#exclusionary tactics

[loumauve]

to the people trying to put the possessive hat onto Hawk and Thrush, please don't. you've ruined enough fandoms, we don't need that shit here

[eregyrn-falls]

[ID: A series of tweets from "Jessica Ellis" @baddestmamajama on Twitter, replying to a tweet by Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy), in which he says, "This whole 'they're weird' argument from the Democrats is dumb and juvenile. This is a presidential election, not a high school prom queen contest. It's also a tad ironic coming from the party that preaches "diversity and inclusion". Win on policy if you.. (tweet cuts off).

Ellis replies: "No, it's not. It is important to point out that the tenor of conversation from Republicans has changed over the last 15 years. We're not just disagreeing about taxes and small business. They want to know what my genitals look like and when my last period was. It's fucking weird."

"Part of the reason the Democrafts' messaging has been garbage for the last decade is that establishment Dems kept insisting that these are people we could reach across the aisle to, that it's all just minor differences of opinion. It's demonstrably untrue and has been a while.

Acknowledging that their fascist oppressive party identity is not a norm of democracy is an important forward step. We would like them to be opponents, but they aren't -- they're something much more invasive and dangerous and I'm delighted to see Walz lead the charge on saying so.

Also let's be real. They have been calling us Lesbian Poetry Fairy Soy latte-drinking arugula-eating polyamorous deviants since the beginning of time. One week of calling them weird for undermining privacy and democracy and suddenly it's so mean and juvenile? I see." End ID.]

[royaibigbang]

assuming me (writer) and my friend (artist) both make it in, can we request to be paired up together?

nope

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

Just saw an angry biphobe insisting that pointing out a lesbian's biphobia is a rape tactic (because it's forcing them to have sex with bisexual women somehow) so I went to block her, as one does if one wants to keep angry exclusionary bullshit off one's dash, and wouldn't you know it her entire page was a mix of either yelling at people with identities she doesn't like or supportively reblogging TERFs. Free block list I guess but just once I'd like something less predictable. They're all the same group of fucking people, it's all the same circle.

At least she was far enough back from the middle of it that her page wasn't full of nazi shit yet.

[critical-skeptic]

"Why Is It Always Children And Not Elderly Or Homeless?"

Why is it that every time we see someone doing meaningful community outreach, like trans people reading books to kids, the knee-jerk reaction of some folks is to clutch their pearls and conjure up the most grotesque, baseless insinuations about "sexual deviancy"? You want to know why people aren’t lining up to read books to nursing home residents or the homeless? Simple: nursing home residents and homeless adults don’t need to be introduced to basic human decency and inclusivity lessons—they’ve already lived their lives with all the prejudices, biases, and social mores they’re going to carry to the grave. Children, on the other hand, are still forming their worldview, and maybe, just maybe, they could benefit from seeing that gender-diverse people exist in the world and can be mentors, caregivers, and guides just as easily as anyone else. This isn’t about some dark, deviant agenda; it’s about building a kinder, more understanding generation that, ideally, won’t grow up to perpetuate the same hateful rhetoric you’re so fond of spouting.

Then there's the redirection tactic of "But why don’t they go help the homeless instead?"—as if the people griping about drag queen story hours are suddenly overcome with a burning passion for solving systemic poverty. Please. Most of the time, these very same people wouldn't lift a finger to help marginalized adults unless they thought it could score them points in some twisted moral competition. This brand of armchair outrage doesn’t come from genuine concern for the homeless; it comes from a narrow, knee-jerk discomfort with seeing trans and queer folks visible in society. It’s the classic “I’m totally okay with the existence of marginalized people—as long as they stay out of sight and don’t interact with my kids.” The irony is rich: the people complaining the loudest about moral decay and deviancy are the ones obsessed with what others are doing with their bodies, projecting their own insecurities and narrow definitions of "normalcy" onto everyone else, while offering no meaningful solutions to the actual problems they claim to care about.

