#we should legally be allowed to commit murder

[withasideofshakespeare]

Disabled liberation means Richard III gets to Be Like That.

[drdemonprince]

I don't think I have it in me to be an abolitionist because I read that horrible story about the trans teen murdered in South Carolina and my knee jerk reaction is, those people should rot in jail, ideally forever, or worse. No matter how I look at it I can't make myself okay with the idea that you should be allowed to steal someone's life in such a horrible way and then just go back to enjoying your life. Some stuff is just too over the top evil.

You can have whatever emotions you want about that person's murderous actions, but the reality is that the carceral justice system is one of the largest sources of physical, emotional, and sexual torment for transgender people on this planet.

Transgender people are ten times more likely to be assaulted by a fellow inmate and five times more likely to be assaulted by a corrections officer, according to a National Center for Transgender Equality Report.

Within the prison system, transgender people are frequently denied gender-affirming medical care, and housed in populations that do not match their identity, which increases their odds of being beaten and sexually assaulted.

The alternative to being incorrectly housed with the wrong gendered population is that transgender people are also frequently held in solitary confinement instead, often for far longer periods on average than their non-transgender peers, contributing to them experiencing suicide ideation, self harm, acute physiological distress, a shrunk hippocampus, muscculoskeletal pain, chronic condition flare-ups, heart disease, reduced muscle tone, and numerous other proven effects of solitary confinement.

The prison system is also one of the largest sites of completely unmitigated COVID spread, among other illnesses, with over 640,000 cases being directly linked to prison exposure, according to the COVID prison project.

We know that number is rampantly under-estimated because prisoners, especially trans ones, are frequently denied medical care. And even basic, essential physical care. Just last year a 27-year-old Black man named Lason Butler was found dead in his cell, having perished of dehydration. He had been kept in a cell without running water for two weeks, where he rapidly lost 40 pounds before perishing. His body was covered in rat bites.

This kind of treatment is unacceptable for anyone, no matter who they are and what they have done, and I shouldn't have to explicitly connect the dots for you, but I will. One in six transgender people has been to prison, according to Lambda Legal. One in every TWO Black transgender people has been to prison. One in five Black men go to prison in America.

THIS is the fate you are consigning all these people to when you say that prisons must exist because there are really really bad people out in the world. We should all know by not that this is not how the carceral justice system works. Hate crime laws are under-utilized, according to Pro Publica, and result in few convictions. The people who commit transphobic acts of violence tend to be given softer sentences than the prisoners who resemble their victims.

We must always remember that the violent tools of the prison system will be used not against the people that we personally consider to be the most "deserving" of punishment, but rather against whomever the state considers to be its enemy or to be a disposable person.

You are not in control of the prison system and you cannot ensure it will be benevolent. You are not the police, the judge, the jury, or the corrections officers. By and large, the people who are in these roles are racist, transphobic, ableist, and victim-blaming, and they will use the power and violence of the system to terrorize people in poverty, Black people, trans people, "mad" people, intellectually disabled people, women, and everyone else that you might wish to protect from harm with a system of "punishment." Nevermind that incaraceration doesn't prevent future harm anyway.

You can't argue for incarceration as the tool of your revenge fantasies, you have to argue for it as the tool that it actually is. The purpose of a system is what it does. And the prison system's purpose has never been to protect or avenge vulnerable trans people. It has always been to beat them, sexually assault them, forcibly detransition them, render them unemployable, disconnect them from all community, neglect them, and unperson them.

[chasing-faith-and-fate]

So can we get a back story or info on the other clans and how there daily life is? Like do they struggle with mistreatment from there leaders or other higher-ups in the clan or other clans?

I guess I can give you some? It's not really important to the story so why not

Wisteria:

They're the oldest of the clans, originally from another territory with other clans who were way too aggressive which is what drove them away. Half the cats split off to become Brindleclan.

They're very much known to be outrageously kind, which current deputy Windshade really hates, he's looking to change the clan image when he becomes leader.

Despite this- the clan was the first to start culling any cats that simply didn't age as they should, or otherwise acted out of character (some cats may have not have been Taken, but just had other problems. The clan did not stop to think about that.)

Applestar is the first leader that hasn't had any of the original founders in her family tree. She's an outsider, but she's very liked, even by her more power hungry deputy.

She's mates with the healer, which is why she made it legal for them to have families and relationships, this wasn't allowed in Wisteriaclan before her.

Windshade is part of a polycule with Sparkclan cats, Weeddash and Airdazzle. It's very much a secret even tho it wouldn't be too frowned upon.

Wisteriaclan are very much of the mindset that you can overthrow any leader that the majority doesn't like. It's expected.

Brindle:

They were hit the hardest by takers, the creatures took ⅔ of their population, and they're still struggling to build it up again.

They did however go to many lengths to ensure they only threw actual Takers into the rift, the process of weeding them out took a long time.

The current generation of power holders are quite generous, offering help where their clan didn't provide it in the past. They aren't exactly happy to do it, but they're desperate for allies.

They have a pretty bad habit of power imbalance which leads to infighting and conflict between the cats.

They're currently (as of moon 34 in game) that have Takers among them.

If any clan falls to anything that's not Takers, it's probably gonna be Brindleclan. They're sadly very accident prone and have no fucking self preservation.

Robinfleck is plotting murder very often. Take that as you will.

Spark:

The Sparks (as they currently are) was formed by a group of rogues that found the two others. The clan didn't like many of the rules and so have their own system.

For example, the clans name changes with the leader. The leader is also always related in some ways to the previous one. This is the nepotism clan everyone.

Sparkclan never had issues with Takers, no one knew why, but the Sparks were and still are very very arrogant about this fact.

Chasingclan is an offshoot of Sparkclan, and despite what Sparkstar says, they have never gotten along since the separation.

As you may have noticed, a lot of Sparkclan cats have scars across the bridge of their nose. This was a mark of disrespect, an old tradition to make those who break the laws or speak out against the leader and their family get marked. Now it's a cosmetic thing some just ask for.

They're the least liked of all the clans by the other clans.

Their healer recently committed a crime that led to a kit dying and has been exiled. She is roaming around unpunished.

[matan4il]

The ICJ ruling went about as well as I was expecting. No call for a ceasefire and no ruling on whether the war is a case of genocide, but Israel still has to send in aid (which it was already doing) and try to contain civilian deaths. All in all it said nothing new, made no decisive decisions and it just feels like we're back where we started but now Israel has to send in a report in a month. What are your thoughts on the ruling?

