#social political views

[billa-billa007]

How To Identify Your Ideal Audience Persona Through Psychographics

Psychographics refer to the study and classification of people based on their psychological characteristics, such as their attitudes, beliefs, values, interests, lifestyles, and behaviors. Unlike demographics, which focus on measurable and objective traits like age, gender, income, and education, psychographics delve deeper into understanding the underlying motivations and preferences that drive individual choices and actions.

[asm5129]

My videos on the 1st Amendment and free speech are going to be really important in the next few weeks as claims of censorship, acts of domestic terrorism and incitement of it, and billionaires controlling the flow of information and misinformation become more and more prevalent. Please please PLEASE watch them, I designed them to be very accessible so anyone should be able to understand them and learn from them. It’s gonna be really, really important to know law and history around these topics in the coming days and weeks—Even more than it has been.

In Part I, we explore the history of the 1st Amendment, the legal rights we do and don't have, and how modern approaches to 1st amendment law have resulted in the threat known as Stochastic Terrorism.

In Part II, we explore Monetary Politics, break down who controls modern expression and how, and then discuss ways to begin addressing the threats modern speech issues have introduced.

[sanyu-thewitch05]

Me watching the LGBT community who almost never rarely gives black women and girls, asexuals, or aromantics genuine respect, pretend we’re all friends and have always treated us right the minute it’s June 1st and want to use black women(mainly darkskinned) and girls as their little poster girl:

[domwitch]

Lately I've been obsessed with the idea of some powerful warlord (warlady?) invading a church and taking the prettiest boy there to be her concubine. Just.... His "purity" which he vigilently guarded for so long is violently taken by what he considers to be a godless heretical "savage," and idk I'm a slut for corruption ig

[wonder-worker]

"The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's [first] reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime."

— Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

[mirrors-are-green]

Remainder to all class/privilege-conscious folks out there! Do whatever you can for marginalized people in your profession, especially in the prestigious fields! If they survived that far, with that much obstacles against them, you know they should get a chance for a successful career. To combat discrimination, help people around you who deserve to succeed. Nominate them for grants and awards. Buy their book, for yourself or a friend or to donate to your library. Update their Wikipedia page. Share your knowledge. Take on interns and trainees. If they're talented, recommend them to others. Focus on their positive traits when describing to others in the workforce- trust me, everyone heard about the negative ones already.

Racists, mysoginists, classists, ableists, terfs etc. will spent hours trying to make marginalized communities fail- so we need to band together and not only refuse to behave horribly, we have to actively help the ones who are having it harder for no reason!

It's especially important to support low-income people.

Wealth is not just money, it's connections. It's having your voice listened to. It's being recognised for your hard work. It's being given second chances, over and over. It's acknowledging and appreciating your talent.

The world is not fair. Some people are gonna have lots of support and all the advantages in the world. But it doesn't mean we can't even try to even the race and provide some of it to others.

If you want to see more POC/women/disabled people/first generation/Indigenous people/religious minority people in senior positions, actively work toward it. You know lots of people are already working against them. It's really needed.

[gospelofme]

I just want to remind people about a cool feature that exists on all social media accounts.

It’s this little thing called the “block button”. If someone is harassing you about whatever or you just don’t like the content someone is putting out, click block and go on with your life.

There are some people who will troll posts on social media and just pick someone to argue with. They’ll argue via comments or reblogs. They just want to argue and get someone else all worked up. Pretty sure they get off on it. I’ve had brief arguments with people before utilizing the block button. It’s not worth your energy or mental health to argue with some stranger on the internet who likely doesn’t even care about the topic you commented on or posted. They just want to get you all worked up and angry.

If you don’t agree with content a person is putting out, or you keep seeing their stuff and it’s just not for you, block them. They won’t see it or likely even notice you did this. So there is no need to worry about hurting someone’s feelings. Don’t DM them or comment on their stuff and try to start something or be hurtful. The only exception would be if this person was posting blatant misinformation or harmful/destructive content. Then it’s better to shoot them a DM being as polite as possible. You don’t want to give them a reason to attack you. If they do respond in a hostile way, click that magic “block” or even “report” and go about your day.