And let’s address the thinly veiled accusation that reading books to kids in an educational setting is somehow a predatory act. This is nothing more than projection, plain and simple. Those spewing these accusations are often the same ones who have internalized a culture that sexualizes and polices everything they don’t understand, reducing every act of goodwill to some perverse ulterior motive. It’s a classic smear tactic: if you can’t actually criticize what someone is doing on the merits, then conjure up the specter of “protecting the children” to justify your own discomfort and ignorance. Never mind that the vast majority of crimes against children statistically come from close family members or trusted adults in traditional community roles (particularly those traditionally most sanctimonious about gender and sex preferences)—let’s conveniently ignore that and demonize the people promoting inclusivity instead, because that’s easier and fits the narrative you’ve been fed.

The reality is, people in marginalized communities engaging in public service, especially around kids, is about as far from “virtue signaling” as it gets. It’s not performative; it’s an act of resilience and generosity that exposes kids to perspectives beyond the narrow, exclusionary views they might otherwise inherit. If you’re so concerned about the moral guidance of children, maybe consider what they’re learning from you: fear of the unknown, contempt for differences, and a complete inability to approach the world with empathy. Maybe, instead of wasting your time policing the identities of people volunteering to make a difference, you should be figuring out how to channel your energies into something actually constructive—like addressing the societal issues driving homelessness or pushing for better elder care. That would be “virtue” worth signaling. But, of course, that wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of othering people who are different from you, now, would it?

[randomthefox]

The worst thing that has ever happened to online fandom was being gentrified by normies. Online fandom was one of the few places where one could let their freak flag fly. Now fandoms are invaded by the same people who probably would have shunned you for being "weird"(eg liking anime) in school and are now harassing online "freaks" for having problematic ships/being cringe

100% agreed

Fucking normies are the worst and should be aggressively gatekept out of all communal spaces that are composed of fans being devoted to a specific piece of media.

The fucking infiltration tactics of "BE INCLUSIVE AND LET US IN OR ELSE YOU'RE RACIST/SEXIST!!!" worked for like ten years, but by now people are desensitized to it. Have some fucking balls and respond to these people by saying "if we're so racist and exclusionary then why do you want into OUR space? =| "

Gatekeeping is good. Fuck normies, they ruin everything. They hate you and they hate what you like. Do not let them in no matter what they say or do to try and force you to include them.

[dotthings]

Everyone in spn fandom running with saying it's evil and "bullying" to say destiel is canon yet finds hate, harassment, thought policing, backhanded or overtly homophobic ideologies, queer erasure, denial and erasure on the work of spn writers, attacks on actors, othering, and other exclusionary tactics acceptable, can entirely GTFO.

Destiel is canon.

Cry about it.

[imhoser]

Instead of calling baeddels TERFs, I think it’s better to add one more letter in—TMERFs.

Transmasc Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

That’s who they literally are, they deny any discussion on how transmascs are affected by misogyny by stating we experience “male privilege.” That’s denying us a chance to better our lives through feminism, as they deny the effects of misogyny on our lives after we begin to transition. They repeat the same tactics as TERFs, whittling down every complaint of ours as us simply being men who want to butt into their space.

The exact same abuse so many transfemmes face, some turn it around on us because people don’t inherently “learn” from suffering. Suffering people can perpetuate further abuses onto others.

[bonefall]

You mentioned that each Clan's dogwhistles sound and look a little different-- would you be willing to elaborate/give some examples?

WindClan

NEVER talks openly about their beliefs and is the best example of Thistle Law doublespeak. Tigerstar and Brokenstar are unpopular for obvious reasons, and the Clan as a whole leans towards Soft Traditionalism. On one side of their mouth, they'll talk about how they won Heatherstar's Campaign and how they rightfully conquered that land, but then turn around and frame the turn of the war as ShadowClan's underhanded snakery (in Clanmew it's literally "adderness").

"Fear" is a lot more common in their rhetoric. Fear of outsiders diluting their Clan, fear of wasting time and prey, fear of having things taken and stolen. The WindClan Massacre is invoked a LOT, because it's useful for making cats too emotional to think straight.

