#respectability politics to appease the fucking nazis!!!!!!!!

[harpuiaa]

death to america and to the west bloc if im being honest

[flyingcookierambles]

*kicks*

almost at the end of wolfenstein 2 the new colossus it’s really fun!

for both game spoilers and also talk of nazis, even if it is anti-nazi, can understandably be a bit sensitive to some, i will put this under a cut

anyways during the part where william has to go undercover as an actor to get in a nazi base on venus to get special codes to fight nazis better, it turns out that hitler is ,in his old age, i guess, trying to be an “artist” again, and is the director of the movie. in this simple cut scene, i was both shocked and disgusted at hitler and his actions and in awe of how the game devs can show how wicked but also what a sad and pathetic man he really is/was in just a tiny 15 minute part of a many, many hours long game.

hitler, being an elderly man by the time wolfenstein 2 happens, comes into the room ranting and raving about how he will make the best movie/documentary about terror billy and show how the heroic germans finally “saved the world” and the german women and children by killing terror billy.

honestly the scene is gross to write about and ill just....put this youtube link here to a recording of the entire scene. content warning for nazi imagery (william is in a room with soldiers who have nazi symbols on their uniforms/armor and also wall decorations with nazi symbols), antisemitic insults and ideals, murder, and hitler being a disgusting and pathetic old man who is also physically aging/ill (public urination, vomiting, spittle)

so. assuming that you’ve seen that. i want to say that my disgust towards hitler, both the real life version and any fiction version, has increased 100x fold. the game devs knew what they were doing very well. as i wrote above, they showed that hitler is/was just a sad and pathetic man that no one should follow or respect. the nazis are cowards for following such a physically frail and weak man. i enjoyed how everyone in the background (william, the 2 other actors, and the assistant director helene) are disgusted/visibly shaken when hitler just starts to publicly urinate in the middle of the room. i also appreciated helene’s facial expressions, how she goes from fearful to reverent at the drop of a hat to appease the frail aging dictator. hitler only rules/d with fear, not just from the minorities he persecutes, but also from his own followers, who, after spending time with him and seeing how weak and dangerous he really is/has become as time has gone by, might have realized that they want out because it could be them next, but are too deep in to escape safely. it’s understandable that, despite how sickly and old this dictator has become, he is still a dangerous old man with a fast trigger finger who casually murders three innocent actors who just came to audition for a movie and carries on like normal.

anyways, enough on how i loved that this scene showed how pathetic nazis and their leaders are at the same time and how they basically have nothing good going for them, i also loved the ability to kick old man hitler in the face once, killing him instantly.

when hitler is laying down on the floor, as william walks by him, i saw the icon for the mouse wheel click - the standard silent/melee takedown and insta-kill button. did i do it? yes, and then it’s an automatic game over because you get shot by every soldier in the room. was it satisfying and very worth it though? also yes, also i got a surprise steam achievement called “Kick It - Kill Hitler during the Aerostat Audition.” what surprised me slightly more was that, according to steam global achievement stats, only 21.9% other people have gotten this achievement. its understandable that this number may not be accurate for everyone who played the game on a different platform/service, but it is a little disappointing. i mean.

TL;DR - if you ever get the chance to kick hitler in the head while he’s down once, killing him instantly, you should take that chance.

(lol)

i saw a tweet a while ago that basically said that “every video game should let you kill hitler as a treat. him being in the game doesnt have to make sense, but you should be able to kill him” and after doing this, i greatly agree. we should normalize beating up nazis and hitler in media again, instead of. *gestures vaguely to the normalization of the alt-right in the usa and also the conservative politics that are also deeply horrible (promoting nationalism/sexism/racism/etc,.) in the world in general* whatever the fuck this bullshit is.

[nightcoremoon]

still cant get over the fact that somehow it's totally okay for people who self identify as lesbians or as homosexual men to experience attraction towards people who are not the same gender as them- lesbians, which is as far as I know defined as women loving only other women, can be attracted to dfab nonbinary people (who are not women) and preop trans men (who are also not women), and also that gay as in homosexual men (which I say here to distinguish specifically gay men from gay used as an umbrella term since until the antiqueer dipshits get it through their thick fucling skulls that queer is not and never was a slur we have to use gay as the umbrella term to appease those fucking morons and so I have to use the term homosexual here even though it is apparently also actually a slur according to some people but I'm using it as an adjective so it should be fine but who fucking cares since I have to have 37 fucking footnotes on an otherwise simple post because discoursing assholes need everything spelled out for them or else "oh you didn't specifically say you don't hate nazis so you're an antisemite" even if you are talking about idk BREAD or something else unrelated) who as far as I know are defined as men who are attracted only to other men, can be attracted to dmab nonbinary people (who are not men) and preop trans women (who are not also men, terfs you're cunts so shut up die and fuck off)- and all of this is fine and dandy

I'm not going to step on the "all sexualities are inclusive of nonbinary people" stance since it comes from nonbinary people and my opinion as a binarily identifying is irrelevant here, okay

(except for my quip I say every single time it comes up, that nonbinary people are in fact excluded from asexuality since asexuality is in essence a lack of sexual attraction to anyone, ha ha funny joke goddammit somebody laugh)

but

how the fuck is that shit okay and yet it's bad for someone to say "hey I'm attracted to men and women and people who are both or neither and even though it's functionally the exact same as bi and the literal only difference is which prefix root you use and what color flag you rally behind I personally prefer to identify as pan"?

how is lesbians and gay men being attracted to people who are not other women/men okay but pan people are not okay? that's fucking stupid.

panphobes you're fucking stupid. eat shit. die.

