#anti-exploitation frameworks

[zomb13s]

The Unbuilt Kingdom: Unmasking Hypocrisy in the Architecture of Exploitation

Digital Archives of Resistance Alfons Scholing’s digital presence forms an intellectual counterpoint to historical amnesia. His blog hosts incisive …The Unbuilt Kingdom: Unmasking Hypocrisy in the Architecture of Exploitation

[psychotrenny]

The thing about religions is that it's rarely useful to think of them as having innate political characters. At most there are certain tendencies derived from it's tenets and value systems, but these tendencies can manifest themselves in a broad variety of ways depending on the broader context. To take two examples (one broad and one narrow); Christianity's emphasis on Evangelism lent itself well to structuring and justifying European colonial atrocities right from the very start, while Buddhist ideas of Karma were used to justify the brutal exploitation of serfs in Feudal Tibet. Conversely Christian ideas of universal fraternity and kindness to the poor were employed to condemn Colonial cruelty and propose a better society by a variety of anti-Imperialist movements, while Mahāyāna ideas around non-violence to living things were often invoked by progressive Lamas as they worked with the Communists to tear down Feudalism and establish Socialism in Tibet

Now as a materialist I view idealist worldviews like religion to be inherently limited in their capacity to analyse and reform the world, but that doesn't make them worthless. Examples like Tibet or Nicaragua show how the progressive manifestations of religious thought can be harnessed to achieve beneficial ends regardless of what other broad tendencies those religions contain. Broadly speaking religion might have some inherent issues, but when problem with Reactionary Religious thought is largely that is is reactionary (often with much stronger ideological links to secular and other religious forms of reaction than with the thoughts of their progressive co-coreligionists) rather than simply being religious. And using a single isolated example of religious reaction to condemn an entire system of faith is the height of foolishness.

Now Atheism is not a religion as such; it's more an alternative framework to religion altogether. Still, it tends to occupy a similar place in people's worldview and when discussing broads school of thought much that can be said about religion can be applied to Atheism as well. Whatever tendencies you can attribute to Atheism's rejection of religious thought, they can manifest in a wide variety of ways. Atheism might not be inherently progressive but it isn't inherently reactionary either, and when it is reactionary it's closely related to broader movements of reaction. You can't treat movements like "New Atheism" as products of Atheism in a vacuum, using it to condemn Atheist thought as a whole. The problem with Reactionary Atheists is that they're Reactionary, not that they're Atheist

[antisextrade]

True Sex Positivity Stands Against Pornography and Prostitution

I want to share my thoughts on why being anti-porn and anti-prostitution is sex-positive.

At its core, sex positivity seeks to challenge and overcome societal stigmas, shame, and negativity surrounding sexuality. However, pornography falls short of this ideal by perpetuating unrealistic standards and objectifying participants. It often involves the shaming of women, calling them terms like 'dirty sl*ts' and using racial slurs, which is decidedly not (sex-)positive.

In a sex-positive framework, consent is paramount. However, the power dynamics inherent in commercial sex transactions compromise the concept of freely given and informed consent. Sex trafficking is widespread in the sex trade and not a peripheral phenomenon, with the grooming of children, teens and young women into porn and prostitution presenting a significant problem.

Studies reveal that women in pornography production come from similar adverse backgrounds as women in prostitution. They are typically young, financially strapped, suffering from poor mental health, and victims of sexualized abuse during their childhood or young adult years. Pimps and pornographers target these marginalized women and girls who are more easily groomed, manipulated, controlled, silenced, and exploited.

The vulnerability and lack of bargaining power of these women allow pornographers, johns, and porn watchers to breach their personal boundaries. To sustain themselves financially, many women are forced to offer sex services they wouldn't otherwise or produce content more frequently, often containing greater levels of violence and humiliation. Consequently, female actors and prostituted women endure everything from cuts and bruises to vaginal and throat tears and anal relapses. Many are on drugs and painkillers to cope. Studies indicate that most prostituted women experience PTSD due to prostitution, whether they work in a country where it's legal or not.

Pornography and prostitution also normalize the demand for male access to women's bodies and violence in sexual acts, portraying women as objects to be used and hurt. Numerous studies have shown that pornography has a negative effect on men's attitudes toward women and not only that. There are more than a hundred studies proving the harm of porn (check out Truth About Porn website, it's ever-growing database dedicated to the research on the harmful effects of pornography). Something that is harmful cannot be positive!

We really should reclaim the term "sex-positive" and make it our own. Words wield considerable power, and those in favor of the sex trade recognize this, using it to their advantage. By labeling opponents of the sex trade as sex-negative, they effectively discourage critical thought about our stance. After all, most people aspire to be seen as "sex-positive". This not only sounds more appealing but also insinuates that those who aren't considered sex-positive are inherently sexist, prudish, and backwards—a stereotype frequently perpetuated.

However, taking an anti-prostitution and anti-porn stance allows us to promote and focus more on alternatives that empower individuals, focusing on comprehensive sex education, mental health support, and economic opportunities. This approach prioritizes agency, ensuring that individuals can make choices aligning with their own desires and well-being. This embodies genuine sex-positivity.

Furthermore, pornography not only perpetuates traditional gender roles and reinforces harmful stereotypes but also predominantly caters to men, prioritizing their pleasure and contributing to the reinforcement of inequality. A content analysis of best-selling pornographic videos revealed that 88% of scenes portrayed physical violence, 48% of scenes portrayed verbal aggression (e.g., insulting, threatening, and using coercive language), and 94% of aggressive scenes portrayed women as targets of aggression. Taking an anti-porn and anti-prostitution stance involves challenging these patriarchal structures. It's about fostering a more egalitarian society where individuals, regardless of gender, can experience fulfilling sexual relationships free from the constraints of rigid norms.

[cavegirlpoems]

The Two D&Ds

I am going to make two statements:

I despise D&D, and consider it a parasitic drain on ttrpgs as an artform.

I love D&D and my fascination with it continually inspires me to create art using it.

These two statements might seem to be at odds, but in fact there is no conflict when one considers that the term 'D&D' is being used to refer to two completely different things. I hate one of those things and like the other. So let's unpack that. Firstly, there's D&D-as-a-lifestyle-brand. D&D as presented by critical role, by memes about horny bards and wholesome gay tiefling found families, and by the wider hasbro-sanctioned fandom. Where the actual design and mechanics of the game are a vague suggestion that exists homeopathically in the same vicinity as what you're doing. But really, you're inventing blorbos, collecting pretty dice, and speculating on events in an actual-play on twitch; the rules in that very pretty rulebook are an afterthought to the fandom.

Then there's D&D-as-a-family-of-ttrpg-mechanics. This covers the various editions of Dungeons & Dragons - from the white-box OD&D to 5th edition and everything in between - as well as various retroclones, hacks and spin-offs such as the OSR, Pathfinder, etc. This isn't defined as a cultural space; it's a set of game mechanics and design principles shared across the text of various games. And there's a lot of variation with the specifics, but like The Blues, if you know the basic structure it all makes sense.

The two D&Ds have very little to do with each other.

When indie people like myself criticise D&D, we are usually criticising the first one. We're generally outsiders to that fandom-space who are unhappy with the way that fandom encroches on, and ultimately stiffles, everything else in ttrpgs as an artistic medium. We tend also to dislike the very shallow interest in that fandom of the things we care about in ttrpgs - game design, gameplay, theory, criticism, etc.

Here's the thing. I am, personally, immensely critical of D&D-as-lifestyle-brand. I detest it, honestly. It strikes me as a corporate exploitation of the wider medium in pursuit of an easy profit, at the expense of catering to the lowest common denominator. Like invasive kudzu, it chokes out all ecological diversity in the art-form. Its a homogenising influence, and in my experience pretty anti-intillectual.

Because, at risk of sounding like a pseud, I consider ttrpg design to be an art-form that merits serious effort, discussion and appreciation.

However. D&D-as-a-set-of-games I actually quite like. I find myself fascinated by the way so many games take apart the starting framework of a given edition of D&D - like your 12-bar-blues structure - and adapt it and riff on it and fuse it with other genres. I find it interesting to track the way whole movements and genres mutate out from that starting position. Hell, I do that myself, a lot. A lot of my design work takes the very early editions of D&D as a starting point, gets into a groove, and riffs on it until it's seemingly unrecognisable.

To me, a work like Mork Borg is D&D (the second definition). It is, however, totally unrelated and unrecognisable to D&D (the first definition).

So I will talk about "D&D as the containment game for shit players" and I mean it, because I'm talking about type-1. And I'll do that while designing a paleolithic OSR game, because that's type-2. And by and large, all that happens when both those things intersect is people get upset.

