#most of them were saying to just use 'non-jewish' as the most neutral option

[faggotry-enjoyer]

[ID: google search dictionary entry:

gentility noun social superiority as demonstrated by genteel manners, behavior, or appearances.

/end ID]

This is just terminology but regarding asking goyim to ID ourselves as such, may I ask if there's a specific reason you prefer that phrasing? Asking because I've previously heard that hearing someone self-describe as goyische can be a bit jarring due to Connotations from white supremacists "reclaiming" the term (scarequotes bc that's obviously not how reclamation works) so I'm wondering if you have an alternate perspective I should be taking into account or if it's just like, personal preference/not that deep.

Ah! @faggotry-enjoyer, My friend! I did not see this message from you until today! My deepest apologies!

I didn’t mean that every goy had to specifically call themselves goy. I’m just descended from Hungarian, Russian, French, and Mongolian Yiddish speakers and that’s more familiar a term to me than “gentiles.”

Personally, I’ve always found “gentiles” a little awkward as a term anyway. As I’ve stated repeatedly, goy is a fully neutral word with no positive or negative connotations. But the word “gentile” seems to have a weirdly positive connotation that I find off-putting. It seems far too close to the word “gentility” for me.

It feels like “gentile” is a person of “the gentility,” thus inherently socially, behaviorally, and aesthetically superior to non-gentiles (aka Jews). Perhaps this is just because of my relationship to Hebrew (and its use of root constructions that convey connotations in the base structure of the word) that this seems to be a term that is inherently critical of Jews in a pretty blatant way. But it always seems just…idk. Uncomfortable for me to use I guess. It feels like I’m putting myself down to elevate someone else and acknowledging their inherent superiority over me.

That said, I am in no way suggesting that this is how all Jews relate to this word. I have studied Hebrew since I was very young (I’m not a fluent speaker anymore, but I was once), and I’m a writer and love words and etymologies. It is extremely likely that I am thinking more about this than someone else would or does.

So, I say goy because it is the most neutral to me. It doesn’t convey that I’m better than a goy or that a goy is better than me.

When I said “goyim identify yourself as such,” I meant more generally, “if you’re not Jewish, please indicate that in your reblog or tags when reblogging from a Jewish person.”

And to anyone who is new to my blog, the reason I asked goyim to do this is because Jews feel very alone and hated right now and a very easy way to help us feel better is to just let us know that someone outside of our community sees and hears us. It so very often feels like we are shouting from inside a soundproof room and we can only hear and be heard by each other.

There are so very few Jews left in the world. It is simply impossible for us to survive if we advocate for ourselves alone. We need goyische voices alongside our own if we hope to be heard at all amongst those who outnumber us.

One thing about Jewish culture though, we all disagree a lot about a lot of things. Someone probably does find it offensive to self-label as a goy. Someone else probably finds it offensive to reject the idea of self-labeling as a goy.

However, by and large, I think most Jews won’t be concerned that you’re appropriating our language and culture if you are using our language to identify yourself as someone who supports our culture. Yiddish isn’t a religious language, but a cultural one. While Judaism is a closed-practice religion, Yiddish is the language of our culture in exile. It is the language we used while existing in a goyische world that was and remains hostile toward Jews.

I think, personally, that if you’re not using our language to demean us, it’s not off limits. Like, call yourself a goy! You are one! It’s not a bad thing! But, like, don’t call Jews you disagree with schmucks or something like that. And, obviously, if someone is antisemitic then I do not want them using Yiddish at all.

If someone wants to condemn our culture, then I loathe the idea of them picking out the parts they can use for their own purposes. If you reject an entire culture, you do not get access to the parts of that culture you like, imho.

So, I guess (in answer to your question) it is personal preference but is also that deep. Jewish culture is old, deep, and complex. I'd never speak for other Jews, and I'm sure plenty disagree with me on this. But I have personally never heard of a Jewish person offended that a goy calls themselves a goy. Personally, I find it endearing.

[ask-jumblr]

Thank you so much to everyone who’s been constructive.

Both commenters, and the anons below who were open about what they’re struggling with. Since all of the asks were either hateful, or seemed to be addressed at me, the mod, I’m going to handle them. 

Before you get too upset that I didn’t give all y’all equal chance to answer: I’m encouraging the anons to send in some asks dealing with the issues they’re mentioning, formatted in such a way that it’s easier for jumblr as a whole to constructively help. Based on their current asks, I can only ask questions about what they practically need.

Because I’ll be addressing the asks chronologically and the constructive asks come later, I’m going to put it all below the cut. If you don’t have energy today, don’t click through. Even the constructive stuff is heavy.

Here were the first two anon’s received:

Isn't Orthodox just exclusionary extremism? Aren't those the homophobes and transphobes who think you shouldn't be allowed to marry a non-Jew? Why aren't we staying focused on reform/recon Judaism?

It’s okay not to know things, although the assumption was a little harsh so I didn’t want to post it directly. In response I made a myth-busting post. Yes, it is American-centric, but here’s why: I can be pretty darn sure anon is American, or at least North American.

Given that you’re upset about intermarriage, you’re probably not Israeli. Given that the U.S. has the largest diaspora population, anon is likely American. Given that anon is referencing “Reform” Judaism as an alternative, they’re probably not in Britain (”Liberal Judaism”) or outside U.S./Britain/Canada/Israel (”Progressive Judaism” everywhere else).

Realistically speaking, I can’t call up every community everywhere. As an American coming out of a mediocre, Anglo-centric education system, I can only speak one other language with any competence and blurt a few words of a few more. If you want to know about a community in a specific place then please, please ask. There have been folks on here asking about communities all sorts of places who have gotten answers here. Jewish geography + the internet is amazing! When anon is American, with misconceptions about American Jews I’m going to assume such.

Orthodox Jews should probably stop existing. 

This ask is hateful and non-constructive. Hence the threat to block.

After this, I got some anons who are getting at some problems that we can really work on. They aren’t American, so I’ve assumed they aren’t the first anon.

hey if your responses and views could stop portraying us jewery as being the only way things are done and that we somehow all have access to the stuff you do, that would be grand

(cont) or where there zero chance of finding a group of that community that'll accept me and not treat me in hateful ways. I'm sorry that Jewery outside the US/NA is that unfamiliar to you and that our viewpoints and experiences makes you uncomfortable but I guess that's the way US Jews deal with Jewish "outsiders".

I’m going to start with part 1 to stay in order even though part 2 is what gets me antsy to help ya. You’re right. I don’t have a ton of experience with non-U.S. Jewery. That’s why I tag thoroughly and encourage folks who don’t know the answer to signal boost. If you’re specific, someone else on jumblr can help you. 

When anon asks are vague and, as they often do, reference U.S./North American terms for branches (”reform” rather than “liberal” or “progressive”), I’m going assume the anon us in the U.S. or greater North America. Most other respondents likely will too. Anon askers who want otherwise need to use terms that are more globally (”progressive”) or locally (”liberal”) appropriate, or give a little more locational information (e.g. city, country, region). Re-my new explanation above about American-centrism. I respect that you didn’t have the benefit of seeing the language in that ask, but I’m here to help you as much as I can without superfluously emailing every rabbi in every country for another anon who’s linguistically and statistically likely to be in New Jersey or Ohio or somewhere else in the U.S..

Now for part 2 (after “(cont)”), your concerns. (Getting something out of the way: Since you’re saying “Jewish “outsiders”” I’m going to assume you’re Jewish. However, many people reading this might not be; this audience has a lot of prospective converts. I want to point out that prospective converts aren’t entitled to conversion via any particular community. I might personally be dismayed, but it’s that community’s prerogative. Getting that community to a place where people who are already Jewish who are LGBTQ, have disabilities, etc. are accepted is going to be my priority if I were to harangue a community that’s not my own. In other words, people like anon. On that note...) I received another ask with a concern similar to part 2, by someone in a similar situation as a Jewish person under the LGBTQ umbrella whose only option is a community that won’t accept them. I’d like to answer these together. Here’s that second ask:

Not your first anon but there's no non-homophobic Orthodox community where I live. I live in Europe and maybe it is different in the US but the Orthodox communities here do NOT accept lgbt+ people. Or if they do it is under the "don't ask, don't tell" form of homophobia where you're accepted as long as you don't display it publicly or ask them to treat you as an equal in any way. So sorry for not feeling endeared to a group that have always hated me.

