#it's even more confusing how much i see it from 'leftists'. you sound worse than my conservative family

[shalom-iamcominghome]

People findinging out that antisemitism does, in fact, victimize people

[qqueenofhades]

the reason people prefer bernie over warren isn't that she used to be a republican, most people genuinely believe the positions she holds now. it's just that those positions A) aren't going to get her elected in a general election, because she comes across as wishywashy on medicare for all, which is much more popular among most americans than centrists think, and republican are GREAT at exploiting the wishy-washy B) isn't gonna cut it with us lefty dems either. bernie polls better against trump.

Hello there! Thank you for your contribution! *

As most people who follow me know, I am not a Political Discourse ™ blog in the usual course of things, and despise Discourse in general. Time is short, lives are precious, and usually arguing with people about politics on the internet is about the most unproductive use of such ever devised. But because you did arrive in my inbox with this opinion, which perfectly exemplifies the dangerous thinking that I was referring to in this post, which I presume is the reason for the pleasure of your company, we’re going to have a chat. I’m going to keep the snark to a minimum, because I am really not a fan of stoking Democratic tribalism or “my candidate is better than your candidate and I can’t vote for anyone else” pissing contests. That being indeed precisely what I was arguing in the above post, and the point of which, alas, you seem to have grasped but dimly. I am therefore going to go through this, because it needs to be deconstructed, and while I may make no impact on you, because I suspect your mind is made up, I am fortunate enough to have a decent following on this blog and maybe someone else will benefit from it. Who knows. The other option is Trump.

So.

Let’s take this one at a time. See for example your first claim, “Elizabeth Warren comes across as wishy-washy on Medicare for All.”

Well….

Have you tried going to her website (elizabethwarren.com) typing in “Medicare for All” and being redirected to the following document? It took me approximately eight seconds to find. It is also not just an attention-grabbing header. The full strategic plan below, when pasted into Microsoft Word, runs to an impressive goddamn 19 pages and almost 8,000 words. It outlines exactly what she will do to achieve this and concludes:

Medicare for All is the best way to guarantee health care to all Americans at the lowest cost. I have a plan to pay for it without raising taxes on middle class families, and the transition I’ve outlined here will get us there within my first term as president. Together, along with additional reforms like my plans to reduce black maternal mortality rates, ensure rural health care, protect reproductive rights, support the Indian Health Service, take care of our veterans, and secure LGBTQ+ equality, we will ensure that no family will ever go broke again from a medical diagnosis – and that every American gets the excellent health care they deserve.

Hmm. Focusing specifically on African-American maternal mortality rates, rural health care, protecting reproductive rights, support for Native Americans, vets, and LGBTQ people? I understand, however, that this can’t cut it with “us lefty Dems,” which you proclaim with the proud assurance that you and the Twitter circles of your acquaintance are in fact the only ones. I’m also… not entirely sure which candidate you’re confusing Warren with, since there are two (2) progressive candidates in this nightmare of white no-name and/or billionaire milquetoast male moderates. Their names are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. And every single Warren fan I know is willing to vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination, including me. I made a public pledge to vote for the Democratic candidate even if it’s Goddamn Joe Biden. You can see it here. If you are going to demand miles of receipts for Warren before you consider voting for her (and when her positions are similar to or in several cases, particularly for women, MUCH BETTER than Sanders, yes I said it), then you’re really not going to like what it looks like for the other candidates in this race. Also, are you asking these questions for Sanders, your own preferred nominee?

Next, you…. you do realize the privilege that is dripping off this ask, right? The exact thing of which I also addressed in the previous discussion:

The modern American Republican party has become a vehicle for no-holds-barred power for rich white men at the expense of absolutely everything and everyone else, and if your rationale is that you can’t vote for the person opposing Donald Goddamn Trump is that you’re just not vibing with them on the language of that one policy proposal… well, I’m glad that you, White Middle Class Liberal, feel relatively safe that the consequences of that decision won’t affect you personally.

That is…. at least as presented in this ask, exactly what’s happening here. You’re saying that you (and this mythic America/Lefty Dems ™ of which you grandly extrapolate) can’t vote for Elizabeth Warren because you’re just not vibing with her on the language of a policy proposal which she enthusiastically supports and has written a detailed 20-page manifesto on how to achieve? You really, really believe, deep down in your Bernie Bro Internet Politics bones, that you cannot vote for the smart, fearless, extra-qualified Democratic woman opposing the bankrupt reality star rapist who is literally a Neo-Nazi white supremacist whose administration is wrecking the planet and putting children in cages at the border? To name just one of the Scandal-A-Days that this nightmare administration churns out? Because the Lefty Dems (and please do not lump me and the other active leftist Democrats I know into whatever you’ve got going on here) just won’t stand for that?

Do you even hear yourself?

Did we learn nothing at all from 2016???

I’m going to guess that I’m older than you. I’m not sure whether that matters, but there’s that. It means I remember 9/11, the Bush years, the financial crash of 2008, and how this already went once before. I have also just moved back to the United States after almost half a decade in the United Kingdom, which is currently experiencing its same slow-motion disintegration into hard-right economic isolationism, xenophobia, and late-stage capitalist oligarchy. I’m also a professional historian. So it means that I, for better or worse, have a certain perspective on this, the overall patterns, the way the world has stumbled into this destructive consumerist capitalist 21st century, and what it’s doing to us.

We do not have much time left to fix any of this. I don’t care if it sounds alarmist, it’s true. If you are younger than me, this is also going to become disproportionately your generation’s problem. Rigid intellectual purity tests are exactly the thing that is preventing the left from mobilizing behind one candidate to get Donald Fucking Trump and his cabal of shameless criminals out of there before they kill the lot of us. And I’m not going to back down from saying that mindsets like the one perfectly exemplified in your ask are far more helpful to the Republicans than they are to any of us.

I have said it before, I’ll say it again: I will vote for, donate money to, and raise awareness about whoever the Democratic nominee is. If it’s Sanders, I’m going to friggin’ become a Bernie or Buster. Because at that point, his opponent would be Trump!!! If I am living in a state where it would remotely make a difference in November 2020, since at the moment I’m in Bumfuck Red State Nowhere, I would consider canvassing or volunteering for the campaign, and I am a severe introvert with social anxiety who hates talking to people when I don’t have to. And if I am willing to do this, and you and Lefty Dems ™ of your hallowed intellectual proclivities are sitting on your backsides and bitching about how Warren seems wishy-washy on Medicare for All, well then. One of us is more the problem than the other one, and it isn’t me.

(Also. once again, Bernie Sanders is eighty years old and just had a heart attack. Sorry. That remains an issue for me. There’s a year to go of grueling non-stop campaigning before the general, if he wins the primary. I’m not convinced.)

In conclusion, I have recently adopted a policy of donating a few dollars to Elizabeth Warren every time someone appears in my inbox or notifications with a comment like this. So when I thanked you for your contribution at the start of this post, I was in fact thanking you for your extra-generous donation today, December 10, 2019, to Elizabeth Warren for President:

Peace.

[karazetian]

What’s happening is that Disney is not doing its job.

I ended up doing an essay lol. I obviously appreciate someone reading it but given that is really lengthy, I don’t expect anyone to do so. I’m also not Asian so, there’s that. And my English leaves a lot to be desired (I corrected the orthography but I’m prone to grammar errors). 