[ae-azile]

Fadel, Bison, & Keen: The Implication of Victimhood and Human Trafficking 

TW/CW Note: This essay argues the case of Fadel, Bison, and Keen being the victims of human trafficking. It also compiles and dissects evidence of that claim with sources, analyses of various scenes, and current Thai and International laws. It may be upsetting for some readers.

This meta/essay was written because I can't just watch a fun, Shakespeare derived show about gay hitmen and not get weird about it. 

…And also because I have been working in the mental health/behavioral field for several years, almost solely with minors - some of whom were abused and exploited. 

The more I think about Fadel's and Bison's circumstances - the canon evidence, the implied manipulation and abuse throughout the show, and everything that WASN’T shown or said to give Lilly any kind of legal legitimacy, the more I feel like they aren't as culpable for their crimes as they think they are. 

But first, what constitutes as human trafficking on a Thai and international standard? 

Under Thai law, human trafficking is comprehensively defined in the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act B.E. 2551 (2008). The Act outlines specific actions, means, and purposes that constitute human trafficking offenses.​

Definition(s) of Human Trafficking

According to Section 6 of the Act:​

"Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, does any of the following acts: procuring, buying, selling, vending, bringing from or sending to, detaining or confining, harboring, or receiving a person, by means of threat or use of force, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or of the giving money or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, shall be guilty of trafficking in persons."​

While this definition can be interpreted differently by various parties, the The Act further clarifies that exploitation includes, but is not limited to:

Sexual exploitation

Production or distribution of pornography

Forced labor or services

Slavery or practices similar to slavery

Involuntary servitude

Forced begging

Removal of organs for commercial purposes

Other similar forms of exploitation

It is worth noting that these forms of exploitation are ALWAYS considered trafficking when a child is involved, and Fadel, Bison, and Keen were obtained as minors under duress and violent circumstances. 

Below are screenshots from The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, which pertains to Thailand specifically. Highlighted statements support the claims being made in this essay according to their country’s laws on the matter. 

Internationally, human trafficking is defined by The United Nations as: 

"The recruitment, transport, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.”

Considering Fadel, Bison, and Keen were all orphaned when their parents were murdered by Lilly’s people, only to be put in the (dubious) custody of the woman who left them vulnerable to make them dependent on her, they more than fit this definition. 

1. Acquisition through Deception and Questionable Guardianship

Following the murders of their parents, Fadel, Bison, and Keen were placed in the custody of Lilly—a woman they had no known relationship with prior.

All three came from wealthy families, yet no efforts appear to have been made to place them with relatives or protect their inheritance. They ended up with their parents' killer. Lilly tricking all three of their families into granting custody in the event of their deaths seems unlikely, but if she managed, this is still a form of coercion, considering what transpired.

Legal Framework: Thai Civil and Commercial Code Sections 1585–1588 require formal guardianship proceedings, prioritizing relatives and requiring oversight.

The UN Palermo Protocol and Thailand’s Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act B.E. 2551 (2008) would both consider guardianship obtained through fraud, deception, or abuse of power as qualifying mechanisms for trafficking. Considering Lilly had Fadel’s, Bison’s, and Keen’s parents murdered, then lied about who was responsible for their trauma and rehoming, she definitely committed: 

Fraud, by misrepresenting herself - both to the boys and possibly to the courts for either legal guardianship, financial gain to obtain the families’ assets, or both. 

Deception, by making her adopted sons trust her initially, only to manipulate them into thinking they were in danger and needed to be trained as hitmen.

Abuse of power, by using her position to manipulate them into a state of vulnerability so they would be reliant on her and loyal when it came to her training and orders once she gained their trust.

Conclusion: The guardianship and its legality may have never been formally investigated, and it may not have been obtained legally. If it was legally documented, Lilly likely obtained it through bribes and systematic manipulation. Considering all three boys seem to have come from wealthy families who would have likely assigned a guardian that their sons knew prior to being orphaned (a family member, a family friend), the circumstances are highly irregular. It also strongly suggests deceptive acquisition, qualifying under the legal definitions of trafficking.

2. Psychological Manipulation and Coercive Conditioning

Lilly began by treating the boys like sons, offering safety and structure before introducing training for violence and strategic killing. In the brief flashback we get, we see three boys standing in a line, foreshadowing their eventual soldier-like expectations. But when she sees one of their shoes untied, she bends down and ties it for them before telling all three they can call her “Mother”. This establishes a gentle, maternal bond that offers comfort, care, and parental authority. But this memory is sharply contrasted by the one following it when she has them practice their aim after the trust and need to impress her has been established. By the time she is sending Fadel and Bison on jobs she frames as necessary and noble, they are fully loyal to her and trust her knowledge, judgment, and orders. 

She framed their actions as necessary protection or retribution for their parents' deaths, creating a false moral narrative to justify lethal missions. This manipulation led to emotional dependence, blurred lack of autonomy, and the belief that loyalty to her was synonymous with survival and justice.

Legal Framework: Thai and international trafficking laws recognize emotional coercion, abuse of trust, and manipulation of vulnerability as means of trafficking.

Conclusion: The grooming and emotional manipulation used to coerce minors into violence constitutes a clear form of non-physical coercion and entrapment. Despite Fadel and Bison being adults by the time they are arrested for their crimes, they were groomed, conditioned, manipulated, isolated from familial connections, and ultimately brainwashed as children. 

3. Coerced Criminal Activity through False Narratives

Fadel and Bison were often told their assassination targets were involved with their families’ deaths or were dangerous criminals. While a few of these claims may have been true, other claims may have been used to manufacture moral permission to kill, embedding loyalty through deceit. They carried out violent missions under the impression that they were defending themselves or serving justice. Again, they were conditioned to prepare for this as minors, and possibly started missions prior to reaching adulthood. The timeline on their first kills was never substantiated, but their conditioning, grooming, isolation from family, and brainwashing make them qualify as victims being coerced into criminal activity through false narratives. 

Legal Framework: The Palermo Protocol and Thailand’s anti-trafficking statute both include criminal exploitation through manipulation or deception.

Conclusion: Their participation in criminal acts under coerced moral justification meets the standard for trafficking-based criminal exploitation.

4. Sexual Exploitation via Implicit Coercion and Mission Pressure

This one is more of an interpretation, but I feel like it is worth exploring. 

Going by what we see, it was not uncommon for Fadel and Bison to perform seduction-based roles as part of their missions—exotic dancing, acting as escorts, or using sexual appeal to disarm targets.

In the first scene of the show, Bison is posing as an escort and spending time with an older man. He starts singing karaoke with him, but is in the robe in the next scene and massaging the target, who is sitting in a tub, which is where the target is ultimately killed. Bison doesn't flinch. He almost looks proud of himself when the man is clearly falling for his advances. This notes satisfaction with his methods leading towards a successful, criminal mission that results in murder.

Fadel’s reaction towards such methods is a huge contrast. 

In episode 3, Fadel and Bison are expected to seduce a person of interest through exotic dancing. She is then drugged and taken back to her room so they can go through her things and obtain information. Fadel initially pushes Bison to honey trap. He remains distant, cordial, and uses the excuse that Bison is better at it (which might imply Bison having less issues with it overall).

But this time, Bison refuses. It's worth noting this conversation happens right after he talks to Fadel about possibly dating Kant. He may have had little to no issue with it before, but does now that he is developing real feelings for someone. Bison pushes Fadel to be the one to seduce the woman. Unlike Fadel's stiff, professional request, Bison is humorous and playful. This continues despite Fadel showing discomfort and reluctance at the thought of dancing for her and the crowd. He ultimately goes through with it. Bison almost seems smug over not being the woman’s type and Fadel having to be the one to dance (although reacts with subtle and mild offense when the woman tells him that to his face). He also doesn't seem to empathize with his brother’s discomfort.

While it is possible that these methods were not suggested by Lilly and are only ones they resorted to as adults based on their own decision-making skills (as compromised as they were by their conditioning in other developmental areas), their reactions to this situation scream otherwise. 

Fadel is reluctant and uncomfortable that he has to be the one to do it. His consent is dubious at best. He seems to depend more on Bison to carry out this type of skill due to contrasting takes on the matter.

Bison, on the other hand, seems to normalize honey trapping. He only takes issue with it when he is developing a romantic relationship. Even then, he teases and jokes about Fadel being the better man for this particular job, missing the quiet reluctance on Fadel's part. This hints towards desensitization, which can be a common coping response for abuse and complex trauma victims.

While Lilly’s conditioning on this front can only be speculated, we have a couple of pieces of circumstantial evidence that support the idea she either subtly planted seeds to put this method in her adopted sons’ toolkit or directed them to do it more overtly in the past - leading them to choose that method “freely” now. 

Lilly’s recruitment of Kant into escort work—specifically to bring attractive friends to act as 'party favors'—demonstrates a clear pattern of sexually exploitative behaviors. While Kant WANTED to be invited to her circle to expose her for her crimes, she didn't know this. She viewed him as a young golf caddy, someone she could exploit with the promise of payment. 

