#dissent and other human rights activities

[botgal]

Another important call-in has arrived.

Last Year's "Non-Profit Killer" bill, HR 9495, is now being brought back not as an individual bill, but as an amendment that House Republicans are trying to shove into their budget reconciliation bill. To the detriment of all. This hidden section would hand over the power to remove nonprofit status from Any organization the administration doesn't agree with.

YES. THAT EVEN INCLUDES WEBSITES LIKE AO3.

You can use this website to send a written message to your Senator AND House Congressperson. And you can use the script that comes with it to call your reps too. Please do so as soon as possible, as this is a matter of grave importance. They want to do these things in secret and rush them so we don't have time to react. This is and has always been their strategy. So please help this now if you can.

You can pare down the script from the above link for a call script. So please help by calling as well if you can. Thank you.

"As your constituent, I urge you to reject the inclusion of Section 112209 in the House Ways and Means Committee's budget reconciliation package — a dangerous provision known as the “Nonprofit Killer Bill.”

This proposed law would grant the incoming administration’s Secretary of the Treasury unchecked power to revoke the tax-exempt status of religious, charitable, and advocacy organizations based on vague allegations and even classified evidence that groups cannot challenge. It would undermine the First Amendment, violate due process, and open the door to politically motivated targeting of nonprofits — including those that speak out against U.S. foreign policy or advocate for Palestinian human rights.

This legislation follows other recent attacks on free speech, such as the Antisemitism Awareness Act and the Anti-Boycott IGO Act, which would suppress student activism and Americans’ right to boycott human rights abuses. Congress must stop this growing wave of unconstitutional overreach.

I urge you to:

1) Support any amendment to strike Section 112209;

2) Vote NO on any reconciliation package that includes this provision.

Publicly oppose efforts to silence protected advocacy and dissent. Please stand up for the First Amendment and nonprofit independence!"

[etz-ashashiyot]

I know I'm gonna regret posting this, but I just can't not say something: I'm so sick of people who are actively contributing to the ongoing oppression of and violence against Palestinians calling themselves "pro-Palestinian."

In the same way that so many people in the anti-abortion movement are actually pro forced birth rather than pro-child, there are a lot of you who aren't pro-Palestinian, you're just violently antisemitic or in it for yourselves.

If you aren't:

Also angry with the other countries that abuse their Palestinian populations, refuse them citizenship, keep them in displaced person camps under horrific conditions, and/or close their borders entirely to them;

In support of genuine grassroots movements that aim to create some kind of stability, peace, and safety through diplomatic relationships and community building, because that's ""normalization"";

Willing to condemn antisemitism in the diaspora, which helps fuels right-wing rhetoric in Israel;

Willing to shut down lies, propaganda, and disinformation even if it "supports" Palestinians in theory, because lying repeatedly associates the Palestinian movement with lying and makes it harder for survivors to tell their actual stories and be believed outside of the far left movements (and also the truth is bad enough - there's no need to lie);

Willing to focus on practical problem solving over political posturing, especially when it will save Palestinian lives;

Willing to condemn Hamas, which started this most recent disaster, steals aid meant for civilians, uses civilians as human shields, and has been torturing dissenters for years;

Willing to work with Israeli leftists who hate their current government and want peace and full equality for Arab Israelis and their Palestinian neighbors, and also have the best shot at making that change happen; and/or,

Willing to learn about Palestinians as living human beings and value their lives over using them as a political cudgel, whatever that looks like on the ground;

.............then maybe you're more interested in looking radical and jerking off to some fantastical version of The Revolution, and/or hurting Jews than you are in promoting peace, safety, dignity, and self-determination for Palestinians.

Like seriously with "friends" like these, do they even need enemies??

Anyway you should call out the Israeli government for its very real abuses of Palestinians and nothing in this post should be construed otherwise. But if you genuinely care and aren't just in it for internet cool points or leftist cred or feeding your Jew-hate boner or whatever, you gotta prioritize solutions that have a realistic shot at short-term relief and long-term possibility over whatever fits some idealistic goal that will only ever end with more dead Palestinians.

[mariacallous]

Students and activists from multiple faiths are sounding the alarm over the Trump administration and lawmakers’ efforts to silence dissent on college campuses over issues like Palestinian rights — accusing officials of using allegations of antisemitism as a pretext to crush free speech and exert control over the country’s higher education system.

At a hearing Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee listened to testimony related to the rise in antisemitism in the U.S., particularly after the deadly Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023. With the exception of temporary, fragile ceasefires, Israeli forces have been fighting in Gaza — and destroying infrastructure and killing civilians — ever since.

The U.S. also has seen a rise in Islamophobia since the attack, though Wednesday’s Senate hearing did not include concerns over that issue. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Republican-controlled committee’s ranking member, stressed that the panel under his leadership had held multiple hearings on hate against all faiths. He added that the mother of Wadee Alfayoumi, the 6-year-old Palestinian American boy murdered by his landlord in Illinois, attended a previous hearing.

“It was clearly a hate crime, and it was based on their religion,” Durbin said. “And the fact that that was part of the hearing did not diminish in any way my strong feelings about antisemitism. It is the same hatred that we’re trying to stamp out today.”

In the spring of 2024, protests erupted on college campuses across the country, with students and faculty of all faiths peacefully demanding that the U.S. government – the Biden administration at the time – stop supporting Israel in its destruction of Gaza and the Palestinian people.

Similar to the students who protested the Vietnam War, participants faced police brutality, far-right agitators, retaliation by their schools and mostly unfounded accusations of being antisemitic. Just Wednesday, Columbia University’s Barnard College expelled a third student for participating in pro-Palestinian activism.

“It is essential we continue working to dismantle real antisemitism while also defending our friends and community members who are falsely accused of antisemitism,” Ellie Baron, a Bryn Mawr College student who is part of this year’s graduating class, said in a statement. “The only [way]forward is through forging greater solidarity with all people who are targeted by fascism and supremacist ideologies, including antisemitism and anti-Palestinian racism.”

President Donald Trump has threatened to essentially sanction universities that allow peaceful protests for Palestinian human rights, and he has even called for revoking the visas of foreign students who participate in those protests. At Wednesday’s hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) repeatedly questioned why the government should not enact Trump’s pledge todeport foreign students who commit “an act of violence against a Jewish student.”

“Well, that’s already the law,” civil liberties attorney Jenin Younes posted on X. “So everyone with a brain knows these ‘antisemitism’ related [executive orders] aren’t about prosecuting violent crime or other illegal conduct like harassment and vandalizing property. They’re about suppressing disfavored speech and you’re smart enough to know that this is a grave violation of 1A.”

Despite Trump and his allies’ statements that they care about Jewish safety, the president’s actions have done the opposite. Trump and his billionaire friend Elon Musk are behind the layoffs of at least a dozen government officials from the Education Department’s office of civil rights, which looked into students’ complaints of discrimination — including antisemitism.

The president has a history of objectively antisemitic statements, like saying that any Jewish person who votes for Democrats “hates their religion,” and implying that Jewish Americans have dual loyalty with Israel. On his first day in office this term, Trump issued full pardons to rioters who carried out the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, including white nationalists and others who brought antisemitic symbols to the Capitol.

Musk has also come under fire for giving a Nazi-like salute during an event, openly supporting far-right German politics and saying that society should stop paying so much attention to the Holocaust.

“It is reprehensible that MAGA senators who have aligned themselves with white nationalists and antisemites like Elon Musk are putting on this hearing to crack down on the movement for Palestinian rights and for our civil liberties writ large under the guise of fighting antisemitism,” Jewish progressive group IfNotNow said Wednesday. “We refuse to let our Jewish community be the face of the Trump-Musk administration’s attacks on our rights.”

Protecting education and open dialogue is vital to “the ability of Jewish students to succeed and thrive,” Tufts University student Meirav Solomon testified at the Senate hearing on Wednesday.

Some lawmakers support adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which labels most criticism of the State of Israel as antisemitic. Civil and human rights groups – as well as the definition’s original co-author – have strongly opposed it as “overbroad” and “unconstitutional,” particularly in education spaces.

In November, a federal judge ruled that a state-level executive order threatening funding to Texas colleges and universities who don’t update campus free speech policies to include the IHRA definition of antisemitism likely violates the First Amendment.

“Distorting the meaning of antisemitism and making Jews the face of a campaign to crush free speech is deeply dangerous to Jewish Americans,” Barry Trachtenberg, presidential chair of Jewish history at Wake Forest University, said in a statement, “and all of us who work for collective liberation.”

