#we'd have to discuss poverty

[proshippers-against-censorship]

There is a post on Twitter saying people need to teach media literary in schools again. There is a bunch of people saying they do, and it's called English/literature. I am wondering wtf they are talking about or if my schools failed me that badly.

(Old memories, so some wording might be off/hunger games was like a year or two old, so this is probably 2013/14/15, and I was like 12/13/14 if that helps?)

One of my few memories of English class is watching the Hunger Games and the teacher saying, "If we were in the world of the hunger games, seeing the games would desensitize us to murder. This is already happening with people watching shows like Game of Thrones." We were told to talk with those at the table about that. I openly disagreed with the statement.

That made the teacher come over. I was asked to explain what I meant. I said something like, "If we lived in the world of the hunger games, it would be different as those would be real kids dying on TV, not fictional characters." She disagreed and told me I probably already was desensitized. She then asked if I saw people dying on TV would I not feel upset or other negative emotions. I replied that if it was on the news, like a report on war or something 100%, I would, but if it was something like a Marvel movie, I wouldn't. She then told me that she was right and that I was so desensitized that I cant/don't properly worry about others because of it. The table I was at agreed with her.

This was one of many rants she would go on about how what you like in your stories/your writing is what you like in real life. For creative write lessons, she would point out anyone who did "darker" stories and call them desensitized.

I assumed I was wrong because, of course, the teacher was right. I ended up shaming people online of this stuff because it's what my junior high teacher taught me. They (people online) were bad people because of the shows they watch.

Some schools teach reading comprehension, others fumble it, the school system sucks in general and a lot of portions are fumbling for a variety of reasons, such as short staffing, cut funding, general student behavior, etc.

[mewvore]

if universal basic income was a thing we wouldn't have whack debates about poverty and bootstraps. we'd have real philosophical discussions like whether or nor precum can give you its own type of clarity divorced from the post nut clarity we are all accustomed to

[bird-inacage]

I was thinking about Sand and Top, and why Sand is hanging on so hard to the past, and what that might say about Sand (and Boeing). One thing I've seen floating around is that the way Sand fixates on Top having "stolen" his ex could indicate some ugly things about Sand re: possessiveness, maybe a controlling nature in relationships, like Boeing is some kind of prize to be won. And that could mean that Boeing leaving him for Top might be less about Top and more about not getting what he wanted from Sand. Alternately, it could be that Sand blames Top because it's easier to do than to acknowledge Boeing's fault in the decision, because it feeds into Sand's fears of inadequacy because of his poverty and the ways his circumstances (time and obligations) restrict what he's able to offer in a relationship. Which might mean Sand hasn't really gotten over Boeing because he's idealised him and blamed everything on Top. Which could be fun if Boeing comes back! Another fun thing I've been thinking about is the Checkov's Gun of whoever Sand's father turns out to be. If it's Top's dad, well, that would play in really nicely to Sand's inadequacy issues with Top - my brother who has the things that I should also have a right to has used those things (status, wealth, freedom) to steal away someone I loved. And on Top's side of things: did he love Boeing? Did he just pursue Boeing because he could and then get bored later? I'd personally love it if Boeing was seduced because Top was pursuing him and it was interesting and fun and exciting but then Boeing left Top because he was bored and unsatisfied in the actual relationship and said some choice words about Sand being better on the way out. Let me have Top with a chip on his shoulder about Sand! That would be delicious! Anyway, I trust Jojo to deliver some tasty spicy drama on this front. What would you like to see out of this plotline?

Hey Anon! :)

I'd almost forgotten about that little clue we'd been dropped a few episodes ago. For the sake of contextualising this for anyone else, I'm assuming you're referring to the little model airplane that Top had in his hotel apartment with the letter 'B' on it (as below)?

I haven't personally read any theories on 'Boenig' (aka whoever gave Top that airplane) being the same person as Sand's ex. In regards to the whole Sand VS Top dynamic, there have been very little concrete clues given to us so far. I try to make predictions based largely on what we've been shown and what I understand of these characters at this current point in the series. So for that reason I'll just discuss my thoughts on Sand's ex.

One thing I will definitely agree on is there's more to this story. Episode 6 confirmed that for me. In order for Sand to be so driven to seek revenge on Top, that he would disregard and risk how Ray may respond, said to me that this grudge runs truly deep.

For Sand to be so disgusted makes me think that either Sand's ex was a very important person in his life (a la Mew for Ray), or the way in which Top seduced or caught his ex's eye was really vile and underhanded.

Due to the fact that Sand's ex is no longer associated with Top meant that it either wasn't serious (maybe they both screwed Sand over), or it didn't work out. However the way Top behaves with Mew suggests that's the first attempted "serious" relationship he's tried to have. So the former may be more likely.

The interesting thing for me though is that Sand and Top clearly look like people who operate in different circles. So Sand's taste in romantic partners I imagine differs quite significantly from Top's. What is it about Sand's ex that would have caught Top's eye in the first place?

I also can't get this out of my mind:

When Sand said this, he looked like he was thinking of a specific memory, very likely the whole debacle with his ex.

Something you did mention, which I thought would be really interesting, is for Sand's ex to return. The cast have been alluding to a special cameo by a familiar face. But especially if they were returning in an attempt to patch things up with Sand and rekindle. Because that would also provide a great source of conflict for Ray/Sand.