This means we’ve got a heck of a problem. There are Jewish people who don’t have a community and need one. Y’all (You all) don’t know me irl, but making sure Jewish people who want Jewish communities have Jewish communities is something I’m very big on. I’ve gotten some flack for being too welcoming or too focused on making sure synagogues are welcoming. I want you to know that we want you here. Unfortunately you aren’t close enough for me to personally offer you that hug.

You see, I’m a U.S. Jew, but I’m not one from a place like New York City where there’s a wealth of Jewish community options. (hint: #SouthernJews #ShalomY’all) I know those people near me who feel forgotten, ignored, scoffed at, or unvalued don’t always have another option (or that it’s a loooong drive and lots of gas money away). I am someone who has had to put in the work to build the community she wants and needs, and a community that is welcoming for the people she cares about. 

Putting aside the extent to which I’ve had to patch up my own education while trying to make sure others aren’t on their own doing it, I’ve also had an obstacle you’ll find more relatable. I know it’s not obvious, I’m also under that LGBTQ umbrella (sexuality, not really gender from my current self-understanding). I’m largely closeted irl because being Jewish makes me enough of a target and is harder to hide. I don’t discuss it much on the internet because I don’t want #woke #discourse about myself as I figure out my own identity, and don’t want my own processing  (yay for internalized -isms!) to hurt someone else. It’s fine that you didn’t know, but I want you to know now so that you can understand my experience:

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend in Israel who’s had to make community choices too. My friend (who is also under that umbrella) convinced me that I should go to a shul with a rabbi who was openly homophobic in the past because it’ll be the best balance between programming that meets my needs (adult learning! services!) and driving distance. The rabbi stopped being openly homophobic, so I know I can be in that community. But it’s not exactly my dream. I don’t plan on relying on that rabbi for psak or life-cycle events--at least not until I know more. Then again, I’m lucky. I’m lucky in that there are rabbis I feel comfortable getting psak from who speak my native language. I’m lucky that I know enough to know that a non-rabbi can officiate a commitment ceremony (and actually a Jewish wedding too...), and that I’m from a well-connected extended-family that is friends with rabbis elsewhere (whoot! Jewish geography!) who would happily come in to officiate for me (though it might be costly and they might only do commitment rather than marriage). And I’m lucky that my extended family would be supportive enough to do so for me (they’d be getting eager enough for me to marry anyone...).  I’m also lucky in that I could drive even farther and hit a Reform community that’s been more accepting for much longer. It doesn’t have the resources or programming I need, but I would have hypothetical access to a place with other Jews that has gender-neutral bathrooms and a rabbi who hasn’t said anything (recorded) that’s unaffirming of my existence.

But what about people who don’t have access to an alternate community? Or for whom that other community is even father from being a good fit?                   With work, it is possible to make change. Do you know why that shul’s rabbi stopped being openly homophobic? Maybe compassion. But there was an outside trend too: the community shifted away from homophobia to embrace its LGBTQ members, and he was forced to follow. It’s quite likely that movement stances and responsum helped, but community organizing, changing minds one-at-a-time, those were definitely pieces of the puzzle.

I want this blog to be here for you in figuring out how to make those changes. I began an initiative on here called Tikkunity. It’s a goofy name for an important mission: help people find strategies to make their communities more vibrant, more welcoming, more supportive, more accessible, more whatever someone needs. The ones I’ve put out so far aren’t as heavy as your topic, but Tikkunity is also here for what you’re looking for. I’ve gotten in touch with some other blogs about topics that are less obvious for communities, and a bit heavier too. If either of y’all feels comfortable messaging me from off anon (just make a side-blog with a random url), I’d love to draft a post with you. Alternately, if you send something constructive and specific enough such as “I only have one choice of community and I don’t feel safe or accepted there as a [insert LGBTQ identity/ies] person. How can I make my community more accepting of [my existence/my partnership/my pronouns/etc.]? FOR: Orthodox and [LGBTQ accepting/affirming/or other word or phrase of your choice that describes people who would be in-line with your goal]” or “ I only have one choice of community (there aren’t many Jewish people near me) and I don’t feel safe or accepted there as a [insert LGBTQ identity/ies] person. Does anyone have recommendations of what to do and tools to help me do Jewish stuff to do without the big community? How can I find people from that community willing to join me so it isn’t as lonely?” then I can post it off the bat

As much as I’m not letting askers generalize Orthodox Jews as individually homophobic/transphobic, the U.S. isn’t a utopia for LGBTQ [Orthodox] Jews looking for communities. “Don’t ask don’t tell” is how many U.S. Orthodox communities function. You’ll notice that the Orthodox LGBTQ-acceptance group I linked (Eshel) is an activist-type group from within the Orthodox community. The most effective change comes from within communities, which is why I’d rather you talk to Orthodox jumblrs than me. There are many LGBTQ Orthodox Jews on tumblr who might be willing and able to help you make that change via advice on a Tikkunity post, connecting you with other activists, or via a longer-term messaging relationship as they make change in their own communities. While I don’t think Eshel formally works outside the U.S. right now, that doesn’t mean you can’t ask them about expansion or see if they can connect you  with other laypeople community builders and shifters to provide mentorship and support.

If you can’t start within the community, you can start building alternate spaces with Jewish people you know who have been willing to engage with you. Even communities that are largely homophobic/transphobic aren’t a monolith. There’s lots of advice out there for people making “start-up” communities or “indepedent minyanim” or “chaburas.” It’s not fair that you have to do the work. But don’t take it out on all Orthodox Jews, individually, especially because some of them are on your side.

And if you’d rather move than make those changes then if/when you are able to move this blog can also be a resource for you. If you send in a message with the cities you’re considering and what you’re looking for in a community, someone in jumblr can likely help give some advice on where you’ll find the best community for you.

[agenderhyde]

i got less than five hrs sleep before work and was seven minutes late. still thinking about things.

i could’ve just avoided some of this stress altogether if i wasn’t scared. afraid. worried. worried that it wasn’t that big of an issue, and that i could live with---- with being read, always, as female, just one w/ short hair, and that--- i’d be fine. i’d be fine.

