#i politely stated my opinion and got blocked

[ryssbelle]

Me when someone thinks they’ve won by blocking me but now I don’t have to see their rancid takes in the tags anymore

[phoenixyfriend]

How to Call Your Reps About Gaza

I make a lot of posts telling you to call your reps! Anyway, here's the overall shape of how to argue to them.

Disclaimer: I am not in politics. I do not have experience as a staffer. I am just someone who cares a lot about where things are going, and wants to help. Also, this is specific to the US, because that's where I'm based. Hopefully, people with expertise can add more suggestions on.

Find your elected officials.

My Ko-fi: this took me two days to write up, so uh. If you've got a few dollars, send them my way so I can keep doing this sort of thing, and maybe move out of my parents' house sooner.

General tips:

Be polite, or at least civil. Do not swear or shout at whoever answers the phone. This will quite possibly get your number blocked. Fifty civil calls over the course of several months will do more than one where you shout. You can be frosty, you can say you are disappointed, you can say you find the actions of your reps to be reprehensible or morally bankrupt, sure. But keep calm and aim criticism at the rep, not the staffer.

Keep it short. The staffers who answer call centers are busy. They usually start trying to hurry me off after about two minutes. I've yet to manage a call longer than four or five minutes. Pick one or two topics for the day, and focus on those. Cycle through them every time you call. Stick to just one from day to day if it's a large, ongoing issue like Gaza.

Plan for voicemail. I get voicemail more often than not. My House rep usually has a staffer free, but the Senators are almost always voicemail. This will give you a minute and a half max. Be ready to get your point squeezed into that.

Only call your representatives. The important, powerful word here is "constituent." You will be ignored or even counted against if you are from a different district or state. The first thing you start with is your name and address. A staffer will ask for the information they need. On voicemail, leave your full name, your city and state, and zip code before you go into your message. Do not lie, either. They look these things up in the system when you call. I'm not sure how--I think maybe they have access to a database of registered voters--but every time I call, they ask for my last name and address and at some point say, 'oh, yep, I've got you right here,' which indicates a database of some sort.

Research at least a little bit about their opinions. If they already agree with you, then it's much easier to leave a quick "I support you and want you to know that" to combat anyone who's arguing from the other side. If they don't, then you're best off finding out what specific issue they have so you can know the best kind of comment to leave.

Look up specific bills or arguments. I get daily emails from GovTrack about bills that are on this week's docket or have been voted on in the past day. IDK about anyone else, but being able to say that I disagree specifically with HR 815 or something makes me feel powerful, and possibly like I will be taken more seriously. Sometimes you can start with articles like this one, which include links to specific bills on the official congress website.

Email after if you can. Reportedly less effective, and takes longer, but you are more likely to get a written (canned) response, and it reinforces whatever you called about.

Basic structure of a call, at least as I've been doing it:

"Hi, my name is ____ ____, and I am a constituent from [city, state], [zip]. I am calling to express my opinion on [topic]. I am concerned about [short argument with a clear impact on the topic]. I ask that you support [measure or fellow congress member]/vote [yay/nay on specific legislature]. Thank you for your time, and I hope you keep my opinion in mind."

For this post, the topic can be stated as the war in Gaza, military funding for Israel, or unrest in the Middle East, depending on which you think your elected official will respond to best. That said, the structure should work for whatever your call is about.

Arguments to use against your elected official... or your on-the-fence cousin:

I'll be honest, some of these are not going to do much against your representative. They know the arguments, and have been going over them with each other for months. You just need to have one locked and loaded that they consider relevant instead of a nonstarter, in order to back up your opinion as 'founded' instead of 'nonsense, can be swayed with a good marketing campaign.'

I'll include explanations if I don't think something is self-evident (or needs more evidence to tell your cousin), but in most of them I'll provide some suggested verbiage that you can tweak as needed, and for a few of them, that's really enough.

THESE ARE FOR THE TOPIC OF CONCERN, ONLY. You still need to end each one with "I ask that the [official] votes to [action]" at the end. Give them something actionable (example from Feb. 13th). My go-tos right now:

Both chambers: Reinstate funding for UNRWA

Both chambers: Place mandatory restrictions on any aid to Israel, with contractual threats to cut funding if Netanyahu and his government continue to disregard civilian life

Senate: Put support behind Bernie Sanders and his motion to restrict funding to Israel until a humanitarian review of the IDF’s actions in Gaza has been completed (S.R. 504) (Tabled by the Senate on 1/16, but it is being brought back in as conditions continue to escalate)

House: Put support behind Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s petition for the US government to recognize the IDF’s actions in Gaza as ethnic cleansing and forced displacement, and put a stop to it.

House: Put support behind H.R. 786, introduced by Rep. Cori Bush, calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine.

What Not to Say

"There is no threat to Israel." I've talked about this elsewhere, but the short version is that this will be basically laughed out as you not knowing what you're talking about.

Anything generically antisemitic. (I mean, it might work on some of the white supremacists, but do you really want to encourage that thinking? No, so don't do it.)

Facts that you "heard somewhere" but cannot find a reliable source for. If it's being reported by the New York Times, NPR, or the BBC, it's probably trustworthy by government standards. If it's not a super common statistic, cite the journal you got it from by name. Remember, you aren't arguing to tumblr mutuals. You are arguing to your elected official or your 'I don't really pay attention' cousin. When it comes to this, big name news sources are better.

Unrealistic demands for complete isolationism, permanently abandoning Israel to its own devices, supporting Hamas, etc. Again, you will not be taken seriously. Pick an argument they might actually listen to, and use it to press them towards a possible solution. You want them to believe that if they adjust their position, they will be doing the will of most of their constituents, and thus more likely to get reelected.

The Ethics Argument

Third-party reporting has stated that that nearly 29,000 Gazans are dead since Oct. 7th, as of 2/18/24. The vast majority of those are civilians, and over half are children. Palestinians in Gaza are facing an acute hunger crisis threatening to become a full-blown famine.

The International Court of Justice has found that there is credible reason to believe that the state of Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza.

This does not mean that every single Israeli is complicit. It does mean that the government, particularly Netanyahu and his associates, has been reprimanded by a large, diverse coalition of countries, and has consistently refused to listen to that court since.

This argument will possibly work on your cousin. Less likely to work on your elected official. They already know the numbers. I just wanted to get it out of the way first.

The Re-Election Argument: Michigan vs New York

Meanwhile, this is possibly the most effective. Again, this is not an argument of ethics. This is an argument of "how can I make my elected official do what I want." We do not use only the purest moral argument. We use what works.

What to say to your elected official: Michigan, as a swing state, was won by democrats on the power of the Arab-American vote in the 2020 election. We (either party) are at risk of losing Michigan due to the current Congressional approach to the Gaza conflict, as that demographic is now polling as likely to abstain from voting entirely. The risk of losing several congressional districts due to the Jewish vote is a real one, but the risk of losing the the executive branch is greater, especially after what we saw with Suozzi. Supporting Palestine might lose us parts of New York, but supporting Israel will lose us Michigan.

Explanation: Something that has been taking up a lot of time and space in the election coverage is the situation in Michigan, and more recently, there has been attention paid to the special election of New York's third district, AKA the "who gets to replace disgraced George Santos" competition.

Michigan is traditionally a swing state. While 2.1% doesn't sound like a lot, that is some 211k-278k people (depending on your source), and while not all of them can vote... Michigan was won by about 154k. Arab-Americans are not the only relevant demographic, but they sure are an important one, and they are vocally opposed to the situation. Approval has dropped from 59% to 17%. From that same article:

As Axios notes, Biden won Michigan in 2020 by 154,000 votes, but there are at least 278,000 Arab Americans in Michigan. Biden took Arizona, a state with an Arab American population of 60,000, by only 10,500 votes. In Georgia, Biden prevailed with a margin of 11,800 voters, in a state that has an Arab American population of 57,000.