As soon as Ray sees Sand possibly being 'taken away' from him, he'll realise how important Sand is. Which would align with the below scene and make sense with Ray's personality. He doesn't want Sand when Sand wants him, but as soon as Sand may be swayed, Ray does want him. Again, classic brat temperament.

In regards to Sand and Top being related - I'm not a huge fan of that theory. I don't see what purpose or additional depth it would add to either of their characters or story arcs in terms of writing.

The 'who is B (aka Boeing)' question is still very much at large for me. I can see why people may think B is Sand's ex, but I'm not convinced Top would keep a memento from someone he "conquered" and "won" from someone else. That doesn't suggest a relationship that has particularly sentimental meaning attached to it.

But thank you for reminding me about the B mystery. There is definitely more to come...

---birdie

[nokingsonlyfooles]

Wanna Hear a Joke?

A Maoist tries to explain Food Not Bombs to an anarchist.

That's it. That's the joke. If you were an anarchist, you'd get it.

I don't think they intended to explain it to me and the spouse, but they put up a flyer with a scannable code and we almost went to their event this weekend. Red and Well Read sounds like a group we could vibe with! But, uh, no. Not just no but HELL no. In fact, halfway through the article, I decided if I did go, I'd go with a protest sign. A very simple one with large print:

HUNGRY PEOPLE AIN'T LISTEN.

But that may be a bit reductive, and doesn't address the authoritarian need for cannon fodder that's all over this hot take. I don't want to roll up and try to get some authoritarians to listen to me, especially when they make it this clear they see me as a problem that needs solving. But I can typing! And the internet void beckons me to leave no thought unexpressed!

Food Not Bombs will tell you, in broad strokes, what they are about:

To combat poverty and homelessness

To facilitate community gatherings of hungry people

To allow anyone to volunteer to help cook, and then eat.

It's broad strokes because anarchists. If it's not working for us, we don't say "do it anyway," we hash out something that works for us. And, oh, boy, do tankies HATE that. They want to strongarm their way to a Revolution - somehow, they believe that will go well - and anything that gets in the way is a problem. You can't just feed people! That decreases their motivation and makes them dependent! (And conservatives agree with that! Which should be ringing alarm bells, but it never does.)

The point is that you CAN just feed people. You totally can. It's good for them, it's good for all of us, and if you're willing to push back against the status quo (and maybe go to jail or end up on the receiving end of some police brutality) you can do it.

If there is anything in that for "the Revolution" it's the simple fact that hungry people do not make good decisions, and anarchists (ancaps are not anarchists, please, I don't want to have that discussion!) want to help people make good decisions, because everyone has a right to self-determination - but if you're in a really bad place, you will not exercise that right responsibly.

And we don't know how to deal with that! (To be fair, we don't know how to deal with anything; we have ideas but we need YOUR input.) We'd rather just help get you to a better place and keep our fingers crossed for less toxicity. If you're not able to participate in the process of bettering the world, we need to make some adjustments so you can. A very simple thing to do is ask, "Are you hungry?" and go, "OK, let's eat!" And if, after they've eaten, they might not want to do your Revolution, WTF even is your Revolution? You need to starve people into cooperation? If you're willing to do that before you upend society, won't you be willing to do it afterwards? History says: YES!

History also says starving people are willing to throw in their lot with an authoritarian shitstain who promises to feed them eventually. Willing to kill for them, to die for them, to help them win elections. And this person will not necessarily have to deliver on the food if they don't want to. Deep down, that's what anyone arguing for this kind of "Revolution" wants. As if the only thing wrong with the status quo is who's in charge. All we need is one of those GOOD dictators. That definitely ain't it.

I really feel like I shouldn't have to explain this, but: the main goal of feeding people is to feed people. Are they eating? OK, then that's a win. If they get a little more radical by association, that's fine, they can come back and help cook, or come up with something else to do. But the food is not contingent upon the radicalization! We're not trying to train them like dogs! They are people! They need a little help and they'll probably get back on their feet if society stops kicking them in the groin. A human being needs no Master, and if they want one (outside of kinky playspaces!) something has gone wrong. They have a need that's not being met and they're trying to meet it in a bad way. So maybe we can help them meet it in a better way!

For all the above blog post insists that we must get out there and talk to people, it doesn't provide much space for listening. Y'all wanna get out there and talk AT the chronically unseen and unheard some more? "Hi! Would you let me dictate your needs today?" Maybe they will. Hungry people don't make good decisions. But they won't listen either. And you may find that most of them aren't willing to die for you like you want. Sometimes they are, but often they are not.

Can't we just help each other? One-to-one without anyone having to be the Boss of Help? A take-a-penny/leave-a-penny situation? If we can - safely, without the people in power trying to kill us for it - that's all the Revolution I need. And it's hard enough trying to get that.

Because authoritarians of any political stripe are scared to death of it, and they will try to stop us.

But we're not going away. And it's hard to sell us this bullshit - maybe a couple of us will buy, but not all of us. We don't march in lockstep. Anarchists will resist. And if that's not effective... Why does it bother you so damn much?

