#either yes or no or you're a centrist

[augustsappho]

Goldsmiths Centrists and Palestine: How To Ignore A Genocide - by August Sappho

On some unfortunate Tuesday in October 2023, I was sat shoving a piping hot cheese toastie down my throat in between morning lectures and sat idly with 2 other people in the refectory. Creative Arts students I'd met in the freshers chat who, whenever I had tried to share the contents of my lectures excitedly, had shut me down on the basis of politics being complicated and uncomfortable table talk. Desperate to make friends and coming from a family of people who typically get headaches at the dinner table caused by my ramblings and ravings, I understood and obliged; after all, I want to build bridges, not be the scary monster underneath them. That is until the curious question of Palestine came up, and I stayed quiet. Surely, these self-proclaimed apolitical progressives would be sensible. “I just think it’s all so complicated, really! People need to read up more before they come to broad conclusions!*” Yes, they absolutely should. What a rational take to have formed in the face of a sudden media flurry. In my own opinion, education, and more importantly, history, is the cornerstone of enriching one's ideas and understanding. The same way you use butter in a stew, and like butter, the professionals use a lot of it. And, like butter, it fattens me up, nourishes me and brings me a great deal of comfort. 

Mid-way through the summer term, I was struck by pure delight that I am living in a time where I can access any and every book I could ever dream of accessing either via the internet or a library or simply buying it. I sit, live and breathe in a country where the tuition fees are, yes, expensive but far from American and where people take great risks on their whole lives just to brush it with their fingertips, arm outstretched over a chasm of hope. Unfortunately, my table mates had decided not to utilise any of this incredibly accessible research and immediately followed their statements up by berating and shaming a lecturer in the media department for wearing a pro-Palestine jumper. They alluded very heavily that he should face some sort of consequence or simply not be allowed to wear it. After all, what does Palestine have to do with Creative Arts?  I continued chewing very slowly and very tense. I did think about saying something but decided against it. Months later, I blew up at them because these same apolitical progressives had one too many times scoffed, played devil's advocate and questioned people, including myself, into an uncomfortable corner over political meet-ups, rallies and open letters. Questioning tactics, phrasing, aims to no avail beyond being arseholes - have we tried just being really super duper nice to management guys? I almost laughed when I’d seen one of them had started learning Hebrew out of the blue on Duolingo.

Unfortunately, those self-proclaimed progressives aren't anything new at Goldsmiths University of London. It has a real troubling culture of letting people only engage in what they are comfortable with and not think much beyond that. Gay rights are legal in this country and, therefore, not controversial and, consequently, easy to support. Racism is illegal in this country and, therefore, not controversial to speak up against and easy to publicly oppose. Feminism has had many successful waves here, and so it is not out of the ordinary to call yourself a feminist (without being able to explain much theory behind any of what makes these ideas up or what distinguishes them). Unfortunately, these are also easy things you can add to your social media bios with no further thought, with the sole intent of virtue signalling and repelling conservatives online. While I am grateful for all these comforts and people's ability to declare themselves as such openly, they are often done on a very face-value level and do not always mean you're a particularly good anti-racist or a good ally or a good feminist. They often trick people who have done their homework into a false sense of security. No,they use these words in a way where the thinking has been done for them. You do not have to fight; you just have to pick the glaringly obvious option. They do not have to form moral opinions on the suffragettes bombing mailboxes, the Stonewall Riots or violent plantation liberation attempts from the likes of John Brown. They can simply sit and enjoy the luxury of not ever having to deal with the hard-hitting stuff and pretending they would have come to those conclusions anyway. 

Palestine, then, has acted as an axe, splitting whole student bodies around the world into two general camps. Between those who will occupy, sign letters, donate money, raise hell in the name of justice. In the name of what is good. Between those who will learn and listen and between those who will rattle on the same few talking points, claim to see both sides and claim things are just oh-so-complicated when they simply are not. Those who swear themselves by ideals of liberty and freedom and yet cannot muster a grain of sympathy to fight for those who have none. Those who will even go to the extent of the disenfranchisement of their peers and bullying if it means maintaining close contact with their comfort zones, and Palestine makes them very uncomfortable indeed—hearing chants and seeing flags and skirting around the videos of the bodies and the rubble, having to relocate your lecture or walk past a very obvious liberated zone. It makes it an unavoidable topic, puts politics in the face of those self-proclaimed progressives, and asks them, “Do you care enough to make a change?”. And the answer is a simple no. Instead of engaging with the reading they promised themselves publicly as a show of intellect, they choose to occupy their hours sending secret complaints to the warden, huff in frustration at marking boycotts, and get uncomfortable while swearing they're involved in all this and fully supporting it. Yet following lists, open letter signatures, and the things they mutter to each other paint a different picture. It is as if they know they are on the wrong side. They look left and right to see predominantly white middle-class faces like their own and prime ministers of conservative governments and think of it as some bizarre coincidence. They know they are wrong not to be reading, learning or keeping up to date which is why they maintain their opinions and feign progress until they are awkwardly called out or the simplest of questions peels off the scab.

“It’s [the occupation of the library] hindering students who have every right not to join the protest to do well in their end-of-year assignments!”—a message sent by one of the beloved October centrists. In a conversation that blew up into me confronting them for how they have treated several people, they hammered in that the student occupation of the library was unfair on themselves personally and other students like them. However, the occupation wasn't situated anywhere near the exam rooms nor on an exam day and was solely in the bottom floor front section of the library, where students are allowed to make as much racket as they want already, and people frequently do group projects there for this explicit reason. Anyone who has been to any library knows the bottom floor is always designated as the loud floor, and the higher up you go, the quieter it gets. Our library is quite impressive in size, so while unavoidable on the ways in and out, once you are inside, it was never going to be hard to find a spot to block them out. They did not know this, however, as it had never impacted them beyond hypotheticals in their head, and their argument wasn't dependent on having actually kept their eyes on what students were doing but rather finding anything to scream inconvenience at. All I could think was how funny that a student occupation of a library could be deemed as some unforgivable act because it impacts them directly, but a genocidal occupation in which their university has a hand in just isn't worth the time of day. The warden herself referred to the library occupation as something that ‘threatened’ students.

Let me conclude them with a different quote from the fictional Robin Swift from R.F. Kuang’s ‘Babel’ whose words perfectly encapsulate this ordeal.

“Across the town, students were fast asleep. Next to them, tomes by Plato and Locke and Montesquieu waited to be read, discussed, gesticulated about; theoretical rights like freedom and liberty would be debated between those who already enjoyed them, stale concepts that, upon their readers’ graduation ceremonies, would promptly be forgotten. That life, and all of its preoccupations, seemed insane to him now; he could not believe there was ever a time when his greatest concerns were what colour neckties to order from Randall’s, or what insults to shout at houseboats hogging the river during rowing practice. It was all such frippery, fluff, trivial distractions built over a foundation of ongoing, unimaginable cruelty.”