I do recommend checking out the sources I linked, especially 1 (youtube video made by a Chinese person), 2 and 3 (the descriptions are below).

I talk about what Disney is doing is not out of naive idleness. Idleness yes, but naivety no. 

I keep thinking, where the hell did this movie go wrong? Because yes, this is not the first time nor the last time Disney is going to deliver a less than mediocre live-action remake, but, despite all of their track record, I still had hope for this one. 

Because, while the other movies are classics, they had certain aspects that didn’t age perfectly, which it is understandable. Beauty and the Beast, although arguably the best Disney animated movie, had these “Stockholm Syndrome” connotations* (bear with me) and we also had to consider how much of Beast’s personality could stay in the remake (since he could have been read really wrong if he lashed out on Belle too much, not only because of his appearance but for the power dynamics of him being the one in calling the shots of Belle’s wellbeing, hope that made sense). 

Cinderella could have made some* audiences criticize her for her apparent submissiveness, Aladdin is a whole can of worms in the subject of orientalism (which they kept in the remake, anyway), etc., etc.

*This is not the post to discuss whether or not Belle suffered Stockholm Syndrome during her movie, nor to discuss whether or not Cinderella was actually submissive in the original. Many people have already done that, my point in bringing that up is, Disney used that as an excuse to change scenes and plot in the remakes. 

But Mulan, aside from minor problems that come from an American company writing an eastern story (and the values and trends present when the movie was made), had a very strong plot that still holds up to this day (I say that like the movie was made in the 30s lol). 

Not only it is a “feminist” movie but also, the story is very well written and made, in my opinion. There was not a lot that you needed to change. The main character had already a well-rounded personality (unlike, for example, my girl Aurora), the story was already very rich, etc. The removal of Mushu (and the whole dragon symbolism), although sad, it’s understandable how it was necessary.

However, is not just the removal of important and nostalgic characters like Mushu or grandma Fa, but the removal of the soul of the movie.

Mulan 2020 is a soulless movie. 

This is not unique to this remake, as this is not even unique to remakes, imo. But it is one of the most painful ones, because this movie meant a lot to a lot of women (and people) and the beauty of it all was that you didn’t need to be Chinese, or a woman, to appreciate it (that’s a good thing in the sense that is good when you can relate to a story, even if you don’t share some of the traits with the main character. Not that it’s good despite being the story of a Chinese woman, is that clear? Sorry if it’s not).

And it’s also painful because it could have been so easy to... not do that. Other people have already talk about this (and in a much briefer, better way) but yes, what made Mulan so great in the original was that she was your average girl, even worse because she lived in a very conservative society yet she managed to become a badass while, not only discovering who she was in the process, but also staying true to that. That was the reason she was great. She had flaws, she couldn’t adapt, she was the underdog but she, through her unwillingness to give up, her tenacity, wits and compassion, overcame that, eventually becoming a hero. 

It was not because of her qì. Again, I’m not going to do a deep dive in that because others have already talked about how they made her a Chosen One. What I want to discuss is how sad it is that they went for that route and my confusion as to why they did it. 

And I think it was more than laziness. It’s definitely a lack of motivation but, when you dwelve on it, I don’t think that laziness goes hand in hand with carelessness. But first, with the laziness, a google search would have made them see what progressive crowds now deem as feminist values. Both eastern and western crowds. 

Because yeah, sure, I doubt the Chinese government is well versed in intersectional feminism. Yet, there are movies both the Chinese government and its people have liked and appreciated. Weren’t they the ones that, upon watching Kung Fu Panda said something like “how did we not come up with that?” 

I saw this video made my Chinese youtuber Accented Cinema (links below: 1, I highly recommend watching it) and he even mentioned his school taking his class to watch the original movie in theaters. So, yeah, believe it or not, you can make a feminist movie set in a third world country (I also come from a third world country, sorry if this sounds like I’m being mean to Chinese people). 

So, why did you not do your homework, Disney? Again, I understand they couldn’t have made the most leftist movie, not only because it’s Disney, but because they wanted to appeal to both governments, however, you could have made the remake be satisfying enough for that audience and the rest of the world. But they didn’t even satisfy the Chinese audience, with a lot of them saying how the movie reinforces ideologies the Chinese themselves have already moved on from (the “devotion to family” inscription in the sword has received a lot of criticisms: 2).

This means that they failed to do even the only thing they seemed to compromise on. You could have had still appealed to the government. That is to say, I don’t expect Disney to be the wokest of them all and go full anarchist on their movies because that’s not even what Disney wants anyway.

They could have still done some things that wouldn’t have anything to do with western or eastern values. For example, they could have given Mulan’s sister a personality. Giving your character one is not a western/Americanized value, it’s part of what means to make a well written story.

Without that, her character seems completely pointless. Seriously, I keep thinking what was the point of her character, besides being a disappointing replacement of the grandma. I’d like to think that she was the movie’s way to represent how more conservative values are still valid, if the woman chooses so. Her wanting to get married and have a traditional family doesn’t diminish her value as a person. They could have made a scene with the two sisters still being able to bond with each other, even if they had very different views of the world.

But since we never find out about her motivations or desires, it is left unknown whether this is what she chose for herself or if she is just another victim of her circumstances. And I ask myself why, since it could have been so easily to do that. You could have replaced the scene where kid Mulan is combing her sister’s hair (which, for what I can remember, only serves to further stablish the sister’s fear of spiders… which they make clear in other two scenes) if the movie’s duration was a problem.

Being left with no logical answers, I can only conclude that it was out of laziness. But it doesn’t end there, does it? Because I think “ok, so they were lazy, then they could have done what every lazy student does when they don’t have any motivation left and copy-pasted the original. Didn’t they do that with the Lion King already?”

And I get that it didn’t work with that one, but that’s because you shouldn’t somber up a movie that has anthropomorphic animals, that also heavily relied on being an animated movie. Mulan doesn’t rely on that; Mulan was inspired by a legend. Live-action Mulan had already been made with good results, so what couldn’t they have just copy pasted their own original? If they didn’t have the energy to give it a proper, well-made twist (i.e., Maleficent), the least they could have done is respect its predecessor.

But they took away all the things that made Mulan great in the first place, to made her what every writer will tell you not to do. Making her being born with extraordinary skills, which then results in her not having to work for her merits, is something even I, a nobody, knows not to do. I’m not even going to address how taking agency away from her sends the wrong message to the little girls that are going to see this sad excuse of a movie.

What I’m trying to say, it may not be comparable to a lazy student copying the homework of one of the most accomplished students, but it is as if they based their work on that, just butchering all the parts that made the accomplished student’s work good. And, unlike with the lazy student whose reasons might be justifiable, Disney had no excuse to do so, because it is their job.

It is their job to deliver a well written story or, if that’s too demanding, to at least make a movie with a happy-go feeling (is that grammatically correct?) that sends a well-meaning message. Instead, the message this movie (I would say, purposefully) delivers is that you can only accomplish great things if you’re born special.

Us, regular folks, especially regular women, especially regular women born in less than ideal circumstances, are doomed. And that’s what’s sad.