Democrats cannot afford to lose these states. Pressure your congresspeople about that, especially if you live in one of those states. I assume most Arab-Americans in said states are already calling every day; the rest of you can join in.

Meanwhile, most Jews (considered the most pro-Israel demographic by strategists) in America are concentrated in a very small number of electoral districts. Of the twenty most-Jewish, ten are in New York, which is why I put it up in the section header.

One of those districts was won by a Republican in 2022: George Santos, New York's third congressional district. Following his scandals and ousting, the seat was up for a special election, and the two candidates were Tom Suozzi, a democrat who held the seat previously (he decided to run for governor, and lost), and Mazi Pilip, a Nassau county legislator who was of Ethiopian Jewish background and had been in the IDF. She ran on a campaign that leaned strongly pro-Israel and anti-immigration, and when Suozzi won, she interrupted his victory speech to accuse him of supporting a genocide against Israel due to his rather centrist, rather milquetoast stance on the conflict during his election campaign.

Now, Suozzi's win probably had more to do with Pilip being anti-choice than her pro-Israel arguments, but he still won.

Democrats can better risk possibly losing a few seats in NY than definitely losing three swing states.

"But I don't want Dems to win their districts after what they've been--" Nope. Listen to me. Surveys indicate that Republicans are on average more pro-Israel, because Trump and Netanyahu are buddy-buddy, and we do not have a viable third option.

Also, again, this is about convincing Dems to be better. "If you do not vote to put restrictions on funding to Israel, I will not vote for you in November" is a lot more powerful than "I will not vote for you either way, because of what you've been doing, but you should do what I say anyway."

The Re-Election Argument: Risk of Escalation

So, that thing I said about Trump and Netanyahu?

Yeah, so, while Biden is giving Israel military aid while cautioning them to slow down and be careful, Trump is... complicated, but suffice to say he's much closer to Netanyahu on a personal level than Biden is. Biden's relation with Netanyahu is reportedly pretty frosty, while Trump's is based on relations through the Kushners.

Just from wikipedia:

Netanyahu made his closeness to Donald Trump, a personal friend since the 1980s, central to his political appeal in Israel from 2016.[21] During Trump's presidency, the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokered the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and various Arab states.

Trump's been more all-over-the-place recently, badmouthing Netanyahu for being what Trump perceives as a loser, which complicates understanding what his approach is. It's kind of incoherent right now.

Given Trump's general history of being pro-Israel, though, and the attempts by House Republicans to push through a bill of unconditional funding for Israel. It failed, but notable is that the more recent bill passed in part because it was paired with aid for Ukraine and Taiwan (something Dems are much more invested in having happen).

What to say to your elected official: If Trump is reelected due to his current appearance of being more critical of Netanyahu, there is evidence from his presidency to indicate that he will support Israel much less critically if elected. While he claims to want to settle the Middle East, it seems incredibly likely that he will worsen the situation for Palestinians, and ramp up retaliatory strikes to groups like the Houthis in a manner that will impact non-military parties, igniting tensions that are already tenuous.

The Disrespect/Wild Card Argument

This particular argument is best used against the Very Patriotic Politicians who are more concerned with the US's image and Being The Alpha Nation than with other things. Basically, this might work on Republicans.

This isn't really something I believe in, as a matter of foreign policy, buuuut it might work on your rep, so. Consider it!

What to say to your elected official: With Israel's recent actions in ignoring Biden, blocking US-sent aid like those flour trucks that got stopped at the Rafah border because they'd be distributed by UNWA, and generally Disrespecting The USA and Being Unpredictable is not only making the US look bad for being unable to wrangle a smaller country, but also making it so we are less able to wrangle other countries in the future, because Israel cannot be predicted and might set someone off.

The Europe and Reputation Argument

What to say to your elected official: The United States is losing credibility as a world power known for its military and ability to manage international disputes on behalf of the UN, because it is seemingly unable to influence Israel, and losing credibility as an upstanding moral state that is not doing foreign coups and banana republics anymore, as it appears to be tacitly supporting Israel's ICJ-labelled genocide, which is a really bad look with the other Western Powers.

I'm not entirely sure who this might work on, but there's gotta be at least a few politicians who are really concerned about America's image, more than about actually doing the right thing. Figure out if your politician is one of them.

If necessary, you can bring up how Trump is threatening to pull US support for NATO if Russia attacks someone.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Iran-backed Militias

What to say to your elected official: I'm concerned that the continued support of Israel, and thus the funding of their actions in Gaza, will increase the instability of Iran-backed militias, as we have already seen with the Houthis and Hezbollah. Entire Muslim-majority nations are showing increased displeasure not only with Israel, but with the US by extension. We cannot afford another war in the Middle East when we haven't yet pulled all our troops from the last one, not with the recent and recurring economic recessions. Any situation would also very likely be complicated or inflamed by the growing tensions among Eritrea, Djibouti, and Ethiopia regarding Red Sea access as well.

Use this on the ones that claim to be pro-military or pro-veteran. See what they said about HR 815 before the foreign military funding amendment was added.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Egypt

What to say to your elected official: Egypt's government has been unstable since the Arab Spring, and even now the military government is incredibly unpopular. With that existing instability, the addition of economic strain from the reduced usage of the Suez canal, the international disputes occurring because they're the main throughway for aid into Gaza, and the threat of a sudden influx of nearly one and a half million Palestinian refugees should Israel continue to push south... Egypt is looking at a possible near-collapse as we've seen in nearby nations suffering similar instabilities.

Explanation: It took several years for Egypt to really start recovering from the revolts in 2013, and it has applied for four IMF loans in recent years. The current government is unpopular to such a degree that they are looking to build an entire new capital from scratch in the middle of the desert so that they're less open to the risk of civilian uprisings; one of the primary causes for civilian dissatisfaction is economic issues.

Due to Houthi attacks at the Bab al-Mandab Strait, traffic through the Suez canal is down massively, and since the canal "represents almost 5% of the GNP and 10% of GDP and is one of Egypt’s most important sources of hard currency." (src) Various sources are reporting that trade through the canal is down 40-50%, which is putting more strain on the already unstable economic and political situation.

Finally, Egypt's population is about 110 million, but the governorate that shares a border with Israel and Gaza, North Sinai, has a population of barely 500,000. A push of one and a half million starving, injured people will, very suddenly, nearly quadruple the population of the governorate, and require extreme aid response from Egypt's government to keep alive and prevent a larger crisis in North Sinai and neighboring governorates.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Normalized Relations

What to say to your elected official: I am concerned that Israel's continued attack on Gaza is jeopardizing any chance of normalized relations with the Arab states in the future. American has put a lot of work into trying to get these various countries to normalize with Israel, and our funding of the current attacks on Gaza are sabotaging all that effort.

This one can be combined with the Iran-Backed Militias argument: Israel, in pursuit of revenge against Hamas, is setting itself up to be in more danger long-term, rather than less.

The International Trade Argument

What to say to your elected official: I am concerned about how the war in Gaza is impacting international trade and shipping costs. With the Suez Canal down to half its usual capacity and the Panama Canal raising costs and dropping capacity in response to the water restrictions, along with rising fuel costs in Europe and Asia, global trade is incredibly strained. We are being relegated to the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Horn, and the Malacca strait for much of intercontinental trade, and the macroeconomic projections are looking very bad for America.

The Domestic Economics Argument

What to say to your elected official: Many of the plans for Israeli military funding cause damage to other parts of the budget. For instance, a recent plan put forward by the Republicans of the House suggested IRS cuts in order to move that money, a plan which would impact the US budget negatively in the long term; we need those 14 billion being spent domestically, not supporting an overreaction/possible genocide in Gaza.