*the first conversation is paraphrased as best as I can remember it, as I do not record my conversations with people

[seeminglydeathlessredshirt]

Ramblings on Bioshock Infinite

So, I've decided to start writing down how I feel about what I'm playing here rather than wait for my friends to be online so I can infodump at them.

Anyway, Bioshock: Infinite. The original was pretty alright. I didn't get all the way through it because I was getting a bit tired of Rapture and some other little annoyances, but it was a perfectly decent experience. Skipped past 2 because once again, not in the mood for spending a dozen more hours underwater, and went right to the one that people fuss about all the time to see what the fuss is all about.

I shouldn't have gone out of my way to see what all the fuss is about.

Spoilers for an 11-year old game will follow, but I do not recommend going out and checking this out yourself.

To its credit, the game does have a very strong opening. The welcome centre/church you arrive in offers absolutely gorgeous visuals and a strange yet interesting blend of Christian motifs and the weird sort of reverence built up around the founders of America. "Gee," I thought, "maybe this will be a game that finally tackles religion in an interesting and nuanced way that doesn't just feel like it was written by a 14-year old who just discovered Reddit." Unfortunately, it doesn't(if anyone knows a game that does, please let me know.) After a level where you walk around and take in the sights of Columbia(an experience that feels like walking into a veritable wasp nest. Either one, take your pick), you're thrust into your standard action game plot shenanigans. Kill a bunch of guys while someone rants at you over an intercom, go through various setpieces, all that good stuff.

Is the killing actually all that fun? For a certain stretch of the game, yes. You have some okay abilities, a good selection of weapons to choose from, and takedowns are pretty cool as well. The skyrails scattered around some maps are gimmicky, though a welcome addition(the irony of a game like this leaning heavily on what are basically rollercoasters is not lost on me.) But somewhere past the halfway point, it takes a steep nosedive. The weapon list gets bloated to hell and back, and a combination of the carry limit of two plus the tendency to only ever give ammo for everything you don't want to use drags it down. Enemies also seem to get substantially spongier and more numerous, which makes fights incredibly unsatisfying. Bioshock was already firmly in that grey area between immersive sim and combat sandbox, and Infinite is neither of those. Everything feels so much less versatile, there's no thinking outside the box to be done here.

As for the rest of the story, you may have heard about how centrist it gets, and I am sad to report that everything they said was true. What really gets me is how it's already setting up the "both sides are the exact same thing" even before the characters would have any reason to think that. They're literally basing this entire viewpoint off of "oh, the workers are being violent about overthrowing their oppressors, that's super bad, right????" This game also does try to tackle things like racism but I don't exactly have a good eye for whether or not something tackles that matter maturely, so all I'll say is that it feels very surface-level and inconsequential. "Inconsequential" can sum up everything else in this paragraph too because it's all eventually abandoned for !!Dimensional Shenanigans!! This is what the last few levels are taken up by entirely and all it accomplishes is covering over a weak attempt at social themes with an even weaker attempt at sci-fi themes. The ending is certainly a bit more batshit than you'd expect for your standard seventh-generation slop, but it can't salvage this. The fanservice just reminded me of a somewhat better game. I would make a joke about this game only having two characters, but then it goes out of its way to say "yes, there really are only two characters."

I am not playing the fucking DLCs.

[velvetvexations]

So like. I'm not a centrist. I'm NOT. Okay? I am a solid socialist. Socialism rules. Are we clear on that? Literally just yesterday I referenced CommunismKills in a mocking way because I actually personally traded insults with her a decade ago.

Okay.

I think part of the allure of being a tankie is that it handwaves the problems with the examples we have of large-scale implementation of pure ideological communism. Like if you believe the Eastern Bloc did nothing wrong, then there you go, your ideology was implemented on a huge scale and they did nothing wrong. That, I imagine, is very reassuring and grand for morale. It gives you not only an unwavering belief in your preferred system of government but also historical precedent - it's easier to foresee a leftist utopia if it's been done before.

Well, the Eastern Bloc was really bad. There was no point in time, not one, where they didn't make the lives of a much higher percentage of people much worse than the West and successful political action in the West slowly widened that gap with every passing year all the way until the end of the Cold War.

The reaction to things like inevitably goes to "just supporting the lesser evil is bad", but we're talking about historical perspective. You're not supporting Western Imperialism to admit these countries that don't even exist anymore (in their communist form - yes, including China) were just as much shames. You wouldn't have been doing that in the eighties, either. Supporting them was not helpful to anyone then or now, even if you don't want to support the lesser evil you don't support the greater evil out of spite.

But recognizing that means that there's more to our leftist utopia than just reading Marx. Theory alone can't ensure everything goes off without a hitch and, most importantly, only good people with truly benevolent desires get into power. Christianity has, for more than two thousand years, preached that everyone will be happy with them and their ideas, yet had people in authority abuse the hell out of it for their own satisfaction or take zeal to a horrifying place.

It's scary that even if we achieved all our goals, that's not the end of it. We have to actually make it work. Why would communism be any different than any other ideology that claimed benevolence or seemed reasonable if everyone could agree to follow the rules? Being a tankie is the answer to that question.

"Because it worked so well the first time!"

[fayrobertsuk]

Cease and Desist

I really need to rant about the state of UK politics, but also I'm so literally tired of living in an increasingly fascistic, villainously late-stage-capitalist state that I don't know if I can summon up the energy to properly describe (let alone explain) the shitshow that this country is turning into, reminiscent of the worst nadir of the 80s.

Like... have you read Suella Braverman's fuck-you letter to Rishi Sunak yet? That was... certainly something, and honestly looked, to my mind, tantamount to a call to arms for the far-right and offering herself up as a rallying point, probably leadership.

And yeah, it was disturbing.

Her four points which formed part of her conditions to support someone she's now publicly labelled, essentially, a weak leader with little support and reliant on what bigots she can muster to his back... are genuinely troubling stuff. Aggressively regressive and deeply misanthropic. She attacks migrants and refugees, trans people (especially trans youth), and lays it out as though she's being the reasonable one. She's managing to make Sunak look centrist. No mean feat.

Go look at "small boats" as a topic on Twitter, just for an example of who she's representing. Trust me: it's not just progressive folk being sarcastic and/or appalled by the anti-refugee rhetoric, there are a shit-ton of people complaining that not enough is being done to curb "the problem of the small boats". Who've bought into this propaganda wholesale.

If you're not concerned, I'm going to suggest that either you're not paying enough attention, or you consider yourself one of the people her priorities serve.

Either way, you have to know that there's only one real way this shit can go if we don't find a way to stop it.

Because it gets worse, for my money. Tonight (well, 15-Nov-23), the House of Commons had the chance to vote on a proposed amendment to the King's Speech put forward by the Scottish National Party: for the UK to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. And not only did the Tories overwhelmingly vote against that (which we would obviously have expected), but the Labour Party were told: if you're a Shadow Cabinet member and you vote for the ceasefire, you're out, we'll give your job to someone else. Obviously I paraphrase.

