#about privilege and organized religion

[worstlovesong]

As I sat in sermon, from the love I had for my friend

Listen to the pastor screaming from the pupit on anti Israel sentiment

About the marches from London to LA, from Baghdad to Karachi

I thought about a father cradling the body of his child, calling her the soul of his soul

white phosphate flying through the sky, buring through skin and bone.

He is still screaming from his stand, in an climate control room.

It elicit the scene of freezing rain, and the leaky tents on hospital grounds.

Mothers having their child cut out of them with no pain management.

Journalists watching bombs land on them while fulfilling their duty

He is shouting from the alter, with no fear of hunger

I remember a child with croissant in hand he will never eat

The girl who shared the little food with her cat

The elder making hundreds of bread and never eating to preserve the young

I sat there as he go on about his percussion complex

As infant losing their breath alongside electricity

Children identifying their mother body by her hair filled my phone.

I listen as a member of his congregation, knowing he told me,

My identity, my love is a payment for sins of my father.

Knowing those he hated were the ones who marched for my right

I feel your anger and his hypocrisy, why is it that sermons so often bring out these feelings in us. The corruption is so real, how do they not see it? Are they really so blind or do they not just care?

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The Ontario Divisional Court recently released its decision on Jordan Peterson’s challenge of the College of Psychologists of Ontario’s order that he complete a coaching program on professionalism in public statements. The Court’s decision, which upheld the College’s order, has generated a fair bit of commentary in the media, much of which argues that the order and decision are assaults on Peterson’s freedom of expression, or will empower “woke” organizations to curtail individual freedoms. However, I look at the matter from a different lens. While I may have the right to freedom of expression, how I exercise that right may have implications. For example, at a very basic level, if someone expresses a strong opinion on one side of a subject, they may risk relationships with family or friends who have strong opinions on the other side. In the case of Jordan Peterson, the potential implications are that the manner in which he is choosing to exercise his right to freedom of expression may impact on the privilege of being licensed as a clinical psychologist by the College of Psychologists of Ontario.   License to practice – A privilege not a right You may note that I referred to being licensed as a privilege; that is by design, as there is no right under the Charter to practice any particular profession. Instead, being licensed to practice any particular profession is a privilege, and many would argue that it imposes certain responsibilities upon those who are licensed. Further, as a self-regulated profession, the College of Psychologists of Ontario has a mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest, and to that effect it has developed Standards of Professional Conduct and adopted the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. This Code of Ethics provides that “psychologists acknowledge that all human beings have a moral right to have their innate worth as human beings appreciated,” without regard to factors such as ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, “or any other preference or personal characteristic, condition, or status.” The Code also provides that “psychologists do not engage in unjust discrimination based on such factors and promote non-discrimination in all of their activities,” and that psychologists must “Not engage publicly … in degrading comments about others…”.

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[decolonize-the-left]

Hi I've had an influx of followers again so I wanna say hi and tell y'all a little what I'm about.

So hi, I'm decol. I'm a grown Ojibwe leftist living with my trans gf and my kid ❤️

You may have noticed I posted a lot of politics. Lately it's been Free Palestine but thats because it became my new normal. Before I became so focused on Palestinians liberation tho, I posted a lot more other things. Human rights, trans rights, women's rights, Im mentally ill and AuDHD and post about mental illness stigma, landback, calling out white supremacy, decolonization, etc. My blog has been political for along time but always on the side of human rights and fighting oppression. But that's just liberal stuff. What makes me a leftist is that I don't believe states or borders are good for people.

Let's get into why that is.

I support life and believe that a state or government fundamentally opposes life.

I also support whatever means necessary the oppressed seek to gain freedom. I don't think it's my place or anyone else's to say liberation can only look one way. Especially when it's often from privilege and a myopic view of comfort that most us speak.

There wouldn't be so many people being oppressed if there weren't so many people dedicated to their own comfort instead of liberation. Nobody should have to Vote to have human rights and if in fact any oppressed people had allies we would not have had to march for them either. We shouldn't have to earn our human rights from a majority that didn't want us to vote in the first place and nobody should have to do it now.