Explanation: In general, pick something receiving budget cuts that your congressperson will care about. I care about IRS funding, and saw it mentioned as a target in an article, so that's what I've got in my suggested verbiage up there.

The fewer people that are working for the IRS, the more they focus on auditing poor people (simple, easy taxes) and the less they can effectively audit rich people (complicated, time-consuming taxes), which means rich people are more likely to get away with evading millions or even billions in taxation. So yeah, you want more funding in the IRS if you are poor. They are already auditing you. You want them to audit the big guys.

The Russia and China Argument

What to say to your elected official: I am worried that the current focus on funding Israel without restriction is causing us to lose sight of the international threat posed by Russia and China. Russia is actively invading Ukraine, which continues to put massive strain on the European economy with regards to oil prices, especially with the Suez situation, and China has been testing missiles near Taiwan, and thus testing US responsiveness to those threats, for months now. We cannot afford to support an internationally unpopular war if we want to remain ready for Russia and China.

This is less likely to work on Republicans, since Trump is friendly with Russia, but hey, give it a shot if they're one of the ones who aren't fully in his camp.

EDIT 2/22/24: I'm a bit unsure of this tactic, but I'm putting it out there with hopes that someone with more political experience can offer feedback:

"Congress, and the US government in general, has promised to sanction Russia for the alleged assassination of one man within a week of the suspicious death, after five months of refusing to enact even slight consequences on Israel for the deaths of nearly thirty thousand, half of which are children. This is ethically questionable at best, but for the interests of elected officials, it is a very bad look. The mismatch shows a massive bias by the American government in regards to Israel's ongoing mass murder, with over two million facing famine as a result of Israel's aid blocking, and America's reputation on the world stage, as well as individual politicians' reputations domestically with constituents, is plummeting."

-------------------------------------

Finally, my ko-fi again. I spent a long time on this and I'd like to move out of my parents' house sooner rather than later. If you appreciate my time and effort, please feel free to donate a couple bucks.

[avelera]

I've been talking with a few people irl about the TikTok ban and I was wondering if I could get your take on it? (iirc you work in election security). Mainly I'd like to know why TikTok/China is *uniquely* bad wrt dating mining/potential election interference when we've seen other companies/governments do the same thing (thinking of the Russian psyops here on Tumblr in 2016). It feels like the scope is so narrow that it doesn't come close to targeting the root problem (user privacy and data mining as a whole), leading me to think it's only point is "ooh China Scary". Thoughts? (No worries if you'd rather not get into it, I just thought of you as someone who might have more insight/informed opinions on the matter).

So I'm not really familiar with all the details of the case and certainly not all the details of the bill. But I will give my perspective:

TikTok as a particular threat to users' data and privacy has been known for some time in the cybersecurity world. US government employees and contractors have been straight-up forbidden to have it on their phones for some time now. I, for example, have never had it on my phone because of these security concerns. (Worth noting, I'm not a government employee or contractor, it was just a known-to-be dangerous app in the cybersecurity world so I avoided it.)

This is because the parent company, as I understand, has known connections to the Chinese government that have been exploited in the past. For example, to target journalists.

Worth noting, another app that would potentially be on the chopping block is WeChat, which also has close ties to (or is outright owned by?) the Chinese government. This is just speculation on my part but it's based on the fact that all the concerns around TikTok are there for WeChat too and it has also been banned on government devices in some states, so I imagine it would be next if the bill passes.

I think this is important to note because I've seen some hot takes here on Tumblr have said that the entire case against TikTok is made up and there is no security threat. That is simply not true. The concerns have been there for a while.

However, the question of what to do about it is a thorny one.

The determination seems to be that so long as TikTok is still owned by its parent company with its direct ties to the Chinese government, there really is no way to guarantee that it's safe to use. From that angle, demanding that the company sever ties and set up some form of local ownership makes sense.

I am not a lawyer, but, that being said, forcing them to sell their local operations to a locally-based buyer is a pretty invasive and unusual step for legislators to take against a private company, even in a clear case of spying. I'm sure TikTok's widespread popularity is a big part of the threat it poses, which lends to the argument used to justify such an extreme step. (Because it is on so many phones, it really could be a danger to national security.)

That said, at one point young activists on TikTok embarrassed Trump (lots of good context in this article) while he was campaigning in 2020, and there was some talk then about shutting it down which seemed pretty clearly linked to how it was used as a platform to organize against him. I'm sure there's at least some right wing antipathy towards the app that has a political basis going back to this event. Trump signed an executive order banning it, the ban going into effect got bogged down in the courts, and then Biden rescinded that executive order when he got into office, pending an investigation into the threat it posed.

Those investigations seem to have further confirmed that the Chinese government is getting access to US user data through the app, and further confirmed it as a security threat.

Now, to muddy the waters further, there's several dodgy investment funds including one owned by former Secretary of the Treasury to Trump Steven Mnuchin that are circling with an interest to buy TikTok if it does sell. That's very concerning.

Funds like Mnuchin's interest in purchasing TikTok (even though they do invest in other technologies too, so it is in their portfolio) definitely makes the motivations behind the sale look pretty damning as momentum builds, that it could be some sort of money grab here in the US.

China has also pointed out that forcing the sale of a company because of spying concerns like this opens a whole can of worms. If China thinks that, say, Microsoft is spying on their citizens, could they force the US company to sell its operations in China to a Chinese investor? Could they force Google? Could they even further polarize the internet in general between "free" and "not free" (as in, behind the great Chinese or Russian firewall, as examples) if this precedent is set, so that no Western companies can operate in authoritarian states without selling their local operations there to a government-controlled organization, and thus be unable protect their users there? Or, if you don't have so rosy a view of Western companies, could it effectively deal a blow to international trade in general by saying you have to have to sell any overseas arms of a company to someone who is from there? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but this is a hell of a can of worms to open.

But again, this is muddy because China absolutely is spying on TikTok users. The security reason for all of this is real. What to do about it is the really muddled part that has a ton of consequences, and from that angle I agree with people who are against this bill. Tons of bad faith consequences could come out of it. But the concerns kicking off the bill are real.

[cyberclouddream]

Story of Scorpio, Mars, Lilith, Chiron, and Pluto in 3H

One my biggest challenges in life is communication, according to my astrology placements. According to sidereal astrology, I have:

3H Scorpio, Mars, BM Lilith, Pluto, Chiron, and Juno

12H Leo, Sun, and Mercury

8H Aries, Jupiter Rx, and Saturn Rx

1H Virgo and Moon

Ahh, where do I start? ☺️

[ note: i observed this before i began learning astrology a few years ago as well ]

My placements show that i:

- approach conversation in a probing, investigative way with raw intensity, aiming to be transformative

- tend to be fiercely competitive in discussions and debates, questing for authenticity and to challenge societal norms

- communicate in a way that reveals deep-seated wounds and vulnerabilities, yet is also carefully considerate of how my words affect others (trying to balance analytical mind with emotional depth)

- am not afraid to dive into taboo or deep subjects

- have a flair for dramatic storytelling (AHAHAAhaaa…)

- am influenced by a need to understand and communicate the deeper and often hidden aspects of life

Most of the time I prefer solitude, so I can get myself together internally. I definitely don’t mind socializing but I get drained easily, especially depending on the vulnerability level I feel comfortable with.

I was diagnosed with speech impediment when I was a child and had to take speech classes in elementary school, as a lovely note. I still deal with, whether it’s speaking too fast or mixing up words in speech or writing [ which I just did, but I catch myself. I wrote “steal” instead of “still” ].

But when it comes to confrontation, I go hard or go home. I do not care for superficial BS, rose-colored glasses, or being politically correct. Man, I seek truth, not comfort, even when I get mofo scared.