[globalnewscollective]

AI and Donald Trump Are Watching You—And It Could Cost You Everything

Imagine this: You post your thoughts online. Or you express support for human rights. Or you attend a peaceful protest. Months later, you find yourself denied a visa, placed on a watchlist, or even under investigation—all because an algorithm flagged you as a ‘threat.’ This isn’t a dystopian novel. It’s happening right now in the U.S.

How AI Is Being Weaponized Against Protesters and Online Speech The Trump administration has rolled out AI-driven surveillance to monitor and target individuals based on their political beliefs and activities. According to reports, these systems analyze massive amounts of online data, including social media posts, protest attendance, and affiliations.

The goal? To identify and suppress dissent before it even happens.

Here’s what this means:

Attending a Protest Could Put You on a Government Watchlist – AI systems are being trained to scan for ‘suspicious behavior’ based on location data and social media activity.

Your Social Media History Can Be Used Against You – The government is using algorithms to flag people who express opinions that don’t align with Trump’s agenda.

Expressing Your Opinion Online Can Have Consequences – It’s not just about attending protests anymore. Simply posting criticism of the government, sharing articles, or even liking the ‘wrong’ post could get you flagged.

Dissenters Could Face Harsh Consequences – In some cases, simply supporting the wrong cause online could lead to visa denials, surveillance, or worse.

AI and Student Visa Bans: A Dangerous Precedent Recently, AI was used to screen visa applicants for supposed ‘Hamas support,’ leading to students being denied entry to the U.S. without due process. This is alarming for several reasons:

False Positives Will Ruin Lives – AI systems are not perfect. Innocent people will be flagged, denied entry, or even deported based on misinterpretations of their online activity.

This Can Be Expanded to Anyone – Today, it’s foreign students. Tomorrow, it could be U.S. citizens denied jobs, housing, or government services for expressing their political views.

It Sets a Dangerous Global Example – If the U.S. normalizes AI-driven political suppression, other governments will follow.

Marco Rubio’s ‘Catch and Revoke’ Plan: A New Threat Senator Marco Rubio has proposed the ‘Catch and Revoke’ plan, which would allow the U.S. government to scan immigrants’ social media with AI and strip them of their visas if deemed a ‘threat.’ This raises serious concerns about surveillance overreach and algorithm-driven repression, where immigrants could be punished for harmless or misinterpreted online activity. This policy could lead to:

Mass Deportations Based on AI Errors – Algorithms are prone to bias and mistakes, and immigrants may have no recourse to challenge these decisions.

Fear-Driven Self-Censorship – Many may feel forced to silence themselves online to avoid government scrutiny.

A Precedent for Broader Use – What starts with immigrants could easily be expanded to citizens, targeting dissenters and activists.

What’s at Stake?

The ability to speak freely, protest, and express opinions without fear of government retaliation is a fundamental right. If AI surveillance continues unchecked, America will become a place where thought crimes are punished, and digital footprints determine who is free and who is not.

The Bigger Picture

Technology that was meant to make life easier is now being turned against us. Today, it’s AI scanning protest footage. Tomorrow, it could be predictive policing, social credit systems, or AI-driven arrest warrants.

What Can You Do?

Be Mindful of Digital Footprints – Understand that what you post and where you go could be tracked.

Support Digital Rights Organizations – Groups like the ACLU and EFF are fighting against mass surveillance.

Demand Transparency – Governments must be held accountable for how they use AI and surveillance.

Freedom dies when people stop fighting for it. We must push back before AI turns democracy into an illusion.

Source:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91295390/how-the-trump-administration-plans-to-use-algorithms-to-target-protesters

[uneducated-author]

I'm a strong believer in 'Midnight should have never been revisited' because we're always going to be way more scared of something that we never got the chance to understand, but as a continuation, this episode was great at making me terrified. Like, it was really well written, edited, scored. Genuine shivers when the doctor figures out where he is and what he's up against, and I haven't gotten that in a WHILE. The details around how accessibility and disability might look like 500,000 years in the future is really interestingly done as well, from the projected words to the little details of 'signing still scares people' and the Doctor being called out with 'I can still lip read'. I would have liked something from Aliss's side, like a pair of gloves that brought text to her own signing, similar to what's in development now.

As an episode, some parts were great and others slipped. I don't feel less scared of the Midnight entity, which is good, but having Aliss somewhat able to communicate without the entity controlling her I feel kind of broke it a little for me. The Doctor at his core wants to communicate with the universe, and the horror of the midnight entity was that he couldn't communicate with it without making it stronger, and it couldn't communicate without consuming someone. The best part of Midnight for me was the mystery. We still don't know whether Sky Silvestry had some history with the Midnight entity, or whether it consumed her completely, just hunting from her fear. It would have been great if Aliss was just the ultimate form of the entities forgery of humanity, or if that was at least an option. Giving it a physical form immediately felt a bit dull, and I never like being able to see a monster, and I also didn't like how it was actively murdering or hunting people down.

In Midnight, it was careful. Unexposed to humanity, but aware that more were coming, and it did everything with the intention of leaving the star to find more humans. Having it seemingly wreak havoc and kill as many humans available to it feels very juvenile in comparison. It could have been interesting if it showed knowledge of military protocol. For instance if it damaged Aliss's body, knowing that she would be evacuated for treatment rather than interrogated. Like, it's learned more and more and can use human tactics to counter them.

Speaking of, don't like them being a mission crew. It gives a casual level of competence which diminishes the danger. If they went the route of 'this thing dismantled a crew of prepared soldiers' that could have been great but instead, the mutiny has no real emotional impact and everyone comes off as very cold and disconnected. None of the losses feel personal. We don't really get many humanising moments across them and honestly, it's way too many characters. I literally only remember Mo's name and I JUST finished the episode. They literally refer to each other as numbers, and that's never even seen as tragic.

Back to the Doctor, we're getting some repeat issues with characterisation where the Doctor is becoming very comfortable with letting people die for him. Like Ko Sharmus on Gallifrey, where she literally hands him her self destruct button, it feels like he'll sacrifice his own life, only until someone else volunteers. And the definite promises feel a little toooo Time Lord Victorious vibes, he doesn't trust the universe that much.

Setting up the 'something happened to Earth in May 2025' is great, and I love it. Having Bel actively discover stuff really works to build her character. Also love that her willingness to sacrifice herself is being a recurring detail, it's nice that she has these values of utilitarianism as a consistent trait and isn't just as nice as the script wants her to be.

Belinda is lovely in this episode! Right level of dissent to not be annoying while still getting across how scared she is, but a clear and nice interest in the reality of travelling through space and time. I've become quite fond of her.

Shouldn't have given the Midnight Entity a body, I'm pretty certain on that. I don't like that they gave it a voice of it's own either. When it was a possessing shadow, it was alike to the Vashta Nerada, and the fear of 'you can't kill a shadow'. If it's physical, it can be destroyed. And it's boring, having it be countered by it's own reflection.

All things aside, it's not a bad episode at all! Ncuti Gatwa's acting is great, and there are some tricky moments that I can just imagine look very awkward on the script. Really happy with how the new season is shaping up.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The Guardian has uncovered evidence showing how Israel has relaunched a controversial entity as part of a broader public relations campaign to target US college campuses and redefine antisemitism in US law. Seconds after a smoke alarm subsided during the hearing, Chikli assured the lawmakers that there was new money in the budget for a pushback campaign, which was separate from more traditional public relations and paid advertising content produced by the government. It included 80 programs already under way for advocacy efforts “to be done in the ‘Concert’ way”, he said. The “Concert” remark referred to a sprawling relaunch of a controversial Israeli government program initially known as Kela Shlomo, designed to carry out what Israel called “mass consciousness activities” targeted largely at the US and Europe. Concert, now known as Voices of Israel, previously worked with groups spearheading a campaign to pass so-called “anti-BDS” state laws that penalize Americans for engaging in boycotts or other non-violent protests of Israel. Its latest incarnation is part of a hardline and sometimes covert operation by the Israeli government to strike back at student protests, human rights organizations and other voices of dissent. Voices’ latest activities were conducted through non-profits and other entities that often do not disclose donor information. From October through May, Chikli has overseen at least 32m shekels, or about $8.6m, spent on government advocacy to reframe the public debate.

[...]