Here, we'll walk through BB!Mudclaw as an example. I'm going to mark every weasel word with an asterisk, let's see if you can figure out what's weird with it before the end.

Mudclaw speaks to Tallstar, claiming that the trading with BloodClan is opening up WindClan to being betrayed. "Scourge turned* on Tigerstar in the end, how can he be trusted now*? There was bounty for a while, but leafbare is coming* and we already* have so many mouths to feed. Snapper and Leo* arrived and now we're having troubles with the humans*. I'm just worried, I never want to lose so many Clanmates ever again*."

Scourge was acting in self defense

The trading is part of filling the deal that Tigerstar did not intend to honor

Starvation rhetoric

Sudden pivot to exclusionary language, Us vs Them

Refusal to use new names

Implying it's their fault

Massacre allusion

ShadowClan

Much more openly violent. A LOT of talk of glory, you could use these guys as a social case study. Crusades, winning the war with WindClan, the beauty of TigerClan, re-framing Ripplestar not as someone who wanted to help SkyClan but as a simple conqueror. They have lots of moments to invoke from their Great History.

The cost of that violence is downplayed. Like the Snowtuft example, they won't bring up the mother and children he slaughtered, just boast about their glorious ancestors fighting in the Crusades. They won't mention how they ripped kittens out of their nests, just how they bolstered ShadowClan's numbers. They'll frame the WindClan massacre as a final battle they triumphed over, leaving out how they ambushed and poisoned elders and apprentices.

RiverClan

"Glory talk" is downplayed in RiverClan, probably because they didn't actually take part in the Crusades. Instead, they focus on negative traits of mixed-blood cats (which they made up), accuse other Clans of being underhanded, and demand to be "heard."

And what THAT means is that they want to be able to derail any conversation they want. Interruptions of clanwide discussions, dismissing critique of Tigerstar and co, intentionally saying things that are divisive to cause fighting. They will prevent ANYTHING from being done unless it's the thing THEY want to happen.

I actually write Thistle Law supporters in RiverClan to be like... incredibly annoying. They don't say what they mean, they bring the Clan to a screeching halt, they literally dismiss the lesson of TigerClan. You cannot pin them down, they never admit to anything, you will only waste your time talking to them.

They also act on their bigotry in ways that are 'deniable'. Reedwhisker fell into the water? Must have been his thick ThunderClan blood pooling in his paws. A RiverClan cat should be able to pull themselves out. Of course you're listened to, Mistyfoot, you're deputy after all, what more do you want? Gaslighting. Making you doubt your own senses towards your unfair treatment.

ThunderClan

A sort of 'mix' of ShadowClan and WindClan tactics. ThunderClan is THE Fire Alone Clan, you could count the Thistle Law supporters and the Hard Traditionalists on one hand, but has a battle-centric history they tend to tap into.

Listen for "glory," talk about 'avoiding humiliation,' starvation rhetoric. ThunderClan has an absolute bounty with their forested territory, that last one is almost always code for wanting to exclude or eliminate people like Daisy and Purdy.

When Thornclaw became deputy under Bramblestar, he was very, very careful about his escalations, and mostly focused on manipulating Bramble himself. He was VERY aware that the Clan wouldn't take another Mixed Clan Meeting like the stunt he pulled in TNP.

Even the impostor in TBC overplayed his hand, the rebellion was born out of ThunderClan itself.

[mariacallous]

The US Department of Justice wants Google to sell off its Chrome browser as part of its final remedy proposal in a landmark antitrust case.

The proposal, filed Friday afternoon, says that Google must “promptly and fully divest Chrome, along with any assets or services necessary to successfully complete the divestiture, to a buyer approved by the Plaintiffs in their sole discretion, subject to terms that the Court and Plaintiffs approve.” It also would require Google to stop paying partners for preferential treatment of its search engine.

