#disclaimer i do not like this country

[trixrabitcereal]

4th of july❌

boomers birthday✅

[cyndaquillt]

please give the rant bestie 🤲

Sorry it took me a while to get to this cause I was turning the rant into a mildly coherent essay. (This is very long, I'm sorry :/)

TL;DR : India is a modern nation state that will face the challenge of falling apart if each indigenous group is indeed given sovereignity over their land, culture, and language so its easier to instead perpetrate the myth of an ethnically united Indian people with common language(s), religion, culture, etc to if the priority is to maintain a united, big country regardless of your political stance.

OK SO!

To preface this discussion, I want to point out that settler colonialism in South Asia predates the global modern perception of colonialism which comes largely from a European colonial lens. The subcontinent itself being a victim of modern European colonialism means a South Asian's default understanding of colonialism through lived experiences comes largely from a situation where we are the victims of colonization, not the perpetrators. This means there are deep rooted nuances and systemic privileges that the average Indian gets, that are easy to miss entirely if one is not actively looking for dogwhistles or watching out for propaganda, especially because the way Indians get introduced to colonialism is through the independence movement where there is a clear foreign entity that hasn't clearly assimilated into South Asian societies and whose parent country still exists. Then things get more complicated when the interplay between conquest and colonization comes in because the timeline of South Asian settler colonialism has heavy overlap with conquests where, for better or worse, stable monarchies were established with kingdoms where rulers that generally assimilated with the populace and were even well received by the people they were ruling over. Also note that I am going to be writing this from an Indian lens. There may be bias when I make general sweeping statements applicable to all of South Asia, because I am Indian and know Indian society best (at least macroscopically).

South Asian settler colonialism goes wayy wayy back, to the establishment of a Brahmanical Aryan society and benefits to being an upper caste Aryans over everyone else is very evident even in Ancient India. Let's take the Arthashastra as an example. In his 1987 translation of Kautilya's Arthashastra, political economist L. N. Rangarajan notes that not only being an Aryan had benefits in a Kautilyan society, but falsely posing as an Aryan to avail those benefits had grave consequences. You can find this translation in its entirety here. In the introductory section titled 'Kautilyan State and Society', the translator compiles points on not only the treatment of Non-Aryans, but details the consequences for interactions between Aryans and Non-aryans and even the difference in treatment each demographic gets. Eg: An Aryan man in a relationship with a Svapaka (dog-breeder, non-aryan) woman was branded and exiled, whereas a Svapaka man in a relationship with an Aryan woman was to be executed. Banished, an aryan man still lives. But if you cross the same line as a non-aryan man, you die.

The translation also has details on how to settle a 'virgin land' in Part IV of the text. While the general advice is to leave native 'jungle tribes' alone, the reason for this isn't granting territorial sovereignty, but to avoid being attacked by them. Granting indigenous groups territorial sovereignty is also bad for monarchic control so instead, non-aryans are given tasks and a place in the society as guards, labourers, slaves, etc (note that Arthashastra is very clear that aryans cannot be enslaved and slave labour must come from outside of Aryan social structure/outside of the Varna system).

The reason I bring up the Arthashastra here is due to a couple reasons. Arthashastra, to my knowledge, is one of the earliest known complete socio-economic treaty, dated either 4th Century BCE or 2nd Century BCE (contingent on if Kautilya is indeed Chanakya). It is exceptionally thorough and while it is uncertain whether what's detailed in the Arthashastra was reality or simply an ideal kingdom according to Kautilya, it does address and often disagrees with its contemporary or preceding socio-economic schools of thoughts, providing a multidimensional and ideologically diverse image of politics of the times, something revisionist history born out of nationalism wants to ignore. The other major reason I chose to bring up Arthashastra here is also to point out the revision of the perception and image of Kautilya to fit post-colonial, nationalist idea of the earliest historical entity to kickstart the subcontinent's unification, as opposed what it actually must have been, which is simply establishing a nation state through tactful conquest and settlement of lands. (Mauryan settler politics is also a separate rant btw, hmu if you want that too but that would be a digression here).