"oh I can't believe you're such a big meanie you told someone on the internet to die" if I took a shot every time I saw some fucking cunt tell a pan person to kill themselves then I would die from alcohol poisoning, so shove your bullshit virtue signaling up your ass, or I'll do it for you

this isn't a platform for discussion. any attempt to argue with me will result in an immediate block. I do not give a shit if you disagree with me. I do not care about your opinion. I am not going to engage in a dialogue with you. I am going to ignore you because you are worthless to me. I am not here to please you. If what I say hurts you in your fee-fees then unfollow me. you are responsible for your own tumblr feed.

if however you find some incorrection in my definition of lesbian and gay concerning the attractions towards nonbinary people, that's fine. I'd love to hear differing perspectives on the issue in a polite respectful & civil manner. since it's not fighting or attacking me, it's you informing me of your point of view. you're ok.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Why Is It So Hard for Democrats to Act Like They Actually Won?

By

Rebecca Solnit

November 19, 2020

When Trump won the 2016 election—while losing the popular vote—the New York Times seemed obsessed with running features about what Trump voters were feeling and thinking. These pieces treated them as both an exotic species and people it was our job to understand, understand being that word that means both to comprehend and to grant some sort of indulgence to. Now that Trump has lost the 2020 election, the Los Angeles Times has given their editorial page over to letters from Trump voters, who had exactly the sort of predictable things to say we have been hearing for far more than four years, thanks to the New York Times and what came to seem like about 11,000 other news outlets hanging on the every word of every white supremacist they could convince to go on the record.

The letters editor headed this section with, “In my decade editing this page, there has never been a period when quarreling readers have seemed so implacably at odds with each other, as if they get their facts and values from different universes. As one small attempt to bridge the divide, we are providing today a page full of letters from Trump supporters.” The implication is the usual one: we—urban multiethnic liberal-to-radical only-partly-Christian America—need to spend more time understanding MAGA America. The demands do not go the other way. Fox and Ted Cruz and the Federalist have not chastised their audiences, I feel pretty confident, with urgings to enter into discourse with, say, Black Lives Matter activists, rabbis, imams, abortion providers, undocumented valedictorians, or tenured lesbians. When only half the divide is being tasked with making the peace, there is no peace to be made, but there is a unilateral surrender on offer. We are told to consider this bipartisanship, but the very word means both sides abandon their partisanship, and Mitch McConnell and company have absolutely no interest in doing that.

Paul Waldman wrote a valuable column in the Washington Post a few years ago, in which he pointed out that this discord is valuable fuel to right-wing operatives: “The assumption is that if Democrats simply choose to deploy this powerful tool of respect, then minds will be changed and votes will follow. This belief, widespread though it may be, is stunningly naive.” He notes that the sense of being disrespected “doesn’t come from the policies advocated by the Democratic Party, and it doesn’t come from the things Democratic politicians say. Where does it come from? An entire industry that’s devoted to convincing white people that liberal elitists look down on them. The right has a gigantic media apparatus that is devoted to convincing people that liberals disrespect them, plus a political party whose leaders all understand that that idea is key to their political project and so join in the chorus at every opportunity.”

There’s also often a devil’s bargain buried in all this, that you flatter and, yeah, respect these white people who think this country is theirs by throwing other people under the bus—by disrespecting immigrants and queer people and feminists and their rights and views. And you reinforce that constituency’s sense that they matter more than other people when you pander like this, and pretty much all the problems we’ve faced over the past four years, to say nothing of the last five hundred, come from this sense of white people being more important than nonwhites, Christians than non-Christians, native-born than immigrant, male than female, straight than queer, cis-gender than trans.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito just complained that “you can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Now it’s considered bigotry.” This is a standard complaint of the right: the real victim is the racist who has been called a racist, not the victim of his racism, the real oppression is to be impeded in your freedom to oppress. And of course Alito is disingenuous; you can say that stuff against marriage equality (and he did). Then other people can call you a bigot, because they get to have opinions too, but in his scheme such dissent is intolerable, which is fun coming from a member of the party whose devotees wore “fuck your feelings” shirts at its rallies and popularized the term “snowflake.”

Nevertheless, we get this hopelessly naïve version of centrism, of the idea that if we’re nicer to the other side there will be no other side, just one big happy family. This inanity is also applied to the questions of belief and fact and principle, with some muddled cocktail of moral relativism and therapists’ “everyone’s feelings are valid” applied to everything. But the truth is not some compromise halfway between the truth and the lie, the fact and the delusion, the scientists and the propagandists. And the ethical is not halfway between white supremacists and human rights activists, rapists and feminists, synagogue massacrists and Jews, xenophobes and immigrants, delusional transphobes and trans people. Who the hell wants unity with Nazis until and unless they stop being Nazis?