Hi Nonnie! Thank you for this ask. Yes, it went just as we thought it was most likely to go, and the explicit decision on the case was never going to be given during the decision of the provisional measures. If it's okay, I wanna combine my answer to you with this ask as well:

I've seen a few people mention that the ICJ not calling for a ceasefire probably indicates that the judges don't think a genocide is occurring at all. After all, if they believe a genocide is actively going on, why would you allow the side committing it to continue the fight? Granted, I'm seeing both sides claiming the ruling to be a victory for them. So, who knows at this point what any of it means?

Okay, so my feeling about this is complex. I mean,

On the one hand, I very much acknowledge that this is the best resolution on the subject of the provisional measures that we could have gotten. Anon, you're right. If there was any indication of an actual genocide, the ICJ would have decided in favor of Israel having to stop its fighting in Gaza. There apparently is a precedent, the ICJ did issue a provisional measure deciding on the end of Russia's fighting in Ukraine, based on the convention for the prevention og genocide. So yes, there's no reason why the ICJ wouldn't do the same here if South Africa had a strong enough suggestion of a case.

The reason why I still don't feel great is that I think the very discussion is a perversion of justice. It's like... think of a situation where you know there can't be a just result, because the court is biased. Think of a scenario where a political rival of the government is put on trial for murder in North Korea, where the judges are known to serve the interests of the government. To not be executed would probably be considered the best possible result, but it's still wrong that such a biased trial exists, that someone would be put on trial for merely being a political opponent.

Yes, each side got some things it wanted and lost some stuff (SA got the ICJ to ignore its abuse of the genocide convention, and got some provisional measures when legally the whole case should have been thrown out, while Israel got the fact that the provisional measure to stop the fighting, the only one the ICJ could grant that has real weight and impact, was not issued), but at the end of the day, Hamas celebrated the decision. Because it understands that even if no practical change comes from the ICJ's decision, it's another step in its war, which it runs parallel to its terrorism, to delegitimize Israel's very existence in the global public's mind. And on the most basic level, if an antisemitic, genocidal terrorist organization is happy with the ICJ's decision, I find it hard to be.

I hope this kind of explains why, even though I'm aware that the result was the best one we could get, it's still awful. To go back to how judge Aharon Barak, the survivor of an actual genocide, put it, the whole trial was like judging Able for Cain murdering him. Hamas should be put on trial. Hamas should be called out on, and persecuted for its genocidal intents and actions against Jews around the world. Hamas should be put on trial for crimes against world peace when it intentionally started a war against Israel. Hamas should be put on trial for war crimes perpetrated against its own Palestinian population when it has killed them intentionally, and intentionally put them in harm's way, to get killed in the fighting, when it used them as human shields. And anything less than that is a perversion of justice.

Thank you both, like I said, I do hope this helps. Take care!

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[luna-rainbow]

I recently saw what might be the single worst Bucky take I have ever seen in the comments of a Youtube video. Brace yourself.

This person was saying that mind control is like the "Nuremberg defense" - namely that a soldier was "just following orders" and should not be used for Bucky because all soldiers are obligated to refuse to follow immmoral orders and they should be held responsible for the consequences of not doing so.

Also. Mind control is a "get out of jail free" card for moral reponsibility and if you believe Bucky had no agency or choice you must also believe Steve forced him to stop being the Winter Soldier.

Is this not the wildest, craziest thing you have ever seen?

Sigh. Children will latch onto the latest shiny word they've learned and throw it around to defend their blorbo, which I'm going to assume in this case is one Anthony Stark again.

Firstly, not all soldiers who pleaded "superior order" ended up having that plea dismissed; some were acquitted based on the recognition that they did not know the legality of what they were ordered to do.

Digging into it, the Nuremberg defence was not about soldiers refusing to comply with "immoral" orders -- because it's hard to define "immoral". Is it immoral to blow up another human (soldier) or bring down a building for your country, for example. It's specifically around war crimes, and when the soldier is aware it is a war crime but carries it out anyway.

Assuming this argument was in the context of the Stark murders (almost always is), the first question is, was it plain murder, was it a war crime (killing of a civilian), or was it part of armed conflict?

In which case we must return to Bucky's identity and mental state at the time. The war had ended in 1945, but Bucky was never allowed to leave the war. He continued on as the Winter Soldier, and the name wasn't just there to be fancy. He was perpetually imprisoned in a war of Hydra's making, hence his encounter with the Starks was not, in his mind, a civilian meeting a civilian (hence, it's not the type of "murder" that gets trialled in civilian courts).

Secondly, the Starks were transporting the serum, the genesis of which was a military project. Stark himself is an arms dealer who works closely with the American military. Therefore, is he really a civilian during the time he was killed? While political assassinations is its own ethical kettle of fish, his execution could be seen as part of an armed conflict tactic between two opposing sides.

Thirdly, the Nuremberg defence fails when the soldier is aware they have been ordered to commit a war crime and nevertheless chooses to comply. Bucky didn't even know his own name, how does anyone expect him to know the Geneva Conventions (which, by the way, was ratified in 1949)? He was ordered, as a soldier, to kill an enemy scientist transporting a military load. He had no frame of reference to work out who he was, who Howard Stark was (Stark recognised him, there was no flicker of recognition when Stark called him "Sergeant Barnes"), the context of the assassination, let alone make any judgement about the morality of killing him.

Not to mention the most important point which is that Bucky himself was a prisoner of war tortured into obedience. In other words, even if he had awareness of the immorality, he was forced to commit the acts under duress (and not under superior orders). And that in itself forms its own legal defence.

I...don't even know what to say about the last paragraph apart from the fact that their brains have melted out of their ears.

Steve literally gave agency back to Bucky. He gave Bucky the choice of finishing the mission or choosing to believe him, and for the first time, the Winter Soldier disobeyed his order.

People will literally look at a scene of a guy not lifting up a finger to defend himself and say "WAAAAH HE FORCED HIS ASSAILANT TO ATTACK HIM." I just--

[navree]

I'm constantly baffled how many writers seem to overlook and mischaracterize Jason when he has arguably the most potential of all the Batkids, or at least the Robins! Like, so much can be built upon wrt his life as an impoverished youth and how that informs his perception of vigilantism, law enforcement, drug abuse, etc. Hell, his resurrection itself is something he had over the rest of the Batfamily for the longest time, before everyone else got a take a turn and it became so overused that Jason's own trauma became a footnote. Alas, most people at DC just treat him as the "Angsty Bad Boy™️" who doesn't play nice with the other kids. He's so wasted, Jason Todd deserves better.

I've always felt that if you're going to try and write a finite narrative out of Jason's story (as opposed to comics) then at some point he should quit vigilantism. His entire adult life has been solely about that and, as someone who for a long time was most famous for dying, he should get the opportunity to live, especially for himself. BUT, so long as he remains a vigilante, he offers a really interesting perspective on vigilantism that you don't really see anywhere else.