Settler colonialism of people present in the land before Aryan migration into the subcontinent of course, predates Arthashatra and Mauryan rule. But we are going to move forward in time instead and talk a bit about the medieval times. By the time European colonialism reached South Asia, our lands were hosting a myriad of communities, ethnicities, religious beliefs, etc. Foreign perception of 'the land beyond the Indus', the Greek 'India' or the Arabic 'Hind' and its people the uniform 'Hindu' is convenient for a west centric perspective trying to build a colony or a nation state out of South Asia. But the reality was not that homogenous and ethnic divides were rife in the subcontinent. Eg : Shivaji's rivalry against Aurangzeb was not a religious issue, it was born out of the sovereign claim of Marathas and Shivaji over Bijapur (source). While religious divide is most certainly present in the medieval India around the same time (eg: Guru Gobind Singh's establishment of the Khalsa and resistance against Aurangzeb), I believe ethnic divide was equally important.

The reason I bring up the dichotomy of religious and ethnic divides is because I believe division in terms of religion benefitted British control of India a lot more than ethnic division did. To that end, the British fanned the flames of the religious divide to break up ethnic solidarity. A good portion of South Asian kingdom split was by ethnicities (Marathas once again a good example of it). If ethnicities unite, they can come together to claim an independent nation state. But religious unity with multiple ethnicities doesn't work as a good model for a rebellion because ethnic divide is so dominant and not to mention, even a single South Asian religion was never that united to begin with, especially the blanket religion of Hinduism with its caste heirarchy, untouchability, non-aryan tribal politics, etc, etc. A religious divide would aide British control. A united Bengali front could ask back for an independent nation state of Bengal but a divided Bengal based on religion is a good way to cultivate infighting so that we may never unite against the oppressor.

200 years of fanning the religious divide flame required as strong of a uniting front if the British were to be thrown out and the freedom movement, especially the one born out of Gandhian efforts provided just that. Caste, ethnic, and religious unity were always a front for Gandhian politics and they served their purpose well against a common eenemy. But what after the common enemy is gone? Modern South Asian society then ended up with the same old ethnic and religious tensions, though at this point in time, religious divide is far stronger than it has ever been. Though no division of a multireligious ethnicity could be clean, and considering that ethnic unity has been a glue far stronger than religious unity before now, the Indo-Pak partition that broke that glue of ethnic unity and was so bloody that our scars from then bleed to this day.

However, in my experience, the modern Indian who has never seen a time where ethnic unity overpowered religious unity or isn't part of an indigenous community whose land has been taken by the modern nation state, finds religious claim to the land ideologically easier to comprehend than indigenous claim to the land. The Kashmir issue is a great example of this. Azad Kashmir has its own self governing body with its own PM and President, albeit being under the administration of Pakistan. I am not Kashmiri, do not live in Azad Kashmir, and have no direct experience of the Kashmir conflict but from what I know, on paper Azad Kashmir is a sovereign piece of land inhabited by various ethnic groups from Punjab, Jammu, Kashmir valley and the Pothohar plateau. However, as an Indian, this region was introduced to me as Pakistan occupied Kashmir and the map of India I was taught includes this as a 'rightful' part of India. A third option of an independent Kashmir is never introduced to us by formal channels. The only two options we get are either Indian or Pakistani control and if you are Indian, there is a supposed right answer that is very wrong on multiple levels. J&K's handover to India was messy because the land was sold to Gulab Singh by the British when the British had no indigenous claim to the land. Kashmir issue is an issue of indigenous sovereignty spun around as an issue of religious divide. The Kashmir Valley didn't get independence with India because its authority went from European colonizers to a vassal princely state to a newly formed nation state, making the said newly formed nation state of India its new settler colonizer. Just like Tibet did not get independence when Nehru ceded it to China when he had no right to. Kashmir didn't become a part of India like Goa did either, where the Indian army fought a second war of independence against the Portuguese, though it is unclear to me if this was/is a move the native populace was okay with (did we make Goa India's Hawaii? Something I need to read up more on). At the very least, in case of Goa, it seems the colonial rule was overthrown in line with the native Goan Liberation Movement's sentiments (source but it is a govt website), though the Indian army fully intended to annex Goa regardless of local resistance. But the Kashmir Valley was ceded to India by someone who had no right to do so. This would have been wrong regardless of the majority religion in the Kashmir Valley, but because religious extremism and violence did happen in the valley and the post-independence territorial India/Pakistan issue was indeed a religious one, the Kashmir issue is best understood by the average Indian as an issue of religious divide and not an issue of indigenous sovereignty when it very much is so. This also means any nationwide Kashmiri liberation movement does not get any traction and the small pockets it exists in can be relabeled as militancy or terrorism.

