#the work's not even equitably distributed

[bean-pronounced-bawn]

Love it when my boss complains about her superiors giving her more work to do without increasing her pay to compensate for it then turns around and does the exact same thing to me 🙃🙃🙃

[tanadrin]

What’s the case for an upper and lower chamber?

In my opinion, none.

The historical situation is that the upper chamber had more power and the lower was a sop to the common folk and petty nobility: this is why the House of Commons was formed (originally from knights of the shire and the representatives of cities that had been granted special rights by the Crown), and only later, after a very long process of constitutional evolution in Britain, did the Lords transform into a consultative body that was adjunct to the Commons, where the real power lay. For a while, even after you started to have something that looked like modern government in Britain, you still frequently had PMs drawn from the Lords--and still could, in theory, except that the convention is they come from the Commons.

In the U.S. example, the goal was simply to split the difference between a popular chamber (the House) and a chamber representing state governments (the Senate, whose members could be chosen by any method provided for under state law, but originally were usually chosen by state legislatures). This is because the people who drafted the U.S. constitution hated and were suspicious of popular democracy, because they were rich landowners and slaveholders whose positions were untenable in the long run if everyone in the country could vote and was equally represented.

Obviously they didn't put it like that--they spoke of the hotheaded hoi polloi, the changeable will of the people--but they were massive Romeaboos, and all the populist leaders who whittled away at the Roman republic managed to do so because they were willing to centralize power, to take it away from the baronial elite of the Republic, and to use that power in service of people further down the org chart. In service of themselves too, of course--these were not altruists--but it was the particularly Roman instantiation of the crown-vs-barons struggle, where the common folk usually side with the Crown, because the barons are bastards who abuse them directly.

(Very many "tyrants" in history were "tyrants" only in that they gave a raw deal to the barons in their particular social order, and very many events which we now describe as movements toward a more equitable distribution of power were in fact a very shitty deal for the majority of the population--the peasants--because it gave the barons even more license to abuse their serfs.)

And the American founders knew all this, and they were all barons, and they didn't like the idea of a federal government that was too effective, so they sprinkled it with veto points and also totally failed to anticipate the rise of modern political parties. (Which weren't exactly what they had in mind when they warned against factionalism--that was more about sectional interests. But still, they did totally fail to anticipate how this system would work as party politics developed.)

In a system of democratic government like the U.S. has now, where it is widely acknowledged the rule should be "one adult citizen never convicted of a felony who can get the day off work to stand in line and has a photo ID = one vote" the U.S. Senate is an inexcusable anachronism. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that state senates modeled on the exact same principle as the U.S. senate (say, one county one senator, as the constitution of my home state Tennessee has it) are unconstitutional, because they violate the equal protection clause.

More recently, many countries have approached the idea of an upper chamber as a sort of "chamber of experts" meant to review and advise on legislation. This kind of makes sense in theory, I guess, but if voters want subject-matter experts to make policy, they can vote them in; in practice, any system of appointment or ex officio qualification is going to select for political lackeys without democratic mandates, and it's also just a bad idea to have people with significant power over the legislative process who do not have democratic accountability. The problem of creating legislation is never that we don't have enough smart people willing to offer their opinions; the problem is brokering functional compromises between interest groups and resolving incentives that push the process toward dysfunctional outcomes, which isn't really something you can fix just by fiddling with the composition of your upper house.

So in most modern parliamentary democracies, upper houses are reduced in power. Either they can't veto bills permanently (Lords), they can't originate money bills (Lords again), they only have input on certain matters (German Bundesrat), they're full of government appointees to ensure the government always has a majority in them (Irish Seanad), or the lower house can overrule them on most matters (Japanese House of Councillors). And the reason why is obvious: if your democratic mandate comes from the lower house, if that's where your government is being formed in a parliamentary system, if the whole principle of government is meant to be collective self-rule by the body of citizens, an upper house that is a check on that power is either definitionally redundant or a brake on democracy.

There are ways to ensure that a lower house is both representative and does not devolve into factional chaos. Proportional representation, four-year terms, constructive motions of no confidence (again, parliamentary systems only), etc. Plenty of countries and subnational entities have unicameral legislatures and are perfectly stable: Sweden, Norway, the Baltics, Portugal, Mongolia, South Korea, Peru [ok bad example nvm], all the states of Germany, all the provinces of Canada, most of the provinces of Argentina, Queensland, the vast majority of the states of India, and the three devolved legislatures in the United Kingdom.

Therefore in my opinion there is no good democratic case for an upper house. And all the undemocratic reasons why you'd want one are bad. Too much democracy is, in fact, a very rare problem for systems of government to have!

[triviallytrue]

I'm trying to write this post about identity-blind admissions/hiring vs affirmative action and I keep running into the idea that this is mostly just lipstick on a pig; I care about fairness and diversity in the abstract, but equalizing the racial makeup of the US ruling class just isn't a political priority to me.

It's good to try and eliminate the explicit racism in the system, but as long as a racial gap in socioeconomic status exists, a racial gap in ability will as well - between two equally talented student populations, the one with greater access to resources, less proximity to violence, more stability and support, etc will always perform better, even in the absence of explicit discrimination.

Even if you construct a perfectly "fair" system, it will ultimately just replicate the material inequities that exist in the broader society. If you construct an equitable system (ie, one that creates a ruling class that matches the racial distribution of society at large), you still won't have fixed the underlying issues that caused the discrepancy in the first place, and by fiddling with the system, you'll piss off a bunch of other people (in this case, Asian Americans) in the process.

The liberal theory seems to be that if we find the Barack Obamas of the world, who would've been denied admission to elite institutions due to racial discrimination, and elevate them instead, the material problems will work themselves out. But I'm just not convinced this is true - it seems to be operating on a sort of pseudo-ethnonationalism where minorities in power will work to the benefit of "their people" and eventually even things out.

But with the way ruling classes work, it seems like most of the time the ruling class becomes "your people" for new inductees, and everyone else becomes, well, everyone else. Without leaning too hard on a Marxist framework, it seems like the ruling class empirically has a strong sense of class consciousness.

And even when this isn't true, when you encounter people in power who seem to genuinely want to change the world for the better, it's hard to imagine any racial divides being magically healed without some engine of economic redistribution behind it, and this is a task that requires more than just individuals who care about it.

None of which is to say that it makes sense to just throw up your hands and say "society is racist, so I guess it's okay for Harvard to be racist too." By all means, hold their feet to the fire as much as you can. But it's hard for me to write about this without feeling like it's all downstream of the central goal of the leftist project, making a more equitable world.

