#its about abolishing them

[moonturtlephilosophy]

Women are monsters.

I, too, have been blinded by the false narative that women are somehow inherently innocent or victims.

(Meanwhile men are somehow either guilty or not guilty yet)

Women are disproportionatly affected by some physical crimes, but that doesn't make them any less violent selfcentered monsters.

And especially when a person has internalised the belive that they are inherently victim, they stop thinking about how and if they are/could be causing harm.

(See terfs and trfs as obvious examples)

Especially in othervise priviledged individuals, that's a dangerous mindset. (Because unchecked priviledge, I don't think I have to explain that)

The point is, all humans are born with the capabilities to cause harm. And EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE of us needs to put in the time and do the work to becoming reasonable, communicative and harmless adults.

Not harmless in the sense that you can't harm, but in the sense that you can, but are actively chosing not to.

And if you think that individual women can't hurt individual men because patriarchy exists, then you are disillusioned. Heck, women can even use patriarchy itself against men. And they have and they do. Yet (larger) society barly holds them to any responsibility or consequences. (unlike men, who might get peer group approval depending on the peer group, but not larger societal approval for their violence, be it verbal or physical)

[kacievvbbbb]

I feel like the main reason this evil shanks theory is so prevalent (besides the private meeting the the gorsei which up even I can’t explain) is that his general cheeriness and lackadaisical disposition is more of a presented front, a mask to be slipped on and off at will which would be fine if he weren’t often put in the same boat as Roger and Luffy two people ( for as much as we know about roger) who have no masks at all.

Don’t get me wrong I’m pretty sure that Shanks is a naturally happy, good natured dude but he’s also the most politically minded pirate we have seen on the show (and some of these pirates were actual politicians) like I’m pretty sure Roger is more mature and secretive than Luffy ( makes sense he’s older and has seen more of the world) but with both of them you never get the sense that their silliness is something they are putting on for the direct purpose of making themselves less of a threat. They both can get serious when the situation calls for it but that feels more of an extension of their already established personality more than a hidden personality.

While with shanks it’s undeniable that something changed within him and his goals the day Roger died I don’t know if Roger actually told him something or if he just wasn’t dealing with the abandonment well it was probably a mix of both honestly. But yeah Shanks comes off as a guy with his ear to the ground someone who has schemes on schemes on schemes. he’s someone playing in the long run, kind of like crocodile but not nefarious. And when compared with a straight forward head first always kinda guy like Luffy, like he often is, he can come off a little suspicious.

There’s something that’s a little fake about his cheer, something a little too performative about his optimism and foolishness. I think it’s a mix of; he’s housing a deep sadness, he’s more of a realist that an optimist and also dudes just a pacifist unlike like luffy who loves to brawl ( like luffy knows when it’s better not to fight but he also loves a good fight) and he would rather deescalate a situation than fight it out and sometimes the easiest way to do that is with an air of cluelessness and making yourself seem less of a threat which makes it so much more jarring but effective when he reveals just how big a threat he is. but I can see why people think it’s suspicious.

(Interestingly even when luffy tries to emulate this behavior like when he first encountered Bellamy at the pub his plan is to just not react which while in the same vain is very different than Shanks actively playing the drunken good natured take it on the chin role for the bandits Luffy was still essentially himself he just refused to react while Shanks played a role which made it more terrifying and effective when he stopped)

Also it doesn’t help that until recently he’s largely been missing from the narrative with just a man echoing or a whisper here or there of how powerful he is.

But I think we should remember that Shank’s goal is essentially world peace. and peace, a true lasting peace, is just a little more of a precarious balancing act, than utmost freedom. For freedom you have to destroy the old game, for peace you have to learn to play a new one, hopefully with a bit more kindness injected into the foundation.

