produce loaves of bread, companies are destroyed, and to a first approximation, no one dies.

Under democracy, men put together formations and compete. What are voters in this system if not the territory over which they fight?

Which matters, Elon Musk, or millions of Trump voters?

Elon Musk provides cash, respectability (to some elites, intermediate officers, or factions), and a communication advantage in the cyberspace layer.

Millions of Trump voters provide millions of Trump votes.

Obviously, both of these matter. Winning the election moves Trump to a position of higher leverage within the system. This provides more power to his political coalition.

What will he do with it? I think he wants to surf the tides of history. On January 20th, he will be back on the beach, and once again dive into the water. He may wipe out and tumble in the waves.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: I love your blog it’s definitely one of the most smartest and cultured ones around. Since you are a super chilled out military vet (flying combat helicopters, how cool is that?!) and also a very thoughtful and devout Christian (I think you talked about being an Anglican) I know this is a cheeky question but I’ll ask it anyway. Would you rather live in a military dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship?

Now this is an interesting question you play at 2am and the wine is dangerously low.

I have to correct you on a couple of things. Yes, it was ‘cool’ to fly combat helicopters especially in a battlefield setting but it was just a job, like any other. And it’s never about the pilot it’s about the rest of the team behind you, especially your ground crew who make sure you go up and come back in one piece. As for being super chilled you clearly have never seen how sweaty one gets flying in high stress situations. Oh and the stink! A skunk wouldn’t last 5 minutes in my cockpit.

As for my Christian beliefs, I’ll settle for being a believing one. My faith, such as it is, is about living - and failing - by grace day by day than being fervently devout. Faith is a struggle to not rely upon one’s own strength but on divine mercy and grace.

Anyway....

Would I rather live in a military dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship?

History has shown there's not a lot of difference between the two...

No, wait. On second thoughts maybe I would rather live in a military dictatorship as the lesser evil.

As an ex-officer in her HM armed forces, I know things will be run pretty efficiently with no dilly-dallying. So there’s that.

I suppose even if one does say it’s preferable to live under military rule rather than a theocratic one there is still the question of what kind of military rule? Every nation that has been under military rule came to power and sustained their hold under different dynamics. And of course it also depends on how mature civil society and the rule of law as well as the democratic culture really was in the first place. A lot is tied up with the brutal nature of the personality of the regime leader too. There are simply too many variables.

So one is forced to generalise. So l can’t get too serious in answering this question.

Rather than focus on the negative side let’s look on the bright side.

Just off the top of my head I can think of these reasons why I would choose to ‘live’ under military rule than a theocratic one. There are in no real order:

Beds will be made properly subject to inspection.

Families will be run like military units with the man at the head of the table.

Family meals will be taken at set times.

Public civility will make a return (e.g. no public spitting, drunken, or loutish behaviour).

Freedom of speech will more likely be censored than abolished (better than nothing I suppose)

Elections would be rigged rather than banned (but who really votes anyway these days?)


They will most likely make the trains run on time (unless you’re British or Italian).

Military leaders often enjoy genuine popularity - albeit after eliminating plausible rivals - that is based on “performance legitimacy,” a perceived competence at securing prosperity and defending the nation against external or internal threats. The new autocrats of today are more surgical: they aim only to convince citizens of their competence to govern.

Maintaining power, for military dictators and their court, is less a matter of terrorising and persecuting victims than of manipulating beliefs about the world. But of course they can do both if backed into a corner to survive.

State propaganda aims not to re-engineer human souls but to boost the military regime leader’s ratings.

The military tend to stay out of personal lives. They have a political police but not necessarily a moral police.

Economic growth is more likely to be stable than under a theocratic state.

Military dictatorships are more likely to build vast bureaucracies to run the state - more jobs for everyone

The military put on great events. Their parades are more colourful and spectacular.

Having a sense of humour is more likely to get you imprisoned than executed for telling an anti-regime joke. It’s no joke to say that people develop a more refinery subversive sense of humour when oppressed. Take for example a famous comedian in Myanmar, Zarganar, for whom comedy is a shield and a weapon. During the time of the military dictatorship (1962-2010) he would make jokes like, “The American says, 'We have a one-legged guy who climbed Mount Everest.' The Brit says, 'We recently had a guy with no arms who swam the Atlantic Ocean. But the Burmese guy says, 'That's nothing! We had a leader who ruled for 18 years without a brain!" It was for jokes like this that Zarganar received a prison sentence in 2008 - for up to 59 years.

Military dictatorships don’t last long. They are more unstable. They tend to fall from the weight of their own contradictions.

One of the problems of living in a theocracy is how absolutist it would be in looking at life in terms of clear cut black and white according to those who rule over you. I strongly suspect in a theocratic state the morality secret police will be all over you looking for any social or moral infraction. In a Christian Theocracy, you'll never be Christian enough - the same would be for states that were Islamic, Judaic or Hindu etc. There's always going to be some pious asshole there with another version of Christianity that is more Christian than you and you're going to lose the freedom to make your own choices.