[bun-lapin]

The Gingerbread Gauntlet (part 1)

Summary: The housewardens have a gingerbread house competition

A/N: I meant to have this ready for before Christmas but of course, life had other plans lol The good news though is that I have a whole bunch of new writing ideas and I'm hoping to bust out of my little creative slump once the holiday chaos dies down a bit <3 The overall fic is a bit long so I decided to break it into smaller parts for readability. I'll be posting one part per day and will add links for the other parts after they post <3

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4/END - AO3 (whole fic)

Word Count: 1.6k CW: crack, silly, shouting, insults, mild swearing, candy/gingerbread

Winter at Night Raven College was a time even more magical than usual. Although the cafeteria was mostly empty, the sight of festive winter garlands draped elegantly along the walls, combined with the soft sounds of crackling flames in the grand fireplace, brought a cozy sense of winter cheer to the room. The alluring scents of sugary treats and winter spices wafted through the warm air from the kitchen nearby and from a long, solitary table set up by the doors to the kitchen. Already covered with an assortment of candies and plates of oddly shaped gingerbread cookies, the table was the very picture of a sweet and festive feast. Around the table, seven striking figures were seated an equal distance from each other and, as the snow softly began to fall from the sky outside, they quietly worked with the bounty of sugary confections before them.

~

“I swear on the Noble Rulebook of the Queen of Hearts, if I find out someone has been hoarding all of the rose-shaped peppermints, it’s off with everyone’s heads!”

Leona drowsily raises an eyebrow at Riddle and smirks, “What’s the matter, housewarden? We just started. You losing your temper already?”

Riddle scoffs and wrinkles his nose at Leona’s slouching posture, “I’m not losing my temper! I’m trying to make sure there is an equitable distribution of candy decorations for everyone present to construct their gingerbread houses!” He picks up a paper that looks like an architectural blueprint and angrily jabs a finger at a particular section of the diagram. “I am building a gingerbread model of the Heartslabyul rose maze–to scale, I might add–and I require exactly 68 rose-shaped peppermints to construct it.”

Leona slowly blinks at the intricately detailed design in Riddle’s hands and then shakes his head with a soft chuckle. Reaching under his seat, he pulls out a large, glass bowl of rose-shaped candies and passes it to the Heartslabyul housewarden. Ignoring the death glare from Riddle, he turns to the other housewardens seated around the table and asks, ”Can someone remind me again why we’re doing this stupid gingerbread house competition? This seriously feels like a waste of my precious free time.”

Vil looks up from his gingerbread construction with an expression of withering scorn on his face, “We just went over everything not even a moment ago. Did you actually forget or were you just not paying attention in the first place?”

Kalim lets out a bright and hearty laugh from his seat at the table, “I think this is going to be a really fun activity!” He holds up a small gingerbread cookie decorated with dark colored icing and licorice in the image of Dire Crowley, “Plus, we have to do this because the headmaster asked us to!”  Waving the Crowley cookie in the air, he speaks in a surprisingly accurate impression of the headmaster, “I’ll be damned if I let those fools at RSA take home the trophy for the Isle of Sage’s gingerbread house competition another year in a row!”

Leona shakes his head with a slightly aggravated sigh, “I’m still failing to see why I, or any of us for that matter, should care about this useless endeavor.”

With a piping bag of white icing in one hand, Azul laughs softly and adjusts his glasses with the other hand, “There’s also the fact that whoever makes the best gingerbread house here today will receive a free PE class credit.”

Leona’s eyebrows rise in mild surprise and then he smirks. “Is that so? Well I suppose that explains why that guy over there is actually here in person for once,” he says as he points down towards the other end of the table.

Idia peers up from his work, the expression on his face equal parts gloomy and irritated, “Listen, I will do anything if it means I can miss any amount of PE.” Turning back to his geometric gingerbread design with a pout, he mutters under his breath, “Although, the main reason I’m actually here is because Ortho literally shot down my gingerbread construction drone.”

With a softly amused smile on his face, Malleus turns in his seat next to the Ignihyde housewarden and says, “Do try to cheer up, Idia. I’ve always felt that festive occasions such as these should be attended in person. A contraption built for the sole purpose of constructing with gingerbread could never replace someone special like you.”

“Oh-! Uh-! Th-thanks Malleus-shi! Th-that’s really nice of you to say,” Idia replies with a nervous grin. While keeping his gaze pinned to his work on the table, he then smoothly reaches into his pocket and rapid-fire taps out a message into his smartphone: AAGGGHH!!! WHYYY IS THE HEIR APPARENT OF BRIAR VALLEY SITTING NEXT TO ME?? SO DISTRACTING  (╥﹏╥)

A message notification chimes out from the phone in Azul’s front jacket pocket. After checking to make sure his hands are clean of icing, he takes out his phone and reads the message. With a playful smirk on his face, he taps out his reply: Honestly, I’m more surprised by the fact that Crowley actually remembered to invite Malleus this time. What a rare event!

Idia’s phone buzzes quietly in his pocket and he looks down to swiftly check the message. He glares over at Azul with a small frown and quickly types: yo speaking of rare events! are you wearing the glasses i made for you?? the ones with the built-in camera and mic?? because i deffo remember you saying that they were useless and not your style (¬､¬)

The sound of the cafeteria door loudly creaking open suddenly cuts off Idia and Azul’s silent conversation. All of the assembled housewardens turn to see two fluffy ears atop a head of messy, sandy-brown hair enter the room. With a mischievous grin and a hissing-kind of chuckle, Ruggie waves to the group, “Heya, everyone! I’m here for the gingerbread house competition.”

Riddle frowns at Ruggie while balancing two pieces of messily frosted gingerbread in his hands, “No, you certainly are not! This competition is for housewardens only!”

Leona lets out a loud yawn as he waves Ruggie over to the table. Turning to the rest of the group he explains, “It’s alright, I’m the one who called him here.” Handing Ruggie a piping bag of icing, Leona adds, “He’s gonna build my gingerbread house for me while I take a nap under the table.” Cries of outrage erupt from around the table and Leona’s ears twitch angrily as he raises his eyebrows at the grumbling housewardens.

While carefully setting down a slanted piece of gingerbread atop his elegantly constructed house, Vil states bluntly, “Ruggie is not allowed to build your house for you, Leona. Crowley explicitly instructed us to build these gingerbread houses without any magic or outside assistance.” Raising one perfectly shaped eyebrow, he smirks and adds, “If you want this free class credit, you’re going to have to put in some amount of work for once in your life.”

Leona directs a questioning look towards Ruggie who, in turn, raises his shoulders and shakes his head in resignation. Leona waves a hand dismissively at Ruggie, effectively shooing him out of the room, and clicks his tongue with annoyance, “Fine, fine. I got it. You don’t have to be such a bitch about it, though.” Grabbing a handful of candies and pieces of gingerbread, he then quickly and expertly begins assembling them together.

Without looking up from his work, Vil smoothly pipes extra icing on the corners of his house and replies in an even tone, “Call me by that word again and I’ll shave off all of your hair to weave into a throw rug for the Pomefiore common room.”

“Hey Vil,” Leona chirps out a soft whistle to catch the Pomefiore housewarden’s attention.

Letting out a short, aggravated sigh, Vil rolls his eyes and then looks over at Leona. “What,” he flatly asks.

With a heavy thud, Leona sets the end result of his hard work for the last few minutes on the table in front of him. Made from rounded pieces of gingerbread and decorated with brightly colored candies, is a large replica of a hand with a raised middle finger. Standing up from his seat, Leona flashes everyone a triumphant little smirk and then saunters out of the room without another word. 

The remaining housewardens silently watch him leave and, as the cafeteria door creaks shut, they return to their work with a softly murmured chorus of disapproval. An uncharacteristic silence settles over the group as everyone focuses on their individual gingerbread designs for the next few minutes.

