#as long as we believe it's one of the only meaningful ways we can advocate for ourselves of course we won't do much more

[naivety]

this is a good point! i'm not ultra educated on the origins of democracy itself, nor the intricacies of pre-colonial politics, so i'm glad you brought this to the convo. of course, i can't speak for the author, but my interpretation of its critique was that democracy as usamerica performs it is colonialist. between voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the mass incorporation of money in this country's base political cogs, we're so far from a true you get to vote for who you want to be in power system, every candidate with a chance of winning in the last century, if not since george washington, were people elevated to positions of renown because they were in some way compatible with the pre-established way of doing things. candidates have challenged bits and pieces in their own way, without a doubt, but the only ones who get any mass attention are those with the money to promote themselves or a mass appeal to a majority white population. a large part of this could be due to gerrymandering, to be honest, or at least the element of improper representation of demographics across the board, or even an argument that the sheer size of this country is just not feasible to appeal to by single representative bodies. but even the most left leaning candidate has to swear the same oath to uphold the constitution and not be a part of any strike against it.

until our current model of so called democracy is deconstructed, i don't see how decolonization can happen, let alone a true democracy, and i don't see how any voted-in candidate will be someone who will do either, as opposed to direct action at least accompanying or outside of voting. most meaningful systemic changes this country has seen were due to mass disobedience, if not outright armed resistance, not a vote. that said, i don't see voting even in it's current butchered form as capable of much damage until it is changed. voting isn't not praxis, but voting as the only and most emphasized form of action against the status quo won't be a catalyst for much of anything prompt, let alone foundational. instead of immediately condemning fellow leftists who are coming at it from this angle, engaging with them in good faith even when we disagree will only strengthen our solidarity, not divide it. i do disagree that voting is one of the only tools we have left to advocate our survival, though. it's one of the only ones left given to us by the state, and if it's there, yeah, why not use it, but people have been creating and implementing new ways outside of it to make our voices heard for as long as the concept of a state has existed. if we have more faith in the actions we can take within the system to change it as opposed to outside it, it's hard to see how we wouldn't just be urging each other to run faster on a hamster wheel.

So long as the political and economic system remains intact, voter enfranchisement, though perhaps resisted by overt white supremacists, is still welcomed so long as nothing about the overall political arrangement fundamentally changes. The facade of political equality can occur under violent occupation, but liberation cannot be found in the occupier’s ballot box. In the context of settler colonialism voting is the “civic duty” of maintaining our own oppression. It is intrinsically bound to a strategy of extinguishing our cultural identities and autonomy.

[...]

Since we cannot expect those selected to rule in this system to make decisions that benefit our lands and peoples, we have to do it ourselves. Direct action, or the unmediated expression of individual or collective desire, has always been the most effective means by which we change the conditions of our communities. What do we get out of voting that we cannot directly provide for ourselves and our people? What ways can we organize and make decisions that are in harmony with our diverse lifeways? What ways can the immense amount of material resources and energy focused on persuading people to vote be redirected into services and support that we actually need? What ways can we direct our energy, individually and collectively, into efforts that have immediate impact in our lives and the lives of those around us? This is not only a moral but a practical position and so we embrace our contradictions. We’re not rallying for a perfect prescription for “decolonization” or a multitude of Indigenous Nationalisms, but for a great undoing of the settler colonial project that comprises the United States of America so that we may restore healthy and just relations with Mother Earth and all her beings. Our tendency is towards autonomous anti-colonial struggles that intervene and attack the critical infrastructure that the U.S. and its institutions rest on. Interestingly enough, these are the areas of our homelands under greatest threat by resource colonialism. This is where the system is most prone to rupture, it’s the fragility of colonial power. Our enemies are only as powerful as the infrastructure that sustains them. The brutal result of forced assimilation is that we know our enemies better than they know themselves. What strategies and actions can we devise to make it impossible for this system to govern on stolen land? We aren’t advocating for a state-based solution, redwashed European politic, or some other colonial fantasy of “utopia.” In our rejection of the abstraction of settler colonialism, we don’t aim to seize colonial state power but to abolish it. We seek nothing but total liberation.

Voting Is Not Harm Reduction - An Indigenous Perspective

[kawaiimunism]

@timberlakefan96 Making a new post because I want to continue this convo, but we're getting a bit off topic and I don't want to clog up OP's notes haha

“voting Democrat is not a meaningful path to liberation.” It is, tho. Not as a general rule, granted, but in this specific case, where your choices are to vote liberal or vote for people who want to kill you, yeah, the path is pretty clear. And I’m not saying Kamala IS the liberator, but it’s going to be awful hard to fight when we’re being exterminated. There’s actually a really clear analogue to this: Obama was extremely mealy-mouthed about gay marriage both before and during his presidency, but we still got it, in a way that we definitely wouldn’t have during a Romney administration. Obama never even had to be a staunch advocate for it either, he just had to be anything other than directly opposed, which is almost exactly where Kamala sits on trans rights today.

Gonna break this down into a numbered list again:

(1) I feel like you're still arguing as though my position is "don't vote" or "vote Republican" (lmao). I'm not sure how many different ways I can say "I'm not trying to convince you not to vote, I'm trying to convince you to engage in direct action and resistance regardless of whether you vote or not, and regardless of who wins the presidency."

(2) I think you and I have very different ideas about what it means for something to be a "path to liberation." If you want to vote Dem because you think resistance will be easier under them than the GOP, go for it. It seems like you basically agree with my take that "the Dems won't set us free, only we can do that," so that's cool. If you wanna vote for a more tolerable oppressor in the meantime, great, go for it, but don't pretend that's in and of itself liberatory.

(3) That said, I wouldn't count on resistance being easier under Dem governance than GOP governance. Look at Dems and the GOP in lockstep to crush the Stop Cop City movement. Look at how state+local Dem & GOP governments alike cracked down on the George Floyd uprising (Walz himself was among those who mobilized the national guard). Anyone trying to achieve their goals via state authority will necessarily have to violently maintain that authority, it's how states work. To reiterate: The path forward is direct action and resistance, no matter who wins.

(4) I wouldn't even count on more support for trans issues under Dem governance. Like, rewatch that interview segment. Harris, when asked directly, pointedly avoided saying whether the law should protect your or my healthcare. She straight-up called it a distraction. She and the rest of them only care about trans issues insomuch as it serves their campaign interests. Most of them don't give a shit whether we live or die, and those who do give a shit will eventually be forced to subordinate that shit-giving to the obligations of statecraft: Politicians who prioritize personal values over politicking don't stay politicians for long. To re-reiterate: The path forward is direct action and resistance, no matter who wins.

(5) Eh, maybe Obergefell would've turned out differently if Obama hadn't been elected to appoint Sotomayor, but I don't think that's a given. There's good reason to believe Souter wouldn't have retired under a Republican presidency. Minor point, though, compared to:

(6) legal marriage equality is not liberation this is literally one of the classic liberation-vs-assimilation disagreements c'mon dog you should know better than this https://convergencemag.com/articles/marriage-will-never-set-us-free/

Sorry these replies are getting so long, I genuinely hope you read them and respond. I'm genuinely interested in hearing your perspective, I just have a lot of disagreement with not only your points, but also the assumptions that underlie them 😅

[z45capp]

July 19 - Taipei; Gold Museum, Jiufen (九份） Mountain Village

Another long day. With an hour bus ride to the Gold Museum, an hour bus ride home, and an hour bus ride in between, combined with all the exploring and sightseeing today, I am super tired. Still, all the sights we visited today taught me a lot about the mining history of Taiwan and about some more cultural practices. As part of our tour, we explored Jiufen Mountain Village, a beautiful mountainside village that has a lot of tea houses and street shops. I walked around a little bit on my own before running into my friend Brev. Brev and I went to a tea house together and had a really nice time getting to know one another more and talking about the tea and which of the small snacks we got were our favorites. Afterwards, we walked a little to find a vegan noodle shop for her since she is vegetarian and ran into our friend Brooke on the way. When we didn’t find the noodle shop right away, Brev left to find it while Brooke and I continued to shop, enabling each other’s shipping habits. In total, I spent about $1680 NTD, or $52.50 USD, on souvenirs, with $300 NTD going towards the tea house. I believe Brooke spent about $2000 NTD as well on souvenirs for her family. We each got a capybara plush with a little duck floatie and a handmade Chinese calligraphy brush; I also got a small capybara keychain for a friend, a new claw clip and pair of earrings. All in all, I am really happy with my purchases, even if they were a little expensive. 