Modern nation state of India discredits any indigenous movement by flipping it into an issue of religious divide, when it can. It's even more evident post-2014 when religious polarization has been consistently used as a tool to deflect from various policies and national issues that the government should be held accountable for. Changing Gurgaon to Gurugram along with a wave of name changes like Allahabad -> Prayagraj or Mughalsarai -> Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar as a statement of 'reclamation' and decolonization like Bombay -> Mumbai or Calcutta -> Kolkata were, is an example of this. If we are to even admit that all Islamic rule in South Asia was foreign colonialism and ignore the fact that Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay had no claim to the land of Mughalsarai before it was named Mughalsarai, the switch from Gurgaon to Gurugram in 2016 was blatantly discrediting indigenous languages spoken in the region in an attempt to make its Sanskritic and Vedic associations more accessible to those not native to the region.

Adding Sanskrit as the second the state language of Uttarakhand after Hindi in 2010 by its then CM is another such move. Note that this is pre-2014 but the CM of the time who made the addition, Ramesh Pokhriyal, is a member of the BJP. Also note that there are no Sanskrit speakers in the region. Though, Kumaoni and Garhwali, the most spoken regional languages as per the 2011 census are not currently one of the 22 languages recognized in the constitution and there is an ongoing motion for both to be included in the constitution as one of the 38 additional languages. A genuine push to preserve indigeneity of the ethnic groups in Uttarakhand in 2010 shouldn't have been making Sanskrit its official language but for inclusion of Kumaoni and Garhwali in the constitution and giving them the status of official languages of the state that they so rightfully deserve.

Undermining local languages and bestowing superiority to a blanket language isn't a rare tactic when it comes to colonialism of any kind. Both Hindi and Urdu serve this purpose in modern South Asia and Sanskrit serves the same purpose in revisionist history in hopes of peddling the front of a united nation state with credible historicity. The myth of 'we are one people and always have been' is propagated so that it can be used to bind a nation state that was fundamentally never together. While the imposition of language as a way of control is more evident in the South, especially with anti-Hindi sentiments coalescing into full fledged movements, even the idea of 'The Hindi Belt' and a uniform North India are a result of this. The Gangetic plains where the Hindi Belt is supposed to be, isn't linguistically uniform. But barely any language from the region is recognized in the constitution. Take Bihar for instance. A state with some of the most underprivileged population in the country often victim of nationwide elitism and classism, it is very conveniently drafted into the Hindi belt and any recognition of linguistic diversity it gets is derogatory, be it mocking Bihari Hindi or mocking Bhojpuri. However, despite Bihar's national image of a supposedly Bhojpuri speaking state, Bhojpuri isn't one of the languages recognized in the constitution. What's even more interesting is that the Bhojpur region is split between Bihar and UP and is by no means the only language native to the state. There are multiple linguistic spheres in the state and there is active dispute and infighting on what's a language and what's a dialect. Take this map for instance (English added by me) -

If you can read Hindi, notice that Chhapariya and Bhojpuri are labeled as dialects of Hindi. But are they though? Hindi/Urdu or Hindustani/Urdu were born out of a need for a lingua franca in the Delhi region and include vocabulary from northern languages that broke out of Shauraseni Prakrit (like Awadhi, Brij Bhasha, Khariboli) as well as Persian, Arabic, and Chagatai. Meanwhile, languages of Bihar broke out of Magadhi Prakrit, an entirely different dialect than Shauraseni Prakrit with its own quirks and features. Bhojpuri's split from Magadhi Prakrit likely started happening in the 7th Century CE, independent and in parallel to formation of Hindustani as a language (7th to 13th century CE). How can a language be a dialect of another language if their histories, linguistic progression, and demographics are all different? Well, if you never acknowledge that it was dialects of Prakrit that Indic languages come from and not Sanskrit, then you may be more successful in enforcing cultural homogeneity instead of retention of indigenous diversity. One could argue that this map may be an isolated case of the issue but the fact that linguistic diversity of culturally northern states is erased when speaking about establishment of an ideal national identity modelled after the strawman people of the Ganges-Yamuna region (The 'Hindi Belt') is a mark of settler erasure to ensure a united front for the nation state of India.