Well, not gonna lie, many times I don’t say exactly how I feel because of the tendencies for tone to be focused on more than words. I have Venus and Rahu in Cancer in the 11th house so I often feel a sucker to social conformity, but I’ve been learnin.

I truly think that no matter how considerate I try to be with my words [ as in verbally stating I comprehend reasons why someone could come to a conclusion about my behavior along with asking further questions to understand ] I just come off too mofo intimidating and it’s frustrating as FOCK.

This post was triggered by a conversation I just had, which turned into an aggressive tone on the other person’s end because I shared my opinion and I told that I respect their choice to disagree but I stand firmly on my perspective…which I told them they didn’t have to agree with either. And they blocked me.

And I also had an disagreement with an previous friend and I want to reconnect or at least seek closure, but it didn’t turn out well because they felt like I was deflecting even tho I just had repeatedly stated my disagreement, along with admitting my slights. I asked them to explain why and how they felt like I was deflecting, and that they wouldn’t take accountability in the situation…and they got very upset, so we officially ended things.

I am well aware that I’m not always right. I just persist unless I have to emotionally or intellectually relent, cuz I’m actually wrong or I don’t have the balls or understanding to confront the truth.

Kinda Unrelated to Main Topic:

Most advice tells me to be more considerate but sweetie, most of my life I’ve dogged myself for not meeting the expectations of others, even though many times I still don’t care enough to put the effort into doing so. When I say dogged, I mean depressed and anxious asf most of my life, lamenting in my bed as I complain internally [ victimizing prick 😂 ] while the ego I mask [ all fire placements, especially Sun & Leo, in the water and private houses ] are boiling in my digestive system [ Virgo Rising and Aquarius 6H, which rules the mind and nervous system and MY ANXIOUS FOCKIN ASS ].

I see advice to challenge this intensity into physical activity, creative outlets, journaling, and learning occult practices [ like astrology 😁 ], which is good.

The thing is, this stuff affects my professional and social life. Not badly, cuz I am very considerate and mindful, but when I get too frustrated because I feel misunderstood or treated unfairly, it doesn’t go well power struggle wise. According to career related placements, I’m suited for behind-the-scenes tasks [ Gemini 10H with ruler in 12H ] along with channeling emotions and transformational energy into creative outlets [ I’m an artist and I love to write and read ].

My 10H ruler is in detriment in the 4H and 7H, which means I can struggle with balancing career and domestic dynamics, or communicating effectively within my family. Also indicates lack of support or understanding from family regarding career. And 7H can indicate issues with professional partnerships or collaborations. I’m gradually learning how to integrate all the different factors, because I know aspects and delineations play a big role in emphasis of energies, which I’m just now getting into. Since Mercury is exalted in my 1H, my career success and public reputation are boosted when I have a healthy relationship with my self-identity.

[effervescentdragon]

buckle up, because I’m about to go off. So i posted this take this morning, because I was thinking about F1 fandom’s habit and hipocrisy of criticising “third-world” or “middle-eastern” countries about their breach of human rights (no matter how much i personally think most of it is performative, pat-myself-on-the-back-for-being-a-good-human kinda “activism”), while nobody is saying anything about F1 racing in Miami, Florida, which is currently literally one of the worst places to live. to which, as is usual on good ol’ tumblr, i got this ask

i blocked the anon, obviously, but to borrow dear friends’ words “this ask is so american, all it needs is an eagle, a gun, unaffordable healthcare and perhaps a burger”. HOWEVER. i can’t stay silent. i choose violence (metaphorical) these days. my first thought was to reply with “i’d check my privilege but im too busy being able to check my bloodwork with my free healthcare”, which may be a bit tone-deaf and mean. so i outsorced this ask to certain friends (including a full-blooded american and a person from the middle east), and here is a series of screenshots of their responses, because they are wonderful and smart and more verbose than i was this morning, with only one coffee in my blood and irritation level of +billion. their opinions also kind of matter more than my own, because these are their lived experiences. 

now. as i said, and as you can see, these are the lived experiences of my friends, and are therefore also subjective at their core. so lets look at some facts. 

“florida is in the usa, a free, democratic, modern, developed country where protection of human rights is enforced”, i believe you said? ALLRIGHT:

- a bill that passed in florida 10 days ago that allows judges to alter custody agreements if they think one parent might allow gender affirming care

- florida abortion ban after 6 weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest after 15 weeks 

- a transgender sports ban in florida that allows genital inspection of minors, aka children (thank you @lauda4theback​ for finding these links for me)

- USA’s position in the Democratic Index;

- tumblr post with sources made around four days ago with details about just some of the gun violence happening in the US currently;

- BBC article about 160 mass shootings that had happened in 2023 up until April 16th and data from gun-violence archive (which, correct me if im wrong, is singularily an american thing);

- Anti-Trans Bill tracker no 1 and no 2 in the US, which, you know, implies violation of basic human rights;

- banning of books in the us to cripple education and avoid taking responsibility and acknowledging already existing and rampantly rising levels of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and generally what you all like to call “traditional (christian) values” and the rest of the world likes to call “blatant right-wing fascism” - here’s florida specifically (god i hate nyt); 

these are just some of the FACTS about the united states, and they very much speak for themselves. i couldve found a million more sources, but, honestly, i dont feel like waddling through more of the mud that is this country’s awful politics and policies. 

now its time for my opinion. im assuming youre american, because if youre not, thats just... i have no words, then. you can come in here spouting absolute fucking brainwashing propaganda your country does to you on a regular basis, but dont expect me to have to listen to it, and do anything other than laugh derisively. your-us centrism is tiring, scary, and insane, because your country, to me, is little more than a glorified cult. it’s dangerous to the rest of the world for many reasons, not the least the way it permeates every sphere of our public life and pushes american fucking propaganda upon all of us, whether we want it or not, and its absurd and awful fucking military, which i would like to see razed to the ground immediately, but i pity you, anon, for being so absolutely lacking in critical thinking that you actually believe this bullshit that you are spewing. i was trying to criticise our fandom’s way of expressing outrage when it comes to non-western, whatever the fuck that means, countries while simultanously not speaking about or even acknoledging the fact that rapid erosion of democracy in the us has all the markings of the same “dictatorial” regimes we like to be enraged over when it comes to racing in bahrain or jeddah or abu dhabi, except the usa is not being held hostage by a single autocratic dictator but with the republican party which controls the government institutions. that is sometimes the only difference i can see.

i wont speak about human rights in the middle east, because i am not middle-eastern. there’s people who can add their opinions here, and i invite them to do so. i also invite anyone to tell me if i got something wrong, used a wrong source, or said anything that i need to re-check or do more research on. but the bottom line is: for you to take my LEGIT criticism and get offended on behalf of the fucking US instead, well. that says a lot about you and your priorities, doesn’t it?

[ladyofthebears]

Boundaries for my page:

PLEASE READ BEFORE FOLLOWING AND INTERACTING

ASOIAF:

I fully believe that the first men are meant to be representative of indigenous people. If you dont agree with my thoughts, thats fine but do not insult what i believe or come onto my page to say any form of racist comment about it. I will block you immediately.

I fancast my fic and cast in the same way that the Brandy Cinderella casting director operated meaning, if a characters race is important to that characters story and experience, they will specifically be that race, otherwise, I cast whomever i believe fits the image in my head, no matter what race or ethnic background they may have. If you say hateful things about this or who I cast due to their culture or background, you will be blocked.

I also think this fandom is horribly anti- black and I will call you on it and block you if i believe you are stating said hateful views. (I mean anti black as in anti black people and using characters like Laena, Baela, and Rhaena as torture porn or pawns because of their blackness and being women.)

