#anti society

[sugaronyourtongu3]

Anytime and every time is a awful time to defend, sympathise and be around fascists and nazis but especially now. There is no inbetween, there is no defending. You’re either entirely against them or you’re with them. You can not, and will not ever have both.

If you’re happy to defend and sympathise with fascists than you are one. No other discussion needed.

It should not be difficult to be against fascists but apparently for some people, it is.

It should not be difficult to drop friends, neighbours, coworkers whatever who are fascists, but for some people, it is.

And those people are also fascists.

And please, if you start defending fascists when a Jewish persons pain is brought up, please enjoy your time underneath my boot.

If you are against fascists but only up until a Jew is mentioned, fuck you. You are not really against fascism then.

Protect everyone who fascism hurts, ESPECIALLY Jewish people. Stop silencing us and making us out to be insane when we call fascism out. We have always been and will always be at the front line of the fight against fascism. Don’t leave us behind in your fight.

WE WILL ALWAYS BE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AT THE FRONT LINE OF THE FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM. DO NOT DARE LEAVE US BEHIND IN YOUR FIGHT. YOU WILL BECOME THE FIGHT.

[diary-of-z]

Listen. We were all lied to. Unless you're part of a very lucky minority, you won't do a job you love and you won't get to retire either. Death is the only escape most people see, but suicide isn't the answer. Turn your back on society and give it a big "fuck you." You were made for more. Be a legend, and make sure the world knows your name

[connieaaa]

First quarter as a full time college student recap.

*Discussing what makes humans human*

Me: I don't think it's using tools, plenty of other animals use tools. I don't think it's speech, because that would mean people who are mute would be less human. I don't think it's bipedalism because then people who can't walk would be less than human. Same with brain size, are people with microcephaly less human - some would say yes.

Classmate: *visibly shaking* I never thought about it like that.

*Discussing indigenous people in science*

Me: Indigenous knowledge isn't merely ignored, it systematically repressed. Indigenous people knew malaria was caused by mosquitos, and warned British explorers about it. The explorers used that knowledge to portray the Indigenous people as superstitious. It's the same story with the Cascadia Fault.

Classmate: I had no idea. I need to look more into this.

*English Personal Essays*

Classmate: something you said made me realize that my experience of bigotry hasn't been universal, and I was being prejudiced in self-defense. I realized I can let that go now.

*Actual college class*

Me: so what I am hearing is that I am a master social deviant, bordering on sociopathic behavior.

*Teacher ignores me*

Me: So, yes. Ah, the textbook says I should do crime, too. Like "be gay, do crime"?

*crickets*

"Be gay, do crime", it is then. I am not really into any other types of crime.

My English teacher was terrific

[proselles]

you know what i think is really cool about dungeon meshi? the fact that it really handles the whole 'how our food is made' so gracefully. in this day and age, we've become so disconnected from how our food is produced and distributed that the thought of how our food is obtained brings disgust to many people (and for the big industry farms, it honestly should! but im referring to our existence as omnivores in the food chain). marcille acted ridiculous whenever the thought of killing a monster for food is brought up, but honestly, she's a great model for how many people nowadays react whenever they have to truly think about what they are consuming/are brought to a meat farm.

senshi shows the characters (and us, the audience) about the process of making food in a respectful, genuine way to the creatures he has used to produce nourishing meals. by explaining the nutrition and benefits of each creature, he creates and healthy relationship between the consumers and the meal they have. the show really brings a new dimension of respect for each of our meals. truly the bob ross/marie kondo of cooking.

[tonkysexist]

Everytime I see “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” as a response to criticisms of people buying Hogwarts Legacy I take a moment to mourn the loss of nuance.

Like yes the above statement is true, but some types of consumption are more ethical than others and context matters. Buying a game based in an antisemitic premise that will line the pockets of a transphobe who has been cited as a source in and actively promotes anti-trans legislature is not the same thing as buying fast fashion because you can’t afford anything better or that’s the only place that sells your size. People need to stop pretending all participation in capitalism is equal.