I think our side, if you’ll forgive my ongoing shorthand and binary logic, has something to offer everyone and we can and must win in the long run by offering it, and offering it via better stories and better means to make those stories reach everyone. We actually want to see everyone have a living wage, access to healthcare, and lives unburdened by medical, student, and housing debt. We want this to be a thriving planet when the babies born this year turn 80 in 2100. But the recommended compromise means abandoning and diluting our stories, not fortifying and improving them (and finding ways for them to actually reach the rest of America, rather than having them warped or shut out altogether). I’ve spent much of my adult life watching politicians like Bill Clinton and, at times, Barack Obama sell out their own side to placate the other, with dismal results, and I pray that times have changed enough that Joe Biden will not do it all over again.

Among the other problems with the LA Times’s editor’s statement is that one side has a lot of things that do not deserve to be called facts, and their values are too often advocacy for harming many of us on the other side. Not to pick on one news outlet: Sunday, the Washington Post ran a front-page sub-head about the #millionMAGAmarch that read “On stark display in the nation’s capital were two irreconcilable versions of America, each refusing to accept what the other considered to be undeniable fact.” Except that one side did have actual facts, notably that Donald J. Trump lost the election, and the other had hot and steamy delusions.

I can comprehend, and do, that lots of people don’t believe climate change is real, but is there some great benefit in me listening, again, to those who refuse to listen to the global community of scientists and see the evidence before our eyes? A lot of why the right doesn’t “understand” climate change is that climate change tells us everything is connected, everything we do has far-reaching repercussions, and we’re responsible for the whole, a message at odds with their idealization of a version of freedom that smells a lot like disconnection and irresponsibility. But also climate denial is the result of fossil fuel companies and the politicians they bought spreading propaganda and lies for profit, and I understand that better than the people who believe it. If half of us believe the earth is flat, we do not make peace by settling on it being halfway between round and flat. Those of us who know it’s round will not recruit them through compromise. We all know that you do better bringing people out of delusion by being kind and inviting than by mocking them, but that’s inviting them to come over, which is not the same thing as heading in their direction.

The editor spoke of facts, and he spoke of values. In the past four years too many members of the right have been emboldened to carry out those values as violence. One of the t-shirts at the #millionMAGAmarch this weekend: “Pinochet did nothing wrong.” Except stage a coup, torture and disappear tens of thousands of Chileans, and violate laws and rights. A right-wing conspiracy to overthrow the Michigan government and kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer was recently uncovered, racists shot some Black Lives Matter protestors and plowed their cars into a lot of protests this summer. The El Paso anti-immigrant massacre was only a year ago; the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre two years ago, the Charlottesville white-supremacist rally in which Heather Heyer was killed three years ago (and of course there have been innumerable smaller incidents all along). Do we need to bridge the divide between Nazis and non-Nazis? Because part of the problem is that we have an appeasement economy, a system that is supposed to be greased by being nice to the other side.

Appeasement didn’t work in the 1930s and it won’t work now. That doesn’t mean that people have to be angry or hate back or hostile, but it does mean they have to stand on principle and defend what’s under attack. There are situations in which there is no common ground worth standing on, let alone hiking over to. If Nazis wanted to reach out and find common ground and understand us, they probably would not have had that tiki-torch parade full of white men bellowing “Jews will not replace us” and, also, they would not be Nazis. Being Nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, transphobes is all part of a project of refusing to understand as part of refusing to respect. It is a minority position but by granting it deference we give it, over and over, the power of a majority position.

In fact the whole Republican Party, since long before Trump, has committed itself to the antidemocratic project of trying to create a narrower electorate rather than win a wider vote. They have invested in voter suppression as a key tactic to win, and the votes they try to suppress are those of Black voters and other voters of color. That is a brutally corrupt refusal to allow those citizens the rights guaranteed to them by law. Having failed to prevent enough Black people from voting in the recent election, they are striving mightily to discard their votes after the fact. What do you do with people who think they matter more than other people? Catering to them reinforces that belief, that they are central to the nation’s life, they are more important, and their views must prevail. Deference to intolerance feeds intolerance.

Years ago the linguist George Lakoff wrote that Democrats operate as kindly nurturance-oriented mothers to the citizenry, Republicans as stern discipline-oriented fathers. But the relationship between the two parties is a marriage, between an overly deferential wife and an overbearing and often abusive husband (think of how we got our last two Supreme Court justices and failed to get Merrick Garland). The Hill just ran a headline that declared “GOP Senators say that a Warren nomination would divide Republicans.” I am pretty sure they didn’t run headlines that said, “Democratic Senators say a Pompeo (or Bolton or Perdue or Sessions) nomination would divide Democrats.” I grew up in an era where wives who were beaten were expected to do more to soothe their husbands and not challenge them, and this carries on as the degrading politics of our abusive national marriage.

Some of us don’t know how to win. Others can’t believe they ever lost or will lose or should, and their intransigence constitutes a kind of threat. That’s why the victors of the recent election are being told in countless ways to go grovel before the losers. This unilateral surrender is how misogyny and racism are baked into a lot of liberal and centrist as well as right-wing positions, this idea that some people need to be flattered and buffered even when they are harming the people who are supposed to do the flattering and buffering, even when they are the minority, even when they’re breaking the law or lost the election. Lakoff didn’t quite get to the point of saying that this nation lives in a household full of what domestic abuse advocates call coercive control, in which one partner’s threats, intimidations, devaluations, and general shouting down control the other.