I think voting therefore is also a fundamentally flawed system that no amount of voting blue will change because it is not the Votes that must change, but the people who are casting them. It's the people in the majority who are not demanding equality and the people in the majority who are leaving others to fight for themselves.

But I do unfortunately live in a society that continues to use and weaponize that system anyway for their bi-annual puppet theater where they watch BIPOC fight and bid on who will give us more rights .

I think few people see this for what it is and even less are willing to demand the change necessary to give all people a proper and equal voice. Such is the nature of the majority is it not? They may pretend to hate injustice but remember that myopic view of comfort they have? Injustice is included with it, free of charge.

So yeah, you will see me advocate for certain things on this blog that may contradict the views I've stated at first glance. But It's just me working within the framework that I have been given.

For example I'll push for presidential candidates despite the fact that I support Landback and believe voting is flawed and the country is fascist. Because I know we are far from an organized revolution full of intersectional solidarity and realistically I must work within the framework I have. Which is a shitty voting system and a population who doesn't even fully realize why it's so shitty.

Or you'll see me support violence when I support saving lives. And that's because I also believe the language of the oppressor is violence and likewise that anyone who's ever tried catering to their "better conscience" has found that oppression wouldn't exist if the oppressors had a conscience to appeal to. Violence is the answer sometimes and I've found that sometimes it's the only answer that a state will understand.

To that end...I don't want to hear about any state military anywhere. Every single military on earth has done some seriously fucked up shit. I know this. You know this. I don't support any military anywhere. Period.

I don't think anyone is innocent either. As I've gotten older I've realized it's been made clear that race and religion are part of everything including our headlines today and that's it's been that way for a long time. Even freedom and liberation and oppression have been racialized and as a native 'leftist extremist' I've seen that firsthand. I've learned that both sides will lie to make the other look bad without taking accountability for whatever awful thing they did themselves.

Power corrupts. And it's why I support principles and ideas behind a movement and not necessarily the specific people of it or even the movement itself and it's why I will ALWAYS disregard any attempt to undermine a movement because the people leading it were found to have flaws. Of course they did. And of course they're being politicized. Such is the reality of the Us vs Them political landscape. Anything to make the other guy look bad.

It's up to us who were going to stand behind despite their flaws. It's up to us to decide what principles matter to us. And I refuse to let perfection be the enemy of progress. Because I understand a lot of people in 2024 have been spoon fed puritan ideas that have made them believe most movements are not good enough to support. Either they don't follow their ideology perfectly or their tactics are too aggressive or their goals are "unrealistic." It's always something.

I don't subscribe to this puritan 2.0 logic. Nor do I believe that it should apply to everyone. I didn't ask to be held under a microscope for example. I'm just a Tumblr blogger. Yeah I blog about a lot of politics and such but that's because I like politics and such lol I'm not a representation of anything but myself, but you'll find I too have been politicized in ongoing race and theological wars. "Why would you say x if you support y?" says anon in another attempt to make all supporters of Y look unreliable and bad for their opinions on X. As if my singular bad opinion is somehow a representation of everyone else who supports Y and not just my opinion specifically on x.

I also want to be very clear that I'm still learning :)

I don't know everything about everything yet and as such I'm sure I'll fuck up or say the wrong things or use the wrong terminology sometimes.

Please just give me a heads up. Don't be a puritan about it and make a whole post about how ignorant and harmful I am or something, especially when it's been made clear my intentions are not to offend or exclude anyone and I would Never intentionally do anything like that.

I try to educate myself on topics before I speak about them but lots of the things I discuss on my blog require a lot of knowledge to be spoken on in confidence. I am often not confident lol. As a native tho it annoys me to no end when people use the excuse that "well I didn't know enough about the topic so I stayed silent and didn't share opinions on it at all ever" because that's also a puritan act thats detrimental to movement and helps to maintain our status as 'Irrelevant Concern.' So I try to educate myself and show support, tho sometimes it isn't as well worded or educated as it should have been.

All I ask is you have some grace when that happens as I have good intentions. Additionally if I ever fuck up Please tell me. I do not ever want to make someone feel like shit cuz or singled out cuz I said something ignorant I shouldn't have.