The DOJ also demands that Google provide prior notification of any new joint venture, collaboration, or partnership with any company that competes with Google in search or in search text ads. However, the company no longer has to divest its artificial intelligence investments, which was part of an initial set of recommendations issued by the plaintiffs last November. The company would still be required to give prior notification of future AI investments.

“Through its sheer size and unrestricted power, Google has robbed consumers and businesses of a fundamental promise owed to the public—their right to choose among competing services,” the DOJ statement accompanying the filing claims. “Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that—no matter what occurs—Google always wins.”

The DOJ formally brought its case against Google back in 2020, the most significant tech antitrust case since the DOJ’s years-long battle against Microsoft in the 1990s. The lawsuit alleged that Google has used anticompetitive tactics to protect its search dominance and forge contracts that ensure it’s the default search engine on web browsers and smartphones. Because of its hold on search, the lawsuit claimed, Google can adjust the auction system through which it sells ads and increase prices for advertisers, and rake in more revenue from that.

Google has argued that its overwhelming success in search—it has a nearly 90 percent share in the US market—stems from the company offering the best search technology. It also says consumers are easily able to change their default search engine, and that Google does face competition from Microsoft and others.

“DOJ’s sweeping proposals continue to go miles beyond the court’s decision, and would harm America’s consumers, economy and national security,” said Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels in an emailed statement.

The case went to trial in 2023, and in August 2024 the US district judge for the District of Columbia, Amit Mehta, ruled that Google has maintained an illegal monopoly, both in general search and general search text ads.

Much of the ruling centered on the contracts Google has with device makers and browser partners, which use Google as their default search technology. According to Mehta’s ruling, around 70 percent of search queries in the US happen through portals in which Google is the default search engine. Google then shares revenues with those partners, paying out billions of dollars to them, which disincentivizes smaller search rivals who can’t compete with those contracts, Mehta said.

This past November, government attorneys submitted a detailed plan to Mehta that included a spate of recommendations for how to best loosen Google’s stronghold on the US search market. These recommendations included that Google promptly divest Chrome, its popular web browser; possibly divest Android; end its search partnership with Apple, in which Apple receives billions of dollars each year for its Safari browser to default to Google search; and give competitors access to Google’s data, for both search and ads, “that would otherwise provide Google an ongoing advantage from its exclusionary conduct.”

Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and its chief legal officer, called the November proposal a “radical interventionist agenda” that would “endanger the security and privacy of millions of Americans” and stifle innovation. Walker said it would also “chill our investment in artificial intelligence, perhaps the most important innovation of our time, where Google plays a leading role.” Google has increasingly featured AI-powered results at the top of its search pages, despite sometimes uneven results.

In a counter-proposal filed by Google in December, the company said it would structure its contracts to allow for multiple default search agreements across different devices, so that Apple’s iPhones and iPads might have different default search engines; change the length of its search revenue deals with hardware manufacturers to one year rather than locking them into long-term agreements; and allow more flexibility around search and Chrome for Android phone makers. It emphasized that its revenue partners, like Apple and Mozilla, “have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users.”

Essentially, Google has suggested that the company is willing to reevaluate its contracts with partners, but has argued—citing earlier antitrust cases as precedent—that it shouldn’t have to divest parts of its business, share its secret sauce with competitors, or restrict its investments in search and AI, all of which, it argues, would dampen innovation.

Today’s official remedy is notable in that it reinforces calls for a breakup of part of Google’s core business. For Google, it’s an opening salvo to what will likely be a years-long appeal process. Google has already said it plans to appeal whatever remedy is issued; arguments for the two proposals are scheduled for April in Mehta’s court.

The remedy will also mark the first major outcome of a US antitrust case under the new Trump administration. Paul Swanson, a litigation partner at Holland & Hart LLP in Denver, Colorado, who focuses on technology and antitrust, says the government’s remedies may be part of a “maximalist opening position that they can then negotiate from.”

“The one through-line here is that this administration wants to be perceived as being tough on tech, but also not slow the growth of America’s tech industries,” Swanson says. “So they may signal more action than what they ultimately want.”