Kalim finally breaks into the quiet with a bright laugh, “It's too bad Leona decided to leave early! I just finished making his cookie counterpart!” He holds up a Leona-shaped gingerbread cookie decorated with chocolate candies and a tiny feline scowl drawn in icing.

Looking up from his work, Vil studies the little cookie with an irritated glare. Wordlessly, he reaches across the table to pluck the Leona cookie from Kalim’s hand and then snaps the head off of the gingerbread figure. Handing the beheaded cookie back to Kalim, Vil flatly states, “My apologies.”

After carefully laying the broken pieces of Leona on a plate, Kalim holds up two additional gingerbread figures. One is decorated with marshmallow pieces and little wolf ears. The other is decorated with fluffy peanut butter frosting and hyena ears. Waving the wolf-eared cookie through the air, Kalim yells in a low, gruff voice, “Oh no! Housewarden Leona! I'll find out who did this to you and avenge the honor of our dorm!” Wiggling the hyena-eared cookie, Kalim says in a smoother, teasing voice, “Shyeheehee! Does this mean I get the rest of the day off?”

-continued in part 2-

[drdemonprince]

i am genuinely curious about this:

if voting doesn’t matter, why have far right actors been putting up so many candidates for (especially local) elections? why are they so focussed on this? and why bother suppressing peoples votes with gerrymandering at all?

if this is a dumb question, or better answered by writing someone has already done, could you point me toward those resources?

thank you!

Voting doesn't matter if you want a leftist world.

The United States electoral system (and even the state itself) is fundamentally incompatible with leftist ideals of autonomy, justice, distribution of resources equitably to all people, and liberation of the marginalized. The country was founded upon the principles of land theft, genocide, enslavement, capitalist enterprise, and marginalization, and is structured on every level to reinforce those values and reproduce the inequalities those values have created. It has always been a country of gerrymandering, a country without body autonomy for Black people, Indigenous people, and women, a country where wealthy property owners hold greater sway. It's built into everything from how districts are drawn to the existence of the Senate.

If you want a violently colonialist capitalist empire, voting will do you just fine. Republicans push get-out-the-vote efforts because they would like to be the ones at the head of that empire, and because the system aligns very well with their ideals. Democrats are made wealthy, powerful, and high-status under the current system too. Votes matter for their careers and their shallow personal prospects.

Voting does not matter if you want this genocide to end. Both parties support it. Voting does not matter if you want unjust "wars" of this kind to stop. Both parties supported the assaults on Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and every other nation the US has historically invaded. Voting does not matter if you wish to see an end to climate change. Both parties oppose the Green New Deal and support the plundering of the rest of the world for resources. Voting does not matter if you care about immigrants. Both parties have continued to increase the number of people they deport and hold children in cages at the border. Voting does not matter if you want healthcare or other resources. Both parties have supported market-based "solutions" to poverty and have cut welfare programs dramatically for decades.

If you care about any of these issues, your vote is doing precisely nothing to bring the change you desire about. In fact, it communicates that you are okay with the current social order and the political options provided to you. If you desire a world not shaped by settler colonialism and corporate interests you will have to work with other people to build it.

[evidence-based-activism]

How many men are misogynistic?

This is a very vague question!! To give a concise answer I'd need an operationalized definition of "misogynistic". But it's unlikely that any two random people would give the same operationalized definition. As such, in my opinion, it's better to ask about the prevalence of a specific misogynistic behavior. (Even then, depending on the behavior chosen, there may or may not be sufficient data to answer the question.)

That being said: if you are really wondering "how many men benefit from the patriarchy?", the answer is: all of them. Every single man benefits from the patriarchy on the basis of being a man. Yes, it also "backfires" on some men (e.g., gay men), but even those men benefit from the patriarchy in other ways.

On the topic of specific misogynistic behaviors, I have a few relevant sources.

First, approximately 1 in 3 men around the world openly admit to abusing or raping women. Keep in mind that these are only the men who openly admit to these behaviors. There is an unmeasured quantity of men who (1) have committed these acts but won't openly admit to it and (2) have not (yet) committed these acts but indicate a willingness/desire to do so (e.g., if they were assured they wouldn't be caught/fact consequences).

In addition, a recent report [1] (from the same people who gathered most of the above data) attempted to illustrate the "state of men" around the world. The quality of the synthesis of the data is mixed (i.e., they fail to provide single global reference figures for many of the topics), but there are still some clear trends. For example:

The global average "Men’s Gender Attitude Scale" was 1.2 out of 3, where a higher number indicated more equitable views.

Globally, almost 30% of men report having never participated in any of the 3 "traditionally feminine" household tasks. Also, 35% of men report that their fathers never participated in these tasks. (And since men's reported recollection of their father's participation increased very little over age groups, it's unlikely this result is the result of only very old men.)

They also gathered per-country prevalence data for the percentage of men who report ever abusing and/or raping their wives/partners. The prevalence rates ranged from 18% – 93% with a mean and median of 51%. (I provided the mean and median to illustrate the data distribution, but these are not adjusted for population size, and therefore should not be taken as a global prevalence rate. Frustratingly, the organization does not attempt to provide a global prevalence rate for men's perpetration domestic violence despite (presumably) having the tools to do so.)

Other per-country prevalence data indicated between 9-66% (mean & median = 34%) of men believe it is a "women's responsibility (not a man's) to avoid getting pregnant" and 27-73% (mean & median = 51%) believe "men need sex more than women do". (Same mean/median warnings apply.)

Keep in mind, however, that while this data covers a number of countries and world regions it hasn't (yet?) directly sampled developed countries (e.g., USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe), and thus the data may not be generalizable to them. However, previous research suggests that developed countries likely have similar prevalence rates (i.e., within the range of rates reported above). For example:

The linked post above describes data that suggests 1 in 3 men in developed countries report abusing or raping women.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, depending on the specific activity and measurement used, women spend 1.5-2.5 times more time on unpaid domestic work than men. Or, stated another way, men spend 33-60% less time on unpaid domestic work than women. [2]

This study details women's pregnancy burden in the USA, detailing how "responsibility for preventing pregnancy in heterosexual relationships disproportionately falls on women". [3]

Beyond that, this 2020 literature review [4] indicates that "the majority (> 80%) of adult men have accessed pornography at some point, and in the past year (40–70%)." This time the populations covered in this review are primarily developed countries, although the few developing countries covered showed similar results. (This example is also a good way to highlight how that operationalized definition of misogyny is important ... given the degree to which pornography is normalized in society, do you count all men who have ever watched it as misogynistic? Only those who watch it repeatedly? Or only the ones who have been exposed to arguments against it and continue to watch it? Or some other condition? There are reasonable arguments for each of the above perspectives!)

So, all in all, the answer to your question depends entirely on how you define misogyny (and how you operationalize this definition). My best estimate for the minimum number of men who are (or would be, if given the chance) violently misogynistic is 1 in 3 men. (But this neglects to consider non-violent behaviors and the prevalence of misogynistic beliefs.)

More importantly however, 100% of men benefit from the patriarchy, regardless their personal beliefs or actions.