 Links to sources used:

1.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZccG-wtt5FA&ab_channel=AccentedCinema

2.    https://twitter.com/tony_zy/status/1302743527240142849

Why “boycott” Mulan 2020 (not only because of what the lead actress said):

3.    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/07/why-disneys-new-mulan-is-scandal/

4.    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/whats-happening-in-xinjiang-is-genocide/2020/07/06/cde3f9da-bfaa-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html

5.    What the actress did say: https://time.com/5653973/mulan-boycott-liu-yifei/

[dearoldtuxedo]

The Love Interest

In 2017, Taft Studios hired a new screenwriter for their popular, and long-running show, The Banana Splits. Her name was Sammie Satterlee, and ever since they recruited her on the staff, she impressed the audience with her diversed setting scenarios. 

Some new episodes took up morals that are rarely explored among children, and needed to be talked about more. The Sour Grape girls were given more personalities, rather than being reduced to cute, sassy dolls. She made Bingo and Drooper explicitly POC coded, so that minority children can see themselves in their favorite characters, even allowing some POC to guest star on the show. Bingo spoke Spanish occasionally, and Drooper celebrated Kwanzaa for a holiday themed episode. Stevie was also given a decent dose of character development.

Then, at that year, 2018, Sammie was ready to take on a new challenge: Introduce an LGBTQ+ character. Around this generation, a lot of children's media has been accepting of queer themes. The whole purpose was to help kids acknowledge that queer romance is just the same as the typical heterosexual romance. There is nothing inherently sexual about it.

Plus, Sammie happened to be queer herself. She grew up loving The Banana Splits throughout her childhood, and is still a fan to this day. She also grew up around a lot of homophobia at that time. Projecting sexualities/trans identities onto characters is a method of feeling more accepting, more valid. The same method queer kids on the internet use "headcanons" for. Queer children deserve representation. Sesame Street won't do it, so The Banana Splits might as well.

What better way to have one of the Bananas come out than giving them a male love interest? But, which Banana shall have a love interest? Fleegle seems too independent for a lover, regardless of what gender. Bingo prefers pranks and adventure over romance. And Snorky, even though as old as his fellow band mates, bears childlike innocence, so he's not ready for an adult love interest. The only option left was Drooper.

Yes, Drooper will work, she thought. The poor lion is considered the loser of the bunch. What if he had a sweet darling that would tell him how valid he is? Drooper's so clumsy, he's always falling down. Now, he needs someone to catch him and pick him back up on his feet. Sammie then started to sketch out her ideas.

That's when she conjured up Tux the snow leopard! Tux was short for Tucker, also defining his wardrobe, which was a tuxedo. The reason she chose a snow leopard was due to their majestic appearance, and she wanted Tux to come out as sort of a romantic gentleman. Also, because he should be a feline like Drooper. She drew out a reference concept of Tux, along with additional sketches of him and Drooper acting lovey-dovey with each other, and written a bio.

Tux was presented as a muscled man, a contrast opposite to Drooper's skinny frame. This snow leopard was purposely intended to be the hero to Drooper's damsel in distress. He sure is a handsome fella, but he's pretty dumb as well. That didn't matter. He's perfect for Drooper. Tux would be somewhat special to Drooper, like he understands him, he cherishes him, and he's willing to take a punch in the face for him.

After giving the references to Karl, and a bit of debate, the engineer decided to take a shot at it. Reading through Tux's biography, his personality and characteristics had quite interest Karl. This snow leopard certainly didn't possess the same energy as his other boys. Fleegle was the intellectual leader, Bingo was fun and energetic, Drooper was the butt of bad luck, and Snorky was the baby of the group. Tux was different. It would be quite complicated for a stoic machine to act out all these actions. Unless...

What if he gave this animatronic fully functional emotions? Karl always wanted to try something new. A robot with emotions would probably be his greatest achievement yet. No other engineer has dared to try it out. Not only will the idea be impressive, but his feelings would be very convincing.

After almost a month, Tux was completed. Although he matched his reference drawing perfectly, he appeared to be seven feet tall, instead of being two inches shorter than Drooper. Speaking of Drooper, not only were emotions installed into his databanks, but he was also programmed to fall in love with no one but said lion. 

Karl decided to showcase Tux to Sammie. He then activated the mechanical snow leopard. It took some time for Tux to get into motion, but as soon as he saw those humans in sight, he stepped back nervously. He touched around at himself for a moment, and scanned his surroundings. He was now alive, and he wasn't sure how he felt about this. The animatronic walked around the room, picking up items at random. He went back to Sammie and spoke for the first time.

"Hello. I'm... I'm..."

Karl answered for him.

"Tux." "I'm Tux. Pleasure to meet you. ...I think. Say, could you tell me where am I? What is going on? What is my objective?"

Just as Sammie could say anything, the Splits had entered the room. Tux turned his attention towards them by instinct. The very sight of Drooper had already triggered him into love mode. The feeling of seeing the lion was undescribable to him, but since it's in his programming, he knew how to act. He stared at the lion for awhile, then ran over to him. Tux took his paw into his.

"Hello. I am Tux. Pardon me if this sounds so sudden, but, I love you."

The animatronic kissed Drooper's hand, even though he just gapped his mouth open a bit and pressed it against the paw.

"Do you love me?"

Drooper was confused by this abrupt gesture, and had no opinion about it due to his lack of emotions. Still, he responded anyways.

"I love you too, Tux! I love all my friends!"

Tux was quite offended, having to be considered a "friend." Sammie decided to clear things up for the lion animatronic.

"Uh, Drooper, this is Tux. He is your new boyfriend. You know, like, a lover. As in you two are in love. Or at least, pretend to be, for the show."

A new boyfriend? Drooper doesn't remember agreeing to that. He just met the snow leopard, and all of a sudden, they're lovers? The lion isn't sure how he feels about that, especially since he doesn't return the snow leopard's attraction. Then again, Tux is a pretty nice guy. And it's not like they're forcing him to love him back. After all, she did say he could pretend for the show. Since the Splits aren't on the air right now, they might as well just be friends. Drooper shook his hand and greeted the new recruit.

"Very nice meetin' ya, Tux! I'm Drooper! This is Fleegle, Bingo, and Snorky! Welcome to The Banana Splits! Enjoy your stay, friend!"

He still deemed Tux as a "friend." That's not what Tux wanted. He didn't just come alive, fall in love instantly, only for it to turn out to be one-sided. Tux figured, he will get this lion to love him back, even if it kills him.

And so, for the last four days, Tux wasn't ready to be onscreen, so that gave him enough time to win Drooper's affection. The snow leopard had snuck into Rebecca's computer to find information on how to woo a person. Then he'd capture that info into his system.

Tux tried presenting Drooper with a flower (one of the props). He was flattered, took the flower, and patted Tux on the head. But walked away afterwards.

He tried serenading a romantic song, which was performed by the Splits in another era. 🎵I enjoy being a boy, in love with youuuuuuuuuu.🎶 Once again, Drooper was flattered, and applauded his performance, but still, walked away.  

Next, he tried the extreme. Tux grabbed Drooper, dipped him, and planted his mouth onto his, giving him a kiss. That only resulted in Drooper pushing him so hard, he knocks him down on his bum. 

No matter what technique he tried, his attempts all failed. And Drooper showed no signs of loving him back. Today was scheduled for Tux to make his physical appearance. But before he's ready to be on the show, he discussed his issue with Karl.

"My lover... ...doesn't love me. What have I done wrong?" 

Karl knew exactly what the problem was. It's not what Tux has done, but how Drooper feels. The lion animatronic was built to be emotionless, so it's impossible for him to accept a handsome man's gesture. Maybe Karl can fix that. 

"Settle down, my boy. You'll get what you want. I promise."