You can buy Hogwarts Legacy, that much is your right. However, I am also within my right to criticize you and your lack of care for the communities harmed by this game and the author of its universe.

[furiousgoldfish]

Does anyone else feel like the society is structured in a way that has people forced to obediently and submissively endure harassment and abuse from their bosses and people in authority, but they're allowed to take out their frustration on anyone who is powerless to inflict consequences on them? Like their own employees, service workers, their spouse, family, children. There's no consequences for hurting the powerless and loads of consequences for standing up to authority, even if you're standing up to them for a good reason. It's almost like things were designed to be this way.

Shouldn't it be the opposite though? We should focus on standing up to people in authority, because they're likely to abuse authority they have, so there should be no consequences for challenging this authority, it needs to be challenged. We should have severe consequences for hurting those who can't fight back, because they need that protection the most.

[communistkenobi]

The deeply moralist tone that a lot of discussions about media representation take on here are primarily neoliberal before they are anything else. Like the shouting matches people get into about “purity culture” “pro/anti” etc nonsense (even if I think it’s true that some people have a deeply christian worldview about what art ought to say and represent about the world) are downstream of the basic neoliberal assumption that we can and must educate the public by being consumers in a market. “Bad representation” is often framed as a writer’s/developer’s/director’s/etc’s failure to properly educate their audience, or to educate them the wrong way with bad information about the world (which will compel their audience to act, behave, internalise or otherwise believe these bad representations about some social issue). Likewise, to “consume” or give money to a piece of media with Bad Representation is to legitimate and make stronger these bad representations in the world, an act which will cause more people to believe or internalise bad things about themselves or other people. And at the heart of both of those claims is, again, the assumption that mass public education should be undertaken by artists in a private market, who are responsible for creating moral fables and political allegories that they will instil in their audiences by selling it to them. These conversations often become pure nonsense if you don’t accept that the moral and political education of the world should be directed by like, studio executives or tv actors or authors on twitter. There is no horizon of possibility being imagined beyond purchasing, as an individual consumer in a market, your way into good beliefs about the world, instilled in you by Media Product 

[queerism1969]

[super-nova5045]

sylvia plath, todd anderson and virginia woolf (aka ACTUAL tortured poets) watching taylor “im breaking up with my boyfriend for his intense depression and blaming it on him, im dating a racist who enjoys watching woc being brutalized and harasses young woc artists, i sent my fans out on a hate train to attack a young woc actress for a line she had to say as part of her job to show how mentally ill her character was, im dating a maga supporter, i refuse to say anything about a current genocide despite being the most influential person in the world right now, i am a billionaire, i fly 13 minute flights and have the highest carbon emission of any celebrity, i am a known white feminist who only speaks about issues when it affects me and has constantly let my fans get away with extreme racism and even encouraged it by associating myself with known racists” swift call herself a tortured poet (her writing sounds like a bunch of thesaurus words slapped over gabba hanna and rupi kaur-esque poetry that was created purely as a trinket for an edgy pinterest board)

[misty-thecat]

Is it just me or the songs on The Tortured Poets Department sound the same? It's like they all blend together at some point....at first listen there is not one song stuck in my head. And this is coming from someone who genuinely enjoys her music ...Red is one of my faves. You could swap the songs from Midnights and TTPD and I wouldn't be able to tell. I think she should start working with a new producer. Although I stopped being a fan since the breakup, I was still looking forward to new music .... I was excited for what new sound she would explore but it was disappointing to hear the same old repetitive Jack Antonoff synth pop genre.

She probably needs a break .... all this hyper production in the past few years with so many albums and their multiple versions must have had an impact on her creativity and quality...also a lot of lyrics are just......eh I don't know the right words, but she can do better for an artist of her magnitude and caliber.

Also, I feel like the aesthetic for the album does not match the music...like the dark academia/old books thing doesn't really go with the songs for me. Again, they sound a lot like something from Midnights due to the production so probably that's why I feel like that.

Another thing, the album seems to be mostly about the 1975 dude, but the marketing pointed to Joe Alwyn which led to him being harassed by her fans and she did nothing. That was horrible of her. It's these kinds of things that led me to leave that fandom. Even Ariana put out a statement when she released her new album.