References below the cut:

Equimundo. (2022). The International Men and Gender Equality Survey: A status report on men, women, and gender equality in 15 headlines. Washington, DC: Equimundo.

American time use survey—2022 results. (2023). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

Kimport, K. (2018). More than a physical burden: Women’s emotional and mental work in preventing pregnancy. Journal of Sex Research, 55(9), 1096–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1311834

Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., & McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 15(4), 502–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676

[carriesthewind]

a question, if you don't mind it! I read your post about the IA, and it makes a lot of sense, I wasn't aware of how their lending system operated, so thank you for that. I was curious, does there exist/do you know of any digital library that operates fairly and without harming authors? lending on a one to one basis etc? this isn't an "aha, there is not ethical option available to me so I'm allowed to steal, gotcha!", I just genuinely hope something like that exists bc for several reasons I don't have access to a physical library rn. thanks and I hope this isn't a bother <3

Hi Anon!

Unfortunately, I think the answer to what you are looking for is going to boil down to "there are a lot of free online books and resources, but not resources that will allow you to borrow any given book." But it's going to be a little bit of a complicated path to get there.

Part of the problem is the words "fairly" and "without harming authors." Because "fair" does not necessarily equal "legal," and authors can and do disagree about what systems cause them harm. So is "controlled digital lending"(CDL) (where instead of buying or licensing an e-book, the lender digitizes print book and lends the digital copy) that's one-to-one owned-to-loaned fair and not harm authors? Well, as the district court held, it's certainly not legal in the U.S. (because to be clear: while the IA was/is not doing one-to-one owned-to-loaned, the holding of the court was that even it it was, that would violate U.S. copyright law). But is it fair (or more fair and equitable than current digital copyright law) and does it harm authors? As I've said in a previous post, I have not stated and will not state a personal opinion on that. If you want to read more, the statement I previously linked by the National Writer's Union takes a position that it is unfair and harms authors; for a counter-position that it is fair and does not harm authors, here's the memorandum the EFF filed in support of their motion for summary judgement for the IA. And you can find lots and lots more written on both sides of the issue. (If you are struggling with where to start: a google search for "internet archive controlled digital lending" will bring up a lot of articles about the case with links to various statements and opinions.)

If you are looking to avoid illegal or disputed CDL, there are options, but they are limited: that is, there is plenty of digital books and reading material that is legally and fairly available online, but you are unlikely to be able to borrow any specific book. Some options that exist:

On the IA's "Open Library": anything in the public domain (including, as of 2023, anything published or released in the U.S. prior to 1928), as well as anything where the rights-holder has allowed the IA to distribute their work. (If legality matters less to to you "fair" and "harms authors," you might also be ok with works on IA if the author has permitted the IA or another site to loan their work in defiance of an allegedly unfair or exploitative contract.)

If you want to avoid the IA's "Open Library," HathiTrust Digital Library won their copyright case (correctly, imo) and host a bunch (17+ million) of digital books and other items. (By the way: this was a case where the IA - as one of their partner organizations - was on the right side and the Authors Guild, who sued them, was, imo, on the wrong side. Just to emphasize how complicated this is.) But (unless you are a member of one of their partner institutions - mostly universities) your access is limited to reading works that are in the public domain or for which they have been given permission from the copyright holder.

Lots of individuals and organizations post written material for free online! For example, while many journal articles are hidden behind paywalls, many are not; lots of short story magazines (esp. genre fic) have free digital versions; and lots of people post books for free online under a Creative Commons License. I don't know of any universal library for these kinds things though - where to look will depend on what you are looking for.

Beyond that, it depends on where you are and what you are looking for. For example, if you aren't in the U.S., there may be country-specific digital resources (e.g. does your country have a national library, and does it have digital resources)?

You can try looking into:

Local university or resource centers: sometimes, even if you aren't a student or profession, many of these institutions offer resources, including digital resources, to their local communities.

Local museums: same as above.

Local cultural or other kinds of resource centers: sometimes these kinds of organizations will have community libraries. These will often be specific to the interest of the organization in question, but it's worth checking!

Finally, if you are in the U.S.: if your lack of access to a physical library is based on the fact that you can't physically get to or access the library, but you do have a local library, you have options! Even if you can't get there to access a library card, some libraries will allow you to create a card online just for their digital collection. And many libraries have resources to assist home-bound patrons - it's always worth calling and asking.

If anyone else has any other suggestions, please feel free to add them! (Especially if you have information on non-U.S. and/or non-english specific resources)

[romirola]

Headcanons for the Shaw Pack’s Holiday Volunteer Work

Started by Gabe and preserved by David, the Shaw Pack has a tradition of incorporating extra volunteer work into their schedules as the season of many holidays approaches. It’s not mandatory or something they officially report, but the pack takes their responsibility to continue the tradition seriously.

David: Food Drive Organizer- David organizes a massive food drive that benefits Dahlia’s food pantry. Not only will he organize and promote it all himself (although according to the paperwork, he does so anonymously), but David also gives a huge amount of non-perishable food. Once everything is collected and ready to be distributed, David always ensures to set up distribution so that it is equitable and welcoming for everyone who uses the food pantry. 

Angel: Writes Cards for Nursing Home Residents- Beginning as early as September, Angel writes hundreds of cards for nursing home residents who may or may not receive any visitors. They take special care to write different messages on each card, sometimes including little jokes or drawings. 

Asher: Arranges a 5K Race/24hrs Caroling Event to Benefit Humanborn Acclimation Services and Programs- Asher’s annual “Holiday 5K/Caroling Extravaganza” has become quite a popular event among the empowered population of Dahlia, even if it is a bit eclectic. Racers in the 5K acquire sponsorships to participate. Groups of carolers do the same and provide some sort of musical entertainment (broadly defined to include all ages, talents, and interpretations) for 24 consecutive hours. All of the proceeds of the event benefit programs that help humanborn empowered people acclimate to their magic, which, as the son of two humanborn wolves, is a cause near and dear to Asher’s heart. The event is always a fun and festive success, with local businesses donating the prizes and restaurants providing food for everyone. 

Babe: Gift Wrapper to Benefit a Homeless Shelter- Babe spends a couple weeknights per week at a department store as a gift wrapper. All of the donations go directly to a local homeless shelter. Babe wraps each gift so carefully and precisely that the clients feel compelled to double the donation they were originally planning to give. 

Milo: Plays Santa at the Local Library- He schedules weekend visits at the public library and arranges for a photographer to accompany him so that even families who cannot afford a portrait of their child(ren) with Santa have the opportunity to get one at no cost (plus a candy cane!) Milo works hard all year to perfect his “Ho-Ho-Hos!” and listens to every child as they speak with him. If a child does not want to sit on his lap or has sensory difficulties, Milo is always accommodating and makes sure that the visit is friendly and fun. 

Sweetheart: Blood Donor- Sweetheart always makes sure to donate blood to ensure that the vampiric community will have sufficient blood bag resources to sustain them during a time of year where Clans often celebrate together and are in need of extra blood. They are proud to help support the vampire community any time of the year, but especially when many are missing their former lives and traditions. 