[ardri-na-bpiteog]

We all know echo chambers exist and yet people on all parts of the political spectrum are still convinced that they represent the majority opinion because their highly tailored online circles agree with them.

[necromycologist]

on one hand i don’t think you can blame nick for any of the destroyer stuff in a way that would hold up in court (and I think he probably punishes himself about it enough already.) but. on the other hand. if biden’s nephew became friends with prince george, fucked off to england, killed(?) a bunch of his employees and vulnerable refugees, conducted what looked like bomb testing on american soil, and then everyone was like “it’s fine because He Was Possessed” you know i would start killing

[workersolidarity]

To my 4'000+ followers, I want to thank everyone for bearing with me as I formulate the system for posting to this blog, such as color coding news/analysis/opinion and organizing sources.

I realize posting is inconsistent at best, I don't always get the chance to post all I would like to. Also, I am currently dealing with an ongoing family emergency, and so I truly appreciate everyone's patience as I work out the kinks in this blog.

I value everyone who follows this blog, including those with diametrically opposing views, as my goal is to expose you to different views, news, and analysis than you might encounter through the usual mainstream outlets, and it is not necessarily my goal to change your views to reflect my own, though that would certainly be a bonus.

Thank you again for bearing with me, I promise you this, when I finally have all this down, get some more help with the blog and things are more settled, you will be rewarded with more content.

Peace ✌️

From @WorkerSolidarityNews

[mlgrace]

it’s unbelievable how “all people deserve human rights and no matter what circumstances they’re in shouldn’t be stripped of these basic rights” is a controversial statement. people will support human rights until they’re reminded that criminals and those with mental illness and/or addiction and poc and asylum seekers and children also deserve them. it doesn’t suddenly become conditional when someone of a certain demographic has their rights violated because we are in fact all humans actually.

[voids-ideas]

The moment when I realized that my political views were "drastic" was when we were discussing the death penalty and my argument against it was "I don't trust a state to have the power to create a category of people worthy of death and not twist that definition to eliminate groups of their convenience" and the people around me looked at me with a face like: Wtf are you saying?

[rotenotes]

Saul Newman - The Politics of Postanarchism

The Politics of Postanarchism Saul Newman In recent years radical politics has been faced with a number of new challenges, not least of which has been the reemergence of the aggressive, authoritarian state in its new paradigm of security and bio-politics. The ‘war on terror’ serves as the latest guise for the aggressive reassertion of the principle state sovereignty, beyond the traditional limits…

[lyxthen]

I feel like a lot of European/Anglo American critical race theory breaks down when you enter Latin America or other prominently "mixed-race" territories. Racism is still very real, of course, and it's worth addressing, but the kind of analysis we have imported from those countries falls short, because it relies on a clear-cut distinction between races that does not exist here to the same degree. We cannot speak of a white majority in Mexico, for example. Some people that would be considered "black" in the US (like my grandfather, or even my mother) do not see themselves as such. People that would be considered indigenous (like my great-grandmother, or my grandma), do not recognize this as their heritage. The national identity often takes precedence over the racial or ethnic one. Yet racism still exists. How do we analyse it? And how do we analyse the relationship of these people with defined white ethnic groups in other countries? When people are asked to mark a box with their race in polls and surveys, and stare at it confused because none of the options given apply? What do we do with people that identify as American because they were born in the CONTINENT of America, that feel alienated when US Americans use the term solely for themselves? And can we blame them for that, when it's the only term they have ever had? Those who feel alienated because they don't fit cleanly, that do not conform to Anglo American racial analysis? The people that doesn't have a language to describe their oppression, and the options given by academia feel just as patronizing?

[mariocki]

Play for Today: The Cry (BBC, 1984)

"It's best forgotten about."

"You're not gonna be making a complaint?"

"Complaints? We're not making any complaints! We don't want to know about any complaints."

"Complaints against who?"

"Well, the police."

"Who should I complain to about the police?"

"Well, the police, I suppose."

"What good would that do me?"