I am team Black but I am anti abuser in everyway, meaning not only am I anti Aegon ii, Aemond, Daeron, Otto, and Viserys, I am also staunchly anti Daemon. I am willing to have civilised discourse about the dance, but will block you if you try to justify any abuse performed by any characters or celebrate said abuse. This includes people who rejoice at the “Bastard blood” line or think the Velayron boys death was justified. This includes people who fantasise about torturing or assualting any characters but specifically the children in HOTD. This ESPECIALLY includes people who rejoice at Blood and Cheese. You will be blocked and I will not be sorry for it.

I know a lot of asoif lore but have not read the books due to my own CPTSS diagnosis and due to the triggering material in said books. If i make a mistake lore wise, please kindly let me know and I will fix it post haste.

I am not here to fight with people on my take of the book or shows. I will tell you my opinion, and if you wish to discuss yours and why you think that way, and can do so kindly, i will gladly talk to you. But at the end of the day, when i post my opinion, I am merely doing so to have an outlet on which to voice my thoughts in a way I am not able to in real life due to my not having many irl friends who have seen hotd or got.

Not Fandom related:

I am pro Palestine and find the unneeded killing of any innocent life deplorable. I am not here to argue about my political views. If you post any kind of hateful, islamphobic, or palestinian phobic comments under my posts, I will block you.

Overall:

If you post or reply with any Homophobic, Racist, Misogynistic, or any generally hateful thing under my posts, I will block you.

This is not up for discussion. My views are my own and if you find them to be harsh and unreasonable, feel free to block me and never interact with me again. I am here on Tumblr to interact with people from the fandom and to get my fanfic out there. I am not here to validate that people deserve to live even if they are different because that should go without saying. If you cannot respect my outlined boundaries, if you cannot be respectful to other people under my posts, if you cannot allow others to have different opinions then you on such trivial things as a made up world- please do not interact with me.

I know i have very few followers and most people rarely see my posts, but i do not care. These are things that are important to me and I feel if I am unable to speak them, I would be a hypocrite of the highest order. I hope to create a safe space on my page where peaceful and kind discussions can be had.

Much love

O’Leigh Fredericke

[nkn0va]

This your man? This the guy you want?

Alright, apparently I got two asks about this in the span of 10 minutes so clearly we need to talk about this.

Before I get into that though, the other Blazblue writer's old blog has since been deleted. I signed out to look for their writing and it is all gone. That old blog is in fact deleted.

First off, I never ever once said I wanted Trump in office again, please do not put words in my mouth. Those DMs have since been deleted now so I cannot provide screenshots (I never thought I'd need to, fml). I do remember though that admittedly my choice of wording was pretty much as poor as it could've been and made a rather poorly timed joke. Also there was a lot of things on my mind that I unfortunately was not able to articulate before I was blocked. However I was simply stating an objective fact that the economy was largely better under Trump's presidency than Biden.

This is a huge multi-faceted argument in and of itself that I don't have the time or patience to talk about, including the fact that covid really fucked things up, but that's really not an excuse for the state of the economy 4 or even 2 years later. Inflation hit an all-time high under Biden's presidency and prices are higher than they've ever been. The cost of living is only climbing higher and higher with no current signs of dropping anytime soon. The statistics do not lie, inflation was dramatically lower under Trump's presidency than it currently is under Biden's. Popular opinion when looking at both responses to inflation and the inflation itself point to the economy doing better under Trump's term.

If you really want you can read on the topic in more detail here

Now does that I mean I support him?

Not quite.

Look, I don't think I need to tell anyone old enough to vote that Trump isn't exactly a saint. I recognize that and support the notion that as a person he is not fit for presidency in many ways despite the good he did for the economy. People are not black and white, it is not a bad thing to admit the good qualities of a person even when they're still bad outside of their deeds. Mother Teresa is a prime example. Despite all the great things she's done she's been proven to have severely neglected and at times even abused and humiliated the people in her care all in the name of indoctrinating people into the Catholic church.

This is in no way to compare her and Trump, I merely bring her up to emphasize my point that bad people can still have good qualities and vice versa. Thinking that a person is pure good or pure evil is immature, childish, and is exactly what a lot of people in power want. To create drastic divides in the American people in order to further advance their own agendas, whether we agree with them or not.

Now who might I be voting for is the question?

Frankly, I still have no idea. I don't want to skip out on voting, both on principal and especially the fact that this will be my first election, but unfortunately ERB Lincoln's worst fears have come true. The president shall once more be who the public decides is the shiniest of two turds.

I am not a Trump supporter nor a Biden supporter, just someone that wants the best for this country. Alas, as long as these two fucking idiots are our candidates, we'll have to hang in there for another four years.

This topic shall no longer be talked about on this blog publicly. If you wanna discuss anything political stop hiding behind the anonymous feature and discuss this with me in DMs like a intelligent, civilized person. Any future asks regarding this topic will be promptly deleted.

[crownmemes]

House Sentences, Vol. 2

(Sentences from House (2004-2012). Adjust phrasing where needed)

"I'm too handsome to do paperwork."

"Why are you doing this? It's not going to keep you out of jail."

"Humility is an important quality, especially if you’re wrong a lot."

"How many of those pills are you taking?"

"I can’t believe you authorised this!"

"You really don't need to know everything about everybody."

"You know, in some cultures, it’s considered almost rude for one friend to spy on another."

"Oh, I’m sorry, I thought we were having a state-the-obvious contest."

"Did you need to be so cruel?"

"You know, there are other ways to manage pain."

"The brain has a gating mechanism for pain. It registers the most severe injury and blocks out the others."

"You always trust me. Big mistake."

"You’re going through withdrawal."

"I said I was an addict. I didn't say I had a problem."

"I've been alienating people since I was three."

"You’re miserable, and you’re afraid to face yourself!"

"Is there any way in which that is not a lie?"

"Didn't your mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?"

"You've got a big 'keep out' sign stapled on your forehead."

"Even if real human contact is something you don’t have, or even want or need, you should at least be able to see it in other people."

"What? You're saying I've only got one friend?"

"I loved him until I figured out that it hurts a lot less to just not care."

"He’s your dad. It doesn’t matter what he does, you’re going to love him."

"Aren't doctors supposed to wear lab coats?"

"Suddenly ethical lapses are a major concern for you?"

"That's an incredibly inappropriate question!"

"This would be a very good time to offer me a bribe."

"You value our friendship more than your ethical responsibilities."

"My opinions shouldn’t be rejected just because people don’t like me!"

"You are uniquely talented in many areas, but office politics is not one of them."

"Save your pathetic insincerity for your boyfriend."

"You think you’re incapable of making a mistake?"

"I need to know that whatever I ask you to do, no matter how distasteful you find it, you’ll do it."

"You’re doing this because you can’t deal with your feelings for me."

"I will protect you, as long as I need you."

"My understanding was that you believed in rationality above all else."

"The faster we can get you better, the faster you can get out of here."

"Why is everybody so ashamed of sex all of a sudden?"

"It must be miserable always assuming the worst in people."

"Are you alright? You look a little pale..."

"You always find some tiny, little flaw to push people away."

"Wear the sky blue shirt. It almost makes you look nice."

"Some relationships aren't meant to happen."

"You're worried I'm going to break his heart?"

[screamingfromuz]

So someone asked to have an honest conversation with me about the I/P conflict. I agreed and they gave me their opinion, I gave them mine while pointing what I saw as problems with their points.

there was a lot (5 pages of text between the two of us), but here is the main highlight:

They support a full surrender of Israel and it's dissolvement, basically Destroy Israel, rename the whole place Palestine, put a "socialist coalition of Palestinian political leaders and those Israelis who have been fighting for Palestine to be free" (good luck with that), and give the Palestinians everything they want (a lot of reasonable things in that list, even if very one sides next to a lot of very unreasonable things).

and after all of that is done, "Israelis [should] work every day of the rest of their lives to repair the harm done by the occupation" so "eventually, like it used to be, Jews and Palestinians will once again be neighbors, allies, and friends in the region".