Under theocracies, unlike other authoritarian regimes, the rulers are the moral authorities that legitimises and fuels their political legitimacy to govern. It assumes its own moral correctness married to its political destiny to rule over others. As C.S Lewis memorably puts it, “Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.”

Finally, I’ll go with the military dictatorship with the hope that there might be some way of bringing the system down with a bit of logic and rationality. Hell knows that wouldn't be possible in a theocratic system!

I agree with Margaret Atwood when she said, “If you disagree with your government, that's political. If you disagree with your government that is approaching theocracy, then you're evil.” There’s more wriggle room with fighting against a military dictatorship because it’s usually against an asshole tyrant - or a ruling oligarchy of a military junta - and not a pernicious idea soaked in theological bullshit or an entire ideology divinely santificated by God himself.

A more interesting question is not to ask is why many people are so readily drawn to be ruled under a military rule or a theocratic one and especially a benevolent dictatorship (like Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore or Paul Kagame in Rwanda) but why increasingly more people in the Western world look to authoritarian figures to rule and shape their lives?

Why do Silicon Valley titans like Peter Thiel and others like him think fondly of ditching democracy in the name of some utopian hyper-capitalist vision of ‘freedom’?

I hear murmurs of the same talk when I interact with corporate colleagues and high net worth individuals I hear it around dinner tables about how democracy is bad for business and profit. Often it’s accompanied by praise for China's ability to "get things done." I just roll my eyes and smile politely. 

I think - outside of the legitimate concern of the decay of civil discourse, the corruption of politicians, and corrosiveness of crony capitalism - it’s because democratic politics is hard. Damn hard.

Moreover democratic politics does not have a "right" answer. There never is.

In our Western societies it is the playing field (or market place?) where our values compete. Surely, you say, there is a right way to get the job done: to fill in the potholes, build the roads, keep our streets safe, get our kids to learn reading and math. Ah, but look how quickly those issues get contentious.

Whose potholes should get filled first? Do we try to keep our streets safe through community policing or long prison sentences? Should teachers be given merit pay, are small classrooms better, or should we lengthen the school day? These issues engender deep political fights, all - even in the few debates where research provides clear, technocratic answers. That is because the area of politics is an area for values disputes, not technical solutions.

One person's "right" is not another's because people prioritise different values: equity versus excellence, efficiency versus voice and participation, security versus social justice, short-term versus long-term gains.

Democratic politics allows many ideas of "right" to flourish. It is less efficient than dictatorship. It also makes fewer tremendous mistakes.

The longing for a leader who knows what is in her people's best interests, who rules with care and guides the nation on a wise path, was Plato's idea of a philosopher-king. It's a tempting picture, but it's asking the wrong question.

In political history, philosophers moved from a preference for such benevolent dictators to the ugly realities of democracy when they switched the question from "who could best rule?" to "what system prevents the worst rule?"

But clearly democracy is buckling under pressure in our torrid times. Populism - the logical end consequence of a purer democracy - is chipping away at the edifice of democratic norms and conventions. Increasingly inward looking nativism and nationalism fuel passions beyond the control of reason.

Perhaps it is time we went back to the tried and tested example of a monarchy, a constitutional one that is. 

A revitalised monarchy in Britain needs a Head of State that can provide a personal identity to an impersonal State, and a collective sense of itself. A Head of State who does not owe his or her position to either patronage or a vote can more properly represent all the people. Consider that a President who has been elected, often by a minority of a minority of the electorate, cannot adequately speak for the people who did not vote for him or her. It is even worse if the President has been appointed, because then he owes his position to a small clique.So, the accident of birth is the best means of appointing a Head of State. Someone who has no party political axe to grind, or special favours to repay to a vested interest. Someone whose allegiance is to the people. Not just allegiance to the people who voted for him or his political party, but allegiance to all the people of the country equally. Far from being "incompatible" with democracy, a Monarchy can thereby enhance the government of the land.

The Monarch is a national icon. An icon which cannot be replaced adequately by any other politician or personality. This is because the British Monarchy embodies British history and identity in all its aspects, both good and bad.

When you see the Queen you not only see history since 1952, when she took the throne, but you see a person who provides a living sense of historical continuity with the past. Someone who embodies in her person a history which extends back through time, back through the Victorian era, back into the Stuart era and beyond. You see the national history of all parts of our islands, together, going right back in time.

As Edmund Burke, Roger Scruton and Michael Oakeshott would say, the monarchy is a living continuity between the past, the present and the future.

With its traditions, its history, its ceremonial, and with its standing and respect throughout the world, the British Monarchy represents a unique national treasure, without which the United Kingdom would be sorely impoverished.