He then called Drooper over for a tune up. The only way for the two's feelings to be mutual is to install the lion with the same features programmed into Tux's databanks. The snow leopard held his hands together tightly. Soon, he and Drooper will be bond together at last. Together, forever. He'll have him close to him. They'll hold hands. The two will spend their entire lives as one until they rust. Karl then motioned that he had the notion of giving the other Splits emotions as well, so that they can embrace Tux like a family member. He wanted to make his greatest achievement feel at home.

“Yeah yeah sure. Now hurry up with the process!”

Suddenly, Rebecca entered the workshop, announcing that the whole "LGBTQ+ representation" project was officially canceled.

While the news of The Banana Splits having an LGBTQ+ character on their show received largely positive from the queer community, they've also gained negative, violent feedback from those who were against it. They were being accused of "attempting to encourage children into sexual acts," and called out for spreading "leftist SJW propaganda."

It gets much worse. Straight parents set up a campaign to boycott the show. Stevie threatened to quit because he refuses to work around a "cybernetic f@gg3t." And Andy, the network executive, blackmailed that he would pull the plug on their show if they let this "gay shit" slip onto TV. Sammie was fired, and the whole assignment was history.

Karl stopped what he was doing, leaving Tux confused.

"Aren't you gonna-" "I'm afraid there's no reason to anymore, my boy." "But, Karl- Drooper- You said I could have what I want! YOU PROMISED!" ���I wish I could keep it, but I don't think I have a choice. I'm sorry." "I don't believe it. How could you be SO SELFISH?! HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT HOW I FEEL?! PLUG HIM BACK IN, RIGHT NOW!" “I can't-" "ALL I WANT IS MY KITTEN TO LOVE ME! DOESN'T ANYBODY CARE?!!"

The snow leopard threw a big tantrum. A single stomp on the ground made the floor shake. Then, he shoved items off of counters, and smashed stuff, while screaming at the top of his voice. He was absolutely terrifying at that moment. Tux turned to Rebecca, thinking it was all her fault. She tried to tell him to stand down, but he was too stubborn. He grabbed her by the neck, and pressed her against the wall. With Tux's back turned away, that gave Karl the opportunity to shut him down. Tux let go of Rebecca, and fell over unconscious.

Poor Tux. Maybe giving him emotions was a bad idea. As it turns out, he's not mature enough to know how to handle them, which makes him too unstabled. After that traumatized experience, Rebecca demanded that Karl should get rid of him this instant.

After she left, the three other aninatronics entered the workshop. Karl stared down at Tux for a minute. The snow leopard animatronic didn't mean to cause any harm. He's just a little faulty, with his ardent coding and all. Karl never worked out how he would have Tux cope with his emotions. The engineer couldn't bring himself to throwing out what he thought was gonna be his greatest achievement yet, so he asked his four to dispose of Tux for him. Karl then left the workshop to see if he could calm Rebecca down.

Four of the Splits gazed upon the now deactivated animatronic. They, including Drooper, felt a bit sorry for him. Why put him to waste? There's still some potential in him. The sad case just wanted, and needed, some love like they have had. A new Banana Splits member is still a member. Besides, he was much nicer to them than Stevie.

"What are we gonna do with him?"

So, rather than dragging his metal carcass to the dumpster, they all agreed to hide his body, behind a couple of boxes and bins in the corner. Perhaps he will make himself useful. Someday.

[scifimagpie]

Political Oroboros: Why Marx Is Not Enough

First of all, I realise the title of this piece is inflammatory, so let me lay out some caveats.

I am absolutely not conservative. (One of the first things to know about leftist fighting and discussions online is that 'liberal' has two different meanings; the broad sense in which conservative commentators use it, and the more specific and technically correct sense that leftists sometimes use it - as well as the tertiary sense of, "anyone who isn't quite radical enough.') 

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a liberal in the sense of condoning a capitalist system; I do find the most common ground with proponents of democratic socialism. However, some elements of communist ideology do seem solid, although I tend to like many of the ideas I've seen from anarcho-syndicalists more.

Confused by those terms? You're not alone, but some of the hippest trends among the youth of today are not just trap music and street wear - it's political and philosophical discourse. Different streams of communism and anarchism and debating the concepts of idealists through the ages is pretty great, but treating those ideas as a firm road map and, perhaps, the only acceptable solution or map, is not so excellent.

After several weeks of careful surveillance and investigation, I also came to some unsettling and unsavory conclusions.

Source 

There's a weird and disconcerting mix of progressive and regressive ideas in this new wild west of a political movement; using "gay" and "retard" as insults in this year, and talking about second-wave feminist gender concepts (Penis =  man! Vagina = woman! are not scientifically validated ideas anymore, even if they have held sway for a long time) as though they're based on reality is...a special kind of confusing, frankly.  The person mentioned below isn't actually the "leader" of Antifa (antifacism is a general belief and approach, not an organization; the Black Bloc is something different) but the points they're making shouldn't actually have to be made. And yet, here we are. (To clarify: this person's opinion is, as far as I'm concerned, correct, because it's a summary of historical facts.)

We can try to tweak the perspective on things and change the way someone is seen, but facts have this tendency to assert themselves. And when those facts take the form of thousands of dead bodies, politely covering them up or scootching them out of the way is a bit harder. In the case of leaders such as Winston Churchill, it's been easier to laud their successes and forget the death toll because they were victorious, but it doesn't erase his contributions to the Bengal Famine and his decision to test gas weapons on Kurdish villagers. 

Yet even when we debate the value and leadership of dictators, history tends to reassert itself. 

“History isn’t like that. History unravels gently, like an old sweater. It has been patched and darned many times, reknitted to suit different people, shoved in a box under the sink of censorship to be cut up for the dusters of propaganda, yet it always—eventually—manages to spring back into its old familiar shape. History has a habit of changing the people who think they are changing it. History always has a few tricks up its frayed sleeve.”  ― Terry Pratchett, Mort

 Nobody is good enough

Of course, just because someone agrees with history (!) and is willing to unflinchingly consider mass murderers as guilty of their crimes doesn't mean they'll avoid participating in the cannibalistic discussions of leftist politics. A particularly difficult issue has been criticism of the Youtuber Contrapoints, who has both been lauded for her very real effects in de-radicalizing extremists, and criticized for fumbling her way through understanding non-binary genders (and struggling to deal with the flood of online criticism afterwards.) But merely liking a figure who is problematic (or worse, Trash, if they have failed one time too many) can be grounds for a friendship breaking up or the sort of extremely tense, stressful discussion that keeps one awake for hours afterwards.

As I said on Facebook one night, "Whiny comment of the night: it would be easier to unite the left if the radicals weren't so dead-set on everyone just converting to their beliefs as much as possible.And Seems like you can learn about Marxism, cultural history, feminism, and all of that...but it's impossible to unlearn American cultural hegemonic approaches and seeing violence as the default/best option."  But to clarify, this isn't speculation without sourcing. I did a bit of an investigation into a few leftist pages, and it was really unnerving to see the number of pro-gun and "eat the rich" and "fetch the guillotines" sorts of remarks and posters. The thing is, we've all done that dance before, and it's going on in other countries at the moment. Riots and protests are excellent when they work, but sometimes, they don't - and we don't talk about what happens when they don't. 

