#marginalized group

[anticoquette]

Not to sound weird but I really wish non Americans would shut the fuck up about the results. So many of us did what we could and then some. Also saying you’re “happy” you don’t live in America as if this shit isn’t going to effect AT LEAST a portion of you is fucking insane. Learn how international relations, allies, and world politics overall work. I’m genuinely not trying to scare anyone but thinking the stuff that will happen in the US is going to stay within the US is idiotic. I know it’s popular to hate on the US and Americans but majority of you just sound cruel. We know we’re fucked and we don’t need people who think our country is like a coming of age film to keep giving their ignorant two cents.

Edit: And if you disagree I don’t care. Be as entitled as you want. As much as I know this will affect people outside of the US it’s going to affect American citizens directly before anyone else. Thinking you know more because you’re seeing it on social media will never compare to me actually living it and knowing my quality of life as a black, queer woman in this country is going to plummet quickly.

[rachelspoetrycorner]

A Litany for Survival (1978) by Audre Lorde

In Episode 140, Rachel brings a poet who described herself as, quote, "a black lesbian mother warrior poet."

Griffin: [after hearing the poem] Jesus Christ.

Rachel: [laughs] Isn't that incredible? That is—is such... a beautiful expression of the experience of being marginalized. Right? Like—

Griffin: I mean, in a way that you and I could never fully comprehend, for sure. That is like—I am struggling for words over here.

Rachel: I—there are moments in that poem that I just think are so succinct and brilliant. This idea of, "so their dreams will not reflect the death of ours" I find incredibly powerful. And she talks a lot about this idea of, y'know, when you are in a group of marginalized people, you are often told to be silent. To kind of adapt to the culture so that you can get along. And Audre Lorde oftentimes said like, that is not a way to success for us.

If you’d like to hear more -and honestly, why wouldn't you?- you can do so here: The Atomic Collage, from 26:50 - 34:08

[libertarian-princess]

They could easily make new stories for a black fairy or a black mermaid but Disney won't because Disney is lazy and cheap. They also get a lot of free publicity from outrage marketing.

I ❤️ how people act like white women aren't oppressed just because we're white.

[reasonsforhope]

People ask me sometimes how I'm so confident that we can beat climate change.

There are a lot of reasons, but here's a major one: it would take a really, really long time for Earth to genuinely become uninhabitable for humans.

Humans have, throughout history, carved out a living for themselves in some of the most harsh, uninhabitable corners of the world. The Arctic Circle. The Sahara. The peaks of the Himalayas. The densest, most tropical regions of the Amazon Rainforest. The Australian Outback. etc. etc.

Frankly, if there had been a land bridge to Antarctica, I'm pretty sure we would have been living there for thousands of years, too. And in fact, there are humans living in Antarctica now, albeit not permanently.

And now, we're not even facing down apocalypse, anymore. Here's a 2022 quote from the author of The Uninhabitable Earth, David Wallace-Wells, a leader on climate change and the furthest thing from a climate optimist:

"The most terrifying predictions [have been] made improbable by decarbonization and the most hopeful ones practically foreclosed by tragic delay. The window of possible climate futures is narrowing, and as a result, we are getting a clearer sense of what’s to come: a new world, full of disruption but also billions of people, well past climate normal and yet mercifully short of true climate apocalypse. Over the last several months, I’ve had dozens of conversations — with climate scientists and economists and policymakers, advocates and activists and novelists and philosophers — about that new world and the ways we might conceptualize it. Perhaps the most capacious and galvanizing account is one I heard from Kate Marvel of NASA, a lead chapter author on the fifth National Climate Assessment: “The world will be what we make it.”" -David Wallace-Wells for the New York Times, October 26, 2022

If we can adapt to some of the harshest climates on the planet - if we could adapt to them thousands of years ago, without any hint of modern technology - then I have every faith that we can adjust to the world that is coming.

What matters now is how fast we can change, because there is a wide, wide gap between "climate apocalypse" and "no harm done." We've already passed no harm done; the climate disasters are here, and they've been here. People have died from climate disasters already, especially in the Global South, and that will keep happening.

But as long as we stay alive - as long as we keep each other alive - we will have centuries to fix the effects of climate change, as much as we possibly can.

And looking at how far we've come in the past two decades alone - in the past five years alone - I genuinely think it is inevitable that we will overcome climate change.

So, we're going to survive climate change, as a species.

What matters now is making sure that every possible individual human survives climate change as well.

What matters now is cutting emissions and reinventing the world as quickly as we possibly can.

What matters now is saving every life and livelihood and way of life that we possibly can.

