#views of the U.S. turn negative

[muddypolitics]

you have to be a really repugnant asshole to pull this off

[forsetti]

On Calls For Pres. Biden To Step Aside: Know The Players And Motives Tossing aside one of the most progressive presidents in fifty years because you are afraid they might not win an election is just plain stupid without a really, really, really solid backup plan. It is even stupider if you look at who is pushing for him to step aside and their motives. Here are the main groups calling for Pres. Biden to step away from running against Trump in November and why:

1-Republicans. Republicans know Biden is the biggest threat to them getting back the White House and enacting their batshit crazy policy agenda. They want nothing more than to not run against Pres. Biden because not only does he have the track record of beating Trump before but has an amazing economic record to run on. If you ever want to understand who Republicans view as their political threat, all you have to do is look at who they are attacking. They were going after Hillary for three years prior to 2016. The entire Benghazi witch hunt had no other purpose than to damage her electorally. Every single hearing about Hunter Biden, the border, the Biden Crime Family,… is nothing more than dog and pony hearings to dampen Democratic and Independent voter enthusiasm.

2-The Media. Trump’s non-stop crazy train administration was a goldmine for media outlets. Every day there was a new outrage, wild-ass rant, something that brought eyes to screens which translates to selling ad time/space. The Biden administration is efficient and boring. No scandals, except the ones Republicans gin up that turn up nothing. No rants. No chaos. No real controversy. Just plain old boring governance which is great for the country but bad for a business model that relies on shock, drama, and negativity. “Dems in disarray,” has been a media cottage industry since Bill Clinton was in office. If you don’t understand the financial motivation for why the media constantly derides Democrats for the slightest misstep while ignoring Republican malfeasance, you are probably likely to fall for their own brand of political propaganda.

It should tell you something that major news outlets have come out demanding Pres. Biden step aside for not looking good on camera during one ninety-minute debate but not a single one has asked the same of the candidate who was found guilty of sexual assault, found guilty of thirty-four felony charges, misspeaks dozens of times at every rally, and goes off on wild, illogical, batshit crazy tangents, and is tied to child sexual abuse via Jeffery Epstein. That they are not treating Trump with the same non-stop demands to step aside as they are Pres. Biden should tell you something about their motives.

3-Bad Foreign Actors. Russia wants nothing more than for Biden to lose the election. He is their biggest threat to taking over Ukraine and pushing their influence farther into Western Europe. NATO is stronger now and has more members than at any time in its history. This is the last thing Putin wants. Russia has been actively pushing propaganda online to influence U.S. elections for some time but really have ramped it up the past few election cycles.

Russia targets Republicans by fueling rage over culture war topics like abortion, immigration, racial violence, and the decline of Western, Christian norms. They also target liberals by trying to divide them over issues they care about Israel/Palestine, LGBTQI rights, Bernie vs Clinton, Bernie v Biden, DNC v “real progressives,”… They want liberals at each other’s throats because, if unified, the left is the largest voting bloc in America. Conservatives are electoral dinosaurs but they maintain power through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and liberals being more invested in their petty arguments than voting Republicans out of office.

4-Sandernistas. There is still a good-sized faction of people on the left who are still upset about Bernie Sanders not being the nominee in 2016 or in 2020. They are especially mad at what they deem as “establishment Dems,” screwing over Sanders in 2020 starting with the South Carolina primary. What they really are upset about is black voters, predominately female black voters, denying their White Progressive Savior his rightful spot at the head of the ticket. Because Pres. Biden was the one who benefited from this minority voting bloc in 2020, tearing him down and taking him out is a passion project for a lot of so-called “progressives.”

These “progressives,” are under the disillusion that if the Democratic Party fails far enough, hard enough, they will be able rebuild it in their own, perfectly progressive image. They never explain how this magical transformation will happen, they just take it as a matter of faith. Of course, anyone who understands American history and basic civics knows if/when conservatives have ultimate power, they will make sure they never lose another election.

These “progressives,” are the worst kind of progressive. They are often white, middle to upper-class liberals who view politics as a game because they are usually shielded from the consequences of the electoral decisions. If you are a middle/upper-class white, male progressive, very few, if any of Trump’s actions when he was in office affected you directly. The same cannot be said about the progressive voters who overwhelmingly supported Hillary in 2016 and Joe in 2020. They have the most skin in the game, have the most to lose and they vote accordingly. For white dudebros to step in and demand Pres. Biden step aside is a direct “fuck you” to the most loyal part of the base which has the most to lose if Trump is reelected.

Never mind this group has NEVER accomplished a damn thing politically other than cost many good Democrats to lose and decades and decades of progressive policy and law wiped out. They are as adamant about their political skills as they are it is always someone else’s fault when the find-out portion of their fuck around actions comes to fruition.

5-Progressives suffering from 2016 PTSD. This is the one group I can actually relate to and sympathize with. Hillary's loss in 2016 was a major shock to a lot of people. This shock was compounded because not only were we denied the first female president, but we got a lying, narcissistic, misogynist man-child in her place who went about rolling back decades of hard-earned progressive policies and turning the Supreme Court into a right-wing arm of the Federalist Society.

For those of us who lived through 2016, there is no election data that will make us feel good or at ease. It also makes us hyper-vigilant about anything and everything that can be seen as a negative towards the nominee. The second anything bad happens, whether factual or not, a lot of people in this group take the flight instead of the fight option which is associated with PTSD.

Being overly anxious and hyper-vigilant are not necessarily bad unless they lead to bad decisions.

There is only one sure way to make sure Trump is not reelected. Vote for the candidate running against him. Period. Full fucking stop.

If you aren’t willing to do this, for whatever reason you tell yourself, then you will be directly responsible for the very thing you claim is a politically existential moment. Stop listening and parroting Republican talking points. Stop allowing the media to determine who you should vote for. Stop listening to butt-hurt progressives who have no record of political success about what those who do should/shouldn’t do. Stop acting like frightened little bunnies whenever someone says something negative about successful Democratic leaders. Stop automatically going into flight mode when something goes wrong or something negative is said. Fight.

If you aren’t willing to fight, and I’m not talking about inter-party fighting (that time came and went,) for women’s rights, minority rights, safe air/water/food, climate policies, democracy… then you really aren’t as progressive as you tell yourself and others. You are a big reason why we are even in this situation. Whether you like Pres. Biden or think he is too old really isn’t the pertinent issue if you really care about the things you say you do. As long as Pres. Biden is willing to fight like hell for progressive policies and prevent Republicans from turning the country into a white supremacist, misogynist, oligarchy, you should be doing the same.

I don’t know what is going to happen between now and election day. Neither does anyone else. The one thing I am 100% positive about is if Trump does win, the people on the left who have spent the majority of their time and energy railing against the Democratic Party and Pres. Biden will blame anyone and everyone other than themselves. If Pres. Biden wins reelection, these same people will claim their childish hissy fits are what led him to “change course,” enabling him to win. Their view of personal responsibility for election outcomes is some fucked up “No True Scotsman,” bullshit. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING ever counts against their political beliefs and views.

I know some people reading this will wonder why I spend so much time and energy railing against the left. The answer is really simple-I fully expect the people on the right to be bad-faith actors who are hell-bent on destroying any and all progressive policies and candidates. I don’t, and shouldn’t expect the same from people who claim to be political allies. You can't claim to be a member of Team Good™ if your behaviors and actions help Team Bad™.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Andrew Perez and Asawin Suebsaeng at Rolling Stone:

As Donald Trump recovers from an assassination attempt and Republicans head to Milwaukee for his coronation this week, the GOP elite has rallied around a new messaging strategy: emotionally blackmailing Democratic politicians, journalists, Hollywood celebs, and numerous other Trump critics into shutting up about the former president’s openly authoritarian vows and his extreme policy agenda. Since the deadly shooting at a Pennsylvania rally Saturday, prominent conservatives have been working to blame the incident on Trump’s enemies for labeling him a “fascist” and for fanning heated “rhetoric” that, in their telling, caused the would-be assassin to shoot at the former and perhaps future American president. “When the message goes out constantly that the election of Donald Trump would be a threat to democracy and that the Republic would end, it heats up the environment,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Sunday, adding: “It’s simply not true. Everyone needs to turn the rhetoric down.” 

Two of the finalists on Trump’s vice presidential shortlist quickly blamed the assassination attempt on talk about his authoritarian plans. “The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,” Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) wrote Saturday night. “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said the attack on Trump was “aided and abetted by the radical Left and corporate media incessantly calling Trump a threat to democracy, fascists, or worse.” 