Homogeneity is easy to control/unite. A religious ethnostate is one way to get that homogeneity but sovereign governance for indigenous groups isn't something the center or the left is keen on either, and it won't ever be on the national agenda because it shakes the very foundation of a united Indian nation state. Indian nationalist propaganda relabels and creates a strawman/ideal 'Indian' identity (uniformity in religion, language, looks, etc). Language in particular is an interesting case of this and even the so called 'Hindi belt' is not homogenous and the languages in the said Hindi belt are barely even recognized in the constitution. No recognition of official languages means there will be no official records or means of propagating the language beyond informal familial and community structure which eventually erodes linguistic diversity, a phenomena that has already started happening in cities in particularly upper and upper middle class urban families, who are leading this change by either only teaching their children English in the name of 'progression' or only Hindi for assimilation. The elite, classist left will not suddenly abandon English and the right wing will take up Sanskrit or Hindi as opposed to their ethnicities' native languages. Mockery, microaggression, exoticism of different ethnicities and indigenous groups is also going to stay and any movement for claims of landback will be subject to allegations of dwindling patriotism at best and militancy at worst. Even if a Hindu nationalist sentiment is eradicated, settler colonialism will continue in India for the foreseeable future.

I hope this was somewhat coherent and apologies again for it being so long....

[araneapeixes]

I love your Shadowheart art, I'd love to see your Tav. Do you have any headcanons with you Tav and the party? Romance/friends bffs etc?

Omg that's so sweet, I can't believe someone is interested in seeing my Tav 😭❤️ This is her, her name is Ren, pronouns she/they (in game I sometimes switch between she/her and they/them using the magic mirror basically lol)

They're a half-drow fighter with urchin background, basically a scrappy street kid who had to learn to survive. Her main drive is that she would do anything for her friends, and as someone who had never worshipped any gods or had reason to trust in figures of authority, she just wants everyone to understand that they are fine the way they are and don't need the approval of some god. She doesn't seek authority or power and thinks that doing so never ends up being like, good for you (holding Astarion and Gale by the scruff of their necks)

Before the events of the game they'd say 'yeah i basically just want to survive and not be bothered lol' but when put in a situation where they have the power to help someone less fortunate they will ALWAYS take the opportunity to do so - too much of life spent being the one less fortunate!

Despite being a half-drow they'd never actually seen the Underdark before the events of the game and never met their drow father either so all that ancestry has really been to them is the assumptions people make.. In her appearance I was going for like, softer features than most drow seem to have and kind, human, brown eyes<3 You can'r rly see it in the pictures but she also has the neck rose tattoo.

They're a bit on the quiet and pensieve side (especially for a fighter) but have a cheeky sense of humour and always stay positive!!

This is the only art I've really done of Ren so far lol

Sketched it out after the first Shadowheart romance scene so YEAH Shart romance obviously hehe Ren was immediately drawn to her because 1)hot goth girl hiiiii and 2)she could see the incongruity between what SH said she was and believed and her actual morals and behaviour. And Ren's calm, kind and unjudgemental presence made Shadowheart trust her very quickly. Basically an immediate attraction and fascination that quickly turned into a strong bond, ik that's not very unique or interesting sorry they're just in louve<3

as for the other party members she feels very close to Astarion (just drawn to edgy bitches with a dark past ig!!) and is basically trying to domesticate him and show him the joys of found family. Karlach is also a very easy natural friend for her as they're similar in many ways although Ren is much quieter and less intense lol but they're Best Bros and drink beer together and arm wrestle and laugh at stupid shit

also good buds with Gale despite his initial romantic intentions and she helps him with the cooking<3 She admires Lae'zel and feels for her struggle a lot but had a bit of a harder time with her at first because of the rough bossiness but they grew closer over time and respect each other greatly. and loves Wyll obviously who doesn't love Wyll but rolls her eyes at his dramatic heroism. Really vibes with Jaheira's sense of humour and thinks shes hot too