The second museum we were supposed to visit, the Jintong Mining Industry Museum, was closed when we arrived. So instead we painted red lanterns with wishes for the future and sent them into the sky. Doing this activity with Brooke was really fun and a good bonding experience as we decided what to write on both sides of our lantern. It also taught me a little bit more about how paper lanterns are used to wish for the future, as well as how to technically set one up to paint and send off. Finally, we ended the day with some 蔥油餅.

Academic Reflection

Knowing the background of the city helped me to appreciate being in the area a lot more as I understood all the history, good and bad when going into it. It was hard to see the more hurtful parts of the history when there the city is very lively and the people are very nice. The city itself  is called 九份 because there were originally nine families who founded and partitioned the land. Once the mining stopped in the 1960s, the city became somewhat forgotten as its importance dwindled. That is, until a movie filmed at Jiufen about the mining came out and the area once again became famous. I can see why the movie made the area more popular, the scenery is gorgeous and the movie itself must have been very moving, with scenes of the hardship of miners’ lives but with a sweeping romance as well (as long as I’m thinking of the correct movie). But a trip to 九份 is both meaningful and worthwhile. 

Something that the reading didn’t prepare me for was the harsh reality of the lives of the prisoners of war who were forced to mine. The reading just states that there were many, the conditions were harsh, some were killed, and now there is a memorial to POWs and for advocating peace. What I learned at the museum was that the conditions were worse than harsh, they were disasterly. Not only were they forced to do a dangerous job, if they did not meet their quota for the day, they were physically beaten by the Japanese guards with mine hammers. On top of that, the POWs were consistently malnourished, being forced to survive on just a meager amount of rice and water. Medical assistance was also limited with reluctance to provide them with medical care, as well as minimal medical supplies to begin with. Propaganda was also prevalent, pictures of the prisoners exercising were sent to the Red Cross in order to hide the horrific treatment and to stop them from intervening. In addition to the tragedies the POWs faced, the Jinguashi Incident found 30 miners guilty of rebellion, swiftly executing them, even without evidence to back up the claims. After this, the survivors of Jinguashi moved away and the Japanese destroyed all evidence of this massacre. Learning about the lives of the POWs really made me reflect on the harsher realities of war. 

[tsenvs3000w24]

Final Post

Hey everyone, can't believe we're already at the end of the road, it feels like I just posted my first post yesterday!

This post is supposed to be all about us, and everything we've learned over the course. It's about how we ourselves would conduct ourselves as nature interpreters.

As a nature interpreter, my personal ethic would be deeply rooted in respect for the environment, and at my core, I wish to promote that I have an unwavering dedication to accuracy and honesty in interpretation, in connection to science.

The role of a nature interpreter means that we have a responsibility to be accurate to the most recent information, while also maintaining the integrity of the natural environmental narrative, which is extremely important when describing and presenting natural history (Beck et al., 2018). There are a lot of responsibilities involved in making sure the interpretation is both accurate and engaging. Therefore, as a nature interpreter, my primary responsibility is to convey accurate information about the natural world in an engaging and accessible manner, helping others develop a deeper understanding and appreciation for biodiversity and ecological processes.

When trying to keep interpretation accurate, in my thoughts, that requires an understanding of, and a connection to science. However, science and interpretation have a tumultuous relationship (Wals et al., 2014). What this means, is that as both a scientist and a nature interpreter, my responsibilities are going to build up between the two, in order to provide the best experience to those I’m teaching. In my eyes, I think my role should be to not only providing information but also to encourage individuals to take meaningful action for conservation. This might involve promoting sustainable behaviors, supporting conservation initiatives, or advocating for environmental policies that protect natural resources. It can also mean encouraging individuals to participate in citizen science projects, support local conservation initiatives, in order to promote support for the environment.

Me personally as an individual, I think the best approach for myself would be a combination of science and nature interpretation. I think an approach that involves collection, sampling, and dissection, all while explaining the importance of what we’re collecting. I also think that something like learning about tracking animals is the perfect way to combine ecological science and nature interpretation.

Tracks from the class trip we took. Left is a photo of squirrel tracks, right is a possible coyote track!

Observing animal tracks is a long studied tradition, that has remained a consistent practice for a very long time. It requires a deep familiarity with the land around you, and a understanding of the species that live alongside you. I recently had the chance to learn about it a little bit in one of my classes, and one of the biggest lessons I learned was that I needed to get way more familiar with my surroundings, because you can find so many things if you just look hard enough.

In conclusion, my approach to nature interpretation would be to integrate it with science, because that’s what I know best.

References:

Beck, L., Cable, T. T., & Knudson, D. M. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage :for a better world. Sagamore Venture.

Wals, A. E. J., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Stevenson, R. B. (2014). Science education. Convergence between science and environmental education. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 344(6184), 583–584. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250515

[jcenvs3000fall24]

Inspiring conservation through connection and education:

One thing that I have always struggled to understand is the lack of urgency around solving environmental issues. Recently, it feels like the world is revolving around economic and social issues that could in fact be relieved by bettering the environment. In my opinion, those in positions of power often lack the education or awareness necessary to see this connection. I truly believe that this is a large factor of why we have many issues pertaining to the environment. This idea is what drives my motivation to teach people about nature. I believe the more people who are environmentally educated, the more issues will be solved.

               As a nature interpreter, my goals would be to educate people by encouraging and entertaining the idea of creating a personal relationship with nature. As we have learned in this course, there are many different approaches that could be taken to do this. From my experience, the most beneficial tools that strengthened my relationship with nature were learning about it at a young age, broadening my learning through the lens of science, and doing my best to immerse myself within it whenever I can. These are the three factors that I would focus on when teaching others about nature.

               Firstly, building an early relationship is a key step into turning nature into a passion. From our textbook, we learned that children are an important audience. Not only are they the future of environmental governance, but they are also detrimental in shaping the current perspectives of adults (Beck et al., 2018). From my personal experience, exposure to the outdoors at a young age was transformative of my perspectives. As a kid, I went camping, visited cottages in the middle of the woods, and frequently explored local parks with my brothers. All these experiences shaped my perception of nature, sparking a longing curiosity that continues to exist today. When children are given the opportunity to explore and ask questions, they develop this sense of wonder. From my experience in working with children, I can say that most children do well under a tactile style of learning. They do best when they are able to engage their senses and see things happening in person. These hands on moments allow kids to explore the world on their terms, fostering their sense of independence and creativity. By acting on this curiosity, we can motivate children to form a meaningful bond with nature that may inspire them to advocate for the natural world.

Additionally, getting children excited about nature can also have an impact on a household perspective. Children with often share exciting news or knowledge with their parents, sparking discussion about nature and potentially driving shifts in parents’ behaviour towards the environment. This passed down teaching brings more light to the power of educating children, as they too, can teach others to care about their environment.

               As I mentioned before, learning about nature through science has had a strong impact on building my relationship and awareness of nature. Science gives us perspective on how everything in the natural world is connected, creating a deeper appreciation for how we affect these connections. In my experience, studying ecology in university has helped me see the environment for its complexities, where everything has a role to play. With the use of science, I would like to be able to help people see the environment with this understanding. In my approach, I would aim to make science accessible and engaging for a range of audiences.  I think the best way to merge science and nature interpretation is to deploy interactive activities such as examining the soil, identifying local species, and watching the organisms in the river – allowing participants to apply scientific concepts to the real world. These hands-on experiences allow people to engage their senses, enhancing their learning (Beck et al., 2018). By using this method, I aim to equip others with the knowledge and understanding necessary to appreciate and protect the environment.

               The last concept that is a key to creating a relationship with the environment is immersion in the outdoors. This is the most impactful way of fostering a connection with the environment. The simple act of removing ourselves from technology and distractions of the modern world creates time and space for us to focus on mindfulness and our relationships. Spending time in the natural world allows people to experience the sounds, smells, and feelings of nature. Experiences such as hiking through the woods, paddling across a lake, and being able to see how wildlife live have been large parts of my journey with nature and have strengthened my passion for conserving it. For children, these experiences may look more like climbing trees, picking at bugs, and playing in the dirt – allowing for them to be creative, problem- solve and ask questions. These experiences have also allowed me to develop practical skills that have made me more resilient and confident in my modern, everyday life.  

               Ultimately, using science and immersion, my goal is to help individuals see nature as an integral part of their lives just as it is to mine. By allowing the opportunity for people to merge senses of discovery, learning, and connection, I hope to inspire a sense of stewardship and empathy for the environment. As a nature interpreter, I am committed to fostering these connections, helping other build a relationship with the natural world, and contribute to a more environmentally conscious and caring society.