Jason, like some of the people I feel have the most reason to be in this life in Batman media (such as Bruce and Dick), has experience being a victim of criminal behavior, yes, but he also has the experience of being on the other side of the window. He knows the criminal element intimately, and from a young age. His father was a low-level criminal, it got him sent to jail and eventually murdered while in jail; Jason grew up in a low-income neighborhood that has been by and large overlooked by Gotham and that allows criminal behavior to breed there to the point where the name Crime Alley no longer refers to a singular event (the murders of the Waynes) but all the other issues there; Jason himself has committed criminal acts when weighing the option between obeying the law and ensuring his own survival. He has a different perspective on criminality and law enforcement and outside enforcement of legal codes than anyone in his life, because he's lived on both sides of the lines and they've both had profound effects on him and should shape how he views the world differently than other people he knows.

Jason's vigilantism, and honestly even how he deals with stuff during his crime lord era, should be motivated by at once knowing that issues don't pop up out of nowhere and that even criminals have interiority, but also a deeper understanding than most as to how the actions of criminals affects not just innocent bystanders but innocents in their own lives. It's a unique perspective that not only enriches Jason as a character but can also provide some pretty thought-provoking conversation about vigilantism and Batman's role in the world and even the concept of extra-legal justice we find in most superhero comics in general that DC could honestly use.

Like yeah, ok, I did find Stephen's monologue about his role as a doctor being that of a healer at the end of the General Strange arc in this year's Doctor Strange hokey, but the way a superhero's personal life informs their actions as a hero is an interesting concept that only gets shallow explorations most of the time, and Batman media could really use it in more depth given how shallow people's understanding of Batman is (Batman's a capitalist Batman's a fascist Batman beats up the mentally ill Batman victimizes the poor, dear God shut up).

And when it comes to Jason's death, it is pretty obvious that, when it comes to the Batfam, DC is trying to recapture that feeling that came with A Death in the Family every time they kill a character off, to try and tap into what made Jason's death such a big thing. But the problem is that they fundamentally do not understand why Jason's death was so big.

For one, and the most shallow reason for it, Jason's death wasn't just death. At the tail end of a series of difficult issues for him, like finding out his dad was murdered in prison and Bruce lied about it, to the debacle with Felipe Garzonas, to Bruce benching him as Robin (which, given that Dick being benched ended with him no longer being Robin and leaving Wayne Manor, it's reasonable to infer that a formerly homeless kid who experienced a significant amount of trauma due to that homelessness would start to worry that no Robin=no longer being able to live with Bruce and having to live on the streets again), Jason ends up trying to find his mother. And when he finds her, this adult woman, who he should be able to trust, if only because she's a grown woman and he's fifteen, deliberately leads him into a trap with someone he is deeply aware is dangerous, points a gun at his head, and tells him that what's about to happen is his fault while he tries and fails to fight his way out of what he knows is going to be a really bad set of minutes. Honestly, more people need to read ADitF, because the sequence of events is a lot more horrifying than pop culture remembers it. Jason is already beaten into the ground by Joker's henchmen before the Joker gets started on him (while Sheila stands back and watches, God) and by the time it's done, half of Joker's suit is colored red instead of purple to represent blood and everyone in that warehouse thinks that Jason is already dead. And then he gets blown up. Jason's death resonated so much not just because of the fact that it happened, and that Bruce felt upset about it, but also because what happened to him was horrifyingly brutal and to date remains one of the truly most sadistic things the Joker has ever done.

For two, Jason's death had an impact because it was meant to stick. Unlike Bruce getting lost in time or Damian getting stabbed, where it was pretty clear that the characters were not going to stay dead, and then by the time you get to Dick and whoever else has died recently, where the audience (and the characters) have no reason to believe that this will be permanent, Jason's death was meant to be the end of the story. Due to Starlin's hatred of Jason as a character (which is weird) and DC in general wanting to move away from kid sidekicks at the time, Jason was supposed to die and then stay dead forever; there's a reason why the saying was "nobody stays dead in comics except for Jason Todd, Bucky Barnes, and Uncle Ben", because he was meant to, you know, stay dead. It hits because the audience itself, along with Bruce and Dick and Alfred and Barbara and everyone else in Jason and Robin's life, thought that this was the last we would see of Jason Todd alive and that he would never come back ever again. It's also why his resurrection packs so much more of a punch than anyone else's either, both in universe and out of universe.

For three, Jason's death was greatly helped by the meta-narrative in a way that nobody else's has been. Because, the eighties was a period of a lot of change for DC, and especially for Batman due to the popularity of The Killing Joke (which wasn't even supposed to be canon, yet by the time Jason died Barbara was already confirmed in canon to be paralyzed and therefore have the events of that book take place) and especially The Dark Knight Returns. Which means that the eighties was when people started writing darker Batman stories, and they kept going from there, and the characterization got darker along with it (seriously, read something from the early eighties and then something from, like, the 2010s, the difference is insane) as Batman slowly just because a darker and more sullen character. And because that change coincided with Jason dying, and there was an initial attempt to push a sort of "Jason's murder is turning Bruce into a crazy person" message to really show audiences how badly Bruce was dealing with the situation, it creates this sort of in-universe progression where Jason's murder fundamentally altered Bruce in a way that has, so far, proven utterly irreversible.

It's not just that Bruce's son was murdered and that he's had to deal with the grief and trauma of that loss, it's that the grief and trauma of that lost basically completely shattered Bruce and he is never going to be able to put himself back together again. He is never going to return to who he was before Jason died even though the initial hurt has literally been reversed because Jason was resurrected and subsequently re-entered his life. Jason's death was so calamitous, so monumentally awful, that it changed who Bruce was as a person in a way that can never be undone or reversed, and most of the people in his life these days don't even know what Bruce was like before, while the people who do know just have to live with the fact that Bruce as he was then is as dead as Jason was (this fic by @damianbugs really gets to the unique tragedy of the whole thing so go read that). None of the other Batfam deaths have that, not even Stephanie's, which was also meant to be permanent before it got retconned, and so they don't hit as hard because they not only don't have much impact on the audience, they don't even have much impact on Bruce as a character, certainly not anywhere near that Jason's did in both intensity and longlasting effect.

The problem is that DC didn't really didn't expect Under the Red Hood to be as popular as it was, so they kept Jason around without really knowing what to do with him or having any plan for him, which is a choice we're still feeling the consequences of today in that they both still don't really know what to do with him and really resent him for it, along with his longterm popularity in all of his iterations. And fandom itself likes to just hew to tropes with no basis in canon whatsoever based on the shallowest understanding of all characters, including Jason, so that's not even helping matters much, and why I stick to my own bubble.