[velvetvexations]

This is literally the same exact thing that cis TERFS did 10 years ago. Like the exact same tactic. Creating a hateful, exclusionary framework, labeling it, using that label to self identify with and then getting mad when people call you it. Does no one remember "TERF is a slur"?

TERFs actually didn't begin calling themselves what they are, but I doubt TRFs would accept applying their own "well I don't self-identify that way" logic there.

[the-feminist-philosopher]

Damn. TERFs really do see themselves as white nights fighting on behalf of black & brown women against an aggressive hoard of black and brown men. I cannot go into the #feminism tag without seeing some of the wildest takes…

Because a TERF will really get on the Internet and say some shit like,

“Trans-exclusionary ideas are globally popular ideologies” and fail to see how public discrimination against a group is maybe a symptom of the current power structures, structures like the patriarchy, white supremacy, and colonialism.

and then follow that up with,

“Because the global majority isn’t white, my activism for those women isn’t white. Also because the women fighting against the patriarchy globally aren’t majority white, my brand of feminism can’t be white,” and fail to see how this is white-night activism and an attempt to co-opt other feminist movements globally, many of which actively resist their country’s neo-colonial resource exploitation and imperialist extraction of their country. But positioned in argument alongside the take that trans-hate is globally popular, it’s also an attempt to make non-white people look uniquely or predominantly hateful compared to those within their lofty country.

Which is exemplified by the fact that when a trans person—regardless of location—shows support for any cause in the global south, the popular response is to tell that trans person the people of that country would behead them or throw them from a roof. Because in addition to believing the brown other is uniquely “backwards” and “brutish,” they also believe that any oppressed group’s “salvation” is contingent upon good behavior. Whose salvation? Theirs, of course. These people will freely repeat talking points about things that don’t happen in whatever foreign country of their picking to support their argument because the intention is to show they have credible reason to believe “those people” are not the perfect model of “(western) civility,” and as such, are in need of the TERF’s ideas, resources, and “activists.” It’s a reframing of “The White Man’s Burden” to center women.

(I’ve always found the “defenestration threat” a particularly disingenuous take. There’s the apparent racism on one hand, but clear pink washing, too. I—a gay—cannot care about the suffering of others in another country if gay rights in that country is not on par with that of its imperial oppressor? Are these trans-exclusionary radicals disagreeing with the existence of transphobia in another country? Or are they disagreeing with the purported tactics? “My enlightened policies that mass incarcerate, push children to suicide, and strip strangers of bodily autonomy; their barbaric policies that do much the same, oh, and defenestration.” They do realize that they, the trans-exclusionary radical, are more of an existential threat to me in *my own country* than a stranger half a globe away, no?)

And this worldview becomes ever so apparent when, after pointing out their attempt to co-opt feminist movements led by black and brown women, the usual comeback is to ask the person who disagrees with their take if they think that black and brown men are “too stupid” to “know” to or how to oppress women. “Do you think it’s not worse in other countries?”

Not only is this an attempt at purple washing; an attempt to benefit from purported support for women’s rights as a way to distract from the issue at hand: Western paternalism and chauvinism, this is also an attempt to turn it back around on the other. The TERF could not avoid being critiqued for supporting imperialistic ideas that downplay the significance of white supremacy and the struggles of black and brown women by arguing that because the majority of women aren’t white, any advocacy for women couldn’t possibly be racist. And they couldn’t avoid being critiqued for supporting imperialistic ideas that downplay the significance of white supremacy by deflecting with a “what-about’ism” about the state of affairs in a foreign country. And now they’re faced with the fact others may think that they think black and brown people are uniquely brutish. So, their last hope is to argue that no, actually you 🫵 are downplaying the oppression that other women in other countries face at the hands of “their men” and engaging in the “noble savage” trope.

(Of course, this ignores how such a trope refers to positioning Indigenous people as people uniquely removed from societies—when in reality they had complex societies, social structures, and politics—who live in harmony with nature. Suggesting that someone’s ideas and characterization of other peoples is influenced by Western Imperialism and white supremacy is in no way the same as suggesting there is “innate goodness, pureness, and moral superiority” among an “uncorrupted” “primitive” other, but a TERF’s ideology often depends on equivocation, usually as a means of distraction.)