References:

Beck, L., Cable, T. T., & Knudson, D. M. (2018). Interpreting Cultural and Natural Heritage: For a Better World. Sagamore Publishing LLC. https://sagamore.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781571678669

[digitaldetoxworld]

Sustainability is destroying the Earth

Sustainability is destroying the Earth - Deep Green Resistance New YorkSelf-sustaining lifestyle (grow your own food/ use solar power etc)

Don’t talk to me about sustainability.  You want to question my lifestyle, my impact, my ecological footprint?  There is a monster standing over us, with a footprint so large it can trample a whole planet underfoot, without noticing or caring.  This monster is Industrial Civilization.  I refuse to sustain the monster.  If the Earth is to live, the monster must die.  This is a declaration of war.

What is it we are trying to sustain?  A living planet, or industrial civilization?  Because we can’t have both.

Somewhere along the way the environmental movement – based on a desire to protect the Earth, was largely eaten by the sustainability movement – based on a desire to maintain our comfortable lifestyles.  When did this happen, and why?  And how is it possible that no-one noticed?  This is a fundamental shift in values, to go from compassion for all living beings and the land, to a selfish wish to feel good about our inherently destructive way of life.

The sustainability movement says that our capacity to endure is the responsibility of individuals, who must make lifestyle choices within the existing structures of civilization.  To achieve a truly sustainable culture by this means is impossible.  Industrial infrastructure is incompatible with a living planet.  If life on Earth is to survive, the global political and economic structures need to be dismantled.

Sustainability advocates tell us that reducing our impact, causing less harm to the Earth, is a good thing to do, and we should feel good about our actions.  I disagree. Less harm is not good.  Less harm is still a lot of harm.  For as long as any harm is caused, by anyone, there can be no sustainability. Feeling good about small acts doesn’t help anyone.

Only one-quarter of all consumption is by individuals.  The rest is taken up by industry, agribusiness, the military, governments and corporations.  Even if every one of us made every effort to reduce our ecological footprint, it would make little difference to overall consumption.

If the lifestyle actions advocated really do have the effect of keeping our culture around for longer than it would otherwise, then it will cause more harm to the natural world than if no such action had been taken.  For the longer a destructive culture is sustained, the more destruction it causes.  The title of this article isn’t just attention-grabbing and controversial, it is quite literally what’s going on.

When we frame the sustainability debate around the premise that individual lifestyle choices are the solution, then the enemy becomes other individuals who make different lifestyle choices, and those who don’t have the privilege of choice.  Meanwhile the true enemy — the oppressive structures of civilization — are free to continue their destructive and murderous practices without question.  This is hardly an effective way to create a meaningful social movement.  Divide and be conquered.

Sustainability is po

pular with corporations, media and government because it fits perfectly with their aims.  Maintain power.  Grow.  Make yourself out to be the good guy.  Make people believe that they have power when they don’t.  Tell everyone to keep calm and carry on shopping.  Control the language that is used to debate the issues.  By creating and reinforcing the belief that voting for minor changes and buying more stuff will solve all problems, those in power have a highly effective strategy for maintaining economic growth and corporate-controlled democracy.

Those in power keep people believing that the only way we can change anything is within the structures they’ve created.  They build the structures in a way that people can never change anything from within them.  Voting, petitions, and rallies all reinforce the power structures, and can never bring about significant change on their own.  These tactics give corporations and governments a choice.  We’re giving those in power a choice of whether to grant our request for minor reform.  Animals suffering in factory farms don’t have a choice.  Forests being destroyed in the name of progress don’t have a choice.  Millions of people working in majority-world sweatshops don’t have a choice.  The 200 species who became extinct today didn’t do so by choice.  And yet we give those responsible for all this murder and suffering a choice.  We’re granting the desires of a wealthy minority above the needs of life on Earth.

Most of the popular actions that advocates propose tto achieve sustainability have no real effect, and some even cause more harm than good.  The strategies include reducing electricity consumption, reducing water use, a green economy, recycling, sustainable building, renewables and energy efficiency.  Let’s look at the effects of these actions.

Electricity

We’re told to reduce our consumption of electricity, or obtain it from alternative sources.  This will make zero difference to the sustainability of our culture as a whole, because the electricity grid is inherently unsustainable.  No amount of reduction or so-called renewable energy sources will change this.  Mining to make electrical wires, components, electrical devices, solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal plants, biomass furnaces, hydropower dams, and everything else that connects to the electricity grid, are all unsustainable.  Manufacturing to make these things, with all the human exploitation, pollution, waste, health and social impacts, and corporate profits.  Fossil fuels needed to keep all these processes going.  Unsustainable.  No amount of individual lifestyle choices about electricity use and generation will change any of this.  Off grid electricity is no different – it needs batteries and inverters.

Water conservation

Shorter showers.  Low-flow devices.  Water restrictions.  These are all claimed to Make A Difference.  While the whole infrastructure that provides this water – large dams, long distance pipelines, pumps, sewers, drains – is all unsustainable.

Dams destroy the life of a whole watershed.  It’s like blocking off an artery, preventing blood from flowing to your limbs.  No-one can survive this.  Rivers become dead when fish are prevented from travelling up and down the river.  The whole of the natural community that these fish belong to is killed, both upstream and downstream of the dam.

Dams cause a lowering of the water table, making it impossible for tree roots to get to water.  Floodplain ecologies depend on seasonal flooding, and collapse when a dam upstream prevents this.  Downstream and coastal erosion results.  Anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in dams releases methane to the atmosphere.

No matter how efficient with water you are, this infrastructure will never be sustainable.  It needs to be destroyed, to allow these communities to regenerate.

The green economy

Green jobs.  Green products.  The sustainable economy.  No.  There’s no such thing.  The whole of the global economy is unsustainable.  The economy runs on the destruction of the natural world.  The Earth is treated as nothing but fuel for economic growth.  They call it natural resources.  And a few people choosing to remove themselves from this economy makes no difference.  For as long as this economy exists, there will be no sustainability.

For as long as any of these structures exist: electricity, mains water, global economy, industrial agriculture – there can be no sustainability.  To achieve true sustainability, these structures need to be dismantled.

What’s more important to you – to sustain a comfortable lifestyle for a little longer, or the continuation of life on Earth, for the natural communities who remain, and for future generations?

Recycling

We’re made to believe that buying a certain product is good because the packaging can be recycled.  You can choose to put it in a brightly-coloured bin.  Never mind that fragile ecosystems were destroyed, indigenous communities displaced, people in far away places required to work in slave conditions, and rivers polluted, just to make the package in the first place.  Never mind that it will be recycled into another useless product which will then go to landfill.  Never mind that to recycle it means transporting it far away, using machinery that run on electricity and fossil fuels, causing pollution and waste.  Never mind that if you put something else in the coloured bin, the whole load goes to landfill due to the contamination.

Sustainable building

Principles of sustainable building: build more houses, even though there are already enough perfectly good houses for everyone to live in.  Clear land for houses, destroying every living thing in the natural communities that live there.   Build with timber from plantation forests, which have required native forests to be wiped out so they can be replaced with a monoculture of pines where nothing else can live.  Use building products that are slightly less harmful than other products.  Convince everyone that all of this is beneficial to the Earth.

Solar power

Solar panels.  The very latest in sustainability fashion.  And in true sustainability style, incredibly destructive of life on earth.  Where do these things come from?  You’re supposed to believe that they are made out of nothing, a free, non-polluting source of electricity.

If you dare to ask where solar panels come from, and how they are made, its not hard to uncover the truth.  Solar panels are made of metals, plastics, rare earths, electronic components.  They require mining, manufacturing, war, waste, pollution.  Millions of tons of lead are dumped into rivers and farmland around solar panel factories in China and India, causing health problems for the human and natural communities who live there.  Polysilicon is another poisonous and polluting waste product from manufacturing that is dumped in China.  The production of solar panels causes nitrogen trifluoride (NF3

) to be emitted into the atmosphere.  This gas has 17 000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Rare earths come from Africa, and wars are raged over the right to mine them.  People are being killed so you can have your comfortable Sustainability.  The panels are manufactured in China.  The factories emit so much pollution that people living nearby become sick.  Lakes and rivers become dead from the pollution.  These people cannot drink the water, breathe the air or farm the land, as a direct result of solar panel manufacturing.  Your sustainability is so popular in China that villagers mobilise in mass protest against the manufacturers.  They are banding together to break into the factories and destroy equipment, forcing the factories to shut down.  They value their lives more than sustainability for the rich.

Panels last around 30 years, then straight to landfill.  More pollution, more waste.  Some parts of solar panels can be recycled, but some can’t, and have the bonus of being highly toxic.  To be recycled, solar panels are sent to majority-world countries where low-wage workers are exposed to toxic substances while disassembling them. The recycling process itself requires energy and transportation, and creates waste products.