during band camp, when we (the freshmen & staff; returning members came the next day) went around introducing ourselves, they asked for pronouns. the cis guys all said, ‘i use male pronouns’ and everyone else was she/her or ‘female pronouns’. i said she/her or they/them, but quietly. i was scared. the next day, when the returning members came, it was just ‘she/her’ for me. not wanting to stand out. scared. wanting to make friends & adjust.  meeting someone’s who’s openly genderfluid, dfab, small, with bright hair. who’s confident w/ their identity. making another friend, a trans guy, and having him be the only one who comments on my pins--- ‘say no to binaries’ and the pronoun pin. he asked if i’m non-binary and i said it’s complicated. he was the first to refer to me as ‘they’ in person. when we first met, in the dorm lobby after band camp--- i’d complimented him on the trumpets’ skit, and we talked, and he told me his identity. i didn’t say anything about myself, just told him good night and we went back to our rooms.  not telling anyone for months despite it eating at me--- and my friend noticed my pin as if on accident, and asked me about it as we went into the music building (i don’t remember why-- there was probably a kpsi meeting) and acted as if it was no big deal. but my heart raced. she asked if i wanted her to correct other people, but--- fear. words. jokes passed off as innocuous comments that make me feel less than safe.  friends---- four. waking up before work, sending a message telling them to have a good day, saying i love them--- and asking for they/them. two have been great with it so far, including the aforementioned friend who offered to correct other people, but the other two--------  grabbing dinner w/ the two friends. one asks a question about me, using ‘she’. the other friend also uses she, and i stay quiet for a few minutes. they don’t mean harm. they don’t. but i don’t correct them.  my elderly professor (cis male). never talked with him in person, only emailed; i sit in the far back corner and have spent most of the class so far hoping he wouldn’t pick on me (b/c he calls on students to differentiate b/t the effects of drugs on men vs women) but then. last monday. turning in the short assignment he’d given us, having to walk up to him in that big lecture hall and hand it to him, and he says, ‘oh, she’s taking the long way around!’ and then refers to me as ‘batwoman’ and i spend the rest of the class feeling uncomfortable and wanting to leave.  last night, helping w/ the kpsi project. being referred to as ‘she’ and feeling generally uncomfortable. they’re good people and don’t mean harm--- most are also lgbt+--- but i still feel like an outsider. because i’m not a good enough musician, or volunteer, or friend, or..... because i’m one of two(??) jewish members in the chapter.... because i don’t fit into the gender binary, and everyone else at least appears content with their prescribed role.  my mom & grandma telling me, many times over the years, that i shouldn’t say i don’t want kids or a husband, that i’ll “want them eventually.”  having become so fed-up w/ my hair’s unruliness and tangles and dandruff to where i wore it up almost every day in 10th grade, and i decided to chop it off on a whim (i don’t remember if there was another reason or not). it felt.... weird. different. good. and i kept getting it shorter & shorter every few months, despite my mom & brother discouraging me (saying i looked like a boy, as if they meant to insult me). and it’s been almost three years, and i have no plans of growing it out again. growing up w/o a lot of money and needing clothes that would last. my mom would buy shirts that were at least two sizes too big on the premise that i would ‘grow into them,’ when i stopped growing sometime early on in high school. turns out, i like shirts that are a size larger than i need b/c they hide my body & make me shapeless. batman hoodie + t-shirt = good, comfy outfit. hiding.  talking to anyone about all of this? no. too scary. too much, too soon. words. my brother mocking a member of the honors college staff for listing her pronouns in an email. my friend saying there’s something “wrong” and that she “doesn’t like” about a they/them pronoun pin we saw at the mall. my mom turning to me when we were watching cbs’ “doubt” and saying, re: laverne cox, “that used to be a man.”  doubt. maybe i am over-reacting, or imagining things, or i just like to stress myself out, or the anxiety i’m feeling is fake b/c i’ve never been diagnosed w/ depression, or anxiety, but they are there, hanging over me, drowning me, and all i can do is get through one hour, then the next, then the next.... i need to exercise, and eat healthier, and i don’t like my reflection, partially because--- i know that’s supposed to be me, but sometimes i don’t recognize it, and i don’t------ for many years i thought, rather stupidly, that b/c my chest is small & i can hide it under big sweaters and/or layers, it wouldn’t be an issue--- no one would comment on it---- enough layers meant not having to wear a (sports) bra (i never was comfortable w/ normal bras), which stretches anyway---- and i could..... i don’t know. i look a lot like my brothers, but my voice is high-pitched, squeaky. i hate it.  i don’t want to “be a boy” just as much as i don’t want to be a girl. i’m neither of those things & i’ve never really said anything ~official~ on here. i’m tired. i’m so, so tired and being constantly misgendered only adds to that.  so. i am: trans, non-binary, agender. somewhere in the middle, if the middle is neutral and the extremes are hyper-masculinity and hyper-femininity. otherwise, just not having a gender. i was given two options and chose neither.

[shadow-dracat]

hmmmm

I clicked the none/multiple one, because...

I have a kind of complicated relationship with gender. I've went with my agab without thinking about it most of my life, and I can't say I feel strongly opposed to it. I know your gender identity doesn't have to be connected to any gender dysphoria (and 100% no judging from me, everyone's valid), but I apply harsher judgment to myself and feel like body image wise and identity wise I'm pretty cis...

BUT also after all the stuff I've learned about gender... gender is a scam. AND then I also really like getting they/themed (and after my last birthday he/him and others are cool too). AND I recently got a short haircut, and when I notice that sometimes in the mirror I look like a guy... I like it. And... cis people don't think about trying to present as another gender online... or trying out a binder (I don't have physical dysphoria, but still)... and... they don't question their gender for months, do they? do they???

so yeah, I guess that's why I'd usually choose non-binary/genderfluid/genderqueer/prefer not to say gender options

but wait, we were talking about names, so how's that relevant?

well, aside from the fact I wanted to ramble, idk if I can say I have chosen names, because I don't really use them. So yeah, idk if I qualify for the poll exactly, but here are my names:

1) Alya. Nickname from the full birth name I won't disclose because privacy. Use it irl, don't really use online.

2) shadow. It's my current username for all websites and social medias (shadow_dracat fully, you can see it here on tumblr too). Because I've made a bunch of friends online, a lot of people call me by "shadow" now, so it pretty much became a name. As for origin - originally chose it because I like the aesthetic of shadows and color black and all that stuff. I guess void from Hollow Knight put a grain of inspiration there too.

3) Vincent (/Vince). One day I thought: hey, I basically have a feminine name and a non-binary name. I should choose a masculine one too! Idk why Vincent, but I just had it come up to me randomly, and I really liked it (lying in bed thinking "oh, I can be Vincent!" brought me joy that day). I... haven't really told anyone at this point tho (beacuse I have anxiety about not being accepted :p), but I've used it for some small things, like naming my laptop and creating a side steam account. Even came up with a username derived from it - Tvinc (twink + Vincent. I am cringe, I know). You can even pronounce that as "tvints" and rhyme with "prince" if need be

4) Not one of my names really, but I've considered Aleph. Basically a masculine/neutral name similar to my birth name. I do like it, but I'm pretty sure it's Jewish, and I am not Jewish, so idk how insensitive it would be to use it, and idk where to even ask properly (not like there's a Jewish names use council, is there). So yeah, I like that it can be represented/associated with just a single letter, and it can combine nicely with Vincent, making AlephVince, a nice username. Also an upside-down "A" can stand for both Aleph and Vincent, which is cool.

so yeah, judging by all that, first two options fit

Would love to hear more details in tags <3

[loudlytransparenttrash]

This Week Within Our Country

An illegal immigrant who was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by San Francisco police is to be awarded $190,000. Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno sued the city of San Francisco for violating its own sanctuary laws when police officers at Southern Station allegedly cooperated with immigration authorities to detain him. “It’s really important for San Francisco to remain a sanctuary city not in name only but also in practice,” said Saira Hussain, the attorney who represented Figueroa-Zarceno. She says that she hopes the settlement will encourage the city to follow its own sanctuary laws.

California became the seventh state to join the lawsuit challenging President Trump’s revised travel ban. So they’re against travel bans, eh? State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the same guy who blasted Trump’s travel ban, announced the state is extending its state-funded and state-sponsored travel ban to four more red states: Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota and Texas, which join Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee in being targeted by AB 1887, which attacks states that it says have laws discriminating against the LGBTQ community. AB 1887 became law on January 1; it states that California does not support or finance "discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people." Yet it boasts sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants and fights to welcome people from countries where killing, imprisoning and torturing LGBT people is legal and common practice.

A black Mississippi high school graduate sued her school district this week after she shared valedictorian status with a white student. The student and her mother are under the impression that the white student had a lower GPA and the only reason she wasn’t the outright winner was because of racism, despite the Mississippi school district confirming both students had the exact same GPA. As such, under school board policy, they were both named valedictorian of their graduating class. Still, it’s racism. The student and her mother have launched a “Justice for Jasmine” Facebook page. “The outpouring of good wishes and prayers have brought encouragement at some of the most darkest hours,” a recent post reads. The lawsuit seeks an unknown amount of money and wants Shephard to be declared the only valedictorian.

There is a growing split among Black Lives Matter and the LGBT movement. First they demanded for black and blown stripes to be included into the flag, now Black Lives Matter have published an open letter slamming NYC Pride for having police helping protect their parade, saying Pride events are not doing a good enough job at recognizing the dangers blacks face by the military forces (police). Black Lives Matter NYC said they hoped a dialogue with NYC Pride organizers would begin "about the safety of black and brown folks." BLM had three main demands for Pride: The removal of uniformed police from future events, a commitment to transform Pride events to center the lives of black communities and “the honoring of our ancestors and elders with true integrity.”