[cavity-collector]

i think everyone should at some point meet a few really horrible people and have in depth conversations with them. it really broadens your perspective. u cant dehumanize them anymore when you know them so well, even if they truly have no motive behind their actions other than “i dont care about other people and i want them to be in pain” thats still. a person saying that. you can ask them about their day or things they’re interested in. you can ask them about their philosophy and their upbringing. they arent just a boogeyman that we should keep the death penalty reserved for, you only feel that way because youve reduced them down to their immorality and stopped seeing them as a person.

[juney-blues]

99% of conversations on anarchism about here are hampered by people having no clue what anarchists are talking about when they refer to "the state", including, it seems, the anarchists themselves.

[sunlightfeeling]

feeling like ive committed sacrilege

<- guinea pig fanatic that just blocked guineapigposting

[diabetesnscoliosis]

The current "pro palestine" trend (in quotes because you do fuck all for them) is a sole reflection of US American guilt. Guilt over their government's world dominance(but not their culture bc that requires more brain cells and self awareness). Despite that, the conversation is STILL centred on them, how they feel, and what they're doing. There is no geopolitical focus. Humanitarian focus is used sparingly and with no genuine sense. They use far right dog whistles to talk about jewish people (bc thjs obviously helps palestinians not being bombed, starved and diseased)

Aussies who do the same thing are just following the same American shit. It's all about "im feeling weeeh guilty". It's not about you. It isn't about you. Destructive division means you're grifting on a movement to reinstate basic human rights and using it for your own gain, personal or political.

It's easy to join a protest. It's harder to engage in mutual aid. It's harder to change your habits. It's harder to build community. It's harder to find the intersection between domestic and international policy. Why? Because they require work. Change is work. It's easy to sit on your ass and talk "from the river to the sea" and hand out stickers and post online. Are you in contact with your local palestinian community? Or your local Arab community? Are you working with them? If you're serious and genuine about change, work is no surprise to you.

[br1ghtestlight]

Any Sergeant bosco headcannons hmm?

THIS ASK SOUNDS SO PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE AND JUDGEY LMAO but yes i love bosco and think about him maybe too much considering he's a cop. he's genuinely one of my favorite bobs burgers characters

expanding upon the fact that he canonically has adult kids i think he and his wife were in a bad marriage but decided to stay together until their kids were adults to get divorced, but there was a lot of fighting and it probably would've been healthier for everyone if they just split up when the kids were younger. his kids resent him for their kinda shitty childhood so he doesn't talk to them very much and they moved far away to like new york city or whatever, he does love and care about him but he maybe isn't the best at showing them that or communicating (he also is probably not great with kids in general as shown by his interactions with the burger babies)

he didn't really ever WANT TO be a cop he's just a cop bcuz he figured that was an easy career and its what his parents encouraged but when he sees younger officers joining for the same reason he tries to convince them to quit and do what theyre actually passionate about i thimk he would've enjoyed music when he was younger

he and bob very occasionally get together and have a few drinks and just talk about shit after the restaurant is closed, neither of them would call each other friends but they are definitely friends they're just grumpy old men about it <3

he really respects louise and she's honestly his favorite belcher child and at one point louise asks him to come into her class and do a presentation on police work for like a celebrating heroes thing and he's actually very emotional bcuz his own kids never wanted him to come by their school for anything, louise just wanted to brag about how she knows an actual cop with a gun but she respects bosco too bcuz he doesn't treat her like a child and actually stands up to her bullshit

bosco is more fond of the belcher family than he would like to admit, like they're crazy and they make his life miserable sometimes but he does genuinely care about them and enjoys their shenanigans and they're probably some of the only people outside the police force who he's actual friends with and he does like linda and bob specifically, he's ambivalent towards gene and tina bcuz he doesn't really understand kids or get along with them

I WOULD ADD MORE BUT TUMBLR DOESNT LET YOU SAVE ASKS AS DRAFTS AND I HAVE TO GO NOW SOO goodbye

[not-heavenly]

just realized the reason it seemed more fun as a kid when men taught was because they didn’t have the primary voice and so it didnt seem like they were talking down to us