[intersectionalpraxis]

"International Criminal Court chief prosecutor says he is seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and three Hamas leaders." "More than 100 Palestinians have been killed in the past 24 hours, the Gaza health ministry said, as Israel intensified its attacks across the enclave. Doctors Without Borders reports that the besieged al-Awda Hospital close to Jabalia refugee camp has completely run out of drinking water." "Meanwhile, hunger has gripped the enclave, with the UN humanitarian chief on Sunday warning of “apocalyptic” consequences of aid shortages as key Rafah and Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) crossings remain “effectively blocked”. "At least 35,562 people have been killed and 79,652 wounded in Israeli attacks on Gaza since October 7. The death toll in Israel from Hamas’s attack is 1,139, with dozens still held captive."

ALL zionist war criminals need to be held accountable -not just the one's in positions of power -their entire occupational forces. And rightfully so, many people and organizations including the Government Media Office in Gaza have criticized the ICC's decision to also penalize leaders of the resistance -Al Jazeera reports:

“We appreciate the decision of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for two Zionist war criminals”, a statement from the office begins." “We see the issuance of these memorandums as a legal step in the right direction, despite the fact that they came late”, it continues." "On the other hand, the office says that “We also deplore the fact that this step was accompanied by the issuance of similar decisions against some of the leaders of our people, in a scene in which the court equated the victim with the executioner”, referring to requests for arrest warrants against several Hamas officials."

Rafah is also still under severe bombardment and many Palestinian people have been either wounded or murdered. This ICC decision also doesn't help Palestinians right now. There needs to be immediate actions. The IOF must stop attacking and bombing the Gaza Strip effective immediately and permanently and aid MUST be allowed to reach millions of Palestinians.

Israel should have been sanctioned LONG ago:

"Diana Buttu, a lawyer and former spokesperson for the PLO, says that the ICC’s Khan is doing “a lot of bothsidesism”.

“He’s looking and seeing that there is a genocide that Israel is perpetrating – a genocide that Israel has been very open about perpetrating with over 35,000 Palestinians killed, mass starvation, 15,000 children killed, and in order to balance it out he has to make it seem as though he’s addressing both sides,” Buttu told Al Jazeera." “But if we want to be honest we should be looking at what it is that the Israeli government has been doing and the orders that it has issued to its soldiers,” she said." “If this court is to have any credibility, it should be going out after the people who are committing genocide rather than just simply trying to play this game of bothsidesism,” Buttu added." [Al Jazeera Updates, May 20th, 2024.]

You can read the full ICC's statements here. There's SO much to unpack, but I wanted to make sure I included it for folks to view:

As always -the occupation must end and Palestine will be free.

[panthera-tigris-venenata]

What is their go-to drink order?

First of, let's assume everyone is of legal drinking age, whatever that might be.

It's sixteen. If Ben can be a High King at sixteen, he can bloody well drink. I'm not taking criticism on that one.

Unsurprisingly though, Ben has never had as much as a champagne.

And Jane is stuck drinking kiddie fake-champagnes well into her twenties.

Now Audrey? Oh well. Her favourite is rosè, champagne, Skinny Bitch (vodka & soda) and Pink Gin & Tonic. If you pick an aesthetic, you bloody commit to it.

If she's doing shots with the pirates, she gets vodka, because Audrey post Queen of Mean is that bitch and fears no god. She could also do silver tequila.

Chad can't hold his liquor. He just can't. He has one (1) cider//Frisko and is crying. Audrey is suffering.

Anthony Tremaine gets some fancy brandy or whiskey on rocks. Again, Aesthetic, duh. Once he got this for Ginny Gothel and died a little inside when she declared that it doesn't taste any good and proceeded to pour Cola into it. Guess who learned to never ever do this the hard way.

Harriet Hook. Uuh. She has Problems. We know that, right?

On the Isle, she usually drinks Energy drinks with vodka, because she needs to stay awake, duh. Also rum, 'cos pirates, and red wine, 'cos Aesthetic.

If it's before noon, she gets a Mimosa, so she can feel fancy. Also espresso with vodka. Gin & Tonic.

Basically, you name it, chances are Harriet Hook has drunk it at least once.

She'd just like to forget and not feel, savvy??

Harry prefers rum and dislikes wine. He just has the vibes. Unless it's mulled wine which smells way better.

Uma also orders rum. She, however, really likes Pina Colada, but she won't order it herself, (because tough pirate Captain can't enjoy sugary long drinks, duh).

Don't worry though, Gil gets it for her every time he is getting them drinks.

Uma also doesn't pay for her own drinks, like, ever.

Gil likes ciders the best, even over beer, for which his father and brothers ridicule him. He doesn't care, though. He will also do shots of rum with the rest of the pirates.

CJ doesn't drink.

She has seen her family's hungovers and decided she is not doing thaz, thank you. She also dislikes the idea of losing the already poor control over her mind any more. It might not look like it, but CJ is a bit of a control freak.

Freddie Facilier drinks only when someone buys the drink for her. In which case, she'd choose a Chupito, a sweet shot with rum, lime liquor and cocktail cherry.

Celia Facilier doesn't drink and good for her.

Dizzy Tremaine is not allowed to drink. She doesn't particularly wish to, though.

Ginny Gothel mostly drinks wine, and if there is more fancy option available, she'll get Calvados (fancy apple liquor. It's good.) She is also not opposed to drinking Harriet's Red Bull with vodka though.

Claudine Frollo (once adopted by the Hooks). She also has problems, which, in this case, manifests as getting her drinks as vile as possible.

Campari Orange, as bitter as her soul. She can also pass it for an orange juice if she wanted. She's a hypocrite. (Campari Orange is legit good though). On similar note, Skinny Bitch, without the lime. She will do shots of pure vodka and drink Slammed-Tequila (shot of Tequila & shot of Sprite & ice), which is the most vile substance I have ever tasted. It feels like kerosene.

...Mal can't drink. I'm not taking criticism on that.

Evie and Carlos can do shots of pure vodka. Evie likes champagne more, though. She also has a vendetta against red wine, which was her mother's drink of choice, because it looks like blood, duh. Oh, and Aperol Spritz! (She and Audrey should be allowed to gossip and/or plan murder over a glass of Aperol. Ginny too. They'd vibe.)

Technically, Jay and Jade aren't allowed to drink for their own safety. Not because they'd drink too much, but because they insist on taking their usual Anything-but-the-pavement route no matter what.