[classicslesbianopinions]

the other thing about being disabled in academia is everyone is like "yeah we can't do much about the buildings they're old :/" as if "old" being a synonym for "inaccessible" isn't just a constant reminder that the people who built the school did not imagine that someday someone like me might study there

[marzipanandminutiae]

Of course, the burkini ban is messed up on grounds of religious freedom and racial discrimination. But also

Under any other circumstances, people would be HORRIFIED at a government mandate that women have to show a certain amount of skin. Like. That’s fucking dystopian, and the absolute opposite of feminism. If a government tried to pass a law that all women had to wear tube tops and miniskirts to go outside, people would rightfully be up in arms demanding blood

But because it’s targeting a marginalized religious group, many folks are lauding the blatant forced sexualization of women. Appalling

(apparently the ban also outlaws things like sun – protecting bathing suits if they cover too much skin. Which like. Yes, let’s give everyone skin cancer just so we can spite a religion we’ve decided to hate. Sounds like a good plan </s>)

[freakoutgirl]

said this in the tags of my post before but I feel like it's worth repeating. the thing about this argument that leftists (and specifically feminists) being mean to cishet white men is what's driving them to the alt right is that it's ignoring the fact that these men have women in their lives who are already nice to them. they have mothers, sisters, aunts, coworkers, neighbors, even sometimes girlfriends and wives. there are very, very few men out there that are totally isolated from women that will treat them with kindness. and yet these men will still not see these women as people. they still vote to ban abortion, they will still feel entitled to women's time and bodies, they will still insult perceived "beta males" for not exhibiting their same behaviors. women's kindness does not have a significant material effect on their politics. as long as women will get jobs over men, as long as women are able to say "no" to men, as long as women assert they are people, there will be those men who choose (and I specify choose so people don't misinterpret this as saying it is an "immutable trait") to turn to patriarchal supremacy, and specifically white patriarchal supremacy as long as people of color also make any social headway. that's why the term "reactionary" exists.

[taxinealkaloids]

behold hitherto unposted htn doodles! harrow+her terrible mentor, harrow+her terrible roommate

[infiniteglitterfall]

I guess this might be why the UK seemed to go so antisemitic so quickly

I'm researching the 1947 pogroms in the UK. (Actually, I'm researching all the pogroms and massacres of Jews in the past 200 years. Which today led me to discover that there were pogroms in the UK in 1947.)

From an article on "The Postwar Revival of British Fascism," all emphasis mine:

Given the rising antisemitism and widespread ignorance about Zionism [in the UK in 1947], fascists were easily able to conflate Zionist paramilitary attacks with Judaism in their speeches, meaning British Jews came to be seen as complicit in violence in Palestine.

Bertrand Duke Pile, a key member of Hamm’s League, informed a cheering crowd that “the Jews have no right to Palestine and the Jews have no right to the power which they hold in this country of ours.” Denouncing Zionism as a way to introduce a wider domestic antisemitic stance was common to many speakers at fascist events and rallies. Fascists hid their ideology and ideological antisemitism behind the rhetorical facade of preaching against paramilitary violence in Palestine.

One of the league’s speakers called for retribution against “the Jews” for the death of British soldiers in Palestine. This was, he told his audience, hardly an antisemitic expression. “Is it antisemitism to denounce the murderers of your own flesh and blood in Palestine?” he asked his audience. Many audience members, fascist or not, may well have felt the speaker had a point. ...[The photo of two British sergeants hanged by the Irgun in retaliation for the Brits hanging three of their members] promptly made numerous appearances at fascist meetings, often attached to the speaker’s platform. In at least one meeting, several British soldiers on leave from serving in Palestine attended Hamm’s speech, giving further legitimacy to his remarks. And with soldiers and policemen in Palestine showing increasing signs of overt antisemitism as a result of their experiences, the director of public prosecutions warned that the fascists might receive a steady stream of new recruits.

MI5, the U.K. domestic security service, noted with some alarm that “as a general rule, the crowd is now sympathetic and even spontaneously enthusiastic.” Opposition, it was noted in the same Home Office Bulletin of 1947, “is only met when there is an organized group of Jews or Communists in the audience.”

The major opposition came from the 43 Group, formed by the British-Jewish ex-paratrooper Gerry Flamberg and his friends in September 1946 to fight the fascists using the only language they felt fascists understood — violence. The group disrupted fascist meetings for two purposes: to get them shut down by the police for disorder, and to discourage attendance in the future by doling out beatings with fists and blunt instruments. By the summer of 1947, the group had around 500 active members who took part in such activities. Among these was a young hairdresser by the name of Vidal Sassoon, who would often turn up armed with his hairdressing scissors.