[3liza]

there is strong evidence to suggest, and I certainly believe, that c-ptsd causes an adaptation to long term, ongoing stress by compensating with chronic cortisol underproduction, leading to an endocrine disorder where you're only getting enough stress hormones to be functional when your house is burning down. this is why a lot of us only feel normal, or good even, when dealing with some sort of emergency.

the problem with looking for this function of the endocrine system in the scientific literature is that PTSD and CPTSD still arent reliably clinically separated even though they have very different symptomology, and people with one-time-incident PTSD don't tend to show the endocrine damage. so studies on "people with PTSD and their cortisol levels" show inconsistent results.

this study from 2018 notes that the cortisol in female subjects and subjects who had PTSD from sexual and domestic assaul--two groups whose PTSD is almost always C-PTSD rather than short term, like natural disaster or combat trauma--was significantly lower than in combat veterans, illustrating my point without apparently knowing or speculating on the reason behind it.

this is an extremely useful adaptation because it restores stress hormone homeostasis (balance) to a person who is trapped in a nightmare situation. the problem is that it also causes you to start feeling "worse" as soon as you are no longer in a crisis. this can cause malfunctions of your "gut check" processes because sometimes, for some people, you feel better when you're actively in danger, a thing thats been observed by researchers and emergency workers who work with domestic violence situations and adult victims of childhood trauma for a century, and makes a lot of the "trust your body" type advice actively counterproductive.

minor effects include reinforcing the ADHD tendency to leave everything until the last minute because you know and have learned you literally cannot do it unless it's an emergency, but it also creates people like my aunt who very observably creates emergencies for herself through various little choices like intentionally ignoring her check engine light because she has been so dysfunctional for so long that she can't operate at all unless she's trying to outrun falling dominoes.

anyway I think low dose corticosteroid treatment will probably be officially discovered as a treatment for C-PTSD within the next five years and be clinically applied at some point after that. one of the discouraging things about this process is that the endocrine system doesn't seem to adapt to relative safety very quickly or at all for many people, including myself. either it's impossible for the affected person to achieve the level of security required to actually readjust and small stressors keep signaling to the body to maintain the incorrect stress responses (common for people who are stuck in poverty by disability or mental illness), or theyre like my aunt and either consciously or unconsciously maintain their own emergencies to stay on an even keel.

cortisol is also necessary for trauma recovery. there have been studies where patients in the ER who were dosed with additional cortisol following traumatic incidents like fires and car wrecks were less likely to develop PTSD in the following months than the control subjects. if you're constantly dealing with emergencies without an emergency-level cortisol dump, yeah sure you'll be very calm and functional during the emergency for everyone, but maybe you're not getting enough cortisol to avoid developing even more PTSD, and certainly not enough to control the related inflammatory processes. this could be contributing to the increased incidence of inflammatory chronic illness in C-PTSD patients.

big fan of characters who have it all under control when theyre put in situations but no idea how to be like a regular guy doing regular stuff when all is said and done.

[genderkoolaid]

as someone with ARFID i really couldn't care less about the distinction between "picky eaters" and "genuine eating issues." if you are an asshole to someone you see as "just picky" i will never, ever trust you. i've lived through the trauma of being shamed and humiliated for my eating needs.

frankly i think a LOT of "picky eaters" have some kind of sensory problems– autistic or allistic– and shame is never useful. i don't fucking care how annoying you think we are. if you've never lived through the humiliation of being the only one not eating at a dinner table, or having to choke down something disgusting you already know you hate because other people insist you don't know your own body, or getting a hunger migraine in a house full of food because none of its edible to you? you don't understand how awful it is to have food issues.

whenever i see people draw this distinction between being "just a picky eater" and "having a real problem" all i think is, who does this serve? most people don't even know ARFID exists. there are so many undiagnosed autistics, or just people with a variety of issues that aren't officially diagnosed. why do we need a medical label in order to be treated with respect and compassion? why did i need to be diagnosed as autistic for my family to realize the abuse they put me through for years because of my eating habits?