Darling: Shifts to Serve as a Therapy Dog at a Pediatric Hospital- In their wolf form, Darling visits unempowered children who are currently hospitalized and are in need of some holiday cheer since they are fighting to get better and cannot yet return home. Unlike the parents, guardians, and other adult visitors, the children are never afraid of Darling as a wolf. They cheer and clap when they see Darling stroll through the door and jump on their beds. The children eagerly pet them and talk about whatever they want. To be able to do this, Darling proudly forged a “Therapy Dog Certification” document for themselves. 

Sam: Secretly Shovels and Salts Sidewalks- Sam will often take his trusty shovel and bag of salt to neighborhoods of Dahlia that seem to be last on the list for shoveling and salting. He works under cover of night, able to make good use of his vampiric strength and speed to clear walkways and keep everyone safe from falling on icy paths. 

[rviner]

OUTREACH OFFICES - EQUINOX

Outreach is a nonprofit organization committed to improving the quality of life for residents on The Station, particularly those from The Wards and Equinox. The organization provides a wide range of support services to help individuals overcome social, economic, and health-related challenges, aiming to create a more equitable environment on The Station.

Employment Assistance:

Job Training Programs: Outreach offers hands-on vocational training, from technical skills needed in Silo maintenance to administrative roles on Equinox. These programs aim to equip residents with the skills to find stable employment.

Resume Building & Interview Prep: Career advisors provide one-on-one guidance to improve resumes and interview techniques, giving residents the tools they need to secure jobs in the competitive markets of Equinox and beyond.

Debt Management & Financial Guidance:

Debt Counseling: Many lower-level residents are trapped in cycles of debt. Outreach provides financial counseling to help manage and reduce debt through budgeting and repayment plans.

Credit Repair Programs: Working with Vertex Capital Systems (VCS), Outreach offers workshops on credit improvement and financial literacy, giving residents the knowledge to navigate the station’s financial systems.

Legal Assistance:

Document Support: Residents often struggle to obtain legal documents for housing, employment, or medical needs. Outreach assists individuals with navigating the bureaucratic process to acquire or renew legal documentation.

Legal Advocacy: With connections to law firms, Outreach helps residents with labor disputes, unfair housing practices, and securing basic rights, empowering them against systemic inequalities.

Health and Wellness Services:

Healthcare Access: Outreach works with healthcare providers to help lower-level residents access essential health services, including vaccinations, primary care, and specialist treatments that are often harder to obtain in The Wards.

Health Resources Distribution: Through partnerships with medical suppliers, Outreach distributes essential medical supplies like clean air filters, water purifiers, and basic medications to families in need.

Mental Health Support: Outreach provides access to therapy and counseling services, offering mental health care to those who are struggling with the stresses of life in the lower levels.

Resource Distribution:

Food and Essentials Aid: Outreach runs food distribution programs, providing nutrient-rich meals to struggling families. They also distribute essential goods like hygiene products, clothing, and shelter assistance for those in dire need.

Energy and Water Assistance: Outreach helps residents maintain access to basic utilities by providing support with paying bills or advocating for more affordable rates for those living in The Wards, where resource scarcity is more common.

Community Empowerment & Social Advocacy:

Workshops and Events: Outreach hosts educational workshops on topics like workers’ rights, financial literacy, and community organizing, empowering residents to advocate for themselves.

Civic Engagement: Outreach encourages political involvement, supporting efforts to push for reforms that improve living conditions in The Wards and other lower levels.

However, due to being a non profit and facing many barriers during the two years since starting, Outreach has a limited number of spaces and resources. Waiting lists are long and often times they have to turn people away, meaning there's some mixed reviews floating about how good Outreach even is.

[whitehotharlots]

On Israel-Palestine, the left's own discourse prevents them from winning

Identity politics are infinitely elastic. The purveyors of identity politics seek not to adjudicate claims regarding truth or morality, nor to weigh the costs vs. benefits of any potential beliefs or actions. The solitary goal of these politics is the establishment of a hierarchy wherein some are broadly deemed "good" according to their identity markers and others are deemed "bad." The Good Ones are always correct, always wise, and always moral. Even their most heinous actions must be understood within an identity context and forgiven as a consequence of uncontrollable social forces. The Bad Ones, meanwhile, are always suspect, typically tainted, and even if they happen to agree with the proper cause their opinions are never fully correct by virtue of emanating from someone who is bad.

This is by definition and design. There is no way around it. And it applies 100% equally to the identity politics we associate with the right wing as it does to those we associate with the left wing.

The trouble is, identity politics do not exist in a vacuum. They are embedded in much larger social and institutional systems in which some people already have power and others do not. These empowered people will not countenance any real threats to their power, and this fact will inevitably be reflected in the design of the identity hierarchies.

Again, this is a very basic observation, and it's why the broad American left spent several decades promoting the ideal of racial blindness: if people succeed or fail not by virtue of their actions or the content of their characters but according the presence or absence of arbitrary markers, people who belong to privileged groups will inevitably succeed, and those on the outside will inevitably fail. The only fair way to run a society is to strive to provide a baseline of comfort and dignity to everyone. Accepting the fact that material wealth will never be distributed fully equitably, we should at least make an earnest attempt to ensure every human has their needs fulfilled, and establish a system for allocating comforts according to objective baselines that reward decency and competence regardless of uncontrollable identity factors.

This paradigm did not result immediate equality, however, and therefore it was evil. Reactionary elements among the identitiarian left began to insist that the idealization of de-racialization was the primary or even sole cause of the existence of racial disparities. We made a horrible mistake in abandoning a system in which comfort is unfairly allocated according to identity. Instead, we should embrace an even more extreme version of such a system, only with the identity poles inverted. Th--that'll fix everything.

While this approach to racist anti-racism has only entered the mainstream in the last several years, it's been percolating among the dumbest factions of the left for decades. One of its stupidest manifestations is found in an analytical frame called "Settler Colonialism," popularized by a book by J. Sakai (a mysterious figure who is almost certainly a fictional creation of some malignant government agency). It's called Settlers, and is summarized by Wikipedia thusly:

Settlers argues that the class system in the United States is built upon the genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans and that the white working class in the United States constitutes a privileged labor aristocracy that lacks proletarian consciousness. Arguing that the white working class possesses a petit-bourgeois and reformist consciousness, Sakai posits that the colonized peoples of the United States constitutes its proletariat.

Awesome, great. Real big brain shit.

Now, of course, First Nations Americans were horrifically displaced, and many Black Americans were horrifically enslaved, and these undeniable facts should have a prominent place in any honest reading of American history. But that's not what Settlers seeks to achieve. The point of the book, and the project it spawned, is to bifurcate the American people into those who are always good by virtue of the (largely imagined and/or inapplicable) historical implications of their identity markers, and those who are always bad according those same implications. It's almost as idiotically dualistic as Ibram Kendi's work, only with some superficial Marxian lingo sprinkled throughout.

The Settlers frame leaves us with two choices, 1) you can recognize that human history is rife with violent conflict, that the present-day locations of all people are a consequence of immeasurably complex struggles dating back millennia, and then work toward a relatively equitable society with the goal of ensuring that no person suffers unduly because of events that occurred years or even centuries before they were born. Or, 2) you can arbitrarily declare some people as the rightful inhabitants of certain areas and others inherently immoral and violent occupiers of those areas. If you choose option 2, the moral calculus remains the same regardless of whether your sympathies lie with the winners or the losers of past conflicts. The framing is reactionary, which is why it's gotten so popular so quickly.