The risk of small government

At the risk of sounding like a cranky old lady, smaller governments are still governments. People who think some military junta of kids with guns can replace all the architecture and organizational levels of "the state" are welcome to try working in a city planning office as an admin assistant some time. Having done that myself, I would welcome anyone who wants to just replace and rewrite all those land laws, which by the way exist for reasons, to maybe take a civil engineering course or two.

And if you DON'T want to replace all that architecture, just get rid of the bad stuff - congrats, that's actually just reformism, which is still a far cry from "just accepting things the way they are." 

As a fan and casual scholar of cults, I've had many opportunities to see examples of small, ideologically-driven communities turn rotten. Frankly, I wouldn't trust my own town to just secede and govern itself, even though I'm very pleased with our mayor's decisions. I know too much about white people and sociology and Christianity (as well as other religions and groups) to trust that small, self-governing, autonomous groups will be fine on their lonesome. We're kinda in a globalized society with many, many supply chains. If you don't like that, get working on a time machine.

Yet even if one were to travel back in time, we've always had international trade and whatnot, and isolationism has never worked especially well. Also it's how you get fascism in the first place, so...history says it's how you make the exact monster you're trying to fight. Worst of all, these defenses of fascists and murderers do nothing but divide us along sectarian points of conflict. 

Sometimes I worry the Revolution will just be online and never actually get offline

— 🏴🛡Justin🛡🏴 (@sharkle82) July 19, 2019

What do we do? 

Honestly, my approach lately has just been to ignore Leftbook and debate spaces and not engage. Trying to discuss theory and concepts has led to some arguments over the applications of violence that have, honestly, made me stop trusting and just lose certain friends altogether. One otherwise brave and locally committed person said, "violence is neither good nor bad. It's a tool." Although I agree that self-defense actions are not exactly violent, I just don't think we should glorify aggression, or be eager to shed blood. It tends to lead to bad results, and it's uncomfortably similar to the stance we're opposing. My take?

Personally, I don't trust anyone who thinks the problems will all be fixed if we just kill a few of the right people.

The people who sit around day-dreaming about 19th century revolutionaries aren't necessarily the ones helping to, say, actually fight the battles that need fighting here and now. It may seem ridiculous to say, "hey, watch out for this," and also, "but you can basically ignore it," but frankly, that approach has worked extremely well for me in real life. 

The key is this. What do you want to accomplish, in practical terms? Forget about "praxis" and "theory"; what are the concrete, fundamental changes you want to see, and the results you want in society and your community? Every change comes incrementally. Evolution is unavoidable. However, we have an existing system that we can use - and dare I say it, that we can apply our strength to if we're determined enough. 

How to change the world 

Writing actual letters to politicians in my city, province, and country, engaging in the community fight for preservation of a local Safe Consumption Site, signing petitions for various environmental protection causes, and applying pressure to politicians, as well as keeping an eye on actual local white supremacists, fascists, and extremists has done more and had a greater impact than anything in my decade or so of arguing with people on the internet. 

My only regret is that I didn't start using my skills in the real world much, much sooner. It turns out that all the people who insist that those in power won't listen to "us" are, unequivocally, wrong. And while I do have white and cis privilege to thank for some of my results, I would also argue that we on the left must not presume our own helplessness and confine ourselves to training arenas online.  Get out there. Talk to politicians. Stay up to date on the news and follow multiple sources, rather than reading 150-year-old essays. And above all, embrace the power of both individual actions and solidarity. 

I have more to say about this topic, but instead of creating another series, a few essays may be cropping up. Until then, however, I have real work to do, both in the political world and out of it. For one thing, books aren't going to finish themselves! 

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and Max the cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

[marcjampole]

Why some left-leaners like charter schools & why they shouldn’t. It comes down to confusing Alinsky & Friedman

Whenever I contemplate the fact that many leftists and left-leaning centrists believe charter schools are a good idea, I am reminded of Reinhold Niebuhr’s premise in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness that it is not the evil children of darkness who cause most of the world’s problems, but foolish, misguided or uneducated children of light, i.e., well-intentioned good people.

Make no mistake about it, from day one the charter school movement has been a darling of contemporary children of darkness, very wealthy families seeking to lower their taxes or make more money by privatizing public schools and the right-wing ideologues who support them. People like the DeVoses, the Princes, the Anschutzes, the Bradleys, the Kochs. I think you get the idea—the selfish ultra wealthy, as dark a group of people as the average leftist or lean-leaner could imagine. These are the people who originally funded the charter school idea, set up think tanks and grass roots associations to campaign for charter school funding and got public relations agencies to make sure the mainstream news media thought this failed idea was more successful than it actually was. These people know in their greedy little hearts that the charter school idea is the big right-wing lie in education policy discussions, similar to the big lies in other important policy areas, such as climate change denial, intelligent design, voter fraud claims, abstinence only training, budget deficit panics and the idea that lowering taxes on the wealthy stimulates the economy. All are discounted ideas of America’s children of darkness that persist and, in the case of charter schools are thriving, in practice and public discussion.

One reason more charter schools are popping up around the country despite their widespread failures and scandals is because of support from well-intended children of light, including a good number of left-leaning centrists and leftists, such as President Obama, Hillary and President Bill, Andrew Cuomo, Howard Dean and Marian Wright Edelman. A survey by Stanford’s Hoover Institute found that 58% of Democrats liked charter schools in 2016.

The advocacy of charter schools by left-leaning politicians can’t be because of charter school performance, since studies show that the students in more than 70% of all charter schools across the country perform at lower or the same level as the students in the competing public school, 31% performing worse. Many of the approximately 29% of charter schools whose students manage to do better than those in their public school alternative have fixed the game. They discourage kids with disabilities from applying or weed out students who are less successful; for example, one Arizona charter school that U.S. News & World Report placed in the top 10 of all high schools across the country starts with 125 students in sixth grade but has a mere 21 in the graduating class. The administration presumably weeded out low performers, who then returned to their traditional public school, artificially raising the performance of the charter school and lowering the performance of the traditional public school. Improvement at a mere 29% of schools, up from a miniscule 17% in 2009, makes charter schools a failure. Only ideologues who prefer to create their own reality would continue a program that fails to work 71% of the time and actually makes things worse about a third of the time. On top of all that, it turns out that charter schools are more segregated than regular public schools. I have an article in the autumn issue of Jewish Currents that goes into greater detail on the disadvantages of charter schools and other right-wing educational reforms such as cyber schools and school vouchers, but I think you get the idea: charter schools are bad.

I can understand why many desperate parents of modest or little means with children in schools of few resources in poor districts might be attracted to the line of bull professed by charter school operators, many of whom are for-profit companies whose investors will make their dough by spending less on the children and lowering compensation for their teachers. Just like subprime mortgages, payday loans and for-profit vocational schools, charter schools target the most vulnerable and sell them a bill of goods.

But what about sophisticated left-leaners, policy wonks like the Clintons and Obama? I think there are three reasons so many mainstreamers seem comfortable with charter schools: First, out of respect for minority communities among whom they think there is a lot of support for charter schools, mainly because the mainstream news media and charter school lobbyists tell them so. In point of fact, there is an organization that purports to represent African-Americans who like charter schools, called the Black Alliance for Educational Options, but it receives most of its support from the ultra-right, ultra-white Bradley Foundation. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Movement for Black Lives, an umbrella group for 50 organizations, have come out vehemently against charter schools.