Some people choose comfort and don't acknowledge when they fucked up. I try to pride myself on Not doing that and correcting myself where others can see and learn from it too.

Not everyone wants to learn tho. Those are the people I don't understand. Those are my opposers; the people standing indifferently in the way of progress while oppressed fathers beg for them to move aside. And what is he to do with the child dying in his arms? Just allow this man to keep being the only obstacle to saving them? Of course not.

And so I aggressively and vehemently stand by the opinion that self defense in this way is never wrong. Let all the ignorant white supremacists die if they have to and let all their allies cry about it. I don't care. White supremacists fundamentally oppose life which I support. And so I fundamentally oppose white supremacy the same way I do a state and as such I openly call for their destruction as well.

This is getting long so I'll wrap it up.

TLDR:

Human rights are to be taken by any means necessary if they were not given to you. The people with-holding them don't get to complain about how you get them and either does anyone else especially if they aren't helping you get them now. Additionally, people should be given room to grow but choosing not to grow is a choice too so don't tolerate the intolerant who stands in your way. If you can cut him down then do it.

PS:

My asks are always open. I get a lot of mean, bad faith asks and so I answer most asks with this mindset and I'm trying to be better about it but if you send one in good faith and my attitude sucks, please don't take it personally.

P.p.s

I share a lot of politics and upsetting things and images on my blog. I don't feel the need to tag every post because So Many of them are this way..

However, the posts that are especially bad ARE tagged

My trauma/trigger tag is: decolstw

This is a catch-all tag. Gore, white supremacist violence, historical hate crimes, and the like are all tagged with this.

[eretzyisrael]

The October 7 attack and its aftermath have finally brought the disparate elements of this struggle against Jews to the surface, its participants surging into the streets and onto social media—suggesting that Hamas knew something important about the world that many of us didn’t see, or didn’t want to. 

When I was a reporter for an international news agency at the time of the Hamas takeover in Gaza in 2007,  I discovered that it was impolitic to mention what Hamas clearly announced in its founding charter from 1988: Namely, that “our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious,” and the Jews were “behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions, and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests.” 

This didn’t sound like “Free Palestine.” But as a rule, on the rare occasions that Western news organizations felt compelled to mention the document, they left those parts out. 

The historical examples from the charter suggest that in the war against Judaism, the ideologues of Hamas understand themselves to be operating in a broad coalition and carrying on a long tradition. This is true. “Islam and National Socialism are close to each other in the struggle against Judaism,” Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem and one of the fathers of the Palestinian national movement, said in 1944. This was in a speech to members of an SS division he helped raise, made up of Bosnian Muslims. “Nearly a third of the Qur’an deals with the Jews. It has demanded that all Muslims watch the Jews and fight them wherever they find them,” he said, an idea that would reappear four decades later in the Hamas charter. When the mufti testified before a British commission of inquiry in 1936, he quoted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Tsarist forgery describing a global Jewish conspiracy, which is also the source for parts of the Hamas charter and remains popular across the Middle East. (I once found the book for sale at a good shop near the American University of Beirut.) The Hamas army, known as the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, is named for one of the mufti’s most famous proteges.

The movement became savvy enough to water down its charter a few years ago, but its leaders have remained honest about their intent. “You have Jews everywhere,” one former Hamas minister, Fathi Hammad, shouted to a crowd in 2019, “and we must attack every Jew on the globe by way of slaughter and killing, with God’s will.” 

In the liberal West, no sane person would own up to believing The Protocols. (At least not yet; things are moving fast.) But an Italian can hold a prominent U.N. job, for example, after saying she believes a “Jewish lobby” controls America, and you can hold a tenured position at the best universities in the West if you believe that the only country on earth that must be eliminated is the Jewish one. 

My experience in the Western press corps was that sympathy for Hamas was not just real but often more substantial than sympathy for Jews. In Europe and North America, as we’ve now seen on the streets and on campuses, many on the progressive left have arrived at an ideology positing that one of the world’s most pressing problems is the State of Israel—a country that has come to be seen as the embodiment of the evils of the racist, capitalist West, if not as the world’s only “apartheid” state, that being a modern synonym for evil. 