This is what marriages were before feminism, with the abused wife urged to placate and soothe the furious husband. Feminism is good for everything, and it’s a good model for seeing that this is both outrageous and a recipe for failure. It didn’t work in marriages, and it never was the abused partner’s job to prevent the abuse by surrendering ground and rights and voice. It is not working as national policy either. Now is an excellent time to stand on principle and defend what we value, and I believe it’s a winning strategy too, or at least brings us closer to winning than surrender does. Also, it’s worth repeating, we won, and being gracious in victory is still being victorious.

[Rebecca Solnit’s first media job was in fact-checking and her last book is the memoir Recollections of My Nonexistence. She’s sent a lot of mail to her nieces and nephews during the pandemic.]

[ironcites]

Fascism and Communism are all derivatives of SOCIALISM. Conflict between Fascists, Socialists, and Communists are SECTARIAN.

Part 1: Fascism A.) Mussolini was an ardent Socialist journalist and respected authority on Karl Marx in Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Political_journalist,_intellectual_and_socialist

B.) Mussolini had one single difference of opinion with his fellow Socialists, He believed in Italy being involved in WW1. Socialism being collectivist in nature could not stand such individuality (more on individuality in part 2). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Expulsion_from_the_Italian_Socialist_Party

C.) Mussolini called his “Fascist” economy, “STATE SOCIALISM”. Although the conflict with the Soviet Union had Italy/Germany distancing themselves from “communism”, “By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state–ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism#Economy

Part 2: Nazism A.) The term “NAZI” is a German abbreviation for, “National SOCIALIST”, the full Party Abbreviation being “NSDP” meaning, “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party”. Many people just don’t know this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN3WqL5mkoM

B.) Otto Wagener, Hitler’s former economic advisor published a book about Hitler. Wagener’s quotes of Hitler are as follows and are continued within the link: “Here you see the difference between the former age of individualism and the socialism that is on the horizon … an evolution from individualism to socialism, from self-interest to the public interest … etc.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hitler:_Memoirs_of_a_Confidant

C.) “It is estimated that in the mid-1930s, German workers paid 15-35% of their income to taxes, social programs, and (due to government pressure) charities … By 1943, up to 500 companies were owned by the German state … the official unions have been made compulsory by law”, forcing every worker to join Hitler’s state-owned labor union.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

Part 3: Nazism “vs” Marxism A.)“Dictatorship of the Proletariat” is a foundation of Socialism, especially Marxism. The “enemy” to the proletariat was known as the bourgeoisie (comparable to the modern term, “The 1%”). Hitler essentially projects the verbiage “Proletariat” as the German/Aryan Race and the “bourgeoisie” to be specifically “The Jews”. To this day, both extremist left and right wings are highly critical/prejudice towards Zionism. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism

B.) Karl Marx was anti- religion and arguably anti sematic and racist in his own right, however he was of Jewish heritage, which was still considered Jewish to Nazis. The last thing Hitler could allow history showing was that the basis for Socialism was largely fathered by a Jew. http://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/30-karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism https://www.theepochtimes.com/karl-marx-the-racist_2217122.html C.) As mentioned in Part 1, the Axis Powers had to ideologically distance themselves from the Soviet Union. combining Anti-Semitism with Marxism, known as “Jewish Bolshevism” helped ideologically set the stage for the invasion of Communist Russia, which is shown to be a foregone conclusion for Hitler, “As early as 1925, Adolf Hitler vaguely declared in his political manifesto and autobiography Mein Kampf that he would invade the Soviet Union, asserting that the German people needed to secure Lebensraum ("living space") to ensure the survival of Germany for generations to come.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Racial_policies_of_Nazi_Germany

Part 4: The United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic A.) The Bolshevik Revolution, which preceded the Axis Powers by 16 years, was overtly Marxist. The overall death toll of Soviet Russia is approximately 61,911,000. In comparison, the Nazi death toll was approximately 20,946,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_Soviet_Union

B.) In 1939 a non-aggression pact was signed between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: 1.) “During his meeting with Nazi Germany's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, Stalin promised him to get rid of the "Jewish domination", especially among the intelligentsia … Stalin immediately directed incoming Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews", to appease Hitler and to signal Nazi Germany that the USSR was ready for non-aggression talks.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_antisemitism#German Soviet_rapprochement_and_the_Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact 2.) A “secret protocol” was attached to the pact splitting up parts of Europe into “spheres of influence”, which extended the territory of both nations whose borders would be respected by each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#The_secret_protocol 3.) One such outcome of the pacts secret protocol; In late 1939 a series of security conferences were held between the Nazi Gestapo and the Soviet equivalent the NKVD on the divide of Poland after its invasion by BOTH nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo%E2%80%93NKVD_conferences 4.) Operation Barbarossa, Germany’s invasion of Russia, took Stalin completely by surprise. “Stalin … was determined not to do anything that might provoke the Germans … The very survival of the Soviet Union was at stake and Stalin was at a loss. “Lenin founded our state,” he said despondently as he left, “and we’ve fucked it up.” And with that, he retired to his dacha.” http://www.historyinanhour.com/2011/07/01/stalins-breakdown/ 5.) After WW2, Soviet soldiers were responsible for approximately 2 million rapes predominantly of German women. Approximately 100,000 German women were raped in Berlin alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Soviet_troops http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32529679

