#societal welfare

[townpostin]

RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat Advocates Relentless Work for Humanity's Welfare

Emphasizes Continuous Self-Development and Preservation of Indian Values Bhagwat’s address at village-level workers meeting touches on human ambition, societal progress, and India’s unique cultural identity. RANCHI – Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat delivered a compelling speech at a village-level workers meeting organized by Vikas Bharti, stressing the importance of…

[slutweed]

i have 2 and a half hours left of my shift today and I already want to call for tomorrow. not off until Tuesday I'm so checked out. i just want to lounge around like the mammal I am. Fuck production idccccc about selling clothes to people. we have a surplus, just pass them around.

[bubble-you]

10 ways to distract from the inevitable fact of aging

10 illusions to believe in to distract you from the abstract things you can't control

[sixth-light]

I have had these thoughts bubbling away in my head for like...eighteen months or so now (it will become very obvious why shortly) but the discussion in this post has pushed me to write them down: I think societally we HUGELY underestimate how motherhood for primary caregivers, particularly first-time motherhood, can be a source of vulnerability to radicalisation.

There is obviously huge cultural variance here, but for a lot of cis women becoming primary caregiver to an infant in a capitalist Western society represents a time of immense vulnerability because in general you are:

Incredibly sleep-deprived (which has well-documented knock-on effects for your judgement, mental health, etc)

If you gave birth, recovering from a significant challenge to your physical health (even in the best-case scenario)

Isolated from your previous networks and communities of people in full-time work

Completely separated from the context of your prior career goals and achievements

Under huge amounts of stress to learn how to care for an infant (don't get me started on breastfeeding)

And on top of this, you are also be experiencing a huge amount of messaging about how all this is natural, wonderful, something you're meant to do, something you should love doing, and something that you must do for the welfare of their child. It's a huge amount of pressure and life change even when everything goes right and there's very little cultural space to express negative feelings about it.

Any group of people who offer community, support, and affirmation to cis women in this situation are going to have a really good shot at radicalising them into some very weird and dangerous headspaces and in fact we see this happen all the time - think antivaxxers and TERFs. It flies under the radar because of the hazy positive glow that associates with motherhood and babies and also because we don't take the radicalisation of women seriously I guess because they rarely shoot anybody, but...yeah. It is such a vulnerable time!

[regexkind]

A well-understood problem in welfare system design is the welfare trap—the perverse incentive that results when means-testing has a sharp cutoff past which no benefits are granted. Ameliorating this through progressive benefits — those where a continuous increase in means is met with a continuous (smaller) reduction in benefits—is also well-understood. What I can't understand is how otherwise compassionate and intelligent souls don't immediately cross-apply this to another well-understood societal obligation—that of helping your friends get off if they injure both hands. Surely we are obliged to tender somewhat mediocre handjobs if they have injured only one hand, or both hands only slightly?

[communistkenobi]

could you expand / share reading materials on "gender is a structure that mediates access to personhood"? i feel like that's an important point that i don't fully grasp. especially because it is my understanding that until relatively recently even white, bourgeois, cis-heterosexual, perisex etc women were also denied personhood, but were already gendered as women, right?

thanks in advance!

I’m so sorry you sent me this ask like three months ago and I’m only getting around to it now lol

This is going to be a long post. I will be talking a lot about citizenship and rights in this post. I’ll include citations, but two overarching texts I will be engaging with a lot are Unequal Freedom (2004) by Evelyn Nakano Glenn and The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1989) by Gøsta Esping-Andersen.

This is also not meant to be a comprehensive answer to your question. I am much less familiar with migration & refugee scholarship, which is obviously deeply engaged with the concept of citizenship as an apparatus for granting rights. I’m flagging this because my answer has a particular focus that is not generalisable. Everything I say is not “the answer” to your question, but an answer informed by specific domains of scholarship.

First, I think a good place to start is that when we talk about ‘personhood’ as a status that a human being can or cannot possess, we are often talking about a status that is realisable through citizenship. ‘Personhood’ is itself a legal term, and we can see this in how stateless people (i.e. people with no citizenship) are treated - because rights are granted by and administered through states, being without state citizenship means you are unable to realise any set of rights, and therefore, you are rendered as a non-person. The UN has two separate conventions on the rights of stateless people for example, as being stateless is necessarily an international issue. I think this approach helps makes sense of why “human rights” is a popular framing in discussions of how to remediate inequality (e.g. “trans rights are human rights”). The “human” part of that equation is only realised through the attainment of “rights,” i.e., through citizenship. Citizenship = personhood can also be seen when people invoke “second class citizens” as an articulation of legal, political, and societal discrimination - i.e., groups of people who have less/no access to rights compared to other groups within a state. Systems of classed citizenship often emerge from regimes of settler colonialism, slavery, and apartheid (Glenn discusses this in her book).

The basic Marxist intervention in this discussion is that this class system still exists even in places that have abolished slavery, abolished apartheid, and/or gone through formal decolonisation, because state law under capitalism is fundamentally unjust. Marx calls law the “mystification of power” (I believe he says this in The German Ideology? I'm rusty on my Marx readings lol) - he argues that law is a bourgeois system of justice that caters to the wealthy and powerful and disenfranchises the poor and marginal, but appears as neutral and fair through a liberal “theater” (Marx’s term from The 18th Brumaire) of equality and democracy, mystifying its actual effects and purpose (The Red Demiurge (2015) by Scott Newton is a book about Soviet legal history that goes into some of this. His focus is on the evolution of the Bolshevik relationship to law as the USSR developed and encountered quite literally new legal problems that emerged as a result of the formation of a socialist state). This is also part of the Marxist critique of nationalism - if state citizenship is what grants access to rights, and citizenship is classed (through your relationship to production, through white supremacy, through patriarchy, through colonial status, through religious status, through etc), then equality does not legally exist, that all equality is bourgeois equality, i.e., not universal, not equal.

Gøsta Esping-Andersen provides a really helpful theory of thinking about citizenship rights within a capitalist state (his book only focuses on Western imperial core states, so just flagging that lol). He begins by arguing that:

all markets are regulated by the state, there is no actual “free” or anarcho-capitalist market,

because of this necessary regulatory function provided by the state, the commodity of wage-labour (i.e., the process of selling your labour-power as a “good” or commodity on a market in exchange for money in the form of wages) is likewise always regulated to some degree, and so finally,

welfare should be understood as the regulatory system of the commodity of wage-labour.