I have pointed out that Jews were considered second class citizens, so returning to pre-1917 state is not an option, and that many Palestinian authorities called for the explosion or murder of Jews in the case of establishing a Palestinian state on the entire territory. not to mention all the implications of dissolving Israel, from education, to calendars, to laws, to refugees, to museums, to art.

I did not touch on the coalition Idea, as my answer was getting long, but boy is it something we are trying to get to the Knesset.

They thanked me for writing a response, said that I haven't read all their sources (I admit I only skimmed through and not read thoroughly), then they claimed my desire for humanitarian solutions is false and called my activism "self-aggrandizing charity project" that is based on lies.

then they blocked me. Shame, I would have liked to continue this conversation.

I will say that I got them to admit the do not want a ceasefire, but that they support the surrender and destruction of Israel, so progress!

I do look forward to the day both Israelis and Palestinians get to build a better future here from the mess we did.

[starlight-edith]

So, I just got blocked by a Star Trek blog of all things for respectfully letting them know that reblogging images/posts like this is often perceived as antisemitic:

They blocked me. For warning them.

Replace Israel with any other country. To play on this person’s viewpoint, let’s say it says “Go ahead. Death to Palestine!” Everyone would be up in arms about it.

They would say “how could you wish death on a minority, even if you dislike their government? The people have ultimately done nothing wrong!”

But because it’s Israel, because we’re Jews, all we get is “you’re apartheid! You’re murderers! You’re fascists!”

I did some investigating, and this person in all likelihood is a tankie.

Tankie: Someone who supports Marxist-Lennonist regimes such as the USSR and China and believe that those kinds of communism are the best kind and should be replicated. AKA fascists but make it left leaning.

I’ve quite literally never met a tankie that wasn’t also an antisemite, so this tracks.

I’m not against Palestine and I certainly don’t support the government of Israel, but it’s all we have. For many years Palestine was considered a part of Jordan. The people of Palestine were the people of Jordan, and Vice versa. Israelis don’t have a “backup.” My uncle would be dead without Israel. He had to flee genocide number I’ve lost count in the 80s. So many would be dead without Israel. During the Holocaust America turned away Jewish refugees!! They didn’t care about our genocide until the Japanese targeted them.

My personal opinion is that we should have a two state solution, OR Jordan should repatriate the Palestinians and figure out a solution from there — but because I believe Israel is important to me not LITERALLY DYING I’m a bad person who gets blocked for kindly asking people not to *checks notes* wish death on me.

I asked them not to wish death on me and somehow I am the bad guy in this situation.

If your communist utopia believes in irradicating entire groups of people simply because you don’t like them, that’s FASCISM!

Politics isn’t a spectrum, it’s a circle. Go too far left and you end up being a far right extremist dressed up pretty.

We do not deserve to die — no one does. Not Israelis, not Palestinians, nor Americans, nor the English, nor ANYONE AT ALL.

Am yisrael chai!

[horuslupercal]

Discovered your block, saw I'm literally everything you hated (Don't care about primarchxprimarch shipping, in the weird spot of being considered transphobic by tumblr standards for thinking gender isnt real but being called "tranny apologist" by 4chan stereotypes for telling them to just leave people alone, vaugely pro Isreal purely due to hamas but knowing it's very complicated issue and I'm not NEARLY knowledgable enough to form a solid opinion other than "leave civilians alone, hamas can burn in hell") but the posts of you playing games with your cat just look so cosy and "this could be me" and I just had this weird philosophical feeling of "This seems like the sort of personality I would be friends with if I met them irl but online they explicitly dislike me for xyz opnions"

Do you ever get the feeling/see cases of people putting all sorts of conditions up online for who they interact with but when you see the same person in real life they comparatively just... don't give a shit. Like you see "stereotypical tumblr user" hang out with people who makes occasional edgy jokes but don't mean them. I think on the internet, espcially on websites with a generlly cohesive culture (tumblr/4chan/etc) it's easy to isolate yourself by making "morally good people" the ones who have the same answer to everything that you do rather than differing solution to the same problem, unlike real life where you undoubtedly have friends/family you WILDLY disagree with on something but you still consider them a good person.

Sorry for the ramble, I'm adhd and bad at expressing myself with brevity. I just got weirdly philosophical over this. And I just hope people who agree on the fundamentals of "do what you want as long as it dosen't hurt anyone" but not the specifics on politics could bond more over the more... human? things. Like at the end of the day, were all someone who want to cuddle up and play games with our cat.

yeah man see I have this thing called principles. regardless of personality matches and shared hobbies, I will also call this stuff out it irl and it will impact my opinion of you. I have done this to family, I have done this to acquaintances, and I will continue doing it. and the reason people get so strict about it on the internet especially is that there is literally zero incentive to tolerate stupid shit. I'm here to relax and there are a million people I can do that with who aren't going to make me spend my time and energy debating with them

I will admit the shipping ban is an issue of annoyance more than anything else, because Warhammer fans don't seem to have ever encountered the concept of "do what you want in your own time, don't make me see it in mine". I have repeatedly had people knowingly overstep my boundaries about it when I state it more nicely so, if a policy of aggression means they stop trying to show it to me, I'm for it. but issues like supporting an ethnostate currently committing genocide? I am very, very serious. no amount of "well maybe they'll get Hamas" excuses the actively ongoing genocide. actions are everything.

[kp777]

By Thom Hartmann

Common Dreams

Oct. 28, 2024

From Jeff Bezos to Elon Musk, America's oligarchs are using media control to shape politics, grow profits, and destroy the prospect of a better future for all.

I cancelled my Washington Post subscription Friday evening. Jeff Bezos, Mister “Democracy Dies In Darkness” (the Post’s slogan on their masthead), by blocking his editorial staff from endorsing Harris chose darkness over his nation’s future, and I can’t support that.

The big mistake John D. Rockefeller made back in the day—that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk appear committed to not repeating—was not buying a media outlet like a newspaper. Had John D. had that sort of a vehicle to mold public opinion, American history may be very different.

By 1880, Rockefeller’s Ohio-based company controlled over 90 percent of the nation’s oil, owned 4000 miles of pipelines, and employed over 100,000 people. As Rockefeller’s oil empire got larger and larger, eating alive hundreds of smaller operations, ruthlessly driving up prices, destroying his competitors, and throwing workers out of a job, public outrage grew.

At some point, America is going to have to confront its oligarch problem.

In 1887, Ohio sued him, arguing that he was operating in ways that were detrimental to the state and its citizens and businesses; in 1892 the Ohio Supreme Court ordered his company dissolved. As I lay out in detail in Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became “People,” this led Rockefeller to move Standard Oil to New Jersey after that state changed its corporation laws to allow for his monopolistic behavior.

Which brought in the federal government; in 1890, Ohio Senator John Sherman introduced and saw passed into law the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which provided not just fines but jail sentences against people like Rockefeller who were committed to destroying competition and owning entire markets. The law was flawed with a few loopholes and ambiguities, so it was amended in 1914 with the Clayton Anti-Trust Act.

Nonetheless, in 1906 progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt’s administration filed an antitrust action against Rockefeller that went to the Supreme Court in 1911 during the administration of progressive Republican President William Howard Taft. The behemoth was broken up into 34 separate companies, an action that, like the breakup of AT&T by Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, led to an explosion of competition in the marketplace and a dramatic increase in shareholder value.

But back to Jeff Bezos and his 2013 purchase of The Washington Post.

It was reporters and editors for the hundreds of independent newspapers during the First Gilded Age (1880-1900) era that led the crusades against Rockefeller and his fellow monopolists. Investigative journalism was all the rage then, and it fed public demand for a return to competition and the de-throning of that age’s oligarchs.