Part 5: Territoriality A.) The concept of “Lebensraum” or “Living Space” was the Nazi justification for territorial expansion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

B.) “Spazio Vitale” was the Italian Fascist equivalent to Lebensraum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spazio_vitale

C.) After World War 2, the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic had “The Iron Curtain” controlling a sphere of influence over countries in the “The Warsaw Pact”. Similar to what was planned with Germany during the “secret protocol” of their Non-Aggression Pact (see Part 4, Section B, #2). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain

D.) During the Cold War the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic supported several proxy wars to countries it held interest in and to assist in the spread of communism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars#Cold_War_proxy_wars

E.) Soviet military occupations resulted in several controversies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_Soviet_Union#Cold_War 1.) During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan approximately 2 million afghans died, and similar to post war Germany had a notable rape epidemic by Soviet troops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War#Atrocities

Nazi territorial ambition of Communist Russia, and their betrayal of Communist Russia and their own territorial agenda was the origin of their sectarian conflict. Differing ideology was just a red herring (no pun intended).

[ischemgeek]

What you do is what people will judge 50 years from now.

By which I mean: There are fascists gaining power all around the world. Nationalist movements are gaining steam. Refugees are being rejected. Hate crimes are increasing. Institutional discrimination is being mandated at the highest levels of the most powerful country in the world. 

Historians are raising the alarm about how the world is closest to 1939 in global tensions than it’s been.... pretty much since 1939. Shoah (what Jewish people prefer to call the genocide perpetuated by the Nazis as Holocaust is a holy word for Jewish folks and I’m not Jewish but I can respect that) survivors warn that the current president of the US reminds them of Hitler. WW2 vets speak in frustration about how the world doesn’t seem to have learned a damn thing from WW2, all the while supposed progressives try to appease folks who are Nazis in all but name. The Doomsday Clock was advanced thirty seconds last week, to the highest it’s been since 1953. Neo-Nazis and the KKK march in the streets, and their chosen poster boys get glowing features on public news. Meanwhile, women’s rights are under a stronger attack than they’ve faced in decades, and the fascist parties try to loosen legal restrictions against discrimination on basis of gender, race, and sexual orientation. Jewish men get arrested for defending themselves against assault from genocidal assholes. Known racists get appointed to positions to enforce racial equality while police assault, harass and sometimes outright murder racial minorities with impunity. People with disabilities are pressured into accepting euthanasia or dying a painful death of neglect as if nothing was learned from Aktion T4. All the while, government leaders scapegoat a vulnerable religious minority as if they’re to blame for all the world’s troubles.

Governments have lost their respect for objective reality, preferring instead to speak of “alternative facts” as if it’s fucking 1984 come to life and to warn journalists to “keep their mouths shut” about the truth or face the consequences. Fascist political movements have bought and paid for propaganda outlets that have managed to convince their followers that everything else is unreliable. People who have literally gone on record saying that Hitler had the right idea get featured as sexy leaders of the new generation on evening news.   Have you ever wondered what you would have done in 1938? Now’s your chance to find out. Be on the right side of history. Volunteer. Protest. Call your representative. Resist.

[juliusschmidt]

Someone sent me this ask: I'm getting a bit overwhelmed with all these things happening in the US. Tumblr and other social media are saying that what trump is doing is extremely wrong and unconstitutional, but one of my Republican cousins posted a video with Bill Clinton proposing a ban on illegal immigrants and on the lines what Trump was saying in his campaign. idk I've seen how people are reacting to trump, I'd say they have different approaches to same things. But i'm not so sure anymore. this sucks

Oh goodness. That's a lot.

I don't know about 'unconstitutional,' but I'm certainly of the belief that a lot of what Trump is doing is 'extremely wrong.' (In fact, I think part of what's frightening to people like myself is that a good deal of it isn't clearly unconstitutional.) However, you're right to notice that things are more complicated than social media portrays them to be. 

This got super long. Topics covered: immigration policy, my opinion on these immigration questions, a note about citing politicians’ opinions, reactions to Trump and Trump supporters 

ETA: It’s been pointed out to me that a huge part of the immigration conversation revolves around whether or not people are ‘illegal’ or ‘undocumented’, so I’ve added a bit about that.

Immigration Policy

Immigration is a hugely polarizing issue in the US and I’m no expert, but I’ll try to paint the picture with broad strokes. 

People who oppose it are (openly) concerned about ‘cultural fragmentation’ (the idea that the English language, Christianity, and western dress are all essential to American Culture and worth defending to the point of imposing these norms onto newcomers), immigrants taking their jobs or their children’s jobs in a climate with relatively high unemployment, undocumented immigrants receiving benefits (schools, roads, healthcare, food stamps) without having their incomes monitored to see whether or not they should be paying taxes into the system that pays out for these benefits, and the arrival of terrorists and gangs/cartels from the middle east and global south.  