But, when someone points out that this is in no way what they said; the TERF is attempting to create a strawman to argue against, the final play in the book is to literally @/ the one brown TERF they know of on this site or conclude by saying “well, my brand of feminism has had Black and Jewish thinkers, so…,” fully blind to how this is quite literally tokenism.

All this because “I can’t be racist; I’m a feminist” really isn’t the argument they think it is.

[eretzyisrael]

by Elisha Baker

On February 27, Spectator published a Letter to the Editor from Joseph Howley, professor of classics and program chair for Literature Humanities, a required class for Columbia College students. In the letter, Professor Howley took issue with a recent op-ed from David Lederer, SEAS ’26, in which Lederer took issue with Professor Howley and his colleagues’ “whitewashing of antisemitism.” Professor Howley wrote that he does not endorse exclusion as a protest tactic, that systematic exclusion did not happen at the encampment which he supported, and that he was only present at the encampment to de-escalate.

Given Professor Howley’s behavior and the events on campus since October 7, 2023, I am surprised by the claims in this letter. We watched protesters in the encampment link arms to drive Zionists out of the encampment in April. We saw professors block students from entering the encampment at the will of those same protesters. In fact, as an observer, I saw Professor Howley participating in the protest from both inside and outside the encampment, standing alongside dozens of faculty members with orange vests enabling the encampment’s exclusionary tactics. Professor Howley’s claim that that faculty members were present at the encampment for “de-escalation” is particularly baffling. The encampment and accompanying protests were themselves an escalation, a violation of University rules and policies, and involved antisemitic chants and efforts to intimidate and harass other students. Protecting an escalatory encampment is not de-escalation; it enables escalation and continued disruption. If Professor Howley truly sought to de-escalate, he could have condemned the encampments rather than participating in them and defending them.

[annyankers]

The cult of dreaming aka the cult that worships ghuleh (oc old one/ptb) is one of the largest and most successful of all the ominous spooky evil cults in the buffverse. They have a global presence and actually succeed in returning their god to our dimension. This success is from the fact that the very nature of ghuleh allows them to adapt tactics and infiltrate other groups unlike say the order of aurelius. Ghuleh is the creator of humanity and some demons, so they dont have exclusionary/isolationist leanings. They see something work for say, evangelicals, they steal it. Which is also why they have an insidious presence in the entertainment sector, like scientologists or mormons.

[concretecrisiscompatible]

tldr: Let's stop calling things 'demonic'.

When we as Christians start labeling anything any one of us could possibly disagree with as 'demonic' it takes away all the power that word has and reduces spiritual warfare to something only weirdo conspiracy theorists believe in. It's even more insidious when people use it as a marketing tactic.

"Secular music is demonic, so you should listen to my song out on Spotify!" Are there destructive artists out there? Absolutely. There are artists who write hateful songs and do horrible things outside of their music, too. Does that mean all secular music is bad? No.

"[Insert brand here] is demonic, so you should buy this thing I sell!" Do brands do immoral stuff sometimes? Absolutely. Sweatshop labour, exploitative working conditions, environmental impacts, etc. are all very real things. Does that mean that only Christian brands are good?

Boiling everything down to 'Christian vs non-Christian' is super destructive. When it comes to brands or music or behaviors it assumes that every person in the world has no ability to discern good and evil for themselves. It's never black and white.

Not everyone is able to consume alcohol in a healthy and safe way, so not everyone should have alcohol. Does that mean we should ban it altogether? No. We should empower people to make their own decisions in life.

This 'Christian vs non-Christian' mindset is also super exclusionary and divisive. Who is a "real Christian" and who isn't a "real Christian?" Does this mean that we should treat people of other faiths differently?