This regulatory apparatus is what grants people “social citizenship rights” - sick leave, pensions, disability and unemployment insurance, welfare payments, food stamps, tax bracket placements, childcare, healthcare, education, housing, so on and so on. Within this framework, Esping-Andersen demonstrates that various welfare regimes produce different citizenship classes - Canada, Australia and the US, for example, explicitly reproduce an impoverished “welfare class” through a marginal, means-tested welfare regime that only provides benefits to the very poorest. Various European countries by contrast tend to have what he calls a “corporatist” welfare regime that often grants different social citizenship rights based on which occupation you have, which he argues emerged from feudal and pre-capitalist religious (esp. Catholic) social forms of organisation.

ANYWAY, the purpose of doing all that set-up is to contextualise how we arrive at the question of gender. Feminists make the basic point that citizenship is also classed by gender - in Unequal Freedom, Glenn talks about this in the US, where white women were legally treated as extensions of their husbands and had no access to property rights, voting rights, and so on. Black women, in contrast, were treated sexually as women by slaveholders (i.e., raped and abused) but denied any and all personhood on the basis of their slave status. Citizenship in the US was historically based first on your ability to hold property (reserved for white bourgeois men), and then on your ability to “freely sell” your labour-power on the market - white women were denied citizenship on this basis because they were consigned to managing what was defined as the “private realm,” i.e., the realm that houses free labourers (white men). This public/private distinction emerges through capitalist markets and the commodity of wage-labour, which produces a sharp distinction where productive labour takes place “out there” (paid for in wages by the capitalist class) and reproductive labour takes place “in here” (i.e., labour that is not paid for in wages* by the capitalist class and forms the social basis of reproducing the public labour pool). 

*for white women. see below

As Glenn argues, this public/private distinction in the US is fundamentally racialised. We can see this difference in the emergence of the suffragette movement, where white women appeal to their whiteness (i.e., free labour status) as the rationale for being granted the right to vote. Black women were disqualified from this movement, and did not benefit from white women’s demands for equal citizenship on the basis of them providing all this unpaid reproductive labour to their white husbands, as Black and other racialised women often provided domestic housekeeping labour for white women (unpaid during slavery and for indentured servants, for wages after its abolition). This leaves Black women without a private realm, subjecting them to a “purely public” arena that is uniquely difficult to organise for unionisation and/or improve working conditions (Deborah King talks about this further in Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness (1988)).

Trans-feminism explicates this further - coercive sex assignment at birth classes people on the basis of reproductive capacity. “Females” are impregnated, “males” do the impregnating. This particular system of sex assignment is deeply tied to colonial population management concerns, where measuring the labour capacity of colonised subjects was a matter of managing white wealth (as well as making sure “there weren’t too many of them” compared to white people in colonies - this was especially a major white anxiety after the Haitian Revolution at the turn of the 19th century, the largest slave revolt in history. See Settlers by J Sakai). You can read Maria Lugones’ papers The Coloniality of Gender (2016) and Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System (2007), Alex Adamson's (2022) paper Beyond the Coloniality of Gender, and Guirkinger & Villar's (2022) paper Pro-birth policies, missions, and fertility for some introductory reading.

(Note: patriarchal gender hierarchies predate and exist outside of European colonial domination - it is a popular white queer talking point that Europe invented gender, that indigenous peoples actually all had epic radically equal genderfuck systems that were destroyed by Europe, and this is a very patronising and racist historical generalisation that I want to avoid making. Third World/Global South feminism is a necessary corrective to this - an arena of scholarship I am sadly not well versed in. Sylvia Wynter is the only scholar I’ve engaged with on this topic, which again, is a very limited slice. I welcome reading recommendations in this area).

While sex assignment is coercive for everyone, it is a particular problem for trans people, who are accused of impersonation and ID fraud if our sex markets conflict with our gender presentation, or we don’t “look like” our sex marker to cis people. Because you need a government ID to do basically anything - getting a job, applying for an apartment, getting a driver’s license, going to school, buying a phone plan, being on unemployment, applying for disability, filing an insurance claim, doing your taxes, opening a bank account, getting married, going to the hospital, buying lottery tickets at the corner store, etc - and sex markers appear on basically all government ID in many countries, trans people are systematically denied a whole range of citizenship rights (and thus personhood) on the basis of this sex assignment. Trans people are not merely treated as the wrong gender, they are ungendered, and by this process, rendered ineligible for personhood. Like just as an example, gay marriage is a luxury to trans people, as gay marriage is based on the state recognising both you and your partner’s gender in the first place. (See Heath Fogg Davis’ paper Sex-Classification Policies as Transgender Discrimination (2014) for example. Butler also talks about this on a more fundamental level in Bodies That Matter (1993), and Stryker & Sullivan also discuss this in The Queen's Body, the King's Member (2009)).  

This is likewise the impetus behind anti-trans bathroom bills and sports bans - citizenship guarantees, among other things, a right to public space, and these bans are meant to deprive transgender people access to those spaces. These bans should be understood as a way of circumventing the much more difficult process of revoking the citizenship of trans people outright by using a component of citizenship (sex assignment at birth) to impoverish the quality of citizenship that trans people have access to. This is why bans on medical transition are not actually just about medical oppression, but the oppression of trans peoples’ abilities to live in society in general. An instructive parallel is abortion bans for pregnant people, who, in addition to facing medical oppression and violence by being denied healthcare, are likewise systemically marginalised through being forced into the role of “mother” (again we see how cissexualism reduces people to reproductive capacity), economically marginalising them by reducing their capacity to earn a wage, tying them to partners/spouses that now have greater economic and social leverage over them (and thus have greater capacity to assault, rape, and murder them), depriving them of the choice of alternative life paths, and so on.

It’s generally much more difficult to get the state to sign off on unilaterally oppressing a group of citizens by depriving them of citizenship completely, so attacking a group through more narrow and particular policies like healthcare or the use of public space (with the ultimate goal of depriving them of their rights in general) is often much easier and more productive. See Beauchamp's 2019 book Going Stealth: Transgender Politics and US Surveillance Practices, who talks about this in the context of anti-trans bathroom bills in chapter 3. This is also a common thread in disability scholarship, as disabled people are likewise denied much of the same citizenship rights through similar logics - the book Absent Citizens (2009) by Michal J Prince talks about this in the Canadian context. To give an example he uses in the book, in Canada, accessible voting stations were only federally mandated in I believe the 90s, meaning that disabled people were practically disenfranchised until about 30 years ago in Canada, even though there were no laws explicitly banning disabled people from voting.