Turns out you can go to the Government website and download the raw data about the way the MPs voted (or failed to vote) on the matter of the ceasefire, which gets you the names and parties and which way they went. So I made a graph. And I'm honestly sickened.

(Image description in alt-text; let me know if you need the data in a different format up-front.)

Now, it's not like if all the Labour MPs who'd abstained had voted yes it would have swung it (it would still have been 266 vs. 294), but I know I'd be feeling a lot better, and a lot more confident in our so-called Opposition.

See, the thing is that, to my mind, unless you're genuinely all-for the extermination of all Palestinians in the region, a ceasefire is the only means to an actual solution. I just keep remembering how much progress was finally made in Northern Ireland in the 90s, but that (and I wildly simplify here, I suspect) it took a ceasefire to give stability and space and time in which successful negotiations could happen.

Just as I condemned, and still condemn, both IRA and UDA, and every politician and financier egging them on, so do I condemn the violent extremists on both sides of the equation in Gaza. And I strongly suspect that, if nothing changes, thousands upon thousands of civilians, mostly Palestinian, are going to die through no fault of their own until there's no-one left to annihilate. To dicker about the Right Kind of Cessation of Hostilities is demonstrating a casual disdain for human life that chills me even as I rage.

We all like to think we'd be one of the good guys when we look back at pivotal fascist moments in human history. The truth is that, right now, people's lives are being destroyed while people with unimaginable amounts of power are more concerned with jockeying for more than attempting to stem the tide of dehumanisation we're seeing rising across the world, simultaneously in pretty much every nation this time. I don't see anything like enough happening to stop it, and I'm genuinely scared.

[bug-the-chicken-nug]

Not me starting to unironically care about like the concept of Fleshed Out Cardin

Like in my mind he's kind of like a Jaune foil

The Winchesters are another pretty successful Hunter family, Cardin is a middle child of a big family and has five siblings.

I do imagine they're lowkey kind of washed up in terms of actual Hunter accolades, with more recent generations being like, decent but sort of just coasting off of past ancestor rep, and Cardin's family is upper-middle-class more because there's still some old money left.

But they actually believed in Cardin and supported him, with their flaws being that they were both too indulgent and unable to be sufficiently attentive, resulting in an arrogant, entitled guy who has an excessive need for attention and control.

Honestly I don't even imagine his parents as being overtly terrible or malicious in any obvious way, at worst they're like subconsciously racist centrists who can't spend time with their kids a ton, so the guilt causes them to overcompensate, and they also tended to show favoritism towards Cardin that wasn't really on purpose either.

Cardin then just picked up most of his more overt racism from just exposure to bad crowds and bad media, and what limited corrections and interventions occured were always too little, too late.

It was just that he was the most promising as the next potential Big Name Hunter of the family, giving him a further inflated ego and actually starting to diminish his work ethic when he realized he could just brute force and manipulate his way through anything challenging.

In the semi-headcanon/semi-AU I'm envisioning here, I imagine Beacon then put up enough of a genuine challenge that all of this caught up to him, he started to struggle, and doubled down on his biggest flaws as a way of trying to reassert a feeling of power and competence.

I then imagine that of he remained relevant you could do something with like

Him being humbled and somewhat humiliated after the Jaune stuff, then seeing Velvet fight and begrudgingly being impressed, then he goes for the standard "I guess you're pretty good... For a Faunus..." type thing and just. Genuinely doesn't understand why Velvet takes this so awkwardly and uncomfortably.

And nobody is really in a position to willingly and eloquently explain it without just making him get irritated and defensive because it's too hard to admit he's in the wrong, so this just kind of awkwardly lingers with him feeling kind of "unfairly targeted" for a while (oh the irony)

And then the Vytal Festival happens and he and his team just barely win against some other team lead by someone with a family of moderate Hunter-world importance, who trash talked him about how washed up the Winchesters are for a bit, then begrudgingly admits "I guess you're pretty good... For a Winchester,"

And when Cardin feels how this backhanded shit actually just makes him dislike them even more, once he's done being pissed, that's when he has the "Oohhhh..." moment and truly realizes why his "compliment" towards Velvet was so shitty.

Yes, still kind of a self-centered path to finally Getting It, but feels a hell of a lot more natural than someone patiently going out of their way to explain this stuff to him like it's a Saturday morning cartoon, because he sure as hell isn't going to seek out and listen to a professor.

Cue a string of Thee World's Most Awkward Attempts to arrange both the time and courage to apologize to Velvet (let's just ignore the fall of beacon here since it doesn't tonally jive with what I'm going for)

Which like

I don't actually envision this AU as Holybun, but I *do* think it would be hilarious if this starts to make people THINK Cardin now has a weird and possibly fetishistic thing for Velvet.

[iidsch]

Look I'm going to be a bit of a centrist here for the sake of the argument, but I think is your right to play games like Hogwarts Legacy if you want. Obviously I think the game is bad in many ways but if after knowing that you still decide to play it, then you do your do - freedom of choice etc etc.

However, this does not suddenly make it okay to play the game. You're still giving money to an antisemite and a transphobe, there's no way to get around that. And the fact that every person who plays the game refuses to admit they are doing something harmful is what pisses me off the most. Like man, at least don't be a coward. Be a bigot if you want but don't try to cover it by lying to yourself and thinking you are not a bad person.

Yes, the money you spent to buy the game is going to JK Rowling, and she's going to use that money to push anti-trans rhetoric and policies, by donating the money to anti-trans groups, supporting anti-trans politicians, etc. And even if you don't take into account the money, just getting the game and talking about it is contributing to her fame - and thus her power to influence British politics and the British public.

Also, before anyone brings this up, this is not analogous to buying from big companies because in a capitalist society where big corporations own literally everything and are heavily interconnected, you can't avoid buying stuff that has been produced unethically. If you want to boycott every evil company you might as well go live in a cave and eat grass for the rest of your life. But Rowling only owns the Harry Potter property, boycotting her is as easy as not buying anything related to HP (which is not an essential commodity so you can perfectly live without it).

Not to mention that by playing a game filled with antisemitic tropes you're unconsciously absorbing those ideas and normalizing Jewish suffering and the hatred towards Jewish people - something the nazis themselves did to get away with the Holocaust. And you can't pull the "im immune to propaganda" excuse because I bet you didn't even know half of the antisemitic tropes present in the game before someone had to explain them to you, so you will internalize the other half you cant identify.

There's no denying that playing the game has terrible consequences. This is a fact. If you want to deny it then you're either really stupid, a hypocrite, or okay with hurting trans and Jewish people. Choose whichever is true for you but don't lie to yourself: your actions have harmful consequences and you're a bad person because of it.

And hey, if it sucks to realize that you're a bad person, that people are going to be hurt because of your actions, then don't play the game! Don't do the thing that is hurting people!! We're not asking you to whip your back 100 times to ask for forgiveness or donate all your savings to trans/Jewish orgs. If you want to be a good person you really just need to not play the game or support any of JK Rowling's properties. It is that simple.