People who approve of it say that immigration is an essential part of our so-called American culture (that before we are English-speaking or Christian, we are a nation of immigrants), that we live in a globalized world where trade and ideas are passing between borders and in which we need to allow for people to also pass between borders to facilitate commerce and science, that immigrants are good for the American economy bringing necessary labor and skills and innovations and ideas that boost the quality of life for all Americans, that we have a moral duty to open our borders to as many people fleeing violence or oppression or extreme economic hardship as we can reasonably fit. 

Most Americans fall somewhere in between these two stances. 

Neither position is essentially Democratic or Republican. Even though, currently, Democrats are for the most part pro-immigration and this sitting Republican president is ‘protectionist’ (xenophobic?), a lot of (wealthy) Republicans (like George W. Bush) have traditionally been pro-immigration and a lot of (labor) Democrats have traditionally opposed more open borders. 

A lot of the conversation revolves around whether people are in the country legally or not, the preferred term for the latter being ‘undocumented.’ The question of how to deal with people who are not on the books in the US has, indeed, long been the biggest topic of debate. 

Trump’s conversation and actions have affected both documented and undocumented immigrants. 

So let’s separate out two related, but different hot topics. 

1) Trump said a lot on the campaign about a building wall and about ‘illegal immigrants.’ He signed two executive orders dealing with this last Wednesday. (Summary here.) These comments and these orders are mostly directed at immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America and primarily undocumented immigrants. Democratic presidents like BIll Clinton (and even Barack Obama) supported similar measures (partly to appease their labor base who saw immigrants from south of the border as a direct threat to their jobs). People on the left didn’t like this, but it didn’t strike people’s hearts the same way the more recent immigration related executive order has. T

2) The more recent executive order has to do with immigrants and refugees from seven majority Muslim countries.  (Summary here). Here is a comprehensive argument for why it’s unconstitutional. This affects many people with green cards and proper visas, well-documented immigrants. (It should be noted that because of this, the courts have put a stay on the ban, stopping it temporarily, until they can take it up and decide on its constitutionality formally.) 

Also, there’s been a huge outcry from people who would otherwise support this order because it took effect so quickly and so clumsily. The people who had to enforce the order didn’t know exactly how they were meant to do it. 

My Opinion on these Immigration Questions 

Obviously, borders exist for a reason. Very simply: different nations have different governments with different laws and taxation systems and different citizen rights and benefits/resources (roads, policing, schools, health care, military protection). We need to monitor immigration to manage which laws and which benefits apply to whom and at what time (especially, imo, so that the people who hold all the $$$ like Bill Gates and *cough* Donald Trump don't move about in such a way that they are paying taxes to no nation and reaping the benefits of all the nations) (oh. fucking. wait.) (ANYWAY!). (Which, by the way, did you know that eight people hold as much wealth as the poorest 50% of people in the world?)  

Additionally, immigrants and their demographics (where they come from, how much wealth they bring with them, and how educated they are) impact the local US economy (usually for the better, but not always and not for everyone). I believe that immigration policy (and trade policy) needs to be attentive to the American workers who are so often left behind, not by penalizing immigrants, but by helping out these out-of-work laborers, perhaps with tax benefits, extended unemployment benefits, and/or fully-subsidized new industry training programs. 

But all that is background noise. Here’s the heart of the matter for me: immigrants, especially impoverished immigrants, and especially especially impoverished immigrants on the ethnic and cultural margins (who don’t speak the language, who don’t practice the same religion, whose physical appearance differs) are vulnerable people. And we have a moral duty as human beings to protect and free vulnerable peoples and to uplift their stories so that history does not repeat itself. 

When a vulnerable person says, this policy hurts me and my family, we have to listen for the truth in that. And quite frankly, Trump’s most recent executive order re: immigrants has caused so much pain that it’s hard to miss it. Families have been ripped apart. People were literally being detained without legal access in airports around the world. People fleeing violence in their home countries, who have spent months and often years being vetted for entry, are now being turned away. 

(Also, as a person of the Judeo-Christian faith, I believe I have a Biblically-based ethical imperative to fight for refugees and accept and protect immigrants. But that’s a whole different essay.) 

Note about Citing Politicians’ Opinions 

My feelings about Bill Clinton’s policies are lukewarm so I’m not inclined to bite on that video. He was a moderate in his time and I’m a progress now, at a moment when the progressive movement has (for the better, imo) moved even farther to left (I believe and hope through dialogue with and leadership of vulnerable and marginalized people). Bill Clinton also wanted to be ‘tough on crime,’ using approaches to criminal legislation, policing, and sentencing that have been proven to harm communities, not help them. He also drafted trade policies that protected CEO’s profits not workers’ well-beings. 

It’s important for both progressives and conservatives to be careful not to agree with something just because it’s supported by someone we like. We need to make sure that our policies- no mater who supports them- are lining up with our values (mine being justice, compassion, and freedom for all). 