If you value national distinctiveness, you should be a Monarchist.

If you are anti-globalist you should be a Monarchist because Monarchies represent the different national traditions and distinctions among the nations.

The desire to secure, strengthen and promote your own distinct national icons, whether your Monarch, or your own unique national identity, should be your concern, whether you live here in St Andrews, or whether you live in St Petersburg, or whether you live in St Paulo.

As the global financial system rushes us all towards a world intended to eradicate all local and national distinctions, the Monarchy stands out as different, distinct and valuable. Constitutionally, practically, spiritually and symbolically the Monarchy is a national treasure, the continued erosion of which would change the character of Britain, and not in a good way!

I’m speaking as a High Tory now, sorry.  And so of course I only see it working for the United Kingdom....and the Commonwealth (slip that discreetly in there for you India, Australia, Canada, and Africa).

Still, if you want egalitarianism then look at Norway and the Netherlands - both highly "egalitarian" societies, and both monarchies.

Everyone else will just have to jolly well do without or ask us politely to come back (I’m looking at you my dear American colonial cousins, all will be forgiven).

The best of all worlds? Time will tell.

At your service, Ma’am....

Thanks for your question.

[iteratedextras]

This post is giving me deja vu.

[ @galacticwiseguy ]

This would be an acceptable argument for why that kind of specific legislated neutrality might be a good tactical choice in certain environments. I might even agree with you, for specific implementations. However it's a terrible argument for having a "principled position on speech rights" or for characterizing an alternative as "for me but not for thee" hypocrisy. There is no principle that all speech is a morally equivalent, and me and thee here aren't, like, two roommates having an argument about equitably dividing the dishes. Some things are good and some things are bad! Even if your practical system for adjudicating this includes some room for disagreement- as indeed it should and must- acting like every position is just another interchangeable sports team of equal validity is both very silly and also a recipe for disaster. It's the equal-time rule as a moral principle, with similar results.

When conservatives assume that they are correct about everything and therefore have no need for speech they disagree with, they usually have some past date in mind, even implicitly, whether that's "some time in the 1500s" or "the 1950s."

Conservatives usually don't make the argument you're making here. They just go straight to the object level of the thing they want to ban. So you're probably be a progressive or a leftist.

Among progressives, norms can change extremely rapidly. Media that was acceptable or even transgressive 10 or 20 years ago can become "problematic" and be subject to a social ban. If I remember correctly, Disney stuck a "This movie was a product of its time" type label on their live-action Alladin (the one with blue Will Smith) from 2019.

When a progressive says that they don't need free speech because their movement is right about everything, the "correct" date they're comparing to is approximately "last Wednesday."

This isn't an argument about principle, because I don't think you can be swayed by an argument about principle. I'm just pointing out the absurdity. From the outside, the "progressive" movement looks ridiculous.

Of course the actual post is just the setup. It doesn't say specifically which speech should be banned. Usually if asked for the object-level position, it will come only after several rounds of "OK, but what do you mean by X? Be specific" (interrogating definitional gerrymandering), and the punchline is that it will be something like, "We should fire this professor for claiming that standardized testing isn't a racist conspiracy," that's not really defensible on the merits.

For an argument more based on principle:

One of the reasons that the soft ban on Nazis worked so well is that Nazis (actual Nazis, not "believing in literally any amount of national borders") are, based on the characteristics of World War 2, enemies of pretty much anyone that isn't a Nazi. They're not individualists. They're not going to let you prove your innocence via objective measures. They're for massive amounts of natalism and for solving the resource challenges that creates by invading their neighbors. If you surrender as an outsider, they'll kill you. If you work for them and you get crippled, they'll kill you.

Progressive rhetoric has this weird tendency of assuming that conservatives are either maximally escalated already and cannot escalate farther, or will always maximally escalate the moment they get the ability to and so progressives' actions can't possibly cause conservatives to escalate, but that's very obviously bullshit - the conservatives have their own coalitional dynamics, and if they acted with perfect unity they would have won a long time ago.

That's a general political tendency, mind you, but the progressive movement is allegedly supposed to be smart.