Overall, I expected a better album from her. She really needs to take a break. The overexposure and overproduction are not looking good.

[lovelessrage]

I feel like when the question is asked "do aros feel like they are forced to choose QPRs/some other type of non-romantic dynamic", it's often missing a very vital component, and that is that most people interpret that question to be someone strongarming you into that choice.

What is far more common is the societal impacts at play and how those affect someone's choices. For example, the complex of feeling incomplete or broken without a romantic partner often translates to feeling the same way without a QPR. Feeling failed without a relationship, or that you are missing out on a grand experience others can have but you can't, is also a type of pressure. When you measure your worth up against a checklist of relationships, that's an enforced idea. It's subtle, and it only comes into the light when you already hate yourself and feel empty and alone.

People don't often come up to you and tell you how sad and miserable you'll be directly; it is something you gain from being surrounded by an ideal of success that you feel you cannot meet. I often feel that, for a community that can often pride itself on its "awareness" of alloromantic relationships, or seeing things others don't, or offering relationship advice, there is that same side that sees these blindspots as unapplicable to them. That they are immune to amatonormativity and its variants, when they are not.

How much is want, a healthy want for this dynamic, and how much is based upon an implanted need? How much is based on this as the "aro experience", the "aro relationship", the "aro struggle" influencing what we see as necessary? How much is feeling like you can't be happy or complete without the last little checkmark?

[celestiallyslimy]

watching wolfwalkers until you get tired and gnawing on those prosciutto mozzarella meat sticks is such caninekin-coded behaviour only weird bitches would do that (im weird bitches)

[nando161mando]

Been trying to explain this for a while

[dailyanarchistposts]

Turbulent times are upon us. Already, blockades, demonstrations, riots, and clashes are occuring regularly. It’s past time to be organizing for the upheavals that are on the way.

But getting organized doesn’t mean joining a pre-existing institution and taking orders. It shouldn’t mean forfeiting your agency and intelligence to become a cog in a machine. From an anarchist perspective, organizational structure should maximize both freedom and voluntary coordination at every level of scale, from the smallest group up to society as a whole.

You and your friends already constitute an affinity group, the essential building block of this model. An affinity group is a circle of friends who understand themselves as an autonomous political force. The idea is that people who already know and trust each other should work together to respond immediately, intelligently, and flexibly to emerging situations.

This leaderless format has proven effective for guerrilla activities of all kinds, as well as what the RAND Corporation calls “swarming” tactics in which many unpredictable autonomous groups overwhelm a centralized adversary. You should go to every demonstration in an affinity group, with a shared sense of your goals and capabilities. If you are in an affinity group that has experience taking action together, you will be much better prepared to deal with emergencies and make the most of unexpected opportunities.

This guide is adapted from an earlier version that appeared in our Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook.

Affinity Groups are Powerful

Relative to their small size, affinity groups can achieve a disproportionately powerful impact. In contrast to traditional top-down structures, they are free to adapt to any situation, they need not pass their decisions through a complicated process of ratification, and all the participants can act and react instantly without waiting for orders—yet with a clear idea of what to expect from one another. The mutual admiration and inspiration on which they are founded make them very difficult to demoralize. In stark contrast to capitalist, fascist, and socialist structures, they function without any need of hierarchy or coercion. Participating in an affinity group can be fulfilling and fun as well as effective.

Most important of all, affinity groups are motivated by shared desire and loyalty, rather than profit, duty, or any other compensation or abstraction. Small wonder whole squads of riot police have been held at bay by affinity groups armed with only the tear gas canisters shot at them.

The Affinity Group is a Flexible Model

Some affinity groups are formal and immersive: the participants live together, sharing everything in common. But an affinity group need not be a permanent arrangement. It can serve as a structure of convenience, assembled from the pool of interested and trusted people for the duration of a given project.

A particular team can act together over and over as an affinity group, but the members can also break up into smaller affinity groups, participate in other affinity groups, or act outside the affinity group structure. Freedom to associate and organize as each person sees fit is a fundamental anarchist principle; this promotes redundancy, so no one person or group is essential to the functioning of the whole, and different groups can reconfigure as needed.