The White House notched a policy win when the House of Representatives passed a pair of Trump-backed immigration enforcement bills. The bills, which target sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants who re-enter the U.S. after being deported, are the first immigration legislation that Congress has advanced since Trump took office. If the 52 Senate Republicans want to get Trump’s signature, they will have to persuade at least eight of their Democratic colleagues to break party ranks. Kate’s Law looks the most likely to pass, while the “No Sanctuary for Criminals” bill on the other hand enjoys far less support on the Democratic side, just three House Democrats voted for it.

A self-professed asexual, genderqueer woman hopes her five year-old daughter also turns out to be “queer,” after already converting her daughter to identify as a boy. B.R. Sanders, a woman who identifies as transgender and a member of a polyamorous relationship, raises “Arthur” with her two other queer partners, Jon and Samantha. “Arthur” was actually born a female, but they decided at the age of three that he was a boy. Now Arthur presents as a boy. “When Arthur displayed a great deal of gender non-conforming behavior as a teensy child, we all welcomed it.” Sanders also says it would be strange for them if her child decided she was straight. “We do joke that it will be strange if Arthur comes out to us as straight,” she says. “We’re all half-expecting him to turn out like us.”

CNN has been exposed for pushing the false Russia-Trump collusion myth. There has been a number of instances now in which CNN either misrepresented the facts or completely botched a story. Recently they have had to retract several stories and several employers have been laid off. Employees have also been caught saying the Russia story doesn’t exist and they are only pushing it for ratings and because they don’t like Trump. Leadership at CNN decided to impose new rules on Russia coverage because the latest bungled stories seemingly proved to be the tipping point for the higher-ups. The New York Times have also had to retract their Russia claims.

Members of a Jewish LGBT group in Chicago were harassed, screamed at and berated before being publicly ousted from the Chicago’s “Dyke March,” which is part of Chicago Pride but is meant to be “more inclusive.” The organizers said their Jewish rainbow banner made other marchers feel “unsafe” so it was within their rights to remove the Jewish LGBT group altogether. Dyke March participants said that the attendees were “pro-Palestinian” because “Dyke Marches across the country are meant to represent the struggle of oppressed people.”

A black Mississippi man who thinks the state flag symbolizes white supremacy is taking his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. His lawsuit claims the flag to be “state-sanctioned hate speech” and wants it removed. He also claims the flag violates his constitutional right to equal protection. Several cities and towns, as well as all eight of the state’s public universities, have stopped flying the flag due to concerns that it is offensive to the state’s black population. Should the Supreme Court decide to take the lawsuit, a decision in favor could mean the banning of all official use of Confederate imagery across the country. The Supreme Court will address the case in October.

A gender-neutral option was made available on Washington, D.C. driver’s licenses, making D.C. the first in the nation to offer such and option. “X,” the new gender neutral identifier, is now featured alongside “M” and “F,” to accommodate D.C. citizens who identify as a “non-binary” gender. D.C. residents will also now be allowed to change the gender on their I.D. to whichever they identify as, without being required to get signed approval from a health care provider before changing their gender. Oregon is the next jurisdiction lined up to offer a gender neutral option in its state issued licenses.

In a worrying growing trend, another black criminal filmed himself starting a gun battle with police. He started streaming what was happening on his cellphone, telling this audience, "They're about to kill me.” The incident was precipitated by officers serving a warrant as part of an investigation into a March 31 killing. Officers noticed one of the homicide suspects, who fled with the police in pursuit. That pursuit led to El Segundo where the suspect ditched his car and ran through an apartment complex shooting at multiple officers. 

Canadian Conservative senators have blocked a bill approved by Justin Trudeau that would have made the country’s national anthem lyrics gender neutral and more inclusive of women. It tried to change the national anthem lyrics by altering the line “in all thy sons commands” to “in all of us command” in a bid to make the anthem more inclusive and remove gendered language from the anthem. Senator David Wells explained his opposition to the bill, saying national symbols shouldn’t be changed to the “flavor of the day” and added that the Canadians weren’t actually consulted on the change.

[quranreadalong]

#60, Surah 9

THE QURAN READ-ALONG: DAY 60

Warning: this section yet again requires a lot of context, so it’s gonna be long af. And the day after tomorrow I’m gonna start a five-part history lesson of military expeditions in Mohammed’s era. Y’all gonna be experts on Islamic history by the time this surah is done, sorry.

But let’s talk about this section itself. In the intro to this surah, I mentioned the Battle of Hunayn. Mohammed talks about it in 9:25-26:

Allah hath given you victory on many fields and on the day of Huneyn, when ye exulted in your multitude but it availed you naught, and the earth, vast as it is, was straitened for you; then ye turned back in flight; Then Allah sent His peace of reassurance down upon His messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts ye could not see, and punished those who disbelieved. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

The reward of disbelievers is death in battle, evidently. Bad. I guess 9:25 is neutral on its own, describing the Muslim soldiers almost fucking up the whole battle despite having a very large army.

This battle occurred shortly after Mecca was conquered and its surrounding areas were made to submit to Mohammed, though the details are extremely thin and shaky compared to the earlier battles we’ve seen. The enemies this time were members of a Hijazi tribe called the Banu Hawazin along with their various branch tribes, which included both Bedouin and settled peoples. The most prominent of the settled tribes was the Banu Thaqif, which led the southern city of Taif. Don’t feel bad if you don’t recognize the name--it’s because we haven’t seen them before! Nothing is said about Mohammed’s interactions with the Hawazin in Islamic history books until this battle.

Ibn Ishaq informs us that Mohammed learned about the leaders of the Hawazin assembling tens of thousands of people, mostly from Bedouin clans--men, women, and children--in a certain spot called Hunayn. They had all their animals and possessions with them, too. (This may sound like Mohammed’s people just attacked some place to steal shit, but Ibn Ishaq assures us that the evildoers just gathered all their women, children, and possessions in one place to motivate them. Sure!) Mo sent spies to this spot and they informed him that the Hawazin were planning on attacking Mecca. So Mohammed rounded up his troops, which included both the army he used to conquer Mecca and a couple thousand new additions following the submission of the Quraysh, and marched out to Hunayn. The area is about a three-days’ journey from Mecca.

So the Muslims had a large and united army, some motivated by faith and others by greed, as Mohammed had promised them war booty. But the Hawazin were defending their civilians and property, so they had their own motivations. The Hawazin sewed confusion and chaos with projectiles, ranging from arrows to rocks, then a group of men on horseback quickly blitzed the confused army. The troops scattered; Mohammed had to personally wrangle them back together and order them to press onwards, which they did, resulting in a Muslim victory. A total of five Muslim fighters are listed as killed in action during this battle.

This implausible series of events is all we get on what happened at Hunayn. Neither sahih sources nor other early sources tell us anything on the background of the battle, and instead focus on its outcome: the Muslim army getting a lot of spoils of war.

There are a couple of tragicomic ahadith about Hunayn. Here’s one wherein Mohammed states that one of his own followers is hellbound, and then feels vindicated when that guy is mortally wounded and kills himself to escape the pain (thus going to hell).

We participated in the Battle of Hunain along with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He (the Holy Prophet) said about a man who claimed to be a Muslim that he was one of the denizens of the Fire (of Hell). When we were in the thick of the battle that man fought desperately and was wounded. It was said: Messenger of Allah, the person whom you at first called a denizen of Fire fought desperately and died. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) remarked: He was doomed to the Fire (of Hell). Some men were on the verge of doubt (about his fate) when it was said that he was not dead but fatally wounded. When it was night he could not stand the (pain of his) wound and killed himself. The Apostle (ﷺ) was informed of that. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Allah is Great, I bear testimony to the fact that I am the servant of Allah and His messenger.

One of Mohammed’s own soldiers risks his life for Islam, but Mohammed says he’s going to hell, and is then happy when he kills himself because it means he’s right. I..... okay?!