[draingang-agora]

Because what the term "human rights" obviously best indicates is certain standards that ought not to be violated, it's not a reorganization of any kind, it's necessary because the OP seems to disagree in favor of an entirely consequentialist advancement that anything that advances ones own goals is fine, with the implication that ruthlessness toward one's enemies is fine, I find this line of moral reasoning to be flawed beyond measure. 2. "Nevertheless, even if neither of you intended it, the phrasing of the arguments is reminiscent of US political debates over legal rights (usually in the context of the US constitution) more than anything else that I (or likely the average reader) am familiar with." No it isn't, this is very clearly US-bad, as a thought terminating axiom, not everything is about the USA. You will condescendingly explain cognitivism to me but can't grasp that this might be a moral debate beyond semantics? The idea being advanced is very clearly just human lives have an innate worth that justifies universal standards of conduct onto them, this is a very basic ethical argument, that is fairly obvious from the outset. yr point is meaningless because the US has nothing to do with this argument. The argument being advanced is very clearly that there are certain privileges that people should be afforded ante omnia, in contrast to the idea that things that are harmful should eo ipso be banned, or that the ends justify the means(which looking at yr blog you appear to believe), Like Kaia says, bodily autonomy supersedes yr want to control people regardless of harm, and there are certain things that are always wrong regardless of what you think you will achieve via such methods. If you genuinely can not understand this unless phrased outside the language of "human rights" then that's fine but it will still make yr arguments here meaningless because you don't seem to grasp the contention. 4. I am giving the OP a lot of grace because I can read, especially the part where they acknowledge the legacy of entrenched legal human rights as a tool to obscure actual human rights, this isn't grace it's literally just reading comprehension, the point in full is laid out from the get go.

me when I'm a revolutionary

[patriotsnet]

Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-hate-gay-people/

Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People

Presidency Of George W Bush

George W. Bush did not repeal President Clinton’s Executive Order banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the federal civilian government, but Bush’s critics felt as if he failed to enforce the executive order. He retained Clinton’s Office of National AIDS Policy and was the first Republican president to appoint an openly man to serve in his administration, Scott Evertz as director of the Office of National AIDS Policy. Bush also became the second President, after President Clinton, to select openly gay appointees to his administration. Bush’s nominee as ambassador to Romania, Michael E. Guest, became the second openly gay man U.S. Ambassador and the first to be confirmed by the Senate. He did not repeal any of the spousal benefits that Clinton had introduced for same-sex federal employees. He did not attempt to repeal Don’t ask, don’t tell, nor make an effort to change it.

In April 2002, White House officials held an unannounced briefing in April for the Log Cabin Republicans. On June 27, 2002, President Bush has signed a bill allowing death benefits to be paid to domestic partners of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty, permanently extending a federal death benefit to same-sex couples for the first time.

The 2004 Republican Party platform removed both parts of that language from the platform and stated that the party supports anti-discrimination legislation.

Two Reasons Why The Bathroom Bill Targeting Trans People Is Flawed

We believe this bill is flawed for two reasons. First, as conservatives who believe in liberty and in supporting small businesses, we do not think that government should single out businesses for special public censure if they do not enforce the governments current social views.

Americans are still sorting out how they feel about trans people and how they can be tolerant or hospitable neighbors even if they disagree. Government should not use private businesses as pawns in an ongoing culture war, especially with something as private as their customers genitalia.

Second, the bill is counterproductive. We understand that the legislature wants to give parents peace of mind that their daughters will not use the same restroom as biological males. Parents want to make sure their kids are safe this is a completely reasonable concern. But forcing trans women to use the same restroom as young boys can be more disturbing and disruptive to businesses.

Hear more Tennessee Voices:

Dads: imagine walking into the mens room with your son and seeing Caitlyn Jenner, in a dress, fixing her makeup.

More disturbing still is when trans men who are far along in their transition  people who look, act, and identify as male  must use the same restroom as young girls.

More:Tennessee Voices, Episode 118: Chris Sanders, Tennessee Equality Project

The Fairness For All Act Is A Republican Response To The Equality Act

In March, House Democrats introduced the Equality Act, the first comprehensive LGBTQ civil rights bill to pass the House. While it has been stalled in the GOP-controlled Senate, it would provide sweeping non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people in the US in housing, employment, public accommodations, education, and health care for the first time under federal law.

At the time, there were that some conservative groups were working on a compromise bill, and it appears the Fairness For All Act is that compromise.

A small coalition of religious conservative groups led by the American Unity Fund and including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventist Church, 1st Amendment Partnership, Center for Public Justice, and Council for Christian Colleges and Universities have rallied behind the bill.

Im excited about the solutions that are embodied in the legislation, because I think that those are the exact ideas that were going to need to pass federal civil rights for LGBTQ people, said Tyler Deaton, senior adviser at the American Unity Fund.

The Fairness For All Act would provide many of the same protections for LGBTQ Americans, but it also provides ample exceptions for churches and religious organizations to continue to discriminate against queer people.

What we like about it is the stated intentional desire for fairness and a proposed process that will encourage collaboration because weve seen that work in our state, he said.

Republicans May Begin To Embrace Gay Rights

As Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus pointed out, gay marriage and gay rights are platforms that a higher and higher percentage of Americans support. Priebus warns Republicans to be more open to other views on the issue, and less set in their ways. However, Republican strategist Ed Rogers points out the catch-22 in this situation. Most current Republicans still oppose gay marriage. Where 58 percent of Americans now support gay marriage, only 39 percent of Republicans support it, with 59 percent of Republicans opposing it. This leaves the Republican Party in a tough spot. They must either reform their views to bring in new members and gain support in coming elections, which would risk pushing away those that have stuck with the Party through the years, or stand by their age-old platform, and risk continuing to lose support throughout the nation.