Pick the Scale That’s Right for You

An affinity group can range from two to perhaps as many as fifteen individuals, depending on your goals. However, no group should be so numerous that an informal conversation about pressing matters is impossible. You can always split up into two or more groups if need be. In actions that require driving, the easiest system is often to have one affinity group to each vehicle.

Get to Know Each Other Intimately

Learn each other’s strengths and vulnerabilities and backgrounds, so you know what you can count on each other for. Discuss your analyses of each situation you are entering and what is worth accomplishing in it—identify where they match, where they are complentary, and where they differ, so you’ll be ready to make split-second decisions.

One way to develop political intimacy is to read and discuss texts together, but nothing beats on-the-ground experience. Start out slow so you don’t overextend. Once you’ve established a common language and healthy internal dynamics, you’re ready to identify the objectives you want to accomplish, prepare a plan, and go into action.

Decide Your Appropriate Level of Security

Affinity groups are resistant to infiltration because all members share history and intimacy with each other, and no one outside the group need be informed of their plans or activities.

Once assembled, an affinity group should establish a shared set of security practices and stick to them. In some cases, you can afford to be public and transparent about your activities. in other cases, whatever goes on within the group should never be spoken of outside it, even after all its activities are long completed. In some cases, no one except the participants in the group should know that it exists at all. You and your comrades can discuss and prepare for actions without acknowledging to outsiders that you constitute an affinity group. Remember, it is easier to pass from a high security protocol to a low one than vice versa.

Make Decisions Together

Affinity groups generally operate on via consensus decision-making: decisions are made collectively according to the needs and desires of every individual involved. Democratic voting, in which the majority get their way and the minority must hold their tongues, is anathema to affinity groups—for if a group is to function smoothly and hold together under stress, every individual involved must be satisfied. Before any action, the members of a group should establish together what their personal and collective goals are, what risks they are comfortable taking, and what their expectations of each other are. These matters determined, they can formulate a plan.

Since action situations are always unpredictable and plans rarely come off as anticipated, it may help to employ a dual approach to preparing. On the one hand, you can make plans for different scenarios: If A happens, we’ll inform each other by X means and switch to plan B; if X means of communication is impossible, we’ll reconvene at site Z at Q o’clock. On the other hand, you can put structures in place that will be useful even if what happens is unlike any of the scenarios you imagined. This could mean preparing resources (such as banners, medical supplies, or offensive equipment), dividing up internal roles (for example, scouting, communications, medic, media liaison), establishing communication systems (such as burner phones or coded phrases that can be shouted out to convey information securely), preparing general strategies (for keeping sight of one another in confusing environments, for example), charting emergency escape routes, or readying legal support in case anyone is arrested.

After an action, a shrewd affinity group will meet (if necessary, in a secure location without any electronics) to discuss what went well, what could have gone better, and what comes next.

Tact and Tactics

An affinity group answers to itself alone—this is one of its strengths. Affinity groups are not burdened by the procedural protocol of other organizations, the difficulties of reaching agreement with strangers, or the limitations of answering to a body not immediately involved in the action.

At the same time, just as the members of an affinity group strive for consensus with each other, each affinity group should strive for a similarly considerate relationship with other individuals and groups—or at least to complement others’ approaches, even if others do not recognize the value of this contribution. Ideally, most people should be glad of your affinity group’s participation or intervention in a situation, rather than resenting or fearing you. They should come to recognize the value of the affinity group model, and so to employ it themselves, after seeing it succeed and benefiting from that success.

Organize With Other Affinity Groups

An affinity group can work together with other affinity groups in what is sometimes called a cluster. The cluster formation enables a larger number of individuals to act with the same advantages a single affinity group has. If speed or security is called for, representatives of each group can meet ahead of time, rather than the entirety of all groups; if coordination is of the essence, the groups or representatives can arrange methods for communicating through the heat of the action. Over years of collaborating together, different affinity groups can come to know each other as well as they know themselves, becoming accordingly more comfortable and capable together.