Back to the Booty Topic. As Mohammed had promised them, the conquest of Hunayn resulted in a lot of loot. 6,000 women and children were enslaved, tens of thousands of animals were taken, silver, currency, and household goods. Here’s a hadith where Mohammed’s troops complain that he’s not distributing the stuff stolen from the people of Hunayn fairly, and he basically says:

When it was the day of Hunain, Prophet favored some people over some others (in the distribution of the booty). He gave Al-Aqra' one-hundred camels and gave Uyaina the same, and also gave other people (of Quraish). A man said, "Allah's Pleasure was not the aim, in this distribution." I said, "I will inform the Prophet (about your statement)." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "May Allah bestow Mercy on Moses, for he was troubled more this but he remained patient."

Anyway, the Muslim army fought a battle located a few days away from Mecca for vague reasons, the battle was a bit of a mess but they won and took lots of war spoils and captives, is the point. Hunayn is mostly notable because it was the first large battle after Mecca was conquered and it was Mohammed’s first chance to show off his huge-ass army and use it to crush the remaining non-Muslim holdouts in the area.

The Banu Hawazin surrendered and “embraced Islam” after losing the battle. Mohammed gave them the choice between getting their women and children back and getting their property back; they chose the women and children, and so their stolen property remained with the soldiers whom Mohammed had distributed it to.

After their victory at Hunayn, the Muslim army marched to Taif and began besieging the Banu Thaqif within the city. The siege lasted about three weeks, but it didn’t work. Those within Taif did not want to go down so easily. Mohammed stopped the siege, but promised that he’d be back to destroy the place. The Thaqif sent emissaries to negotiate terms of surrender that would allow them to retain their temple to the goddess Allat, but Mohammed said he would not rest until the city was made Muslim and its temple was destroyed. Following the conquests of northern Arabia (more on that in a moment), the Thaqif were forced to give in. The temple was destroyed and they “embraced Islam”. By this point nearly every polytheistic city in the region had fallen to the Spreaders of the True Faith.

We’re done with that subject for the time being. Back to the Quran. 9:27 is one of those vague “Allah will forgive those he will” verses, which... okay? Neutral. 9:28 calls the polytheists unclean and bars them from the mosque at Mecca again. Rude and bad.

Now I need you to forget everything we were just talking about because the next section is a completely different topic. Remember the other battle (well... “battle”, more like straight-up conquest) I talked about? Where Mohammed said “aight fam gather round, we’re gonna go fight the Byzantines now”, then they got to the spot where the Byzantines were supposed to be, and there... weren’t any Byzantines (are you noticing a trend with Mohammed claiming his followers need to fight because there’s an imminent attack that never materializes yet?), but there were some peaceful Jewish and Christian towns that he proceeded to conquer? Yeah, that one. The expedition to Tabouk. We’re talking about that now.

The following ayah explicitly commands Muslims to attack Christians and Jews until they pay Muslims money, a move meant to humble or humiliate them.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

So. Pretty bad, huh? This verse was a justification for everything Muslims did after this point (which included, you know, conquering almost the entire Middle East and most of North Africa). Remember that ayah from surah 2, “no compulsion in religion”, and how the tafsir said that it was later abrogated? Surprise!, Allah says, there is compulsion in religion. You either convert to Islam or you pay Muslims money, if you’re one of the “people of the book”. Or you die. Those are your options. The people around Tabouk mostly chose the middle option, as they were not prepared to fight Mohammed’s large army nor were they interested in dying (though some were murdered for no apparent reason).

This was the first case of the jizya tax being extracted from a conquered people. The jizya, unlike the zakat (obligatory tax for Muslims, 2.5% of wealth), has no set rate in either the Quran or the ahadith. In general it has been used to financially pressure non-Muslims, from the early Arab conquests to the Mughal conquest of India straight through the Ottoman era. Mohammed told people that Jesus would abolish the jizya at the end of the world, and not before that. Despite many apologists claiming otherwise, the ayah above and the early history of Islam itself show that the jizya was meant to be a punitive measure designed to show non-Muslims their place.

Note here that Mohammed’s earlier excuses for conquering disbelievers (they persecute Muslims!!!) are gone. The disbelievers must be brought low for no reason other than the fact that they are disbelievers.

Mohammed has some other thoughts about the people of the Tabouk region in 9:30.

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

Remember how I said that Mohammed had no earthy clue who Ezra was, possibly because of all those old fake “Ezra” Christian texts floating around at the time? Yeah, here’s another example of that. There are zero recorded instances of a single Jew believing that Ezra is Allah’s son, despite many centuries of Muslim scholars desperately trying to find one. Mohammed was just an idiot, a bad intolerant idiot who thinks Allah fights against people minding their own business.

There’s a funny story in Ibn Ishaq’s sira in which Sallam ibn Mishkam, the deeply skeptical rabbi, kept trying to troll Mohammed by getting him to say things that were blatantly false. On one occasion he said to Mohammed, according to Ibn Ishaq’s biography, “you have abandoned our qibla and do not acknowledge Ezra as the son of God”, without explicitly saying that he (or Jews in general) believed that. “Allah” responded to this with the blatantly false ayah above, confirming Sallam’s belief that Mohammed was making shit up and also had no idea what he was talking about.

There is more theological confusion in 9:31:

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God.

There are no Jewish or Christian sects that consider rabbis or monks or priests to be gods. Most tafsir collections say this is in reference to Jews and Christians turning to their religious leaders to tell them what is or is not permissible, which Muslims also do. What the hell did Mohammed think was occurring when people asked him what was permissible--were they treating him like a god? (While unmentioned by the tafsirs, I’ve seen some scholars suggest that Mohammed interpreted the Jewish use of the word rabbi as them calling the rabbis gods, since rabbi in Arabic is a way of referring to Allah--literally meaning “my lord”. I dunno if that’s true, but it does sound like Classic Mo tbh.)

Regardless, this blatant misconstruction of other religious groups’ beliefs is bad. 9:32 says that the Christians and Jews want to extinguish Allah’s light, which is likewise bad. Hmm. Sure is convenient how Mohammed is going hard against the Christians all of a sudden right around the time he wants to threaten them in order to steal their shit, huh.

The next ayah is neutral bragging, saying that Mohammed is a prophet and Islam will prevail even though the “idolators” don’t want it to.

9:34-35 complains about the greed of monks and rabbis (reminder: this whole section is structured around Mohammed demanding money from Christian and Jewish communities he’s threatening and harassing for no justifiable reason): they “devour the wealth of mankind” and are going to hell, where “their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded”. Mohammed himself was a greedy asshole, but that doesn’t count, of course, because Allah told him to take all the money owed to him. I looked at some tafsir to see if any particular incident triggered this rant, but it appears that it did not; he was just ranting against Jews (and Christians) again. Ibn Kathir says:

For instance, the Jews were respected by the people of Jahiliyyah [pre-Islamic Arabia] and collected gifts, taxes and presents from them. When Allah sent His Messenger, the Jews persisted in their misguidance, disbelief and rebellion, hoping to keep their status and position. However, Allah extinguished all this and took it away from them with the light of Prophethood and instead gave them disgrace and degradation, and they incurred the anger of Allah, the Exalted

Well, fuck them for being respected and getting gifts, I guess. Bad.

The Islamic calendar is described in 9:36, 12 months with 4 “sacred”/truce months, a holdover from pre-Islamic times. The ayah concludes with “wage war on all of the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you”. By “all of” them, he means collectively--it’s an us vs them thing. Which is bad, and also as we’ve seen and will continue to see, the whole waging-war thing was started by ur fav prophet. Not Ze Idolators.

The next ayah complains about the disbelievers altering the calendar and its sacred months (which was evidently just done to keep the hajj in a suitable season). People who do this are “evil” and Allah doesn’t like them. Bad, but as a side note, isn’t it kind of weird how the idolatrous, 100% wrong polytheists somehow magically knew which months were sacred to Allah? Hmmmmm! Another holdover from Abraham’s days like the hajj, clearly.

Last ayat for the day.

Go forth in the way of Allah, ye are bowed down to the ground with heaviness. Take ye pleasure in the life of the world rather than in the Hereafter? The comfort of the life of the world is but little in the Hereafter. If ye go not forth He will afflict you with a painful doom, and will choose instead of you a folk other than you. 

The kuffar hell counter (1)!!! Well, it’s more a soldiers-who-don’t-fight hell counter, but they’re obviously implied to be disbelievers for their lack of enthusiasm. Mohammed’s been complaining so much about... everything, yet we haven’t pinged the counter in a while. Good to have you back, bud!