Jews could no longer officially be hated because of their ethnicity or religion, but can legitimately be hated as supporters of “apartheid” and as the embodiment of “privilege.” The pretense that this is a critique of Israel’s military tactics, or sincere desire for a two-state solution, has now largely been dropped. 

[writingwithfolklore]

Building Your World

                Worldbuilding is all about asking the right questions. I emphasize the right questions because we could spend endless hours asking a million questions about every part of a world, but unless I don’t really need to know it, or it doesn’t matter to the plot, I don’t care to develop it. Of course, you’re allowed to go as in-depth as you’d like, but remember that it’s easy to get lost in world and eventually, I assume, we’re going to want to actually write the thing.

Always, we start with protagonist. Their backstory is the foundations of our world—home, community, neighbourhood, family, familiar faces, etc. If you know they live by a lakeside surrounded by trees, consider why their family moved them there, or what’s beyond it, or even how that impacts their growth. You’ll find as well if you’re a little shaky on your character, worldbuilding does wonders in strengthening them.

Are they religious? Where does their family come from? What norms or traditions does their family hold? Do other people hold those same traditions? What about a job? Or education? Would they be considered privileged? Do they belong to any groups or organizations? Etc. Etc.

The majority of your world building should come from this place. We’re taking specific details about our character and folding them into the world—the setting is a device for protagonist to shine, it is created for them.

The next thing I typically develop is how the world also revolves around the important side characters, antagonist, etc. It makes the world a bit more multifaceted, that the same system that works so well for the protagonist (or doesn’t) might be detrimental to their best friend depending on their differing situations. These details come from the backstories of your other big characters, so if you haven’t done that yet, now is a good time to!

                Lastly, if you haven’t covered it yet, it’s a good time to think about the society that has brought all these people together. Systems, government, authority, organizations, religions, what impact do they have on our characters and how do they think of them? This is where it’s easiest to get off track, so try to stay close to what’s important to the story. Readers will fill in the spaces you leave.

                Always, there is room in world building for further expanding, and if you’d like to go beyond and consider intergalactic relations or global alliances or anything else to explore the space more you may! However, at some point worldbuilding must end, and writing must begin, and it’s okay to not know absolutely everything.

                Good luck!

[utilitycaster]

Seeing your post about Orym reminded me of something that's been confusing me. You mentioned the gods' debate had a small influence on why Orym was getting so much push back in the fandom, and it brought to mind an observation I've had about FCG the past few episodes. The fandom seems to have put the weight of the gods' side solely on Orym, but in the actual show, FCG is the character getting the pushback on this topic from the other characters. Do you think your points from your post about Orym are the reason the fandom latched onto him over FCG as the gods' supposed number one fan in the group or if there might be some other reason?

I think it's in part because while FCG is more attached to the gods, it is less of a political stance, if that makes sense - it's much more an emotional/faith connection to the Changebringer. and it's also easier I think for people to not take FCG seriously. Especially if you're someone who is discrediting religion in general, FCG can be brushed off. Orym, on the other hand, is one of the more politically astute members of the party (arguably the most in fact; Chetney is smarter but his intelligence is more oriented towards investigation than knowledge - quicker on the draw but with less book learning). Orym is also not specifically beholden to the gods, and so it's harder to write this off as him lacking objectivity on this topic, which is why the argument has been focused more on him being too close to the case to be rational, even though that argument is deeply hypocritical if you granted Imogen any leniency about the role of her mother in the Vanguard, or the fact that she is of the elite class of Exaltants and would be granted power in the Vanguard well beyond where Orym ranks on the opposing side.

A viewpoint I saw in the fandom, especially surrounding Bor'Dor, was one that I think might be driving this. It's potentially compatible, actually, with Ashton's viewpoint, though it fails to recognzie that said viewpoint is both just as emotionally charged for Ashton as Orym's is for Orym: that Ludinus is undeniably evil and must be stopped, but perhaps the Vanguard might have points.