[hibiscuslynx]

i keep imagining the statehouse as this huge house in the middle of nowhere. the entire property is in the middle of a grassland—yellow-green grass that reaches up to your knees kind of grassland. the plains. and there's a fenced off backyard behind the statehouse, but not more than a few hundred feet after it there's a forest—a temperate deciduous forest, like you find in the eastern U.S., with a creek a little ways in. venture deeper and you'll find a river. there's a mountain backdrop as well, and you know they're huge mountains, but they're so far away they appear a little small.

the house itself is... queen anne meets folk victorian-ish. shades of golden brown and white. there's a paved road leading up to it and a parking lot off to the side, about the size of a decently sized high school parking lot. and the road ends at the house. if you keep driving the other way, though, you eventually make it to town. a fairly urban city, with your standard fast food joints and stores and gas stations and whatnot. it's not the heart of a metropolis, not the suburban edges of it, but a decently populated urban city with a freeway or two running through it. somehow, somewhere, after a bit of an elevation drop maybe, absolutely rural plains gives way to the city. blink and you'll miss it, except no matter what you do, you'll always miss it.

the thing is, i keep imagining the statehouse and the land surrounding it as this little pocket in time and space, that exists on vaguely the same line as where central time meets eastern. the states are immortal, and that's practically magic, so why can't the statehouse be magic as well?

[clairenatural]

Please do tell

ok so baseline is that the wagner group is a private military group linked closely (until now) to the russian state/putin himself, which was widely understood (again, until now) to essentially just be an arm of the russian military deployed to deny state culpability in various military interventions. like Russia will be like "oh we're not involved in [insert country or conflict here]" but then Wagner pops up there and we're all like okay yeah sure lmao

they rose to prominence in the 2014 invasion of Ukraine but have since been used by Russia to expand Russian influence and military presence across the world. basically they provide various regimes with military support/join civil conflicts on the side Russia wants to win to overall promote Russian presence, sphere of influence, etc.

What this coup means for Ukraine and the current war we have yet to see, wagner is NOT like. good. like they're a private miltary they're fascist and have killed many many civilians and committed many human rights abuses. so wagner taking control would not be good at all. but my understanding is that there's a very high chance this insurrection (not really a coup as they aren't technically state military) will fail, and if/when it does, that could be good news for Ukraine as they've been fighting as a major part of Russian forces in Ukraine and if they pull out it would destabilize Russia's attack. And it looks like Wagner is currently pulling out of Ukraine to head towards Moscow - and they're so closely linked to Russia's official forces that some people think other Russian military forces might just kinda follow them in confusion and/or just have nobody to command them without Wagner being there

(edit to clarify that I'm not saying here that I want Putin to remain in power, rather that we shouldn't be cheering for Wagner as any sort of "good guys." I do think any sort of destabilization of Putin is a good thing and that's exactly what's happening)

However I'm also concerned about what's gonna happen in the rest of the world - Wagner has been increasing their presence across Africa recently (since ~2017) which has widely been understood as a part of Russian foreign policy to increase their footprint/influence in the region (aka exploit the countries they operate in for natural resources), and they've also been known to operate in Syria and Venezuea. So if Wagner/Prigozhin (the leader) have broken from the Putin regime, will they still be carrying out Russian interests abroad? Whose Russian interests? will they just carry on as a mercenary group to hire unattached to a political regime? What damage will it have to Russia (or at least Putin's Russia)'s global influence if a major arm of their foreign policy/diplomacy strategy has broken from the government? etc etc

[secret--history]

the whole 'there are not very many Great Causes worth fighting for these days' from Julian scanned as WAY more out of touch than the moon landing thing for me the first time i read tsh