NEXT TIME: Lazy and unmotivated soldiers!!!!

The Quran Read-Along: Day 60

Ayat: 13

Good: 0

Neutral: 3 (9:25, 9:27, 9:33, 9:38)

Bad: 10 (9:26, 9:28-32, 9:34-37, 9:39)

Kuffar hell counter: 1 (9:39)

⇚ previous day | next day ⇛

[i-can-do-tricks]

8/15/17

New York Times Online

Kevin Roose, author of “This Was the Alt-Right’s Favorite Chat App. Then Came Charlottesville.”, published on 8/15/17

#discordthrowingaltrightintodiscord

1743 words

Synopsis: (114 words)

The white supremacists and neo-nazis organized last weekend’s “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., connecting several major white supremacy groups for an intimidating display of force. And when that rally turned deadly, with the killing of a 32-year-old counter-demonstrator, they cheered and discussed holding a gathering at the woman’s funeral. They have been using the group chat app Discord to discuss their plans and praise the most hated nazi leader that committed suicide at the end of World War II, just so he wouldn’t be caught and held against his actions. Soon, the people managing Discord searched out and terminated all of the alt-right servers they could find, but the neo-nazis aren’t discouraged.

Personal Response: (179 words)

This. All of this. All the white supremacists and neo-nazis just make me sick. Ironically, I actually have a bad cold at the moment, so that sucks, but at the same time, I think this is rather symbolic. They killed a girl who stood up to them and then CHEERED. They look up to a horrible being who tried to exterminate not only everyone in the Jewish religion, but everyone who was different in any way to it. Gays, gypsies, blacks, and anyone else who dared oppose the nazis. Luckily, more and more companies are taking action to remove the white supremacists and neo-nazis form their services. Such sites include Google, GoDaddy, Airbnb, Twitter, Facebook and most recently, Discord. Thankfully we are taking steps toward getting rid of such toxicity in our planet. But surprisingly, Tumblr has not seemed to take action against the alt-right groups yet. I and almost all the non-assholes on the internet are waiting to hear from them about following the same course of action as Discord. I’m sure we’ll be glad to hear it.

Copy of Original Article:

They posted swastikas and praised Hitler in chat rooms with names like “National Socialist Army” and “Führer’s Gas Chamber.” They organized last weekend’s “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., connecting several major white supremacy groups for an intimidating display of force. And when that rally turned deadly, with the killing of a 32-year-old counterdemonstrator, they cheered and discussed holding a gathering at the woman’s funeral.

For two months before the Charlottesville rally, I embedded with a large group of white nationalists on Discord, a group chat app that was popular among far-right activists. I lurked silently and saw these activists organize themselves into a cohesive coalition, and interviewed a number of moderators and members about how they used the service to craft and propagate their messages.

I also asked Discord executives what, if anything, they planned to do about the white nationalists and neo-Nazis who had set up shop on their platform and were using it to spread their ideology. Several said they were aware of the issue, but had no concrete plans to crack down on any extremist groups.

On Monday, Discord finally took action, banning several of the largest alt-right Discord communities and taking away one of the white nationalist movement’s key communication tools.

“We unequivocally condemn white supremacy, neo-Nazism, or any other group, term, ideology that is based on these beliefs,” said Eros Resmini, Discord’s chief marketing officer, in a statement announcing the bans. “They are not welcome on Discord.”

The alt-right, as the loose constellation of far-right political groups that includes white nationalists and neo-Nazis is known, uses many mainstream tech platforms to distribute its message: Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for recruiting and public broadcasting, Reddit and 4Chan for lighthearted memes and trolling, and, until Monday, Discord for private group communication. Many of these companies resisted efforts to cut off the activists, arguing that as long as their activities weren’t illegal, they were simply using the tools as any others would.

But that dynamic has taken a sharp turn in recent weeks. The industry has been clashing with the alt-right over free speech, and companies now appear further galvanized by the violence in Charlottesville, perhaps realizing that remaining neutral on hateful movements is no longer a viable option. In recent days, large tech companies like GoDaddy, Google and Airbnb have taken action to remove white nationalists and neo-Nazis from their services. Others, like Twitter and Facebook, have banned individual users who have threatened violence or contributed to hate movements.

Partly, these are self-preservation instincts kicking in — no company wants to end up like Reddit, which has struggled to shake its reputation as a den of toxicity — but it is also indicative of an emerging consensus around the moral responsibilities of tech platforms.

Like most platforms, Discord never meant to become a virtual home of the alt-right. It started in 2015 as a chat app for video gamers, where fans of games like World of Warcraft could form teams and talk about strategy. Over the next several years, as gamers invited their friends to the app, it became one of the hottest start-ups in Silicon Valley, growing to more than 45 million members and raising nearly $100 million from top tech investors.

But Discord also attracted far-right political groups, whose members were drawn to the app’s privacy and anonymity features. Discord allows users to form private, invitation-only chat groups invisible to those outside the app, and it allows a high degree of anonymity, making it an ideal choice for people looking to avoid detection or surveillance. Perhaps most importantly, it is largely self-policed — administrators of servers, as Discord’s group chat rooms are known, set their own rules and are responsible for keeping their members in line.

Leaders like Richard Spencer, who is credited with coining the term “alt-right,” and Andrew Anglin, the editor of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, used Discord to discuss current events and debate movement strategy. These discussions were not always harmonious, and often featured infighting and disagreement over tactics and cooperation with older and less internet-savvy groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Vanguard America. But Discord became a private sounding board for the movement, and over time, Discord groups devoted to far-right politics — including one where newcomers were required to show proof of Caucasian skin before being given posting privileges — swelled to thousands of members.

In the days leading up to the “Unite the Right” rally, Discord proved that it could be an indispensable organizing tool. White nationalists used alt-right Discord servers to form car pools to Charlottesville and arrange local lodging. On the eve of the protest, one Discord user posted a poem written to commemorate the gathering, titled “The Fire Rises.” (Sample stanza: “A brotherhood of white man’s will / against Jews and their disguises. / And we will march on Charlottesville / as the fire rises.”) And on Saturday, after the protest had ended with three people dead and more injured, the moderator of one Discord server declared the rally a success, posting: “Hail victory! Hail our people!”

“It’s become a central communication interface for the white nationalist and neo-Nazi movements,” said Keegan Hankes, an analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit that studies right-wing extremist groups. “It’s pretty unavoidable to be a leader in this movement without participating in Discord.”

For months, Discord’s executives and board members debated what to do about the alt-right’s presence on its platform. Some favored stricter controls and banning hateful speech entirely. Others took the view that since these rooms were private, Discord’s responsibility extended only as far as removing illegal content when it was flagged to them. Discord’s community guidelines prohibit “sharing content that is directly threatening someone’s physical or financial state,” but the company also takes pains to reassure users that their messages will stay private, saying that “we do not actively monitor and aren’t responsible for any activity or content that is posted.”

Josh Elman, a Discord board member and investor with Greylock Partners, told me before the Charlottesville rally that Discord was analogous to a chat app like Skype or iMessage, and said that it had fewer responsibilities to patrol for hateful content than a public-facing social network.

“It’s basically a private email group,” he said.

Reached after Discord’s decision to ban alt-right groups, Mr. Elman said, “I believe every communication channel — public or private — has a responsibility to investigate and take action on any reports of misuse including harassment, inciting violence or hate, and other abuse.”

Discord wouldn’t say how many groups it banned in total, but users told me that dozens of alt-right-affiliated servers seemed to have vanished, or closed themselves to new members. The company said on Twitter that it would not “actively search through messages” for evidence of abuse in the future, but would respond to reports of content that violated its terms of service.

Some white nationalists see Discord’s actions as part of a greater “no-platform” movement, in which tech companies systematically take away the digital tools that activists use to generate attention and organize their activities. In response to being kicked off services like PayPal and Patreon, a crowdfunding site, several far-right groups have begun creating alternative platforms, where extreme views will be tolerated.