Top Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday he had been “worried about this for a very, very long time,” adding: “You know, if he wins, democracy is not going to end. He’s not a fascist. He represents a point of view that millions share. The rhetoric is way too hot.” These messages are all part of a deliberate strategy. Within the first three hours following the failed assassination of the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee, three sources close to Trump were already feverishly detailing to Rolling Stone how Republicans could use the shooting to their political advantage — whether for potentially mammoth fundraising, propaganda about Trump being “tough” and a “fighter,” or attacks on Democrats as belonging to the actually violent party every time they bring up things like the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot that Trump instigated.

[...]

The attempt on Trump’s life does nothing to change the reality that he is — in fact — running on an openly authoritarian platform. Trump and his closest allies are pledging to punish President Joe Biden and other top Democrats and jail his political opponents; unleash the National Guard and active-duty troops on Democratic-controlled cities whenever he wishes; end the Justice Department’s independence so he can use it to crush his foes, shut down his criminal cases, and erase any hope of accountability for his alleged crimes; retaliate against media outlets that cover him negatively; deport pro-Palestine protesters; oversee an unprecedented crackdown on immigrants, potentially erecting a vast network of camps on U.S. soil; further institutionalize his anti-democratic lies and conspiracy theories that led directly to the Jan. 6 attack; and even invade and bomb Mexico if he feels like it. Trump has quite literally pledged to be a dictator on “day one.” He later reiterated that he intends “to be a dictator for one day” — arguing such power would be necessary to erect a border wall and “drill, drill, drill.” On the campaign trail, the former president has evoked the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler, accusing immigrants of “poisoning the blood of our country.”

Trump allies are seeking to make Democrats and the non-right-wing media say “Uncle” to force them to stop talking about Trump’s record of dictatorial conduct, fascism, and divisiveness in the wake of the assassination attempt Saturday against him.

I say hell no to surrendering to their dreams of silencing us and instead continue to warn about the real danger to our democratic systems Trump and his acolytes are.

See Also:

Public Notice: Multiple things are true about Trump's shooting

The Present Age: Rewriting the Rules of Engagement: GOP's Attempt to Silence Legitimate Criticism

Vox: This is how you get escalation

The Signorile Report: Do not allow Republicans to silence criticism of Trump

The Status Kuo: GOP Gaslighting and Trump’s Cycle of Abuse

[mariacallous]

Roughly a year ago, an American social media influencer traveled from the United States to China to speak at a conference. While there, the young influencer, Jackson Hinkle, posted a photo of himself looking admiringly at another speaker: the Russian far-right intellectual Aleksandr Dugin.

The conference was organized by Guancha, a well-known and nationalistic Chinese outlet that facilitates discussions among political thinkers from China and elsewhere. As is typical of Guancha events, a confusing range of voices were represented, including Hinkle, an American who calls himself a “MAGA communist”; Dugin, a political philosopher aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin; and Grayson Walker, an American law student and online conspiracy theorist.

Together, they are part of a fragile but emerging global coalition that joins far-right elements in the United States, Russia, and China.

Guancha was founded by venture capitalist Eric Li, who made his fortune in Silicon Valley. In 2016, both before and after Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, Li praised Trump in various op-eds published by American outlets, pointing out that “much of the Chinese public supported him”—a fact that few people remarked on at the time—and speculating that, in the long term, Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping would essentially speak the same language of “might over right,” causing “Chinese-American relations [to] become healthier.”

Li is not alone. In China, where long-standing hostility toward an imperialist United States persists, many social media users have nonetheless become enamored with Trump and his movement, cheering on his 2020 campaign and reacting ecstatically to his 2024 electoral victory (though they’re less enthusiastic after his recent tariffs against China).

This admiration for Trump and the Western far right did not come out of thin air. For years, political conditions in China have fostered a growing coalition of Chinese who have found meaning in the cultural and political worldview of the Western far right.

To trace the roots of these views, we need to take a detour to 1995, when the Chinese government came out of the shadows of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and hosted the historic Fourth World Conference on Women. There, Hillary Clinton famously proclaimed that “women’s rights are human rights.” Her husband, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, would later help China’s accession to the World Trade Organization, claiming that economic liberties would most likely bring political liberties to China. For a while, they seemed right.

Chinese lawyers and activists made use of this new openness and coalesced into a “rights defense movement.” But the tide quickly turned again with the 2008 Beijing Olympics, marked by a massive expansion of government repression.

As Xi took office in 2013 and dismantled the liberal rights defense movement, China’s internet culture gave way to a panoply of pro-government tendencies. Attacks on liberal voices on social media became more common. Social tensions within Chinese society during the 2010s manifested not only in the form of explosive nationalism, but also as an interest in nonstate-sanctioned fringe ideologies, ranging from neo-Maoism to strains of far-right social conservatism.

But there was still something odd about the 2017 online attack on Feminist Voices, a prominent feminist social media account in China. Citing an old Feminist Voices post that defended a high school student’s right to wear a headscarf, netizens accused it of “sucking up to Islam.” Around the same time, social media users bombarded the United Nations refugee agency’s Weibo account with at least 20,000 negative comments on a run-of-the-mill post about the plight of displaced people.

These incidents mark a rise in far-right social sentiments in China regarding Islam, feminism, Black people, and the LGBTQ community. The sentiments are related to Chinese nationalism, which has a racial and supremacist strain with a long history typically expressed in the idea that the modern Chinese nation is made up of a superior “yellow race.” But they are also distinct in that the framing of these ideas has only recently begun to resemble, converge, and cross-fertilize with far-right discourses in the West.

In a study on far-right discourse in China, scholars Tian Yang and Kecheng Fang noted that just as the Western far right invented an “artificial crisis of white culture,” young Chinese conservatives have similarly claimed that their “majority culture … in China [is] in crisis due to the threats from minority groups,” which is a feeling reflected in incidents like the recent social media panic over halal food options on delivery apps.

But if the imagined superior white and yellow races are both threatened by nonwhite peoples and social liberalism, then they are also rivals. As political theorist Chenchen Zhang has pointed out, Chinese netizens consider their own political system to be superior, viewing the Chinese government’s “pragmatic, rational and non-moralizing approach to economic growth and social stability” as a better alternative to Western liberalism.

In their view, Western democracies have become corrupted by progressive values, which are not only unrealistic but also damaging to prosperity and social order. Chinese social media users have used a derogatory term to describe people promoting those values—baizuo, which literally translates to “white left.”

For these reasons, while Western far-right elements have sought to challenge the “elites” or “the establishment” (which includes the political consensus around democracy and universal values) in their respective countries, their Chinese counterparts have been supportive of the Chinese government. Islamophobic far-right Chinese have cheered on the authorities’ repression of Uyghur Muslims, even nudging the government to adopt a harder line on another Muslim minority group, the Hui.

Elsewhere, anti-feminists appeal to the government’s growing paranoia about foreign-backed “color revolutions,” accusing Chinese feminists of being foreign forces in the hopes of bringing down the government’s iron fist on their enemies. In recent years, Chinese anti-feminists have even imported concepts from the Western “manosphere” of online misogynists, borrowing terms such as “red pill men,” “men going their own way,” and “pickup artists.”

While Chinese government censors have occasionally shut down some of these accounts and removed their posts, many have been untouched or have been allowed to return and grow their followings. One such influencer, Knight Ziwu—known for attacking feminists and LGBTQ activists—has frequently bragged about his friendly negotiations with Weibo censors, who often advise him on which posts to take down.

Knight Ziwu has also appeared at official “internet management” events convened by the authorities. This stands in stark contrast to the official treatment of many online feminists—Feminist Voices, for instance, saw its social media accounts shut down and its organizers harassed by the government.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has also co-opted elements of this online brand of social conservatism. The Communist Youth League, a CCP vehicle typically used as a pipeline to funnel promising young people into political careers, has made a tremendous effort to recruit 18 million “civilization volunteers,” including some young men holding far-right views.

These efforts appear to be changing what remains of the CCP’s vestigial commitments to egalitarianism. In 2022, during a high-profile internet storm, the official account of the Communist Youth League called feminism “extreme” and “a cancer on the internet”—a significant departure from its revolutionary past of paying homage to “women holding up half the sky.” This hostility toward feminism has since spread to official rhetoric. This year, another part of China’s party-state, its internet regulatory apparatus, waged a monthlong campaign targeting “those who propagate gender polarization, extreme feminism, and the idea of not getting married nor having children.” In recent years, the Chinese government has also increasingly revoked preferential treatment for ethnic minorities, including for the all-important college entrance examinations.