The Disney Vault Is Annoying

Disney has drawn the ire of many adoring fans because it only releases its movies to the public for home consumption for a limited amount of time. They even coined a term for this tactic, The Disney Vault. Audiences think this is corporate greed at its ugliest. Disney has a commodity, and they try to build fervor and revenue by only letting the consumer have access to it for a short period. Its basically the same business model McDonalds uses with the McRib and we all know how much everyone hates that. Can you imagine if the Star Wars movies were only sold periodically? Thatd be an outrage, right? Well, you can expect it to happen since Disney bought the rights in 2012 to all things Star Wars, from George Lucas for over $4 billion. Its no wonder why Disney movies have been pirated since VCRs came on the scene in the 1980s.

American Views Of Transgender People: The Impact Of Politics Personal Contact And Religion

As the Supreme Court examines cases it has already heard this term about the rights of gay and transgender people, the American public in the latest Economist/YouGov poll are for the most part tolerant and supportive of transgender employment rights. However, Republicans take different positions.

The overall public supports laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, with Republicans closely divided.

More than one in three people know someone who is transgender, and the probability of this is even higher among Democrats and younger adults. Those with personal contact are more likely to believe there is a great deal or a fair amount of discrimination against transgender people. Half of Republicans and 88 percent of Democrats say there is a fair amount or a great deal of discrimination against transgender people.

One in five adults believes employers should be able to fire transgender workers who wear work clothes that match their gender identity. About three times that percentage disagree. Republicans are more closely divided on this question: a third say employers should be able to fire those employees, while 44 percent say that should not be allowed.

There appears to be greater acceptance of female to male transitions than male to female ones. Men generally accept a female to male as male , but also believe that someone transitioning male to female is still male .

Image: Getty 

Here’s Where We Stand On Different Lgbt Issues

LGBT leftists tend to hate us because we put our principles first. We believe in religious liberty, free speech, God-given human dignity, limited government, and economic opportunity. 

For that reason we frequently oppose radical gender theory and leftist policies like the Equality Act. We support a nuanced, science-based approach to transgender policy issues. 

We recently spoke out in support of the legislature’s initiative to keep youth sports organized according to biological sex we find the effort to let biological males play girls’ sports anti-science and offensive.

As a result of stances like these, LGBT leftists regularly picket us, ban us, destroy our property, and call us ugly names.

Recently, our entire leadership team was kicked out of Nashvilles primary LGBT networking Facebook group, in contravention of that groups written rules, because the admins hated us.

We hope this background demonstrates our conservative bona fides. If we oppose a Republican LGBT bill, it is out of principle, not identity politics or blind devotion to those in the LGBT community who reject us. We were not asked to comment on the bill before it was passed, but we feel we would be remiss not to offer our perspective.

More:Tennessee’s anti-LGBTQ bills target vulnerable citizens who are worthy of dignity | Plazas

Views On Religion Its Role In Policy

When it comes to religion and morality, most Americans say that belief in God is not necessary in order to be moral and have good values; 42% say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values.

The share of the public that says belief in God is not morally necessary has edged higher over the past six years. In 2011, about as many said it was necessary to believe in God to be a moral person as said it was not . This shift in attitudes has been accompanied by a rise in the share of Americans who do not identify with any organized religion.

Republicans are roughly divided over whether belief in God is necessary to be moral , little changed over the 15 years since the Center first asked the question. But the share of Democrats who say belief in God is not a condition for morality has increased over this period.

About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners say it is not necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, up from 51% who said this in 2011.

The growing partisan divide on this question parallels the widening partisan gap in religious affiliation.

About six-in-ten whites think belief in God is not necessary in order to be a moral person. By contrast, roughly six-in-ten blacks and 55% of Hispanics say believing in God is a necessary part of being a moral person with good values.

International AffairsEconomic ConditionsTrust, Facts & DemocracyClimate, Energy & EnvironmentRace & EthnicitySame-Sex Marriage

Lgbt Conservatism In The United States

Jump to navigationJump to search

LGBT conservatism in the United States is a social and political ideology within the community that largely aligns with the American conservative movement. LGBT conservatism is generally more moderate on social issues from social conservatism, instead emphasizing values associated with fiscal conservatism, libertarian conservatism, and .

Changing Views On Acceptance Of Homosexuality

Seven-in-ten now say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 24% who say it should be discouraged by society. The share saying homosexuality should be accepted by society is up 7 percentage points in the past year and up 19 points from 11 years ago.