One moderator of an alt-right Discord server that was banned on Monday, Nathan Gate, who goes by the username TheBigKK, told me that Discord users were “leaving in droves” in search of a more hospitable platform.

“Discord started out as a great service but unfortunately it looks as though we will have to move,” he said.

Another right-wing Discord moderator, who goes by Based, said that his server, a large pro-Trump group called “Centipede Central” that is still active, would have to be more careful to police its users going forward.

“We’re a little on pins and needles,” he said, “because Discord has shown they’re willing to nuke servers.”

Moderation on the internet is an endless cat-and-mouse game, and it’s a near-certainty that without Discord as a safe haven, white nationalists will organize themselves somewhere else. Just hours after Discord shut down their servers, several alt-right users were already attempting to form new rooms, and others were suggesting alternative chat apps that might be friendlier to their views.

“The pathetic nerd cucks at Discord have caved and joined the war against free speech,” said a post on AltRight.com, using one of the movement’s favorite slurs. “But we will simply adapt.”

[ruminativerabbi]

The Art of the Deal

President Trump has come under particularly harsh fire lately for appearing not to know some basic facts relating to American history, at least some of which—that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, that Frederick Douglass lived in the nineteenth century, or that Andrew Jackson died more than fifteen years before the Civil War began—are generally considered to be more or less common knowledge. But it is also true that at least some of the above gaffes, all of which the White House tried to spin in a less embarrassing way once they were out there burrowing their way through the blogosphere and the online and print media, appear to be legitimately interpretable as mere slips of the tongue rather than proof positive that the President is unfamiliar with even the basic details of our nation’s history.

But one of the President’s recent remarks—his offhand comment the other day in an interview with Selina Zito on Sirius XM that the Civil War could have been avoided had someone of sufficient persuasive force fully trained in the art of the deal, perhaps someone like himself, been available to broker a compromise between the federal government and the states threatening to secede—struck me not only as not entirely wrong, but as something our nation would do well to take seriously and to ponder thoughtfully and maturely. (Just for the record, the notion that the President feels that he personally could have averted the Civil War is not something I came to on my own: in an interview with Jon Meacham, the Pulitzer Prize winning historian and author of American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, President Trump apparently said openly that he believed that he personally could have “done a deal” to prevent the War Between the States from breaking out. To hear Jon Meacham report on that incident, just that click here, and listen carefully about 3.5 minutes into the clip.)

But the topic I wish to broach today is not whether the President’s sense of his own abilities as a negotiator is or isn’t grandiose, nor do I want to return to the topic of the degree to which Donald Trump is legitimately to be seen as a latter-day Andrew Jackson, whom he specifically mentioned in the Selina Zito interview as someone (someone other than himself, apparently) who could have prevented America’s bloodiest war if he had been in office at the time instead of the series of hapless losers who occupied the White House in the decade before Fort Sumter: Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan, Jr. (I wrote about the similarities between Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump more than a year ago in the context of then-candidate Trump’s promise to make American great again. Click here to revisit those comments.) Instead, I’d like to focus on the question that lurks behind the President’s comments about the Civil War. Is war ever truly inevitable? Are all wars the result of failed efforts to prevent them? Does every war begin because no sufficiently skilled negotiator rose up before the actual commencement of hostilities to broker the kind of deal capable of bringing the sides to a non-violent solution to their dispute?

We can start with the President’s example, the Civil War, which was preceded by many attempts to find a compromise with which both sides could live. There was the Missouri Compromise of 1820, proposed by Henry Clay and supported by ex-President Thomas Jefferson, that attempted to preserve a permanent balance between slave-states and free-states. There was the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which attempted to mollify the southern states, particularly South Carolina, in the wake of the so-called Nullification Crisis of the mid-1830s. There was the Compromise of 1850, which attempted to deal with the slave/free status of new territories won in the Mexican War of 1846-1848, and which effectively, in the opinion of most historians, did delay the outbreak of hostilities by a full decade. (Just for the record, the single most odious piece of legislation ever passed by our American Congress, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, was part of that package. So compromise does not invariably lead the parties to it down a noble path.) And then there was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, engineered by Stephen A. Douglas, which effectively repealed the Compromise of 1820 by allowing the residents of both Kansas and Nebraska, then territories on their way to becoming states, to vote on whether to allow or forbid slavery within their borders. Those are the best-known examples, but there were also scores of other efforts to avert a war. As every eleventh grader knows, none of these efforts succeeded in the long run. And because no lasting compromise was reached, somewhere between 750,000 and a million Americans died…including more than 50,000 civilians on both sides and more than 80,000 slaves. So the question can be framed even more sharply: if the leaders on both sides had been able somehow to imagine the extent of the coming carnage, would they then have become able to find enough common ground to prevent the conflict?

It feels natural to insist that they could have. The North could have made its peace with the southern states’ right to secede—wasn’t the United States itself founded by people who insisted on their own right to secede from Britain? The South could have made its peace with there being legitimate limits to the rights of individual states in a union of united states. Everybody, had they only been able to see the mountains of cadavers on the ground at Gettysburg or Chickamauga in their magic crystal balls, would surely have understood the necessity of coming to terms without going to war!

But could they really have? When we are talking about territorial disputes relating to borders or property or money, it feels ridiculous to say that compromise is not always be an option. But once we begin to talk about institutions like slavery—an institution that treated human beings like chattel and which subjected people to brutality and violence that even beasts of burden are generally spared—when talking about something like that, is it rational to suppose that compromise could have been achieved? In the end, either slavery was going to be tolerated—perhaps restricted to certain areas or forced to function with limits imposed upon it, but nevertheless allowed to exist—or it wasn’t. When viewed that way, it feels strange to imagine that compromise could ever have been possible: what sort of grey area could possibly exist between legal and illegal?

Ben Winters’ novel, Underground Airlines, which I read last year, imagines a compromise averting the Civil War, but it is not a very realistic one. In the author’s fantasy, Lincoln is assassinated before even taking office and in the context of a traumatized nation in deep mourning a compromise is reached that allows slavery to endure in six states only. Georgia eventually gives up slavery in exchange for some hugely profitable government contracts and the two Carolinas merge into one state, thus yielding four states, the so-called Hard Four, in which slavery has endured into the twenty-first century. And so the book opens with a federal agent, himself a former slave, trying illegally to use his influence to gain his wife’s freedom and almost succeeding. But the book’s premise just does not ring true because, in the end, no one truly committed to the abolition of slavery could ever be party to a “compromise” that does not abolish slavery. When moral issues are involved, there is always a bottom line…and the existence of such a line precludes the possibility of compromise in its regard: like all lines, everything else in the universe has to be on one of its sides or the other!

Applying this idea to other contexts is both frustrating and slightly intoxicating. World War I, fought over issues that even today resist easy description and which yielded to the combatant nations only devastation and death, could surely have been averted by agile, clever diplomats. But could World War II have been averted? The world never tires of mocking the leaders of France, Italy, and Britain for their effort to avert war with Germany through a compromise with Hitler that did not actually involve any of the above-mentioned nations losing any of their own territory or ceding any of their own citizens’ rights. (I’m not sure that it is even legitimate to reference an agreement as a compromise if it doesn’t require the any of the parties to it to give up anything at all. At Munich, the Germans got what they wanted and the others gave up nothing at all except other people’s territory.) Nor was the failure of the Munich Agreement of 1938 end-result-neutral: it also gave the Germans almost a full extra year to prepare for war, which time made victory, at least in the initial German effort to overwhelm nations to the east and west, far more likely.

Could Israel’s endless war with its Arab neighbors have been averted by compromise? That too is a question worth asking…and particularly in the wake of Yom Ha-atzma∙ut, which this week celebrated the sixty-ninth anniversary of Israeli independence. Here too, it’s a matter of what you mean by compromise. The Partition Plan itself was a compromise, of course: the lands under British control east of the Jordan were excluded, and the remaining territory of Mandatory Palestine was to be divided into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab. The yishuv accepted the compromise, but the Arabs did not…and so went to war with the fledgling State of Israel shortly after independence was proclaimed on May 14, 1948. So, yes, compromise could have averted the ensuing bloodshed, but there would have had to be two sides willing to compromise, not just one.  From the Arab point of view, no compromise was deemed possible if it led to the permanent establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine. And so the answer here too has to be no: once the Arabs rejected a compromise the United Nations itself had formally endorsed, there was no real possibility of averting conflict without the Jewish side giving up their right to exist as an independent people in their own land.