Far-right ideas flow through several conduits. In China, popular social media platforms frequented by young men, like the sports forum Hupu, have become hotbeds for manosphere ideas. Fringe WeChat groups filled with both Chinese and Chinese American users promote Islamophobia and conspiracy theories. And although right-wing Christianity—a key vector for the spread of social conservatism in the United States, Europe, and Russia—has little to no pull in China due to state control of religion, Western far-right intellectuals have tried to draw equivalences between Christian and Confucian traditionalism.

Ideas flow from China, as well. In the United States, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and far-right blogger Rod Dreher popularized the Chinese concept of the white left to attack affirmative action and “a breakdown in gender norms.” In 2024, policy analyst Zhang Weiwei interviewed Hinkle; the video, which was posted on Bilibili and has half a million views, features Hinkle claiming that Leninist  land reforms of the type  China conducted violently in the 1950s would be “a much wiser solution for American homelessness.”

The camaraderie between illiberal and far-right forces in Russia, China, and the United States  might not last. In an era of heightened great-power competition, conflicting desires for domination may soon break this fragile coalition, even before it manages to vanquish its wide range of perceived enemies—feminists, Islam, cosmopolitan liberals, and LGBTQ+ activists, among many others.

Regardless, these emerging political alliances are worth taking seriously, especially as the nationalist and authoritarian trends that enable them show no signs of slowing down.

[skellybonesandtrees]

As Donald Trump recovers from an assassination attempt and Republicans head to Milwaukee for his coronation this week, the GOP elite has rallied around a new messaging strategy: emotionally blackmailing Democratic politicians, journalists, Hollywood celebs, and numerous other Trump critics into shutting up about the former president’s openly authoritarian vows and his extreme policy agenda.

Since the deadly shooting at a Pennsylvania rally Saturday, prominent conservatives have been working to blame the incident on Trump’s enemies for labeling him a “fascist” and for fanning heated “rhetoric” that, in their telling, caused the would-be assassin to shoot at the former and perhaps future American president. “When the message goes out constantly that the election of Donald Trump would be a threat to democracy and that the Republic would end, it heats up the environment,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Sunday, adding: “It’s simply not true. Everyone needs to turn the rhetoric down.”

Two of the finalists on Trump’s vice presidential shortlist quickly blamed the assassination attempt on talk about his authoritarian plans. “The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,” Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) wrote Saturday night. “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said the attack on Trump was “aided and abetted by the radical Left and corporate media incessantly calling Trump a threat to democracy, fascists, or worse.”

Top Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday he had been “worried about this for a very, very long time,” adding: “You know, if he wins, democracy is not going to end. He’s not a fascist. He represents a point of view that millions share. The rhetoric is way too hot.”

These messages are all part of a deliberate strategy. Within the first three hours following the failed assassination of the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee, three sources close to Trump were already feverishly detailing to Rolling Stone how Republicans could use the shooting to their political advantage — whether for potentially mammoth fundraising, propaganda about Trump being “tough” and a “fighter,” or attacks on Democrats as belonging to the actually violent party every time they bring up things like the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot that Trump instigated.

Such plans were hatched hours before it became public that the shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was a registered Republican; his motive has continued to elude law enforcement and even his own neighbors. The lack of clarity has done little to deter MAGA and conservative leaders from scapegoating their preferred enemies list. 

The attempt on Trump’s life does nothing to change the reality that he is — in fact — running on an openly authoritarian platform. Trump and his closest allies are pledging to punish President Joe Biden and other top Democrats and jail his political opponents; unleash the National Guard and active-duty troops on Democratic-controlled cities whenever he wishes; end the Justice Department’s independence so he can use it to crush his foes, shut down his criminal cases, and erase any hope of accountability for his alleged crimes; retaliate against media outlets that cover him negatively; deport pro-Palestine protesters; oversee an unprecedented crackdown on immigrants, potentially erecting a vast network of camps on U.S. soil; further institutionalize his anti-democratic lies and conspiracy theories that led directly to the Jan. 6 attack; and even invade and bomb Mexico if he feels like it.

Trump has quite literally pledged to be a dictator on “day one.” He later reiterated that he intends “to be a dictator for one day” — arguing such power would be necessary to erect a border wall and “drill, drill, drill.” On the campaign trail, the former president has evoked the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler, accusing immigrants of “poisoning the blood of our country.”

Saturday’s assassination attempt also does not change the fact that Trump has repeatedly and very publicly endorsed political violence over the years. Trump is calling now for “peace” and “unity,” but he has a lengthy track record of downplaying or excusing the harm done to the victims of pro-Trump violence — to the point that late last year he was onstage mocking House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi’s husband after he was brutally attacked by a Trump-supporting conspiracy theorist wielding a hammer.

Trump has frequently promised to pardon the pro-Trump rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. He recently shared a meme demanding a televised military tribunal for former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the House Jan. 6 committee.

And though Trump allies are chastising Democrats today for calling Trump a fascist or an authoritarian and claiming that such rhetoric causes violence, Trump has routinely called liberals and his enemies “fascists,” going as far as to trash them as “thugs” and “vermin within the confines of our country” at his 2024 campaign rallies.

Trump has campaigned as a populist strongman — that didn’t change overnight.

Link

[janetlogs]

Blog Post 4, Week 6

Why do some people argue that race is a social construct rather than a biological fact? People argue that race is a social construct because there is no scientific basis for dividing people into distinct racial groups based on genetics. Physical traits like skin color and eye shape do not match up neatly with racial categories, and there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them. However, race is still very real in society because it affects people's lives in significant ways.

How does gender influence communication in cyberspace? Gender affects how people interact online because digital communication often reflects real-world gender norms. Susan Herring’s research shows that men tend to dominate discussions, while women may face more interruptions or negative responses. This suggests that even though cyberspace allows for anonymity, traditional gender dynamics still shape online conversations.

How does Donna Haraway’s idea of the cyborg challenge traditional views of feminism and gender? Donna Haraway’s idea of the cyborg challenges traditional feminism by rejecting the idea that there is a single way to define women. Instead of seeing women as only defined by their biology or nature, Haraway believes that gender and identity are influenced by society and can change. The cyborg, which is a mix of human and machine, represents this idea because it breaks down old ideas about what it means to be human, female, or even a person. Haraway’s cyborg gives space for a more flexible and modern form of feminism, one that embraces technology and doesn’t stick to gender roles.

What does "ludo-Orientalism" mean and how does it affect the way Asians and Asian Americans are seen in video games? "Ludo-Orientalism" refers to how video games use stereotypes about Asians and shape ideas about East-West relationships. It shows how Asian Americans, even though they are U.S. citizens, are often treated as "foreigners." In games, this idea is shown through the way Asian cultures and characters are either misrepresented or turned into exotic stereotypes. This not only affects how people view Asians in games but also how Asian Americans experience their identity in real life, reinforcing racial differences and stereotypes.

Articles:  “Race in Cyberspace” by Beth E. Kolko, “The Revenge of the Yellow-faced Cyborg Terminator” by Jeffrey A. Ow, “Ludo-Orientalism And the Gamification of Race” by Edward Chang

[rollercoasterwords]

hi rae, i was wondering if there was any specific reason for y regulus is the first one to leave/rebel in atwmd, and sirius being the one who is the most dedicated to being a death eater, bc their roles r inversed from what they r in canon, and im curious if there is a reason y u chose to do that or it was just something that worked better for the narrative (just to be clear bc the marauders fandom is a bit weird, this is a genuine question, im not shitting on your characterization)

lol appreciate the clarification dw tho i get what ur asking! it's mostly explained in the fic in pt ii + the reg pov ch, but happy 2 summarize & explain the thought process etc.

atp i no longer remember if i was planning 2 have reg be working w the order or just be dead when i first started the fic, but i decided pretty early on that i wanted him 2 have a locket-arc similar 2 canon & to be seemingly dead when the fic begins bc i love giving s a dead brother <3 & from there i decided it would work better 2 have him secretly be alive + joined up w the order bc that helps explain how s comes around 2 working w them. so then i had 2 figure out how 2 make that fit both their characters!