[picnokinesis]

hello taka,

I respect you very highly as a cherished mutual of mine. I’m on anon because I can’t trust people not to misconstrue me and paint me as something I’m not. I just want to express concern over your reblog of South Africa—people conflate the situation with them and with Israel in dangerous ways. the key difference is that the Hamas-run government’s mission is to kill all Jews and Israelis. This includes the Muslims and Christians living in Israel. They are not synonymous situations, because there has never been a precedent for what’s happening now. it is naive to think that there would be no risk to the Israeli citizens, because there is a genuine threat to all of their lives. I just wanted to share this with you because it is very painful to see misinformation like this being spread, and how it misrepresents the situation. You don’t have to respond to this; I am sympathetic to why you shared it. I am only sending this ask because I see that you care and I don’t want you to be misled.

Hi there!!

I actually really appreciate this ask, because it made me go and have a conversation with a good friend of mine who studies international conflict and relations, and has a much greater understanding of this sort of thing than I do. Which is gonna be the basis of my response here, but I just wanna clarify that I'm by no means an expert on any of this, or how this sort of situation can be resolved.

I think I get where you're coming from here! And actually, I fundamentally agree with you on a lot of things - you're right, there is a tendency right now for people to draw parallels between these other historical/current situations, which can lead to over-generalisation which isn't really helpful, as some things are a lot more complicated and less clear cut than others. And, also, every situation is unique. You're right - the solution to apartheid in South Africa, and the situation in Boliva are not the same as what's happening with Israel and Palestine. So saying these situations are exactly the same isn't helpful.

However - I do think you missed the point of that post. Or, at least, the point how I interpreted it. For example, I don't think that post was at all calling for a Hamas-led government - in fact, I don't think it mentioned Hamas at all? My initial reaction to your ask, I'll admit, was frustration, because it seems that every time people try and talk about what's happening in Gaza, people bring up Hamas, and whilst I know why, it comes back to the whole thing of like, if you're spending so much time explaining that, no, you don't agree with Hamas and you think the Oct 7th attack was wrong, then you are not talking about the bigger problem, which is that nothing that Hamas did could ever justify what the Israeli government is doing right now, or has been doing since 1948. I know that's not at all what you were saying, but it is really frustrating. I think you're right, I don't think there should be a Hamas-led government (thought, to be frank, it's not really my place to say who should or shouldn't be in charge). I don't know what the government of a free Palestine (presumably combined with Israel) would look like - and I know that building a democracy is very difficult and also dangerous. But we have to hope that it's possible to achieve something that would actually work, right? We have to believe that there can be a future where Israelis and Palestinians can live together, equally, and without fear, and without prejudice, for either side (and I personally think the risk is much greater for Palestinians not being treated equally, but at the same time I recognise what you are saying too). The fact is that historically, a multicultural Israel/Palestine has existed (albeit, Israel as the country state that we know it today didn't necessarily, but you get what I mean) - and so I think that post is a lot less about 'these situations are all the same and should be treated the exact same way, with the same solutions'. If it is about that, then I don't think it's correct. I think it's a lot more about solidarity, and the idea there have been all sorts of awful situations before, and that afterwards, when varying solutions were achieved, people were able to live side by side with each other. That it is possible.

That said though, I definitely didn't have all these thoughts in mind when reblogging that post - I just thought yeah I really agree with this! and reblogged it. So, I'll be honest, I didn't know or understand all of what you said here - so I'm really glad that it prompted me to go and talk to my friend and start looking more into things and learning more, which is never a bad thing. Because you're right, this is complicated. And it isn't black and white.

There isn't an easy solution to what's going on. And I'm not here to provide that solution anyway. But - I guess I come at this from a Disaster Management perspective, which makes sense since I studied that. And in Disaster Management, there's a thing very imaginatively named 'the Disaster Management Cycle', and basically it goes from prevention, preparation and mitigation > DISASTER > response, recovery, development, building back to a new normal where things are better, and cycle back into that initial prevention for future disasters. And so, when I'm thinking of response, I'm also thinking of what needs to come next - what comes after the ceasefire? What comes after the aid, the immediate relief? We've got to think about recovery and development, and what that new normal would look like. And I think, whilst I now see that making comparison the way that post did can cause harm in it's own way, I think that the core of it was that we want to work for a future in Palestine and Israel where there is no displacement of anyone, where people can return and have freedom of movement, where people are equal. And, sure, that isn't going to happen tomorrow, and it's not going to happen next week - because it takes time and it's extremely difficult. And I probably am naive - but we have to have hope, right? We've got to have something to aim for. We (or, rather, someone) has got to be able to sit down and say this is what we want a free Palestine to actually look like, and there will be things that are practical and things that will be idealistic, and things that will be a bit of both, but regardless...we gotta start somewhere.