Solar panel industries are owned by Siemens, Samsung, Bosch, Sharp, Mitsubishi, BP, and Sanyo, among others.  This is where solar panel rebates and green power bills are going.  These corporations thank you for your sustainable dollars.

[psychuan]

actually we do get it. fully. you say "voting for better candidates" as if it will help and as if Sinema didn't run on an extremely progressive platform.

"Biden didn't do it" is shorthand. the long form version is that "electoralism isn't going to produce the kind of changes you need to see under bourgeois liberal capitalism, which has been demonstrably empowering capital."

this post is emblematic. you are sincerely making the argument for further calcifying a rotten system by telling people in an alleged democracy that they should only vote for one of two parties, and you can't see that the system itself is therefore broken? when you're telling people who are making the choice to vote with their conscience to shut up and vote your way, you think this is a system that's going to produce meaningful results? when there's no opposition that actively advocates for rebalancing power?

as for the US not being a dictatorship, that's a conclusion you can only come to if you live in the core states. ask Hawaiians how they feel about the USA and its poisoning of their water and land. ask anyone in a country touched by US imperialism.

what you are scared of is that trump will bring those effects to your doorstep. and fair enough, that's something to actually be worried about. but don't for a second believe that you are actually incredibly politically savvy and the last line against encroaching terror and fascism. you are merely it's latest targets. the USA has been the entity that haunts the nightmares of children for decades now, and demanding that people vote to uphold it because if they don't it'll come to your doorstep is cowardice.

have you organized around any of the people you claim don't have a chance? how much of a chance do you think they would have if everyone of you who has been shouting loudly to vote blue because of the fascist threat that trump represents, had instead actually helped organise around someone who represented an actual dismantling of that threat, rather than merely delaying it?

It's finally dawning on me that a lot of hard leftists actually do think the US presidency is already a dictatorship.

Like they think that the reason the Biden administration didn't cancel college debt on the grand scale they pictured, is that he just didn't want to. They have no comprehension just how much Republicans were working against him to stop literally anything he could do to make things in this country less dogshit. (BTW, this is why we need to vote blue all the way down the ticket.)

And then they think they can elect some third party rando with no actual allies in the senate or congress or anywhere, and people will just have to do what they say, and won't try to sabotage them even harder because they're even further left. (The aforementioned efforts to sabotage Biden? It would be even worse for an actual leftist president.)

Like no, sorry, the US presidency is not actually a dictatorship.

[2024inwords]

As I sat down to write my 25-year life plan, I found myself embarking on a journey of self-discovery that turned out to be healing & fulfilling because it made me realize what I value most. Writing down my aspirations helped me understand myself better and gave me a sense of direction for the years to come. However, crafting a vision and mission for myself was not an easy task. It was both liberating and intimidating to confront my desires and dreams head-on. I felt a mix of excitement and unease as I envisioned the next quarter-century of my life. One of the first steps I took was to outline my vision for the future – 25 years from now, what do I envision a good life to be like? In this vision, I imagined a life that was meaningful and fulfilling. I envisioned being part of a society where people can genuinely enjoy their personal journeys through life, appreciate the beautiful lessons learned along the way, and use these experiences to build a stronger sense of self that is uniquely theirs. In a world where it can be difficult to prioritize oneself, I hope to help others understand that self-love is a beautiful thing and not selfish. As I delved deeper into my vision, I realized the importance of aligning it with my values. It wasn’t just about material success or achieving my goals, but about living authentically and in harmony with my core beliefs. I want to make a positive impact to the community that I am part of, no matter how small, and advocate for causes I feel strongly about. Crafting a mission statement to accompany my vision was a process of breaking down these aspirations into actionable principles. My mission will be my roadmap, guiding my daily choices and actions toward the realization of my long-term vision, allowing for growth, adaptability, and learning along the way. The core of my mission is built upon two fundamental pillars – the pursuit of happiness in life’s simple joys and the continuous journey of self-improvement while living a purposeful & value-driven life. These pillars are not just for myself, but also for the people I hope to help. I came to realize that I want to help others embrace their own uniqueness, as I personally experienced the overwhelming impact this holds. Learning to accept myself for who I am has led me to a happier and more content life, and has also positively impacted my relationships with loved ones. I am grateful to have discovered this and I want to pay it forward by helping others embrace their own uniqueness because I sincerely believe that if we each just loved ourselves a little bit more, the world will be a better place. As I went on to reflect on the different aspects of my life plan revolving around attitude, career, family, financial, physical, I felt a sense of clarity and direction that was both empowering and humbling. The journey of self-reflection helped me unpack not only my ambitions but also the values and principles I hold dear to me. It was a great reminder that while the destination is significant, the journey is just as equally meaningful because of the daily choices we make, the relationships we nurture, and the lessons we learn along the way. In the end, I realized that my 25-year life plan isn’t just an assignment or a document, it is my guide for the years ahead and a reminder of what I value the most, how I want to make the most of out this beautiful life given to me and who I want to be in my journey.

[bharulatakamble]

Rising Strong: Female Leaders Redefining Empowerment

In today's rapidly evolving world, women are making their presence felt across various fields, shattering stereotypes, and redefining the meaning of empowerment. These remarkable female leaders are not only rising strong but also inspiring countless others to follow suit. Their stories serve as a testament to the indomitable spirit and unwavering determination that propels them forward, transcending barriers and creating a more inclusive and equal society.Bharulata kamble is the finest examples of women empowerment.

One of the key aspects of female empowerment lies in breaking free from societal expectations and forging one's path. These visionary leaders understand that true empowerment starts with embracing their individuality and unique strengths. They reject the notion of conforming to predefined roles and instead carve out their own niches, revolutionizing industries in the process.

In the world of technology, women leaders are at the forefront of innovation, challenging the status quo and driving meaningful change. They are not only founding successful startups but also creating opportunities for other women to thrive in the male-dominated tech landscape. By championing diversity and inclusivity, these trailblazers are ensuring that the next generation of female leaders has a more level playing field.

The realm of politics is another arena where women are asserting their influence and transforming the landscape. Female leaders are spearheading movements, advocating for equal rights, and fighting for justice. They bring fresh perspectives, empathy, and compassion to governance, which has long been dominated by a male-centric approach. By breaking the glass ceiling, these women are inspiring others to pursue careers in politics and actively participate in shaping their nations' future.

In the business world, female leaders are proving that gender should never be a barrier to success. They are taking charge of multinational corporations, driving growth, and implementing progressive practices that prioritize employee well-being and work-life balance. By promoting women into leadership positions and closing the gender pay gap, these visionary leaders are creating environments that empower individuals to thrive, irrespective of their gender.

Empowerment is not confined to a particular industry or sector. It transcends boundaries, touching every aspect of society, including the arts, sports, and activism. From actors and artists advocating for diverse representation on screen to athletes breaking records and challenging gender stereotypes, women are making their mark and inspiring generations to come.

However, the journey to empowerment is not without its challenges. These female leaders have faced adversity, discrimination, and systemic biases along the way. But it is their resilience and ability to rise strong that sets them apart. They refuse to be defined by setbacks and instead view them as opportunities for growth and transformation. Their ability to overcome obstacles and turn them into stepping stones is a testament to the extraordinary power that lies within every woman and it’s  live example is Bharulata Kamble is the finest examples of women empowerment.

To ensure a truly empowered future, it is essential to celebrate these female leaders and their achievements. Their stories serve as beacons of hope and inspiration, guiding young girls and women to believe in themselves and reach for the stars. By providing mentorship, fostering supportive networks, and amplifying their voices, we can create an environment that nurtures and uplifts the next generation of female leaders.

In conclusion, the rising strong female leaders of today are redefining empowerment. Through their achievements, they challenge societal norms, break barriers, and inspire others to follow in their footsteps. Their unwavering determination, resilience, and ability to transform challenges into opportunities make them role models for women around the world. By recognizing their contributions and supporting their endeavors, we can pave the way for a more inclusive and equal society where every woman can rise strong and redefine her own path to empowerment.

[theshampyon]

The whole thing's worth a read. And since most people only read the headlines (a fact now commonly taken advantage of for propaganda purposes), here's the full text (my emphasis):

The AAA and CASCA boards reached a decision to remove the session “Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology” from the AAA/CASCA 2023 conference program. This decision was based on extensive consultation and was reached in the spirit of respect for our values, in order to ensure the safety and dignity of all of our members, as well as the scientific integrity of the program.

The first ethical principle in AAA’s Principles of Professional Responsibility is to “Do no harm.” The session was rejected because it relied on assumptions that run contrary to the settled science in our discipline, framed in ways that do harm to vulnerable members of our community. It commits one of the cardinal sins of scholarship—it assumes the truth of the proposition that it sets out to prove, namely, that sex and gender are simplistically binary, and that this is a fact with meaningful implications for the discipline.