As a result, any barriers put in place by the state to change your legal name and sex marker should be understood as a comprehensive denial of personhood, not only because we as trans people want our IDs to reflect who we are, but because those barriers make it difficult to do literally anything in civil society. This the basis behind the cry of “trans rights are human rights” - taking away our healthcare rights also fundamentally denies us equal citizenship (and thus personhood), because healthcare is where we get all those little permission slips from doctors and psychologists to change our name and gender marker in the first place. This is of course not remotely the same as being made stateless (trans refugees are placed in a particularly harrowing and violent legal black hole, for example) - I as a white trans person living in the imperial core still benefit from a massive range of material, political and social privileges not afforded to many others, but my transness positions me at a deficit relative to cis people who have the same state citizenship as I do. As I hope I've made clear, it's not a binary case of either having or not having citizenship, but that citizenship is classed, and the quality of your citizenship is heavily dependent on a whole range of social, political, legal, economic, and historical factors that are all largely out of your control.

So not only is gender a barrier to citizenship, it mediates access to realising the full range of personhood within a regime of state citizenship. Trans people are not the only group effected by this, as I described above, but trans people are a group that makes obvious the arbitrary, coercive, and unequal nature of sex assignment through its connection to state citizenship.

[arijackz]

PICK A CARD: What Era Is Your Beauty From?

☯︎ “A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Disclaimer: This is a general reading, take what resonates. I am not suggesting any of these descriptions are cannon to your ancestral history, these are just how my intuition perceived, and then presented your beauty’s energy.

p1 → p2 ↙︎ p3 → p4

🂽 Pile One 🂽 (the devil, 2oC rev., ace of cups rev., 4oW, 3oC, king of swords, the tower, the world)

❖ Pile one, I feel like I’m watching the Game of Thrones out of context. Just flashes of people from around the Medieval 1400s living their day-to-day; singing, dancing, eating together, and then… not.

❖ The imagery I got when I asked what era your beauty came from, was very longing in nature. There was a lot of joy and celebration but it felt like I was watching the film through teary eyes and a heavy heart.

❖ The “movie” flashed between a thriving culture sharing tales of triumph and having happy, drunk sing-song moments together; and then those same people under a war-torn regime of a very cruel but powerful man. I sense themes of religious persecution, nationwide government-forced famine, and general desecration of the once-peaceful way of life. The population was going through collective mourning.

❖ People lamented over their unfulfillable desire to reconnect with their homeland and all of their loved ones. With the World card at the end of the spread and the Empress at the bottom of the deck, I get the clear image that your beauty is the physical embodiment of a large collective’s longing for the sanctity of their community. You invoke that feeling people get when they remember a bitter-sweet memory that hums fervor in their chest and gives them the fire they need to push forward.

❖ Your beauty comes from an era where the genuine smile and cheer of a pretty girl sparked a nation’s hope for reformation. You are the last remaining connection to long-lost celebration and the heart of a forgotten city.

How Do You Paint The Divine Image of Hope?

🂽 Pile Two 🂽 (7oC rev., 4oP rev., full moon, leo, sacral chakra)

❖ WHOOOAAaaaaa Ammberrr is the collluuhhhhh of ya enneergyyy!! WHOoaaA, shades of gaawwllddd displayyy naturraalllyyyyyy…..

❖ Just know I was HOLLERING that. This is my hippie pile. My people. Yea that’s right, I’m talking the late 1960s - early 1970s.

❖ Your beauty arose at a time when society desperately needed color (specifically seeing some of you wearing a lot of bright colors or eye-catching jewelry or hairstyles). The world was bleak and the war’s aftermath on the overall mental and emotional welfare of the general public pushed people to radical ideals and birthed a revolution centered around liberation, pleasure, and community.

❖ Your beauty is all sunshine and rainbows. Psychedelics and organic food. The best music in human history (feel free to argue with me, but know that it is going straight out the other ear, mama) and week-long outdoor festivals full of peace, love, and vulnerability with total strangers.

❖ Your beauty brushes people with the chilling winds of shameless pleasure. The taste of unadulterated personal freedom that is almost a societal taboo. Your beauty is so purely liberating.

❖ Lmao, I imagine a guitar riff going off everytime you walk into a room.

❖ You are the physical embodiment of eccentric love and vivacious rebellion.

Play That Funky Music

🂽 Pile Three 🂽 (The lovers rev., the High Priestess rev., Ace of Swords., 4oC. 7)

❖ Revolution is a running theme for all of the piles. This collective’s beauty awakens people.

❖ I’m seeing a brilliant man going mad at the lack of creative intelligence around him and pushing for societal rebirth. A complete cultural shift from the Dark Ages (pile one), to modernity. This is my Renaissance pile.

❖ You embody the mystical fusion of art, religion, architecture, and science. You are all the world’s intrinsic beauty rolled up into one figure. You are the art that attracts painters, inventors, and philosophers alike.

❖ You have the beauty of an all-around muse. You invoke the spirit of creative passion. It is like people see you and get a stroke of inspiration. Something that kicks them in the ass and tells them to go outside and create.

❖ This pile is very romantic. A classical beauty, like red roses and bottle poems. The universal innate desire to dream big.

❖ Shoutout to my Aquarians, 11th housers, and Shatabhisha natives.

The Medieval-Modern Muse

🂽 Pile Four 🂽 (king of pentacles, 2oP, 5oP rev., 9oP)

❖ OKAY PLOTWIST?? I don’t know what era this pile’s beauty is from because it’s set in the future.

❖ It’s funny how the last piles were all set in periods of revolution (putting in the WORK) and your pile, the final pile, is set in a better world full of financial stability, the end of inequality, economic fairness, and universal abundance (the fruits of the labor).

❖ Dude, I was trying to read the message at first and was just scratching my head. I was like, “When has anywhere, literally ever been this good???” Then I saw the ace of wands reversed at the bottom of the deck and saw impending change and it clicked.

❖ I also saw some star semblance, and see that your beauty is a reminder to mankind that the “impossible” is already set in motion. The hell we have created will crumble.

❖ You are a physical embodiment of society’s future triumph. You radiate wealth and fairness. My Venusians, especially Libra. You also look regal, something about you makes people want to stand taller.

❖ You got the pride card, I see that you give people the feeling of victory. You are living proof of future triumph in a better world where greed and sorrow are eradicated.

❖ You are the harbinger of the next era.

Introducing The First Titanium Man On The Moon!