the thing abt this fic is that i'm still writing it trying 2 preserve like...what i personally view as the characters' core traits/key parts of their personalities from canon, just transplanted into a completely different world. so s is actually still less dedicated 2 the d.e. than reg in this fic; s is essentially forced 2 join the d.e. the way that some parents ship their gay kids off 2 military school (in the u.s. at least), but bc of the way he was coerced into it he resents the d.e. from the beginning & even tho he's internalized many of the prejudices he grew up with he still has a pretty strong moral compass that creates this ongoing internal conflict w what he's doing. at the same time, the power he gets from becoming a higher-ranking d.e. is what allows him 2 then go let loose & like...fuck around + be gay, essentially, without fear of repercussions, bc he can basically do whatever he wants in private (even if it becomes a bit of an open secret) as long as he's got this scary public-facing persona. so he chafes against pureblood society more throughout childhood + into adulthood, but he's also powerful + charming + able 2 succeed in that world.

reg, on the other hand, doesn't rebel the same way s does growing up + kinda flies under the radar, which would be fine in theory--except reg does want 2 be powerful + recognized, & he develops this sort of inferiority complex + almost resentment of his brother in some ways. that's why he compares s 2 a sponge in his pov ch; even tho s kind of protects reg growing up by taking up their parents' negative attention, he also soaks up all the positive attention, and reg ends up feeling forgotten. as they get older, this same dynamic is echoed in school, where s gets shit on 4 being gay but also is undeniably magnetic + talented, and reg doesn't understand why his brother can't just be normal bc he'd be so popular if he didn't insist on like. being so open abt who he is. & then s joins the d.e. + suddenly he's like this entirely different person & everyone is scared + in awe of him, and he doesn't have time 4 reg anymore. & even tho reg has resented him 4 soaking up all the attention, s is also the only person who's actually paid attention 2 reg in turn, and suddenly that's gone, and he feels even more invisible. so he goes + does this fancy difficult alchemy program but even then nobody seems 2 care, so he finally decides 2 join the d.e. himself bc he wants 2 become a powerful + noticeable person the same way his brother is.

so as in canon, reg actively decides 2 join the d.e. in this fic, and wants 2 be there. but when he joins s pulls the same old trick: he starts soaking up all the attention, suddenly becoming one of voldemort's best soldiers. & for s he's trying 2 protect his brother from being noticed + used for horrible things, but bc he's doing such a good job of it reg doesn't even know what he's being protected from, and he resents s 4 stealing the spotlight again. so reg decides he'll have 2 get voldemort's attention some other way, & he starts paying really close attention 2 things + picking up information he probably shouldn't, which leads 2 him figuring out about the horcruxes on his own--but through that process, he realizes how stupid he's been 2 join the d.e. & like...the depths of depravity in the organization, & ironically by trying 2 impress voldemort he's learned way too much & essentially doomed himself, bc he knows voldemort will kill him if he finds out, and he will find out eventually. so in his frustration + hopelessness reg decides "fuck it if i'm gonna die i'm gonna go out swinging" & goes after the horcrux on his own, & that's when the order intercedes bc they've been after this same horcrux, & james saves his life, & then he's like hey wanna join the order. & reg is like well. what else am i gonna do i basically need 2 kill voldemort now if i ever want 2 show my face in britain again.

so even tho this leads 2 reg rebelling + joining the order rather than s, the roles aren't actually meant 2 be inverse to canon! in fact, the reason s doesn't rebel is largely bc he's trying 2 protect his brother, and then once reg is dead he's just kinda going thru the motions. he's a product of his environment & so there's only so far his questioning goes; he disagrees w a lot of pureblood society but doesn't really question the foundational assumptions (wizards + muggles are inherently different; wizards r superior 2 muggles) + still goes along w the path of least resistance even when it eats at him, etc. but ironically from the pov of basically anyone who didn't grow up w them it seems like reg rebelled + joined the order, even tho reg was the one who actually wanted 2 join the d.e. (unlike s!) so their actions kinda flip-flop, but their motivations remain the same as in (my interpretation of) canon: reg decides 2 join the d.e. + then changes his mind + works against them; s acts out against his family + gets punished for it + ends up doing his best 2 protect those he's loyal to + himself--only in this world, when he acts out + gets punished there's nowhere 4 him 2 turn, and the main person he's loyal to is reg, so he has 2 figure out how 2 protect himself & his brother as a d.e. fun!

[itsalatingirl]

I just read a post claiming that LOA (Law of Attraction) and manifesting communities are like a cult, followed by a lengthy argument about how manifesting bloggers are dishonest.

Let me share a little story:

I grew up on a small farm in a small town in Colombia. I was raised with limited resources—using an old computer, wearing secondhand clothes my cousins passed down, and without much support from my parents. I was raised primarily by my grandmother and aunts, but I still managed to have a happy childhood surrounded by dogs and chickens. When I turned 17, I set an intention: I wanted to study abroad and have more in life.

Long story short, the universe aligned with my wishes and opened a path for me. By the time I was 22, I found myself in Budapest, Hungary, enjoying a full scholarship to study Sociology. I remember sitting there, drinking coffee with a view I had only dreamed of.

I won’t go into all the ups and downs of those years, but by the end, I felt drained and unfulfilled in my dating life. I felt lost, lonely, and tired. One night, I wrote down in my notes app the qualities I wanted in a partner and my desire for stability in life. It was October 2020. Today, November 8th, 2024, I’m living my best life in the U.S. with a wonderful husband, planning our future together, and now I'm manifesting our first home.

Don’t let the negativity of others affect your manifestations! I’m proof that the universe listens.

Manifesting isn’t always easy; sometimes it feels like it takes too long for our dreams to unfold. But don’t give up! If it’s meant for you, it’s yours!

BTW GPT DID NOT WRITE THIS!

[arlnlms]

Jubilee Debates, TikTok, and American Politics: A Malaysian Youth's Perspective

MDA20009 Digital Communities │ Week 5: Digital Citizenship 1: Political Engagement

So what place does a Malaysian, (that has no political knowledge) have to have a say in this? American politics. In this day and age, social media has played a significant role in politics, which is hard to ignore—even a small country like Malaysia is kept in the loop of the chaos of American democracy, especially during the current Trump-Harris election. No doubt that it is an educational experience for many of us to witness the dynamics of U.S. politics unfold through platforms like TikTok and YouTube. Well, I guess if it's already displayed on social media for the eyes of others, then anyone can at least have a say in this.

A Global Phenomenon

American politics is accessible to a worldwide audience all thanks to modern communication technologies. Globally, people may quickly get news and comments about the U.S. election because of platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (previously Twitter). Foreigners are also compelled to watch the discussions and political comments that shape the U.S. elections, which have turned into a spectacle.

When Woke Meets Conservative

A prime illustration of this is how the debates organized by Jubilee, like "1 Liberal Teen vs. 20 Trump Supporters", have managed to draw hordes of viewers. Platforms like Jubilee tackle complex political issues more easily because they assemble both sides and make it entertaining. For example, it is one thing for the audience to watch a Dean Withers-type person standing in front of a crowd with opposing views but firmly standing his ground. It simplifies American political issues for domestic audiences and even provides insight to foreign viewers about America's political landscape, which the mainstream media may not adequately do.

What’s especially fascinating is how quickly clips from these debates go viral on platforms like TikTok. Short snippets of strong arguments, memorable quotes, or heated exchanges get shared, re-shared, and commented on by millions. These clips transcend their original platform, appearing on TikTok feeds, Instagram Reels, and even Reddit threads. Social media’s algorithms tend to push this viral content to wider audiences, which means these political discussions get incredible exposure, reaching people who might not have initially sought them out.

Social Media’s Grip on Today's Youth

Political marketing through TikTok and YouTube has become very popular among the youth, who are likely to rely on them rather than the news. Secure and friendly debates can trigger creativity, with interesting short videos getting the attention of the politically disinterested.

In other words, social media sites' impact in shaping the users' political opinions can also be viewed from a constructive and negative perspective. The content is usually aggressive and abusive, promoting divisiveness and unhealthy rivalries. Most studies claim that "social media grows political content that is mostly unhealthy" (Platt, 2024). However, this way of doing things will worsen as the election process approaches. Political smearing worked as an effective bait, so social media websites, in turn, encouraged their users to avail such content even more, leading them to have an exaggerated belief on how most people felt about an issue. Platt (2024) also notes that if social media is one's primary means of communication, one should anticipate political blowback and violence. Social media does provide access to knowledge, but it also encourages the creation of "filter bubbles". These are the bubbles where people only interact with content that agrees with their opinion and helps further entrench existing beliefs.