it's such an easy habit for neglected groups to fall into– the idea that a medical diagnosis can save us. that by appealing to the medical/psychiatric industry, we can be protected from abuse and given basic respect and resources. but the truth is that it should never have come to this in the first place. dignity doesn't come from an abled doctor telling you that there's a medical reason for your symptoms. it comes from being a person. once you accept that you need a Good Reason to have your needs respected, you doom yourself to neglecting and abusing those who have your same struggles because they aren't lucky enough to access medical recognition.

tl;dr solidarity with all "picky eaters" stop guilting people for having varying food needs, if we make you irrationally angry that's YOUR problem not ours, and abolish "children's menus" & replace them with simple-food menus for people of all ages

[formicarum-rex]

the thing about the paris commune is the price they paid for it seems so wholly out of step compared to what they were doing for those two months, but it was also the inevitable conclusion

[rainbowgod666]

I would like to see y'all hearing about all of this and realizing just HOW MANY GOVERNMENTS are like this

From the court today. Israel IS committing a genocide.

[pixiesnooze]

HATE romance stories with distinct power imbalance between the two characters. kill romance stories with distinct power imbalance between the two characters.

[vague-humanoid]

“We are not going back,” goes the Democrats’ passionate rebuttal to Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign — which is about going back to the “golden days” of America, when white men held all the power and Black folks had “Black jobs.” MAGA is in actuality MAWA: “Make America white again.”

Unfortunately, on at least one issue, the Democrats have gone backward rather than forward, in a move that caught many of us by surprise (thanks to Jessica Schulberg of Huffington Post for breaking this story). As the festivities finished up in Chicago last week, the Democrats quietly removed abolishing the death penalty from the party platform, a move that certainly will not help them distinguish themselves from Trump and win this election.

It’s surprising in part because a recent Gallup poll found 65% of Democrats oppose capital punishment. Even beyond the Democratic Party, public support for the death penalty has been steadily declining, with a majority of Americans now wanting alternatives to execution.

Even though most of the world has abolished the death penalty in my lifetime, the United States is one of the few countries that continues to execute. In fact, the U.S. is usually among the top five countries with the most executions annually and is almost always in the top 10. The other countries with the most executions usually include China, Iran, Saudi Arabia — not the best company when it comes to human rights.

There are promising signs that the death penalty is on its way out in the United States. Executions have been dropping nearly every year, and new death sentences are the lowest they’ve been in decades. There are only a handful of states that continue to carry out executions each year, and one state, Texas, accounts for nearly half of our country’s executions.

Nearly every year or two, a new state abolishes the death penalty, and movements like Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty are now seeing a surge of conservative lawmakers who are done with death.

It is noteworthy that the states that continue to execute are former Confederate states, a reminder that the death penalty is part of our shameful history of racial terror, lynching and slavery. The places lynchings were happening most frequently 100 years ago are those where executions happen the most frequently today. The states that held onto slavery the longest are the same ones that continue to hold on to the death penalty.

But even here, there is hope. In 2021, Virginia became the first former Confederate state to abolish the death penalty, the same year that Joe Biden became president. There is a connection here: As Virginia was turning away from the death penalty, so was Biden, who became the first U.S. president to publicly oppose the death penalty after once being a death penalty supporter.

[elder-millennial-of-zion]

When I say I’m a Zionist, all I mean is that I want a country that already exists, that has existed for 75 years, to continue to exist. Not the current government, just the country itself. That shouldn’t be a controversial stance.

It’s not normal to need an entire movement around wanting an existing country to keep existing. It’s not normal that there’s an entire movement dedicated to the complete destruction of one singular country and no other.