[yourstardarling]

Aquarius Through the Houses: Pt. 2

Aquarius 7th house: You have a fatal attraction towards unconventional people. You easily attract individuals with Aquarian-like energy that are different from the norm. A love for people who are intellectually stimulating and have unique viewpoints about life. Caring towards the underdogs, and people that are often outcasts in society. The close relationships you have in your life teach you how to be true to yourself. They propel you forward to stand out in your own personal identity. People can see the people you date as an alien because they stand out from you and the norm. Some of your partners might be emotional detached in your relationship. Love life can be somewhat karmic and take a while to have a meaningful connection. Each lover will teach you a lesson about standing out in society. Unpredictable events can occur in your love life. You have innovative approaches towards gaining affection from people. Might do things that are considered scandalous and unconventional to gain love. Aquarius here teaches you that your platonic and romantic relationships will stick you out from other people. They are here to teach you to embrace the unconventional side of your own self to shine out in society. You desire to be surrounded by people that care about the whole and not just themselves. This way you can see the world outside from just your own point of view. A humanitarian at heart, people with this placement care for the social welfare of the collective. In turn they can gain a lot of popularity and love from the masses.

Aquarius 8th house: The ability to tap into the taboo parts of society is what differentiates you from the rest. Rebellious towards what is considered evil and should be feared. Knows a lot of information about things others would not like to talk about. Knowledge about the occult and hidden subjects. They have a unique perspective on loss and death. Death can oftentimes be a liberating process. Each transitional phase these people make, they gain more freedom than before. This is also why loss is handled well for these people, as they know that after loss comes something new. That is why they may appear detached and ready to move forward after a death has occurred. Coincidently though, these people hold a lot of fear towards new experiences and innovation. They are oftentimes comfortable with things not changing frequently. Mainly because they know change will bring unpredictable upheavals in their lives. You could have inherited unique traits from your ancestors. Even unique psychic gifts that give you glimpses into the future. Can know before-hand when a death will occur.

Aquarius 9th house: These individuals hold differentiating beliefs that are considered polarizing from the norm. Unique philosophical and spiritual standpoints on how they view the world. Rebellious attitude towards belief systems that don’t align with them. Aquarius here strives for believing in different ideologies that are suited for you. Conforming to others system of belief will only cause more disruption and confusion in your life. Believing in the collective consciousness and working towards the unity of the community. People may see your faith as controversial, but you’re just doing what works for you. A unique outlook towards what higher learning and knowledge means to you. You probably won’t go the same route of university and gaining education as your peers. Unforeseen changes will occur within your university life. In foreign lands, you will stick out for your individuality. Going to foreign places will create dramatic changes within you. It will also broaden your understanding of faith and religion. You might have a unique style of traveling from the norm. Might opt out to go seeing places that are usually unknown.

Aquarius 10th house: There is a focus in not conforming to societal expectations when it comes to your public career. The public sees you as a unique individual and you stick out like a sore thumb. The Alien Superstars. Even when you don’t try, people will notice that there’s something different about you. You feel very different when you’re out in the public spaces. You're meant to be innovative and create new advancements in the public world. Your network will help you a lot when it comes to your public image. You can present yourself as an intellectual individual that knows a lot of foreign information. People will be drawn to you because of your intelligence. Rebellious attitude towards authority figures, including your parents. You can have a reputation for being nonchalant and not really caring. People can at first gain the impression you are a detached person. In your career, you can focus on entrepreneurship as working a regular job can present issues with being forced to conform. Interest towards unconventional career paths that are unique to you. Might focus on technology, science and fields that promote the welfare of humanity. Whatever job you work, technology can help you a lot with optimizing and getting your work done. Aquarius pushes you to be a trailblazer who brings forward thinking ideas into the work space. Think outside the box about what you would like to do and focus on doing work that aligns with you.

Aquarius 11th house: A tendency to keep company with the outcasts and outliers of society. People find the friends you keep to be very unique. You have a love for future oriented people that strive for a better world. A unique style when it comes to networking with other people. You thrive in groups that allow you to express your progressive ideas and rebellious views. Can’t stand superficial people who can’t see the social issues in the world. These people can gain a lot of popularity and friends online. Able to easily adapt and maneuver through social changes. A lot of care towards humanitarian causes and the betterment of your community. You can be called to lead organizations and community groups that fight for liberation. Your friends see you as a rebel who doesn’t conform to what others want. Aquarius here gives you a lot of potential to know various groups of people. Networking will be what makes you stand out from the rest of your peers.

Aquarius 12th house: Hidden intelligence is a trait for these people. They can present themselves as innocent, but know a lot of hidden information. It’s because of the time they spend by themselves. You have a unique outlook towards being alone that differentiates you from other people. While others may run from loneliness, you are often pushed towards embracing it. Solitude leads to clear understanding. However, when left alone for too long you can be very detached to everyone else around you. So finding a balance is important. Able to tap into the collective unconsciousness to gain deeper insight. This can be through dreams, visions and sensing when something is off. With this being the house of bad spirit, you often feel liberated when it comes to the unseen world. The intangible. You understand that the self undoing means coming back to the collective unity in our universe. The world often wonders where these individuals come from. People are often at loss to where you go.

Fin.

[jaggedjot]