Amidst all this, social media has revolutionised how people view politics by bringing the concept of the "everyday expert" to the forefront. For example, individuals such as Dean Withers from the Jubilee video, who has neither run for office nor works as a commentator, still hold a great deal of influence by simply sharing his views with great emotion. This is an evolution of what Cunningham (2024) refers to as 'rage bait' content, where disputes tend to be more espoused to engage the audience, in most cases, for their anger and arguments, but not for any constructive communication. Influencers like Withers embody this shift in information, where ordinary people become the source of public opinion and cause polemics. As Cunningham (2024) noted, such interactions correspond to the increasing normative demand for emotional and conflict-inducing material usually found online.

Watching and Learning

For the people outside of the U.S., following American politics on social media is interesting but educational at the same time. It provides a glimpse of the governance systems, democracy, and social discourse, which makes one think about how the democratic processes in different parts of the world work. We are mere spectators and students, observing how a living democracy functions, its merits and demerits.

The role of social media in politics is not that straightforward. It makes conversations international and opens up new people, but it could also promote conflict and fake news, which undermines journalistic ethics. It is fair to say that as we watch TikTok, YouTube or Instagram, we are part of the global audience who is watching democracy unfold in real time, and as a result, we have to be careful how it all plays out.

List of References: 

Cunningham, K. (2024, October 10). 1 woke teen vs. 20 Trump supporters: The new age of viral political videos. Vox. https://www.vox.com/culture/376748/jubilee-politics-debate-charlie-kirk-ben-shapiro-liberal-conservative

Platt, T. (2024, March 13). Political rage on social media is making us cynical. University of Michigan News. https://news.umich.edu/political-rage-on-social-media-is-making-us-cynical/

[imperialboomerang]

Why “It’s The Least I Should Be Doing” Doesn’t Sustain My Activism

Before people (perhaps rightfully) bust out the pitchforks for me saying this… let me be the first to admit: it should be enough. It’s a statement I’ve seen so many in the pro-Palestine community & the left in general throw around as justification for their work. It’s accurate as well. Palestinians are facing a genocide perpetrated by our country. To fight in some capacity is the least anyone can do — for ourselves and for Palestinians under occupation and in the diaspora.

Mario Savio said in 1964 in front of Sproul Hall at UC Berkley — “There comes a time when the machine becomes so odious, so sick at heart, that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears… upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop!”

Savio is right. The people who say "this is the least I should be doing" are right.

So why is it not enough for me?

1. It Frames My Work Terribly.

I'm an English undergraduate who has spent far too much time studying metaphors, their linguistical function, and how they shape our understanding of the world. I once had a friend (an engineer) tell me that they don't believe in metaphors. They still don't, but I explained to them (and I'll explain to you metaphor non-believers now) that metaphors shape our view of the world, and they help us express how we understand the world. One example of this is how some metaphors express our cultural values through spatial vehicles. For example, in English, we often associate positive progress with upward motion ("I'm moving up the corporate latter."). These kinds of metaphors imply a spectrum — if progress is upward, then regression is downward. If up is positive and down is negative, then this shapes how we understand progress: it is constantly going up, and anything negative is moving down. Knowing this is grossly untrue and misrepresents the nature of progress doesn't change that English-speakers will still rely on up/down metaphors in order to express progress and regression in their lives and the lives of others.

My issue, then, with the phrasing of "the least" is this: it implies the same kind of a spectrum. If there is the least, then there is the most. The most is what I should aspire towards. But what does that look like? More importantly, can I achieve that?

As we pass 300 days of "Israel's" genocide with the only "hope" of a ceasefire in the States being Killer Kamala's "progressive" VP pick Tim Walz (who is extremely problematic in his own ways, but I digress)... I've come to the conclusion, as I'm sure many others have, that the United States will have to fundamentally change and "Israel" will have to be no longer viable as a colonial project in order to see a free Palestine. The latter is in sight — BDS is highly successful, as have been resistance fighters in making this war costly on the part of the occupier. The recent ICJ rulings make "Israel" a liability for some corporations and countries. But if there is anything that has become more and more apparent, it is that the United States will not back down until it has a gun held to its head, and perhaps not even then.

The Instagram account BadSchoolBadSchool (and the inspiration behind this online journal) made this post in response to calls made to "escalate" our actions and why that is not the best perspective from which we should be challenging U.S. imperialism.

"Gaza needs a powerful movement, and we don't have it because we haven't been building mass popular power..." (slide 8) "So if you want to feel guilt about Gaza, feel guilt that we haven't prioritized building power amongst the poor and oppressed in our own country — a real movement for their lives, which, in turn, would challenge the very same power structure that is slaughtering Gaza. Is it our fault, at least partially, that Gaza is being destroyed, just not the way most people think it is our fault." (slide 9)

In sum, the most, the best action would be complete dismantle of the U.S. war machine. We need to work towards a movement that can sustain this action.

Because of that, when I say it frames my work terribly, I mean this: the work we are doing right now is not the bare minimum. It barely meets the thresh hold of what needs to be done. We need to be doing more than the "least" — we need to be doing our best. Knowing that, knowing that the work to be done requires a massive, community-based movement... it fills me with shame and guilt.

2. Yet, Guilt & Shame Don't Sustain Me Either

For some, and even myself back in 2023, the guilt and shame galvanizes them. I have realized, though, that my commitment to the work is more often destabilized by my guilt rather than sustained by it. It lives within me, boiling inside, until that guilt sours into hopelessness.

When I'm hopeless, I lose touch with the meaning of the work I'm doing. It creates within me a toxic nihilism that, frankly, isn't going to help anyone.

I do not think I'm alone in this.

Throughout the past ten months, I've met countless people who dabble in anti-war and anti-genocide action. I've lost some friendships because of people's apathy. I have been told by more than one person that they don't feel there is anything they can do.

I have told myself this as well. Many times over the past ten months, I've sat at home, telling myself that what I do is meaningless, that it does nothing to undo or intervene in the slaughter.

The only time that guilt and shame do sustain me, it is when I am hopeless. For example, when my local SJP chapter started their own encampment, it was the first protest I'd gone to in two months. I didn't even know that's what their plans were — I went to the march because I was tired of knowing I'm sitting at home while people are dying. That perhaps the war machine will not cease, but I have to try. In that way, guilt got my ass up off the couch and in the street.

But it wasn't guilt that kept me there. When I realized the students were putting up tents and building barricades, I started crying. I didn't know why at first. Looking around, I realized what I'd been missing, what I could have been part of if only I have fought against that dangerous cycle of guilt -> nihilism -> indifference -> guilt. I ended up dropping my friends at home and came back. And I came back the next day, and the day after that — because I know this shit is meaningful.

3. So What Does Sustain Me?

Hope is surely part of it, but for me, hope can be just as dangerous as nihilism. I'm an idealist — I like to think that massive revolutionary change will occur in my lifetime, that the people will band together and free each other. Sometimes, when I get caught up in this and am reminded of how unfeasible it is, I begin that cyclical nihilism.

These days, I try to think of the revolution in phases and parts. I break my idealism down into pieces that I can act upon. Working in your community is fantastic for this as well. Within community, the work you're doing is principled and driven with clear goals in mind. Right now, I'm working to get my city to strengthen its ceasefire resolution and divest from Israel. I know the broader goals in this work — to end the genocide & occupation — but I am more focused on the actual work that will make those a reality.

But... when my nihilism gets to me, when I start to dream too big and realize I will fail, I turn to something Kwame Ture said:

"Do your work now for the next generation."

The work is meaningful because it challenges the very notion that empire is inevitable and it makes it harder for the next generation to accept. Our current movement now is the product of last one. The next one will be a product of our movement now.

I know we will make them proud.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse:

It did not take long for Eva Marie Kogel, the opinion editor at Die Welt, Germany’s paper of record, to decide what the right thing for her to do was. Die Welt ran an editorial from Elon Musk praising Germany’s extremist far-right political party AfD and calling it the country’s future. Kogel announced her resignation. Musk’s piece in Die Welt came on the heels of a December 20 tweet where he posted, "Only the AfD can save Germany." AfD translates to “Alternative for Germany.” The party was started by “Euroskeptics,” opposed to the single European currency, in 2013, but has taken a hard right turn since then. It has been classified as a home for right-wing extremism but is gaining ground in parts of the country. Unlike our two-party system in the U.S., Germany has at least eight serious political parties. As the country heads toward parliamentary elections in February of 2025, AfD is polling in second place, which translates into about a 1/5 share of the vote. Musk, in Trumpian style, dismissed the view that AfD is a right-wing extremist organization as “clearly false.” But German courts, in May of this year, backed the German security service’s decision to investigate the party as an extremist group. Part of the concern centered on the activities of AfD’s leader in the eastern state of Thuringia, Björn Höcke. In 2017, he condemned Berlin’s Holocaust memorial as a “monument of shame,” and called for a rejection of the negative light the country views its Nazi past in, saying it should make a “180-degree turn” in how that era is assessed.