One time, after some shots of Tequila, they convinced Audrey to go with them. She almost broke her neck, which might be because she refused to take off her high heels.

[darkmaga-retard]

“Who the —- is Allah?” a 61-year-old British man asked protestors. That comment has resulted in an 18-month prison sentence. You no longer need to commit a violent crime to be tried as a violent criminal in the United Kingdom.

https://www.tiktok.com/embed/v2/7311754977360268577?lang=en-US&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.armstrongeconomics.com%2Fworld-news%2Ftyranny%2Fbritish-man-jailed-18-months-for-questioning-allah%2F&embedFrom=oembed

It is sufficient grounds for arrest to simply say or write an opinion that could anger the other side and prompt someone else to become violent. This man’s crime was “precipitated by false information relating to the religion and immigration status of the perpetrator of the Southall murders,” according to the report. As a reminder, the protests were over the brutal murder of three young girls. The media and UK authorities are more outraged over people confusing the murderer’s immigration status than over the heinous crime itself.

There are numerous cases of migrants committing violent acts, even rape, and receiving lesser sentences. Over 3,000 people in the UK were arrested for simply posting something deemed offensive on social media last year. People are watching their nation crumble as a result of open border policies that permit unvetted men to freely commit crimes and terrorize the nation.

The media is calling Sharia Law protests “anti-racism protests” of peaceful men wishing to combat the far-right. Why did all Muslim nations turn away these refugees? Even leaders in the Arab world warned the West of the implications of taking in immigrants from places like Syria. And guess what? Now the West will arm Israel to the teeth and invite the angered Palestinians to move to their nation.

Migrants are not expected to assimilate to their new environment. They are not expected to adopt the new cultures or traditions of their new host country. Legal immigrants show immense gratitude for the opportunity to seek sanctuary in a new country that will provide them with better opportunities. The masses of illegals who arrived in the West have no such gratitude. They came here with their hands out, expecting the people to pay and pave their way, and the governments have fueled this entitlement.

The migrant crisis is destroying our societies and civilization as we have known it. It is a tragedy that the UK legal system has been infiltrated with the New World Order mindset that believes citizens should stand idle as their traditions and cultures are decimated. Those in the UK are not allowed to even question the migrant crisis or express outrage at the overwhelming increase in violent crime. True change comes when those protecting the people in power cave. When the police refuse to protect the Shira Law protestors or the politicians supporting open border we will a major shift in the UK. It’s inevitable.

[mariacallous]

An Army spy operating at the heart of the IRA during the Troubles in Northern Ireland probably cost more lives than he saved, a report has found.

Operation Kenova investigated the agent known as Stakeknife.

It said speculation he had saved hundreds of lives was wrong; it was more likely between high single figures and low double figures.

It found the security forces failed to prevent some murders to try to protect their agents in the IRA.

But, the report pointed out that it was the IRA leadership that had "commissioned and sanctioned" the actions of its so-called internal security unit - of which Stakeknife was a member - and "committed brutal acts of torture and murder".

The £40m investigation took seven years to examine the activities of Stakeknife, who was Belfast man Freddie Scappaticci.

The interim report called for apologies from the UK government and Irish republican leadership on behalf of the IRA.

Lawyer Kevin Winters, who represents the families of 12 victims, said the report was "a damning indictment of the state".

"The staggering takeaway message is that the state could have intervened to save lives," he said.

"We are left with the horrendous conclusion that both state and the IRA were co-conspirators in the murder of its citizens."

The report's author, senior police officer Jon Boutcher, highlighted many failings of the security forces and the UK government, but acknowledged they were acting in an extremely stressful and violent environment.

Multiple murders

Operation Kenova linked Stakeknife to at least 14 murders and 15 abduction incidents.

Despite it being widely known that Scappaticci was Stakeknife, the Kenova Report did not officially confirm that. A further, more detailed report is due to be published by the Kenova team later this year.

However, the interim report said Stakeknife was "undoubtedly a valuable asset" to the security forces who "provided high-quality intelligence about PIRA [Provisional IRA] at considerable risk to himself".

The 208-page report added: "Albeit that his intelligence was not always passed on or acted upon and if more of it had been, he could not have remained in place as long as he did."

Mr Boutcher, who is now chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), said claims Stakeknife saved hundreds of lives were based on "unreliable and speculative" assessments.

Mr Boutcher said murders that could, and should, have been prevented were allowed to take place with the knowledge of the security forces.

'You were not mad'

"Morality and legality of agents doing any harm - with the knowledge of the state - is something that we would never, ever allow today," he said.

Mr Boutcher also referred to the decision not to confirm Stakeknife's identity in his report.

"Stakeknife's identity has been exposed to Kenova, subject to confidentiality which I remain bound by and I cannot make his name public without official authority," he said.

So far the government has refused to give such authority.

But Mr Boutcher added that in his view this position was "no longer tenable" and he expected the "government to authorise Kenova to confirm Stakeknife's identity in the final report".

Referring to Stakeknife's victims, Mr Boutcher said many of them had endured "endless delays, setbacks and unfulfilled promises in their search for the truth".

He said his report confirmed what many families had suspected - patterns of state intervention and non-intervention in the torture and murder of people accused of being state agents during the Troubles.

"You were not mad. This was happening and this should not have happened," Mr Boutcher told them.

[shadowmaat]

The Jedi were evil all along!

I debated replying to the thread I saw condemning the Jedi as "rigid" and implying they weren't that different from the Sith, but I would have been the only voice of dissent and given that one of the replies was from a Red Hat Cultist veering off on a frothy anti-Obama rant, I figured it was safer to just make my own post.

Look, no one is saying the Jedi are perfect, but they sure as fuck aren't evil, either. If you're basing your entire opinion on the thoughts and experiences of one individual then your view is incredibly flawed and you should maybe think outside the narrow hole you've dug for yourself.

From what I can tell, some of the worst critics of the Jedi seem to be fans of Anakin Skywalker. Or at least a carefully curated version of Anakin who was a perpetual victim and never did anything wrong. It seems to boil down to "if the Jedi had just let Anakin be openly married to Padmè, nothing bad would have happened!" Which is... certainly a take.

The one argument I see trumpeted over and over (and over) again is that the Jedi prohibition against "attachment" is terrible and wrong and makes them no better than the Sith. This hinges almost entirely on the idea that "attachment" is the same thing as "love."

It isn't. Fans have spent decades explaining why it isn't only to have their reasoning mostly ignored in favor of the more angsty/tragic idea that the Jedi were forbidden to love. 🙄

"Attachment," IMO, can best be summed up as a literal interpretation of this ever-popular gif:

[img: Rosa from Brooklyn 99. She's holding a small yellow lab puppy as she says, "I've only had Arlo for a day and a half, but if anything happened to him I would kill everyone in this room and then myself."]