Louis and Claudia are not just identifiable as American by way of their speech (“American? Your French is ugly.”) and movement (“You could tell from his walk, he was an American.”), but are posited by the narrative to be symbolic representations of postwar America itself (“The American vampires appeared to be as dull and plain as their tourists and soldiers were.”, “Do American vampiresses all wear pastels?”, “And are all American vampires as alluring as you?”). The pair set themselves up in France as “moneyed Americans”, described by Armand as having a “velvet-heeled arrival” despite the pair coming to the city on the back of a truck. That Paris has been left by the war with deep physical and societal wounds is treated as an inconvenience that they have to impatiently endure. Santiago picks at these stitches during the performative execution of the pointedly foreign Annika, invoking the paranoia of occupation with his line “[...] the next time you're in the pew, you turn to your neighbour and say, ‘Peace be unto you.’ They'll give you up... in a wink!”. It is telling that the only explanation Armand gives for his choice of victims to the coven is that they are profiteering from the suffering of postwar France (“Whilst their countrymen clutch ration cards, they've made quite a killing manipulating the black markets.”), a statement which seems to deepen their appetite for the ensuing slaughter. These are not resentments and histories however shared by Claudia, who may revel in the massacre but has already knowingly associated with a woman branded as a collaborator, or Louis, whose attempts to engage with the world through photography only further positions him as an outsider. This detachment is what causes Louis and Claudia to be regarded as interlopers, suspected to believe themselves to be too important to heed traditions, manners (“It's custom and practice for traveling vampires to make themselves known”) or the welfare of their temporary home (“We were constantly cleaning up for them.”). Though American soldiers played a role in the later stages of the liberation of Paris, the increasing presence of Americans in the city is framed as another more insidious occupation (“[...] our Anglican friends now invading Paris postwar”, “My dear American friend [...] who has dominated my mind”). As Americans, Louis and Claudia are granted more privileges in society than other black ethnics groups (“But I wasn't an Algerian. I was an American”). It is not just that the French theatre troupe composed of multinational actors now has “five out of every seven” of their performances in English, but the coven has been instructed by Armand to remake itself as “an English company” and speak the language offstage too. Armand’s welcoming attitude to increasing American influence in the city, how it creates a “more receptive” and “optimistic” audience, is not a simple or universal one. There is a distinct bitterness belying the fanfare accompanying Louis and Claudia’s arrival, particularly from Santiago (“I ask you, Maitre, was it worth the wait?”), but it is also notably still present in Armand’s lighthearted teasing (“Seventy-seven years and it still feels like a slight.”, “Five months removed [...] the Americans were finally coming to Pigalle.”). At least during these early months, Louis and Claudia seem to view Paris more as a static backdrop against which they can discover themselves and heal their relationship. This is a mistake that they will likely only realise when it is already too late, for this fragile and volatile setting is entwined with the tragedy that awaits them.

[metamatar]

UBI is not communism. It is a limited, national welfare reform. Barring economic concerns like the inflationary pressures that any gains from UBI will be constantly under threat of and the fact that most UBI pilot programmes are not enough to live on, there's more fundamental problems.

States in the global south will not be able to afford it under the debt burden imposed mostly by the Bretton Woods institutions. Without the transformation of the nature of imperial production and the borders it requires, it will just be another nice thing for imperial core citizens to have.

Fundamentally, a vision that stops at UBI for me, is a post ideological vision of society. It views citizens as disengaged and offers them no power except survival, a payment from the coffers of the very rich to ameliorate pain. A vision of UBI that involves hoping capitalists concede to taxes is very much a bit of noblesse oblige.

Without transforming the relations of production, workers will have no power to organise society. We cannot stop companies from pumping out oil, we cannot stop them dumping effluent into our rivers, we cannot stop them from spying on us, we cannot stop wars being fought for a hungry military industrial complex, we cannot put an end to the profit motive continuing to destroy our lives without power. Without abolishing the wage form as the organising principle of societal relations, capitalists will be the only ones to have the power to determine the world that everyone else lives in.

UBI will help the working class. Please do not view UBI as communism.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

"imprisoning the baddies and then forcing or practically forcing them to work for free or practically free is good and just bc it means they are paying back their debt to society" what a completely reality-untethered sentiment!

how is the joint act of, say, incarcerating a thief and forcing him to pick soy for cargill inc supposed to benefit "society" at large? the sheriff in the article says its "saving taxpayers money," but thats some obvious duplicity: the free labour is saving them taxes bc its helping recoup the tax-funded govt costs of imprisoning him. its the state taking a bunch of money from you and having the thief pay back a little bit of it out of his end, its a net negative from yr point of view and the benefit of the tax relief from the free labour is only made possible by the original taking of the money. the taxpaying citizen is effectively making an investment with a roi <1. its like an escher staircase, the logic only makes sense if you refuse to look at the whole thing

its certainly not helping workers outside of prison, either, in general. its injecting a bunch of cheap competition into the labour market to undercut non-imprisoned workers and unemployed. its effectively offshoring jobs to puppet dictatorships with lax labour laws within ones own country

nor is it even helping american capitalists in general in any obvious meaningful sense to imprison a bunch of men of working age and then force a few of them into shit-paid work! the costs of imprisonment (including those involved in removing much of the incarcerated population from the workforce—for profit labour is hardly universal among us inmates, especially factoring in those in jail still awaiting trial!), again, vastly outweigh any productivity that can subsequently be squeezed out of the captive workforce. you sometimes hear the number $11bn trotted out in terms of the value of goods produced by prisoners; this has to be contrasted with the almost 190bn$ price tag of mass incarceration. cargill in particular might stand to benefit from this but from the pov of gdp or any other economic metric you might convince yrself in a particularly bourgeois mood stands in for societal welfare at large prison is going to be a massive economic sink

the whole thing is a bamboozling sophism

[hallowpen]

The Influence of Thai Culture on Attitudes towards Disabilities as it Relates to Last Twilight

(This is a combination of personal experiences/observations having lived in Bangkok and my learned academic knowledge/own personal research. I am not an expert by any means, but I wanted to offer some insight from my own personal point of view.)

While Thailand has certain provisions in place to prevent disability discrimination, it is still very much present in Thai society. Disability legislation is not strictly enforced and accessibility is extremely limited. That is not to say that efforts aren't being made to promote education and inclusivity, just that views and attitudes toward individuals with disabilities have been slow to reform. As such, there is a negative stigma that exists in Thailand where disabled individuals are, for the most part, seen as a burden or an inconvenience. There are certain cultural aspects that, unfortunately, contribute toward this outlook:

Collectivism and Tradition - Thailand can be labeled as a collectivistic society. What that means is, there is a tendency to favor the 'grouped' majority over individual interests. As a result, individuals with disabilities are less likely to be integrated into their communities. The urge to conform to group rules and traditions hinders Thai society from accepting "disruptive" change. Communities prefer to avoid the uncertainty and ambiguity of the unknown, which reduces the amount of conversations centering around disability education. I stated in my review of LT, that there needed to be a deeper conversation surrounding the experiences and realities of the disabled community in order for the series to have the impact it intended to. And this is why. It needs to be talked about, otherwise nothing will change and, much like the last part of that final episode, ableist views/language will prevail.

Religious Influence - At this point (if you are a fan of Thai dramas), you probably already know that Buddhism is the predominant religion in Thailand. We are taught to be merciful towards the weak and to give of ourselves to those who are less fortunate. While helping others should absolutely be seen as morally good, these viewpoints can also give rise to societal stigmas surrounding disabilities. Receiving unsolicited assistance as a disabled person became a constant question of: are you genuinely concerned out of kindness OR because you somehow see me as 'less than' and therefore feel you have a moral obligation to step in. In LT, I understood Day's insistent worry of being on the receiving end of someone else's pity. There was a reason why it was so prevalent in his story and why he questioned the motives of others' actions so frequently. Because Thai culture has inadvertently labeled disabled people as being 'frail' and 'in need' and who should, therefore, be met with sympathy.