Such efforts contradict scientific evidence, including the wealth of anthropological scholarship on gender and sex. Forensic anthropologists talk about using bones for “sex estimation,” not “sex identification,” a process that is probabilistic rather than clearly determinative, and that is easily influenced by cognitive bias on the part of the researcher. Around the world and throughout human history, there have always been people whose gender roles do not align neatly with their reproductive anatomy. There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification. On the contrary, anthropologists and others have long shown sex and gender to be historically and geographically contextual, deeply entangled, and dynamically mutable categories. The function of the “gender critical” scholarship advocated in this session, like the function of the “race science” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is to advance a “scientific” reason to question the humanity of already marginalized groups of people, in this case, those who exist outside a strict and narrow sex / gender binary.

Transgender and gender diverse identities have long existed, and we are committed to upholding the value and dignity of transgender people. We believe that a more just future is possible—one where gender diversity is welcomed and supported rather than marginalized and policed.

The function of the “gender critical” scholarship advocated in this session, like the function of the “race science” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is to advance a “scientific” reason to question the humanity of already marginalized groups of people, in this case, those who exist outside a strict and narrow sex / gender binary.

[saltysirensongss]

Meaningful Childhood Media: a Reflection

The ocean and I have always had a love-hate relationship. From a young age I was obsessed with the water, from swimming classes to lakeside day trips, I simply couldn’t get enough, my fingers in a permanently wrinkled state. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly where things went wrong but if I had to guess I would blame the Persian New Year. Every spring I was allowed to choose out a half a dozen live goldfish from the store to bring home and display on our Haft-Sin. As per tradition (which no family member could explain) the goldfish is meant to do a little roll at the beginning of the new year. And roll they did… I witnessed an insurmountable number of goldfish pass in varying degrees of horrific ways from slow fades to suicidal leaps onto the living room floor. Before I knew it I had developed a fear of goldfish which slowly but surely evolved into an irrational fear of all fish. I stopped eating fish, I stopped walking by the fish sections of pet stores and I forced our family to switch to plastic fish for our traditions. What I couldn’t shake however, was my fascination. 

A traditional haft-sin table setup

I remember the day we downloaded netflix. It had become available to stream on the Wii in late 2010 (Nintendo) and I, aged 8, convinced my mom that it was absolutely necessary. I was told we would only have it for a month, meaning as long as it was free to us. I don't remember what options were available to me at this time but being a little water obsessed kid I was drawn to two particular shows which some could argue represent the two ends of the media spectrum: H2O: Just Add Water, and River Monsters, both of which as their names imply were ocean related. 

I consider H2O: Just Add Water one of the most influential shows of my childhood. H2O tells the tale of three Australian teens who unknowingly find themselves cursed with the ability to turn into mermaids. Cleo, Rikki and Emma were forced to navigate their highschool years without ever touching a drop of water which as you can imagine put them in plenty of high stake situations. Situations that I would recreate both alone and with friends. This show provided us with endless hours of imagination fodder both in and out of the pool. This was a show that all my female friends and I watched avidly, but my friends didn’t all have netflix so it became a show that they would come over to watch. My permitted screen time was restricted to two episodes a day so the selection of which episodes we would watch would become colourful debates in themselves where we would discuss the show in depth and advocate for our preferred storylines. 

Just three mermaids hanging out

My minute amount of screen time paired with the fact that we were one of the few families I knew to be subscribed to an SVOD makes me believe my parents were better off than they let on as both are common traits of higher income families (Rideout et al.)  which is probably why they let us keep Netflix after that first month.

On the other hand, my parents have a small friend group of three couples that they’ve had long before me that all together managed to produce a sum total of six children, all roughly the same ages. Within this group I sadly found myself to be the only girl. Growing up with a group of boys at arm's length played a heavy influence on the type of media I was exposed to. While my school friends would come over to watch fairy cartoons and mermaid shows the first thing the boys convinced me to watch on netflix was River Monsters. River Monsters hosted by Jeremy Wade was not nearly as terrifying as the name suggests but still a complete 180 from the content I would have chosen for myself. River Monsters was a docuseries which followed host Jeremy Wade as he travelled around the world to remote locations where legends of river monsters prevailed. He would then interview locals about recent incidents and anecdotal experiences with the supposed monsters and would explain the potential species who could be responsible. As scary as this sounds Jeremy Wade is a lovely man who treated every case gently and worked hard to demystify these “monsters” with a sense of positivity I could only hope to one day achieve. Watching this show on an SVOD again played a huge role in how we consumed the material. The eldest of the boys would get to pick which episode he found most intriguing and we were all made to watch it. 

Jeremy taking a dip in a piranha infested tub to prove their innocence

While this show may have had less impact on me socially, as my school friends were far from interested, it did start me on a path of being very interested in biology. When I tell people that I like this show they often feel the need to blame it for my Ichthyophobia, however I would argue that it serves more as a form of exposure therapy. My mother in particular was adamantly against me watching the show as she considered it “not for kids”. This always confused me because my parents would allow me to consume a great deal of heavier topics so long as it was served in cartoon form, like the movie, Grave of the Fireflies which my mom brought home from the library one day having not checked the rating or synopsis, or Coraline which I was dragged to see against my will. I soon learned that what my parents perceived to be appropriate was based on “their view of childhood, rather than what children would choose themselves" (Steemers) which to them meant I was to be watching animated features. While these shows are clearly marketed to vastly different audiences I enjoyed them equally and consider both to have had great impacts on my life. I do believe that they’re not as opposite as some might believe, afterall, being a teen mermaid is pretty much as scary as swimming with piranhas. I think another interesting thing the two shows have in common is their accents. River Monsters was filmed largely in South America and H2O was filmed in Australia so I got to hear the classic Australian as well as British (Jeremy’s accent) accents on a day to day basis. Both shows gave me a glimpse of what life was like in other parts of the world which in river monsters often looked very different from my own. Television is a great resource for children such as myself to be exposed to other cultures, giving me a chance to reside in what Marshall McLuhan would call a global village (Lemish).

[wisehq]

Mission Debrief: Chapter Forty-two

...It's all coming together.

I'm just going to come outright and say it; I had no idea what to write for this review- not because there wasn't anything to discuss, but rather this chapter gave us so much that I didn't know what to focus on first. Chapter forty-two has single-handedly thrown open the doors to a hundred different theories, and believe me when I say that after a whole night of redbull and theorizing I couldn't come up with any clear answers (the folks over at the Strix discord group can attest to that).

So here's what we're gonna do; I'm not going to focus on the chapter itself.

It was cute. Cardshark Anya is hilariously awesome. Damian is a little shit (whom I adore), and the chapters where the kids can just be kids are- in my opinion- the best.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter. For the rest of this review, I want to go over all the facts we know so far about the story and setting. All of the things Endo has been slowly building up in the background and the pieces that we can stitch together from them, starting with this chapter. Two key things stuck out to me.

In the entirety of the story up till this point, this is the first time we have heard mention of a royal anything- and not only that, but this chef is a former royal chef. This of course implies that a) said chef was fired (not likely given that Eden wouldn't likely associate with someone who was disgraced like that) or retired, or b) that there is no royalty anymore. Ostania is a totalitarian state and the main power of the government- from what we've seen- lies with the ruling political party, i.e the National Unity Party, a.k.a Desmond's party. Such a political structure would have no room for royalty in a governing capacity, and therein begs the question; is there still a royal/noble class- albeit in a non-governing sense- or was it abolished sometime in the recent past?

Classical language is not proper speaking and diction like I had originally thought. Classical language is a specific term typically used to describe a dead language or dialect (think Latin, or Hebrew before it was revived). I find this particularly interesting because under no circumstance would a child as young as Anya know anything about a dead language unless- as Loid points out- she was exposed to it as a toddler. It would have had to have been when she was very young, as she herself doesn't realize she knows this information. This would mean she likely learned it from her birth family; Anya was old enough to remember the lab and scientists, meaning she became Subject 007 later on in life- otherwise she would have remembered knowing classical language.

These two concepts are incredibly important to keep in mind, both now and later on as the story progresses. We now know that a royal class plays a factor in the political game that Twilight and everyone else is playing, and we know that Anya knows information that she shouldn't know otherwise (even with her mind-reading powers). So where does that leave us?

Honestly, for the first time...I'm kind of stumped?

Let's look back at the story and see what else we can piece together- maybe there's something in there we can extrapolate for our purposes. Another clue to point us in the direction that Endo is seemingly funneling us towards.