[...] No matter what Musk claims, the AfD is most definitely not Obama’s Democratic Party. That’s what he tweeted when Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy pointed out that Musk’s support of AfD was support of a party that had aligned itself with Nazi ideology. Musk tweeted that AfD policies were “identical to those of the US Democratic Party when Obama took office!” Just to make sure everyone understood what he was saying, Musk continued, “I don’t think there is a single difference.” In fact, of course, there are all kinds of differences, and the overlap between AfD and the Democratic Party’s platform when Obama took office is a virtual null set. But that obvious reality didn’t keep Musk from misrepresenting while calling Murphy a liar. It would feel tremendously high school if it wasn’t so serious. [...]

In Die Welt, Musk wrote, “The AfD is committed to a controlled immigration policy that prioritises integration and the preservation of German culture and security.” It’s an all too familiar refrain for Germans. “A nation must preserve its core values and cultural heritage in order to remain strong and united.”

Musk left his native South Africa at age 17 for a brief stay in Canada before entering the U.S. He became an American citizen in 2002 after spending a decade working in the country. He has business interests in Germany, which may explain his interest in who wins the next election there. He said those investments gave him the right to give voice to his opinion. Much of the impetus for AfD’s advance and for Musk’s support of it seems to center around Germany’s immigration policy. To understand the dynamic, you need to know that Germany has absorbed large numbers of refugees and other immigrants, and that the impact on the country has been predictably tremendous. In 1980, when I was in school in Germany, there was an acceptance of the need for “gastarbeiters,” foreign workers who filled gaps in Germany’s labor pool. Humanitarian crises in the last half century have fueled migration, and Germany has been at the forefront of helping people, as when then-Chancellor Angela Merkel announced an open door policy in 2015. AfD, and now Musk, are speaking to less tolerant Germans, using anti-immigrant animus in hopes of provoking a sharp right political turn.

[...] In his efforts to defend AfD against claims it is Nazi-like, Musk singled out party leader Alice Weidel, who has a same-sex partner originally from Sri Lanka. “Does that sound like Hitler to you?” Musk admonished people who would “condemn the AfD as extremist” against being “fooled by the label attached to it.” Musk’s willingness to dismiss the similarities and to advocate for AfD to take over Germany is deeply disturbing. The suggestion that having a gay leader somehow means the party can’t hold the extremist views it explicitly advocates for is simply wrong. And it is disingenuous. Musk fails the lesson of history: while the Nazis persecuted homosexuals, sending about 15,000 gay men to concentration camps, it was an open secret that Hitler’s right-hand man, the hyper-masculine Ernst Röhm, who headed the Brownshirts, was homosexual. One gay leader doesn’t mean anything here.

Die Welt’s incoming editor-in-chief, Jan Philipp Burgard, offered an opposing view that ran alongside Musk’s column. Burgard wrote that while Musk might be correct about the problems Germany faces, the argument that only AfD can fix things is “fatally wrong.” He pointed out that AfD supports rapprochement with Russia, including trade restoration and an end to sanctions, and that the party supports appeasing China and leaving the European Union. Burgard wrote that leaving the Union would be a “catastrophe.” (Jens Spahn, a member of the center-right CDU party and former health minister, tweeted that about 40% of Germany’s foreign trade is with EU partners and that without that relationship, the country’s economy would collapse.) Burgard also lambasted Höcke, the leader of AfD in Thuringia, for his repeated use of banned Nazi slogans and salutes.

Right-wing tech bro zealot Elon Musk wrote an editorial in center-right German newspaper Die Welt praising the country’s far-right fascist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. Musk’s Die Welt editorial led to the resignation of Eva Marie Kogel from the paper.

See Also:

Mother Jones: In Die Welt Op-Ed, Elon Musk Doubles Down on His Support for Germany’s Ultra-Right Party

[appendingfic]

Well this is nonsense

"Today, we're looking at a perfect example of the diversity that makes up America - a town that doesn't celebrate the Purge. Green Hills, Montana, was like any other U.S. town in 2017, the first year of the nation-wide Purge. But unlike almost every other town in America, they woke up the next morning to find no one had died, and that the worst the rest of the town suffered was some light vandalism. Maybe, they figured, it was all down to chance. But the same thing happened the next year, and the next. For three years, Green Hills has been an oasis from the tension those of us who spend Purge Night barricaded in our homes feel. We're here with Green Hills Deputy Sheriff Wade Whipple, to answer some questions."

The news host was sitting in a small police station with a nervous brown-haired man who smiled awkwardly at her.

"So. Deputy. I want to hear it straight from the source - you haven't had a single death in town because of the Purge?"

"The - oh! Oh, never! It's actually…surprised the he - heck out of us. Not for, uh, around here, folks get along pretty well, but you hear about people rolling in from out of town. Emerald Coast had, uh, problems with that, and someone burned down the Ice Cap Resort last year. But we didn't get any of that."

"Any idea why?"

Deputy Whipple shrugged. "I couldn't say. Cra - ah, Carl Jenkins, a local, says it's the work of the Blue Devil, our local cryptid. He used to try to catch it, but now he calls it our - guardian angel."

"But it isn't just the out-of-towners, Deputy. The NFFA tells us that the Purge is necessary to expel the negative emotions we build up toward each other-"

"Well, people around here are pretty good at keeping the air clear, you know?" Deputy Whipple interrupts. "Keep that stuff from festering. And if stuff's boiling over, we've got our sheriff, Tom Wachowski to calm things down."

"Well. You heard it here. It takes all kinds to make the United States work, and this little town is one of a kind."

The image stilled.

"So what are we looking at here?"

The men at the table turned to the middle-aged man in military dress standing before them. "Don't you see what's going on here?"

"One town in America has the uncommon luck to avoid the consequences of the Purge."

"No!" One of the men slams a hand on the table. "One town in America is claiming <I><B>The Purge doesn't work</B></I>! Can you imagine if this idea catches on? That there's a way to <I>stop people from Purging</I>? The entire system we've built to keep things under control falls apart."

"And what exactly do you propose I do about it? Managing the Purge is a little outside my purview, gentlemen."

One of the men smiled. "Ah, didn't you hear the bit in that interview about their town's local cryptid? The Blue Angel or whatever?"

"What - I send some of my agents out to Montana to dig around town like Mulder and Sculley? I don't see how that helps your problem."

"Well…we were going to suggest you put the responsibility of this on one of your…contractors."

Eyebrows raised. "No. Not - there's a reason he's only ever been tapped for contracts outside the country. He has a - fairly liberal view when it comes to acceptable losses with collateral…damage."

"We were thinking we could set the timeline for his investigation. Perhaps a holiday weekend?"

"And perhaps…I could recommend he limit his drones' weaponry to class 4 and below?"

"Good thinking, Commander Walters," another of the men replied with a smile to the others. "We wouldn't like to imagine anything <I>illegal</I> happening. Not during The Purge."

[thesovietbroadcast]

What's your opinion of Amadeo Bordiga?

Gramsci himself best articulated the issues with Bordiga and the practical impotence of his political thoughts:

“Comrade Bordiga limits himself to upholding a cautious position on all the questions raised by the Left. He doesn’t say: the International poses and resolves such and such a question in this way, but the Left will instead pose and resolve it this other way. He instead says: the way the International poses and resolves problems doesn’t convince me; I fear it falls into opportunism, there are insufficient guarantees against this, etc.”His position, then, is one of permanent suspicion and doubt. In this way the position of the “Left” is purely negative; they express reservations without specifying them in a concrete form, and above all without indicating in concrete form their point of view, their solutions. They end by spreading doubt and distrust, without constructing anything.

“Concerning his disagreement with Lenin, Comrade Bordiga remains skillfully on the general, while not being specific.”

“Comrade Bordiga not only fails to draw the logical consequences of his negations, he above all fails to counter-propose new directives to the criticized directives in a clear and complete form.”

- Antonio Gramsci, “Sterile and Negative Criticism“, L’Unità September 30, 1925.