Caregiving - While there are social welfare programs and services available in Thailand, generally, it is the responsibility of the family to care for and provide for their disabled relatives. Intergenerational care is a big part of Thai culture, but in this instance it's not entirely positive. The broader Thai society infantilizes people with disabilities, which means they are often disallowed from making their own decisions by those who care for them (sound familiar?). As a result, they live under less than ideal conditions that exclude them from being active members of their communities. It's upsetting that people with disabilities exist largely out of the public eye, when opportunities to be present in society and engaging with their community could potentially change their status and offset stereotypical attitudes. One of the best parts of LT that I will continuously praise it for, is Mhok's version of caregiving that completely turns these views on its (their?) head. He's not afraid to stand up to Day (or how Day's been conditioned to feel toward his blindness) and gently pushes him toward self acceptance and engagement within his community. Mhok is subtle in a way that he does what is required of him as a caregiver without ever taking away Day's agency. And that was extremely important to see against Day's mother's more 'traditional' care.

Treatment - I'm not well versed when it comes to Thai healthcare. I do know that outside of traditional medicine, access to more advanced modern treatment is highly dependent on income and social standing. Other than that, it is a disabled person's prerogative to seek treatment if a treatment exists for their disability and is accessible to them. It is also their prerogative to refuse treatment. Neither decision should be judged or actively swayed by outside perspectives (though this happens more often than not). It is highly plausible that someone in Day's position, coupled with his mother's status, would have both the access and the desire to receive a corneal transplant surgery. The outcome of Day's vision being restored was never the issue for me. The fault lies in its execution and what was implied in the aftermath.

...that's all I got. I don't really know how to end this...I'm tired.

(Please note, this is not at all meant to paint Thailand in a bad light. Thai society is fairly accepting of individuals with disabilities and positive attitudes do exist, but certain perspectives need to change!)

tagging @lurkingshan @waitmyturtles @shannankle

[iridescentmirrorsgenshin]

An analysis of Alhaitham's egoism in relation to Kaveh

(Update: The essay this is taken from is now uploaded! It can be accessed here and here as as a pdf <3)

Max Stirner's anarchist egoism is speculated to be the basis of Alhaitham's personal egoism, therefore I will be drawing upon Stirner's 'The Unique and Its Property' for this analysis.

Property and power are key principles within this philosophy. The egoist recognises himself as an individual, separate from the general collective of “humanity”, in which concepts such as freedom and property are governed to and over the people, for then the individual is not considered as such, rather they are a part of “humanity”, rather than a whole individual (Stirner, 170). This thinking is demonstrated within Alhaitham’s Story Quest, where he dismantles Siraj’s Hivemind by targeting individuals that compromised the Hive and reminding them of their own beliefs and preferences – the individual in themselves is a whole, and is not a “part” of a system (Stirner, 170).

In this, the egoist governs himself by what he owns and what he wants to own: “ownness is my whole essence and existence, it is myself. I am free from what I am rid of, owner of what I have in my power, what I control. I am at all times and under every circumstance my own”(Stirner, 106). This relates to the concept of freedom, which, for an egoist exists according to having the power to be free of something, for example, being freed of hunger, thirst, or societal expectations (Stirner, 105). This is reflected within Alhaitham’s description: “He lives free – free from the searching eyes of ordinary people,” but also extends to the power to own.

As power is considered something which the egoist owns, property then becomes something which the egoist exerts power over, and in this, can property be made use of by the egoist – all the while, the property remains an independent vessel (Stirner, 162). This is seen within Alhaitham’s view on his vision, in that it is “no more than a useful tool”, as it can be used to serve his own needs, and that since it in his possession, he has obtained it with his own power, it makes no difference to check on it as he continues to retain that power.

In this sense then, Alhaitham has constructed his life around this form of egoism, in that anything he wants, he has, such as his job as the Scribe, his house, the interests he pursues, the people he enjoys. In order to maintain this way of life, he will deal with, or be rid of, anything he deems as "harmful".

With this, the egoist seeks satisfaction in themselves through the satisfaction of another. Ownership, in relation to another person, can become love, which like all things the egoist has power over, is ultimately theirs – as in their love for a person (Stirner, 187), which is given willingly by the egoist, for loving a person is done for the satisfaction that love brings: “But I love them with the awareness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because love is natural to me, it pleases me,” (186).

In loving another comes sacrifice, which the egoist can give into without compromising himself, as he himself sets the “purchase price of [his love]” (187) according to the happiness attributed to the loved one, as in return, the egoist shall also receive happiness (186). To enjoy someone, in an egoist fashion, is to be able to sacrifice all possessions and ownerships without foregoing the sense of an individual, of “ownness”, as the egoist would then lose his objectivity:

“I can deny myself countless things to heighten his pleasure, and I can risk for him what would be dearest to me without him, my life, my welfare, my freedom. Indeed, it forms my pleasure and happiness to feast on his pleasure and happiness. But me, myself I do not sacrifice to him, but rather remain an egoist and—enjoy him. If I sacrifice to him everything I would keep without my love for him, that is very easy… But if I sacrifice others to one passion, I still do not…  sacrifice my particular worth, my ownness. Where this nasty incident occurs, love looks no better than any other passion that I blindly obey.” – The Unique and Its Property, 185

It is relevant to note that just as the egoist receives happiness from a loved one’s pleasure, so does an egoist suffer from a loved one’s despair. Just as the egoist would sacrifice something of their own to provide happiness for a loved one in order to exact their own happiness, so too would an egoist sacrifice something, or act, to eradicate the root problem of a loved one’s misery, as this, in turn, would then resolve their own misery:

“If I see the beloved suffering, I suffer with him, and I find no rest until I’ve tried everything to comfort and cheer him…. It doesn’t follow from this that the same thing causes suffering… his tooth gives him pain, but his pain gives me pain. But because I cannot bear the sorrowful crease on the beloved forehead, therefore, then for my sake, I kiss it away. If I didn’t love this person, he could go right on creasing his forehead, that wouldn’t trouble me; I’m only driving away my troubles. – The Unique and Its Property, 186

The phrasing of “driving away… troubles” is particular to note here, due to similar usages of language used within Alhaitham’s Character Stories, in relation to him acting in accordance with his self-governed rules and serving his own self-interest by: “[acting] on his own will and deals with anything that appears harmful in his eyes”.