Plenty of people have recommended other franchises similar to Harry Potter so I'm pretty sure you can find a substitute to fill the void of not being a potterhead. And if the nostalgia is the problem then I ask you: would you be okay if someone defended a racist, sexist, homophobic, etc piece of media because it was part of their childhood? Nostalgia is a strong feeling, even I admit that, but sometimes feelings can lead you to follow the wrong path. Being aware of that and working to fix it it's the most mature and the most ethical choice you can make.

Change is hard, but not impossible, and ultimately I believe that everyone can become a better person if they try. But even if after all of this you still decide to play Hogwarts Legacy and support Harry Potter, because you don't care that you are contributing to the suffering of thousands if not millions of humans, then I hope you know there's a place in hell for horrible people like you.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

I honestly wouldn't be complaining about Europeans so much if it weren't for the fact that I've been drowning in European hypocrisy nearly on a daily basis for more than half a decade now.

But most of my classmates are from mainland European countries like France, Belgium, Germany, Poland, or Sweden, and then there's the Icelanders I work with. And half the time when I say I'm from the U.S. they immediately make some really inappropriate remark like "haha at least I'm not from bang bang shooty gun land, I'm from a REAL country that has healthcare and gun control 🤣" with no regard for how rude and deranged that is to say to someone they barely know.

And I always get the feeling that they expect me to start self flagellating and going "haha yes you're so right!! I'm from the country of inbred hillbillies and we all willfully choose to go without healthcare and to die in school shootings because we're such dumb backwards hillbillies! 😌" Because they always look a little shocked when I don't do that and actually push back or even tell them they're being rude.

And the thing is I've spoken with other Americans who live in Northern or Western Europe, and they've all had similar experiences.

And often the same exact Europeans who do this will later say the most nauseatingly racist/xenophobic/ECT. remarks and expect me to still see them as superior and more progressive.

I would be very happy to stay in my own lane and not say a word on European racism and xenophobia. But the hypocrisy I drown in every day is driving me insane and if I stay quiet I'll fucking lose it.

ah i see maybe i misunderstood. it was about how europeans talk about the usa, not about others? to be fair as a german when i was meeting foreigners from the uk or australia for example they would make nazi/hitler jokes to me as well sometimes. didnt find it appropriate or liked it either but i think thats just different levels of sensitivity. i wouldnt think its racist/xenophobic because westerners joking about westerners even if its bad/insensitive/inappropriate jokes is not kicking downwards (the hitler jokes are often mocking the holocaust though which is blatantly antisemitic). but i understand where you are coming from now.

generally i think that usamericans are the most adament about political correctness, and that yall dont deal well with bluntness. i agree though its very inappropriate to mock someone for their countries lack of healthcare or gun violence. i think it has kind of become a „meme“ online as well to slam school shootings into any usamerican persons face. thats not okay. i think many are sick of usamerican hegemony and falsely think its okay to attack usamericans for it when you are also suffering from usamerican politics. so yeah i wouldnt say europeans have more (or less) issues with xenophobia and racism than the usa and canada but its possible some people are more blatant and blunt with it here.

also, the european union (which is not all of europe) is self-advertising as this progressive and peaceful organisation when they spend billions to let people drown in the ocean who just want a better life, for example, and people who are either centrist or apolitical believe this shit, and think they live in progressiveland without reflecting on their own biases. the right-wing is very critical of the european union and want it gone, and theyre the most unhinged when it comes to racism. and i think the european left is just very usa-critical, which i could see leading to misguided comments.

[infamousbrad]

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

One of the most cynical slogans I've ever read was in Niven & Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer, where the running theme of the whole back half of the book is "a society has the morality it can afford." I'm more of a "let justice be done, though the heavens fall" kind of guy myself. But I know my position isn't popular.

People are starting to ask if progressive prosecutors even can prosecute crimes. And you know what, maybe, compared with the right-wing and centrist prosecutors, they can't. But only because what the other prosecutors were doing, and getting away with, wasn't even vaguely legal. I'm not sure how much the average person knows (or cares) just how much our criminal justice system depends on coerced guilty pleas to keep prosecutor and court backlogs manageable.

Until this wave of progressive prosecutors came in, "innocent until proven guilty" just plain didn't exist. Anywhere else (or here, before) if the police arrested you, and you couldn't afford a good, expensive criminal defense attorney you were just plain guilty, period.

Your sentence began immediately. The Constitution says that bail can't be denied unless the prosecutor can affirmatively prove, by preponderance of evidence, that you are a dangerously likely to hurt people, abscond, or tamper with the evidence. That's too much work, they just set high six-figure bail -- which is also illegal under the US Constitution.

But having already started your sentence, the prosecutor's office is in a great position to start negotiating your guilty plea. And if you're stuck with an over-worked public defender, they'll tell you that right up front: you were guilty the second the police arrested you, we're just here to negotiate your time. If you plead, you serve the minimum sentence. If you insist on your innocence, there will never be a trial, the prosecution can and will postpone until you've served the maximum sentence, then they'll drop the charges.

My hometown, and a few other US cities, saw really high profile cases of people who were later proved objectively innocent who were held without trial for years, and others who were later proved objectively innocent who were coerced into guilty pleas, so we elected prosecutors who would actually run the office the way the US Constitution requires.

But that means either spending the hours (that they don't have) for each person arrested to prove that it's unsafe, or else letting them go free until trial like the US Constitution demands and the cops hate that. If it turns out they weren't safe to release, so does the rest of the public. And if they don't re-offend while out on bail, the prosecutor still has to actually prove the case as the US Constitution requires which can easily take so long that the deadline to try them expires, and the charges have to be dropped. The office doesn't have 1/20th of the budget it would take to actually try all of those cases.

So it's become clear that other prosecutors aren't (necessarily) asking (too compliant) judges to sentence people who've never been tried because they're mustache-twirling villains or even because they're cop-sucking bootlickers (necessarily). Maybe it's because if they don't, at least 19 out of 20 guilty people will go free. And 100% of the innocent people, yes, but that's not the point, they'd say.

The framers may have said that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished, and that may be with the Constitution requires. But letting 10 guilty men go free rather than punish 1 innocent man is about as popular as a turd in a punchbowl. So if we can't afford to staff a prosecutor's office (and a public defender's office) that can take all these cases to trial, they'd say screw the constitution, screw the law: punishment first, sentence later, trial never. Because a society has the morality it can afford.

Not me. I say fiat justitia ruat caelum: let justice be done, though the heavens fall. Because unlike a lot of the voters, I can all too easily imagine it happening to me.

[lofi-hearts]

you have ten million badges on your account you don't get to have an opinion that's worth anything. ok?

Yes because using the badges you get for free means my opinions are as bad as someone who is ok with not voting. God I hate talking politics with Americans they genuinely have no fucking comprehension that the rest of the world has to deal with their shit and I don't want the country that dictates the path of most of the world to be run by the same shitty party that almost ruined it for 4 years. Dumb cunt, listen, someone is getting in power regardless of what you do, so the THE BARE FUCKING MINIMUM and don't let the person who openly want to be a dictator in.