[aibidil]

Second obviously to the real harm done to trans people, what pisses me off so much about jkr's trans hatred is that she functionally put the brakes on nuanced discussions of gender in public spaces. Instead of talking about how gender is a long con and trying to conceptualize how we'd think differently about gender if we lived in a different kind of society (absent misogyny and other oppressions, where socialization happened differently, or in a world where gender isn't the primary organizing principle, or in a world where butler's heterosexual matrix didn't apply), we HAVE to instead talk about nothing but the very important fact that trans people have a right to exist. We have to do that because nothing could be more important than that. But the way this has hijacked our ability to have discussions and share insights is wild. My friends who teach Gender Studies in colleges report that they can't engage the material as deeply because everyone in the room is either spouting or refuting terf bs. We know that terfs and fascists are watching and ready to pounce with jkr talking points, and any nuanced discussion will be immediately derailed and useless.

And this is a strategy of the right. One they plan for and one they take advantage of opportunistically. They know that the free flow of information and knowledge favors leftist, anti-oppressive aims. They know they're better off arguing about drug crimes than anti-blackness, abortion rights than the poor treatment/pay/health of mothers, gay marriage than true acceptance of a range of divergent sexualities, causes of autism than the mistreatment of ND people in school and the workplace, welfare queens than intractable poverty, the legality of all-ages drag shows than how certain visible genders are rendered as criminal, whether trans people should exist than the deep social/cultural roots of transphobia.

And to some extent, we have to answer these deflections—because they're important. But it pisses me off. Maybe we can try to remember that yes, they can deflect and regress the discourse, but we can see that rhetorical move and resist it in the spaces where it's possible to.

What that requires us to do on the left, if we want to do that effectively, is to be really clear about what we're not arguing about ("The starting point of what I'm saying is that trans people exist and are oppressed and we're all against that oppression; that's not part of my argument at all because I know we agree on that...") The difficult thing about this is that it's so much easier to do this in person rather than online. Social media favors quick posts and replies and favors gotchas. And for so many queer communities, our connection comes not from local spaces but from online ones. I'm not sure what I think all of this means, other than that we need to be aware of the dynamics and do what we can to guard against them.

[thosearentcrimes]

At work today I discussed with my colleagues the current government's decision to reduce the amount by which pensions will appreciate. They would ordinarily track inflation, but this time they will exceptionally be increased by a lot less than inflation, coincidentally they will increase by about the rate that wages increased at. This is in addition to the other major retirement reform, which is that the retirement age is being pushed up for young people. The claim is that the pension system isn't really solvent, so while everyone under 35 is being fucked out of their retirement, old people are being stiffed on inflation adjustment. The 35-65 year olds who voted the present government in are going to be fine, of course.

My colleagues noted that we'd been fucked out of inflation adjustment on our wages (I'd guess all in all we've taken a 10% real terms pay cut, but note that food prices are inflating faster than most) and that it was finally time for someone else to feel the pain as well. My colleagues do not understand that the government actively intervened in the economy to keep wage inflation down well below price inflation. What they do understand is that somebody has to suffer, and by god they don't want to suffer alone. It reminded me of when we were discussing wage levels in general, when they said anyone who wants to retire at some point, let alone buy housing or something, definitely needs to have a much better job than we do, and saw nothing horrible about it. They thought of that as just the way things are as well.

And it reminded me also of the people talking about how the injustice of racism is the fact that the bad things that disproportionally happen to certain minorities are happening in the first place. As summed up by triviallytrue, "police brutality is not bad because it's racist, racism is bad because it contributes to police brutality (among other things)". And this is definitely the most important reason, certainly, but I think you people are ignoring the reasons people don't see this.

Like, I understand that this is an absurd proposition (though even so there are people who believe it), but imagine that the amount of police brutality is fixed, that the maintenance of social order (which is necessary to avoid the bellum omnium contra omnes) requires a specific minimum amount of exemplary brutality, and that minimum is being diligently enacted without any more. Is it then unjust in itself if the vast majority of this police brutality is concentrated on a racial minority (scapegoat/punching bag)? I say it is, and fairly obviously so. Discriminatory distribution of a good or a bad is unjust in itself, even taken aside from the moral status of the production of that good or bad.

The thing is, there are quite a lot of people out there (like my colleagues) who believe that the amount of economic misery is fixed. There's nothing you can *really* do to address poverty (except perhaps "making everyone poor like the communists") and there's no real hope to fix the economy, so the only thing left is to litigate the distribution of misery. This is a horrible and incorrect thing to believe but it is self-consistent.

For a more specific example, look at unemployment. Under present economic systems a significant baseline rate of unemployment is an economic necessity, with the optimal rate "the market" will converge to depending on exact circumstances, and the maintenance of worker discipline (which is part of why baseline unemployment is valuable) requires unemployment be unpleasant or at least highly stigmatized. Under these conditions, if there is a de facto rule of "last hired, first fired" specifically targeting a particular minority, well, that's an injustice, and to people who think the present economic system is necessary, it is quite possibly going to be the most pressing one they see.

Now, the important thing to note of course is that other people have seen these same things and concluded we need radical changes to the economic system to eliminate the source of the injustices themselves and not merely redirect them, and they were correct to do so. The Black Panthers and MLK both ended up at this conclusion starting from the problem of racism in the US, and I wish more people would take their example instead of blindly following the market propaganda where it leads.