Kaveh, however, interprets Alhaitham’s egoism as a detached, pragmatic view of humanity, in which the individual isolates themselves not only as a means of prioritisation, but by elevating oneself over others by refusal to intermingle and to cooperate for the benefit of others. Not only is this a harmful opposition to Kaveh’s view of individuals sharing their knowledge and talent in order to pursue a better society, but due to Kaveh’s experience of Alhaitham’s personal egoism, it is harmful to Kaveh personally. Kaveh refuses to prioritise himself over others because he has seen a negative consequence of egoism, in which he has been “cut to the quick” and it has ended one of the few stable relationships in his life.

By Kaveh seeing Alhaitham’s comment about his altruism as malicious, Alhaitham has elevated himself over Kaveh, since Alhaitham does not have the same struggles as him, and has trivialised Kaveh’s trauma. To Kaveh, Alhaitham’s prioritisation of the self actively harms others as it desensitises the self to the emotions of others. Therefore, Kaveh opposes the egoism which Alhaitham advocates for, since he interprets it through his own lived experience. Hence, by Alhaitham asserting egoism over Kaveh as a means of Kaveh prioritising himself, it only reinforces Kaveh to strive to consider the feelings of others, as well as to not prioritise his own way of thinking if it undermines someone else’s.

In actuality, Alhaitham’s frustrations with Kaveh lie in his belief that Kaveh’s talents are incongruous with his values, and that if Kaveh were to prioritise himself, he would save himself suffering and enable himself to discover his “true self”, unrestricted by others placing labels onto him.

This is a personal frustration which Alhaitham would not compromise himself to assert onto a person he was indifferent to, due to his belief of not getting involved with other’s fates. However, he has been observed to ‘subvert’ his own rules to accommodate Kaveh. Through egoism, it can be seen that rather than ‘subverting’ these rules, Alhaitham adheres to them as an egoist, since he sees Kaveh as his mirror, they offer each other a contrasting perspective he believes they need to have a complete, objective vision of the world.

This is necessary for Alhaitham to consider within his own life, and therefore has extended his house to Kaveh, in order to expand his scope of thinking, and to consider perspectives he otherwise would not entertain. Kaveh’s ideals, his beliefs, and his philosophies explicitly interest Alhaitham, in contradiction with Kaveh believing that Alhaitham is disdainful of his perspectives.

In this way, Alhaitham enjoys Kaveh. He willingly pays for some of Kaveh’s tabs; pays for crates of wine for the two of them; and goes out of his way to pursue interactions with Kaveh. Just as Alhaitham is to Kaveh, Kaveh is an old friend, as unchanged in his beliefs as he was in the past and thus is a constant: “the most unshakable part of one's past is a friend that will never change”’.

Alhaitham strives to act in accordance to his own egoism and therefore assesses what “appears harmful” to him, in relation to these rules, so as to be rid of them. This can be extended to Kaveh, as Kaveh falls under what ‘belongs’ to Alhaitham, in the sense that ownership equates to Alhaitham’s enjoyment.

Alhaitham wants to have Kaveh in his life due to the alternate perspective which Kaveh offers him, thus expanding his horizons and granting him knowledge he otherwise would not obtain. As well as this, Kaveh is seen to be considered part of Alhaitham’s way of life that he wants to protect. In line with Stirner’s egoism, it follows that as Alhaitham enjoys Kaveh, as in, ‘owns’ the contentment Kaveh elicits, he therefore is affected by Kaveh’s self-inflicted grievances. Therefore, Alhaitham sees Kaveh’s altruism at the expense of his own wellbeing as something “harmful” to be dealt with, as this not only causes Kaveh inward misery, but also detriments Kaveh finding his “true self” (Alhaitham Character Story 3), which the egoist pursues above all else.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Research has consistently shown a positive relationship between exposure to advertising and the strength of materialistic values, especially within children. Analysis of US children and adolescents over several decades highlighted that when a country spent a greater amount on advertising, levels of materialism among youth also tended to be higher (Twenge & Kasser, 2013). Children who are exposed to a greater amount of consumer advertising go on to display stronger materialistic values and a greater desire to purchase the advertised products. This effect is particularly strong when people perceive advertisements to be an accurate portrayal of real life.  What is worrying is that children from less affluent backgrounds appear to be more exposed to consumer advertising, tending to spend more time watching television or living in more urban areas with higher levels of outdoor advertising present. This could mean that they risk developing higher levels of materialism. A study of 9–13-year-olds in the UK (Nairn & Opree, 2021) found that a much greater percentage of deprived (47%) compared to affluent (23%) children agreed that “I would rather spend time buying things than almost anything else.”

[...]

This negative impact of materialism on wellbeing has been documented across people’s lifespan. Some studies have suggested that the link between materialism and poor wellbeing is stronger for children from deprived backgrounds (Nairn & Opree, 2021), implying that advertising and materialism may promote a process of upward comparisons, whereby those people who do not have the affluent lifestyles that advertising promotes, and materialism desires, come to feel that they do not meet societal standards, hindering their self-esteem. Materialism doesn’t only cause problems for the person holding the strong materialistic values, it’s also bad for social relationships and the health of the planet. Exposure to materialistic cues such as consumer advertising has been shown to lead to anti-welfare attitudes and less helpful behaviours. People who are more materialistic also care less about environmental issues and engage in fewer sustainable behaviours.

[autumnmobile12]

My Hero Academia: Healthcare?

I don't know if any fanfic writers will find this useful or not, but I think the information is interesting and worth speculation in the My Hero setting. This also applies to any fanfic writers in the anime fandoms who want to have more immersive and in-depth writing. Obviously, writing fics that are 'accurate' is not a requirement since the point is to have fun, but here's some knowledge to use (or not use) if anyone is interested.

Obviously, Deku's been in the hospital a lot. A lot of the characters are injured and in the hospital a lot. But for all the hospital visits, nobody in the series is going to be bankrupted by astronomical healthcare costs. (Yes, that's a jab at America's system.) And it's not because the Pros, especially the popular ones, have money.

Here's why:

Quick rundown of how healthcare in Japan works: Everybody receives healthcare, everybody has health insurance. In Japan, your employer is legally required to provide you with health insurance. If you are unemployed, you will be on a community healthcare plan. There is also a plan for citizens over the age of 75. This also applies to foreigners who have established permanent residence of three months or longer.