Listen, every single thing you have hated about America happens either because of, or more intensely, because of the republican party. Abortion bans, the right. Homophobic policy, transphobic policy, gun control that allows for school shooting, all of them republican. And because of how stupid states rights bullshit is and the stacked supreme court (again, the right did this), the federal level can't do shit. You realise you vote in a party right, not just the president. I need you to understand how fucking stupid it is to only vote for the person and not the party. Because look at how fucking evil the right side is.

I'm going to go off on a little tangent here, america is so fucked up, that you think the centrist democrats are far left. If you lived in a normal country you'd see that they're center to center-right, and see how fucking extreme the republicans are. The rest of the world does not want them in, and the global south will not survive if they get in. Not to belabor a point, have you seen project 2025? I know it goes around tumblr a lot but have you? You want the party that wrote that to get in? If you are ok with letting them in then you're opinion is as meaningless as a promise from Trump himself, and your morals are as worthless as your opinions. Do the barest fucking minimum and don't let them in. Again, I fucking hate the dems. Shithouse party. However in comparison to the party with nazi's in it and supporting it, I would take them. Don't act like you care about LGBT people if you are ok with letting them in. Don't act like you care about anybody if you are. Again, I want most US politicians in jail, and every president held accountable for their war crimes. The reality is you have to deal with that. But complicity in evil rising is almost as bad as evil itself. Also if you say both parties are equal, you are either misinformed, an idiot, lying, or some combination of the three. Seriously, go fuck yourself and try to become a decent human being. I know that's hard for americans, but for the rest of the world, please try.

[serpentstole]

I’m wondering what specifically stuck out to you in that podcast as troubling? Personally, I heard some platitudes about troubled times that I hear on all sides of the political spectrum, but nothing particularly “dog-whistle-y”. I understand how ‘blood’ talk can often skew that way but in this case ehhh I think contextually it’s pretty obviously about the abstract concept of “witch blood” rather than something ethnocentric.

I'm going to assume this was asked in good faith, so here's my answer. I took a moment to transcribe the part that concerned me most. I think you may have referred to it as the platitudes that you hear on all sides, so I want to break down what I feel is being said here.

"...if you can't see that our culture has become so extremely poisoned that you need to do something about it, then you need to wake the fuck up, because, you know, on the day that we're recording this today we've seen Vladimir send the tanks in. Well, this is because the West is falling. The West is transforming. And as the West transforms, as witches we have something to do with this. We have something to offer here and something to change, because I can tell you for nothing that the people out there who believe that Biden-style Leftism is going to triumph are in for a very very rude awakening, because the backlash we're going to face from the forces of repression is going to be mighty. And you're going to need people on your side who at the present time you're calling "fascists", "transphobes"... and what are the other meaningless hate words that are thrown around at the moment... "white supremacists"... all of this language is the nonsense language of division."

Just in case people who follow me want to skip my explanation, I'm putting a cut here for the sake of your dashboards. I tried to make it as clear and to the point as possible, but this kind of thing always requires some explanation and context.

So let's ignore for a moment how talking about how The West™ is "falling" is a lot of alt-right pundits' favourite bit of catastrophizing. Things are a mess right now, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people feel like that.

Words like fascist, transphobe, and white supremicist are not meaningless words meant to cause division. They are labels assigned with a purpose. Sometimes incorrectly? Yes, sure these things happen. But at their core, they are calling out a dangerous and pervasive mindset that can cause tangible harm to vulnerable groups.

"Biden-style Leftism" is also, honestly, not that far left. It is barely left. That's why many leftists will treat being called a Liberal™ as either a joke or a personal insult. Biden is literally considered a moderate Democrat and a centrist who is only now starting to lean to the left. We are not talking about the United States' First Socialist President here.

All that in mind, what are we supposed to take from this? That we should be dismissing even a whiff of social progress because the "forces of repression" are going to push back against it? That PoC, people who belong to marginalized religious groups, and the transgender community should be disregarded for the sake of appealing to what few bigots can be brought in as allies? And allies for what, exactly, if the goal is a future in which those people are seen as expendable?

At best, it's mealy mouthed centrism. The most charitable reading of this I can give is that Peter Grey barely understands politics or how insulting his argument is. That he's saying all this on the platform of a known Covid conspiracy theorist is another bad sign, and makes me far less inclined to offer him that charity.

I know I'm getting transparently, undeniably political on my occult blog. I tend to avoid this for reasons I've stated in a previous post, but to summarize: I am often worried about the stink and taboo of what the general public will assume my Luciferianism means might rub off on vulnerable social issues and communities.

The exception I make, however, is for how those politics intersect with occult and pagan spaces.

This is someone who is a well regarded writer and publisher within our community saying that words like "fascist" and "transphobe" are needlessly divisive for witches. He is making this claim only a few years after the Black Flame conference was cancelled because it was discovered some of their speakers had ties to alt-right communities, which was handled (in the opinion of many, including myself) very poorly by its organizers... who are another popular occult publishing house. I got to watch that one unfold in real time, as I was meant to attend it and closely watching the Facebook groups for updates.

As I have said on a previous post... do I think Peter Grey is alt-right? I don't feel comfortable making that call. He could just be misguided, well meaning, and unaware of how damaging and regressive the implications of his words are. He may also be unaware of how often they echo the sentiments of people who dance around the edges of alt-right spaces as a more reasonable looking entry point to those ideologies.

Still. If witches, occultists, pagans, Luciferians, or anyone else try to unite with people who are widely believed to be transphobic, fascists, and racists, you are not going to end divisiveness. You are going to make the community uninhabitable for anyone who doesn't align with their very narrow view of personhood, because you see the people who genuinely wish them harm as more worthy allies in what you want for the future.

And again, I ask, for what future are those people expendable?

It isn't a great look, and I'd be of that opinion even if Lucifer: Princeps hadn't been a huge waste of time.

[yourfavisblack]

Blog rulez for Your Fav Is Black!

Here's an updated list of guidelines for the blog

What is 'Your Fav Is Black? - This is a blog in the same vein as other 'your fav is' blogs. Specifically, I made this blog to celebrate Black and Black coded characters in media.

2. Who runs the blog?- I do. There's no group of mods here, it's just me. I don't have a specific name I want to be referred as; but some basics about me are that I'm Black American (monoracial), 28 years old and my pronouns are they/them.

3. What is the flag/What does it stand for?-

4. Can I follow/make a request?- Ive got the usual DNI.

No Fasc/Right Wing/Centrists. No TERFS/SWERFS. No transmeds. No fatphobes/ableists. No Gore/Yanderecore/ED blogs. No pro-shippers/anti-antis.

Also Im sorry, but this is a general audience blog and a lot of minors interact and send in requests. So, NSFW blogs do not interact (that includes likes and reblogs).

Everybody else is welcome to follow this blog so long as you're respectful to me, the content on here and those that interact with it.

Requests are for Black people only. Non blacks liking/reblogging posts is fine though.