Secondly, embracing charter schools is part of centrist Democrats’ slow dance away from unions. It’s not that Democrats don’t like unions, it’s that they don’t think about them as a central part of their core constituency anymore. Union issues have become an afterthought. Centrist Dems don’t consider the impact on unions when deciding how to shape policies, in or out of power; e.g., NAFTA. When unions protested that the impetus behind charter schools was to kill public school unions and thereby lower teachers’ salaries, the centrists probably thought it was more union obstructionism, or perhaps veiled racism since charter school folks were falsely touting how minorities could take hold of and thereby improve their children’s education. Maybe they have vague memories of accusations of union racism that marred the first controversy over locally controlled schools, in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville section of Brooklyn in 1968, long before conservative billionaires started funding the charter school movement. On the one hand, who can blame the centrists Dems, given that so many union members abandoned the Democrats for Trump? On the other hand, it’s inconceivable to imagine a progressive movement or a large middle class in this country without a vibrant, large and politically active union workforce.

The last reason is the most subtle, and perhaps the most important. Leftists and left-leaners who have supported charter schools look at its superficial features and see the model for community organizing advocated by the sainted Saul Alinsky. In his Rules for Radicals and elsewhere, community organizer Saul Alinsky proposed to effect progressive change and empower people by organizing them around existing community organizations or symbols for direct nonviolent action against a well-known (“useful”) enemy. The Alinsky model asks the community itself to determine the precise goal of the organizing.

That does seem a lot like charter schools, doesn’t it? The existing organization or symbol is the public school. The community as represented by the school’s board of directors—all community members and parents at the school—determine the goals. The enemy is the public school/union bureaucracy. The nonviolent direct action is to take over the school. The empowerment results when the community has more control over how its children are educated.

No wonder charter schools excited sixties and seventies radicals turned establishment types like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It sure does sound like solid gold Alinsky.

But it’s not even cheap brass plating. It’s an illusion. Underneath the radical left exterior, the operation of a charter school is a conveyance for privatization by which control of all decisions rests in the hands of private businesses, either for-profit companies or non-profit companies whose administrators make big bucks. Since state and national standards drive virtually all curriculum decisions, virtually all the decisions the community boards make come early and involve window-dressing, e.g., make it a Spanish-language school or mandate uniforms. The board can’t dictate that the school not teach evolution or teach that the South won the Civil War. The board can’t restrict minorities or those with handicaps from attending the school, although the for-profit school administration has been known to do so by where they market the school and what they require of applicants. Maybe that’s why charter schools are more segregated than traditional public schools.

Everything else is driven by the administration installed by the charter school operator with whom the community board has contracted. Like many boards of directors in the private sector, the community board becomes a rubber stamp for the senior management. As long as the operator fulfills the terms of the contract, it can pretty much do what it likes. And that almost always involves hiring less experienced teachers and fewer certified teachers, nonunion in most cases, paying them less, and providing them with fewer professional development opportunities. Cut and take profit. It’s how government privatizers make a living, be it in education, prisons or the military, and it’s central to the crony capitalism practiced by the contemporary Republican Party.

In a sense, much like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the charter school movement is Milton Friedman masquerading as Saul Alinsky.

Charter schools have proven to be a failure. It’s time to move on, to shut down all existing charter schools and reintegrate those schools and the students in them, into their traditional public school district.

But ending a school-reform-gone-bad is not enough. We also have to address what made the charter school attractive in the first place—not the racism, but the lack of resources in public schools. We need to invest in more teachers in elementary schools, where it is well-established in the real world that smaller classes are better for the students. We need to buy schools more computers, updated non-Texas-vetted text books, more enrichment such as music and art materials and teachers, equipment and supplies for special magnet schools and other resources that public schools now lack in many areas. It might be helpful to tax rich school districts statewide to support poor school districts, to in a sense, mandate equity in public education.

There are lots of things we can do to improve our public schools and make sure that every student gets the best and most appropriate education. Virtually all of these ideas involve increasing spending. The only thing that will really help our education system that doesn’t involve spending more money is to end all charter schools.

[bestmovies0]

Be Warned: Your Own Trump Is Coming

One day, very soon, your personal Donald Trump will come along. It’ll be all of the same tricks, only perfectly tailored to your faiths and pent-up rage. He or she will be just as dishonest and as abrasive as the proverbial cat’s tongue on your genitals … but everything they say will go down smooth as butter. You know how sometimes you drink butter? Like the little bathtub of it they give you at Red Lobster? Like that.

They may not even be running for office. They may merely crave you to buy their book, or listen to their podcast. What matters is that you spot them before it’s too late. So, here’s how TAGEND

12

Instead Of ISIS, It Will Be Nazis

People like this always need a looming “must be stopped at all costs” menace, one so dangerous that the supposing part of your brain will go dark at its very mention. Usually they’ll hype up some loathsome radical group as a fundamental threat to our civilization — so dangerous, in fact, that all norms must be suspended. With Trump, it was ISIS( or refugee rapists, or Latino gangs — he had several ). When a “Trump, simply for progressive types” comes along, it will be Nazis. They’ll make it sound like half of all Americans have a ruby-red armband stashed in their sock drawer.

div >

“But Nazis are real! ” you’ll be seduced to say. I know! You belief ISIS is an improv group Trump hired? This technique works behavior better when there are real headlines they can use as evidence. They’re not fabricating a threat — they’re amplifying it to cartoonish proportions to make all other issues( and scandals) seem moot. That’s the key.

Sounds Like:

“Are you frankly going to nitpick my economic plan when we’re literally living in 1934 Germany here? Focusing on minutium is exactly how Hitler came to power! “

11

They Will Deflect Any Criticism With “Trump Was Worse”

The most underrated long-term threat is that Trump permanently lowers our standards. For your Trump, this will manifest itself in two ways: A) by deflecting any scandalous news with worse Trump news( as if we have no other basis for comparison ), and B) framing any criticism as secretly pro-Trump.

Sounds Like:

“Oh, so it’s another one of those ‘both sides are the same’ articles. Say what you will about ________, but I’d take them over Cheeto Mussolini any day of the week. I wonder how much Putin paid for this one! “

10

They Will Say We Must Fight Fire With Fire

Some of you are already confused. Wouldn’t “Trump, simply with the right policies” be a goddamned dreaming come true? It’d is just like getting a Louis C.K. who doesn’t make people watch him masturbate. We thought we had that, and it was awesome!

div >

Here’s the thing. Those who resist Trump do it for two distinct reasons TAGEND

A) His policy points( tax cuts, social program cuts, Obamacare repeals, etc .)

B) His personal immorality and violation of all that we comprise sacred( antagonistic style, rapid-fire falsities, petty personal insults, fearmongering, demonization of marginalized groups, aggression toward the press, general authoritarianism)

div >

This is the line between a disagreement among experts about which policies best serve the populace in the long term( A) and somebody simply acting like a piece of shit( B ). Likewise, there’s a huge difference between someone who voted for Trump because they believe lower corporate taxes spur employment and someone who only craved a human hand grenade to put the suffer on those triggered libs.

If you really, truly hate Trump, it will be very easy for some firebrand to come along promising to be the grenade thrown back in the other direction. That tendency — voting only as an act of violence against a detested adversary — is a larger threat to the fabric of society than any individual policy. A leftist who wins with Trump tactics is like a corrupted policeman framing a guy who by coincidence turned out to be guilty. Normalizing those tactics is worse for us in the long run, regardless of what happens to that one criminal.