Even if you insist on comparing Israel to the most evil regimes; Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa - which you shouldn’t because it’s false and antisemitic, but even if you did - the Nazis were defeated, the Nazi occupation of other countries was defeated, but Germany is still a country. Apartheid ended, but South Africa is still a country. British colonies have fought for and won independence one by one, but Britain is still a country. In the US, slavery ended, segregation was struck down, but the US is still a country. It’s only Israel where people pose the ridiculous question of whether a country should still be a country.

And to everyone who says “I don’t think the US should exist either,” bullshit. You’re not doing anything about that. There is no movement to abolish the United States, and last time there was, that movement was comprised of the racist slave owners.

The fact that the argument over Israel’s existence has been normalized when there is no such argument about any other country in the world, is ridiculous. It’s insane that non-Jews can’t talk about Israel the way they talk about every other country, that they can’t criticize its government, military, or policies without jumping right to “and therefore Israel should be destroyed.” They say this about the one Jewish country and no others, and they really pretend they don’t see anything wrong with that.

Not to mention that abolishing a country is completely impractical in ways that have never occurred to them. Like there’s a sign on a border gate that says “Israel” that they can just paint over to say “Palestine” and that will be that.

Step 1: replace all the flags

Step 2: ???????

Step 3: utopia

[read-marx-and-lenin]

about taiwan. but im still confused as to why should china care. they havent controlled taiwan for some time and seems to just cause conflict. why not just leave taiwan be and be happy with the mainland. what good does claiming taiwanese island bring? why do they care if an island belongs to them or not?

What good does the ROC claiming the mainland bring? Why does the KMT care about the ROC being the legitimate successor to Sun Yat-sen's Republic? Why is the DPP bribing right-wing US warhawks and inviting US destroyers into the Taiwan Strait?

This is not a situation where a bunch of nasty evil communists are persecuting an innocent island nation. This is a situation where a right-wing counter-revolutionary army, upon losing a civil war, occupied the island and maintained a military dictatorship for 45 years, only eventually opening up to democracy after massive amounts of protests and unrest. The PRC was the only democracy in China for those 45 years. They were fighting to liberate the Taiwanese people, not to oppress them.

After the ROC abolished the military dictatorship and repealed the law declaring the CPC to be rebels and enemies of the nation, the CPC and the KMT began to engage in peaceful dialog, leading to the 1992 Consensus. This consensus formed the basis of informal PRC-ROC relations, under the shared belief that Taiwan is a territory of China.

The election of the pro-independence DPP in 2016 has threatened the prospects of peaceful reunification. Unlike the KMT, the DPP has never had any relations with the CPC and is firmly opposed to reunification. Cross-Strait dialog between the two governments was cut off and the ROC quickly began to take a much more antagonistic role towards the PRC.

The PRC does not want a war. The Taiwanese people do not want a war. The KMT does not want a war. It is only the DPP and a bunch of US imperialists who have been bribed by the DPP who want a war. This is why the PRC has condemned foreign interference in Chinese affairs and condemned the separatist movement in Taiwan.

The PRC does not even want political control over Taiwan. They have proposed a "one China, two systems" approach to reunification that would enable the Taiwanese government to maintain its current legal system and operate with a high degree of autonomy. They know that the Taiwanese people would not soon accept CPC control over the island and they are not proposing that as a solution. But if the separatists get their way and start the Civil War all over again, it's very likely that that is what will happen, with many innocent lives lost to boot.

The DPP could choose at any point to resume the peaceful cross-Strait dialogues that the KMT had been engaging in. But they would rather continue their nonsensical rhetoric and wordplay where they can have their cake and eat it too; where the 1992 Consensus was never a consensus and where Taiwan is already independent despite never having declared independence. More worryingly, they want to continue courting US imperialists and engaging in behavior intended to provoke armed conflict in the region. They would rather start a war than risk having to acknowledge Taiwan's status as a territory of China.

If you want to understand the PRC's position better, this publication by the PRC is a good summary of their current position on the subject.