In other words, Bordiga’s hyper-vigilance against opportunism made him ineffective in practice. One feature of his writings that we find correct is organic centralism since it grasped the necessary relationship between the party and the base without the pretence of party democracy. He managed to reproduce the basis of the stereotypical interpretation of Stalinism, arguing favourably of a more authoritarian society beyond what Lenin or Stalin believed in. This in turn has been turned into a meme of sorts among left-communists, which is expected from all euro-amerikan centred ideologies which amount to nothing in practice beyond debate echo chambers.

Bordiga also displayed a principled stance when denouncing opponents of decolonisation as “racists” (as what happened with Onorato Damen) while pointing out that the ‘democratic’ struggles in core countries inevitably led to fascism as without the aim towards socialism bourgeois dictatorship takes over.

Beyond the errors mentioned above one we would also add Bordiga’s failure at assessing the threat posed by fascism, and his ‘anti-anti-fascist’ view was disastrous as later demonstrated by how quickly Italy’s post-war political system was undermined by the machinations of U.S. imperialism to maintain the status quo through supporting successive reactionary governments, and the terrorism carried out through GLADIO and the mafia.

[sirensoftheweb]

BRITNEY SPEARS CLONED AND REPLACED?!?!?!

By: Hydra 🐍

Looks like you fell into the trap of conspiracies with that title huh?

I would like to start this discussion with the quote provided by Bridle saying, “We’re all looking at the same skies, but we’re seeing different things.” 

When I first read this, I was immediately transported back to a memory of visiting the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York City. One of the “exhibits” (I put the word ‘exhibit’ in italics here because it feels wrong to describe these pieces as merely “art” on display for the public) was a wall filled with squares identical in size, yet significantly different in colour. The idea behind the installation is that many different people saw the sky that day, but all viewed it differently (almost exactly what Bridle mentioned in their quote!). Bob may have woke up, looked at the sky and said, “What a nice clear blue sky we have today,” but our perception of the colour blue may not be the same as Bob or anyone else for that matter. 

I guess the point I am getting at here is: no matter what we are presented with, we will each perceive (insert item) in a completely different way, unique to our individuality. 

Take Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain for example. Where I may be disgusted that someone has simply turned a urinal on its side, signed it, and called it “art,” someone else may view as beautiful; An everyday item that we don’t think to appreciate. If anything, the piece opened up major discussion of what “art” meant to each individual. Trust me when I say the artists and intellectuals of the world took little time to get their grippers on the “clearest” explanation of Fountain’s purpose and importance. 

As an Arts and Humanities student (advanced at that! Thanks SASAH!) that feels the pressure of abiding to the intellectual lifestyle, I can’t help but call upon notable philosopher: Immanuel Kant. Kant has this crazy in depth theory about individual taste… but to spare some time, I will just bring up his critique of the aesthetical judgement. Kant’s critique states, “In order to decide whether anything is beautiful or not, we refer the representation, not by the Understanding to the Object for cognition but, by the Imagination (perhaps in conjunction with the Understanding) to the subject, and its feeling of please or pain” (OSU Library). 

So what main stream, controversial, opinionated, subject can we apply all of this to?? 

CONSPIRACY THEORIES 

I’m going to bend Kant’s critique to fit my argument and you can’t stop me (!) because guess what? This is my post and you are simply a mere voyeur to my biases hehehehehe

Conspiracies are the ideal beautiful object in this scenario. We spend time listening to them and forming our own opinions on them (whether good or bad), not because of the “logic” provided from them, but because they free our imagination. They allow us to think and discuss beyond popular and imposed upon beliefs (I’m talking societies of control type shizzz), but all though we can express freedom of speech within this, it can lead to dangerous outcomes. 

Elise Wang’s TED Talk “Why some conspiracy theories just won’t die,” describes the dangerous outcomes of conspiracy theories. Where one may think they are silly and lighthearted, another may use certain conspiracies to validate a negative opinion (Wang mentions violence and racism) to commit crimes. Do you remember that time a mob invaded the U.S. Capital because they believed that the Democrats were “rigging” the election against Donald Trump? Well the FBI considered that to be an act of domestic terrorism, proving that people act upon violence when applying specific conspiracies. 

So what is the solution? Wang suggests that media literacy is the solution that has been proposed, but she does not agree with this. Wang says, “[...] being presented with information that contradicts a firmly held belief is more likely to back fire, making you cling to that belief harder than it is to change your mind” (4:56). When confronted with evidence that challenges someone’s beliefs, they will most likely respond defensively, even if it means ignoring or distorting evidence to fit their prejudgments. Instead Wang’s call of action is: work as an activist. Instead of falling down the rabbit hole of trying to debunk people’s theories (because at the end of the day we have realized media literacy doesn’t work), we must stop giving a platform to radicalizers (14:54). → “[...] proactively protecting the people that conspiracy theories target” (15:02). I agree with Wang in the sense that this has worked in the past. I hate to bring up Trump twice, but he did become a lot more irrelevant once he was put in time out and banned from Twitter.

You may be wondering how we went from talking about a urinal to serious societal issues, and I am also wondering the same…. I guess I am leaning into my yapper characteristics. Anyway’s with all this said, I hope Wang’s solution won’t prevent me from being provided with a good ole’ video about how Chuck E. Cheese reuses old pizza…

[newstfionline]

Sunday, June 15, 2025

Israel and Iran trade strikes for a third day as nuclear talks are called off (AP) Israel unleashed airstrikes across Iran for a third day on Sunday and threatened even greater force as some Iranian missiles evaded Israeli air defenses to strike buildings in the heart of the country. Planned talks on Iran’s nuclear program, which could provide an off-ramp, were called off. The region braced for a protracted conflict after Israel’s surprise bombardment of Iran’s nuclear and military sites on Friday killed several top generals and nuclear scientists, and neither side showed any sign of backing down. Iran said Israel struck two oil refineries, raising the prospect of a broader assault on Iran’s heavily sanctioned energy industry that could affect global markets. The Israeli military, in a social media post, warned Iranians to evacuate arms factories, signaling what could be a further widening of the campaign. U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed full support for Israel’s actions while warning Iran that it can only avoid further destruction by agreeing to a new nuclear deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that if the Israeli strikes on Iran stop, then “our responses will also stop.”

The Army turns 250. Trump turns 79. Cue military might—and protest (AP) There were funnel cakes, stands of festival bling and American flags aplenty. There were mighty machines of war, brought out to dazzle and impress. And there was the spray of tear gas against demonstrators in Los Angeles and Atlanta, and rolling waves of anti-Trump resistance coast to coast. In scenes of celebration, protest and trepidation Saturday, masses of Americans cheered for a rousing Army parade like none seen in Washington in generations. Masses more rallied across the country against a president derided by his critics as an authoritarian, would-be king. On Saturday, the U.S. Army turned 250 and President Donald Trump 79. The double birthday bash energized crowds of well-wishers and military families in the capital while others decried the militarization of city streets. The fault lines of American life were evident.

US orders 500,000 citizens of four countries to leave (BBC) Hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were given special permission to come to the US will be told that they must leave the country immediately. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement Thursday that Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans who were previously temporarily shielded from deportation will be emailed notices telling them to go. The DHS said that more than half a million people from the four countries were allowed to remain in the US for two years under orders issued by former President Joe Biden. The directive is expected to face legal challenges from opponents of the Trump administration’s mass deportation programme. The DHS has promised travel assistance and a $1,000 “exit bonus” to migrants without legal permission to be in the US who voluntarily leave the country.

How people in the U.S. and other G7 countries view each other (Pew Research Center) Later this week, the Group of Seven (G7) will meet in Canada for their annual summit. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney will host the leaders of the other member countries: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Americans have more favorable views of the other G7 countries than people in these countries do of the U.S., according to Pew Research Center surveys conducted this spring. For example, 65% of Americans have a very or somewhat favorable opinion of Germany. But only 33% of Germans say the same about the United States. Overall, majorities of Americans see the other G7 countries favorably, including at least seven-in-ten who say this about Japan (77%), Canada (74%), Italy (74%) and the UK (70%). But views of the U.S. in G7 countries are mixed or negative. Views are most favorable in Japan, where 55% think positively of the U.S. The largest decrease in favorability toward the U.S. among G7 countries is in Canada. About a third of Canadians (34%) think positively of their southern neighbor today, compared with 54% last year. Meanwhile, 64% of Canadians now have unfavorable views of the U.S., including 39% whose views are very unfavorable.