Lilly was a hitwoman herself. She may have resorted to honey trapping methods back when she was working beneath someone else. Cycled and generational abuse is unfortunately common, especially when the trusted figure refuses to admit they were once a victim or seek out therapeutic services/support. 

So…

Legal Framework: Thai and international law define sexual exploitation to include pressured or coerced participation in sexualized roles, especially when the individual is underage or emotionally dependent. Regardless of when these behaviors started, they were conditioned, groomed, and isolated at a young age and made emotionally/psychologically dependent in adulthood. The crimes they were committing on Lilly's behalf fueled sexualizing themselves for information.

Conclusion: These sexually charged missions—especially when reinforced by peer pressure, manipulation, or emotional conditioning—fall within the scope of indirect sexual exploitation under trafficking statutes. 

5. Systematic Emotional Abuse and Dependency Control

A strict performance-based hierarchy seems to have governed Lilly’s household. Compliance resulted in praise; deviation led to emotional withdrawal, ridicule, or humiliation.

Keen, unable to serve in the field, was repeatedly shamed and belittled, creating an obsessive need to prove his worth. He was often verbally and emotionally abused by Lilly. Fadel’s and Bison’s insults towards him often hint at ridicule or - alternatively - resentment, since Keen has never had to kill anyone. Creating rifts within the formed sibling unit also creates a breeding ground for competition and a need to please the trusted figure, especially in the more isolated party. Keen’s need to impress Lilly later on by trying to carry out the hits on Fadel and Style (and Kant and Bison, if they had been tracked down) was almost inevitable. 

Meanwhile, Fadel and Bison were rewarded for excelling, reinforcing a world where survival and approval were earned only through loyalty and effectiveness. 

Legal Framework: Emotional abuse and psychological dependence are explicitly acknowledged in trafficking legislation as valid tools of coercion.

Conclusion: This emotionally volatile environment fostered long-term dependency and control which meets the criteria for non-physical coercive trafficking.

6. Threat of Retaliation for Attempts to Exit

When Fadel and Bison attempted to retire peacefully, Lilly appeared to give her blessing—then secretly instructed Keen to murder them and their romantic partners.

Keen failed, and was verbally abused by Lilly, solidifying the lesson that disloyalty equals death.

Years earlier, Fadel had tried to leave her control by planning to move in with his first boyfriend. Shortly after, the boyfriend vanished.

Fadel believed he had been abandoned until Keen later confessed that Lilly had put a hit on the man. When Fadel asks why he never told him earlier, Keen says she would have killed him too.

Legal Framework: Retaliation or threats tied to exit attempts are core indicators of trafficking under both Thai and international law.

Conclusion: The lethal consequences for asserting independence—whether through romantic relationships or attempted retirement—showcase total control through fear, reinforcing their status as trafficking victims.

7. Financial Exploitation and Asset Suppression

This point is also more theorized, but is still worth noting. 

Despite their likely inheritance due to their families’ wealth, Fadel and Bison seem to only have limited access to the estates they were legally owed.

It is implied that individuals (likely tied to Lilly) pressured their parents to relinquish property or wealth, and that refusal to comply preceded their murders.

Once the boys were in Lilly’s custody, it is unclear if there is evidence of ethical estate management or legal oversight.

Considering Lilly’s obsession with status - displayed by her friend group, hangout spots, and greed, it would not be surprising if she took control of the majority of their estates. She may have given them access to just enough for them not to investigate the extent of what they lost out on. Bison mentions the island home was the only property that wasn't taken. Any uncovered inheritance in the form of cash, stocks, bonds, property, valuables, and other assets were likely fraudulently controlled and only partially handed over to keep Fadel, Bison, and Keen from asking questions. Otherwise, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Lilly arranged to take ownership or be the beneficiary through fraud, coercion, deception, or bribery, which is likely how she also gained custody of three biologically unrelated minors. 

In fact, Lilly likely wouldn't have taken in three minors she personally traumatized unless there was a great payout earlier on. While being able to condition and brainwash them helped her financially in the long run, it would have been a huge gamble legally and a risky investment if she had not gotten the majority of their inheritance. So she likely let them keep some of what was rightfully theirs and paid them good salaries, but robbed them of much more than what she gave. 

Legal Framework: Financial control is recognized under Thai law and international trafficking doctrine as a coercive tactic when used to restrict independence or manipulate behavior.

Conclusion: Their restricted access to their potential inheritance—combined with the violent deaths of their parents following coercion—strongly supports a pattern of financial exploitation consistent with trafficking operations.

Final Summary of Evidence Compilation 

Fadel and Bison experienced:

Fraudulent custody acquisition and loss of familial protection

Psychological manipulation and mission-based coercion

Forced criminal activity disguised as moral duty

Possible sexual exploitation through conditioned loyalty and mission expectations

Emotional abuse and performance-based affection to ensure compliance

Lethal retaliation for attempted independence

Possible economic exploitation, likely linked to their parents’ murders

These experiences satisfy all legal definitions of human trafficking under:

Thailand’s Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act B.E. 2551 (2008)

The UN Palermo Protocol, ratified by Thailand in 2003

By this criteria, they were victims—trafficked, conditioned, and controlled through emotional, economic, and psychological means.

Legal and Moral Culpability

Legally and morally, Fadel, Bison, and Keen are victims of human trafficking going by the current laws and standards when their circumstances are examined. 

But are they culpable for the crimes they committed under Lilly’s control and manipulation? 

Yes and no. Morally, they are culpable in the sense that they committed murder and had awareness of what they were doing. They may have thought they were killing bad people, but they also seem to have known that killing was wrong. They knew to lay low and to not get caught. Their situation and upbringing led to other disturbing behaviors (kidnapping their significant others upon being betrayed). In some ways, yes. They have a history of being morally in the wrong and likely know as much, especially after Lilly’s lies and crimes are revealed. 

However, with all of the circumstances listed above that support the idea they were victims of human trafficking, they would have had a strong case that might have excused them from legal culpability if presented extensively and correctly by knowledgeable legal representation. 

“Each Party shall, subject to its domestic laws, rules, regulations and policies, and in appropriate cases, consider not holding victims of trafficking in persons criminally or administratively liable, for unlawful acts committed by them, if such acts are directly related to the acts of trafficking.”

Source: ASEAN ACTIP, Article 14(7): https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ACTIP.pdf

“Any person who is a victim of trafficking in persons shall receive protection and appropriate care from the Government, including physical, psychological, and social rehabilitation, legal assistance, and compensation for damages.”

Source: Thailand Anti-Trafficking Act B.E. 2551 (2008), Section 41: https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Thailand197.pdf

“Trafficked persons should not be subject to arrest, charge, detention, prosecution, or be penalized or otherwise punished for illegal conduct that they committed as a direct consequence of being trafficked.”

Source: UNODC Issue Paper on Non-Punishment Principle: https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/ICAT/19-10800_ICAT_Issue_Brief_8_Ebook.pdf

“The non-punishment principle is integral to fulfilling human rights obligations to victims, and obligations to prevent and suppress trafficking in persons and other serious crimes.”

Source: ASEAN-ACT Non-Punishment Policy Brief: https://www.aseanact.org/story/asean-nonpunishment/

Five years for murder charges? Normally a great deal. It is understandable why Fadel and Bison jumped on it, especially when they do not identify as trafficking victims and feel responsible for their prior crimes now that they know about all of Lilly’s lies. A life on the run was not appealing at that point. Serving five years so they could move on with their lives and hopefully be with their partners after the fact was preferable. 

But I can only assume they declined legal counsel and a hearing/trial in exchange. If they requested legal counsel and got someone knowledgeable in exploitation, their cases and histories could have been examined in their entirety. A legal counsel set on advocating for them would have likely picked up any prior legal loopholes Lilly took advantage of, along with any fraud, coercion, abuse, and legal/illegal inconsistencies. With this evidence being documented, a strong case for their status as trafficking victims could have been established. This could have led to an even lesser sentence or no sentence at all. If it was determined that they needed to be in a restrictive environment, they would have likely ended up somewhere that focused on rehabilitation - not punishment - and it may have been for a much shorter time. Their status as trafficking survivors (if accepted by the courts, legal counsel, and Fadel and Bison themselves) would also likely result in expunged and sealed records. 

So while this drama is classified as a romantic comedy based on a Shakespeare play, it is ultimately tragic when it comes to systematic failure - as well as the long-term trafficking, abuse, and manipulation not being legally recognized for three key characters. Fadel, Bison, and Keen will likely never truly understand the scope of injustices they have faced. They were not only failed by Lilly. They were also failed by the system that should have saved them from her. 