When several clusters of affinity groups need to coordinate especially massive actions—before a big demonstration, for example—they can hold a spokescouncil meeting at which different affinity groups and clusters can inform one another (to whatever extent is wise) of their intentions. Spokescouncils rarely produce seamless unanimity, but they can apprise the participants of the various desires and perspectives that are at play. The independence and spontaneity that decentralization provides are usually our greatest advantages in combat with a better equipped adversary.

Bottomlining

For affinity groups and larger structures based on consensus and cooperation to function, it is essential that everyone involved be able to rely on each other to come through on commitments. When a plan is agreed upon, each individual in a group and each group in a cluster should choose one or more critical aspects of the preparation and execution of the plan and offer to bottomline them. Bottomlining the supplying of a resource or the completion of a project means guaranteeing that it will be accomplished somehow, no matter what. If you’re operating the legal hotline for your group during a demonstration, you owe it to them to make sure someone can handle it even if you get sick; if your group promises to provide the banners for an action, make sure they’re ready, even if that means staying up all night the night before because the rest of your affinity group couldn’t show up. Over time, you’ll learn how to handle crises and who you can count on in them—just as others will learn how much they can count on you.

Go Into Action

Stop wondering what’s going to happen, or why nothing’s happening. Get together with your friends and start deciding what will happen. Don’t go through life in passive spectator mode, waiting to be told what to do. Get in the habit of discussing what you want to see happen—and making those ideas reality.

Without a structure that encourages ideas to flow into action, without comrades with whom to brainstorm and barnstorm and build up momentum, you are likely to be paralyzed, cut off from much of your own potential; with them, your potential can be multiplied by ten, or ten thousand. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world,” Margaret Mead wrote: “it’s the only thing that ever has.” She was referring, whether she knew it or not, to affinity groups. If every individual in every action against the state and status quo participated as part of a tight-knit, dedicated affinity group, the revolution would be accomplished in a few short years.

An affinity group could be a sewing circle or a bicycle maintenance collective; it could come together for the purpose of providing a meal at an occupation or forcing a multinational corporation out of business through a carefully orchestrated program of sabotage. Affinity groups have planted and defended community gardens, built and occupied and burned down buildings, organized neighborhood childcare programs and wildcat strikes; individual affinity groups routinely initiate revolutions in the visual arts and popular music. Your favorite band was an affinity group. An affinity group invented the airplane. Another one maintains this website.

Let five people meet who are resolved to the lightning of action rather than the agony of survival—from that moment, despair ends and tactics begin.

[itsnothingofinterest]

While the fate of the League is of course incredibly messed up, unfair, and infuriating; something that really grinds my gears is all the reactions to the League stans calling this unfairness out by going "well they had to die and deserved to, and they would have gone to prison otherwise anyway, it's not like there was any happy ending available for these horrible criminals," when, like...yes there was. They totally could have Vegeta'd it up in here; MHA is not a realistic series.

Like, Edgeshot survived using his own body to sew a guy's heart up by living as an eyeball with hair on a string.

Endeavor, the known horrible domestic abuser and outright rapist, is retiring publicly shamed (to an extent) but still to great wealth, recognition as a great hero, and with his entire free family having at least a positive opinion of the man.

And of course this latest chapter 429 implied that all those societal failings caused by the horrible MHA civilians neglecting or attacking people including children, the failings that created the League, the failings the League put their lives on the line to fix and utterly failed to fix because they all died completely ignored...got fixed anyway because Deku was so 'zomg inspirational' that suddenly the MHA civilians aren't horrible anymore. (Read in the tone of this video.)

In short, MHA is full of ridiculousness, injustice, and contrivance when Horikoshi wants a happier ending to occur.

But the League had to die because...because MHA is a deeply flawed story with bad writing and at best inconsistent morals. (And it kind of feels good to say that.) It wants at times to be realistic and even tragic, but it also wants to be optimistic and comic book-y to reward the heroes, and here at the end those elements do not mesh at all. It wrecks the whole thing to reveal that Hori might be kind of a hack.