5. How do I request something?- Just send in a message to the ask box. Make sure you check the text in the bio first to see if i marked the inbox as 'open' before you send one in.

I ask that you all only use the ask box for requests as sending me PMs through Tumblr messages makes it difficult for me to keep track of them. Submissions are also okay if you decided to take it upon yourself to make your own flag (again for Black people only).

6. Can I make multiple requests?- Yes, although since it's just me making these posts; I ask that everybody make no more than 4 requests at a time so I don't get overwhelmed.

7. What characters can I request?- Any character from any form of media except those from the Do Not Request list as the media on this list either contain extremely questionable/problematic portrayals of minorities or their creators are weirdos/racist pieces of sh*t.

🚫DO NOT REQUEST🚫

Hazbin Hotel/Helluva Boss/Anything made by Vivziepop

Homestuck

Attack on Titan/Shingeki no Kyojin

FNAF Series

Huniepop

Camp Camp

American Horror Story

South Park/Family Guy/Big Mouth (basically any adult animated comedy that has that brand of humor)

The Simpsons/Futurama

IRL celebrities/youtubers

Media with sexually explicit content (ex. Ecchi anime)

That's all I have for now, but if you have questions on whether a piece of media that's not listed is okay; feel free to ask me.

8. How does a character qualify as Black?-

Well the most obvious answer is that the character will have physical features denoting blackness (brown skin, kinky/curly hair, etc.). Other things that can denote Blackness are speech, mannerisms, displays of Black culture and the like.

Sometimes acknowledgment of a character's race will be outright said in the media or be confirmed by the media's creator.

Racial coding is also an aspect that is used to determine whether or not a character is Black. As with Skeeter Valentine from the Doug cartoon series who is considered to be Black despite him having an unnatural skin color (blue instead of brown), his mannerisms and demeanor lead many Black fans of the show to consider him to be Black coded. A couple of non-human examples of this are Piccolo from Dragon Ball Z and Darwin Watterson from The Amazing World of Gumball.

Darwin is an anthropomorphic orange fish, so one would wonder how he could be considered Black. Well for starters, Darwin's VA [voice actor(s)] has always been a black boy. And Darwin's mannerisms and cadence within the show has always mirrored that of a Black child.

In the case of Piccolo though, he's a humanoid alien from the Planet Namek. Though he doesn't have much in the physical sense that would be reminiscent of Black features (In addition to his VA being a white man) Black fans of Dragon Ball Z feel a connection to him and believe that his character reflects that of a Black man.

9. Well what if I personally don't believe a character is Black?-

Unless you yourself are Black, you have no authority to speak on the credibility of anybody's race/Blackness. I've had my fair share of smart ass comments of people going 'he's not Black he's green! she's not Black, she's orange!'; and I'm not entertaining them with responses anymore. I don't find these types of comments helpful or amusing and if you leave one here, you will be immediately blocked.

With that being said, enjoy the blog; and Happy Black History Month ✌🏾✌🏿

[battle-of-alberta]

Who is the farthest on either side of the political spectrum ?

ok so to preface: i'm not going to answer this question with my usual "political compass" style charts for a Reason which I will Explain first.

I'm hesitant to make 100% "this is how they are on the spectrum" because

It oversimplifies the fact that they represent a bunch of different people (which I get is hard to avoid in this genre lol) but also that they are old and have time to watch long term change and (hopefully) remember the results historically

Political alignment is very relative and it's hard to say "this is how they are all the time" from one perspective because, as some of you know, there's regional Nuance and Complexity and (primarily due to oil) AB politics is absolutely batshit insane even without comparing ourselves to other parts of Canada and,

I like to imagine that the crazy batshit insane part is temporary and I like to imagine a future that's less like the present and I'm not interested in making people feel the same way about their city that the news (or the "news") makes them feel because We Can Do Better Okay, and I don't want people to just make assumptions about characters based on politicians and parties because it's always more complicated than a platform.

What I will do is just draw a scene, a snapshot in time, if you will, from the May Long Weekend Battle of Alberta Northern AB Family BBQ (plus Calvin who still had his playoff beard at the time)

I would - from my comfortable vantage point in the One consistently not-conservative riding in the province both federally and provincially - describe the current political landscape in alberta thusly. Long and drawn out explanation follows that probably doesn't make a lot of sense to people outside the province/country but I tried my best to keep it simple. My biases are obvious, keep in mind the political spectrum looks different in AB than the rest of the country, different in Canada than the US or elsewhere, yada yada. And as usual I can't not be emotional about this because I'm one of the idiots who lives here.

On the 'extreme' left (which the rest of Canada would call 'centrist' because there has been a significant drift since the great depression) is Edith representing the former city of Strathcona and the seat of the leadership of the official opposition. I tend to represent her as more left leaning than the party HQ'd here as reflective of the people i know here who do tend to hold more radical views than the party line (which is still a very pro-pipeline pro-oil "UBI-is-too-radical!" party at the end of the day) (yes i wrote angry letters and got disappointing responses how did you know)

On the 'extreme' right is Mac who I think represents what people think of when they think of Alberta to some extent (the young rural oil bro who is tired of real and perceived slights from central Canada and wants to separate already despite not knowing how to cook rice). The former former leader of the opposition is based here (and please please please keep him out of the big chair Please)

(and surprise they both hate the current government for polar opposite reasons lmao)

Ed and Cal are backstage in this battle because the big cities tend to be the exception to the rule politically; because of how our stupid voting system is set up in part and because they look different depending on whether you're looking at them from inside or outside the province and from an urban or rural vantage point. Edmonton is becoming an increasingly radical orange blob on the map the more that the current government takes out everything they hate about us on us while traditional conservative stronghold Calgary, oddly enough, is still experiencing the "wait did I help catapult J Trudes into the PM's chair" hangover, which is not the first non-conservative hangover Calgary has had after accidentally creating the CCF/NDP in the first place...

(I still remember a conversation overheard in class at U of T between two Albertans. AB1 said she thought Notley was doing a good job as premier and AB2 snidely said "that's because you're from Calgary and I'm from Fort Mac and Lethbridge, sooo" as if Calgary were a well known Liberal base (and as if there was actually any difference between Liberals and Conservatives lol) (and that guy went on to raise his hand in class and embarrass everyone with some Vote with our Feet Power of Our Dollar anti public transit rant that I cringed all the way through lol)

Finally GP and Red Deer are doing who knows what off in the corner and we worry about them and they're weird conspiracies and separatist parties, we really do. Sad to say the last person I encountered from GP was literally one of those conspiracy nutcases and there's reasons all the nutcases in the whole country gravitate to that area unfortunately. Anyone in those cities probably knows what I'm talking about and I hope for all our sakes the culture changes. Let's manifest it together.