[redjennies]

all right I do need to be an annoying anarchist for a minute because once again, I am seeing a worrying trend of a specific phrase being co-opted out of its original context and worse yet, being framed as being in direct opposition of the political framework that created it. i'm making this my own post and not screenshotting as not to shame anyone because I think this is an ignorance issue and not a maliciousness issue, but that doesn't make it any less insidious.

that phrase is harm reduction.

harm reduction, at least as I can best describe it, refers to community-based programs designed to address public health issues, primarily in reference to drug use but it can also be applied to sexual health and other health issues, that gives people access to safe and informed care without fear of punishment nor expectations of abstinence. one of the most famous examples of this are needle exchange programs, which are extremely effective in preventing the negative consequence of heroin use like infections and overdose and even lessen heroin use all while giving heroin users clean syringes to (presumably) do heroin with. it gives people the choice and accepts some will choose to continue their usage and those who do still deserve to live as safely and supported by their community as possible.

whatever you personally want to use harm reduction to mean, it cannot be separated from its original context of being an anti-carceral approach to public health issues particularly those that are criminalized that comes from anti-carceral far-left activism. in order to understand harm reduction, you must understand that while not every single person who works in harm reduction comes into it as a full prison abolitionist, it still goes hand-in-hand with the long-term goal of prison abolition, and because of the US carceral system being so heavily steeped in racist and specifically anti-black policies, both of harm reduction and prison abolition cannot be removed from the even broader context of racial justice. to pretend otherwise is ahistoric.

it is not the same as reformism. it should not be used as a synonym for reformism. we can quibble about the usefulness of reformism and how much of an end goal it should be at a separate time, but that is a wholly separate conversation. this is about a specific type of activism and the tradition it comes out of. this is about the people who have done and continue to do this much needed work. these are not things you can just wave away because you want to make a point about how people on the internet are annoying you. this is what "harm reduction" means. it is not a buzzword to be taken lightly lest you seek to erase the very real people who engage with these programs and the very real history of these programs.

so when I see "harm reduction" being used as an alternative to or even an antonym for abolitionism (also I'd like anyone saying this to specify what kind of abolitionism they're talking about because that's sketchy as all fuck), it becomes very clear that at best, you don't understand what you are saying and at worst, don't care you're saying some privileged and frankly anti-black bullshit and just want to dunk on people further left than you. harm reduction programs and prison abolition are so closely tied that the more you engage with one the more likely you are to become the other. even if you come to them as both, a better understanding of one naturally informs the other that's how frankly inseparable they are.

this is important to understand because we are currently living through a period where we can so transparently see the carceral system at work. not broken or manipulated by bad actors, but work exactly as intended. it has always been a machine meant to cage, exploit, and execute society's "undesirables." it has simply gone mask off, as they say. you need to understand that before you try to tell me your heavily sanitized and misapplied concept of "harm reduction" is a preferable alternative to "abolition," that what you are arguing is that we simply put the mask back on the machine. that it is okay to sacrifice others to that machine so long as you do not have to fear being on the chopping block, that perhaps there are undesirables and as long as they are the ones suffering, it is an acceptable loss. then you have the audacity to call those who believe in abolition purists for saying there are no undesirables and that none are free until the machine is gone.

of course, I think most of you would agree with me when you stop to think about it, and that is exactly what I mean when I call this rhetoric insidious. it takes long established leftist ideology and action and reframes it into something vague and easily digested and uses it to discredit and demonize those who understand its true meaning. this is what i mean when I call it reactionary liberal bullshit. it is the desperate justifications of centrists who are so afraid of fascists that they will feed them living, breathing people so long as those people are strangers they have thoroughly dehumanized. I truly believe you can always change your mind, but in order to do so, and I know I keep saying this again and again but it keeps bearing repetition, you need to learn how to recognize what kind of rhetoric you are falling for and repeating and consider who benefits from it. because when you're using "abolitionist (derogatory)," something has gone very, very wrong along the line.

[himedanshicult]

According to the author, this piece was written out of political concern, and they are not a professional researcher. Instead, Canyu hopes the article will contribute to the development of sympathy among “the Chinese pan-dissent community” for the conditions and struggles of both Palestinians and Uyghurs, and that it will also help to short-circuit the political frameworks of pro-Western Chinese liberals, on the one hand, and anti-Western Chinese nationalists, on the other, who normally position themselves in one “camp” against another when it comes to discussions of these two oppressed groups. Like the earlier piece produced by their collective, Canyu’s article offers valuable insights into a strong desire among Chinese comrades to extend the critique of Israel’s horrific war on Gaza to the PRC’s subjugation of Turkic Muslims. In this case, the author focuses on the way that both colonial states have controlled the labor of the colonized. We present this text as a way to better understand and support internationalist currents emerging from the Chinese left, and as a contribution to the ongoing wave of global resistance to the genocide in Gaza.

In the spirit of comradely critique, we offer a few clarifications in this preface. First, while we support the sentiment of emphasizing commonalities between specific instances of oppression under the rule of capital, in this case the differences are also striking: The author’s focus on labor makes more sense for the PRC, whose colonial policies seem to have been partly organized around the goal of transforming Turkic Muslims into a disciplined workforce cut off from any cultural continuity with their histories of resistance. Israel, by contrast has shown less interest in the labor potential of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. Palestinians experience some of the highest unemployment rates in the world, which have hovered around 50 percent in Gaza for many years, and around 15 percent in the West Bank—where reliance on Palestinian labor has historically been more central to the colonial project. After October 7th, the 4th quarter 2023 unemployment rates in Gaza jumped to an unprecedented 75%. By contrast, unemployment in Xinjiang is relatively low, and increases in unemployment are used as a pretext for proactively shipping off ethnic minority populations across the country in jobs programs. While Canyu’s comparison makes more sense for the West Bank, Israel’s treatment of Gaza would be better understood as an extreme example of the “surplus population”: the portion of the proletariat rendered unnecessary for capitalist needs, thereby becoming not an object of potential exploitation, but merely a problem to be managed—whether through abandonment, incarceration or murder.1

Secondly, while the article emphasizes China’s use of re-education camps, or what the state has infamously called “vocational training facilities,” these sites have largely been converted or shut down since 2019, as the state shifted strategies in its latest policy permutation. This is not to say that the situation has improved for Turkic Muslims. Many of the “training facilities” were merely converted into ordinary prisons. For those inmates who were released rather than formally becoming prisoners, the state has continued a policy of labor transfer under the guise of poverty alleviation campaigns, relocating Uyghur labor to factories across the country.2 Meanwhile, the PRC recently moved to “normalize counterterrorism,” a shift that will likely further institutionalize the subjugated position of Turkic Muslims in Chinese society. There is currently no Israeli equivalent to the “training facilities” that became so notorious in Xinjiang. Instead, the Israeli state sees itself faced with a massive, unemployed, war-ravaged population often portrayed as sub-human, and has never posed any strategy for incorporating this population into its national workforce. Instead, it is currently planning to place Gazans in cordoned off “bubbles” while it continues its military campaign in other parts of the Strip.

In addition, while the author mentions Israel-China security relations in passing, here we would like to highlight that China and Israel have a long history of cooperation on “counterterrorism,” directed at Palestinians, Uyghurs, and the broader population. For example, China publicly sought out Israeli counterterrorism experts at the height of its crackdown in 2014. Similarly, China has invested billions of dollars in Israel’s high-tech sector and has served as the country’s second largest trading partner in recent years (behind the United States). To this day, China’s Hikvision cameras aid in the mass surveillance of Palestinians and others in Israeli society.