There are absolutely forces of evil in the world, just look at systemic racism and poverty, the prison industrial complex, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, etc. Not any one person started that, and not any one person will fix it by making Christian sweatshirts and guilting people into buying them. (And I have SO much more to say about using guilt as a marketing tactic, but that's for another day. And even more about treating evangelism like marketing, again for another day.)

Jesus speaks about lifting up the marginalized, loving your neighbor, and creating a healthy community through which injustices rectified.

The Beatitudes:

“'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

'Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

'Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

'Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

'Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

'Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.'" - Matthew 5:3-12

And from the rest of Matthew 5:

“So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison." - Matthew 5:23-26 NRSVUE

"But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matthew 5:44-48

That's all I have to say for now.

Happy pride month! 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️⚧

[tyote]

since politics has been on my (and probably everyone's) brain a lot lately i took a shit-ton of political compass tests and averaged them all together, then fed them to a LLM (running locally) to specifically create a profile of people i probably wouldn't get along with politically, lmao.

and wouldn't ya know, me being true neutral once again means many people (at least on the internet) would probably not like me too much, ha

full report of my nemeses under the cut, 'cause it's thorough

"Tyler, with his unique blend of political philosophies, would likely find himself at odds with individuals who hold extreme or uncompromising views. Here's how he might view these perspectives:

Far-Left Extremists: Tyler respects the desire for equality and fairness that drives many on the far left. However, he believes that radical socialism or communism often overlooks the importance of personal property and small businesses, which he sees as vital for a healthy economy. In Tyler's view, these extreme ideologies can lead to the concentration of power in the hands of the state, stifling individual initiative and innovation. He worries that such systems can result in economic inefficiency, a lack of personal freedom, and even oppression, ultimately harming the very people they aim to help. Tyler sees these systems as potentially leading to authoritarianism under the guise of equality.

Far-Right Extremists: While Tyler understands the importance of national identity and community values, he strongly opposes the exclusionary and xenophobic policies promoted by far-right nationalists or supremacists. Despite his nativist tendencies, Tyler believes that a thriving society benefits from a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. He sees extreme nationalism as a dangerous ideology that fosters division, hatred, and violence. Tyler's brand of nativism is about valuing community heritage and ensuring that immigration policies are compassionate, economically viable, and practical, balancing the nation's capacity to accept immigrants with the need for a straightforward, fair, and legal process.

Authoritarians: Tyler appreciates the need for strong leadership, but he firmly believes that power should be distributed and checked to prevent abuse. He opposes authoritarian figures like Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot because they centralize power and suppress individual freedoms, which contradicts his commitment to representative democracy and the rule of law. Tyler believes that a healthy democracy requires transparency, accountability, and the active participation of its citizens to prevent the rise of tyranny. He sees checks and balances as essential to safeguarding freedom and justice. Authoritarian regimes, in his view, are oppressive and detrimental to human rights.

Libertarian Extremists: Tyler recognizes the appeal of minimal government intervention and personal freedom championed by extreme libertarians. However, he believes that a completely laissez-faire approach can lead to economic inequality and social disparity. Tyler supports a balanced economic system that combines individual freedom with ethical principles and community responsibility. He thinks that some level of regulation is necessary to protect the vulnerable and ensure that everyone has a fair chance to succeed. In his view, a mix of personal liberty and social welfare creates a more equitable and just society.

Populists: Tyler understands the frustration that drives populist movements and the desire for change. However, he is wary of leaders who use divisive rhetoric and offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. Figures like Bernie Sanders and Hugo Chavez, who appeal to broad, sweeping changes, might clash with Tyler's centrist and pragmatic approach. Tyler believes that effective governance requires nuanced policies and thoughtful deliberation, rather than quick fixes and polarizing tactics. He values evidence-based decision-making over populist promises. Populist leaders, in his view, often exploit people's emotions and fears for political gain, leading to instability and poor governance.

In essence, Tyler values moderation, a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints, and ethical governance. He believes that extreme, uncompromising, or authoritarian views, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, often fail to address the complexities of society in a balanced and fair manner."