Anakin has, admittedly, "had" Padmè for three years instead of a day and a half, but when he thought she was going to die, he killed everyone in the Temple, then killed her, and then continued on a murderous rampage for the next 19 years or so.

"Attachment" is dangerous for anyone, but especially for someone like Anakin, who has additional powers at his command, rigorous training in how to use them, and three years experience as a war leader.

Personally, I also have questions about whether or not marriage is actually forbidden among the Jedi or if Anakin just assumed it was because "attachment." I can see it not being a common thing, and I can also understand a relationship coming under scrutiny to insure that it's a healthy form of love that won't interfere with a Jedi's ability to do their job, but it wouldn't surprise me if Anakin never looked into it because it would mean "sharing" Padmè with others.

Even if marriage wasn't allowed as a whole formal, legalized thing it doesn't mean Jedi can't form relationships. It would, as usual with the Jedi, be about balance. Can someone balance their personal relationship with their commitments to the Order? Can they set their loved one aside to do what must be done? Or will they drop everything to immediately rush to their loved one's side regardless of the risk to others?

We all know what Anakin would do; we've seen it with our own eyes.

The point is, condemning the entire Jedi Order because they didn't give Anakin everything he wanted, when he wanted it, and without question is a little bit of a stretch. Plus, all jokes about his inability to keep a secret aside, it isn't as if he ever went to them to discuss things.

"Well, he didn't think he could trust them because they hated him!" Uh, no, they decidedly didn't hate him, he just believed they did. It all hinges on his beliefs, not reality. And while you could certainly blame Palpatine for reinforcing his beliefs that the Jedi can't be trusted and that everyone hates/is jealous of him, it isn't as if Palps made that up out of thin air: he built on the seeds already within Anakin.

"That's because the Jedi-" No. Insecurities are rarely rational, and while you can argue that the Jedi "didn't do enough" to help Anakin, there are a few salient points to remember:

Anakin isn't the only Jedi in the Order; they have thousands of people to consider.

You have to know there's a problem in order to help.

The person has to be willing to accept that help in order for things to change.

The last two points also apply to those who would condemn Obi-Wan in particular. He has to KNOW a problem exists and then he has to talk his way around to try and get Anakin to accept his help. I know from personal experience just how heartbreakingly difficult it is to help a loved one when they won't admit there's a problem or they won't listen to your advice.

I can think of a lot of ideas that would be fun to experiment with in terms of making changes to the Jedi Order, but most of them involve adding more distance from the Senate and none of them are about catering to the specific (perceived) needs of one Jedi.

[beardedmrbean]

Problem is sometimes euthanasia can be the best option for some people

But y'know, everything depends on the situation

There was a young man from the UK, his girlfriend had tossed battery acid in his face.

I'm just going to do this, sticks with me since I think it was the first thing like this I ever really interacted with. Link

A woman threw acid over her former partner in an attack that left him with such "grotesque" injuries Belgian doctors agreed to end his life.

Berlinah Wallace, 49, is accused of murder and applying a corrosive fluid to Dutch engineer Mark van Dongen in Bristol in 2015.

Mr van Dongen ran screaming into the street in his boxer shorts with "horrific" injuries before being taken to hospital, Bristol Crown Court heard.

Ms Wallace denies both charges.

The attack on 23 September left Mr van Dongen, 29, paralysed from the neck down, unrecognisable and all but blinded, Bristol Crown Court heard.

Ms Wallace allegedly laughed and told him "if I can't have you, no-one else can" before throwing a glass of sulphuric acid into his face.

Prosecutor Adam Vaitilingam QC said the defendant "deliberately threw acid at Mr van Dongen, intending to cause him serious harm".

"She admits throwing it but denies any intent to cause him harm. She says that she believed that what she was throwing over him was a glass of water."

(oh yes people often mistake acid for water I'm sure)

Mr Vaitilingam said Mr van Dongen's "physical and mental suffering" drove him to euthanasia.

"Put simply, he could not bear to live in that condition. If that is right, we say, then she is guilty of murder," he added.

The court was told Mr van Dongen suffered 15 months of pain before being granted euthanasia in Belgium, where it is legal and where his family lives, in January 2017.

"He was examined by three consultants, who confirmed that this was, in their terms, a case of unbearable physical and psychological suffering despite maximum medical support," Mr Vaitilingam added.

"They agreed that the test for euthanasia was met, and on 2 January 2017 they inserted a catheter into his heart, which brought about his immediate death." ___________

Not really a fan of euthanasia, but as reasons go, I wouldn't fight anyone over this I don't think.

Now let's go to Canada.

Canada's Veterans Affairs office offered to assist a Paralympian and veteran to commit suicide when she sought to have a wheelchair lift installed in her home, the woman told lawmakers last week.

Christine Gauthier, a 52-year-old retired corporal who competed in the 2016 Paralympics at Rio De Janeiro, testified to lawmakers that a VA official had offered — in writing — to provide her with a medically-assisted suicide kit. The case officer remains unnamed but reportedly made similar offers to at least three other veterans, according to the Independent.

"I have a letter saying that if you’re so desperate, madam, we can offer you MAID, medical assistance in dying," Gauthier said in a hearing before the House of Commons veterans affairs committee.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned the incident in a public statement on Friday after Gauthier said she personally wrote him a letter on the issue.

(I don't believe for a moment trudeau is displeased with anything about this other than the press it's getting is making him look bad)

This woman here

Wanted one of these

And was given the option of ending her own life instead.

So ya, you're right and I'm showing here 2 fairly extreme ends of the spectrum when it comes to this kind of thing, there should be some dignity allowed out there and you shouldn't be forced to live in excruciating pain where every moment after the morphine wears off leaves you in agony.

He went and made the decision for himself to do what he did and several doctors signed off on it saying, ya dude's fucked and baring a miracle will be beyond miserable for the foreseeable future so we're gonna ok this request, coup de grace, mercy killing.

Then we have a mostly fit veteran, paralympian, athlete that would like to be able to go upstairs in the home they live in and the doctor hands them a brochure that says have you considered suicide. (probably far more tastefully put than that, but still)

So while you are right there are situations that call for it, having EDS shouldn't be one of them, neither should having OCD, Borderline, Schizophrenia or Bipolar,

and being poor should not be a factor included either

OCD, Borderline, Schizophrenia and Bipolar I haven't actually seen if they're offering it to them but with the fact that they are offering to people with mental issues I wouldn't be surprised.