We’d also like to note that this article exemplifies a growing concern with the plight of Palestine in China, which appears to be more widespread than it has been in decades—despite the state’s strategic ambiguity on the issue and repression of any domestic activities that could be interpreted as “protest.” Semi-public film screenings and discussions have been organized among young activists in several cities over the past few months, and beyond that narrow milieu, recent weeks have even seen small-scale political actions by high school students. These students used brief media appearances during their post-exam celebrations to call for Palestine’s liberation. While such calls at first seem to be not so distant from China’s nominally pro-Palestinian position, the actions themselves were not welcomed by the state, perhaps because they risked drawing too much attention toward China’s empty posturing on this issue, while it has long maintained cozy relations with Israel. Some of these posts were deleted from social media, and a video of one incident shows students being taken off-camera by police. The demonstrations, as well as the piece below, illustrate why expanding the discussion of Palestinian oppression is in direct conflict with the Chinese state’s own interests.3

Finally, we’d like to emphasize that this article is one of only a handful of Chinese texts we’ve seen attempting to link the plight of Palestinians to that of Uyghurs (along with “Against Pinkwashing” and two of the sources cited below), and it’s the first non-academic piece we’ve seen that draws on extensive research using a broad variety of Chinese and English sources. It digs deep into the history of colonialism, land tenure, and labor conditions in both regions—attempting to clarify the facts and provide a Marxist theorization for young Chinese readers who have only recently begun to learn about these issues. We therefore consider it a milestone in the development of 21st century Chinese internationalism

[psychotrenny]

The thing about all this "men's mental health" or "male loneliness crisis" isn't that it's entirely fabricated. There are a indeed many men in situations of severe marginalisation and alienation, which is genuinely very unfortunate for them. The problem is that this framing of the issue is agonisingly incomplete. Because it's not just men who are in such positions; indeed men are typically better off compared to their non-male counterparts. This sort of marginalisation and alienation is widespread through the proletariat, a direct product of living under capitalism. But certain sections of the proletariat face particularly severe forms of oppression, and another manifestation of this oppression is that their suffering gets ignored in favour of that experienced by the relatively privileged sections. Like "male loneliness" might be bad, but wait until you see what "female loneliness" is like

Which is also why none of the problem's men face has anything to do with feminism. Feminism isn't the force that puts them into lives of desperate, lonely precarity. The worst it does is help deny them the easiest "escape route"; the easy ability to oppress someone even more desperate and marginalised than they are. Like it's not fair or accurate to say that men suffer because they face greater resistance to the oppression of women; it's not as though misogyny happens because men are born with rotten souls that drive them to seek oppression for the sake of oppression. But a lot of men see how they can improve their position (both economically and socially) by exploiting the even greater vulnerability of women, which is much more quick and convenient way than say "principled solidarity against shared oppression" or anything like that.

It's a very selfish and in the long term self destructive* response; I'm not saying that these people deserve sympathy or that we are obligated (either morally or practically) to be "nicer" to them. But as stupid and vile as the attitudes and actions of MRA types are, at the very core of them there are at least partially legitimate concerns. Like in general a lot of reactionary attitudes among sections of the proletariat manifest from people recognising real problems in their lives and adopting cruel and ultimately counter-productive responses to them. It's a matter of the material conditions that people live under and the ideological framework they use to make sense of it, not a product of ontological evil that exists for its own sake

*anti-feminism is not going to resolve or even ameliorate the contradictions of Capitalism. Like I don't want to downplay the myriad ways that men as a class benefit from patriarchy, but support for it does ultimately undermine their ability to meaningfully resist their own oppression; it can only improve their situation within an oppressive system

[docholligay]

I have no idea how wild the fandom for Hadestown is. If you don’t know me, if we’ve never exchanged words, and you have BIG FEELINGS about Hadestown that any level of critique will set off, I very much encourage you to move it along. I can’t do Hamilton 2 or whatever. (If I know you I will give you more leeway FOR SURE. I just want to keep strange weirdos out) 

First, I have to provide a little bit of context: I got in on the ground floor with Hadestown. 

Yes Doc, I too, have been obsessed with it ever since it was in previews--no, I mean, i saw folk singer Anais Mitchell perform the whole thing like 15 years or whatever ago in a converted garage venue. 

I wasn’t even in town to SEE HER, I was in town to see a different artist and this was back when live music was a bigger thing and not a dying scene, and people just bought tickets to whatever was playing on a free night. I like folk music, I liked the idea of what was then being called a folk opera. It was instant love. Orpheus and Eurydice is one of my favorite myths, I am from a rural and exploited place, I loved everything I heard, some absolutely glorious poetry going on there. Bought the concept album, forced so so many people to listen to it all the way through. Forced jetty to listen to it on our road trip! Before the musical came out even!

I have been following this musical ever since then. I kind of thought it would never get made! I followed the original version, and then the broadway one. What I’m saying is, I have what now amounts to about fifteen or so years of history with this musical, and all the changes it has gone through, and all my individual feelings about each of those changes. My evaluation necessarily lives within that context. 

This was part of the reason it took me so long to see the Broadway! I wanted the emotional space to feel however I felt about it, even if that ended up being, “I fucking hated that” and it’s hard to have that when someone buys very expensive tickets and a trip for you to see something you’ve been following for years. Part of jetty’s gift of this was “And you can hate it!!” and I knew she meant it, because when you watch something move and be workshopped and change, you get a lot of feelings about it. 

So I can’t really go, “I liked Hadestown/I didn’t” I mean, I have loved hadestown for a very long time. If all you wanted to hear was , ‘Did you like it?” oh yes! But I have at least four versions sitting my head right now, and they are all next to each other for evaluation in a way that someone who has only experienced the broadway can’t have. 

I want to provide this knowledge because my thoughts about it go so far beyond what is currently being staged on Broadway. No, this is not going to be me saying, ‘Everything was better with the concept album!” no, some things are, but this isn’t that I promise. 

Everything below this is spoilery

So, originally Hadestown was a slightly different story and admittedly, one that spoke to me more than the story I saw last night. It was a lot more specific in its earliest days--it was about an impoverished mining town. Hadestown was the company town, underground, and there was basically no mention of Hades and Persephone being actual gods, anything was winked to, but it was mostly about how the holders of capital have all the accountability of gods. The whole thing had a much stronger anti-capitalist framework, and Orpheus and Eurydice were basically naive kids who thought they could avoid involvement with the mine. Obviously, this very much spoke to me. It was matching my freak exactly. 

It is not that now. And that’s both totally expected, and disappointing to me personally. The show now is much more of a, I’m trying to put this in a way that feels less insulting because I don’t mean to be, very Captial L Liberal. Audiences who can afford Broadway tickets will eat up the vague notions of wishing for a better tomorrow and ‘show the way the world could be’ and putting this back into the framework of a story of the gods instead of the utter lack of choices available to people, that the game is rigged from the start, and Orpheus even having this chance is both an exception and a test hades expects him to fail. I get why this happens. Literally every story that has ever been brought to Broadway has had to be made more palatable to a broader audience. The story it is now, is much much more broad, much more life affirming or whatever, and much more easy to hear. I think I would like it better if I didn’t know the story from the very first versions. 

But that was not a problem last night! That was a problem when i heard the previews out of Alberta! So I’ve had years to adjust to knowing that they were going to blame Orpheus a lot more. Which I love that the Broadway seems to have backed off of! The Alberta production really sort of LAID INTO THE BOY in a way I aggressively did not care for, because it was the antithesis of the story as I understood it. Love that they took that back a step. 

Anyway, so, things I loved about the musical last night:

The staging of Wait For Me fucked SO SEVERELY that honestly it makes me forgive like 90% of the things I don’t care for in the final Broadway version, that I thought were done better in other versions. I almost cried, it was EXACTLY what I would have pictured in my head after hearing it all those years ago. It was incredible. I wish I could see it again, and study it. I am thinking about it right now! It will live rent free in my head. Perfect. 

The gal who played Eurydice has clearly listened to Anais Mitchell albums, because she sounded SO MUCH like Anais that it even took me back for a moment. 

I’m not sure if this is praise or a criticism: 

I don’t know how I feel about having Hermes as an overall narrator! I go back and forth on it and have since the Alberta came out. If I were going to do it I would do it differently than it is currently staged. Jetty was talking about how she loves when the instrumentals are onstage, and I’m the exact opposite--I mostly find it crowds the stage while not bringing much interest for me. But in general, i both like it and do not like it, to give a very useful critique. I don’t hate it, for sure. I love the opener for Wait For Me II. But overall I will probably need to think about it for another 15 years. 

Frustrations I have:

 I think I have decided that even for the MASSIVE INSANE BUCKWILD flaw of seemingly blaming Orpheus for Eurydice’s decision, the Alberta is the best version. I think I prefer the concept album on a personal level for a lot of things, but I think the Alberta is, well for starters, definitely more complete--the concept album has some massive gaps in it that desperately needed filling--but it preserved a lot of the poetry that the Broadway version seems to have stripped out while being much more mass appealing. I was particularly GALLED by the rewrite of Epic III, one of the things in the Alberta version that made me say, ‘Wow I am prepared to forgive a lot of horseshit for this song, my god” 

NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY TOOK FROM YOU

They took out "The heart of a king who loves everything like the hammer loves the nail" imagine writing that line and scrapping it, are you HIGH, fuck me running.

And I think this summarizes a lot of my frustrations about the changes between the Alberta and the Broadway. It no longer sounds like a folk opera. It has lost a lot of the poetry of the original, folk music being very grounded in lyric and somewhat less in vocal theatrics. 

Also, and this might just be an actors thing, I did not get any sense that Persephone and Hades love each other…at all. Part of the appeal for human beings named Doc who are me is that they love each other, and they can’t stand each other, and I didn’t FEEL that at all. Like i said this could be an acting thing--I was not overly impressed by our persephone broadly. But taking out her part in Chant II I think also really contributes to this problem. 