And, of course, the worst part of this whole situation is that we're not there yet. We're not even in response. We're still in the disaster stage. And I think that is what we've got to be talking about the most at the moment because the situation is getting worse and worse, and I can go on about long term solutions all I like, but there are things that need to be done right now. And, unfortunately, neither you nor I have the power to snap our fingers and do that - but we do have the power to be as annoying as possible to the people who do. So, my friend - I have no idea which country you're in, but if you're in the UK or the USA or any country that's failed to back a ceasefire or has cut funding to UNRWA, and you haven't been annoying to your local official/rep/mp about it yet - give them hell. And then, when we're in the recovery stage, we can start talking about who should be in charge and making sure no one else ever gets killed or loses everything over all of this.

[heartshattering]

I need to avoid things online that annoy me :')

[axe8472]

nothing radicalises a UK university student like reading about the history of tuition + maintenance grants/loans

[reinemichele]

I swear I'm trying to type out the thing about my brain but I'm really not sure how much detail I feel comfortable going into... I used to be so open on here, but then uh, I had several big falling outs with friends and a couple of them started stalking me, so I left my blog on queue since 2014 and then stopped posting from 2016 to 2020. The only place I felt comfortable making posts relating to my personal life or mildly dissenting fandom-related posts was on a locked twt account with only 20-40 people on it.

Anyway, I'm Trying

[cave-monkey]

Tripitaka constantly asking for food, especially in the earlier chapters, reminds me that he was possibly about 18-20 at the beginning of the journey.

A little beyond the true bottomless pit stage, sure, but maybe not quite outside it yet.

[mityenka]

liberals when someone from west germany has a nuanced view of the gdr: how dare you romanticize this brutal dictatorship!! go listen to someone from east germany who actually lived through this horrible authoritarian regime!!!

liberals when two thirds of east germans actually feel nostalgic towards the gdr and one fourth of east germans feel like their life got worse after the fall of the berlin wall: those backwards east germans are still brainwashed into authoritarianism, we should just rebuild the wall if they like it so much, they were simply not made for democratic participation

[queen-scribbles]

Found this in my drafts from when Psycho Sith boy did Tatooine

[nero-neptune]

i'm not a historian or anything, but i think you're being incredibly ahistorical rn. "the whole reason"? "in the first place"? seriously? who, specifically, tore Which communities apart? what violence were these people escaping, exactly?

this post has well over 2k notes where op is being intentionally dishonest and vague about this bit of history (that Anyone, btw, can fact check, but won't ig bc this is tumblr). doing shit like this Really devalues whatever point you're tryna make, whatever your intention was.

[wild-at-mind]

Just listened to the new episode of Tortoise’s Slow Newscast about Gender GP and it’s sooooo bad. Maybe I should have known better than to bother with it, but I’ve enjoyed their non-gender related stuff. I also know at least one person who uses Gender GP, and I separately have been hearing from an FTM support group I’m in that a lot of NHS trusts are no longer willing to do shared care with Gender GP while still doing it with other similar services. I had hoped maybe it would shed some light on why that might be, because even though trans healthcare is vital it’s still important that it be done ethically and held to the same standards as other healthcare. But no, instead it was basically a referendum on whether medical transition is good/bad. Again. Fucks sake.