This is not mercy, mercy is helping people heal that can be helped heal, it's a chairlift for someone. it's not a needle so they don't have to fuss with it

Canada's standards for this are already too loose and they're about to get looser, doctors that don't want to treat someone might start pointing folks towards this too.

It's wrong,

[rametarin]

"Being healthy is ableist!" (sarcasm)

Really not on board with the idea disability should be considered a political class. We are RAPIDLY approaching an era where even something like dyscalcula or dyslexia could have some sort of corrective genetic therapy to prevent that happening and unfuck our fuckable mental states.

The problem with treating the disabled as a class and a social group is it gets very absurd to talk about them and medicine. The only reason being para- or quadraplegic is considered when they talk about the disabled as a class and group, is because we don't have any means to fix it via surgery to restore ability.

And then they politice what ability is and what is normal in the first place. Yes, it IS normal to be born with 32 teeth, yes it IS normal to be born with ten fingers and ten toes, yes it IS abnormal and can be the fault of disease that such things are disrupted. And I don't think it should be comparable to eugenics to say that's somehow how it;'s supposed to be.

If we thought of ability as something that does have normal hereditary biological parameters, and that is normal, and not the cause of anomalous genetic mutations that are causing problem problems, then imagining certain things as stuff that could be cured just means that having the ability to fix those should be a priority we have.

And our biggest impediments to having affordable healthcare to do it hinges on 1.) The realization of the science within viable physical possibility 2.) The cost.

We WILL eventually have genome therapy that could probably reprogram our brains and nervous system and our ocular system to unfuck our vision and give us freedom from ever needing contact lenses or glasses again. It'll be affordable, if the free market is allowed to get involved, and society will never have to pay exorbinant, prohibitive costs again. Nor will their ridiculous costs justify the necessity of the state monopolizing the medicine for absurd pricing.

But some would have us believe even speaking about disability as a thing to cure is tantamount to thinkig about solving, "the race problem" in a white majority society, by bleaching the skin of minorities. Which is just so patently fucking absurd. That thinking about how to prevent and eliminate mental problems is somehow genocide.

Think about it. These daffy motherfuckers think the very concept of not having babies if it'd result in someone with down syndrome is "genocidal" and "eugenicist," But... somehow, destroying a zygote or a fetus isn't murder. Preventing people being born with disabilities is genocide, but destroying a fetus a hair before viability from the womb? Not murder or death. How the fuck do you even square that away without insisting people and things don't exist in a material world, just in the abstract? You can commit genocide just by preventing disability in a conceptual class of people that DON'T YET EXIST AS HUMANS, but you can't kill an organism that'll grow into sapience and individuality in a span of weeks.

I could kind of understand if they were extremist pro-lifers where even preventing the IDEA of a person being alive was a form of murder, but no. These are supposedly pro choice people, and consider it the right of whomever has a uterus. Yet, somehow, the choice to NOT have a child with a disability is genocide.. on an entity that it isn't murder to kill it.

tl;dr: I hate the imagining of disability as a class, and the only reason it has traction is because the people that wholly believe in classes and legal/social representation and the obligation of the states to do things on the basis of class, find the disabled convenient. And I can't wait until medical science at all levels and all kinds is able to cheaply restore or create ability in individuals, thereby removing them from being considered disabled.

If wanting people to be healthy and autonymous and independent is genocide, then holy shit.

[holidxyy]

Yuno... I mean abortion in japan is allowed so I don't think she'd be in jail, especially not for a murder charge. Unless if she gave birth and then abandoned the baby somewhere but obviously that's not what happened as we know. Anyhow, I don't know much about Shidou so I don't have many opinions on him but if I had to guess... he committed gross negligence / medical malpractice or whatever something to do with organs right? But I forgot whether he took them with or without permission? If ' with ' then the most he'd get is a slap on his wrist and be fired, maybe a fine if he's unlucky ( in my country, anyway. ) if ' without ' I'm sure it'd end in a sentence. People would definitely either be completely angered or be a bit sympathetic towards him.

for shidou i’m pretty sure it was with permission? actually nvm in not sure but it probably was also sorry for the late response i was busy uhhh waterpark but yea no yuno should be fine its legal in japan pretty sure??????? why’s she even in milgram lawd😞😞get her ass out fr🙁🙁🙁🙁

[schraubd]

Bruen's Goose Continues To Not Apply to the Gander

The thing about the Fifth Circuit's recent ruling that the Second Amendment gives men under domestic abuse restraining orders an inalienable right to bear arms is that it is (a) insane and (b) absolutely defensible under the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. This is because the Bruen decision will regularly and predictably lead to insane results.

That said, I did want to flag something in the opinion that I've picked up on before -- namely, the inconsistent commitment to Bruen's supposed prohibition on weighing or considering "social policy" considerations. Judge Wilson, writing for the panel, expressly cites to this portion of Bruen, saying that while the prohibition on gun possession by domestic abusers "embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society ... Bruen forecloses any such analysis in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right." This principle is, perhaps above all else, the crux of Bruen's standard -- no matter how ridiculous, or absurd, or unfair, or chaotic the policy outcomes are, courts are not permitted to "weigh" them against the historical limitations that bounded the Second Amendment. The latter begins and ends the conversation.

Again, that principle is absurd. But it's Bruen's principle, and the Fifth Circuit gleefully cites it to explain why the prospect of terrified and murdered women can play no role in its legal analysis. But what happens if the historical arguments seem to counsel permitting more sweeping gun regulations than conservative jurists might like? All of the sudden, those social policy considerations come roaring back into view.

Addressing the historical precedents which did clearly envision government's authority to disarm "dangerous" persons, Judge Wilson explains that such exceptions must be narrowly construed so as not to apply to the case of domestic abusers. Why? Because, he asserts,

the Government’s proffered interpretation lacks any true limiting principle. Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “nonlaw abiding” people—however expediently defined—from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle?

I take no position on whether the government's interpretation is so expansive. But note that this line of argument is expressly an analysis of the proper policy sweep of government regulation. We should tailor our interpretation of the Second Amendment's scope so as to avoid a policy outcome whereby too few people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms; to avoid an outcome where the government is permitted to disarm people who these judges think it would be manifestly unfair to have their gun rights taken away.

This is exactly the sort of policy analysis Bruen purports to forbid, only here the "policy" concerns are ones counseling in favor of greater freedom to bear arms rather than reduced freedom to bear arms. Perhaps it seems absurd to permit the government to take away arms from people just for getting a speeding ticket. But so what?  Bruen was emphatic that this sort of social policy assessment has no role in Second Amendment adjudication. If the historical analogues give the state that sort of latitude, then that is supposed to end the conversation. Again, it is baked in the Bruen cake that it will lead to results that may appear to modern eyes ridiculous, because Bruen expressly instructs courts that they aren't allowed to care about those consequences no matter how absurd they might seem to be.