I ran out of space (both on the paper and mental space) to include other cities but I think you get the gist of the major players in the political stage, I hope, and you'll understand why I'm not a fan of saying "this character I made for you to like is based on all the worst sterotypes and the worst people" and instead prefer to say "this character understands why people gravitate to batshit insane politics during trying times and may even allude to those in gag strips but doesn't endorse it because i didn't make this blog for bigots"

also, i started this blog while i was in toronto, and i am so tired of smug people in oh so liberal and multicultural and progressive uwu toronto (both canadians AND americans who had not even set foot in alberta before) telling me about my province's politics and how xyz is inevitable as if they don't have their own political tirefires. i made this blog because, like many albertans, i am filled with spite and rage - just not for the usual reasons. I personify because i want to humanize and provoke empathy and i dunno Care and Decency instead of repeatedly shitting on the shitty province which everyone loves to do instead of fixing anything. Like right now, this is for every single person telling me not to celebrate Jason resigning "because someone worse will appear!": Yeah, I am VERY AWARE all the devils are already here and i already have to live with them and I get to choose when I can take a break and feel happy about it and I get to hope there's more than a snowballs chance in hell of them completely bombing the election due to this. Grab a goddamn shovel and start mucking or mind your own fuckin' business, you don't get to just pay attention to our tire fire when it makes you feel better because you think of us as America Lite.

that's all folks [crawls off the stage and back into the lilacs]

[jebazzled]

yes hello so I have an idea for two (2) annie murphys; that's it that's the idea.

okay a little more - identical twins; one uses annie murphy images as alexis rose/with the alexis vibe, one uses annie murphy as allison mcroberts (kevin can f**k himself)/ with the gritty vibe.

that's it, that's the idea. i have a few ideas of where this could go and am down to clown in whatever direction you want if you're willing to be the annie to my annie?

some options:

the twins are radicals on the same side - Gritty Annie did jail time while Classy Annie held down the fort, kept ducks in a row, and otherwise stayed feisty on the down low

maybe they're order-aligned?

maybe they're de-aligned? not all death eaters are rich yk some are just assholes

the twins are radicals on opposite sides - tbh I really like this idea. maybe the girls are from a pretty centrist family, but then Something Happened (???) and they were radicalized in opposite directions. combine this with "broke blood purists" and maybe Classy Annie finds herself in like, wix progressive Society (after all, there's plenty of names in the Sacred 28 that are like v established and not as blood purists) while Gritty Annie is like 😒 this bitch forgot her roots and my life is a shambles and i rEfUsE to take responsibility for it it is DEFINITELY Someone Else's fault, etc. or yk maybe Classy Annie married up into purist circles and is enjoying herself and Gritty Annie is like (devours a lit cigarette) "the world is, how do you say?? terrible

i'm drawn to Gritty Annie but if we hash it out I could take either!!!! feel free to DM me on the disco at JB#8603 ✌️

[sasquapossum]

Political Power in the Real World

These ideas have been boiling around in my head for a while, and I keep getting in "discussions" that seem to center on other people's misunderstandings about how political power actually works, so I might as well squirt it all out and let my mind move on to something else. Warning: this is long and not a light read either. Apologies to anyone who finds this kind of thing tedious or aggravating.

A lot of problems come down to people being conditioned to think about politics in terms of binary opposites - left vs. right, capitalist vs. socialist, conservative vs. progressive, authoritarian vs. libertarian. Even combining two or more of these still embeds the idea of binary opposition. The popular "political compass" (left/right and authoritarian/libertarian) is barely more useful because of this. The "left libertarian" quadrant is almost always empty or nearly so because even though people like that sort of exist (including me) the model misrepresents their relationship to people in other quadrants. It's like the Mercator projection of a spherical world onto a rectangular map, grossly distorting areas and distances. Even worse, the distortions vary according to where the map-maker chose to put the center. I don't think a perfect projection of political beliefs is possible either, but I have one that I feel at least doesn't misrepresent the relationships between significant points so badly.

What do all these labels mean? Let's start with the classic state, which is the one most people will recognize.

Presidents or prime ministers

Legislatures

Military

Police and other enforcement-oriented agencies

Bills, executive orders, broad policy

Then we have the quasi-state - organizations outside the official state but which still have state-like power to shape our lives especially via work. To a large extent what these have in common is self interest, as opposed to either democratic will or tradition.

Wall Street (including Madison Avenue and Sand Hill Road)

Big oil/ag/pharma

FAANG

Media as they actually exist

Third we have institutions - the real-world embodiment of various traditions that define our permanent culture.

Constitutions and courts that respect them

Permanent civil service

Journalism as it used to exist

Science and the empirical method

Education (as a vocation not as a business)

In the middle we have either dynamic balance (if the other three are strong) or anarchy (if they're weak). If you're visually inclined you could think of this as a third dimension that's longer in the center, forming a spindle shape. Alternatively, it could be a sphere with balance and anarchy at the poles and the rest around the equator. But there are dangers in getting too stuck on visual/physical analogies.

The first thing to notice is how poor the mapping is between this representation and our traditional binaries. "Right" could sort of mean a stronger quasi-state, but "left" is fragmented among people who might favor any of the other points. Similarly, "authoritarian" sort of means a stronger classic state, but then "libertarian" is also fragmented. By far the most common kind would move that power to the quasi-state, but anarchist libertarians are pretty common too and there are even a few institutionalist libertarians out there. And what does "conservative" even mean? In one sense it might mean a strong institutionalist, in another it might mean someone who supports the quasi-state-favoring status quo, and there are other possibilities as well.

The second thing about this representation is that only the classic state can move around. Institutions are fixed in place because that's their essential nature. The various parts of the quasi-state are fixed by their respective self-interest. But the classic state can align itself more closely with the quasi-state, or with institutions, or it can absorb all power into itself. Because of this unique mobility, debates over the role of the classic state tend to dominate political discourse.

One of the main political problems in the US today is that the capitalist quasi-state has become too dominant. It has pulled the classic state into its orbit, which has been all too willing to weaken institutions on its behalf. To the great majority of people, this is either a disaster already or a disaster waiting to happen. This alliance between the classic and quasi states is one of the defining features of fascism, but (important!) not the only one. In true fascism the classic state with its monopoly on legal and physical power is the "senior partner" in that relationship. We are not at fascism now, and my biggest worry is that the "internet leftists" (who have misappropriated the historical term) most committed to fighting quasi-state power are likely to drag us into fascism.

Wait, how's that? Consider what happens when you weaken the quasi-state. Which other option becomes stronger? Personally I think there's a lot of useful debate to be had about where to aim between the institutionalist edge and the balanced center. The anarchist center does not appeal, because anarchy is fundamentally unstable. When everything else is weakened, which is what revolutions do, institutions are always the last to recover. At any scale larger than part of a city (e.g. Christiania in Copenhagen), what inevitably happens is that black markets form, and either they themselves or the security apparatus created to oppose them turn into a new autocratic classic state. Whether the result is ideologically driven or profit driven, it's generally a nightmare for anyone but the leaders.