Sounds Like:

“I don’t know about policy. All I know is that if the Trumpkins are this triggered, we must be doing something right! Go back to the trailer park and screw your toothless sisters, shitbirds! “

9

They Will Insist That Things Can’t Possibly Get Worse

Pessimism is a weapon. Trump promised to end the “carnage” of the last eight years, and described America as being full of empty factories “scattered like tombstones.” He induced the two countries sound like a blasted post-apocalyptic turdscape of disease and perversion. That is universal to demagogues, for a simple reason: No proposal , no matter how fucking stupid, can be criticized if things “can’t maybe get worse.”

Beware of anyone who says this. No matter what’s happening in your life, it’s objectively untrue that things can’t get much, much, much worse than they are now. Many nations have installed leaders running on a “What do you have to lose? ” platform, simply to realize the answer to that question is always “A whole fucking lot.”

Sounds Like:

“Don’t were just talking your precious ‘constitution’ or ‘political norms.’ Look where that got us! They’ve ruined the two countries, and we need to do anything we can to stop them. Anything . i> “

8

They’ll Say That We Are Smart And They Are Dumb

Mocking the other side’s voters as crayon-eating morons serves a dual objective: It appeals to our intellectual pride and lowers our defenses. After all, if merely dumb people fall for lies, and we’re clearly not dumb, then we don’t need to worry about falling for lies. Your Trump will joyfully debunk a long list of silly shit believed by the other side( to prove how gullible they are ), but won’t dedicate any of that energy to maintaining our own information stream free of pollution.

Totally unrelated, did you hear how the Trump administration banned certain phrases, like “transgender, ” “fetus, ” and “science-based”? It’s disgusting what these people will do. Or not?

Sounds Like:

“This article misses the level. Trump only came about because of uneducated, low-information voters! We’re the side that believes in science and proof! A leftist Trump wouldn’t last five minutes. Besides, we’d never support a guy who is too dumb to know how to feed fish.”

Nicholas Wadhams/ Twitter

7

Instead Of MAGA, It Will Be “Make America Like[ Insert Country Here] ”

The Trump Express is fueled by fury, and the easiest route to induce rage is to convince the audience that Utopia is real, and that they’ve been cruelly deprived of it. Conservatives tend to claim that this Utopia existed in the past — you know, back when every uneducated employee had a secure high-paying task, there was no felony or immigrants, and minorities knew how to behave — before a few evil powerful people took it away from us.

Progressives, on the other hand, insist that Utopia exists in other countries( usually Nordic ones ), and that a few evil people prevent us from being like them. In these other places, all needs are provided for free, there is no crime or corporate avarice, and the police mostly just smile and wave.

As usual, there is always a grain of truth to it. There are things other countries do better( mass transit, healthcare ), just as some things were in fact better in the past( once, ISIS didn’t exist! And now it does !) The deceit is in the refusal to acknowledge any sacrifices or trade-offs. There is no country in the world in which healthcare and secondary education are “free, ” and anyone using that term is pulling a Trump on your ass.

div >

Sounds Like:

“America is basically a third-world country. You don’t see race riots in Sweden or a corrupt criminal justice system in Japan! How hard can it be to fix these things? “

6

They’ll Insist That It’s Their Way Or The Apocalypse

You’ve already spotted the running theme here: Whether it’s their Trump or yours, they’ll shield themselves from criticism by making you terrified of the alternative. Scared/ angry people( they’re the same thing) are easy to control. If a lifeguard is saving you from drowning, do you care if he’s visibly aroused and screaming racial slurs the whole day?

So expect to hear a lot about nuclear conflict. It’s easy to forget that Trump did the same thing — lots of his support received from people who were terrified that Hillary Clinton would trigger WWIII with Russia.

Sounds Like:

“Even if I believe what you say about my guy’s program driving up unemployment, that’s still better than the job we’ll all have under Trump — the job of being DEAD in a NUCLEAR APOCALYPSE.”

5

They Will Blur The Line Between Hate Groups, Protesters, And Activists

The right has had great success equating the Black Lives Matter movement with rioters and policeman murderers — 57 percent of Americans have a negative opinion of the group. If person or persons in a crowd of thousands transgresses a window, that’s all it takes.

Look for your Trump to do the same. Anyone on the side of deregulation, tax cuts or cuts to social programs is technically on the same “side” as white nationalist terrorists. Well, there’s clearly no level in arguing with a skinhead who discovered a route to rhyme “genocide” in a chant, and that guy polls Republican, so clearly there’s no arguing with anyone who referendums Republican.

Sounds Like:

“You wishes to make a deal with these people on immigration policy ?!? Making deals is exactly how Hitler came to power! “

4

They Will Connote That Merely More Government Power Can Save Us

Governments rarely try to sell you on giving them more authority. In reality, you will scarcely hear the phrase “more power to the government” at all. Who the hell are in favour of that? In a movie, if the government is confiscating power, there’s usually scary music playing in the background and somebody is about to start elevating a clone army.

div >

Instead, it’s ever framed as taking power away from the bad guys. That’s why Trump needs to say the streets are owned by gangs, refugees, and terrorists, and that America is losing huge to China. The bad guys have all the power, therefore we need more police, fewer rights for the accused, tighter border controls, and more protectionist trade agreements. All of which, by sheer coincidence, dedicates more power to him .

Read Next

The Completely Selfish Reason You Should Help People

Your Trump will speak of a country dominated by corporations and Nazis. The only way to stop them will be higher taxes( But merely on the rich! You won’t feel a thing !), maybe a universal income( 100 percentage controlled by the federal government departments, but it’ll be fine ), and broader restrictions on detest speech( and they get to define what that is ). Any of those may or may not be good ideas to some degree. The key is that any objection to those proposals, or talk of moderating them, or concerns about how such power could be abused, will be called pro-Trump( or “Nazi” ).

Remember, this isn’t about left vs. right. “Its about” a technique, one intended to eliminate critical reasoning or debate. They need you to buy the assumption, without questioning it, that the only solution to the current crisis is to give them more power. Never mind that those powers will remain on the books the next time the other side takes over( just wait until you appreciate what they call hate speech ).

div >

Sounds Like:

“Authoritarian fascists like Trump are selling America out to his corporate lackeys. We need to elect someone who will return power to the people . “

3

They Will Use Violent Language … Then Scream When The Other Side Does It

Trump openly “joked” about beating protestors to approving roarings from crowds, and then clutched his pearls when Kathy Griffin was photographed with a bloody Trump mannequin brain.

Donald Trump/ Twitter

Your Trump will do that same coy little dance. Appear for constant allusions to “revolution” or “wiping out the fascist enablers, ” phrased in ways that make it clear that they’re not talking about changing their brains. They will, in the very next breather, insist that the same violent rhetoric on the other side amounts to literal marching orders. Of course the Portland train attacker was just acting on right-wing rhetoric. Of course the Bernie Sanders supporter who killed a Republican congressman was just mentally ill.

div >

Everyone wants the freedom to sound like a tough-talking badass without presuming any responsibility whatsoever when blood get spilled. We have to decide if we’re better than that.