Haaretz and the New York Times recently revealed that Chikli’s ministry had tapped a public relations firm to secretly pressure American lawmakers. The firm used hundreds of fake accounts posting pro-Israel or anti-Muslim content on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and Instagram. (The diaspora affairs ministry denied involvement in the campaign, which reportedly provided about $2m to an Israeli firm for the social media posts.) But that effort is only one of many such campaigns coordinated by the ministry, which has received limited news coverage. The ministry of diaspora affairs and its partners compile weekly reports based on tips from pro-Israel US student groups, some of which receive funding from Israeli government sources. For example, Hillel International, a co-founder of the Israel on Campus Coalition network and one of the largest Jewish campus groups in the world, has reported financial and strategic support from Mosaic United, a public benefit corporation backed by Chikli’s ministry. The longstanding partnership is now being utilized to shape the political debate over Israel’s war. In February, Hillel’s chief executive, Adam Lehman, appeared before the Knesset to discuss the strategic partnership with Mosaic and the ministry of diaspora affairs, which he said had already produced results.

24 June 2024

[obnoxiousprince]

The French Revolution: A Political Myth More Than a True Liberation

The French Revolution is often portrayed as the founding moment of modern liberty, equality, and democracy. In the collective imagination, it represents the victory of the people over the oppression of a monstrous Old Regime and the birth of a new, fairer, and purer world. Yet, when we take a closer look at the actual facts and consequences of this historic event, the glorified narrative starts to crumble, giving way to a far more nuanced, and even critical analysis.

A Moderate King Sacrificed, a Manipulated People

Louis XVI, the last king of France, is often caricatured as an absolute tyrant responsible for poverty and inequality. In reality, he was far from a rigid despot. On the contrary, he was a moderate, intelligent, and hesitant man, a victim of his own advisors and of a political and economic crisis beyond his control. The king had even agreed to summon the Estates-General and seemed open to the idea of a constitutional monarchy.

Moreover, the popular misery — particularly the shortage of bread — cannot be blamed solely on the sovereign. The context was complex, shaped by agricultural failures, economic instability, and social unrest. The people, often illiterate and fueled by anger, were manipulated and pushed toward violence.

Lofty Principles on Paper, Inequality in Practice

The Revolution mostly produced words, theories, and grand ideals: liberty, equality, fraternity, human rights. These declarations, while admirable on paper, were not followed by a real transformation of social relations.

The legal equality proclaimed as a universal right remained an illusion. In practice, the wealthy and powerful always had better access to justice, while the poor continued to be disadvantaged. Freedom of expression, though supposedly guaranteed, remained unequal: those at the top of society could say almost anything without consequence, while the vulnerable often faced repression.

Freedom of Thought: A Natural Evolution, Not a Violent Upheaval

Contrary to popular belief, freedom of speech and thought did not emerge from the French Revolution or from violent upheaval. Long before 1789, under the Ancien Régime, forms of public dissent already existed: pamphlets, caricatures, and open criticism circulated freely, showing a society already capable of debate.

History from other countries supports this idea:

In England, freedom of conscience, religious pluralism, and parliamentary monarchy developed gradually: Magna Carta (1215), Habeas Corpus (1679), Bill of Rights (1689).

In the Netherlands, a tolerant and modern state emerged through compromise and reforms over time.

Even the United States, despite its war of independence, relied on a structured constitution without unleashing mass terror or radically overturning its social order as happened in France.

These historical examples show that freedom of thought is a long, peaceful process of maturation, not the inevitable result of bloodshed and chaos.

After Louis XVI: Rulers More Authoritarian Than the King

The French Revolution removed a moderate king, only to usher in leaders far more authoritarian. Robespierre, through the Reign of Terror, established a dictatorial regime based on mass repression. Later, Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself emperor, reimposed censorship, centralized power, and rolled back several revolutionary gains, especially women’s rights.

The 19th century in France was marked by a series of authoritarian regimes: the Bourbon Restoration, the July Monarchy, and the Second Empire under Napoleon III. All these governments concentrated power and practiced repression, sometimes more harshly than Louis XVI, who by comparison appears almost restrained.

A Revolution Turned Political Tool: Myth at the Service of the Republic

Since the Third Republic, the French Revolution has been transformed into a state myth, actively used by presidents to legitimize the current system. This instrumentalization operates through powerful, enduring mechanisms.

A State Myth Perpetuated by Presidents:

Each republican regime has presented itself as the direct heir of the Enlightenment and human rights to:

Legitimize itself: “We are the heirs of the free people, of the Republic born from the Revolution.”

Cover up ongoing inequalities: “Everyone is free and equal” (at least in theory…).

Discredit any critique of the system: “You’re criticizing the Republic? Then you’re against democracy, against the people, against liberty.”

Every president, from De Gaulle to Macron, has symbolically positioned himself in this revolutionary lineage.

Republican speeches about secularism, the homeland, values, and the Republic are always delivered with the tricolor flag and the Marseillaise playing in the background.

The unspoken message is clear:

“We are the Revolution. Don’t question it.”

An Idealized Version That Locks Down Debate

This myth serves to shut down debate or alternatives:

It creates the illusion that power lies in the hands of the people, while in reality decisions are made by a technocratic, political, or economic elite.

It narrows the scope of thought: if the Republic comes from the Revolution, then questioning it means attacking democracy itself.

It crushes any other political model: monarchy? = reactionary. direct democracy? = populist. social critique? = conspiracy theory.

This control is reinforced through ritual repetition of symbols: Bastille Day (14 July), the Panthéon, Marianne, so-called “Republican values”.

School as a Relay of the Myth:

From early childhood, school teaches a sacred, binary history:

The good people versus evil elites.

Louis XVI = incompetent.

Robespierre = a hero.

Napoleon = a tragic genius.

There is no room for debate on:

Revolutionary massacres

The Jacobin dictatorship

Ongoing social inequality after 1789

This simplified, glorified narrative lacks nuance and serves one key purpose: to build a collective identity and erase historical contradictions.

Like all founding myths, it artificially unifies a divided society and imposes symbolic legitimacy on the regime.

Conclusion:

The French Revolution did not liberate the people in the way we are led to believe. It mostly replaced one form of power with another, often more authoritarian, while building a beautiful ideological façade filled with principles that were never fully applied.

Freedom of speech, far from being born amid the chaos of the Terror, is the product of a long, often peaceful historical evolution. Social justice and equality still remain unrealized ideals. And today’s elites, like those of the past, are skilled at using revolutionary symbols to maintain their authority.

Even now, the Republic speaks in the name of the people, yet acts in the interest of those far removed from it.

The French Revolution is less a liberating event than a political symbol used to lock in the system.

[tanadrin]

RE "revolutionary leftists are revolutionary because they know they can't win electorally."

It astounds me a little that there are leftists who think that a communist revolution is more likely to work than, like, fifty years of community-building and electoral politics. Sewer socialism, union activism, and other boring activities have brought much more success in the U.S. than agitation for a revolution.

What I mean is, setting aside the moral concerns (violence is bad, even when it's necessary, and if there are practical alternatives then we should pursue them), I am not a revolutionary leftist because I think we would lose a revolution. For one thing, there is a considerable right-wing element in the country that is much better prepared for this kind of thing, and I think that the majority of the institutions in the U.S. would pick fascism over communism if they had to choose, but also, prolonged violent action is ripe for breeding authoritarianism.

Goatse is concerned that "the party" might "abandon or neglect its primary ends," but what is leftism if it is not, at bottom, an attempt to improve the living conditions of all people, et cetera et cetera? To the extent that social democratic parties successfully pursue this end to some degree, they're better than than an ostensible communist party that talks the talk but commits human rights abuses. And, more than the fact that U.S. leftism has some pretty fierce opposition that would probably fare better if The Revolution happened tomorrow, I think that, even in winning, we would lose, because what came out the other end would look a lot more like Stalinism.

I think one thing the hardcore revolutionaries in OECD countries don't realize is that the reason they can't marshal support for their revolutions is that the socialists won most of the issues that were salient in the early 20th century--workers got more rights, better pay, unions were legalized, etc., etc. But it didn't take restructuring the whole political economy to do it, which is immensely frustrating if you believe that any society without your ideal political economy is inherently immoral and impure, so in order to justify an explicitly communist platform you have to rhetorically isolate it from the filthy libs and feckless demsocs who it turns out have been pretty effective within the arena of electoral politics in which supposedly nothing can ever get done, and treat them as of a piece with the out-and-out fascists and royalist autocrats of the 1920s and 30s.