Growing acceptance of homosexuality has paralleled an increase in public support for same-sex marriage. About six-in-ten Americans now say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

While there has been an increase in acceptance of homosexuality across all partisan and demographic groups, Democrats remain more likely than Republicans to say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

Overall, 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say homosexuality should be accepted by society, while only 13% say it should be discouraged. The share of Democrats who say homosexuality should be accepted by society is up 20 points since 2006 and up from 54% who held this view in 1994.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, more say homosexuality should be accepted than discouraged by society. This is the first time a majority of Republicans have said homosexuality should be accepted by society in Pew Research Center surveys dating to 1994. Ten years ago, just 35% of Republicans held this view, little different than the 38% who said this in 1994.

Acceptance is greater among those with postgraduate and bachelors degrees than among those with some or no college experience .

Reasons Why Conservatives Hate Democrats

November 5, 2014 by Samuel WardeNo Comments

20 Reasons Why Conservatives Hate Democrats

1. Democrats believe in higher education.2. Democrats believe in preserving the environment.3. Democrats believe in science.4. Democrats believe that carbon dioxide is dangerous.5. Democrats do not believe that minimum wage created our nations unemployment.

6. Democrats do not believe armed rebellion is a viable alternative to elections.7. Democrats do not believe that corporations are people too.8. Democrats do not believe that the sexual revolution created AIDS.9. Democrats do not know the proper height for trees.10. Democrats do not understand decent God-fearing Americans need missile launchers at home.

11. Democrats do not understand that banning abortions for high risk pregnancies can be a positive experience for women.12. Democrats do not understand that intelligent design is a proven scientific theory.13. Democrats do not understand that marriage is related to national security.14. Democrats do not understand that the media is a threat to national security.15. Democrats forgot that Hitler coined the phrase separation of church and state.

16. Democrats seem oblivious to the fact that most good Americans oppose gay marriage.17. Democrats seldom bring guns to crowded public events.18. Democrats want to force innocent multi-millionaires to pay taxes.19. Democrats want to let gays vote.20. Democrats want to let immigrants vote.

Log Cabins Better Record On Gay Issues

While Stonewall was cheerleading Obamas do-nothing Democrats, Log Cabin sued the government to kill DADT. In 2010, Log Cabin won an injunction preventing the administration from enforcing DADT. Only after fighting that injunction, and losing, did Obama finally repeal the law.

Log Cabin has also withheld its endorsement from high-profile Republican candidates who opposed marriage equality unlike Stonewall, we resist partisan groupthink, even when it costs us. We wouldnt be endorsing President Trump in 2020 if he werent truly an ally.

Trump openly supported LGBT equality before any of Stonewalls endorsees did. In 1999, while Democrats defended DADT, Trump opined that gays and lesbians serving openly was not something that would disturb me. In 2000, Trump proposed an amendment of civil rights law to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which would have rendered moot the employment discrimination case currently before the Supreme Court.

In 2015, though Trump needed religious conservative votes to win the Republican primary, he nevertheless stated publicly that religious freedom and LGBT rights are not mutually exclusive. He even rebuked his running mate-to-be, Mike Pence, for initially undervaluing LGBT interests in Indianas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, on which Pence ultimately reversed. Today, President Trump still has our back.

Stonewall Incorrectly Attacks President Trump

Stonewalls article censures Russia for orchestrating an industrial-scale genocide of gay men in Chechnya. Russias behavior is indeed alarming. So President Trump, collaborating with his Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, has launched a historic initiative to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide. Basham conveniently omits this fact.

Stonewall calls Trumps plan to reduce HIV/AIDS transmission by 90 percent within 10 years lip service because HIV+ immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are separated from other immigrants. But this policy is intended to provide HIV+ immigrants, some of whom face untreated AIDS, with needed medical care. Stonewall also neglects to mention that Trumps budget included $291 million to fight HIV in 2020 alone. Trump also convinced the antiviral research group Gilead to donate billions of dollars of HIV prevention medication for 200,000 people. That is hardly lip service.

Stonewall further insinuates, ludicrously, that Trump is bigoted for halting Obama-era attempts to tell public schools which bathroom transgender students can use. We say, good: The well-being of children who do not identify with their biological sex is vitally important, but it does not fall under the originally intended purview of Title IX and would thus be better explored at the state and local level without federal intervention. Executive overreach in the name of LGBT rights does nothing to recommend our cause.

Relies On Star Power Not Plotlines

Back in the day, Disney movies sold themselves because their plots were incredible. They showcased fairytales and chronicled the rise of the underdog. This worked in Disneys animated and live-action movies, and the company was untouchable for decades. Then, they had a string of flops like Mulan, Pocahontas and Hercules. Suddenly, Disney was fallible. So, instead of hiring better writers, they took the easy way out they started to hire big name talent to headline its projects. And they havent looked back. Disney has hired giants in the film industry to voice its characters, like Miley Cyrus and . And of course, Disney puts the most popular celebs in its live action movies, like Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie.