This is both the Alberta and Broadway versions: I MISS THE FATES BEING A REALLY TIGHT 40s STYLE GIRL GROUP SOB SOB SOB. In the original, the fates were the only characters ‘outside’ the story, and this was indicated stylistically by the fact that everyone else was singing folk music, and they were singing in this very different style. The idea fifteen years ago was that they actually would be dressed all in that style, but yeah, none of this happens now and i find it SOOOOOO disappointing personally. I hate their stupid costumes I hate the ‘rougher’ style of vocals I hate it so much ahahahahha. If I was going to force Anais to change one thing it would actually be this, even though it is insanely petty and silly. 

The best version of when the chips are down:

I don’t know if literally any of this is what you were looking for but I somehow deeply suspect not. I am IN THE SHIT with Hadestown though, so if you have any specific things you wanted to ask about or have me talk about, let me know! I am just cutting this off now because it’s already at 1700 words and I’m not sure anyone cares that much about my journey with the only musical I can truly say I knew about when it was still a twinkle in someone’s eye. 

(Yeah Doc, I have a question: Do you have anything mean to say about the concept album? OH BOY DO I. Some of it is to be expected like, "Uh, Anais you need the rest of the story here girl." but a huge one is I fucking HATE that she got Justin Vernon, who you know better as Bon Iver, to do Orpheus. He SUCKS. He sounds bored the whole time because that is how that motherfucker sings. I have HATED it since day one. Reeve Carney is perfect and literally what I started my local women's prayer and casserole circle to petition the Lord for.)

[blackstarlineage]

Afro-German Identity and the Struggle for Racial Equality: A Garveyite Perspective

The Afro-German identity exists within a historical and social framework shaped by German colonialism, anti-Black racism, and systemic exclusion. Despite their presence in Germany for centuries, Afro-Germans have been subjected to erasure, discrimination, and racial violence, often being treated as foreigners in a land they call home. From a Garveyite perspective, the struggles of Afro-Germans are not isolated incidents of racism but part of a larger global system of white supremacy and European neo-colonialism, designed to keep Black people divided, disempowered, and dependent on white nations.

Marcus Garvey’s philosophy teaches that Black people can never achieve full liberation within white-dominated societies and must instead focus on Pan-African unity, economic self-determination, and cultural restoration. A Garveyite analysis of Afro-German identity reveals that integration into German society will never provide true freedom—instead, the solution lies in Black empowerment, African reconnection, and global solidarity with the African diaspora.

1. The Origins of Afro-German Identity: Colonialism, War, and Erasure

Germany’s engagement with Africa began with its colonial expansion in the late 19th century, during which it controlled Namibia, Tanzania, Togo, and Cameroon. This history of exploitation laid the foundation for Germany’s treatment of Black people, reinforcing the belief that Africans were subjects, not citizens.

A. German Colonialism and the First Genocide of the 20th Century

The Herero and Nama Genocide (1904–1908) in present-day Namibia was Germany’s first large-scale crime against humanity.

German forces exterminated over 80,000 Herero and Nama people, marking one of the earliest recorded genocides in modern history.

Africans were placed in concentration camps, subjected to forced labor, medical experiments, and mass executions.

The racial ideology used to justify these atrocities later influenced Nazi racial theories, showing that European anti-Blackness and anti-Semitism were deeply interconnected.

Example: Germany only formally acknowledged the genocide in 2021, but has refused to pay reparations—just as other European nations continue to exploit Africa without accountability.

Key Takeaway: Germany’s colonial crimes are directly linked to its ongoing racism against Black people. Without historical justice, true equality is impossible.

B. The Forgotten Afro-Germans of the Early 20th Century

Afro-Germans have existed in Germany for over a century, but their history has been systematically erased.

Many Afro-Germans were the children of African soldiers from Germany’s colonies or African-American soldiers stationed in Germany after WWI and WWII.

They were denied German citizenship, segregated, and treated as “racially impure.”

During the Nazi era, Afro-Germans were sterilized, imprisoned, or killed under Hitler’s racial policies.

Example: The Afro-German Holocaust victims remain largely ignored in mainstream German history, despite their suffering under Nazi racial laws.

Key Takeaway: Afro-Germans were never meant to be part of the German national identity. They were always treated as temporary, unwanted, and disposable.

2. The Post-War Period: Neo-Colonial Racism and Systemic Exclusion

After World War II, Afro-Germans faced a new era of racism and marginalization. The German government, despite its efforts to address Holocaust crimes, never fully confronted its anti-Black history.

A. The “Brown Babies” of Post-WWII Germany

Thousands of Afro-German children were born to white German mothers and Black American soldiers after WWII.

They were seen as a “problem” for German racial purity and were either adopted out to the U.S. or raised in isolation, facing discrimination at every turn.

Many were denied citizenship and struggled with identity, being neither fully accepted in Germany nor the U.S.

Example: German authorities promoted the forced adoption of Afro-German children to America, reinforcing the idea that Blackness did not belong in Germany.

Key Takeaway: Afro-Germans have always been treated as foreigners, even when they are born in Germany.

B. The Myth of a “Post-Racial” Germany

Germany promotes itself as a nation that has reckoned with its racist past, yet Afro-Germans continue to experience:

Institutional racism in education, employment, and housing.

Police brutality and racial profiling, with Black people disproportionately targeted by law enforcement.

Erasure from mainstream German history and culture, with Black contributions ignored in national narratives.

Example: The 2020 Black Lives Matter protests exposed the deep racial inequalities in Germany, yet German officials dismissed anti-Black racism as an “American problem.”

Key Takeaway: Germany pretends to be progressive, but it still refuses to fully acknowledge and address its anti-Black history and present.

3. The Garveyite Solution: Afro-Germans Must Reject Assimilation and Build Global Black Power

From a Garveyite perspective, Afro-Germans must stop seeking inclusion in a system that was never designed to protect or empower them. Instead, they must focus on:

A. Embracing Pan-Africanism Over European Identity

Germany will never fully accept Black people, no matter how “integrated” they become.

Afro-Germans must see themselves as part of the African diaspora, not just as Germans.

The key to liberation is building connections with Africa and the broader Black world.

Example: Marcus Garvey’s vision of Africa for Africans teaches that Black people must invest in their own futures, not seek white validation.

B. Economic Self-Sufficiency and Rejection of German Dependence

Black people in Germany must support Black-owned businesses and invest in African economies.

Germany still profits from African resources through economic neo-colonialism—Afro-Germans must challenge this exploitation.

Building independent financial institutions and Pan-African trade networks is key to self-determination.

Example: The CFA franc, controlled by France, still enslaves African economies—similar systems of economic control exist in Germany’s relations with Africa.

C. Reclaiming African Culture and History

Afro-Germans must teach their children true African history, not just European narratives.

The German education system erases African contributions—Black communities must establish independent schools and cultural centres.

Language is power—Afro-Germans must reclaim African languages and reject the idea that speaking perfect German equals intelligence.

Example: Garvey emphasized that Black people must control their own education, rather than relying on white institutions that distort history.

Key Takeaway: Assimilation into white society is not liberation—true freedom comes from reclaiming African identity and power.

4. The Future of Afro-German Identity: Resistance, Not Submission

Afro-Germans are at a crossroads:

Continue seeking inclusion in a system designed to exclude them?

Or build power outside of it, aligning with Africa and the global Black struggle?

Marcus Garvey’s teachings remind us that Black people will never be truly free within white societies. The only way forward is through Pan-African unity, economic independence, and cultural reclamation. Afro-Germans must:

Reject white validation and embrace African identity.

Invest in Black economies, not European ones.

Connect with global Black movements fighting for justice.

Only through self-determination and collective strength can Afro-Germans break free from their colonial chains and forge a future on their own terms.

Black people do not need white acceptance—Black people need Black power.

[z0mbiel0v3rr]

what do you think of the 'kink being tied to queer culture' argument?

thank you sm for that ask! i've been wanting to share my opinion for a while:

Historical discrimination: Queer culture itself has a complex and often exclusionary history. Marginalized groups within the queer community, such as trans people, people of color, lesbians, etc, have often been sidelined or outright discriminated against. Invoking queer culture as a moral high ground to defend kink ignores the fact that the culture is not a monolith, nor is it immune to perpetuating harm or inequality.

Marginalization ≠ no criticism: The fact that someone belongs to a marginalized group does not automatically make all their actions or ideologies above reproach. Oppression in one area of life doesn't erase the potential to cause harm in another. The assumption that something is automatically acceptable or progressive simply because it is labeled as queer is flawed. Not everything done under the banner of queerness is inherently safe, ethical, or appropriate, especially when it affects others beyond the consenting parties involved.

Western / American focused narratives: Much of the rhetoric that ties kink to queer identity stems from Western, particularly American, contexts. This framework fails to consider global queer experiences and cultural differences, where the association between kink and queer identity may not exist or may even be harmful. It centers a narrow, localized perspective while claiming to speak for all queer people.