Option 2 might appear to have some material grounding, but in practice it always, without exception, redounds to paper-thin claims of ancestral righteousness. Take, for example, the following cartoon, which I have seen posted sincerely in dozens of venues:

Now, of course, it's fair to say that the wealth of the United States and EU has been built largely via the exploitation of the global south. I'm not denying that. But what is being suggested by this cartoon? East Asia apparently does not exist. Spain and Portugal--two of the most brutal imperial powers of the last millennium--are exempted from the stains of colonial spoils, presumably due to the left's very recent decision that Spanish and Portuguese-speaking people no longer count as white. South America, a continent containing 400 million speakers of Spanish and Portuguese that is 90% Christian, is inscrutably neutral... and so is California for some reason. And, of course, the entire African people have always existed as one cohesive entity, not quite human beings but resources to be mined, their existence bereft of the conflicts, massacres, enslavements, and displacements that have been perpetrated and suffered by every other group throughout the whole of human history.

My point is that didactic manichaeism inevitably results in a very stupid understanding of world events. And the stupidity of this framing is very, very easy to exploit.

The left is fine with this framing when it's exploited by their own--hence the widespread tolerance of white ladies who have gained influential positions within academe by pretending to be Native American or Hispanic. Since the late 1960's, the primary goal of the American left has been to lower the bar of access to the Professional and Managerial class for members of their preferred identity groups. Childish morality plays serve this function excellently. But when it comes to matters of international affairs, the reactionary nature of this frame is impossible to overcome.

Here is the American Jewish Community's online whitepaper about how Jewish people are the rightful inhabitants of Palestine, due to vague claims of being colonized. Here is a midwit actor from Stranger Things proclaiming his support for Israel's genocide of Palestinians by telling American viewers they are the real settlers. Here is a pre-10/7 piece in the Jerusalem Post about how it's terrorism for people to not want to lose their homes to annexation, because Israelis have an ancestral claim to them. Here is a story from the Times of Israel about the purported discovery of a 2000-year-old coin that proves Palestine was always the land of Zion.

All of these pieces come to the same general conclusion, and all are taken from the playbook of the identitarian left.

Feel free to scoff at any of these. Your response does not matter. These claims can be made freely and loudly and effectively because they are being made by empowered people who are playing within the bounds of discourse that you have for designed them. So far as the official narrative is concerned, they are the good guys. Everything they say is correct, by virtue of them being the good guys. And there's nothing you can do to contradict or complicate their claims without casting yourselves among the bad guys.

You have abandoned principles. You have forbidden all considerations of context. You demanded everyone understand the world as good vs. evil. You think you won, and in some narrow areas you have, but it turns out you're not always gonna be the one who gets to makes the designations.

[anarchywoofwoof]

Hello again! I'm the beginner that asked you the gun control question. This question is a little more hypothetical. So, obviously absolishing capitalism would decrease the crime rates a lot. But in an anarchist society, what happens to people who do crimes not caused by capitalism- things like murder and that? This is probably gonna be my lsst question don't worry.

let me address your last comment first.

please never stop sending me asks. i love this type of engagement. this is one of those unique things about tumblr that i actually appreciate tremendously, so please do not think you're bugging me. i answer when i find the time, if i feel that i can provide some kind of meaningful answer. or a funny one.

anyway, about your question: what happens to people who do crimes not caused by capitalism. let's add another layer to our conversation about crime, specifically murder, in an anarchist society.

it's important to emphasize that while we often try to separate crimes into those caused by capitalism and those that aren't, the reality can be more intertwined than it first appears. in many cases, even acts like murder can be linked back to the systemic issues inherent in capitalist societies. some theorists believe that capitalism can create mass murderers by causing people to 'malfunction.'

it may be hard to accept or seem like a stretch (i am sure someone will send me an anonymous ask letting me know) but it's really not if you break it down. capitalism, by its very nature, breeds inequality, poverty, and social alienation. these conditions create a breeding ground for various forms of violence, including murder.

think about it - a lot of murders aren't committed by inherently 'evil' people. instead, they're often the result of desperation, untreated mental illnesses, or a life measured in crime and violence as a byproduct of poverty, racism and marginalization.

for instance, studies have shown that areas with higher poverty rates often see higher rates of violent crime. it's not a coincidence. people living in poverty, facing daily struggles and systemic - often racist or classist - barriers, can find themselves in situations where violence feels like the only option. it's the tragic type of outcome you get in a system that fails to address basic human needs and inequalities.

this is before addressing mental health as a whole, which is massively underfunded and often completely ignored, especially in capitalist societies. many who fall victim to violent acts suffer from mental health issues. we need to do a better job at understanding the context of incidents like these and realize that with better support systems in place, such tragedies might be preventable.

much like gun violence, an anarchist society would aim to tackle the root causes. by removing the regressive structures of capitalism, we would work towards a system where resources are distributed more equitably, where people are supported and integrated into their communities, and where mental health is addressed proactively.

beyond this, you start getting into prison abolition, which i've covered in prior asks a few times if you're interested in checking that out.

this is all a very simplified overview, and the real world is messy and complex. but these ideas and concepts are about envisioning a society where we address the causes of violence at their roots, rather than just dealing with the cleanup work. i certainly don't have all the answers and these thoughts should be considered minor grade contribution to a broader, ongoing discussion by minds much greater than mine.

[acti-veg]

what do you think of the argument that it’s not fair on poor people with mental health problems who work really hard to keep their housing for someone who doesn’t work hard to get housing?

This is not my view at all btw but someone said it and idk how to respond

It is helpful to reframe the situation like this: “Do you believe that people who do not work deserve to be alive?” If the answer to this question is yes, then we need to provide those people with housing, food and basic amenities. If the answer is no, they then need to justify why they think that a person who doesn’t work deserves to starve or die from exposure.

Keep in mind that welfare spending makes up only a third of your average taxpayers contribution, at least here in the UK, and we are taxed more than most. That includes all welfare, including disability benefits, child benefits, free school meals, subsidised healthcare and housing. That is a pretty good deal to ensure that our fellow human beings are not living on the streets in massive numbers.

The other key point to consider, is that any system which requires people to work for their survival hands the power of life and death to employers. Do you want corporations to be able to decide who lives and who dies? Do you believe that conditions and workers rights would improve or deteriorate under a system where workers cannot quit if they can’t find another job, because if they do, they won’t be able to afford to stay alive?

If we want to address inequality, how about the billions in corporate subsidies paid for by our taxes? The intentional loopholes meaning the very rich pay less tax than the poor do? The fact that the welfare system is forced to subsidise the inadequate wages paid by some of the world’s most profitable companies? That corporations use far more of the infrastructure, the roads, the rails, the ports that they pay almost nothing to maintain? Let’s address all that first before we worry about poor people getting a few hundred quid a month in housing benefits, if they’re lucky.