The vast majority of workers were struggling and they worked for a very small 10 percent of the population who controlled most of the nation’s wealth (a situation we’re at again). The result was constant strife, strikes, and the murder of labor leaders; entire towns were in arms (and sometimes ablaze) with labor conflict. The “problem of labor”was the number one issue of the day. As President Grover Cleveland — the only Democrat elected during that period — proclaimed in his 1887 State of the Union address:

“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”

There was a broad consensus across American society that those “Robber Barons” were feathering their own nests at the expense of the American public, hurting both working class people and small businesses. The Supreme Court endorsed breaking up Standard Oil in 1911, and even broke up the Associated Press in 1944.

The law was so rigorously enforced — so the game of business could be played by all comers, not just the “big boys” — that in the 1960s the Supreme Court barred the merger of the Kinney and Buster Brown shoe companies because the new combined company would control a mere 5 percent of the shoe market.

Back in the ’60s every mall and downtown in America was filled with small, locally-owned businesses; there might be a Sears to anchor the shopping center or a retail part of town, but most shops, restaurants, and hotels were family-owned.

But then Reagan, in 1983, ordered the DOJ, SEC, and FTC to stop enforcing the Sherman Act, which is why today Nike, for example, controls about a fifth of the entire nation’s shoe market. It’s the same across industry after industry, from retail to grocery stores to railroads to computer software to social media to chip manufacturing to airlines to hotels…and on and on. In virtually every industry, a handful of massive companies control 80 percent or more of the market.

The Biden administration is the first to seriously try enforcement of the nation’s anti-trust laws since Carter broke up AT&T, going after Google and blocking mergers in multiple industries. It’s led a bunch of American billionaires to demand that the Federal Trade Commission’s head, Lina Kahn, be fired.

Kahn and her FTC went after Bezos last year, suing Amazon for running a monopoly that price-gouges customers and blocks out competition. The trial is scheduled for 2026 if Kahn keeps her job; a Trump administration would fire her immediately, and pressure from major corporate donors and billionaires is building on Harris to do the same.

Bezos also must remember well when he got on the wrong side of then-President Trump because of the Post’s coverage of the orange oligarch’s lies and crimes; Trump, in a fit of pique, awarded a $10 billion Pentagon contract for cloud computing to Microsoft, shocking analysts across the industry.

Bezos is also working for his Blue Origin spaceship company to get more billions in NASA and Pentagon contracts. He and his companies also own billions in Google and AirBNB stock as well as owning outright almost a hundred other companies.

Might be a good time to own one of the two most influential newspapers in America, eh?

Similarly, billionaire oligarch Elon Musk, in addition to apparently taking orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin, is fighting numerous government efforts to regulate his companies (which exist in large part because Obama bailed out Tesla in 2010 with $465 million, and NASA is now pouring hundreds of millions into SpaceX):

— Tesla is fighting the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over union-related issues, with Musk taking a lawsuit to the Supreme Court alleging government protections of unions are unconstitutional. — SpaceX is battling the NLRB over employee firings. — The SEC is investigating Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X) and his “funding secured” tweets about taking Tesla private. — The FTC is investigating X’s compliance with a $150 million privacy settlement. — The Federal Communications Commission recently denied SpaceX’s Starlink a $886 million rural broadband award. — The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Tesla over alleged racial harassment. — The FAA is in conflict with SpaceX over launch licensing and environmental reviews. — The EPA has fined SpaceX for water-related violations. — The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened multiple investigations into Tesla’s vehicle safety and Autopilot system. — SpaceX faces scrutiny over its environmental impact at its Texas launch site.

To avoid the Rockefeller mistake, Musk — with the apparent help of two Russian oligarchs and the leader of Saudi Arabia — purchased Twitter, the online digital equivalent of our nation’s largest newspaper.

Now that we’re in America’s Second Gilded Age — with today’s billionaires vastly richer than Rockefeller’s wildest dreams — we confront a similar crossroads to that of previous generations.

And he’s now using it to try to get Trump and Republicans into office, presumably so they can gut the FTC, FCC, SEC, NLRB, and any other regulator that might take him on to protect workers, the public, and the national interest.

We took on the superrich with success during the First Gilded Age, and our enforcement of antitrust laws lasted all the way to 1983, when Reagan blocked them, leading to the “merger mania” of the 1980s and bringing us today’s oligarchic business empires across multiple industries.

Now that we’re in America’s Second Gilded Age — with today’s billionaires vastly richer than Rockefeller’s wildest dreams — we confront a similar crossroads to that of previous generations.

Is it okay, for example, for billionaires to own media properties they can use to manipulate politics and government agencies to amplify their other business interests? Or that five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court have ruled that our morbidly rich plutocrats can own judges and politicians? Most Americans would probably say “No” to both.

At some point, America is going to have to confront its oligarch problem. And the sooner the better, if we don’t want darkness to entirely subsume our democracy.

[wytfut]

Minneapolis

A few days ago, Luke my middle Son, suggested a documentary he had watched.

Its on Youtube... runs about 1 hour 40 minutes if interested. Titled "the Fall of Minneapolis".

It affected him. He couldn't really decide what to think of it, or how it affected him but it did.

This is awesome in my opinion, as any movie/documentary, sci fi, murder, drama.... if it affects you some way, it did its job. Not to many do that any more. Irks me when a highly marketed film gets me nothing more than a soft "oh..."

Patti has a hard time with "sad" movies, and if she knows it will be sad, she won't watch it. Where as I will, because I know it may affect me.

This documentary, deals with corruption within Minneapolis's government, plus some negatives towards the media. All after the George Floyd incident.

I had issues with the incident. The tactic shown on his shoulder/neck looked to be a little ruthless... but I'm no cop. In the photo an officer nondescript looking up, almost into a yawn.

I heard early on an autopsy report he had several drugs in his system, including fentnyl. For what ever reason here in the flatlands that subject seemed to disappear thru the rest of the circus to follow.

....

The media imo, currently is unregulated, and holds no standards to prove credibility. News today, is all about "what sells news". They all copy off each other believing each knows what they are talking about. The days of Cronkite/Huntley/Brinkley telling everyone that eating shit is good for you..... is gone. America believed in these guys, and they were a good solid news source most of the time.

I have to include the company that made this documentary in this group too. As I find very few that are honest real news sources that have no sway with politics or money. I don't know this company, or their work ethic.... so I'm tossing them into this box.

My favorite go to, but hard to just sit down for an hour and listen is "Democracy Now". I've seen it attack Obama, Trump, and other favorite people of hi exposure. Although they are totally a nonprofit news source, there could still easily be a dirty secret. Who is a good neutral news source? I have no idea anymore.

......

This documentary is presented very well, with purpose, and easy to follow. It definitely wasn't a low budget film.

As the documentary unfolds, it starts a few minutes before George Floyds incident. And then shows and translates all body cam videos and audio.

This part was very enlightening. I was very surprised to say the least. This incident from these moments wasn't really dealing with bad cops, but a guy that was out of control.

Once he died, there was an immediate autopsy. This autopsy, within hours became "null and void", as higher ups wanted a different autopsy done by their own person (federal or state, I can't remember).

The 2 autopsy's didn't line up. The second one was vague, compared to a detailed report.

The first one went away, showing way more that could affect the outcome of these cops. It was not permitted by the courts.

Most of the body cam videos were also not permitted by the courts. Many of these videos for some unknown reason were never released to the public for viewing.

Private phone videos were allowed, one notorious one we have all seen, taken by an off duty fire fighter.