Reactions to Trump and Trump Supporters 

I’m of the unpopular opinion (unpopular in my progressive corner of the internet, at least) that we need to respect all human beings, even the most vile and oppressive ones. That does not mean condoning or allowing their abusive attitudes and behaviors. In fact, out of respect for their souls, we sure as shit should be confronting them. 

I’m also of the unpopular opinion that not all conservatives or even all Trump supporters are equal. Not all of them white supremacist nazis. Some of them are, yeah. But not all. 

People I love voted for Trump and guess what? I haven’t stopped loving them. 

A lot of the people I know and love that supported Trump have been frustrated by the political system for years, feeling like the professional class, which dominates the media, disrespects their culture and their work. A lot of them volunteer with their churches’ homeless shelters and soup kitchens and a lot of them care deeply for the vulnerable in their communities.

The creation of conservative media silos and the gaslighting of those stuck in them has effectively changed their perspective on reality. 

And it fucking sucks and makes me really angry at them, but it doesn’t change the fact that my dear family friend, who went on a loud pro-Trump rant in the middle of the hospital while his wife was having brain surgery, also gave me my first job and drove eight hours (roundtrip) in a day to cry like a baby at my wedding. It doesn’t change the fact that my Aunt Mary, who’s had a Trumbip sign proudly in her front yard since this time last year, babysat me five and sometimes six days a week until I went to kindergarten, showed me how to make mundane errands into an adventure, and taught me to laugh at myself. 

Continuing to be in relationship with these people means confronting them about some things and it means letting some things go. I do recognize that I  can continue to be in relationship because there’s nothing about my publicly known identity of which they disapprove. 

But what it comes down to for me is this: I’m not going to let the right take those meaningful, life-affirming relationships from me, too. I’m just not.  

So, in conclusion, yeah, it sucks. :(

[duaneodavila]

Debate: PC, At Best Inauthentic Babble, At Worst Dangerous Obfuscation

Ed. Note: After two prominent intellectuals, a New York Times reporter and an award winning British media personality failed to debate the question ,“Be it Resolved: What You Call Political Correctness, I Call Progress,” former Fault Lines contributors Mario Machado and Chris Seaton attempted to succeed where four others failed. Bellow Mario’s argument.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. 

–George Orwell, Animal Farm (Original Preface)

Let’s begin with stating the obvious: for some many of my fellow primates, there are some words that are just too much to bear. These words need to be diluted so that the chance of someone being hurt or “offended” becomes impossible.

Yes, these folks are fine with words either being banned outright or replaced with more antiseptic ones, at the expense of reason and the English language.  For those who have respect for language (especially those who make a living off of it, along with the First Amendment), and who don’t require they be treated like backward children, that state of affairs is something that must be addressed and corrected.  The stakes are high, amigos.

Those on the other side, who with a straight hysterical face will tell you that “words are violence,” will claim that no measure is too stiff, no punishment too severe so long as no feelings are hurt and everyone’s sensitivities remain one-hundred-percent intact.  Notice how another cherished concept of civilization – a sense of nuance and proportion – has now been thrown overboard as a result of this “movement”?

It’s not so bad that Hollywood, in part because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, has become a beacon for bullying gangs that will excoriate anyone that goes off the politically-correct script (no pun). Make one remark off-the-cuff that may offend one member of the tribe for one second, and it is off-with-your-fucking-head, amigos.  No matter how perfect or swift the contrition by the offender, their careers will go up in smoke.

Speaking of Trump, a lot of this censoring is done in the name of “things have never been so nasty, so uncivil.” Really? During the 1800 presidential campaign, John Adams referred to that fellow from Monticello, another founding father, as “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” In 1828, Andrew Jackson’s opponent called him a murderer, an adulterer, and a pimp.  So the current political climate of naughty words does not justify these cries for civility.

Raising the sights a bit, let’s talk about academia.  A majority of students think that words are violence. One would think that a basic academic (pardon the expression) explanation would put such a foolish position to rest: “Junior, violence is blunt force that can cause physical injury. By definition, words can’t do that.” But you may get called a white supremacist or a Nazi before Junior’s rusted brain wheels start spinning.

But it gets worse, much, much worse.  The professors and the administrators – yes! those who are supposed to be in charge – have become the proverbial hostages to the students. They’re terrified of putting these brats in place, lest they be reported and lose their jobs. This is in part because they know their spineless colleagues will not come to their defense.

So what are we left with at these universities? Trigger warnings, cry-ins, de-platforming of speakers, riots. The last two usually occur when the really bad speakers come to town.  Nothing says “I’m a smart, strident, dependable person who deserves a paycheck” like breaking a Starbucks window with a sledge hammer because someone was uttering politically incorrect stuff at an event where attendance was not compulsory.  These are the professionals of our future who will enter the workforce en masse without calloused sensitivities, all because of the campaign for political-correctness-for-all.

What happens when these political-correctness warriors get off the academic teat of appeasement and are lucky enough to get a job? What will they do when their boss is a ball-buster, who also happens to have the temerity to use “incorrect” gender pronouns? Will they curl up into a ball, toughen up, or simply report it to the higher-ups in the hopes of having a competent leader thrown out?