A letter demanding data on Cuban medical missions roils the Caribbean and the Americas (AP) An unusual request from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about Cuban medical brigades that operate worldwide and provide much needed help has roiled countries in the Caribbean and the Americas. In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, the commission asks members of the Organization of American States, OAS, for details including whether they have an agreement with Cuba for medical missions, whether those workers have labor and union rights and information about any labor complaints. Cuba has more than 22,000 doctors working in more than 50 countries, including in the Caribbean and the Americas, according to its government. Many impoverished nations in the Caribbean rely heavily on those medical professionals. The letter was sent after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa restrictions in late February for Cuban or foreign government officials accused of involvement in Cuba’s medical missions, which he called “forced labor.”

In Brazil, a familiar question: Is the president too old to run again? (Washington Post) President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is worried about his legs. The Brazilian leader has become “obsessed” with strengthening his leg muscles, one longtime aide said, so his gait never betrays the truth: That on the cusp of turning 80, he is now an old man. During the 2022 campaign, he gritted his way through a painful hip condition, but waited to tell the public—and to undergo hip replacement surgery—until he was back in the presidential palace. Weeks later, he was showing off his leg workouts in a video posted on social media. But such displays of vitality have failed to temper concerns about his age. Recent polls show two-thirds of voters are worried about Lula’s health, and their concern is shared by a number of the president’s political allies and advisers, seven of whom spoke to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe their impressions. They say Lula is largely the same but is now slower to make decisions, far more irritable and is struggling to keep up with a changing Brazil. Despite the public and private consternation about his advancing age, the leftist is expected to soon launch his campaign for a record fourth presidential term, which, if successful, would keep him in office until he’s 85 years old.

Russian Forces Expand Fighting to a New Region of Eastern Ukraine (NYT) Pressing ahead with a new summer offensive, Russian forces have entered the Dnipropetrovsk region of eastern Ukraine for the first time in three years of war—signaling their capacity to keep expanding the fight as cease-fire talks show little signs of progress. Advancing west from the Donetsk region, the main theater of the ground war today, small squads of Russian soldiers began crossing into neighboring Dnipropetrovsk last weekend, according to three Ukrainian officers fighting in the area. A battlefield map by the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War, based on verified combat footage, now shows that Russian forces have secured a tiny foothold in the area. Russia is unlikely to try to seize the new region, which it has signaled in the past that it has no intentions of doing. Instead, military analysts and Ukrainian soldiers view the push as both symbolic—aimed at denting Ukrainian morale by breaching a new region—and strategic, designed to bolster its defenses in neighboring areas where it has already dug in. Still, both goals are likely to further widen the battlefield in a war now grinding through its fourth year.

Cambodia bans Thai movies and TV shows in latest border feud tit-for-tat (AP) Cambodia escalated its cold war with Thailand on Friday when it announced a ban on Thai movies and TV shows and a boycott of the neighboring country’s international internet links. Tensions between the Southeast Asian countries have soared since an armed confrontation in a border area on May 28 that each side blamed on the other and which left one Cambodian soldier dead. Cambodian officials said the import and screenings of Thai movies would be banned, and that broadcasters would be ordered not to air Thai-produced shows, which include popular soap operas. The government said it would inflict a financial blow on Thailand by rerouting its international internet traffic through other countries instead. Cambodian and Thai authorities engaged in saber-rattling last week, though they have since walked back much of their earlier statements emphasizing their right to take military action.

Mossad covertly prepared Israel’s attack from deep inside Iran (Washington Post) By the time Israeli aircraft were streaking across the sky toward nuclear and military sites in Iran on Friday, secret commando teams, swarms of armed drones and explosives concealed in ordinary vehicles were emerging from hiding deep inside Iran and making their way toward slumbering targets. Among the targets were military commanders, nuclear scientists and leaders of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps—many of them “still in their beds, in their homes,” according to a senior Israeli security official with direct knowledge of the operation who provided previously unpublished details to The Washington Post. By daybreak, members of the inner circle of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and key figures in the country’s nuclear brain trust were dead, in some cases apparent casualties of explosives-packed drones or other devices that blew holes in the sides of apartment high-rises and other structures in central Tehran, according to Israeli and Western security officials, as well as regime statements on known casualties. The targeted killings were part of a “first wave” in the attack plan designed to kill “decision-makers” in the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s regime while they “were in places that we knew about,” the senior Israeli security official said.

Israeli strikes on Gaza kill at least 20 as war rages on after the opening of a new front with Iran (AP) At least 20 Palestinians were killed in Israeli strikes on the Gaza Strip overnight and into Saturday, according to local health officials. The 20-month war with Hamas has raged on even as Israel has opened a new front with heavy strikes on Iran that sparked retaliatory drone and missile attacks. Another 11 Palestinians were killed overnight near food distribution points run by an Israeli- and U.S.-supported humanitarian group in the latest of almost daily shootings near the sites since they opened last month. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli forces have fired on the crowds, while the military says it has only fired warning shots near people it describes as suspects who approached its forces. The sites are located in military zones that are off limits to independent media.

How expressing gratitude can transform your work and life (AP) The first thing Alison C. Jones does when she wakes up is to name three things she’s grateful for. It can be as simple as the breeze from a fan or as meaningful as the way a friend showed up for her emotionally. Jones, an organizational development consultant, said the daily practice has helped her through hardships and the anxiety and vulnerability of starting her own business as a single mom. “When you practice gratitude, you train your brain to always look for the positive in anything. It just completely shifts everything you’re going through,” she said. “You start to see the lessons in the pain. You start to see the beauty in the very difficult times because you realize, ‘Hey, I’m growing stronger.’” Practicing and encouraging gratitude can be a simple way to boost morale at a time when layoffs and economic uncertainty are causing stress and anxiety. Some employers have found that workers who receive expressions of gratitude show more engagement and willingness to help others. Other proponents say expressing and receiving appreciation can help reduce stress, as well as improve a person’s mood and outlook.

[cyberbenb]

Ukraine sends ceasefire memo, urges Russia to respond ahead of June 2 peace talks, Umerov says

Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said on May 28 that Kyiv is still awaiting the Russian side’s proposed ceasefire memorandum, which was expected following peace talks in Turkey earlier this month.

According to Umerov, the international community had anticipated Russia would submit the document promptly after the May 16 negotiations in Istanbul.

“Unfortunately, the Russian side attempted to delay this process. But pressure worked,” Umerov said in his Facebook post. He credited statements from U.S. President Donald Trump, European leaders, and President Volodymyr Zelensky for compelling Moscow to complete the draft. He noted, however, that Russia continues to withhold delivery of the document.

“They received our document,” Umerov added, referring to Ukraine’s position paper. “We reaffirm Ukraine’s readiness for a full and unconditional ceasefire and continued diplomatic engagement."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced the same day that Russia’s memorandum, detailing its stance, would be presented by the delegation led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky during the next round of negotiations set for June 2 in Istanbul.

During a press conference, Lavrov said the two sides had agreed on May 16 to draft documents outlining their respective positions. He added that Russia had “promptly drafted a corresponding memorandum,” which includes what he described as steps to address the “root causes of the crisis."

Russia’s so-called “root causes” reportedly include long-standing maximalist demands that Kyiv withdraw from four partially occupied regions, that NATO cease further expansion eastward, and that some sanctions on Moscow be lifted. The memorandum also  addresses the issue of frozen Russian assets and calls for “the protection of Russian-speaking Ukrainians.”

Moscow has promoted the narrative that Kyiv discriminates against Russian-speaking citizens through its language policies. While Russian is still widely spoken throughout Ukraine, the government has introduced reforms in recent years aimed at strengthening the use of Ukrainian in public life—part of broader efforts to reverse decades of Russification under both Soviet and Russian influence.

A vast majority of Russian-speaking Ukrainians — those how primarily speak Russian at home — view Russia negatively, according to a survey published on May 27 by Kyiv-based think tank Razumkov Center in cooperation with the Kyiv Security Forum.

Umerov also said Ukraine is open to additional meetings but stressed the importance of preparedness to ensure any discussions are productive.

“The Russian side has at least four more days (until June 2) before their departure to provide us with their document for review,” he said. “We call on them to fulfill that promise without delay and stop trying to turn the meeting into a destructive one. Diplomacy must be substantive, and the next meeting must yield results."

Russia massing 50,000 troops near border of Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast, Zelensky says

Russian forces are accumulating 50,000 troops near Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast, seeking to create a 10-kilometer buffer zone in the area, President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a press briefing on May 27.

The Kyiv IndependentMartin Fornusek