Disney even has upcoming projects with Emma Stone, Reese Witherspoon and Emma Watson. But what good is it to have a big star in a movie if the plot is weak? The only good thing about this change in direction is that it finally steered Disney away from cramming cultural sensitivity down everyones throats. There was a period of time when it made sure to give every minority group its own movie, from Hawaiians in Lilo and Stitch to African Americans in The Princess and the Frog. Audiences perceived this to be the pandering that it was.

How Out Of Step Is The Republican Party On Gay Rights

The wedding wasnt the only reason conservatives targeted Rep. Denver Riggleman in a party convention , but it was the driving one. Which raises the question: How out of step with the nation is the Republican Party on same-sex rights?

Its an especially pertinent question on Monday, now that the Supreme Court, with the support of one of President Trumps nominees, just voted 6-3 that existing federal law protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination based on sex.

Thats a sea change in the legal landscape of protections for LGBTQ Americans. Before this ruling, in about half of the states, you could be legally fired for being gay or transgender. Now, you cant under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which the court ruled extends to LGBTQ Americans because it prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.

But like the Republican voters in Virginia who ousted Riggleman in favor of social conservative Bob Good, there is an active wing of the Republican Party seeking to push back on the march toward expanding legal protections for gay and transgender Americans. And they have powerful allies.

The Trump administration opposed interpreting the Civil Rights Act to encompass LGBTQ workers. The leader of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network called the six justices who supported this ruling, one of whom was Trump appointee Neil M. Gorsuch, activists, implying the court got ahead of where the public is on the issue.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Mike Pence Accidentally Admits The Real Reason Republicans Hate Democrats So Much

Common Dreams

The grassroots organization People for Bernie on Tuesday advised the Democratic Party to take a page from an unlikely sourceright-wing Vice President Mike Penceafter Pence told a rally crowd in Florida that progressives and Democrats “want to make rich people poorer, and poor people more comfortable.”

“Good message,” tweeted the group, alerting the Democratic National Committee to adopt the vice president’s simple, straightforward description of how the party can prioritize working people over corporations and the rich.

Suggesting that a progressive approach to the economy will harm the countrydespite the fact that other wealthy nations already invest heavily in making low- and middle-income “more comfortable” by taxing corporations and very high earnersPence touted the Republicans’ aim to “cut taxes” and “roll back regulations.”

The vice president didn’t mention how the Trump administration’s 2017 tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited wealthy households and powerful corporations, with corporate income tax rates slashed from 35% to 21%, corporate tax revenues plummeting, and a surge in stock buybacks while workers saw “no discernible wage increase” according to a report released last year by the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Popular Democracy.

Pence’s description of progressive goals was “exactly” correct, author and commentator Anand Giridharadas tweeted.

“Yes, and what’s wrong with making poor people more comfortable?” asked Rep. Ilhan Omar .

Gw College Republicans Invite Log Cabin Republicans And Lgbt Conservatives To Talk About What It Means To Be Gay And Conservative

Kicking off a discussion on the inclusion of LGBT people in the Republican Party, Charles Moran, the managing director of the conservative gay group the Log Cabin Republicans, told George Washington University students that they dont have to be a Democrat because youre gay.

The forum at the Marvin Center Amphitheater Tuesday night, hosted by GW College Republicans, brought together what Josh Kutner, director of political affairs for the group, described as an all-star panel of Republican and conservative political and media consultants: Dave McCulloch, managing partner at Capitol Media Partners; Brad Polumbo, an editor and columnist at The Washington Examiner; and Edith Jorge-Tunon, political director for the Republican State Leadership Committee.

Mr. Moran, who has 14 years of experience managing local and national Republican political races, started the discussion by asking panelists to explain how they came out as conservative and where they fit on the conservative spectrum.

Mr. Polumbo said he realized he was a conservative when he was dropped into the liberal bastion of the University of Massachusetts and wound up persona non grata in the gay community.

A Rand Paul libertarian and technically not a Republican, he said, I definitely have a very right-wing philosophy. I am more than willing to punch at both sides.

Live your life honestly, Mr. Moran advised. Be present. Share and be aware. Accept them for who they are and who they are not.

We’re Portrayed As A Perversion

From the left, right, and even a few biased researchers, people accuse transgender people of being perverts, fetishists, and likely rapists. This is in great part why the right-wing tactics against non-discrimination ordinances have been so successful: the right wing tells people that it’s a choice between protecting their wives and daughters or a tiny group of perverts.