Broader impacts: Defenses rooted in queer identity often ignore the wider consequences of public or normalized kink behaviors, such as the inadvertent exposure of non-consenting individuals to sexual content like kink at pride. These arguments can also downplay how certain kink dynamics (those rooted in power imbalance or fetishization) can perpetuate systems of harm, especially when intersecting with race, gender, or sexuality.

Deflects rather than engages with criticism: Using queerness to justify kink functions more like a rhetorical shield than a genuine defense. It deflects criticism by framing it as inherently anti-queer or bigoted, rather than engaging with the actual ethical or social concerns being raised. This silences valid conversations under the guise of protecting queer identity, when in fact, it may be protecting harmful behaviors.

Exclusion: Kink is not synonymous with queerness. Many queer people, including some asexuals, trauma-affected individuals or just people who aren’t interested, don’t engage with or necessarily feel safe in kink spaces. Imposing kink as a core or essential part of queer identity risks marginalizing those within the community who do not relate to or who are harmed by those dynamics.

Normalization of fetishization: When kink is defended uncritically as a queer practice, it can enable the normalization of problematic behaviors, such as the commodification of lesbian relationships for voyeuristic or fetishistic purposes. This is not liberation, it's exploitation cloaked in queer language.

Consent cannot be assumed through identity: Just because everyone involved is queer doesn’t automatically make an interaction consensual or ethical. Queer people can and do harm one another. Fetishization, coercion, and boundary violations can happen even in spaces that label themselves as inclusive or sex-positive.

[anarchblr]

I think nowhere near as many leftists think critically about majoritarianism as we should. The fact that a few capitalists exploit workers, are the primary beneficiaries of the colonial theft of Indigenous peoples' lands the world over - that's horrible, of course, its unjust and must be stopped. The primary injustice, though, is that the exploitation exists, that the colonial theft exists. Whether a group of people are the numerical majority or the minority is secondary, ancillary.

Allow me to cut into the meat of the matter: white people, of which I, the anon, am one, are the majority of people on the North American continent, at least North of the Rio Grande. This state of affairs is neither historically, nor morally, nor politically neutral. This is a fact which has been established, and is continually so, in blood, that of countless nations, comprised of millions of individuals; yet tens of millions, a few hundreds of millions, *less* than that of the whites. Putting aside how we "whites" only exist by erasure of our own ethnic backgrounds, continual gerrymandering of the definition of "white", a nebulous term of a nebulous group which only exists as that of oppressor of colonized people in Turtle Island and worldwide, not as a denotation of a shared cultural of unselfish mutual aid.

The fact that my nebulous ethnic group outnumbers that of the many Indigenous people here does not mean this is my land. It does not mean that I am entitled, in terms of what is just, to take the land and step on "the little people". Landback must, by all means, be enacted. Colonial oppression is wrong, freedom is right. I don't see how that will come about through head-in-the-sand majoritarianism, through a worker's state. Such a state, dominated by the "majority", would inevitably be dominated by whites, at least at the outset; certainly by non-Indigenous people. For that reason, I am an anarchist; though this tendency, that of unchecked majoritarianism, is also rife among anarchists, at least among those who are white.

I often wonder how Landback will come about, given the number of people who are in opposition to the very thought, and the number of people who don't care; the latter of whom are always implicitly oppressors by inaction. I wonder how I will convince "my fellow whites", who are concerned about their own purses and give no thought to the original, as-yet-unended sin of 1492. They are concerned with their unity as a class, but without thought of colonialism.

I'm very confused. I've been mulling over this for years and years, and haven't yet figured it out.

I don't know what the answers are, just that the institutions of the police, of prisons, of militaries, must be exterminated; so must colonialism and white supremacy, even if the white colonizers are the majority. There can be no police, no state, no centralized institutions where one nation, one color, one religion, one race can determine the lives of all, not even if that group in power is the majority.

I don't think you really asked a question, friend, but rather shared your grievances with me, which I appreciate. I think you're right re: "majoritism", though I would say that this is folded into a post-leftist critique of Democracy, something that is shared, if not as stringently, with classical anarchism (you do still have, afterall, those that would conflate Direct Democracy with Anarchy).

That said, a strong understanding of the fundamental principles of anarchism, particularly of the unity of the individual and the collective, even if not tied directly to an anti-colonial critique, does begin to solve the problem or at least problematize the ready-made solution of Democracy, though, obviously, an anti-colonial perspective will go a long way.

Democracy, majority rule, is not Anarchy for this very reason, and it being consecrated in a State framework, as you say, would continue perpetuating the rule of white settlers over indigenous peoples. However to this I want to really stress something you seem to touch on but only lightly, Whiteness and Blackness and Indigeneity are all political categories and while their creation has been established "in blood", it can't be held that they are then only a result of genetics.

Whiteness, Blackness, Indigeneity (the Settler-Native-Slave Triad) are all dependent on the existence of systemic -- political -- authority that gives birth to these forms of relation within the Settler-Colonial Civilian and State.

A real and true project of decolonization would abolish this triad not by getting rid of European and African descendants in Turtle Island, but rather by overcoming the relations that force these categories into existence. Said overcoming would be, I argue, the overcoming of the imported Settler relations European cemented into our world, namely Capitalism and the Nation-State. Thus, the most radically consistent position of this same project finds its strongest champions in the Anarchists and anarchist movement that best articulates the critique. Of course, we must remember Yang and co.'s statement that "Decolonization is not a metonym for social justice", but this isn't a problem if we remember that Anarchy also isn't just such a metonym either.

So, we can say, that an anarchist project that wishes to understand the necessity for decolonization, and remain consistent, will also have a critique of Democracy as a project.

Honestly what I see as a bigger problem is the truism that "the land belongs to those who work it" as, while that is a Socialist phrase, one that socialists of nigh every stripe accepts, it is actually a colonialist Aegis against even some of the most radical champions of socialism. I mean, listen to Goldman talk about Zionism:

Perhaps my revolutionary education has been sadly neglected, but I have been taught that the land should belong to those who till the soil. With all of his deep-seated sympathies with the Arabs, our comrade cannot possibly deny that the Jews in Palestine have tilled the soil. Tens of thousands of them, young and deeply devout idealists, have flocked to Palestine, there to till the soil under the most trying pioneer conditions. They have reclaimed wastelands and have turned them into fertile fields and blooming gardens. Now I do not say that therefore Jews are entitled to more rights than the Arabs, but for an ardent socialist to say that the Jews have no business in Palestine seems to me rather a strange kind of socialism.

--Emma Goldman, "On Zionism" (1938)

Let us not forget how this same type of rhetoric is used today to justify the State of Israel, and why it's deficient:

The claim that Zionist settlers “made the desert bloom” is one of the most recognizable Israeli talking points . . . .This line is used so often that it has become a rather parodied cliché. But cliché or not, it still endures to this day and is fervently repeated over and over by Israelis and their supporters worldwide.

According to this myth, Palestine was a neglected bleak desert, and that only after the arrival of the Zionist colonists with their ingenuity was it “redeemed” and made prosperous and blooming with life.

This quite obviously plays on Orientalist tropes about the east, framing it as a desolate, backwards and uncared for land. Land that under the right circumstances, and cultivated by the “right” civilized people, could bloom into a green paradise. This talking point complements the Terra Nullius myth quite nicely, as they both build off each other to create the narrative of the colonists bringing life and civilization to the land. The natives -if they are even acknowledged at all- are framed as having lacked the technological or even the moral mettle to make the land thrive.

[..] Zionist settlers did not make the desert bloom, as the land was never as much as a desert as they claimed, and even those areas which were classified as such were still cultivated and tended to by Palestinians. The severe drop in the amount of cultivated land in the Naqab after 1948 attests to this fact.

But as usual, these talking points are never about the actual history, or the data, or reality. They are usually about a message to be conveyed, or an image to be maintained. This is especially clear when we look at some of the modern Naqab farms that Israel loves to market. Never mind the fact that, as mentioned, the amount of cultivated land in the Naqab actually dropped; the portrayal of these farms as oases in the desert, and as an ode to Israeli and Zionist resilience and ingenuity is rooted in Zionist propaganda. These desert farms do not make sense economically, and they are unsustainable in almost any way you look at it. However, their purpose lies in their discursive value.

[..] In the end, this whole talking point is beyond the issue, and amounts to nothing more than Greenwashing settler colonialism. It simply exists to try and show why the Zionist settlers are more deserving of the land than Palestinians, who had supposedly neglected it. Despite the data showing that the land was far from an uncultivated desert, and that Israel stole millions of dunams of cultivated land to kick-start its agricultural sector, it’s a moot point to begin with. For argument’s sake, even if this talking point was accurate, and that the land was mostly uncultivated desert, does this provide a moral cover for settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing and erecting a reactionary ethnocracy at the expense of the people living there?