But if you believe, as most Americans tragically do, that the brutal and exploitative society is nonetheless the best possible one, but also believe that racism is bad, you have no choice intellectually but to attack the distribution. And I think it's important to understand what the error people are making is. They're not really making a moral error, the way people have been suggesting they are, neither pessimism nor vulnerability to propaganda are evil. They are failing to recognize economic injustice for the same reasons everyone else fails to recognize economic injustice, it's just that because they care about other kinds of injustice this is perceived as a betrayal by a lot of people on the left. In reality there is no more reason to feel betrayed by someone being really into Black Cops and Women CEOs than there is to feel betrayed by any other sucker.

[momento-hashbrowni]

Propers for the Feast of St. Antoninus, Confessor and Bishop

According to EWTN's website discussing the feast day, Antonius, also known as Little Anthony, was a Florentine born in 1389 and the only child of his noble parents. Even as a small child, he was docile and modest, with little interest in normal childhood entertainment, instead drawn to religious observance, praying in St. Michael's church either to a crucifix or at the chapel of Our Lady. From the description given, he was many people's ideal, with good memory, quick wit, and so on, and simply prayed for the grace to avoid sin. Truly admirable. It's most impressive that this was people's assessment of him before he even entered monastic life, and he took the habit at only 16. To think, with a mind like his now, people would probably try to pressure him out of seeking monastery life so he could contribute to society in a solely material way. I wonder how many little Anthonies we'd have nowadays if we were more spiritual today?

Regardless, he was named archbishop by the Pope after his predecessor's passing due to his pious qualities. Like every monk-bishop I've heard of, he requested to not be burdened with such a lofty position and even apparently attempted to flee. It took the threat of excommunication to get him to accept the role, and in 1446 became archbishop, and was a model of poverty and humility in his office, continuing his monastic life even in his office.

He was also quite the scholar and contributed various works throughout his life, and according to modern scholars his most notable are his 1477 Summa theologica moralis and his 1472 Summa confessionalis, Curam illius habes. They were printed posthumously. Unsurprisingly, in his works, he draws heavily from Thomas Aquinas.

I wish more bishops were like him now, as he truly cracked down on various abuses and moral failings of his time, was regularly in a pulpit, and visited his entire diocese regularly on foot. I couldn't even get generic letters back from my bishop's office back when my family and I had written him a few times. Combined with his taking of confessions, tending to the sick, and rallying the wealthy of his area and even the Pope to provide relief to his community after pestilence and famine, he was a truly noble soul. The thought that all the while, he was still focused on what faults he saw in his own character, humbles me; I can't imagine the humility it takes to be such a living saint-in-the-making and to not even accept that due to faults no one else could even perceive.

I find him most admirable and wish more would seek his intercession. I know I will need to seek his intercession more going forward. Sadly, his patronage is fairly limited, consisting of places named after himself, Italy, and the Philippines. It's not a bad range, but it feels odd that confessors wouldn't be in the list, but that's neither here nor there.

Antoninus was canonized on 31 May 1523 by Pope Adrian VI, and his feast day was established as May 10th in 1683. Sadly, the Second Vatican reforms removed it, but according to Martyrologium Romanum, his feast day's observance was moved to May 2nd, his death day. I'll admit, I've not once heard of his feast day being celebrated, but I suppose I'm neither an Italian national nor Filipino, so maybe it is elsewhere. The tragedy is that it was once celebrated throughout the Church, where everyone could profit from his spiritual gifts and intercession. I suppose it's not as much my problem, being a part of the SSPX, thus using the pre-V2 calendar, but I can't help but yearn for that for everyone else too.

Saint Antonius, blessed confessor, exemplar archbishop, lover of the poor: pray for us, intercede that we may repent of our sins. Give us the hearts to offer ourselves to the Lord as you did yourself. As you rallied the noblemen of your time to the aid of the common man, rally us to help our brothers and sisters, to be charitable in body and spirit.

[cottoncandysecretlair]

This kinda reminds me of my college English class. The professor decided the topic for the semester was poverty, and that we'd do related readings.

One reading was about 4 women living in New York City. Three of them had super high paying jobs, and one was a tenured professor (she was the focus). She expressed her pain and struggle dealing with her friends who like to go to fancy restaurants and buy designer clothes while she "only" made a salary that took care of her needs and allowed her to engage in middle class luxuries. She couldn't keep up with them and it put a strain on their social relationship.

My professor looked at me like I grew three heads when I asked "What does this have to do with poverty? None of these people are poor."

The second story she gave us featured a story about a woman who pulled herself out of poverty, and was trying to "help" the inner city kids of her former neighborhood. And how did she help them?

Why she gave each of them something like 10 bucks, then took them to the luxury toy store on the rich side of town and told them to pick what they want. The "lesson" came in when none of the kids could afford anything, and got upset. You see, this was a lesson about being good with money! She basically cemented in their brains that they'd never have nice things because of their background, unless they learn to do better.

When I said that they're literally kids, and that it was mean for this woman making over 100k a year to play this game and make kids feel bad about money already, and that they'd be better off if she just just actually materially helped them instead of running her mouth about poverty to 10 year olds.