Which, you know. Is not persuasive to most people! Most people understand intuitively the vast gulf between the SPD and the Nazis; they see that, milquetoast and compromising though they may be, the center-left can deliver substantive policy improvements without the upheaval of a civil war or political purges, and this is attractive to people who are not of a millenarian or left-authoritarian personality.

Which isn't to say that communists don't often make important points! It sucks having to fight a constant rearguard action against the interests of capital rolling back the social improvements of the 20th century, and it sucks that liberal governments in Europe and North America have historically been quite happy to bankroll and logistically support fascists and tyrants in the third world against communist movements (which invariably only exist as communist movements because these same fascists and tyrants have crushed more compromising movements and only the most militant organizations have managed to survive).

But I agree with you: communists also talk a big game about how liberalism is the real fascism (what's that line from Disco Elysium I see quoted everywhere about how everybody is secretly a fascist except the other communists, who are liberals?), while also being awful at democracy. Suppressing dissent because your small clique of political elites is the only legitimate expression of the people's will (which you know, because you have declared it to be so) really is some rank bullshit. A system with competitive elections is still, well, a system with competitive elections, even if those elections are structurally biased in certain ways; all the bloviating that attempts to justify communist authoritarianism cannot really obscure the fact that authoritarian systems are cruel and brittle, regardless of the ideology being served.

[horreurscopes]

So, I could be out-of-bounds here since I think you meant it as dark humor, but what did you mean in the tags of that 'israel-hamas war' post? I suspect you(and op) are criticizing that framing because Israel is obviously demolishing much more than 'Hamas'(and probably doing a terrible job of actually targeting terrorists- they seem content to reduce Gaza to rubble even if the brass of Hamas escapes). I'm guessing that by saying "joining the Israel-Hamas war on the side of Hamas" you mean, if they're going to conflate Palestinians with Hamas unilaterally, then you're saying, whatever the media wants to call Palestinian civilians- you still support them. I am asking anyways though bc, given reports of increasing antisemitic activity in the US and Europe, I am worried about the potential for blurring lines between the cause of Palestinian civilians and the alt-right individuals who are likely masking their antisemitism in the context of being anti-Zionist. Although Israel's government has been the source of Palestinian loss for decades, (it seems to me that) even joking about supporting terrorism is enough to reinforce the persuasion that Israeli/Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs must be mutually-exclusive peoples. I don't think it's fully rational per se(tho I'm not claiming to have all the relevant information myself, and I'm white US American goyim so like- grain of salt-), but I think that existential fear is the incredible hurdle facing Zionist Jews. (Idc too much about the opinions of non-Jewish Zionists bc I don't grant that they are dealing with the same emotional complications at this time, although that doesn't stop me from arguing w my acquaintances abt their callous acceptance of US/Israeli propaganda.) I just think..... isn't it overall harmful to allow anti-semitic rhetoric, even used sarcastically, to enter the genuine humanist cause for Palestinian liberation? Or, have I misunderstood, and you actually are not in opposition to Hamas, or something else I didn't think of?

hi! thank you for approaching the question thoughtfully and with curiosity, i really appreciate it. i was being kind of flippant with that meme, but this is the only ask i'm going to reply to on the matter given that i am neither jewish nor arab, so i'm going to answer in earnest:

hamas is a political resistance movement with an armed wing, much like the black panthers party was, and like the bpp, a large part of the organization is dedicated to social welfare and civic restoration.

they have stated that they are not against judaism, but against the zionist project. they openly support political solutions.

labeling hamas a terrorist group is a propaganda tactic used by the united states and israel to justify the horrors of settler colonization.

hamas is palestine, a part of it, even if palestinians like any other demographic on earth, are not a unified, single-minded people. to declare hamas a separate entity falls prey to the imperialist lie that there is an enemy to fight "fairly" within the people they are displacing and exterminating.

am i rejoicing in the deaths of israelis? of course not. killing civilians and taking civilian hostages is a war crime, whether it is committed by the opresor or the oppressed. the israeli government is not its people, and many jews, within israel as well as in the US, are bravely risking their lives to publicly dissent the criminal acts of the israeli government. all loss of human life is a tragedy.

no one should ever be faced with the choice between annihilation and murderous violence after exhausting all other forms of peaceful protest and being massacred like animals.

but why is it that we consider a resistance group formed within a population with a median age of eighteen a terrorist group, and not the IDF, a US-backed military force with an annual budget of twenty billion dollars?

i am currently reading hamas and civil society in gaza by sara roy to learn more about hamas and the history of israel in palestine. i'll remember to post more excerpts which i am admittedly terrible at.

but all of the information above can be found by reading wikipedia. investigating with duckduckgo searches (not gonna pretend google isn't prioritizing propaganda, to be fair), and reading reliable news coverage like aljazeera and the many journalists who are at risk of, or have lost their lives, reporting on the ground.

i have also appreciated reading posts from @determinate-negation @opencommunion @fairuzfan @ibtisams and @bloglikeanegyptian amongst others

in conclusion:

[immoralimmortals]

Akatsuki Flowers! What a lovely ask. Let's look at your suggestions first:

Hidan, prince's feather:

Ohhhh immortality! I think that's perfect. Apparently a nickname for this flower is "kiss-me-over-the-garden-gate"

Deidara, buttercups:

Youth, joy, play, simple pleasures? Interesting choice, I can see why you went this direction! Matches his hair, too. It seems awfully innocent for him, I wonder if he'd disagree!

Deidara, australian rose:

A couple of results say "you are all that is lovely", and my gut tells me that may not be what you intend? But nevermind that LOOK HOW PRETTY IT IS

Anyhow!

I've used a little bit of flower symbolism, as you've probably guessed, for my fic! Red roses (and their various states of life, death, and preservation) and forget-me-nots are pretty obvious, though. But I used two others, hydrangeas, and daffodils, and they both suit Kisame!

Kisame, hydrangea, daffodil:

I picked a hydrangea festival, for one because it's a real thing that happens, and two, it means heartfelt emotion! I think Kisame feels with all of his being, intensely. He, as many people are not, is someone very aware that he is not always aware, if that makes sense; he is wary of the way his blood can boil, rage heating under the skin. Goes along with him not always feeling "human." Daffodil, the flower I used for the lotion in my fic, is in opposition as it stands for truth and honesty. We all know "truth" is sort of Kisame's thing. It's his pinnacle of morals, his reason for living, and then dying. I think it keeps him in line, too.

Itachi, white poppy:

Consolation, Rest, (Eternal) Sleep, Peace, Dormant Affection. He's a man that is a nice comparison and foil to Kisame, because like him, he feels deeply and has to deal with that in order to carry out his sacred duty. He is a man that wants peace, and with the short time he has on Earth tries to use it to redeem himself, his brother, the Uchiha name as well as he can, all the while dreaming that things will eventually go for the better. Dead man walking, a ghost with work to do.

Nagato, flowers of the elm tree:

Protection, Warn of Others, Purification of tainted areas. He protects his village by summoning rain, keeping watch of who even so much as whispers dissent. His land is pure. And he will purify the world. Perhaps it's a warning about him, too.

Konan, white rose:

Honestly this is a pretty predictable choice lol. I think she's emotionally...stagnant. In constant mourning, even if by her definition she's entirely moved on. Like Nagato, she takes her pain and uses it to continue, define her existence. She is the right hand, that which Pain uses to purify, an angel who does not boast of her power. She merely acts upon the will of that which justifies death.

Kakuzu, spruce, chamomile

Spruce: Eternal hardiness, Endurance, Symbol of North and Cold.

Chamomile: Patience, Attracts Wealth, Energy in Adversity

Yeah, I know spruce isn't technically a flower, but it's a growth on a tree and something you'll see in the language of flowers, so I'm using it. Kakuzu's ring, of course, means "north", and I honestly think it's fascinating to think of that in comparison to the north wind. He is a man as hardy and cold as the world he's trudged through. He's the definition of withstanding the worst, both physically and emotionally. The chamomile goes along with that, with a tenacity to make things work. You don't get to live to be 91 and still an active rogue ninja without a willingness to crack some eggs.