From chapter forty-one

Franklin Perkins was a man who believed in making his country a better place to live. In his eyes and from what he saw, Ostania wasn't going in the right direction- but why? He blames his lack of money for his mother's death, and we see him hold resentment towards the government over socialistic policies. Wealth is something to be shared with others, not hoarded for ones self. That seems to be where Ostania's moral compass is pointing towards, but is that really the case?

From chapter 39

Mr. Green mentions that people have been fleeing to Westalis; from the way he says this it sounds like this is happening currently- not in the past- and people are going so far as to travel through a third country just to get to Westalis. Such a journey isn't without its perils, so anyone attempting to crossover from Ostania would likely be taking a huge risk in doing so. Not only that, but most of what we've seen in the story is Ostanians loathing Westalins...so what would compel people to do this in the first place?

From chapter three As Anya reads the minds of people gathered at a politcal rally near the start of the manga, we see their disgruntled thoughts behind her. There's multiple mentions of losing jobs and not having enough money- some people are even hungry. Most of these people blame Westalis for their troubles, though not the leader of the rally, ironically.

Also from chapter 3

We find out (and often forget) early on that there are multiple political parties in Ostania. Donovan leads the National Unity Party, whereas the political rally we see here is hosted by the Nationalist Party. The latter preaches peace with the west, but many of the people gathered reject this outright. This is important; the N.U.P is the most successful political party in Ostania, which means a majority of the country's citizens approve of their platform. If we're to assume the Nationalist Party's platform is to advocate for peace with Westalis, then we must also assume that the N.U.P stands for the opposite; direct aggression with the west.

From chapter 31 The Zacharis Dossier, though ultimately a bust, hinted at rumors that have permeated East and West since the start of the cold war. We know for a fact that human experiments did indeed take place in Ostania, so it also stands to reason that there is at least a kernel of truth to the claims of P.O.W (prisoner of war) massacres conducted by the west. It's a heinous crime, and also one that leads to another question; why would any country go through with it in the first place? In addition, piggy-backing off the former point;

From chapter 19 While Loid details Project Apple, he uses the word 'regime' to describe the former Ostanian government. The literal definition of a regime is a government, especially an authoritarian one (Oxfrod Dictionary). I won't highlight all the specifics of what is and isn't authoritarianism, but essentially the point I'm trying to make here is that the current Ostanian administration is still very much a regime. Donovan acts as the authoritarian ruler (or would-be ruler; we don't know if he's actively in charge or is looking to usurp power for himself) and continues on the legacy of the former government. We know for a fact that this is the case because Anya is only at most 6 years old, likely even younger. That would mean the experiments being run on her had to have been recent, which fits with the time frame that we established at the beginning of this rabbit hole- it also aligns with what we know about what Donovan has been doing on the back end of things. Those who have kept up with my reviews know what I'm talking about; gloom pharmaceuticals, the truth serum, OSO-R, etc. All of that, which then leads us to...

...right back where we started. So...what then? What can we conclude from all this? At least a few things;

Anya is tied to Desmond- either directly or indirectly.

Anya's past is also Ostania's past; she's familiar with a dead language that's no longer spoken, and there's definitely a reason why no one speaks it anymore.

Ostania is in a period of political and economic turmoil. This also comes on the heels of a (possible) former monarchy, and the struggle of a country willing to embrace authoritarianism so long as it means staying alive.

WISE and Westalis are not innocent in this game of chess with Ostania and the SSS, and more than likely have committed atrocities that may or may not be directly tied to Ostania and- possibly- Anya's past.

And...this is as far as I can go. I've hit a wall, as have other people I've talked to. We're still missing pieces to the puzzle. Endo will of course provide us with more clues and theory fodder as the weeks and months progress, but for now this is as far as I can go on my own. On the one hand I feel defeated because I can't come up with a meaningful explanation for everything and present it in a neat little bundle for you all to read, but on the other hand I'm thoroughly enjoying this. I'm more engaged with this manga and story than any other I've read before; I'm at the edge of my seat every week, and I'm sure most of you are, too. For now, I'll leave the review here. I find it fitting to leave it open ended, just as Endo did with Loid's self-imposed question. Hopefully, like him, we can find answers in the near future.

Also, BONUS...

...No fun panel with a snappy comment this time. Instead, I’m going to humbly ask for your help.

If you have any ideas about where you think the story is going, theories as to how everything fits together, or just really want to discuss the manga with other fans- please check out our forum and share with us. We’d love to hear what you all think; not only that, but a lot more heads makes theorizing both more productive and a whole lot more fun. Check it out if you have the time, or- if you don’t feel like clicking on any links- you can always leave a comment either on this post or send us an ask or message. Anytime, any reason, we’d love to talk SxF.

Again, thanks for reading, and we’ll see you all next chapter!

[trilobiter]

Third party candidates are structurally inhibited in presidential elections. As things are now, there is no reason to believe that withholding a vote for Biden and giving it to a third party will do anything but increase the odds of a Republican victory. And there is an awful lot on the line besides Palestine.

The president is elected by the electoral college, which means the candidates must compete simultaneously in what are essentially fifty one separate elections, each of which will yield between three and fifty five votes to the winner, depending on the state's population. The winner must win a majority of all available votes, which is 270 of 538. If in a close election, a third party candidate were to win enough electoral votes to deny either of the other candidates that majority, then there is no run-off election. The president is instead elected by the House of Representatives, which votes in this case on the basis of state. As Congress currently stands, the Republican candidate would win such an election by at least one vote.

If Republicans gain control of the White House next year, whether Trump is their candidate or not, they will roll back the meaningful and important progress that the Biden administration has made in fighting climate change, an issue which also threatens the lives of vulnerable humans all over the planet. It fundamentally does not make sense to me to a pursue a voting strategy to punish Biden for a pro-Israel policy, when the only viable alternative candidate is even more pro-Israel, and also wants to turn up the gas on climate change. That is to say nothing of all the ways that a Republican president, Trump or not, will make life much worse for vulnerable Americans.

Look, I get that we are the evil empire. I get that the United States makes a lot of things worse in the world and that Palestine is currently the most visible example of that. I'm against Biden's stance and I think he should demand a ceasefire and use whatever leverage he can to make Netanyahu comply. But we can't lose sight of all the implications of a Republican victory.

I hope you'll pardon the U.S. civics lecture, I really don't know how much you know or don't know about our fucked up constitutional trap. I just need everybody to understand that we face incredible stakes from multiple directions. If it's pathological to advocate a vote for Biden under these circumstances, then we've been sick a long time.

How do you feel about the Gaza war all but ensuring Trump's reelection by destroying Biden politically?

It might; it's certainly hurt his standing with a number of different groups like Arab-Americans. Whether it will translate into a broader erosion of support I can't tell, and there are so many things that are up in the air still about this election (which is over a year away!) that it's kind of a fool's game to try to predict the outcome now.

I'm not sure that Biden's support for the Israeli bombing campaign/ground invasion is "destroying" him politically at all. That would imply he's paying a real cost among the majority of his supporters, but the Democratic party is quite right-wing on the Israel-Palestine issue at the moment. I think Biden is pursuing the policies that he thinks have broad support among his political faction, and unfortunately I think he may be correct in that assessment.

It goes without saying that if Trump or a similar politician was president now, or was president during a similar crisis in the future, he'd probably be even more enthusiastic about endorsing whatever the Israeli government wanted to do. That troubles me, of course. It would be nice if there were options for the American president other than "endorsing mass murder with a sigh of regret" and "endorsing mass murder with cheering and clapping of hands."

I have a lot of worries. I worry that for all the outrage, nothing will fundamentally change--that Israeli politics will (with Netanyahu in charge or someone else) continue to drift to the right, that Oslo will be the high-water mark for hope for a peaceful resolution in my lifetime. More parochially, I worry about the German government cynically exploiting this situation to justify a stronger anti-immigration and anti-refugee policy, hoping to outflank the AfD on this issue; and I worry that Biden will lose in 2024 and the lesson the Democratic party will take from it isn't "we need to be less like a bunch of cynical neoliberal death cultists" and instead "it was clearly our labor policy that was the problem, let's lurch rightward again." I worry that the lessons we took from World War II have faded already, or were always too narrow in scope--that we are sensitive to fascism only if it marches under literal swastikas, that we care about refugees and genocide only if they can be mythologized as the perfect victim, going meekly to their fate (preferably years after the fact, when it is too late to actually do anything about it).

I think there are a lot of good people in the world doing good things, who want to fight for what's right. But this is a really bleak situation, and none of them are in charge. We could use a leader with real courage who can vigorously articulate an expansive moral vision, something beyond massacre-for-massacre retribution with no end in sight.