Once again, professor seemed to have zero reference point for what I was saying and *she thought she could host a unit on poverty with any sort of nuanced discussion.*

I know this is just anecdotal but I've never met someone truly enmeshed in academia that at all seemed to understand what the poor go through. Even the ones that don't have high salaries already are usually propped by a partner that makes huge money, at least at the place I went.

one hill i will always die on. education does not necessarily make you a moral person. no. not even a philosophy phd. there's just this deeply liberal belief that the world is bad because people haven't done enough of the reading, as though there aren't actually structural incentives for the world to be bad. which you would know. if you actually did the reading. you would know about the role of elite education in generating justifications for the horrific. in every field. you would know that the role of education is often to groom you into accepting your place as superior to the masses and collaborate with capital.

[angelicaba]

SOCIOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY ON POVERTY

The Philippines is called Asia's pearl of the orient for the richness of its culture and the beauty of its landscape. However, the Philippines ranks 15th out of 63 countries in terms of disparities in wealth.

The year 2023 has arrived, and while countless individuals are hoping for a positive change for the majority of Filipinos, a poverty survey of more than 15 million Filipinos conducted by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) indicates that this will not be the reality. The Filipino's trait exceptional resilience will continue to help them endure the increasing adversity. Poverty increases as the cost of survival rises.

Credit: Business World News

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIOLOGY ON POVERTY

The philosophy of sociology is concerned with the framework and structure of society, as well as how this relates to social problems and individual lives.

Sociologists have frequently attempted to strike a balance between the relative importance of social structures (how society is organized) and the role of individual authority - the decisions that individuals make. Sociologists are interested in the distribution of resources in society.

Some sociologists, particularly those writing in the 1970s and 1980s, have tended to blame poverty on people's moral failings, fecklessness, or dependency cultures.

Relative poverty refers to economic disadvantage compared to wealthier members of society, whereas absolute poverty refers to a family (or an individual) with an income so low that they cannot afford basic necessities of survival, such as food and shelter.

Creator: Jay Directo | Credit: AFPGettyImage

Some people have argued that poverty can be better understood as a result of unequal distribution of resources and opportunities across society.

On a related point, sociologists have emphasized the significance of stigma and shame in understanding the poverty experience. The ways in which institutions such as public or social assistance service providers can negatively stereotype those experiencing poverty have also been shown to be important in stigmatizing and disadvantaging those experiencing poverty.

Individual social class positions continue to influence the opportunities available to them to a large extent. Poverty promptly in life increases the likelihood of poverty later in life.

FIVE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES FOR POVERTY IN PHILIPPINES

-Individual attributes

-Culture, and religious beliefs

- Access and entitlements

- Political and economic situation

- Social circumstances and unpredicted shocks.

SOCIOLOGICAL FACTORS THAT AFFECTS POVERTY

Poverty has many causes. While some factors exacerbate poverty, such as: social inequality, conflict and political instabilities, education, debt and environmental condition.

IMPORTANCE OF SOCIOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY IN POVERTY

The perspective of sociology encourages us to reconsider our familiar surroundings. It encourages us to take an unusual look at the world we've always taken for granted, to investigate our social environment with the same enthusiasm as we'd bring to an exotic foreign culture.

Sociology is an effective tool for thinking about poverty. 'Thinking sociologically' can help us understand social problems and concerns better. It enables us to understand personal problems as part of societal economic and political institutions, and it enables us to cast a critical eye on issues that might otherwise be interpreted simplistically or incorrectly. When it comes to poverty, myths and misconceptions dominate both popular and political discourse. Sociological thinking can be useful in attempting to separate poverty from a variety of related concepts and largely negative discussions about a wide range of social problems.

Recently, there has been some discussion about rising inequality. In the current context, economic inequality is becoming more extreme, with those at the very top ending up increasingly wealthy while the rest of the population suffers.

The majority of people are finding life increasingly difficult, and poverty rates are rising.

[bramblefrump]

Lots of problems, zero solutions, thanks.

"All communists are nazis" give me a break.

I'm pretty sure America has killed more people internationally than the entire history of communism but tell me again how they're "the good guys" of history, I'm sure that makes sense. With your logic we should ban the US flag because it has no other meaning to the world other than death.

Oh right! You don't care about middle Eastern lives and are just using western imperialism as a framework from which to claim we can't use a symbol. Also, calling communism "the great experiment", do you want to sound like a Liberal or what?

Cause you're not a socialist if you use these talking points. Chernobyl was awful but let's forget three mile island I guess.

Just love it how you can easily pick aside between western and communist ideologies without questioning the side you've chosen.

Also, the swastika is still used by Finnish airforce, but yknow we can't have nuanced discussion about symbols and their meanings because someone can't deal with fact every country in the 20th century has a bloody history of rapid change and industrialisation. But sure, it was communism that killed them, cause it was communism killing them before the revolution as well I guess . . .

When the symbol pre-dates the "atrocities" (which in the west we'd call "collateral damage" since capitalism kills millions every year in poverty but it just doesn't get reported on that Britain caused a famine.

Look my point is, if you're not using the hammer n sickle, what are you using? What logo are you organising under? Or do you suggest we have none, and just don't organise?