But as the Fifth Circuit's ruling makes clear, the Bruen prohibition on weighing policy consequences is, unsurprisingly, a one-way ratchet. Conservative courts will portentously declare that Bruen forbids them from considering the disastrous consequences of countless terrified or murdered women if it means taking away domestic abusers' guns -- but if history and tradition start to point towards enabling gun restrictions that the right finds too onerous, then all of the sudden we get a screeching parade of contemporary policy horribles that are treated as legally dispositive. This is what generates such well-deserved cynicism about the state of the judiciary today -- it's not just that the legal rules the governing class of jurists announce are absurd, it's that these jurists do not even pretend to be bound by them the second they prove inconvenient to their underlying politics.

The other thing to note about this case is that, if the Supreme Court reverses it -- and they might -- their reasoning will almost certainly purport to be based on some alternate assessment and reading of the historical sources. But this will be a naked smokescreen, and everyone will know it. If the Court reverses the Fifth Circuit here, it will be entirely and solely because the Court finds it too unreasonable and intolerable to permit domestic abusers free reign to carry arms -- a contemporary policy judgment anyway you look at it, no matter how much effort is or isn't expended to cloak it in some faux-historical garb. None of these judges abide by the rules they purport to lay out.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2icluJG

[dykeulous]

if prison abolition was a thing, what would we do about male violence? even in rich circles, it is still a huge issue, so solving poverty wouldn't mean an end to it. even when all living conditions are fulfilled perfectly, there will still be men who seek to violate women. should r*pists and femicide murderers be "rehabilitated" somewhere they are allowed to leave? isn't somewhere they aren't allowed to leave still a prison in some form? wouldn't it be better labelled as prison reform, not prison abolition? do we really want murderers and r*pists to be roaming free, free of consequences? or should their houses be labelled as "s*xual offender" or "murderer" so that people in the neighborhood are at least vigilant around them? but then wouldn't that be a big struggle for families and households with women who often wouldn't be able to afford moving if they were uncomfortable with having a literal convicted r*pist or murderer next door...? i'm just curious what your actual thoughts would be. and if you say "just read xyz book" i'd appreciate at least to be told specific pages to read, same as naming a youtuber. i'd prefer a video in general on the topic but only if it genuinely answers my questions and isn't just "the alternative sucks"

when talking about prison abolition, we have to keep in mind that an actual prison abolitionist understands that this is a severely complex & nuanced subject– and that no person who is actually well-informed on the topic is going to claim to want to destroy all prisons & let all criminals out overnight.

1. “what will we do about male violence?”– let me flip the question for you; what are we doing about male violence now? we have been taught that prison is the only viable solution, but it really is not. if prions are, in any way, shape, or form, helping reduce recidivism rates, then why is america, a country with immensely high numbers of incarnated people, so dangerous & unsafe; and why are the numbers of criminals only increasing? the legal system, besides also being morally corrupt otherwise, is also extremely anti-woman; it has a very-well preserved reputation & tradition with letting rapists, femiciders & men who commit domestic violence get away with very light consequences, and in some cases, scot free. in other words, the legal system/police system/prison institution, are all anti-feminist & do nothing to address male violence, unfairly favor men, and on top of it– they do nothing productive & useful for neither the victim, the offender, nor the community as a whole. prisons are a site of violence & abuse– they are a distillation of white supremacy & imperialism; indigenous people & people of color are more likely to be incarnated, and unfairly as well. modern prisons have their roots in colonial structures, and have undoubtedly kept the kinds of cruel & unjust punishments that the colonial powers imposed & enforced on their victims.

2. “wouldn’t it be better to advocate for prison reform, rather than prison abolition?” no– because the prison system is not a fit case for reform. the prison system is one rotten at the core, mere reform would not be capable of fixing it. it was created to instill fear & cruelty, attempting to operate within such a system in a healthy society would just not work. we cannot claim to be against oppressive superstructures, if we support the exact same grounds they were built on, and the materials they were built from.

3. “how exactly does prison abolition work?” when we talk about prison abolition, we have to also be talking about the alternatives to prison– rehabilitative, restorative, and transformative justice. restorative justice majorly operates because it has the victim’s needs at heart– for restorative justice to work sufficiently, the offender has to engage directly with the victim & actively work on repairing harm. restorative justice does not work simply on the basis of “setting the offenders free”– that is a fallacy created by people who do not understand the truths of prison abolition. restorative justice works depending on various factors– the environment, the person, surroundings, etc.– but its sufficiency is not decided on the type of crime committed. it can work as well on violent crime as it does on nonviolent crime. community service, victim-offender dialogue, and other types of restoration that have the victim’s needs at heart first & foremost– are all tactics advocated by prison abolitionists. the prison system does not do anything for the community as a whole, neither– incarnating a single perpetrator does not reduce crime. abolitionists understand that harm will happen regardless, our goal is to reduce harm– and of course, as a person currently majoring in sociology– i work to understand the human mind, and i am interested in other projects & movements beyond prison abolition, that can work together with prison abolition in sync to rehabilitate society as a whole. colonial values are built in every aspect of our society, and to dismantle them, we have to acknowledge they are present in the activist & progressive movements we choose to support, as well– decolonizing feminism, leftism, veganism & other social movements is crucial. decolonial feminism is anti-carceral. the transitory period between a carceral & non-carceral state remains uncertain, but prison abolition is currently an experiment.

4. how would i incorporate prison abolition with feminism & leftism?– i know this isn’t a question you asked, but i would like to mention it, as well. i am an advocate for revolutionary feminism & revolutionary leftism– not reformist feminism & leftism. aside from my prison abolitionist views, i believe in arming all working-class people, and i believe in arming proletarian women especially. i believe that, for a proletarian revolution to be successful, we have to put a special emphasis on the woman worker. simply destroying capitalism won’t liberate women, although an end of capitalism is needed for female liberation. an end of all sexist practices, and an end of misogynistic thoughts & beliefs on a worldwide scale– will require exhausting labor from the entirety of society. i believe that reeducation camps & centers fall under the rehabilitative category, and i do not believe that restorative justice is inherently peaceful & calm. we do not beg and plead with oppressors to stop oppressing. justified violence is helpful, but the prison system only harms the oppressed, and is violent in a cruel, injustifiable way.

5. as for the sources, i can direct you to some that have personally helped me.

1.) Colonialism VS Coloniality

2.) What is Abolition?

3.) documentaires: 13th, They Call Us Monsters, Just Mercy, Cointelpro 101