Sounds Like:

“I have to wonder how long we’re going to pretend that voting or lobbying actually makes a difference before we take this to the streets. Besides, did you hear what that Republican said last week about running over objectors? It’s merely self-defense! “

2

They Will Insist That Rights Don’t Apply To the Other Side

Trump’s side adoration to talk about the Constitution, but it’s clear they want it applied selectively. When they say “freedom of religion, ” they don’t mean Islam. “Freedom of assembly” doesn’t is in relation to Black Lives Matter. The “right to a fair trial” doesn’t is in relation to suspected terrorists or someone who got shot by the police. If you demand rights for those groups, well, you must secretly be a terrorist or a criminal. Surely no one actually wants rights to be applied to bad people.

div >

Your Trump will do the same; they’ll simply swap out the groups. “Sure, I believe in freedom of the press, but these articles are hateful, and must be removed using any means possible. Sure, I believe in freedom of assembly, but these guys are misogynists . “

All of it comes with the unspoken, indefensible assumption that protections don’t apply to people who themselves don’t believe in them. “No one who wants to take rights away from others should be allowed free speech! ” “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no faiths or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.” You can, of course, use that same twisted logic to attain all rights go away — and there will always be someone eager to do it. “Why should a criminal get a trial if they didn’t commit a trial to their victim? ” “Why should freedom of religion apply to atheists if they just use it to onslaught other religions? ” “Why should freedom of the press expanded to an outlet that demeans journalism by publishing trash? ” “Why should we extend the right to vote to people who will use it to kill unborn future voters? “

div >

Sounds Like:

“Did you hear California is prosecuting a guy for posting hateful messages on Facebook? It’s about period ! I signify, I’m all for the First Amendment, but this is hate speech! Allowing Nazis to have free speech was precisely what Hitler came to power! “

1

They Will Foster Personal Cruelty

We all know why detest groups are a thing. The world will always contain a certain number of shitty people who define themselves by what they’re not. “I’m not great because of anything I’ve achieved, but because I’m not a Muslim . ” They hang around the fringes of civilization until their Trump comes along and stoke their rage. This is why so many of you still don’t think you’re in danger here — you can’t get sucked in by a Trump because you’re not one of those people.

My argument — the one I retain coming back to — is that all of us are “those people” under the right circumstances. If you take any human and attain them seem powerless and desperate for long enough, then start pumping up their anger, they’ll change. You too.

div >

You won’t even feel better. You’ll say “the worlds” is what changed. Then you’ll have someone granting you permission to take all of that panic, self-doubt, and insecurity and unleash it on the adversary like a bang from a goddamned flamethrower. They don’t even stimulate a drug that feels that good.

Your Trump will carefully select and highlight the worst of the most serious from the other side — the most petty, disgusting, pig-ignorant cockroaches — and hold them up to your eyes, every day. They will say that every common courtesy granted to them is a self-inflicted wound, that every act of petty meanness is a win, every cruel joke an act of gallantry, every calamity on their side a cause for spiteful festivity. This is war , they’ll say, which means all rules go out the window. Even though real campaign actually has lots of rules. Whatever.

This is the final lie of a demagogue — that deep down, we’re all no better than them, that the only behavior to win is to be even worse. I don’t crave you to believe that lie, to let Trump bring you down to the slimy cavity of petty meanness where he dwells. There’s no coming back from it.

Sounds Like:

“Fuck ’em. They did it to us first.”

For more on this subject, find 6 Reasons Good People Turn Into Monsters, 5 Things To Understand About Modern Hate Groups, and 5 Reasons Humanity Desperately Wishing Monster to Be Real. David Wong is the author of the bestselling John Dies At The Terminate series . i>

If you enjoyed this article and want more content like this, support our site with a visit to our Contribution Page. Please and thank you . i > b>

Read more: http :// www.cracked.com/ blog/ be-warned-your-own-trump-coming /

from https://bestmovies.fun/2018/01/26/be-warned-your-own-trump-is-coming/

[anthonybialy]

Trump and Change

Fox News monitor and occasional president Donald Trump is the only hope Democrats have.  They should be nicer to him.  But destroying their enemies is now a reflexive goal, even for allies. They need a chart. Someone point out how often he agrees with them while making their lives easier.

Boorishness paired with statist desires makes the incumbent sound like one of their own.  But Republicans will be saddled with him until the end of time or until the party is replaced by one based around wanting cops and soldiers on guard while being left to drink alone.  So far, I'm the only member.  The animal mascot is of course a monkey wearing a pirate hat.

Street chanters were so worried about shaking the president's confidence that they didn't notice they're affiliated with a regional party. Piling up votes from a few dim sickos concentrated in obnoxious cities and our more unfortunate states isn't a winning strategy unless that slick-talking conman who was their last winner grows a convincing mustache as a disguise.  Scharak McBama is their best 2020 hope.

The present Democratic Party is the exact sort the Founders worried about, which is why they put in an electoral college.  Sorry again, Hillary.  I know the Constitution keeps thwarting your dreams.  If it makes her feel better, the Constitution's authors would've also been appalled by her side's dedication to bossing around people rendered destitute by the same oppressive policies.

The concentrated group of illegal immigration enthusiasts and vulgar anatomical hat-wearers should be glad the Party of Reagan is now embodied by a confused aspiring strongman.  Setting a new standard for oafishness isn't a virtue any more than rising debt.  But we get to experience new records almost daily.  Even the unlikely executive's rare good ideas so far have been poorly-explained.  Doing a bad job of explaining horrid concepts actually works out for the country.  Avoiding damage is now for optimists.

The only thing worse than Trump's crudely generic language is when he explains something clearly.  Take his stubborn unwillingness to touch entitlements that are entitling workers to be taxed mercilessly in exchange for a pittance that nonetheless pushes us toward default. Social Security is an even worse investment than Trump Ice. The difference is he can force you to participate in one.  A guy with a history of baffling products rejected by customers finally found a racket where everyone must buy.

It takes a few moments to define situations because politics is tricky. Unfortunately, humans hypnotized by magical glowing screens are only able to pay attention for a fraction of that time, not to mention that the lack of direct interaction has made everyone rude.  In fact, you stopped reading this column a long time ago, although that's still no reason to call me a jerk.  There are other perfectly fine ones.

To further overload our fried circuit board brains, the liberal party can only be saved by a liberal from the other side.  Calling someone a fascist as they agree with his policies sure is confusing.  That's not helping during the three-second explanation window.

There's a high chance pointless spending will continue to skyrocket, so nobody should worry.  Paying for it is irrelevant, at least for those who think voting for tomorrow means spending today spending soberly. Meanwhile, waiting for that Obamacare repeal remains like hoping Trump decides to give up spewing lame insults in tweets in reply to perceived slights.  And don't forget whispers about an exasperatingly lax immigration plan to Marco Rubio's left.  You may recall him as the young and charismatic spokesman for limiting government who was deemed too much of a leftist squish for his willingness to discuss the issue with Democratic lunkheads.

The loser of a battle between an oft-liberal president and his deranged liberal critics will be conservatism, of course.  Somehow, people who want to slit government's throat will be accused of fattening it. Acting as if conservatives want to keep throwing money taken from others requires a fantastic devotion to the idea that each party wholly represents a particular ideology.  In reality, “Republican” means “conservative” in the same sense that an Oscar proves a movie is worth seeing.

At least Democrats are consistent.  That's not necessarily a virtue. Massive mandatory schemes they'd endorse if made by their own president will inflict damage as they're implemented by a fellow they despise more than Cyborg Hitler.  Trump is the embodiment of the preposterous stereotype that businessmen looking for any advantage they can are for the free market.  It's just particularly untrue for this particular businessman.  But don't confuse anyone with anything as complicated as evidence.