You want "solidarity" but you also want to be worshipped for being the "good socialist" whilst we're all here for the looks? Get bent.

You can acknowledge a system had flaws jut that's why it changes because the core principles of socialism are worth fighting for. There are so many factors that went into those deaths that blaming it all on ideology is just naive.

Fascism has no core belief worth fighting for, that's the difference. And Stalin was a fascist who used communist symbolism to push a fascist agenda, like how China uses communist symbolism today despite being a capitalist hellhole.

But no, you shout at other leftist online and then call for "solidarity". If you knew anything about socialism, you'd know we don't all agree but that doesn't mean we can't organise, I just wanna know what banner you want us organising under? Since you provided no alternative ideas as to a solution, you just wanted to blame me for atrocities I had no hand in and I'm using a symbol that ALL socialists have used for over a century.

Are you gonna tell a Hindu to never wear a swastika or are you gonna show your ass on that political symbolism discussion as well?

Trans flag + sickle&hammer in bio is such a rabid combination. Not only because of completely irrational denial of the fact that they are advocating for the regime that would have had them killed/institutionalised for "perversion"; but also because 10 times out of 10 they are spreading russian propaganda, thus giving a helping hand to the movement that is actively trying to eradicate people like them today.

And it would have been just a sad but funny example of human idiocy, if they weren't tolerated and listened to as a valid source of information.

[123franksivmblog]

We went back to the Workman's Cafe.

We had planned to return as a group to the Workman Cafe. I was anxious about going.

For 1. I wasn't interested in the Cafe

For 2. I didn't want to go back

I had also moved towards a more general overview of Elephant and Castle. But I thought for the sake of socialising I would go if the group ever got round to it. We did on Monday the 28th at about 15.00. Or something like that.

I realised, as a result of the different route that we took to get there, it was actually in Borough and it seemed a bit more rough on that day. I had, had an interesting conversation with my friend from Liverpool the other day and we were discussing house prices. He was basically wondering is he poorer than everyone who lived in London? The answer was I didn't know. There was obviously massive poverty in London. Areas like this seemed rough and within poverty but I couldn't tell if the housing here was affordable. I knew there was some council homes in the area, but It seemed a lot of the flats were actually dead expensive. I was confused. For my friend I raised how the living wage here was higher than the rest of the country, but it was obviously still fucking disgusting how much rent was. I still didn't know the answer to his question though really, London is a confusing place.

We stopped to photograph the now dead flowers taped to the lamppost outside. A few weeks before they were alive and one of the things I had found interesting about the place. We said we'd ask the guy on the front about why they were, assuming someone had died there. But I lost my nerve in my line of questioning in the end and didn't get round to it. I wanted to return another time to ask.

The guy on the counter recognised us and said something like 'you're back to draw?' With some hand actions.

He asked us to draw the other guy behind the counter in a jokey kind of way. I said of course. I liked how he recognised us. It was already going better than the previous visit, the guy was very happy and smiley and I was feeling more comfortable. There was only 3 other customers, 2 girls on the far side, and one guy that I immediately suspected to be the boss, as I know how owners hold themselves when they're chilling in their business. But I wasn't sure.

I had ordered a herbal tea because I was dead ill. Yi Wing ordered a hot chocolate. We sat by the broken window, now covered up by what looked like a piece of glass glued on top of the smashed area. In fairness I had seen places to keep smashed windows for what seemed like forever so good for them for getting it sorted. I started to listen again. But the place wasn't empty so there wasn't much to listen to. So I drew some stuff. As I mentioned, I was ill, and therefore not entirely feeling up to the task.

Me and Yi started discussing questions to ask. The man who I'd assumed was the owner beat us to it. He had been on the phone and doing some managerial calculations on some paper and a laptop till then, but he had taken an interest in us now.

He asked if we were architecture students. We replied no, art ones. He told us he thought it might have been architecture because he apparently always had his daughter in taking photos of everything. I said we were there to document independent businesses in the area and draw them and stuff. He told us he always supported students. He asked if we had payed for our teas, Yi Wing told him she had a chocolate but yes. He told us we shouldn't have, which was cute, but I said we're supporting your business. He told us next time they were free, which was sweet. I hadn't really thought of a next time at this point, but I was warming to the staff and the idea of free tea.

We continued doing sketches and stuff.

After a bit the girls in the back left and we got the courage to ask the staff behind the counter some questions. The questions I had written down were fairly bad compared to what I wanted to know, but as long as we asked them something that was better than nothing. We went up to the counter and asked if we could ask some questions. They said yes. I asked 'how long had he been working here?' He thought about it and replied '4 years'. I asked 'how long had it been open?' He told me '4 years'. I asked if the fella over there was the owner and he told me 'yes'. I asked what was there before the cafe? He told me an off-licence under the same management. I realised at this point my questions were fairly boring, but at least we were learning about the place.

[kinniepika]

Week 10 Blog Prompt

Prompt: Check out the "Cartonera" movement! I find its DIY sensibility to be full of energy and very applicable to a world full of cast-off material. What do you think of this work? Do you have thoughts about the future of the book? How do these folk-forms (similar to folk art) fit into global political movements? Does this kind of thing have any impact on what you might do or teach in the future? 