I honestly think that welfare claimants, even fraudulent ones, are a non-issue. It is pocket change compared to the billions we piss up the wall on our institutionally racist police force, bailing out irresponsible banks, supporting genocidal regimes, maintaining our imperial fleet and subsidising corporate interests. Welfare spending would be a wholly insignificant sum if we actually taxed the rich properly to fund the infrastructure and the welfare system that they build their fortunes on.

A robust welfare system is the defining mark of a fair society. What is even the point of humans coming together as communities if not for the collective to guarantee the welfare of the individual through shared security and the equitable distribution of resources? Society exists so that we can look after one another, and that shouldn’t be dependent on people selling most of their waking life just to avoid homelessness.

[beardedmrbean]

Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser distributed thousands of dollars to low-income moms with no strings attached as part of an "equitable economic recovery strategy" to offset the costs of childcare. In at least one case, the taxpayer dollars were used to fund a lavish trip to Miami. 

The direct cash payments were part of a pilot program to determine whether the flush of cash could demonstrate "economic improvements among participants." "Additional cash has allowed women to achieve further financial stability, financial security, food security, and health insurance coverage," Bowser's office had claimed.

But an economic policy expert told Fox News Digital the policies were a misdirection of funds that should otherwise be used for public safety and education. 

All 132 mothers who participated in the program were able to choose whether to receive monthly payments of $900 or to get $10,800 in a lump sum, which was "a unique feature of D.C.’s pilot," according to The Washington Post. 

"Quite often these handouts actually trap people in a cycle of poverty," Joel Griffith, an economic research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. "This is not helping people build long-term wealth and to have long-term economic prosperity."

One recipient – Canethia Miller – told The Post that she took the money and spent most of it on a lavish trip to Miami. 

"Some of it I just left alone. The other side is, I wanted to blow it. I wanted to have fun," Miller said. "[My kids] got to experience something I would never have been able to do if I didn’t have that money."

Miller blew it on a "five-day, $6,000 trip to Miami," which included "a boat tour [that] exposed them to million-dollar homes and luxury yachts." 

"In what she called a rare moment of self-indulgence, Miller spent $180 ahead of the vacation to get her own hair and nails done," The Post reported. She also took her kids shopping and got them new outfits and toys for the trip.

Griffith said that the D.C. mayor would have been better off spending money on reducing crime.

"Spending money on what effectively is a lotto for city residents is the wrong thing to be doing. I think what parents want, whether single moms, single dads or married couples, is a safe city," he added. "What the mayor could do is take these resources that they're going to be distributing randomly to single moms. And you could hire, by my calculations, 25 full-time police officers. That would go a long way in some of these neighborhoods where you can't even walk safely at night." 

In January 2022, Democratic Mayor Bowser allocated $1.5 million to a direct cash transfer pilot program called "Strong Families, Strong Future DC" that was intended "to support maternal health and advance economic mobility." 

"This program is about supporting new and expectant moms with cash so that they can have the autonomy and flexibility to make the best choices for them and their baby," Bowser said. 

The Strong Families, Strong Future DC pilot was at "the heart of our equitable economic recovery strategy," Bowser added.

But some of the issues arose when the mothers were uncertain about how to spend the cash.

Building generational wealth generally requires a solid educational background, which in D.C. is lackluster, Griffith said. 

"[As a resident of D.C.], you're likely to graduate with a subpar education. And we're talking about sometimes an inability to do basic math and basic reading comprehension. And those are the core skills that in a work ethic that allow people to succeed in this country, even if they don't come from a wealthy family," he added. 

Miller seemed to share a similar sentiment when she told The Post, "A lot of communities in my area don’t know the financial gain of credit, saving for your kids; that’s why we’re broke, that’s why we don’t have nothing to pass down or no house to give down. I’m trying to get to the level where I’m passing something down that really matters, so I can be set and my kids can be set, and they don’t need to push so hard like I’m doing now."

Altogether, Miller saved $50 from the program.

"She opened up a savings account, aiming to keep at least $50 in it. She used the remaining $4,000 or so from the pilot in a matter of months, mostly on bills and a used car," The Washington Post reported.

[haggishlyhagging]

Let us suppose that natural selection has continually averaged the duty of the sexes to offspring, by modification and adjustment of each organism to its appropriate functions. At maturity, then, males and females would be true equivalents, each equally well fortified to meet its own responsibilities. Woman's share of duties must involve direct nutrition, man's indirect nutrition. She should be able to bear and nourish their young children, at a cost of energy equal to the amount expended by him as household provider. Beyond this, if human justice is to supplement Nature's provisions, all family duties must be shared equitably, in person or by proxy. Work, alternated with needful rest, is the salvation of man or woman. Far be it from me to encourage one human being as an idler! But in the scientific distribution of work, the males, not the females, must be held primarily responsible for the proper cooking of food, as for the production of it. Since we cannot thrive on the raw materials, like the lower animals, culinary processes must be allied to indirect nutrition.

In the progress of functions, the human mother must contribute much more towards the direct sustenance of offspring than any class of inferior beings. For many months before and for many months after its birth, her system must elaborate the entire food of her child. Its growth and activity are supplemental to her own, and are as absolutely at her expense as is the growth of her own right arm. But Nature has provided for that by giving her a smaller frame of her own, and less disposition to great activity personally, with less need of it in the interest of perfect health. Nature is just enough; but men and women must comprehend and accept her suggestions. For the best fulfilment of maternal duties, the mother must have comfortable surroundings provided for her without a large personal tax on her own energies. Therefore it seems to me to be scientifically demonstrable that fathers are equitably bound to contribute indirect sustenance to offspring in the shape of good edible food for the mother. To this we might add ready-made clothing and fires lighted on cold winter mornings!

Undoubtedly, in the division of the many complex duties of life, it may be equitable and decidedly best in many households that the wives should be responsible for the family cooking and sewing; yet it should be understood that they both belong more properly to the category of masculine function, and pertain to the indirect nurture of the youthful scions of the household. Every nursing mother, in the midst of her little dependent brood, has far more right to whine, sulk, or scold, as temperament dictates, because beefsteak and coffee are not prepared for her and exactly to her taste, than any man ever had or ever can have during the present stage of human evolution. Other things equal—during the whole child-bearing age, at least—if family necessity compels to extra hours of toil or care, these must belong to the husband, never to the wife. The interests of their children must not be sacrificed by her over-exhaustion, even though she were willing and eager for the sacrifice of herself.

-Antoinette Brown Blackwell, “Sex and Evolution”, in Alice S. Rossi, The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir

[nightswithkookmin]

I love Hobi, God knows I do and he is enlisting soon. I get that. Me is ot7 anyday of the week. But here lies my issue;

FACE lasted on there 👇🏽 for all of 2 minutes

Then look how close their release dates are.

Members so far have gotten to promote their shit with no interruptions but Jimin has to share the limelight❓❓❓ For whatever reason. And people are gonna keep yapping about how he's the company's favorite? Ain't no such thing man, Fuck outta here!