Some things that I didn't know: The arresting officer for George Floyd was black. The fire dept. didn't receive correct address from 911 for unknown reasons, thus the 20 minute delay of their arrival for an 8 block drive. The cops called for an ambulance as soon as they got him on the ground.... long before he passed. The "ruthless" hold I commented about before, was an actual move fully recognized and approved by the police department in each of the officers training manuals. The higher ups all denied that that move was allowed (think, the cops were trained to use this move, and it was "ok" to do it). The police department, pretty much let the rioters "have" precinct 34, even though it wasn't in any real jeopardy at that moment of "evacuation".

.......

Ok, so you got the jist. A lot of horrible things came from this incident, all across our country.

This incident presented as it is by this documentary company shows possibility that it actually was completely different than what the media portrayed or the higher ups in the city allowed. This shows that it is so very easy to take video out of context. Much easier than I have ever suspected, and changed my impression from here on out.

.....

I can't believe/understand the agenda of these folks that controlled everything. Are they that ruthless to let all that damage, death, and ruining the careers of good people, just so they look good in the publics eye?

Yeah, I'm leaning towards the direction presented by this documentary. I'm not 100% in, as it is just another news company. But it affected me too, enough I'm still thinking about it today. And yup, thats a good thing.

[nonegenderleftpain]

Just had the most fucking infuriating conversation. My lovely partner was dealing with their shithead centrist roommate and his opinions on trans people in prisons and I was like hey, send him to me! I do trans education with guys like this professionally, and that way maybe you won't have to deal with his shit without adding more tension to your household. So we connected, and I set a boundary: I was upfront about being bipolar, because it affects how I communicate and how my emotions react to things, and I said that I needed him to trust that I and *only I* knew when I was being "too emotional" to talk rationally. I told him that I did not consent to anyone except my physicians commenting on my mental state, and that I have dealt with my particular cocktail of mental illness for years while he has not. I gave him a yes or no question - can I trust that you will not use my disability to undermine my professional knowledge about trans issues?

I sat and watched him go off about how he's getting a PhD in clinical psychology, and how dare I presume he doesn't know things about bipolar disorder, and on and on. I asked him if he had bipolar, and told him again that if not, I do not consent to discussing it with him except to get his agreement that he will not use it to belittle me. He then proceeded to state that unless my physicians also have bipolar, then it's a completely unfair question, etc etc. I repeated the question, clarifying that this was a yes or no.

I got ANOTHER paragraph of going off about how the way I set my boundaries was rude and inappropriate and he doesn't respect the way I said it, etc etc. I gave him one last chance to answer my yes or no question - a chance that he failed, when he proceeded to tell me that I was using my disability as an excuse (an excuse for what, he never answered when I asked), and that I had "blinders on about my own behavior."

I clarified what happened - that I gave him three chances to answer a yes or no question guaranteeing he would not use my disability as an excuse to brush aside my years of knowledge on trans issues because I might get emotional, and he chose three times not to answer. After which he blocked me.

Now, if you are a minority educator, you may have caught what I did here, but maybe not, so I'm going to explain. When this man said he had "concerns" about trans people in prisons, I decided to test how sincere he was about engaging with me as a minority. I set a reasonable boundary in a polite but no-nonsense way about an axis of discrimination that had *nothing to do* with the thing we intended to discuss. To be fair, I was trying to give the guy some warning about my emotional regulation problems and how they affect response times, but really, I was testing how he would respond to being told no. I chose to be mildly vulnerable about an axis of oppression that is under legal protections, in order to both protect myself and to test his responses. If he could not respond appropriately, and with some level of consideration, to a request about an axis of oppression that he cannot deny exists, he could not be trusted to engage with me on an axis he sees as debatable.

Do not give people your heart to get them to respect you. If they cannot respect your "no" with something objective and concrete and communicate clearly, they will not respect your "no" when it is hurting you. And remember that you NEVER owe people like this your time and energy. Never. It doesn't matter who they are. I chose to step into this conversation knowing it was unlikely to go well, because I am an educator. You do not have to be an educator just because you are a minority. If you're Just Some Guy, it's not your job to listen to people shit on you or use this libertarian-ass centrist doublespeak to avoid answering simple questions like "can I trust that you will not discriminate against me if we talk." Just tell them to fuck off and you will be so much better for it.

(And on another note, for his patient's sake, I hope this man fails med school. Someone like that is not ready to interact with vulnerable groups, and I told him as much before he ran like a coward from having to admit that no, he WAS going to use my disability to undermine me if it was useful for him to.)

[ashethegoober]

Just wanna scream into the void just in case someone is listening and share a story.

It's never okay to visit a state from another state and adopt what "cultural norms" you think there are in the state you're visiting. I'm, of course, talking about homophobia and transphobia.

I live in Tennessee. When my fiance, @trans-chicken-queen, was visiting a couple weeks ago, we went to a Waffle House in town. There was a big soccer team inside visiting from San Diego so half the restaurant was full up on tables. There were also 2 people at the bar, which sat 4. Me and my fiance were a party of 2, so we went to go sit down. The man who was going to be sitting next to me moved a box of Advil and a cup of water over and said that someone is sitting there. Fine and dandy. It's whatever. Until his wife sneered at me. Gave me the dirtiest of looks. I knew that they were intentionally trying to block us from getting a table for no better reason than to just be a nuisance. So it's fine. It's cool. We wait an additional 10 minutes for someone at the back corner of the restaurant to get up and leave and the table to get cleared off before sitting down and ordering. The entire time we're ordering, I feel the woman's eyes keep watching me, like I'm about to commit a crime or something. Our waiter was amazing, also LGBT, so I think they understood as well that the couple were just being asshats for the sake of being. Now here's the kicker: The couple that denied us a seat just had someone sit next to them. It's the coach of the soccer team. Now it's clicking. These people are the owners of the team and are from California and think that they can get away with it just because they're in Tennessee. That infuriated me. You don't come into my state, my town, my favorite Waffle House, and be a bigot because you think you can. I started sneering back at her. Giving her the same look of disgust and contempt she was giving me when we first walked in. Wasn't even 15 minutes before they got up and the entire team left. Sometimes the best revenge is the subtle type.

I think it's worth adding that I live in the part of Tennessee that the only issues with LGBT rights and acceptance isn't caused by the citizens, but rather our boof ass state legislature. I never get side eye or rude whispers said about me from anyone who actually lives here. It's always people from out of state. 100% of the time, without fail. You can't just go around being an ass pretty much in someone's backyard and expect not to get pressed.

Moral of the story is; don't be an asshole. Respect your fellow humans, regardless of their gender identity, political ideologies, or any other differing opinions they may have. Follow the one rule we were all taught in Elementary school; "Treat others the way you want to be treated." Respect demands respect and that is a hill I will die on.

[marxslefttesticle]

⭐️ intro post ⭐️

hello!! i’m rain :)

i’m 20 years old, from the southeastern united states, and i’m majoring in nutrition with a concentration in public health and a minor in political science! i got into politics during the 2016 presidential election and have been researching, volunteering, protesting, etc ever since.

i made this blog for those who are interested in politics! whether you’re well versed or brand new, you’re absolutely welcome. i remember how hard it was to understand things and separate them from misinformation when i was younger, so i hope this blog helps someone even just a little bit.

my posts will be anything from memes to studies i found interesting to opinion pieces. a vast vast majority of these will be left wing politics, as i am a leftist. if there’s ever anything you want to know about politics, want to know my opinion on, or anything else, my asks and anons are on!

now for the good stuff:

causes i’m passionate about that you will see a lot of posts & reblogs about:

feminist issues, the politics of food and food insecurity (including food deserts, prices of food, etc!), anti police & military, prison reform, workers rights, drug policy, healthcare (including mental health!), etc.

this isn’t all of them because i will talk about just about anything! if it’s an issue, i likely have an opinion or at least know a decent bit about it.

DNI: terfs, trump supporters, bigots of any kind. i will not tolerate hate of any kind on my blog, for anyone. you will be blocked without hesitation