I find the Cartonera movement to be extremely fascinating in all aspects! The fact that it started as such a small project and expanded across Latin America is so cool to me, especially considering its political roots and how it was born out of the working class. The issue of poverty is a global one, which I think is why this movement resonates so strongly across the world. We see poverty every day in large metropolitan areas, and the cost of living continues to rise as wages are stagnant. To take what many consider to be garbage and turn it into art is powerful. To embrace the label of "catador" or "waste-picker" is also a powerful social/political tool. Movements such as the Cartonera movement do wonders to raise awareness about poor living conditions while also providing affordable literature to those who otherwise wouldn't have access to it. I also find it amazing that the project is still ongoing and has only continued to grow. I hope it persists far into the future, though I obviously hope for better living conditions for the working class in Latin America as well. This is something that I'd love to bring to my future classroom; I could see a project like this being fun, engaging, and effective at teaching about global issues. It would give students the opportunity to be hands-on in their learning, as well as creative. If I were to introduce a lesson like this, I would most likely show my students the two videos linked in Canvas to my class first, then facilitate discussion. We'd spend a few days talking about the movement and making connections to our own lives/experiences, and the living conditions we see in U.S. metropolitan areas. I'd have them think about the ways we place value on certain things over others. Then, I'd have them do their own cardboard covers, providing art supplies and photocopied literature to put on the inside. There would be some sort of debrief or discussion the following day about how/if their perspectives changed at all about what has value, what we take for granted in our everyday lives, etc. There is so much value in a lesson plan like this, and I think it would be well-received by students.

[anapoulin]

Reflections

I will use this space throughout the course to write short reflections/notes/thoughts on the texts, multimedia, and coursework provided.

Week One-

One thing that stuck with me from this week's lessons was the fact that minstrel music was the first form of popular American music. I think I've always assumed the first form of popular American music was European orchestral music. But, hence the name, that's European not American. This has made me really think about how so much of our culture as Americans is built off the backs of African Americans.

Week Two-

Something that I took away from this week's lessons was the way blues divas used their music as a way of scholarly commentary and expression. It's interesting to me how they were denied the usual forms of expression of these things at the time, such as written publication, but despite that found a way to be heard.

Week Three-

One thing that stuck with me from the lessons this week was the Big Mama Thornton and her music being stolen. Recently, there's been a lot of discourse around a new movie coming out about Elvis, who famously took the song Hound Dog from Big Mama, giving her no credit. I was shocked to find out that even in today's more progressive modern age there was no highlight given to this fact in the movie or in the discussion surrounding the movie. I think it's another painful reminder that the industry is still not equally for women of color.

Week Four-

I liked the information about Hendrix's national anthem performance at Woodstock from this week. My family is a very big classic rock family and that's a performance that I've watched about 100 times from childhood till now. It makes a lot of sense now having learned more about his life this week and his moving to the UK/his aggravation with the direction the US was heading towards with the war etc. I always knew he was performing it that way as some form of protest but it carries more weight now.

Week Five-

Loved learning about Afro-futurism. This concept of feeling "alien" is interesting because it's not necessarily in the negative way. It seems like Afro-futurism takes that very real alienation Black Americans feel but reclaims it as a more positive thing. Like how in Stevie Wonder's Saturn, he's saying on "saturn" his people don't have wars or poverty etc. So therefore being an "alien' is a melancholy sense of pride.

Week Six-

I liked learning about the origins of hip hop in this week's lessons. Grandmaster Flash and early hip hop stars use of record sampling has arguably redefined the modern pop industry. It's something I utilize myself as a music technology major. When I learned about early hip hop in another class at Northeastern, we'd learned about the actual process of sampling using records at the time, and the different ways they would manipulate the record playing on the needle to create the unique sound.

Week Seven-

From this week's lessons, I want to reflect on what we learned about the Black Eyed Peas. Growing up I assumed they were just a fun pop group. I was totally unaware of their different musical/cultural pursuits and impacts. I actually wasn't even aware that they were a fully African American group. Therefore it was very insightful to learn about how a group that shaped a large part of my childhood has a connection to Black popular music.

[nikachansstuff]

Adding more to the discussion: in SF, we have evidence that Nesta’s perception of Elain could be wrong.

Nesta was wrong, Cassian realized, to think Elain as loyal and loving as a dog. Elain saw every single thing Nesta had done, and understood why.

Cassian mentioned about how Elain saw everything and understood the reasoning behind Nesta’s actions, and this is just one example of people wrongly viewing of Elain.

So let’s consider two instances of Elain speaking for herself about those balls and party interactions:

"Yes, well-there will always be other seasons. Nesta won't tell you, but this season was somewhat ... strange."

"In what way?"

She shrugged her slim shoulders.

"People acted as if we'd all just been ill for eight years, or had gone away to some distant country-not that we'd been a few villages over in that cottage. You'd think we dreamed it all up, what happened to us over those years. No one said a word about it."

"Did you think they would?" If we were as rich as this house suggested, there were surely plenty of families willing to overlook the stain of our poverty.

"No-but it made me ... made me wish for those years again, even with the hunger and cold. This house feels so big sometimes, and father is always busy, and Nesta..."