Article 25 of Japan's Constitution is paraphrased as follows:

“all people shall have the right to maintain a certain standard of healthy and cultured life” and that “the state shall try to promote and improve the conditions of social welfare, social security, and public health” for this purpose.

I'm not going to reiterate the system in its entirety, but if you would like to learn more, this site here (the Article 25 quote I used is also found on that page) has a brief and comprehensive explanation of how healthcare is handled. However, one thing I am going to mention that is relevant for Deku and other Pros is the threshold out-of-pocket expense.

In Japan, citizens enrolled in healthcare do not spend more than ¥90,000 per month out of pocket, protecting them from financial disaster.

(To Americans, this may sound like a sweet deal, but hold your horses because Japan also funds this system through heavy taxation. Medical procedures are expensive and people will be paying for them one way or another.)

The question that needs asking now is how does this system apply to the hero society? Well, first off, since My Hero does take place in a slightly futuristic setting, we could take into consideration the system has been revised.

Assuming not much as changed, are heroes that operate their own agency technically considered business owners and are required to insure their employees and sidekicks?

Or...

Because they are all government employees, is the Safety Commission responsible for insuring all heroes and sidekicks no matter what they rank in their popularity?

Personally, I think it would be the latter since, in the coldest sense of the word, the heroes are essential to the Commission in upholding their system. So that makes them an asset. The Commission would want to protect its assets because as shady as they are, their own system could work against them. They certainly don't want heroes going on strike for lack of benefits or complaining the government doesn't take care of their people. So I assume it's the Commission who is covering insane healthcare costs on behalf of heroes.

(And since the system is probably funded by taxpayers' money, that also feeds into the prevalent societal discontent that's ongoing throughout the series.)

Now what about Deku and his classmates since they have not graduated and are not officially licensed yet? Honestly, I think it's probably UA itself that insures the students. That probably has to do with accreditation and so on, which is another matter entirely, but again, the backing is likely coming out of the Commission (and taxpayers') pockets.

And there you have it. Happy writing, happy research.

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

I realized that if I'm disappointed in the transmission of real information about Sudan and the Congo, I can just make the posts myself!

I am not surprised that people haven't been provided a strong understanding of the violence in the global south, but I *am* mad about it.

So let's talk about Sudan and the Congo

Since 2003 or so, an estimated 450,000 Sudanese refugees have fled to Chad, looking for safety from routine waves of ethnic cleansing committed by the Rapid Support Forces and their state/civilian allies.

While the Massalit make up the majority of those attacked, many other ethnicities are included amongst victims. It is NOT a religiously motivated cleansing, as most of those being victimized as well as most of those doing the victimizing are Muslim, and communicate the foundations of the violence as being the result of ethnic-cultural divides in the region current social system. Many of those speaking against the ethnic cleansing occurring agree, and also add that economic interactions appear to be major driving factors in who is targetted and when.

The Congo, meanwhile, has been going through it's own ethnic cleansing. One that has been more or less ongoing since 1996. An approximated 6mil people have been killed since.

Due to this relationship between economic motives and targets, ongoing desertification has been exacerbating violence in the region for years by making resources scarcer, more precious, and less stable to access.

The primary factors being credited with responsibility for this desertification and resultant resource volatility?

Climate change and human impact on the environment (via societal features such as urbanization, agriculture, waste management services, social welfare services, deforestation and bush removal, etc)

From FairPlanet ^

Funny how the global north causes lethal climate change but the global south is forced to die from it.

Funny how the global north forces the environmental recovery conversation to avoid study of environmental imperialism and remain solely focused on "incremental changes that can protect future generations". Whose future generations? What about the people dying NOW because of environmentally toxic industries??

And Nasreldin Atiya Rahamtalla via the International Journal of Social Sciences and Conflict Management says the following:

Hmm, I wonder why local power and social welfare infrastructure in Sudan and especially in Darfur might be diminished from previous governance:

It's almost like the British had a habit of pitting different regional communities against each other along enforced ethnic lines while pillaging some and sparing others, then blowing the whole governance network in a temper tantrum on their way out the door during decolonization, a method of inflicting one last violemt devastation and sabotage peaceful futures most often epitomized by Rwanda and the Belgian Empire:

It's almost like the imperialist businesses that feed off African continental resources and were installed during colonization as a form of economic imperialism were often THE ONLY PARTS of the social system left largely functional after withdrawal and "decolonization". It's almost like imperialism and colonization never actually stopped!!! It just??? Changed shape ☆->¤ still a fuckin crime against humanity my guy!!! Especially when child slaves are dying in your mines!!!

Sudan's economic imperialism comes in the form of Blood Diamonds! You know. The reason that none of us are buying earth mined diamonds anymore when lab made are literally the same goddamn thing RIGHT????????

Oh! They also have oil. The thing we're using to fuel our climate change machine. The climate change machine that's KILLING THEM.

And unfortunately for those of us with Nickel allergies, gold and silver have the same problem. If you haven't already switched to surgical steel, you might wanna. Of course, then we're right back to climate change since steel production allegedly creates a whopping 7% of global emissions due to relying on coke (coal) as a fuel source. So. I dunno really. I like my jewelry as much as anyone. But do I like it enough to know people are dying so I can have it?????

Not really. I'd rather save that risk addition for surgical steel being used in ACTUAL surgeries like the plates, pins, and screws that reattached my foot, or the replacement knee joint that my mom got. At least until we have a body-safe material for these things that ISN'T a source of devastation in the global south.

My point is, basically, that historically militerized conflict almost always stems, at least, in part, from efforts to control resources. It's the most timeless reason to go to war. To make sure you and the people you care about can guarantee themselves access to survival need-meeting. As consumerist and capitalist societies, it is DEEPLY important that we understand the price we ask other people to pay for our luxuries. For our right not to be made uncomfortable by too much radical change too quickly. We need to make that causal link A LOT more visibly explicit and unavoidable, because as it stands, allowing the hierarchy to go unspoken is going to kill billions.

I don't want that on my hands.

I highly recommend learning what civil disobedience and mutual aid infrastructures of care look like. How can we hold corporations (and the individual people who work there) accountable for the countless deaths directly attributable to their profit margins? How can we maximize our local resource distribution to ensure everyone has what they genuinely need to survive, even if that means we take a little less from the community resources for ourselves, or we have to give up things that can't be fully replaced by regionally sustainable alternatives.

I promise that we will adapt.

The dead can't.