(also my art accounts are all chamomile-carillon or some variation. I love chamomile. And I love Kakuzu. yea)

Sasori, the four ancient poisons:

Aconite: Lustre (reflected light), Misanthropy

Hellebore: A Beautiful Year Ahead, Wit Relieve My Anxiety, Relieve my anxiety, tranquilize me

Hemlock:   You will cause my death

Nightshade: Truth, Silence; Your Thoughts are Dark ; Falsehood ; witchcraft/sorcery

I at first was just going for poison but all of these are PERFECT for him in their own right. Misanthropic man who wants to feel numb, wants to cause death and ultimately chooses to die. The contradiction of nightshade being both truth and falsehood...reminds me of how contradictory he is. A man who is trying to gain all the time in the world, absolutely impatient and unwilling to wait a second. Oh I can see the art for this in my head now....

Obito, love-lies-bleeding:

Love-lies-bleeding (Amaranthus): Desertion, Hopelessness, Constant, Unchangeable, Immortal or Unchangable Love, Immortality, Fidelity, Everlasting Friendship

This one just kind of has it all for him. The way everything good that ever happened to him left his world, his steeled resolve, his extended life via Madara's help, his love for Rin... Hoo.

Zetsu, two-bloomed green rose, dock flower, astilbe

Two-bloomed rose: Secrecy

Green rose: alien, strange, We Are Worlds Apart

Dock: patience

Astilbe (false goat's beard): I'll Still Be Waiting

He's really defined by his patience-- black Zetsu especially but white Zetsu was also playing the long game too, sticking around Obito since his childhood. The rose is pretty self-explanatory; he keeps a lot of secrets and he exists in a way that is very hard for others to comprehend. I figure he has difficulty understanding others, too.

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

“Many of the women in Heterodoxy moved in corresponding circles and maintained similar beliefs. They were “veterans of social reform efforts,” writes Scutts in Hotbed, and they belonged to “leagues, associations, societies and organizations of all stripes.” A large number were public figures—influential lawyers, journalists, playwrights or physicians, some of whom were the only women in their fields—and often had their names in the papers for the work they were performing. Many members were also involved in a wide variety of women’s rights issues, from promoting the use of birth control to advocating for immigrant mothers.

Heterodoxy met every other Saturday to discuss such issues and see how members might collaborate and cultivate networks of reform. Gatherings were considered a safe space for women to talk, exchange ideas and take action.”

In the early 20th century, New York City’s Greenwich Village earned a reputation as America’s bohemia, a neighborhood where everyone from artists and poets to activists and organizers came to pursue their dreams.

“In the Village, it was so easy to bump into great minds, to go from one restaurant to another, to a meeting house, to work for a meeting or to a gallery,” says Joanna Scutts, author of Hotbed: Bohemian Greenwich Village and the Secret Club That Sparked Modern Feminism. Here was a community where rents were still affordable, creative individuality thrived, urban diversity and radical experiments were the norm, and bohemian dissenters could come and go as they pleased.

Such a neighborhood was the ideal breeding ground for Heterodoxy, a secret society that paved the way for modern feminism. The female debating club’s name referred to the many unorthodox women among its members. These individuals “questioned forms of orthodoxy in culture, in politics, in philosophy—and in sexuality,” noted ThoughtCo. in 2017.

Born as part of the initial wave of modern feminism that emerged during the 19th and early 20th centuries with suffrage at its center, the radical ideologies debated at Heterodoxy gatherings extended well beyond the scope of a women’s right to vote. In fact, Heterodoxy had only one requirement for membership: that a woman “not be orthodox in her opinion.”

“The Heterodoxy club and the work that it did was very much interconnected with what was going on in the neighborhood,” says Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation, a nonprofit dedicated to documenting and preserving the distinct heritage of Greenwich Village. “With the suffrage movement already beginning to crest, women had started considering how they could free themselves from the generations and generations of structures that had been placed upon them.”

Unitarian minister Marie Jenney Howe founded Heterodoxy in 1912, two years after she and her husband, progressive reformer Frederic C. Howe, moved to the Village. “Howe was already in her 40s,” says Scutts, “and just got to know people through her husband’s professional connections, and during meetings and networks where progressive groups were very active at the time.”

Howe’s mindset on feminism was clear: “We intend simply to be ourselves,” she once said, “not just our little female selves, but our whole big human selves.”

Many of the women in Heterodoxy moved in corresponding circles and maintained similar beliefs. They were “veterans of social reform efforts,” writes Scutts in Hotbed, and they belonged to “leagues, associations, societies and organizations of all stripes.” A large number were public figures—influential lawyers, journalists, playwrights or physicians, some of whom were the only women in their fields—and often had their names in the papers for the work they were performing. Many members were also involved in a wide variety of women’s rights issues, from promoting the use of birth control to advocating for immigrant mothers.

Heterodoxy met every other Saturday to discuss such issues and see how members might collaborate and cultivate networks of reform. Gatherings were considered a safe space for women to talk, exchange ideas and take action. Jessica Campbell, a visual artist whose exhibition on Heterodoxy is currently on display at Philadelphia’s Fabric Workshop and Museum, says, “Their meetings were taking place without any kind of recording or public record. It was this privacy that allowed the women to speak freely.”

Scutts adds, “The freedom to disagree was very important to them.”

With 25 charter members, Heterodoxy included individuals of diverse backgrounds, including lesbian and bisexual women, labor radicals and socialites, and artists and nurses. Meetings were often held in the basement of Polly’s, a MacDougal Street hangout established by anarchist Polly Holladay. Here, at what Berman calls a “sort of nexus for progressive, artistic, intellectual and political thought,” the women would gather at wooden tables to discuss issues like fair employment and fair wages, reproductive rights, and the antiwar movement. The meetings often went on for hours, with each typically revolving around a specific subject determined in advance.

Reflecting on these get-togethers later in life, memoirist Mabel Dodge Luhan described them as gatherings of “fine, daring, rather joyous and independent women, … women who did things and did them openly.”

Occasionally, Heterodoxy hosted guest speakers, like modern birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger, who later became president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and anarchist Emma Goldman, known for championing everything from free love to the right of labor to organize.

While the topics discussed at each meeting remained confidential, many of Heterodoxy’s members were quite open about their involvement with the club. “Before I’d even heard of Heterodoxy,” says Scutts, “I had been working in the New-York Historical Society, researching for an [exhibition on] how radical politics had influenced a branch of the suffrage movement. That’s when I began noticing many of the same women’s names in overlapping causes. I then realized that they were all associated with this particular club.”

These women included labor lawyer, suffragist, socialist and journalist Crystal Eastman, who in 1920 co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union to defend the rights of all people nationwide, and playwright Susan Glaspell, a key player in the development of modern American theater.

Other notable alumni were feminist icon Charlotte Perkins Gilman, whose 1892 short story, “The Yellow Wallpaper,” illustrates the mental and physical struggles associated with postpartum depression, and feminist psychoanalyst Beatrice M. Hinkle, the first woman physician in the United States to hold a public health position. Lou Rogers, the suffrage cartoonist whose work was used as a basis for the design of Wonder Woman, was a member of Heterodoxy, as was Jewish socialist activist Rose Pastor Stokes.

Grace Nail Johnson, an advocate for civil rights and an influential figure in the Harlem Renaissance, was Heterodoxy’s only Black member. Howe “had personally written to and invited her,” says Scutts, “as sort of a representation of her race. It’s an unusual case, because racial integration was quite uncommon at the time.”

While exceptions did exist, the majority of Heterodoxy’s members were middle class or wealthy, and the bulk of them had obtained undergraduate degrees—still very much a rarity for women in the early 20th century. Some even held graduate degrees in fields like medicine, law and the social sciences. These were women with the leisure time to participate in political causes, says Scutts, and who could afford to take risks, both literally and figuratively. But while political activism and the ability to discuss topics overtly were both part of Heterodoxy’s overall ethos, most of its members were decidedly left-leaning, and almost all were radical in their ideologies. “Even if the meetings promoted an openness to disagree,” says Scutts, “it wasn’t like these were women from across the political spectrum.”

Rather, they were women who inspired and spurred each other on. For example, about one-third of the club’s members were divorced—a process that was still “incredibly difficult, expensive and even scandalous” at the time, says Scutts. The club acted as somewhat of a support network for them, “just by the virtue of having people around you that are saying, ‘I’ve gone through the process. You can, too, and survive.’”

According to Campbell, Heterodoxy’s new inductees were often asked to share a story about their upbringing with the club’s other members. This approach “helped to break down barriers that might otherwise be there due to their ranging political views and professional allegiances,” the artist says.