Many Trump Supporters Are Lgbt

So Stonewall is wrong. But something more important is going on here. What really infuriates Basham is that Log Cabin has given cover for the presidents claim that some of biggest supporters are LGBT. As if saying so were a crime Trump commits in secrecy while his fabulous gay accomplices at Log Cabin run interference. But its just a fact: Many of Trumps most fervent supporters are LGBT people.

Left-wing gay activists, however, depend on creating the impression that all LGBT people are Democrats. Democrats then use this false narrative to consolidate unearned moral authority. That is why, when the prominent gay billionaire Peter Thiel expressed support for Trump, The Advocate promptly ran a piece arguing he isnt actually gay he just has sex with men.

The point of such chicanery is to insinuate that all Republicans are homophobes, and all homophobes are Republicans. That only works if Democrats speak for all gays. So just one prominent gay or trans Republican punctures the lie that the left has a monopoly on gay rights.

Log Cabin Republicans stand to disabuse the public of that lie. The Stonewall Democrats dont want you to know we exist. But we do, our ideas are better than theirs, and were not going anywhere.

Trans Rights: A Perplexing Issue

Like many other gay conservatives, however, he seems to disconnect gay rights and transgender rights. Kabel recalled a recent article with a quotation from the conservative activist Tony Perkins that contrasted the Democratic and Republican platforms in 2016.

“The only issue Perkins raised was the transgender bathroom issue,” Kabel said. “And I thought, ‘That means we won.'”

Kabel called transgender equality “one of the most perplexing issues going.”

“Transgender people deserve support and protection just like anybody else, but it’s a very complex issue,” he said. “It’s remarkable when you hear their stories, but it’s just a very perplexing issue about how to really address it and do it so that they’re protected but other people aren’t hurt, so that people’s religious views are actually taken into consideration.”

Transgender visibility is all but absent in the Log Cabin Republicans, from their leadership to their messaging.

An OUTSpoken Instagram post compares the LGBT left to the LGBT right by putting an image of a person who appears to be transgender or gender-nonconforming next to a shirtless picture of former U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock, while the campaigns store sells T-shirts bearing slogans like “gay for Tucker” “gay for Melania” and “gay not stupid.

OUTspoken sent Brokeback Patriot, who has stated trans women are not women, to New Orleans Southern Decadence party to ask passersby if they think Trump is pro-gay.

[heavydirtysoul-24]

It's so weird that people in this country get so accustomed to all crazy shit this government does like literary every f*ckin' day.

I don't usually touch politics here for obvious reasons, but sometimes all this frustration and anger become too much to keep inside.

They are accusing the West of double standarts, and yeah maybe it does happen sometimes, but lying to your own people? Constantly and with every action making their everyday life worse? That is the worst imho.

They're telling us that they want people to be prosperous. In reality they are ruining the economy with every action they make. Through breaking international relationships and laws, putting impossible restrictions on businesses.

They say they stand for democracy. But at the same time every politics who is not with them or do not share their views they see as a threat. And act accordingly. Poisoning is very familiar tactic for them as we witnessed in previous years. Now they are passing the bill, that would ultimately ban all people who dare to disagree with them to get elected.

They say they care about environment. And at the same time spill after spill huge amounts of crude oil is contaminating our rivers, lakes, forests and everything else. Like almost every month there is a new ecological catostrophy.

They say thay care about science. Oh really? The official year of science, how they call it. Then explain to me why so many scientists ended up in prison just this year? One even died during the madeup lawsuit. And it's not uncommon.

They say they support the press. How about other sources than state media? How about independent newspapers? Or even self employed journalists? Locking them up, fabricating lawsuit against them, giving them huge fines. Does not look like supporting the press for me.

They say they support veterans, that the victory in WWII is one and only key 'moral code' for this nation. Military parades? Great! Now how about doing something actually meaningfull for those people, who fought the nazis. Provide them with decent housing at least. Don't use them as posters once in year to convince people that you care. You don't.

They say they are defending family values. Well, it's the complicated one. I'm not even gonna bring up the way of life many of them percieve - it's their own private business. But how about revoking every bill about domestic abuse? Normalizing victim-blaming, bulling? Fighting feminism movement? How is that even family values? Maybe it's more about patriarchy and dominance? Treating queer people as third-class people, banning same-sex marriage and child adoption, constant attacks and rising homophobia? I think That's what "family values" is for them. It's not love, caring, sympathy and all other things normal people associate family values with.

And that is just a sliver of reasons why so many people get frustrated and angry. Some are trying to change something, go on marches, become activists, trying to get in parliament. Some people are realizing that it's just too much for them to bear and leave the country, giving a big FU sign on their way out of here. Some are not that lucky and can't be active or leave the country at the moment. And that is the category I really don't want to fall into.

I decided to write it mostly for myself, like an outlet in some form. I can't use my first language here, at first I don't really like it much, thank you society and school culture for this, and the second reason should be quite obvious by now. So I'll just leave it here.