With regards to the last question, which involves someone snitching out another for using language that’s forbidden by the tribe, the American Bar Association has joined the party.  ABA’s Model Rule 4.8(g) is full of vague, meaningless tripe that forbids lawyers to:

engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law

Let’s say you finally found the right lawyer who puts you first, and is in the best position to get you out of a serious jam. This rule can be used to take his license, should anyone perceive he said something considered “harassment,” and perhaps that leaves you with lawyers who will cower should a prosecutor threaten with putting you in a cage if she doesn’t capitulate.  There you have it ladies and gentlemen, how far the termites have spread.

I will come full circle, and finish with our beloved language, and how political correctness has been used to trivialize things that cause real pain and suffering.  Freaking out because you’re facing a lifetime of banishment from this country and don’t have the coin to pay for your defense? Well, you’re not entitled to a lawyer, because the deportation process is “administrative” and not punitive. In an immigration jail and hate the conditions? How bad can it possibly be, buttercup? They’re not jails, but rather “service processing” and “transitional” centers.

You’re in prison awaiting trial, and you got thrown in a filthy hole?  Calm down, drama queen. It’s not a hole, but a “secure housing unit,” or SHU.  Facing life in prison, so you want your lawyer to pulverize the government’s parade of rats? Understandable, but make sure he only addresses him as “cooperating witness” during cross and closing argument.  Is all this progress? Very far from it.

Copyright © 2007-2018 Simple Justice NY, LLC This feed is for personal, non-commercial and Newstex use only. The use of this feed anywhere else violates copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it means the page you are viewing infringes copyright. (Digital Fingerprint: 51981395c77d7762065ca2c084b63e47) Debate: PC, At Best Inauthentic Babble, At Worst Dangerous Obfuscation republished via Simple Justice

[reddpropaganda]

Some people seem to have this innocently naive notion that “giving them attention” or “making them into a threat” is what they want so we shouldn’t do it. Often it’s simply performative morality to appear superior to marginalized people who are personally outraged and affected by this kind of rhetoric from people who (typically) are not.

That aside, it’s like if the bad guy in a tv show kidnaps the hero’s friend and everyone says “don’t do it! It’s too dangerous, it’s a trap. It’s what they want!” Does that ever stop the hero? No. Because they have a conscience that won’t allow them to sit idly by if there’s a chance that acting now could keep everyone safe.

And right now the country is, quite literally, in the hands of white supremacists and Nazis. It is absolutely imperative that people do something.

They’re wrong, anyway. They don’t want attention. They don’t want to be met with violence. They want to be seen as people deserving of respect like any other citizen instead of the monsters they are so they can politely discuss genocide in peace. They want people to keep looking the other way. They want to be seen as harmless.

When the alternative is to let them quietly go on congregating in the shadows and holding rallies that inflict fear and spread lies, kill people even– yes, they have blood on their hands from this now. People often clamor on saying “modern day Nazis aren’t dangerous or go around committing violent acts unlike groups like Antifa etc” which is a blatant lie– but, they undeniably have so, now what?

And how can you say that without acknowledging their rhetoric is what ultimately leads to violent acts against us in the first place? What did you expect? They murdered thousands in cold blood in the past because people were timid until it was too late. They’ve just been waiting to gain enough power to be able to do this in the open again and we just. keep. giving it to them.

Here’s what Nazis want: To continually and gradually shift and skew public perception so far that the insidiousness of Nazism is dwindled down to simply another “opinion” like liking cats or dogs. To where disagreeing with them or voicing dissent becomes taboo– then punishable. Until they gain control to enforce authoritarian rule right under our noses with us as the greatest enablers of fascism since 1942.

I can guarantee they’re nodding their heads along with you when they see you type out a piece on why discussion and reasoning will win them over. They create fake sob stories and try to paint other groups as worse than them as a distraction and we fall for it. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

And I’m not saying you couldn’t by some statistical margin convert one, go ahead and try if you’re willing to risk your safety but many of us would rather not. It’s also fairly backwards to put the responsibility of teaching racists simple human decency on the shoulders of marginalized people who don’t owe them shit.

Their very existence is a disgrace since they should have gotten over their prejudices decades ago when those wars were resolved. It’s intellectually dishonest to say that if we just act like saints and say all the right things they’ll see the light. We shouldn’t be appeasing to Nazis and jumping through hoops for them while ignoring the feelings of their victims.

We’re allowed our anger and to be vocal about it. You’re not as woke as you think you are when you call marginalized groups “the real fascists.” Freedom of speech does not mean “zero consequences.” Don’t tell us to suck it up and play nice because that’s way less than what they deserve. One punch is nice in comparison. What does that accomplish? A whole damn lot.

It makes people realize they can fight back. It’s getting these awful incidents reported and dangerous people outted. Rather you think that’s morally okay or not, it’s keeping people safe. Absolutely put them in the fucking spotlight so we know who our enemies are.

Personally, I'm not the type to throw punches. I have weak wrists and no muscle. But, if a Nazi gets punched I'm not going to care. Not sorry. And no, I'm not advocating for assholes to attack "anyone who disagrees with them" or use that as an excuse nor am I that immature.

We’re in dark times. The record has shown it will just get worse. The only thing that’s stopped them before was direct action. Why do people think it’s any different now? At least this time there’s hope we’ll react much faster before ten thousands of people end up dead.