[vkelleyart]

Thoughts on fandom: inclusion and engagement.

(Art credit to the kindhearted @penpanoply​!)

There’s been some stuff floating around on Tumblr about strife in the CO/WS fandom, and though I haven’t been explicitly named-dropped on anything public, my DMs have been... active. lol Rather than rehash what’s been said already, I just want to impart a little wisdom and perspective in the hopes it may soothe frayed feelings and offer a way ahead for cultivating a respectful community. As someone who has been an active participant in online fandoms since the mid-’90s, which was the advent of online fandom content creation (shout out to my fellow X-Philes!), and who has also spent a chunk of her professional life managing social media for the federal government and for activist groups, I can promise you it’s all gonna be okay.

Here’s some context for why strife happens and what we can do to create a more inclusive and communicative fandom environment. 

1) It sounds cliché, but fandoms go through growing pains. 

In the case of the Simon Snow fandom, what was once a small and cozy space untouched by cataclysmic events (such as the release of *gasp* a sequel) has grown exponentially in a relatively short amount of time following the release of Wayward Son. Newcomers are eager to find a home in this space at the same time as folks who’ve been here a while may be consciously or unconsciously wary about widening their circle, and It’s important to remember that this is not necessarily an expression of bad behavior on either side but just human psychology doing its thing. 

The byproduct, however, is that tension and stress builds over time from the lack of meaningful communication across the divide, which subsequently fuels misunderstandings. Ironically, the interfaces we use to communicate don’t help with this because any existing communication about the tension happens in tiny vacuums until a trigger goes off and bad feelings go public. 

Way Ahead: These moments of destabilization are opportunities to see where we can be more self aware about how we engage with fandom and the kind of community we want to be. Can you promote, support, or befriend someone trying to gain a foothold? If yes, please do! Each person must reach their own decision about what they can do within the confines of their available energy, health, and time, but a little self awareness goes a long way as long as you’re honest with yourself and others if applicable about what you can contribute. Anyone who judges you for it isn’t worth the strife.

2) In a fandom comprised of vulnerable/marginalized people, it’s more accurate to say that cliques are “bubbles of trust.”

This one's important. Just by nature of the source material, the CO/WS fandom includes fans with a wide array of backgrounds and experiences, especially when it comes to those who identify with the characters’ queerness, mental illness, and/or trauma. I really believe––based on individual conversations/group chats––that the difficult lived experiences that so many of our fandom peers have endured has produced one of the most open, aware, and accepting fandoms I’ve had the pleasure of participating in. Our vulnerability is, in a real way, our strength.

That said, a community of survivors also has the side effect of cultivating small circles of engagement that I call “bubbles of trust.” When you’re a survivor of abuse, marginalization, mental illness, fill-in-the-blank, it’s often quite hard to risk casting a wide net and expanding your circle to include new faces––which can subsequently be internalized by equally sensitive and vulnerable newcomers as rejection, judgement, or inadequacy.

Way Ahead: First of all, there may indeed be gatekeeping and exclusion going on. But before internalizing someone’s cagey behavior as gatekeeping or purposely exclusionary, ask yourself if you have all the information. Many people are private (I include myself in this assessment) because life has regrettably taught them to be this way, and so they may insulate themselves to a small group of people who have earned their trust. Some people might also triggered by certain content (case in point: smut triggers my anxiety) so they don’t engage with it. Others might have something in their pasts that define how they handle certain subjects (for example, a person of color should not be tone policed for getting angry when confronted with a racialized microagression, however accidental it was). You just don’t know what you don’t know. 

The solution here is to regularly check your privilege and ask questions in a private space if you sense you’re being treated unfairly by someone. If you go public with your grievances in hopes of mobilizing the mob, you may accidentally find yourself stepping into the role of the aggressor instead of the victim.

3) Social Media is not built to help you get engagement. It’s built to help itself make money off of you.

Repeat after me: Hits/likes are not a measurable indicator of talent or worth. There are ridiculously talented folks on Tumblr and elsewhere who, for whatever reason, haven’t had their viral moment, and it’s not their fault. Loads of factors come into play where things like likes, reblogs, and comments are concerned, among them being posting frequency, subject matter, the time of day, the day of the week, the week of the month, the month of the year, the current administration, the stock exchange, the concentration of middle class users, who just won the Superbowl, a madman trying to steal an election and undermine the democratic process, a PANDEMIC, do you get where I’m going with this?? lol

At the end of the day, my humble successes have been helped along by good luck, good timing, high profile signal boosters, and an absurd amount of work. (This is why I try to signal boost new work whenever I get a chance over at @vkelleyshares.) 

So while you cannot control Tumblr’s interface, trends at large, or your fellow users, here’s what you can do to ensure you give your work the best possible chance of exposure.

Have an image ready to go with your post. Tumblr is a visual platform (no matter what it says about being good for text). Not good with images? Set up a Canva.com account and get access to free graphic software with a gazillion templates to create whatever attractive image you want to attach to your post.

Keep the outward facing text brief and easy on the eyes. Too long and eyes will glaze over. Put excess text behind a “read more.”

You may think you’re being cute when you do this, but don’t put yourself down in your posts. (Don’t put yourself down in general, of course.) Doing so acts as engagement repellant. If you don’t believe in your work, no one else will.

Related: Be your best cheerleader. Confidence is a magnet, and if you don’t have it, go ahead and fake it until you start to convince yourself you are worth the buzz. So promote yourself! You have gifts that only you can impart. Use that knowledge to fuel everything you do from your art/fiction writing to your outreach with other content creators, and by golly, if someone’s done it already, acknowledge that contribution and then tell the world that this is YOUR unique take on it.

Treat your fellow fandom creators as human beings, not art/fiction/content boosting machines. I cannot count how many times I’ve had folks slide into my DMs with offers of friendship only to disappear once they realize I’m not available to draw a picture for their fic. It hurts because it’s manipulative and it makes me want to hole up and not signal boost anyone. Creators who truly support each other will not give off a transactional vibe. I want to help you reach more people, but not if that’s all I’m good for in your eyes. 

The long and short of it: Lead with compassion, do your best with the opportunities at  your disposal, and remember that fandom belongs to everyone in it. ❤️

What saves a fandom made of sensitive and vulnerable souls from imploding when it goes through growing pains is radical compassion from those who can offer it. Begin with the assumption that your fellow fandomers are not trying to harm you, and wade into the water knowing that your insight into the lives of your peers is limited by default and you may need to temper your words or actions accordingly. If you’re a content creator, save compassion for yourself as well, as there are indeed challenges to gaining an audience, and lack of engagement does not mean you lack talent or skill. Be your best advocate, and if you have the bandwidth to lift up a fellow creator and make a new friend, please, go ahead do it! 

And finally, fandom belongs to everyone, and no one has a monopoly on characters, tropes, or themes. Create and consume what you love (with respect for your more vulnerable peers), and bask in the variety, my friends!

That’s all I’ve got in my head at the moment, although I’m sure there’s more I’m forgetting. Thanks so much to @penpanoply for letting me use her art for this and to everyone else, hang in there and try not to judge each other too harshly. These are unprecedented times, and most of us are doing our best in circumstances that are pushing us to our limits. 

As always, if you have questions or want to sound off on anything, shoot me a message or an ask, or ping me on Discord. It might take me a second to respond (thanks, Covid) but I’ll get to it! Love, love, and more love to all.

[tundrainafrica]

the fact that people refuse that levi and han had a bond (even if it’s not romantic) is insane imo... like there’s the parallels between different relationships? and when you point them out there’s always someone who will say “eww don’t compare xx with levihan”

for example? ymir and historia??? there’s so many similarities, wanting to live for themselves, wanting to be together, the fact that one of them had to leave to protect the other one and they never got to tell each other how they felt? but the bond was there? the tall, more energetic one that wants to protect and show the short, seemingly jaded one that not everything has to be hopeless? their friendship? there’s no power imbalance, just pure love, understanding. they really loved each other...

oh and the bird with one wing, it’s as if han couldn’t fly anymore without levi (but i may be looking too much into it) and then levi fell too ahhh poetic cinema 😩 we’ve been getting a lot of hate recently...

This is like way up in my asks but a lot of it has been bothering me. I’ve seen a lot of antis on twitter denying Hange and Levi’s bond because lmao apparently what has been going on in 126 and 132 aren’t enough to make something canon. 

But as a fan, regardless of what antis say, regardless of what other shippers say I will stand by this ship, rain or shine, and I will fucking scream ‘LEVIHAN IS CANON.’ 

It just doesn’t make any sense really? Like what do people need for something to be canon? A gaudy verbal declaration of love? Love letters? Kissing? Fucking? 