I'm on pills and that's not even working

First off, I think two things can be true at once. Jm could be hybe's favorite idol and still get screwed up by hybe💀

Ain't nobody following the script like Park Jimin, ain't nobody fetching them coins and attention like Park Jimin. He's the korean IT Boy brand reputation king. Hybe's gotta love him and if they don't fuck them. They ain't shit anyways😌

This whole shmelly business has me between rocky and palm face won't lie. And any comment I make on this will fetch me some heat but here goes nothing. On one hand I love me some healthy idol competition up in BAngtan to see who outsells who and who out performs who- makes for quality entertainment if you ask me.

but on the other hand, I just hate blatant injustices and this right here is the mother of all injustices. It's just atrocious and wrong. It's not really a fair competition if some have more resources, more exposure and more corporate support now is it?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander and I'm just not seeing the fair equitable distribution of company resources on this one. Hybe needs to wash their ass with soap. It stinks from all the shitting they be shitting out here.

It's one thing if they are doing it on purpose but if all this is just one big coincidence as a result of their lack of thoughtfulness and awareness in handing these boys' marketing then I'm sorry someone needs to get skinned up in there. Yea I said it. Off with their heads.

Knowing hybe it's either they think JM has enough organic traction to sell on his own- matter fact, when it comes to the maknae line vs the hyung line this is very often the approach but we don't talk about that💀

I remember they did the same thing around the time of covid right before BTS announced they were going solo. I remember ranting about how they were deliberately sabotaging BTS to promote the other brands under hybe.

It's not uncommon for hybe to use the influence, reach and relevance of one brand to cross promote another. Yall recieved the weird notifications from certain brands on Weverse?

Whe it comes to the hyung line, the company goes a little bit hard and extra each time and they often do this with the members they think are least likely to perform in terms of numbers.

However, this time around, I think it has something to do with the enrollment list? Don't know, could be wrong. The thought that JM or Namjoon is next after Hobi makes me sick to the tummy and I hope I'm wrong 😭😭😭

I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they going off of the enlistment list and need to do whatever they can for Hobi before he leaves.

Besides, I think If they were to treat the members equally and not equitably, I'm afraid some members wouldn't do as well- phpah pah paw. Gunshots😭😭

I know they think Jimin has the numbers, and he will do great in spite of these hurdles- but see, that's how we lose. THATS HOW WE FUCKING LOSE when everyone stops pushing cos they think this is an easy win!

I've seen Bangtan lose and come close to losing awards because of mentalities like this for me to sit quietly and watch it happen to Park Jimin. IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!

But then i also dont see him as competing against the hyung line you know? What are they competing for? Those two have totally different audiences and need unique market approaches and strategies to reach them💀

And I'm not just talking about reaching just army.

I would be concerned if they started using the same promotional strategy of a rapper for a singer.

If anything, I think JMs competition is the Maknae line and probably Jin too as he is also part of the vocal line. Therefore I feel I don't have a yardstick to measure him against yet as neither Jungkook nor Tae's album has been released- right?

But wait till it's JK or Taehyung's turn and let me see different treatment out here- I DARE THEM

If hybe thinks they are just going to gloss over things and sweep JMs album debut under the rags then they have another thing coming. They should plant their feet on solid grounds cos I'm about yanking the ground from underneath them.

They are going to leave everything on the shoulder of the fans and then swoop in last minute to claim they did shit for the BOYS when things turn out great.

They should show me the budget they have for each members' promotional package. Let's start there. Cos that determines how and where each member gets promoted.

On the flip side, having those two contents out around the same time reduces promotion costs as such content tend to cross promote eachother. Face will definitely drive traffic to Hobi's content as will Hobi's content to Face.

Personally I wished they would release vminkook albums consecutively within a short span of eachother. People listening to face will be more likely to click on Jk's song and Tae's right after. It keeps the fans engaged, keeps the momentum going and keeps all three trending on the charts making it hard for an outsider to break the chain.

They could have done same for the hyung line too.

All this seem to lack direction and each day my non existent faith in hybe wanes.

I hope the end would justify the means. Hopefully. I'm gonna sit tightly out here and watch it all play out to the credits and then I will comment on it😌

Hybe brought them this far, I should at least hope they know what the hell they are doing. But if Face pays the price for their edgy endeavors then I shouldn't be held responsible for the hex I put on them.

It's funny how you say Jimin is about to share the limelight when he's actually about to eat Hobi up😭😭

Gotta run 🏃‍♂️ 🏃‍♂️ 🏃‍♂️

[qqueenofhades]

I'm waiting for the day people realize many "socialist" endeavors would not, in fact, tank the economy or drive up the deficit. Take housing. Even if the government did something asinine like buy a 100k house for every homeless person--instead of, like, invest in affordable housing or something reasonable--that'd only be around $55 billion dollars spent! Just slash the US military budget from the 800 billion it currently is down to 750 billion and boom! Money! Take it down to 700 billion (1)

2) and you'd pay for free college as well. (For a source on the college claim, see: this forbes article whining about how it'd cost a ~horrifying~ 47 billion for Biden to enact free college for people making less than 125k forbes(.)com/sites/robertberger/2020/09/04/the-surprising-cost-of-bidens-free-college-tuition-plan/?sh=688bf7396f7f ) Tax the wealthy and we'd raise the money for healthcare. We HAVE the money to improve things. We simply choose not to.

Well... yeah. Of course there's money. Of course there is. It's just that the current economic/late-stage capitalist system has decided that it's better off being locked away by a tiny handful of unimaginably greedy billionaires in order to make them even richer, rather than being equitably redistributed to solve social problems. They have also very successfully convinced the public, for upward of 40 years, that it's actually better to let the billionaires keep those fortunes, all taxation and government is evil, it's immoral to want or expect financial help or justice from said government, if you can't work hard enough to make your own money than you have a personally deficient character, structural and systemic racism/discrimination isn't real and doesn't affect wealth distribution, and etc., etc., etc.

Late-stage capitalism depends on enforced scarcity: if you don't have enough, you'll keep working in whatever shitty job you can get. The Republicans have often cited the tired old Reaganite myth about how welfare recipients are just "lazy" and can't be bothered to Pull Themselves Out of Poverty, and besides, the corporate world doesn't want to be deprived of its control over the working population. So of course they resist any efforts to tax or regulate billionaires or corporations, and they engage in (again, sadly very successful) lobbying campaigns to tie this economic libertarianism to social conservatism/conservative populism/outright racial/white supremacist rhetoric. So plenty of working-class white people consistently vote against their own economic interests, because they like racism more than anything else. See the recent attempt to claim that the Ohio train derailment happened because poor, rural white people were "left out/overlooked by the evil Democratic government for being white!!!" Or the narrative, helpfully pushed by the NYT (as usual), that these towns are "forgotten," "left behind," or otherwise "ignored" by an uncaring federal (read: Democratic) government.

Except... the Democrats under Biden have enacted more legislation, tax credits, infrastructure projects, job opportunities, and so forth, in the last two years alone, intended to help the residents of places just like East Palestine, Ohio, than the Republicans have ever done in all their presidential administrations. It's the Republicans who have starved those places of proper funding, safety regulations, material resources, government oversight, and so on, while telling them that Democrats hate them because they're white. The voters of those places have often enthusiastically voted for that message, and then the national GOP apparatus blames.... the Democrats. Because of course they do, even though the Democrats, by any metric, are the party who actually materially tries to help the working class. Racism, Reaganism, and white grievance is a helluva drug.