The 43 Group had considerable success with these actions, but public anger was spreading faster than they could counter the hate that accompanied it. The deaths of Martin and Paice had touched a nerve with the populace. On Aug. 1, 1947, the beginning of the bank holiday weekend and two days after the deaths of the sergeants, anti-Jewish rioting began in Liverpool. The violence lasted for five days. Across the country, the scene was repeated: London, Manchester, Hull, Brighton and Glasgow all saw widespread violence. Isolated instances were also recorded in Plymouth, Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Newcastle and Davenport. Elsewhere, antisemitic graffiti and threatening phone calls to Jewish places of worship stood in for physical violence. Jewish-owned shops had their windows smashed, Jewish homes were targeted, an attempt was made to burn down Liverpool Crown Street Synagogue while a wooden synagogue in Glasgow was set alight. In a handful of cases, individuals were personally intimidated or assaulted. A Jewish man was threatened with a pistol in Northampton and an empty mine was placed in a Jewish-owned tailor shop in Davenport.

And an important addendum:

I've read a whole bunch of articles about the pogroms in Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Eccles, Glasgow, etc.

Not one of them has mentioned that the Irgun, though clearly a terrorist group, was formed in response to 18 years of openly antisemitic terrorism, including multiple incredibly violent massacres. Or that it consistently acted in response to the murders of Jewish civilians, not on the offensive. Or that at this point, militant Arab Nationalist groups with volunteers and arms from the Arab League countries had been attacking Jewish and mixed Arab-Jewish neighborhoods for months.

I just think the "Jewish militants had been attacking the British occupiers" angle is incredibly Anglocentric.

Yeah, they were attacking the British occupiers. But also, that's barely the tip of the iceberg.

Everyone involved hated the Brits at this point. If only al-Husseini and his ilk had hated the Brits more than they hated the Jews, Britain could at least have united them by giving them a common enemy.

[anticoquette]

I’m a black woman part of many marginalized and oppressed groups in America. There is nothing nobody in or out of this country can tell me about anything. A lot of Americans who voted for Kamala are self soothing by saying “be hopeful” “it’s only 4 years” “after this he can’t run again” “stick together”. We barely have 10 years left and I have to spend 4 of them being terrorized, having my rights as a human being stripped away? Anything that could or has benefitted me is going to be gone. I don’t stand a chance here. People are so quick to label posts like these as “doom posting” or “fear mongering” but that’s what I feel. I feel doomed and I’m fearful

[coyoteworks]

IN CASE YOU MISSED THE MEMO: HERE'S THE THING ABOUT DRAGONS

[ambrosiagourmet]

I dunno, I kinda think that describing an often-viewed-as-autistic character as relatable to everyone is fun and rad actually. I think that the idea of autistic people being relatable to neurotypical people is cool as hell

[pansexualdemic]

[tododeku-or-bust]

A Summary

Liberals: Sacrifice yourselves and your humanity so that we can be safe and comfortable.

Palestinians: Would you do the same for me? Would you fight for me to live as safely and comfortably as you? Do I have your allyship the way you want mine?

Liberals: No. That's too hard. It makes me uncomfortable.

Palestinians: Then no.

Liberals: 😐...😡

[spider-xan]

Regarding Mina's description of Dracula and why it's problematic, a good starting point would be to read the Wikipedia article for physiognomy, which is the outdated pseudoscience of face reading that is unfortunately rooted in racism, antisemitism, ableism, etc., and was very popular during the Victorian era as a way to judge moral character based on facial features.

So when Mina says 'His face was not a good face', she is not just saying that Dracula is ugly (though concepts of ugliness and beauty are not value-neutral either), but that she can tell that he is evil based on his facial features; note that one of the facial features she singles out is a 'beaky nose', which comes from Cesare Lombroso's idea that among other traits, hawk-like noses are a marker of criminality on the basis of criminals being evolutionary throwbacks who are less evolved than non-criminals; many of these allegedly 'criminal' and 'degenerate' facial features are obviously racialized and not associated with Gentile whiteness, but in opposition to it.

Stoker was definitely interested in physiognomy and uses it as a narrative device to show how certain heroic characters are intelligent, perceptive, and educated on the latest (pseudo)sciences (the modernity theme again) - namely Mina and Van Helsing, but also Jonathan to a lesser degree; we will definitely see this idea come up several more times, including explicit references to Lombroso himself.

It is also important to remember that linking physical appearance and morality still happens today - think about how many people say they can tell someone is a bad person bc they're ugly or that 'People get the face they deserve' where good people age gracefully and bad people age poorly, even though aging has nothing to do with personal character.

[typosandtea]

Nobody including me posts about their ocs enough so please please please reblog reply or whatever with some oc tidbits!