But that's not even my biggest fear. I don't think that trajectory is very likely. What's far more likely is that the internet leftists/socialists will try to take us directly from a powerful quasi-state to a powerful classic state. The problem is that the point in between is where real fascism lies. With institutions suppressed, as soon as the classic state outweighs the quasi-state BOOM you have fascism. Yes, I know true fascism also includes elements of nationalism, which the socialists claim to abhor, but if you think their attitudes aren't a kind of New Millennial Nationalism then you haven't been watching them stab "centrists" and "moderates" (both misnomers for people who actually do have strong political beliefs) in the back every chance they get. It's a different nationalism than the old white-supremacist puritanical kind, but one kind of nationalism replacing another without changing the essential dynamic of demagoguery and authoritarianism has been a consistent theme in every revolution so far. The new norms are just as strictly enforced as the old, and it doesn't make much difference if the shirts the enforcers wear are prettier than the old fashioned brown ones.

We absolutely need to smash "late stage" predatory capitalism. We need stronger regulations, liability reform, a stronger safety net, workers' rights, human rights, environment protection, real science, real journalism, police reform, less militarism, better free education for all, and so much more. Note that some of these things fall into the domain of institutions, while some fall into the domain of the classic state. We desperately need to rebuild the former, and move the latter out of the quasi-state's shadow. What we don't need is naïve "kill the billionaires" or "elites and those who lick their boots" tropes. We need a functioning democracy, not a different dystopia.

[sharpened-fantastic]

what are the reasons to vote for Biden? because you're out here talking about how we shouldn't vote green/abstain from the presidential, but can you please tell me what exactly would be different about a Biden presidency vs a Trump one? besides that a second Trump turn would keep liberals engaged and give us more chances to radicalize them. Joe Biden is just as bad as Trump on nearly every level and if he miraculously wins the gen, the DNC will be left unchecked. I'm curious on who that helps!

Hey! A genuine thank you for sending a full, non-anonymous ask. 

However, the biggest thing to remember is that having a democrat in the office will lead to policy changes and will change how our country is shaped for literal decades to come. 

Yes--Biden is a shit head, he would probably continue a lot of the racist and outright idiotic policies that Trump either put in place or continued from previous presidencies. I wish it weren’t true but that’s a simple fact. I agree that this sucks dick and makes me not want to vote at all.

One BIG thing is having a leader, regardless of political views, that has literally any political experience other than “accidentally got elected for four years as president”. Even compared to other presidents, even other republicans, his approach is overly militaristic, explicitly fueled by monetary gain, and he refuses to bend to even feign concern or duty towards American citizens. His open xenophobia (that has literally been UNPRECIDENTED, even to other politicians sharing his beliefs) has allowed greater mobility and reach for hate groups, and has let other politicians feel more comfortable in presenting non-coded, upfront, racist policy. It’d be one thing if it just showed the American public “oh wow, all of these places were racist the whole time”, but elevating literal concentration camps (yes, those did exist during the Obama era) to “let’s use abandoned warehouses to strip kids from their families, live in conditions we legally don’t let a lot of animals live in, and give them marked psychological scarring!”, among other things (I’m gonna put references at the end of this I’d hate to be talking purely out of my ass).

Trump is also horrifically undiplomatic--severing or straining our ties to other developed nations--, overemotional and unprofessional constantly on social media, and speaks positively on radically bigoted and backwards groups.

I think you’re giving Trump a lot of credit by saying he and Biden are equally bad. Both racist? yes. Both made bad policy decisions? oh yeah. However, Biden is still left enough that the democratic party accept him, the republican party has been squabbling since 2016 that Trump is too right-wing for republicans. Let’s have a president that even pretends to condemn Charlottesville or the dozens of other explicit hate crimes across the country. Let’s have a president that has better tax policies, or maybe even pays their taxes at all! Sure, they’re both bad! It’s a shit situation we’re in! But would you rather be trapped in a room with a child throwing trash, or a child setting the room on fire? 

Oh and one other big thing, I don’t want Trump choosing the supreme court for an entire generation, thanks.

Who knows, that’s up to you I guess, and if you don’t wanna vote I can’t stop you, I mean, it’s punishment enough that you’re gonna have to live with your decision. 

Here’s the biggest thing to remember: voting isn’t fair. It’s a broken system that supports those who abuse it, and those who abuse it are shitty people that don’t deserve that power. HOWEVER, refusing to vote only allows those who support people who abuse power to become more brazen in their racism, disregard for the American public, and signals to republicans “we give up! we swear we’re gonna have a revolution one of these days, but until then, you choose who’s in office!”

Biden is the wrong choice for presidency, but he’s our only choice. I don’t support Biden, I support voting, and I refuse to support letting Trump have another minute in office just to “radicalize leftists”. Not to be rude, but I think anyone who’s gonna get radicalized in this direction has been radicalized, but there are plenty of centrists that were taught “racism is bad” in grade school, but are getting a ton of support from the “racism can benefit you” crowd.

Ok, I’ve held off from the caps lock and stupid italics and bold for long enough, but “a second Trump turn would keep liberals engaged and give us more chances to radicalize them.”?! 

Are you fucking kidding me???

I don’t think anyone should have to think on having their political ideologies shifted while hundreds of Americans die due to lack of access to basic necessities, having their families torn apart, and while the future of the country burns in the background. Trust me, regular republicans do enough heinous shit to radicalize me and the majority of my group, you just normally need to dig ever-so-slightly deeper than surface level to see it, and providing that information to people is something I’m willing to do to get Trump out of office.

I really hope that I’m misreading what you said there, because holy hot fuck is that the most disgusting thing I’ve heard all fuckin month.

But here’s the biggest thing! VOTING IS SO EASY TO DO. PLEASE JUST DO IT. DON’T ACTIVELY ALLOW TRUMP TO WIN. I KNOW IT’S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT IN SOME STATES COMPARED TO OTHERS, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE THAT PRIVILEGE I WILL BURN YOU TO THE GROUND IF YOU THROW IT AWAY. 

Sorry, this was way longer and more of a rant than I intended. TL;DR--

Both are bad, but saying that Biden is “just as bad” as Trump is flat-out irresponsibly ignorant

One has political experience. That’s it that’s the bullet point.

As far as bad presidents go, Trump has been fuckin record breaking

Trump goes on overemotional, uneducated rants on social media, refuses to speak against extremely open, literal hate speech groups, and is straining America’s relationships with all other developed nations

There are some differences in their policies, again, both are bad, but this is not the time for black and white thinking please 

A radical president radicalizes people in both directions

I can’t even properly express my distaste for the comment “a second Trump turn would keep liberals engaged and give us more chances to radicalize them” I am literally praying that I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying right now, holy fuck

IF YOU CAN VOTE AND YOU CHOOSE NOT TO, I’M MORE ENRAGED AT YOU THAN PEOPLE WHO STILL THINK THIRD-PARTIES CAN STILL WIN, BECAUSE AT LEAST THEY GIVE ENOUGH OF A SHIT TO ENGAGE WITH DEMOCRACY. 

Ok references (sorry they’re all in the wrong order and of varying quality): x x x x x x x x x x x