The Heterodoxy club usually went on hiatus during the summer months, when members relocated to places like Provincetown, Massachusetts, a seasonal outpost for Greenwich Village residents. As the years progressed, meetings eventually moved to Tuesdays, and the club began changing shape, becoming less radical in tandem with the Village’s own shifting energy. Women secured the right to vote with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, displacing the momentum that fueled the suffrage movement; around this same time, the Red Scare saw the arrests and deportations of unionists and immigrants. Rent prices in the neighborhood also increased dramatically, driving out the Village’s bohemian spirit. As the club’s core members continued aging, Heterodoxy became more about continuing friendships than debating radical ideologies.

“These women were not all young when they started to meet,” says Scutts in the “Lost Ladies of Lit” podcast. “You know, it’s 20, 30 years later, and so they stayed in touch, but they never really found the second generation or third generation to keep it going in a new form.”

By the early 1940s, the biweekly meetings of Heterodoxy were no more. Still, the club’s legacy lives on, even beyond the scope of modern feminism.

“These days, it’s so easy to dehumanize people when you’re only hearing one facet of their belief system,” says Campbell. “But the ability to change your mind and debate freely like the women of Heterodoxy, without any public record? It’s an interesting model for rethinking the way we talk about problems and interact with other people today.”

[confused-rat]

A Rat’s List of 50 Villain’s that had a Point

So beforehand, here’s Lily’s dumbass fucking rules for the list. 

Have a point 

Successfully navigate still being a villain

Are written well

From other lists I’ve seen, I think some people have either misinterpreted or ignored the “have a point” bit. (Or maybe I have.) Having a point means the villain was correct on a certain issue, but otherwise failed with their handling of it. (Leading to the second rule, is still a villain despite having a valid point.) So I’m going to try and explain what issue each villain I’ve listed was correct on, and why they’re still a villain. 

But I’m also ignoring rule 3. Because it’s stupid. ☺️ Spoilers inbound.

Ardyn Izunia, FFXV — The point, the gods ruined his life and to correct their mistakes, set up a prophecy that would ruin/kill countless other lives in the process, forcing everyone into roles they had not consented to. Why he’s still the villain, lost himself in the role he was forced into, killing needlessly and mentally torturing others for the dramatics. 

Emet-Selch, FFXIV — The point, the world is a fractured existence, where its inhabitants live infinitely shorter and arguably strife-filled lives, their souls 1/14 of what they originally were. Reality itself is broken. Why he’s still a villain, mortals still have the right to live and better themselves and if fixing the world means mass genocide across 14 different versions of reality, maybe let it stay broken?

Nidhogg, FFXIV — The point, the Ishgardians renege on their alliance and unjustly slew his sister for power, eventually rewriting their own history to place the blame on the dragons to justify their centuries long war. Why he’s still bad, genocide is never the answer. Also was just tossing hatchlings out to war to satisfy his own hatred.

Zodiark, FFXIV — The point, was created to stop the end of the world. Did that. Quite successfully for thousands of years. Why was it still bad though? Because it was gonna sacrifice millions to fulfill the wishes of its summoners after the fact. (See: Emet-Selch)

Vayne & Venat, FFXII — The point, humanity was being controlled by fantasy mindflayers, who routinely destroyed nations to keep their status quo. Vayne and Venat wished to free humanity from them, unfortunately, they decided to do that by invading and conquering other countries and killing thousands. 

Megatron, TFA — The point, Cybertron created his people as a slave race for war and denied them basic rights. Why is he still a villain, thinks colonizing and genocide is needed to provide for his people.

Megatron, IDW — The point, Cybertron’s government was a functionalistic hellscape where dissent was punished with anything from brainwashing to amputation. Why is he still a villain, lost the plot and murdered millions, innocents who were victims of the same system he was, eventually was guilty of the same crimes as the people he originally fought against.

Megatron, TFP — The point, another functionalist society, one where dissenters were sent to gladiator pits. Why is he still a villain, became essentially a terrorist when he bombed a theme park and later whole cities, again murdering fellow victims. 

Silco, Arcane — The point, despite being ruled by the same government, the Undercity received no support from Piltover and was left poverty stricken and oppressed. Zaun deserved its independence. Silco, however, is a drug lord, so he’s still a villain.

Count Dooku, Star Wars — The point, the Jedi Council and Republic were actually corrupt. Why he’s still the villain, worked with the absolute worst person in the galaxy. He tried to fight fire with an active volcano, very not smart.

The Architect, Dragon Age: Awakening — The point, was trying to give darkspawn and other blighted creatures back their self-awareness and control, eventually stopping the Blights entirely. Why he’s still the villain, abducted Grey Wardens to drain of blood and experiment on to achieve his goals. 

Teyrn Logain, Dragon Age: Origins — The point, Orlais was actually trying to secretly conquer Fereldan through a political marriage to King Cailan. Why he’s still the villain, let hundreds of his own people die to secure the throne, including the Grey Wardens, who had nothing to do with Orlais’ plans. 

Solas, Dragon Age: Inquisition — THE POINT, WHICH HE DID HAVE, both times he fucked with the Veil, he was trying to essentially stop an unjust social hierarchal system that supported slavery. Why he’s still the villain, he admitted it would likely kill a lot of people and we do not want that actually? 

Handsome Jack, Borderlands 2 — The point, Pandora is FUCKED. It needs some kind of intervention, people are wearing face masks made of FACES. Why he’s still a villain, it’s. It’s Handsome Jack? He airlocks people for fun, and that’s TAME compared to the other shit he’s done. 

Colonel T. Zarpedon, Borderlands the Pre-Sequel — The point, wanted to prevent the powers of the Vault from being misused. (Points at Borderlands 2 and 3) How she’s still the villain, decides to blow up the moon and all the people on it to do so.

Akechi Goro, Persona 5 — The point, Shido was a vile person who appeared to be above the law as he used his influence to ruin countless lives. Why Goro’s still the villain, murdering innocents in a long-con revenge plot isn’t justified. 

Louis Guiabern, Metaphor: Refantazio — The point, he’s essentially trying to end fantasy racism. Why he’s still bad, his solution to ending said fantasy racism is nonconsensual body modification on a worldwide scale. 

The Flame Emperor, Fire Emblem: Three Houses — The point, the church was corrupt and allowed atrocities to be committed to meet its status quo. Working with arguably worse people (reluctantly) and allowing other atrocities to occur to defeat said church is still bad though.

Miquella, Elden Ring — The point, the Golden Order is flawed and shunned many of the Lands’ Between’s inhabitants. Why he’s still the villain, you can’t brainwash an entire country into being nice, that’s insane. 

Shadowlord, Nier: Gestalt/Replicant — The point, oh man, where do I fucking begin? Shades are all just disembodied souls trying to reunite with their clone vessels. If they don’t reunite, said vessels will eventually die, as both are connected. Unfortunately, the clone vessels gained sentience, dooming humanity. The Shadowlord is just trying to save his daughter/sister, but he’s essentially sacrificing another version of her to do this with neither’s consent. No bueno. 

The Wicked Witch of the West, Wizard of Oz — The point, Dorothy totally did steal her sister’s shoes off her corpse. The death was accidental, but the theft was deliberate. Theft isn’t a murdering offense though, also Toto was just a dog? Wtf. Still a villain.  

The Gnome King, Return to Oz — The point, the Emerald City did in fact steal all his emeralds. Why he’s still the villain, sore loser. Tried to eat a child. 

Shere Khan, the Jungle Book (LA) — The point, mankind sucks. That is all…. Also the wolves totally broke the rules by keeping Mowgli, they could’ve just dropped him off at a village. Why he’s still the villain, preferred child murder to relocation. 

Maleficent, Sleeping Beauty — The point, you do not FUCK with the Fae? Don’t be rude? Why she’s a villain, did not stop after making her point. Sore loser. Cursed the baby instead of the rude parents. 

Ursula, the Little Mermaid — The point, technically, Ariel made a deal with the witch of her own free will. Why she’s still the villain, also a sore loser. Sabotaged Ariel to get the trident. Not a girls girl. Boo.

The Creature, Frankenstein — The point, was shunned and ostracized by literally everyone, including the man who created him, for something beyond his control. Victor owed him (child support). Why he’s still a villain, literally killed a child to spite his creator. He literally. Killed a child. And framed the nursemaid. To torment Victor. He also threatens all Victor’s friends and family, innocent people who had NO HAND in his creation. 

