cascadestateofmind

[cascadestateofmind]

[cascadestateofmind]

picketing terf conferences is OUT, releasing 6000 live crickets into the audience of a terf conference and watching chaos erupt as everyone scrambles to evacuate is IN

[cascadestateofmind]

I am becoming aware of the effect a lack of trust in the media has had on people, paired with a dearth of research skills.

[cascadestateofmind]

[cascadestateofmind]

[cascadestateofmind]

you're just mad because you're hungry and tired and your legs hurt and you head hurts and you're too hot and you have depression

[cascadestateofmind]

[cascadestateofmind]

"If you ever feel heavy because you care deeply about injustice, suffering, and ecological destruction, remember that a trillion dollar propaganda machine was built to make you numb and it didn't work on you"

[cascadestateofmind]

you know even if a homeless person or a starving person is in that position because of their own "bad decisions" i don't care. it doesn't matter. no supposed financial misstep is enough to condemn someone to homelessness or poverty.

[cascadestateofmind]

american leftists seem extremely focused on anti imperialism (good) but rarely- if at all- discuss decolonization in their own fucking country, despite acknowledging that it is a settler colonial state.

[cascadestateofmind]

i cannot do another round of "is shaving feminist?" discourse again, i simply cannot do it. is shaving feminist? no! do feminists shave their bodies? yes! is this a deep betrayal of principles? not really! do some women actually shave for the mythical "sensory reasons"? well, considering that my number one reason for shaving my legs in the summer is because my ceiling fan blows on the hair and i'm constantly having mini freakouts that i've got a bug crawling on me, i'd imagine some do! is it okay for a woman to say to herself "i realize i'm mostly doing this because i don't want to be treated worse by people in the world who find my unshaven legs disgusting, but i'm still going to do it because i don't think suffering for no reason is virtuous" and shave? yes! will yelling at her to "think critically about her choices" until she agrees with you actually work? no! does any of this make it any easier to get an abortion in this country? nope! have we replaced the "is this pop star a feminist?" discourse of the 2010s with "are your personal choices antithetical to the tenets of feminism?" discourse in the 2020s, none of which is conveniently focused on the actual loci of power?? hahahahahahaaaaa

[cascadestateofmind]

Actual roman epitaph for a dog

[cascadestateofmind]

[cascadestateofmind]

does anyone wanna hold hands until we feel a little braver

[cascadestateofmind]

I honestly don’t understand why there aren’t more people who, when given the platform to discuss minimum wage, don’t simply distill it to the simplest of facts:

A forty hour work week is considered full time.

It’s considered as such because it takes up the amount of time we as a society have agreed should be considered the maximum work schedule required of an employee. (this, of course, does not always bear out practically, but just follow me here)

A person working the maximum amount of time required should earn enough for that labor to be able to survive. Phrased this way, I doubt even most conservatives could effectively argue against it, and out of the mouth of someone verbally deft enough to dance around the pathos-based jabs conservative pundits like to use to avoid actually debating, it could actually get opps thinking.

Therefore, if an employee is being paid less than [number of dollars needed for the post-tax total to pay for the basic necessities in a given area divided by forty] per hour, they are being ripped off and essentially having their labor, productivity, and profit generation value stolen by their employer.

Wages are a business expense, and if a company cannot afford to pay for its labor, it is by definition a failing business. A company stealing labor to stay afloat (without even touching those that do so simply to increase profit margins and/or management/executive pay/bonuses) is no more ethical than a failing construction company breaking into a lumber yard and stealing wood.

Our goal as a society should be to protect each other, especially those that most need protection, not to subsidize failing businesses whose owners could quite well subsidize them on their own.

[cascadestateofmind]

ive been thinking it over for a while now and ive finally come to the conclusion that something should probably be done about the united states

[cascadestateofmind]

so long as we're back to social justice 101 on this stupid website, u need to be aware of the feedback loop that emerges from disproportionate scrutiny: any social group that is placed under extra scrutiny, regardless of the actual prevalence of any particular behaviour, will appear to engage in that behaviour more often.

you see this most blatantly with racialised groups (more cops in black neighbourhoods = more arrests in black neighbourhoods = "omg look at all the crime in these neighbourhoods!" = more cops in black neighbourhoods etc). even if the rate of crime is the same (putting to one side the criminalisation of poverty which is also an important related factor), one group gets away with it way more often and a new generation of racists is indoctrinated with the crime statistics which "prove" that some groups are simply more criminal in nature. we see a similar phenomenon online with particular groups (trans women being a huge example) being subjected to mass stalking, their every move documented by weirdos and broadcast as representative of the group as a whole.

tl;dr - overscrutinising groups based on existing bigotries creates a recurring feedback loop, reproducing those bigotries across generations and nominally justifying them. this is bad, and you need to remember that you are not immune to it.