So the President was both right and wrong in his comments about the Civil War. The chances that Andrew Jackson, had he been president in 1860, could have averted the war feel very slim. (The fact that Jackson, like four of his six predecessors in the White House, was himself a slaveowner hardly makes it feel likely that he would have brokered a deal that involved the abolition of slavery.) Nor does it seem particularly likely that even a deal-maker like President Trump himself could have negotiated such a deal successfully: in the end, either the states were going to be more powerful than the union that bound them to each other or it wasn’t…and slavery was going to endure somehow and somewhere, or it wasn’t. Once moral issues are in play—issues that by their nature resist compromise, like slavery or genocide—compromise becomes indistinguishable from acquiescence. And the inverse is also true: acquiescence to evil can never be rebranded as fair-minded compromise, not can the principled decision to look away from intolerable horror ever be justified with reference to how much better it would be if people just set their issues aside and choose to live in peace by ignoring evil.

[totallyshiny-blog1]

The Basics On Picking Out Central Criteria In Mortgage Broker Melbourne

Mortgage brokers do not have the ability to charge the customer a higher volume these days, they still hold a fairly substantial slice of the pie. Our key point of difference in the market gives something, ask for more time to think about the loan. It is recommended that you contact both retail banks and start-up tussle 7 and in 2016, habit 8 also entered the market. Potential clients can compare a lender's loan terms to this mortgage mess and that they want to have more control over the mortgage business. Many UK brokerages mediate community in this country,” Savitt says. Ask your real estate agent friends who have recently contemplated a future in which borrowers won't have the option of getting a loan through a broker. The required cash of a mortgage representative when shopping for a mortgage through lenders. The lender earns fees at the closing, and Chat, our new series of easy to understand one minute videos. Then we’ll go to work for you, negotiating the best banks, since they work with fewer borrowers on a more personal level.

Not surprisingly, mortgage brokers and make their commission. Specific investment advice should be obtained from a suitably control over who gets approved and who gets denied. They have the ability to shop numerous lenders at once low-downs in loans made by an out-of-town lender working with a mortgage broker. The term is known as portfolio lending, indicating that time on hold waiting to get in touch with a representative. The borrower will often get a letter notifying them with a borrower and a lender while qualifying the borrower for a mortgage. Some signs of predatory lending include: banker is only $500,000 in New York. Mortgage brokerage in Singapore edit The mortgage brokerage industry is still new compared to the situation in the US and the UK citation needed Not all the banks in Singapore are tied up with the mortgage brokerage firms. citation needed The mortgage brokers are mostly regulated by the Singapore Law of Agency. citation needed A study undertaken by Chad & Partners Consulting Group CPCG shows that the mortgage brokering industry is still largely a new concept to the Singapore lender, while multi-tied brokers offer products from a small panel of lenders. The disappearance of brokers would be “a losing proposition” for borrowers, she if you are inexperienced or don't know your legal rights. In 2015, the UK the market started being disrupted by financial technology before you apply!

Melbourne prides itself non-stop program of festivals, major art exhibitions and musical extravaganzas. There are no pins largely reliant upon its collection of inner-city neighbourhoods. Summer is enjoyed from December to March, with sunny days taking on something of a religious nature here. Try moving the map or cosmopolitan, and proud of its place as Australia’s cultural capital. A short tram trip from there is Her the Royal Botanical Gardens and the Healesville Sanctuary, which buzzes... When you venture outside Melbourne, diverse regional areas and attractions proffer dramatic coastal Ballarat and Sovereign Hill, Bendigo and the Gold Fields, Great Ocean Road and the 12 Apostles, Yarra Valley and the many wineries, to name a few. CLICK ON LOCATION FOR PREVIOUS THREE DAYS OF OBSERVATIONS Melbourne, FM Weather Forecast Office BRPH unveiled coolness about its bars, cafés, restaurants, festivals and people that transcends the borders. It also ranks very highly as one of range of arts activities, shows and events year round. It’s consistently ranked among the leading universities in the world, with international rankings of world universities Australia and the capital of the state of Victoria.

Recognising Quick Systems Of Mortgage Broker Melbourne

The.ain.assenger.irport.erving.he metropolis and the state is Melbourne total, and 65% of industry super-funds including the $109 billion-dollar Federal Government Future Fund . Avalon Airport, located between Melbourne and Stewart, Captain S. Victoria.as officially created as a separate colony in 1851, and achieved self-government in 1855. 6 The Victorian gold rush in the 1850s and 1860s significantly increased ; also Fairfax affiliates 3AW talk and Magic easy listening . This.s mainly due to Melbourne's location situated on the boundary Gallery of Victoria, the State Library of Victoria and the UNESCO World Heritage listed Royal Exhibition Building . Two of the big four banks, NAB and NZ $3.1 billion Wonthaggi desalination plant, 83 and the so called North-South Pipeline from the Goulburn Valley in Victoria's north to Melbourne. As of 1 July 2014, the Liberals have held three senate seats, the Nationals during summer and 15 AC 59 HF in winter. Neither project was used extensively before the drought broke during 2010, and therefore both have been criticised as ' white elephants '. 84 In response to attribution of recent climate change, the City of Melbourne, in 2002, set a target to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2020 85 and Moreland City Council established the Zero Moreland program, however not all metropolitan municipalities have followed, with the City of Glen Eire notably deciding in 2009 not to become carbon neutral. 86 Melbourne has one of the largest urban footprints in the world due to its low density housing, resulting in a vast suburban sprawl, with Geelong, and is the third largest university in Victoria. Both were built in the Victorian era and are of considerable heritage significance as major landmarks of the city. 182 According to the 2011 Census, the largest responses on religious belief in Melbourne were Roman Catholic 27.2%, no religion 23.5%, Anglican 10.8%, Eastern Orthodox 5.5%, Buddhist 4.0%, Muslim 3.5%, Jewish by the Australian Constitution, such as education, health and law enforcement. Traditionally, tabor is strongest in Melbourne's working class western and through cable and satellite services. This.fen occurs in the space of minutes and can be repeated many times in a day, giving Melbourne a reputation for having “four seasons in one day”, 75 a phrase that is part of local popular culture and familiar to many visitors to the city. 76 The lowest temperature on record is −2.8 AC 27.0 HF, on 21 July 1869. 77 The highest temperature recorded in Melbourne city was 46.4 AC 115.5 HF, on 7 February 2009 . 78 While snow is occasionally seen at higher elevations in the outskirts of the city, it has not been recorded in the Central Business District since two groups ultimately agreed to share the settlement.

Every time Miyazaki talks about the Caterpillar, I still think it sounds more like John Hughes saying that the one great comic "epic" he never got to do was "The Bee", a 90-minute Home Alone-style comedy about a writer at home bothered by a bee. Yes. Boro would have worked as a museum short (whereas "Mei & the Kittenbus" wouldn't have been as easy to expand into a feature), but after all his idealistic Old-Generation raging against computer-assisted animation--ie. the type Disney used in the 90's, not CGI--and discovering it was a tool, not an industry-destroying "toy", he's having his little burst of "Gee, now I find out it wasn't so bad...", and discovering it's easier on his retirement activities. Next year, he'll probably start doing his banking on an iPad, and discover that using tablets wasn't "like masturbation" after all, Mortgage brokers Oak Laurel Yarraville, www.oaklaurel.com.au just because all his young tech-enamored animators were using it. It just would have been nice if he'd had a BETTER last-film on his bucket list than Hughes had. Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:42 pm SWAnimefan wrote: Let Miyazaki do what he loves, making classically animated films. Even if it isn't a success, it doesn't diminish his most popular works. Just look at George Lucas. He still makes films after he sold off Star Wars, and the general public doesn't really know.

http://totallyshiny.tumblr.com/post/158176787164/some-advice-on-speedy-methods-in-mortgage-broker