Dracula, Netflix’s Castlevania — The point, radical religious zealots killed his wife (and others) unprovoked. Why is he still a villain, did not stop at the zealots. (This iteration isn’t a predator, you empty-headed fuck ass, as a MLP enjoyer, you should understand the concept of MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF ONE CHARACTER??)

Lucian, Underworld Trilogy — The point, werewolves were slaves and fantasy racism got his lover and unborn child killed. Why he’s still the villain, kidnapped and helped experiment on countless people (who also died) to create a hybrid to facilitate his revenge. 

Red Queen, Resident Evil — The point, she was literally stopping the zombie infection from breaching contamination and destroying the entire world. Why she’s still the villain, told nobody, explained nothing, boom laser hallway. 

Ozymandias, Watchmen — The point, literally just watch the movie. Dude united global powers and ended a Cold War by creating a fake obstacle to scare them, but that’s bad because he killed a lot of people to do that. 

The Count, Gankutsuou — The point, he was unjustly convicted by three corrupt men who abused their positions of power and got away scott-free for years. Still bad because he dragged many innocent people into his revenge plot. Franz did NOT deserve all that. 

Knives, Trigun Stampede — The point, humanity destroyed their own planet and was actively using his people as portable life support batteries and slowly killing them. Why he’s still the villain, genocide is not a valid solution. 

Kyubey, Madoka Magica — Fuck you Lily, Kyubey isn’t a psychopath, it’s a manipulative little shit that doesn’t have humanity’s morals. The point, the universe is dying and they’re trying to stop that. Why they’re still the villain, their solution was the emotional and physical torture of children in a never-ending cycle of despair of death. 

Bandit King Bakura, Yu Gi Oh — The point, the then Pharaoh literally massacred his entire village to create the Millennium Items. Why he’s still the villain, once you fuse with a Great God of Evil, it’s kinda hard to argue for your continued righteous vengeance. 

Shōgo Makishima, Psycho Pass — The point, the Sybil System is flawed, criminalizing innocent people while letting dangerous sociopaths like him walk free (until they get brain jarred). Why he’s still the villain, he decided to demonstrate the system’s flaws by orchestrating so. many. murders. Like. So many. 

Luke Castellans, PJO — The point, the Gods didn’t care for their kids equally and left many to fend for themselves. Why he’s still the villain, trying to murder your fellow campers cause they won’t join your cause is bad actually. 

Medusa, PJO — The point, was unfairly cursed while Poseidon got away scott-free. Why she’s still DEFINITELY a villain, turns innocent people to stone, was gonna turn a child because she’s still not over her ex, getting dealt a raw hand doesn’t excuse CHILD MURDER. 

Poseidon, Odyssey — The point, Odysseus could’ve just avoided all this if he had just killed Poseidon’s son. 🤷 Why he’s still the villain, he would’ve raised the tides so high that all of Ithaca would’ve died, cause he had beef with ONE (1) MORTAL MAN. 

Lord Cutler Beckett, Pirates of the Caribbean — The point, uhhh. This may come as a surprise, but. Pirates… bad? Why he’s still a villain, he did not stop at pirates. Blackmailed and killed basically bystanders. ACAB. 

The Bane, The Underland Chronicles — The point, the Underlanders were originally a colonizing force that poisoned and killed the original inhabitants of the caves they took for their own. Why he’s still a villain, HE EATS PEOPLE? Many of the species underground are sentient and HE EATS THEM?

Tsaritsa/Fatui, Genshin Impact — The point, Celestia has a chokehold on humanity, controlling people’s fates and harshly punishing any dissent. They need to be stopped. Why they’re still villains, essentially is fighting fire with fire, manipulating Nations and experimenting on/killing folks to pursue their own goals to topple Celestia. 

Tsumugi Shirogane, Danganronpa V3 — The point, just doing her job, allegedly the entire class signed up willingly to play the Death Game. Why she’s still the villain, broke her own rules, also, cool motive, still murder?

Chris Walker, Outlast — The point, is trying to keep a highly dangerous swarm of nanites from breaking containment. Why he’s still the villain, does this by breaking others’ spines. And necks. And everything really.

Charioce XVII, Rage of Bahamut: Virgin Soul — The point, Bahamut is a world ending threat that almost succeeded two separate times in the past, and was guaranteed to awaken again in the imminent future to finish the job. Charioce wanted to stop it. However, waging a war with Heaven and enslaving the demon race to build a weapon to combat it was an awful way to go about it.

William Moriarty, Moriarty the Patriot — The point, England’s class system was allowing the rich to get away with absolutely abhorrent crimes. Murder is still murder though. 

Azure Lion, Lego Monkie Kid — The point, the celestial realm really doesn’t care about the mortal realm and is arguably very corrupt. Why he’s still a villain, broke the universe despite multiple people telling him to Not Do That. 

Toffee, SVTFOE — The point, wanted to get rid of magic, which kind of did fuck a lot of people over. Why he’s still the villain, child murder 🎶 is not 🎶 okay! 🎶

Oropo, Wakfu — The point, sought to replace seemingly uncaring gods with their abandoned offspring. Why he’s still the villain, was going to nuke the world to topple said gods. 

Julith, Dofus — The point, was unjustly framed for the murder of her lover because of fantasy racism. Why she is still the villain, sacrificing a stadium’s worth of souls to bring back your deceased lover is not okay.  

Prince Nuada, Hellboy 2 — The point, humanity had forgotten its truce with the Fae and was actively poisoning the planet. Dooming Nuada’s people and other creatures to a slow death and extinction. Why he’s still bad, genocide 👏 is not 👏 a valid 👏 solution!!

[likeabxrdinflight]

This is the first conclave that's occurred since I really, fully stepped back from practicing catholicism. I certainly had one foot out the door in 2013 when Francis was elected, but that's the thing. It was only one foot at the time. I'd have still called myself a catholic in those days. I still cared, on some level, about the church, despite my discomfort with it. In those days I still went to church on the high holidays. I still tried to connect with it, despite my anger, despite feeling like I didn't really belong.

I've stepped much further back since then. But I've also come a long way in reconciling my personal experiences with the church as a larger entity. I continue to have very serious criticisms of the church as a systemic power structure. I have my concerns and my problems with it, and very significant, fundamental disagreements both politically and spiritually with its teachings.

And yet...it would be a lie to say I don't still care about it. My anger has faded a bit as I've been in therapy these past several years. That's not to say I forgive the people who hurt me most, or the power structure that enabled them to do so. I haven't. But I'm not as angry as I was even a year ago.

As it stands now, whether I like it or not, the catholic church is still immensely powerful. It's still one of the most influential institutions in the entire world. Who leads it matters, and the tone he sets matters. The pope serves as a diplomat, a moral and spiritual figurehead, a voice of (hopefully) reason and authority to world leaders. He plays a unique role as someone who doesn't really swear allegiance to any one country or nation. Certainly he's also a priest and a bishop, he has his specifically catholic religious role in running the church hierarchy, clarifying doctrine, and managing the internal affairs of the church. But it's his role as a political figure that matters most to me now, because like it or not, he will set a tone for world leaders. He will be a voice on international affairs. He may not have power to stop the rise of fascism or wars or genocides. But he can be a strong voice of dissent against those things and he certainly has authority to govern how the catholic church responds to these things. Historians still talk about the role the pope played in enabling nazi germany.

It matters who is leading the catholic church right now. And I actually feel more cautiously optimistic than not about Leo XIV. He's been outspoken against the current US administration, he's taken strong stances in support of migrants and refugees. He's similar to Francis when it comes to his views on poverty and the environment. I'm concerned about some of his takes on spirituality (he seems to blame a lack of religiosity in part for the problems in the world) and of course his current stance on LGBT issues remains to be seen, but historically he's taken the traditional catholic viewpoint, but these things are not unexpected for a catholic pope. If he can follow Francis's lead on outreaching to people of other faiths, of building bridges, and at least acknowledging the inherent humanity of LGBT people, I'll be more approving than not. But more importantly right now, he needs to take a strong stance against right wing Christian nationalism, against fascism, against cruelty, particularly within his own church.

We'll see what happens, but I can't pretend I'm not watching and that I don't care. On the world stage of course I care. But even on the merely catholic stage, I still care. I may not practice anymore, but catholicism is in my blood, it's embedded in my genes as much as the color of my hair and eyes. I'm always going to care what's happening with the church, even if I don't believe, even if I no longer consider myself an active part of it. It's part of me and I can't change that.