(For non-UK people, Gender GP are a private service for transition related healthcare but they can, or have in the past, worked with the NHS to provide shared care e.g. blood tests for HRT monitoring. It is needed because it’s a very, very, very long drawn out and difficult process to access NHS transition care.) The podcast’s thesis was that the founder of Gender GP (a cis GP named Helen Webberley) is not practicing ethical healthcare because there isn’t enough assessment before providing HRT. They do treat children but the majority of their customers are adults. However you can guess which demographic was focused on. No children or adults who had undergone treatment with Gender GP were interviewed. There was a suggestion from the interviewer that maybe Helen Webberley is y’know a little bit ditzy, naive as hell of course, but also isn’t she bad for making money out of this? In this way she is juxtaposed against the NHS, which is the Good and Right way to transition, because they don’t profit off trans kids I guess. This argument stops working in any country that doesn’t have free at point of use healthcare of any kind, but never mind that. Also the podcast to its credit acknowledges several times that there are no currently practicing NHS gender clinics in the UK, and that this is a problem. But that’s about all we get in that department. There’s a waiting list, but no clinics. That list gets longer and longer. It’s so fucked up.

I would argue that the podcast is sceptical about the entire concept of being transgender, and I wonder if they even realise this about themselves. Two mothers of trans sons are interviewed, one who used Gender GP and one who accessed black market hormones. The first mother says that Gender GP ruined her child. But she was still referring to her child as her daughter and using she/her. You would think that if medical transition was the only concern, the mother would have been fine with the social and 100% reversable changes in pronouns and name. I know it’s hard for someone who has known you their whole life as one name and set of pronouns to remember at first, but this was different, she just hadn’t done anything. Without saying it out loud she was clearly waiting for it all to blow over, and not even considering that it might not. Meanwhile the child’s father (they were divorced) is helping the child access Gender GP, which can’t have helped matters. The mother sadly laments how Gender GP tore her family apart. The 2nd mother was worried about her child accessing black market hormones and using home syringes. This is a valid worry. However she also referred to her child purely as daughter, she/her and actively aschewed his new name. I don’t even know why she was interviewed as her son wasn’t using Gender GP, and this wasn’t a perspective about what Gender GP was clearly designed to be- a safer option in between black market hormones and the endless wait for the NHS. It was very clear she was even more ‘wait for it to blow over’ than the first interviewee. She spoke with apparent disgust (though to be fair was voiced by an actor who may have been hamming it up a bit) that since socially transitioning at school her child was suddenly really popular and was liked by many people he wasn’t before, and they all loved using his new name....that part felt especially weird, like she was angry that her child was being called a name he preferred by his friends. It’s not the first time I’ve heard of parents alluding to children coming out as trans at school to become popular. I read an article where a parent was relaying what their child had said, where apparently their classmate came out as trans in assembly and everybody clapped. The idea that there might be other factors involved, such as novelty that will wear off for the classmates, the classroom social standing of the child in question, or even in the case of the 2nd podcast interviewee’s son, increased confidence post coming out making him more sociable, was ignored. I do understand that this is a relatively new area of medicine without much long term data to draw on. However all types of healthcare has to start somewhere, and I wouldn’t have thought that the fear of an army of angry and betrayed detransitioners one day (which the interviewer was clearly disappointed that Webberley had never seen) should hold back progress. There are older adults who transitioned as children out in the world. On tumblr almost a decade ago I remember young trans guys in parts of the US accessing hormones through informed consent clinics, to much hand wringing from certain reactionary internet circles-see if you can contact those people. How are they doing?

There is so much more I could talk about but I have to stop there or I’ll go on all night. Edited to add: this should not be interpreted as a defence of Helen Webberley, only as a condemnation of the podcast episode’s framing of the concept of gender services that don’t require stringent assessment as very dangerous and scary and automatically malpractice. There’s a reason why I listened in the first place- because I had heard not great things about Gender GP. Sadly I didn’t get a look at its problems and its founder’s problems, I got yet another highly biased condemnation of the entire concept of transness with way too much airtime for parents who don’t believe their teenage children have their own internal selves.

Edit again: I understand now what the podcast was saying about clinics- there are currently no gender clinics in England that treat children. There are a few in the country that treat adults over 18, and the waiting lists are really long but at least you can refer to one in any region. My referral was for Nottingham even though I’m in the south as it currently has the shortest waiting list on the tracker.

[argcicle]

you can make multiple aus of jack manifold getting adopted.. but watch out