I don’t believe we need a declaration of love to deem something canon. Yes, people won’t agree but the fact that we have been called delusional? Levihans on twitter have been called delusional for seeing canon on this? I didn’t just look at Levihan and the scenes in 126 and 132 and go ‘YUP ITS CANON,’ I actually did have a slow burn towards this because I just thought the way I see Levihan in canon is pretty much how I appreciate a lot of the relationships in real life. 

A lot of people wait for declarations of love, kissing, fucking, embracing and making out. Yes, those are conventional ways to prove that maybe those two can be together. But those types of bullshit are only as valuable or as meaningful as the subtle domestic actions that follow. We’ve seen relationships we deem canon before, then suddenly the guy cheats on the girl or the girl hits the guy or vice versa, or they just alternate between make ups and break ups until they get tired. So what? Do they still love each other? Even after allowing themselves through go through all that shit? 

I’ve never been in a relationship like that? I wouldn’t know what runs through people’s heads when they go through those? Stockholm? Hope that maybe their toxic lover will change for the better? I don’t know so I won’t comment about this. 

But I sincerely believe there is more to analyze, there is more to appreciate and there is more to emulate in a relationship grounded in mutual trust, bonds, and a relationship that has proven the test of time and challenges (aka Levi and Hange)

I don’t believe in kisses, sex scenes or verbal declarations of love. Just because those are the socially accepted ways to ‘show that love exists.’ They are inherently flawed proofs and evidences that there exists a relationship between people. And maybe the fact that these proofs are what people wait for before they something is canon, maybe that’s the reason why it’s so hard for people to recognize that people can have bonds without it? Maybe that’s why people figuring out they love someone is so hard? Because they wait for the urge to kiss or the urge to have sex? Or the urge to write a long ass love letter?

But really love and the drive to enter a committed relationship are so much deeper than intimacy and verbal declarations. Intimacy and Verbal Declarations are only as valuable as the intentions and the implicit messages that accompany them. 

I’ve never been a words person, I’ve always been an actions person and maybe that’s why I never did keep a lot of the old love letters and the old gifts people have given me. I don’t want verbal declarations of love or commitment, I want actions. Words are easy. Intimacy is easy. If people really meant it, they would constantly strive to change for the better. If people really meant it, they would hold their breath and listen even when they were angry. If people really meant it, they’d listen to feedback and constantly try to open up. 

If people really meant it, they’d stay true to commitments, acknowledge mistakes and constantly reach out of their comfort zone to make an effort to constantly improve. 

You know where I see love? Giving up your daily routine to save some extra cash so you can drop it for a partner who’s in need? You know what’s love? Changing how you go about your life, actively changing your bad habits so you can constantly be a better partner to the person you committed to. You know what’s love? Staying by someone’s side, completely trusting them and trying at least to know them like the back of your hand? 

You know what’s love? Actively abandoning your post to save your dying friend. 

And some people might go… This is just a ship. No, because personally how I ship is how I view relationships in real life.

I do not admire relationships  for their ability to display affection in public or their ability to write long letters to their loved ones. I admire relationships for their openness. I admire relationships where couples are able to keep their problems behind closed doors because they trust each other so well they can resolve everything together. I admire relationships where couples are complete opposites yet somehow manage to make things work because you know they made the effort to adopt microchanges to their personality to make that relationship work. 

I have friends in real life who are actively in a relationship, say they genuinely love their partner yet break up and make up every week. They call their partners such vile names when they’re angry, they fucking hurt each other yet a declaration of love every week somehow makes it okay. 

I have friends whose only proof they were ever together with their partners were the fact that they lived together, maybe co-owned five cats. And when I talk to them about their partners, they know everything about their partner from the back of their hand. “She wouldn’t do that. She won’t wake up that early.” They know each others habits and despite how different they are, they adjust. They have never said anything wrong about their partner. They have never talked shit about their partners to me. Sometimes, they would talk to me when they’re concerned or when they’re emotional, but they have never called their partner asshole, bitch, fucker in the heat of the moment. I have never heard them wish ill of their partner. 

BUT THEY HAVE NEVER PLAYED VICTIM. (And holy crap the amount of relationships I’ve seen where someone is willingly able to rant and say such horrifying things behind their partner behind their back is fucking terrifying. And the way they pull a 180 in public and around their partner?? That’s a relationship???  I have seen friends call their partners cruel and abusive, only for me to find out through message receipts that they’re both assholes.)

And I will live my whole life, advocating for relationships grounded in mutual bonds and a strive to grow with their partner, whether or not they have expressed the societally acknowledged, conventional romantic connotations of love or not. 

In the end, love is love. And love is manifested not in the romantic declarations of love but in the trust, sacrifice, the effort to change for the better, the commitment to stay with the person and grow with them. 

Love is abandoning one’s comfort zones. Love is staying by someone’s side, supporting them through the thick and thin. Love is supporting one another, keeping the dynamic balanced yet constantly moving. 

Love is facing life together and making sure the person you committed to, never feels alone or unloved. 

Do not reduce love and relationships to kisses and hugs and declarations of love.

And for the people who say, “Chill this is just a ship...” I ship because I believe in the dynamic and I believe in the depth that is hidden underneath the dynamic that was shown in the big screen. It’s the reflection of what I see in relationships in real life and it’s the model of what I’d want to see in my own relationships. 

So yes, please let the Levihans enjoy things thank you. 

[myragewillendworlds]

"I disagree that treatments not working and/or pain being extremely difficult means that the person should be given up upon and/or that they should give up and/or that their surrounding should give up."

Treatment providers are not the ones "giving up", they are perfectly willing to keep trying endlessly. It's the patient that wants to stop. This is a matter of personal choice of the patient.

"Death is not and will never be a cure for suffering."

No, it isn't a cure. It's an end, once "curing" has failed and suffering is inevitable (in the eyes of the patient). That's all it can offer.

"As long as we think that patients, and especially patients suffering from mental health issues, are only in such a way because of their illness/disabilities, rather than question their quality of life in its entirety, we'll stay unable to help them in any significant way, and we'll keep using euthanasia against them instead of looking into the real issues they're facing."

This line of thinking is based on the assumption that "we" (or "they", rather) do in fact think that way. I can't speak for other countries either, but I would say this is not the case here in the Netherlands. There is plenty of room for progress, there always is, but there is financial aid here, there is local aid that helps people re-integrate into society, come out of social isolation or find meaningful day activities attuned to their needs and abilities. I've written about my thoughts on assisted suicide before, and have said that any such clinic should have strong connections with all forms of help; medical, social, financial, spiritual, and anything else. But I would also say that, while I do continue to advocate here for better interconnections between facilities, they do exist.

What I'm saying is that there will be people for whom no amount of help will be enough; they just don't want to go on any longer. Who are we to decide that they should, to force them to?

You want to improve quality of life, but you also have to face the fact that it cannot be perfected, that that is idealistic and worth pursuing as much as possible but not literally reachable, and there will always be that person who'll say their life simply isn't worth living anymore. Euthanasia isn't telling that person to just die, help is still available if they should want to keep trying; but opposing it is telling them they're not allowed to die (or to choose a potentially painful method). And I don't support controlling other people's lives in that fashion.

"It is very much about hating disabled and mentally ill people."

It's not, you're just projecting.

"And I'll bet anything that the person you know has more issues than suffering of mental health issues, it's all connected."

Then that is a bet you just lost, because this is another baseless assumption that simply isn't true. This is my problem with this line of thinking. You say "I wouldn't be able to debate about whether the person you're talking about should or shouldn't be euthanasied" but then you go ahead and draw your conclusions anyway. It's arrogant.

I don't fully pretend to understand their choice either; I'm simply saying it's not mine to make. All I can offer now is my support.

I doubt euthanasia care globally is exactly perfect, and mental health care definitely needs improving everywhere, as do its connections with other forms of help. But these things can and should exist next to each other; euthanasia as an option for those people who truly want to seek it out. The moment you chime in with "I don't believe they really want that" you are speaking over them and taking control away from them. I believe in listening to people's own voices and letting them decide for themselves. That's my stance in all of these "controversial" topics, really.

The more I dig into the question of euthanasia, the more I'm against.

Did you know that in Belgium, during 2020-2021, 92 people got euthanasied because they suffered from psychiatric illnesses or cognitive issues?

18 for depression/bipolarity, 49 for dementia, 10 for personality disorder, 6 for what is called "nevrotic", 3 for schizophrenia, 4 for neurological disorders like autism (I doubt it's only autism but it could be ADHD and all that stuff, it's not said), 2 for illnesses like anorexia. None of those had a short lifespan left btw.

This looks very much like hating disabled and mentally ill people. :)