So we have Elain finally back in society but actually missing and wishing for the days they were poor, but had each other. We can interpret as Elain valuing those interactions more than the frivolous and fake ones in those party and balls.

"Nesta was only fourteen at the last ball we went to be-fore-well, before we were poor..." Elain shook her head. "Another young heiress was at the ball, and she positively hated me. She was several years older, and I'd never done anything to provoke her hat-red, but I think ..."

"She was jealous of your beauty," Amren said, an amused smile on her red lips.

Elain blushed. "Perhaps."

It was definitely that. Even though Elain would have been barely thirteen at the time.

"Well, Nesta saw how she treated me, her casual cruelties and snubs, and bided her time […]”

Another interesting passage. Elain sharing that she was bullied by other debutant, casual cruelties and snubs.

Both times of Elain talking about this parties and balls doesn’t come across of found memories. So I’m inclined to believe Elain’s presence at these events were coached by her mother to ensure a good marriage. A trained golden child. Not something she has natural instincts, but something honeyed from young age by an ambitious mother.

See lots of antis talk about how Elain is so suited to Lucien because as a human she was really social and bubbly and enjoyed balls and parties and society. But SJM herself told the story of Tamlin and Feyre in which she makes a point to write that the human Feyre needed comfort and safety and once she was Fae it was no longer what she needed. She wrote that Feyre had changed, and Tamlin hadn't changed with her. Why should we assume Elain remains perfectly unchanged after being forced into the cauldron? Why do antis want her to fall right back into her human life? Surely she is meant for more than that, and needs something different after the trauma she went through. She is not the same girl she was.

[shadowfromthestarlight]

It's funny, you say "capitalism is good in all places, at all times", I find the exact opposite is true. Capitalism invents poverty, creates oppression, and is exactly as evil as slavery. If you'd like to have a discussion about these issues with an educated socialist, I'd be glad to talk with you. I think talking with people who see things differently is invaluable, and we'd both learn from the interaction.

Well, being open to talking is a good thing, and I appreciate it. I do have a question that I plan to ask later. 

I absolutely disagree that “ Capitalism invents poverty, creates oppression, and is exactly as evil as slavery.” I plan to post about this on my own.

[infiniteglitterfall]

There's a lot of great, powerful stuff in this article. Especially the relentless observation that people of color have it the worst. And that the community as a whole - led largely by privileged white cis gay men in charge of our nonprofits and media - is oblivious and indifferent to the experience of QTPOC.

But this bit here struck me as especially beautiful and layered:

"An uncomfortable byproduct of the monomaniacal quest for marriage equality has been the creation of a new form of minority stress—the stress of the gay man who does not find a husband, or who doesn’t want one, or maybe wants two, and therefore cannot participate in this new and strange celebration of conservative values we’ve constructed as the ultimate goal of gay life.

"At their best, queer ideas about romance could help undo (for everyone) the poisonous idea that long-term unbroken monogamy is the only way to happiness.

"But now, many gays have bought into that lie. This is what happens when a civil rights movement values the banality of traditional romance over proud assertions of individual and collective identity, when the desire to enter a system supersedes the desire to change it.

"As an Asian-American friend said to me, not long after the Obergefell decision: 'It feels like someone I don’t know gave me something I didn’t want, and now I feel like I have to use it or feel ungrateful.'"

See also:

The trade-off that everyone else made, to set aside our needs temporarily while the community focused on marriage rights.

The unfulfilled promise that our needs would be revisited.

The many, many people still left without the financial and legal perks endowed by legal marriage. Including the people with disabilities who live in places where they're not allowed to get married; those who can't afford to get married because they would lose the social services and financial support that lets them live; polyamorous people; aromantic people; a very large percentage of aces; and probably others I'm forgetting or still don't know about.

The fact that we've gone with, "sure! People SHOULD be paid for being married! People SHOULD have a series of hundreds of legal rights to support someone in their life, that are only granted if that person is their sole romantic life partner!"

I was putting the salary for a job I looked at into a tax calculator, playing with the married and single rates.

In my case, it differed by $500 a month.

That means that if I had to file my taxes as "single," I would be making $6,000 less each year at the same job.

If filing as one gender versus another resulted in a $6,000 hit to your paycheck, we'd be talking about it.

We'd be sharing catchy infographics in the shape of coins. Telling people about this terrible human rights violation, and how much it contributed to the wage gap, to the higher poverty rates by gender.

It's no wonder that we don't talk about how it contributes to the higher poverty rates by sexual and romantic orientations. Since talking about the fact that there ARE higher poverty rates, among all the other communities, than among lesbians or gay men, is still pretty much taboo.

And god knows, any discussion of our higher rates of disabilities, and the intersections there, is even more erased.

“Maybe, I would suggest, the root of [white, self-considered "good gays’”] unhappiness wasn’t evil sex radicals or unreconstructed sissies but the impossible situation contemporary gays find ourselves in: the promise of acceptance and tolerance if we force ourselves into relationship models that often chafe; the way that rights of access to straight institutions like military service and marriage have divided us from our queer and trans sisters and siblings; the gentrification of our community spaces out of major urban centers; and the ingrained misogyny that leads to a drive towards hyper-masculinity and thinness.“