Of course not. Nothing can justify that. But this raises another point: Why the need to resort to such arguments in the first place? Why did these settlers feel the need to legitimize themselves if they didn’t feel like they were doing anything wrong, or if nobody was there in the first place, as they often claimed?

It’s because they knew they were wronging someone. They knew they were taking over someone’s land, and they knew that they were spouting nonsensical propaganda. This is why these talking points often clash so terribly against each other, because they are not based on fact, but on political utility. It is unfortunate that such baseless claims survive to this day, but as with all propaganda, it loses its effectiveness when you start asking the right questions.

—Decolonize Palestine, "Myth: Israel made the desert bloom"

I am reminded of Pam Palmater when she says,

‘No, this is our land and maybe we're gonna reclaim this land and... not do anything with it!’

Y'know there's this like, obsession that if you're going to ‘own’ a parcel of land it must be exploited and developed until it's essentially dead! And we don't think that way. So we have the right to say no, you don't get to develop this land, we have the right to protect this and and not do anything with it.

[..] We have the obligation.

[..] What we have is a relationship and responsibility.

This, I think, will be a bigger challenge for anarchists, and socialists more broadly, to tackle.

[eretzyisrael]

by Orli Peter

The terrorists exploit Western values by weaponising our emotional empathy. Through graphic imagery and tales of victimhood, they provoke “pain empathy”, the visceral emotional reaction to witnessing suffering. Our brains are wired to respond more deeply to the image of a single suffering child than to statistics about millions of people, a phenomenon known as the “identifiable victim effect”. Studies reveal that small charities can raise more money than bigger ones simply by showcasing such poignant imagery. These images involuntarily affect our brain functioning. With exposure to these images, we respond with emotional empathy. The more emotionally empathic we already are, the more vulnerable we are to its weaponisation.

Hamas and its sympathisers skilfully exploit pain-empathy circuits in the brain, flooding the media with real or manipulated images of dead children, even misrepresenting gruesome scenes from other wars – including the Shoah in cases of “Holocaust inversion” – as Palestinian casualties of Israel. Terror leaders have openly stated that higher death tolls benefit their cause. They work to increase civilian casualties by broadcasting messages in mosques and on social media, instructing Gazans to ignore Israeli evacuation warnings, and by physically blocking evacuations through roadblocks or even shooting those attempting to flee. In a blatant display of its anti-humanitarian values, Hamas increases civilian casualties in order to weaponise Western pain-empathy to gain support for their agenda.

But while the militants centre their narrative around victimhood to promote pain-empathy in Western audiences, they simultaneously promote a narrative as victor to excite their base. For example, militant propagandists sent the Western media images of Gazan suffering, while Hamas broadcast GoPro videos of torture and murder to their supporters to invigorate them. They highlighted their victimhood and suffering under the “occupation” of the “colonisers”. They played it brilliantly.

During the 2008 war in Gaza, the international media focused on gruesome and graphic coverage of casualties, sometimes called “war porn”, and transformed a complex conflict into a global emotional spectacle. CNN and the BBC amplified sympathy for Hamas, illustrating the devastating effectiveness of such psychological strategies.

While emotional empathy fosters connectedness, it can also have negative consequences, such as lying to benefit our group, prioritising our group’s interests over principles of justice and connecting so much to another group’s priorities that our empathy is self-destructive.

The ability to truly empathise – combining emotional resonance with cognitive understanding – requires a nuanced, fact-based model of others’ motivations. Without this balance, our empathy becomes a tool for manipulation. What can we do? We must refine our cognitive frameworks to resist propaganda, anchoring our emotional responses in accurate understanding. While individual stories of suffering evoke deep empathy, they must be rescaled to reflect the true scope of the issue. Similarly, the compelling imagery of “blazer-wearing” revolutionaries for peace must be critically examined within the broader context of extremist violence and manipulation.

[lizbethborden]

Hey, to all folkskxkxkx recommending his work, please be aware that Norman Finkelstein is a highly controversial scholar, who argues that antisemitism does not affect Jews in the west and especially in the US and that Jewish people invented the cultural image of the Holocaust in order to pretend to be victims so that we can exploit and parasitize gentile industries and resources. 👍 Which is pretty much straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Not going to suggest there's nothing of interest or value in his work, just to say to please be mindful of how you approach it. Here's some quotes from his book, The Holocaust Industry, with some emphasis added.

For organized American Jewry, this contrived hysteria over a new anti-Semitism served multiple purposes. It boosted Israel's stock as the refuge of last resort if and when American Jews needed one. Moreover, the fund-raising appeals of Jewish organizations purportedly combating anti-Semitism fell on more receptive ears.

And:

Beyond this, however, the Holocaust framework apprehended anti-Semitism as a strictly irrational Gentile loathing of Jews. It precluded the possibility that animus toward Jews might be grounded in a real conflict of interests (more on this later). Invoking The Holocaust was therefore a ploy to delegitimize all criticism of Jews: such criticism could only spring from pathological hatred.

Referring to fear of antisemitism as "contrived hysteria," arguing that fears of antisemitism were cynically contrived to appropriate money, that antisemitism has "real" basis, etc... So, yeah. Be mindful that these are his philosophical underpinnings and be careful about what you extract from his work.

[fenist]

I've been on the rather extreme end of anti-pathologisation for years. however, after this encounter with someone I've discovered to be such a depraved, unstable, cruel, and vile person, I truly think narcissistic abuse is a helpful framework to understanding certain relational dynamics.

this person genuinely appears to have no ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood within themself. the truth is always changing. I'm doing that thing of trying to understand why they are the way they are, and it's so difficult bc realistically, the explanation is probably a very tangled and confusing web of trauma, disordered personality traits, history of relational abuse, and a heavy dose of repression and violent suppression of sexuality. amongst many other things I'm sure.

I'm genuinely so sad for him because he's a deeply sick person who damages others and himself, and the path to healing probably won't be available to him for many reasons. but I have to tell myself that that's no longer my battle and never was.

we've discovered that there are at least 3 victims of his with whom he used intense sexual and emotional manipulation and exploitation, control, avoidance, and wild narcissistic love bombing which, in some cases (not mine), developed into financial scamming and exploitation. and obviously the strategies of control vary from woman to woman because he completely adapts himself depending on what he predicts will secure him supply. we strongly suspect that there are other women involved, sadly, many of whom could be much younger than us and more vulnerable.

I'm so glad to have gotten out and may I never be guided by my own ego, insecurity, romanticism, and need to be seen as "special" again. so that part is really my fault. it's also society's fault for indoctrinating us to be susceptible to "romance" which men then use to obtain us as property :D

[saint-vagrant]

wooooof. i don't keep up with "anti/pro" "shipping" business so when i see it broadcasted or there's an uptick in people finding my work who have some variant on suicide-baiting in their bios, i just gotta say, for my part, it's totally alienating. fandom terms for a fandom lens and i'm not in that scene or writing/reading/curating my interests with that framework in mind at all. i don't want it explained to me. particularly not as (for example) libraries and schools are gutted by budget cuts and under fire from fascist "think of the children" TERFs. the big companies would be doing it regardless, but i don't want to lend credence to reactionary behaviour during the ongoing, full-scale crackdown on sex work that's jointly helped destroy the livelihoods of performers, artists, in turn public transness and queerness. i certainly don't care about this when exploitative opportunist publishers big and small can't say one word about Palestine, and actively punish anyone who does, while signing deals with zionists. among other things.

do you think that when i call myself a "transsexual leather faggot and pervert" that i'm joking? this is hard-won and i'm reasonably proud of it. why would i joke about that? or is following me a guilty secret that only you and i know about? i can accept that someone else's attachment to Concepts and Ideas, sexuality, symbols, reality, might still be developing (i think it develops forever!) or even comfortably shallow or anxiously tenuous, but i actually want to be treated with the consideration, seriousness, and respect that i deserve. i don't think anyone ought to automatically trust my art and stories are designed for them and therefor "safe" solely because they like the presentation (though they should still try 🖤) BUT, IF the presentation is all that matters, then the content, context, experiences and ideas within or which motivate them, should be of no major concern. right?

i began SUPERPOSE in my 20s and now i'm in my 30s. my art is a safe place for me, but i'll always invite people in— and it's not like i can stop anyone from seeing it, really— because it's a means of communication. i am moved to express something that only art, comics, in their multifaceted format, can accomplish. i'm driven to share it. this is an act of trust. i know in my narratives i don't do a tonne of hand-holding, and unless prompted (which is welcome) i usually don't explain in a footnote how a given moment or action should be taken, because it's a story, driven by the characters. interpret "mature" however you'd like but i do intend my stories be for "mature readers" and i'd like my art to be treated that same way. thank you!