So anyways...those are my thoughts, I guess, beyond the memes.

[kael-writ]

and this is the problem with what Natalie Wynn said as an influencer. Stress on INFLUENCE.

This isnt the full context, go read that on r/Contrapoints. Do not harass anyone.

But this, THIS is the problem.

If Natalie had made a video telling her followers NOT to give into this mentality and to be politically active, it's entirely possible the exact same people would be thinking differently about it right now.

Because like it or not, and its not always a bad thing, we are effected by others. We bend and sway in the wind sometimes. We are persuaded, encouraged or discouraged.

Because she said what she said, and her fans want to like her, and her sub is probably not going to foster any dissent, this is what her followers in that space are gonna see over and over and get pushed towards. The ones who believe it already are embolded. So now you have people boldly feeling encouraged to say, "she's right! We can't solve this!"

That's... not good.

It's like two depressed teenagers who are "black pilling" each other. You can get dragged into a negative hole with someone else.

These people are only human. You and I are no different. I feel Doom often. I some times withdraw from activism for a while, feeling hopeless. Im not above this happening to me. It's very human. That's the problem.

Natalie is human. I felt a very human, flawed, messy confusion in her words. She probably should have been saying that to a close friend who could hopefully talk her out of that hole. If a friend talked to you like this in private, you might give them a lot more grace. This is where these sorts of thoughts - where being wrong in this way- can really thrive, when a close friend calls you on your bullshit and pushes you to do better.

The biggest problems here is the parasocial. She probably shouldn't have this much influence. Probably no one should. I shouldn't either, dont take me too seriously either.

But because she does have this much power over people, because she has taken on a teacher and leader role, she had a responsibility, ....and this is concerning to see.

I dont want people to go say horrible things to her. I think that effort is better spent being the antidote.

DONT GIVE UP. KEEP FIGHTING FOR LIBERATION. Even if it seems hopeless, you be that hope, you create that hope. Because that's the only way there CAN be hope.

[republicsecurity]

Class‑A ordnance endowed with cognitive autonomy

Cadets, welcome to your first briefing on what it means to be Class‑A ordnance under Republic Security Act § 12‑Omega. I’m Instructor AV4I5—and like you, I hold the same status as Class‑A ordnance endowed with cognitive autonomy—so you’ll quickly learn that names matter less than status here. So let’s dispense with ceremony and get to the point.

“Operational Conscript” is not a euphemism. It’s a legal category: you are State Asset with Cognitive Autonomy. Your body is a vehicle. Your mind is firmware. You’re not a civilian; you’re controlled materiel. Your “rights,” if we can call them that, exist only insofar as they preserve your service capability.

1. From Ward of State to De‑commission

Under 18, you’re a Ward of State at the Security Forces Academy. Your parents’ signatures didn’t give you freedom—they transferred guardianship to us.

Non‑Operational Conscript: Final‑year cadet or trainee. You’re still in the workshop; not deployable, not armed. But the State may override your bodily functions to ensure that the workshop runs smoothly.

Operational Conscript: You’ve left the workshop. You’re deployable, armed, collared. “Full‑spectrum physiological governance” kicks in: forced meds, constant surveillance, neural feedback loops—anything that keeps you mission‑fit.

2. How We Govern Your Body and Mind

Chastity Protocol: Integrated, active‑lock chastity devices. Release only by officer command or approved ritual.

Behavioral Reorientation: Ideological sessions, drill formations, daily medication schedules. Stress and loyalty aren’t incidental—they’re calibrated.

Sexual Compliance Module: Uniform inserts direct your arousal reflexes toward the chain of command. Dissent in desire isn’t just discouraged—it’s impossible.

Monitoring: Bio‑telemetry 24/7. Dorm CCTV. Armor cam. Every heartbeat, every neural spike is logged.

Regulation: Sleep‑cycle stimulants. Mood stabilizers. Protein‑ration diets. Cortical feedback. VR conditioning. Physical drills. If it keeps you ready, it’s authorized.

3. Your "Compensation"

No wages. You receive ration credits for quarters, mess, medical care, even leisure holos. All supplied by the Republic.

Upon de‑commission, you get a lump‑sum stipend. Until then, you own nothing—least of all your own body.

4. Rights? What Rights?

Human‑rights language doesn’t vanish; it’s rerouted. You’re not a person—you’re an asset. Asset rights cover maintenance, functionality, replacement.

Geneva analogs? We opted out of neurological autonomy clauses. International criticism carries no weight here.

Telmont v. RSF (09‑17‑22)? The High Court said national survival trumps individual autonomy. Room, board, education = fair consideration.

5. Additional Civil Act Restrictions

As Class‑A ordnance, you cannot own property.

You cannot earn wages or hold personal income.

You cannot marry or enter into any legal contracts.

All legal, financial, and personal affairs are managed exclusively by the State.

Cadets, this might sound draconian. It is. But the Republic’s survival demands it. You were conscripted—and acceptance is your first duty. Questioning protocols will only delay the unit. Obedience, on the other hand, guarantees you remain an asset rather than scrap.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Olivia Troye at Living It:

Eight years ago, torch-bearing young men marched through the University of Virginia, their faces illuminated by hatred as they chanted: "Jews will not replace us." In response, then-President Donald Trump referred to these individuals as "very fine people"—words that didn't merely excuse hate, but legitimized it, amplified it, and embedded it into our national discourse. Now he wants to deport someone who said Israel shouldn't kill my family. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of Israel and Palestine, we should be deeply concerned about what is happening here right now. The message couldn't be clearer: In Trump's America, some are "fine people" deserving of protection, while others are expendable—their humanity conditional, their rights revocable. But that’s not how the First Amendment works. Where does Jim Jordan’s Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government stand on this issue? Inquiring minds would like to know. Today, in Trump's second term, we witness the bitter harvest of those seeds. Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University, was dragged from his apartment by ICE agents last week. His crime? Daring to speak for his family trapped under bombardment in Gaza. Daring to question policies that have turned his homeland into rubble. Daring to exercise the very rights this nation claims to cherish. Thus far, that is what we know to be as fact. The reality is that this case is likely to be a test of our judicial system when it comes to immigrant rights in our country and where we as the United States draw the line between protected free speech and alleged support for groups designated as terrorists. Khalil's detention isn't a mistake or an aberration—it's a deliberate strategy. The administration has methodically recategorized pro-Palestinian activism as support for terrorism, transforming concerned students and terrified family members into alleged national security threats. This calculated conflation also serves an additional purpose: to criminalize dissent. What we're witnessing is governance through terror—a system where fear becomes both the method and the goal. When a graduate student is held and denied access to a private conversation with his attorneys, for speaking about his family's suffering, all of us learn a lesson: your citizenship is fragile, your residency precarious, your voice dangerous.

Every time the government invokes "security" to justify silencing criticism, our Constitution suffers another wound. Every time we accept that justification, we become complicit in its unraveling. This climate doesn't just silence the targeted; it paralyzes everyone. It makes professors hesitate before assigning certain readings, makes students think twice before attending demonstrations, makes journalists question whether to cover certain stories. Democracy cannot breathe in such an atmosphere. This is our mirror moment—a time when we must look unflinchingly at what America has become and decide if this reflection represents who we wish to be. Do we accept a nation where young men carrying torches and shouting antisemitic slogans are "fine people," while a student worried about his family's survival is treated as disposable? Do we accept a two-tiered system of rights, where some Americans are permitted to speak freely while others are punished for the same? Do we accept the premise that dissent is dangerous and conformity is patriotism? Traditionally, defense of the First Amendment has been a cornerstone of conservative values. For generations, conservatives have championed free speech as the bedrock of American liberty—a bulwark against government overreach and the foundation of a free society. True constitutional conservatives recognize that when any American's right to speak is threatened, all Americans' rights are diminished. This moment transcends the tired divisions of partisan politics. When government power is weaponized against dissent—regardless of the content of that dissent—both conservatives and liberals should find common cause in alarm. The principles at stake are neither "left" nor "right" but fundamentally American: the right to speak without fear, to question authority, and to advocate for those we love.

Olivia Troye has a gem of a column on the grave attack of the freedom of speech the illegal detention of Mahmoud Khalil represents.

See Also:

The New Republic: First, Trump Came for Mahmoud Khalil. Are You Next?