This, as far as we can tell, is, if not total horseshit, at least a pipe dream. Bor'Dor showed that even kindness, acceptance, and not being terribly in favor of the gods was completely insufficient deprogramming. It might be possible to render the group much more ineffective by taking out the heads (Ludinus, Otohan, and Liliana), but as Keyleth pointed out, the Vanguard has been running a massive network of cults and is fomenting unrest across Exandria in the service of the goals of their leadership in the meantime. And, as Keyleth also pointed out, there are likely ramifications of doing away with the gods she does not wish to even learn. I don't think that you can just be against the top of the Vanguard without at least being prepared to fight the rest of it. It's a very true to life quandary: while extremist political organizations and cults often prey upon vulnerable people, when those now-indoctrinated vulnerable people are trying to kill you, you can't stop and weigh the fact that they did not have every possible privilege because, well, they will kill you while you do this. Anyway, FCG is not having this thought process to my knowledge; he just trusts the Changebringer. Orym, however, does understand the above.

But also, again, look. We can talk about the characters' philosophies and politics and the role of the gods, and I enjoy doing that, but I think it's again worth pointing out that there are people within the fandom who, when you strip away the big words used as cover, really just think that the only "good" stance is to let Imogen and Laudna, as both individuals and a couple, run roughshod over the world unquestioned, or else you're horrible and evil. FCG's choice to go into the Grand Disc received similarly disproportionate hate for something that should have been an utter nonevent. I've seen people mad at Chetney, even though, truly, the most he has ever done is have his own thoughts and opinions that aren't revolving around Imogen or Laudna's lives. Orym is not even being unkind or in direct opposition to Imogen nor Laudna, but nor does he believe the sun shines from either of their asses. He is simply resolute and not going to be swayed by their viewpoints on this specific topic, and that alone is enough for some to condemn him.

[fuckyeahasexual]

Asexual Manifesto 2022: Radical Asexual Politics, 50 Years On

"So when I talk about asexuality I don't mean some sort of sanitized model of identity politics invested in being recognized and affirmed (by capitalism)." — Alok Vaid-Menon

"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them." — Assata Shakur

Asexuality is an inherently radical concept, but being asexual doesn't make a person radical in practice. This manifesto is a call to action for asexual community as much as it a provocation to queer and cisgender heterosexual society at large. A person does not need to "be" asexual in order to practice a radical asexual politics. If we as a collective seek to establish a just society, we must engage in radical asexual politics as necessary (but not sufficient) for achieving collective liberation.

Radical asexual politics is the practice of intellectually deconstructing and socially dismantling the sexually normative aspects of society, including race, color, ethnicity, class, caste, creed, ability, age, size, gender, sex, sexuality, religion, nationality, reproduction, and other categories of social organization and segmentation. Radical asexual politics harnesses the negativity associated with asexuality, the so-called "absence" or "lack" of sexuality, to clean the slate of sexual normativity and rewrite society as a place of liberation, including but not limited to sexual liberation.

Radical asexual politics is anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-colonial. It rejects the organization of society around production and reproduction and reclaims all forms of pleasure (sexual and non-sexual) from their conscription into serving capital and hierarchies of power. It rejects the use of asexual identity to uphold racist ideologies and systems and reclaims sexual self-determination for all peoples. It rejects the social prioritization of monogamous couples and nuclear families and reclaims the kinship ties and familial networks that empire decimated.

To manifest a radical asexuality, we must act from a place of collectivism. We must practice solidarity within and across categories of difference. We must practice humble consciousness-raising and self-correction for the good of the group. We practice the following principles up until they no longer serve the collective, as determined by the wisdom of future workers laboring for liberation.

We reject bioessentialism and reclaim our power of self-determination.

"Born this way" and "made this way" narratives alike are unimportant to the work of asexual liberation, and in fact distract from it. Policing the reality of asexuality — whether it comes from nature, nurture, or a person's free choice to affiliate with asexuality — concedes to the state and its institutions the power to categorize, regulate, and oppress the body. We take back our power to choose and use our bodies in ways that we decide, we enjoy, and we thrive.

We reject the concentration of power in individuals and organizations and reclaim the power of the collective.

Cooperation with governments and concession to authorities, directly through cops and legislation and indirectly through nonprofit regulations, impede the work of asexual liberation. Putting icons on pedestals distracts from the work of asexual liberation. Our power is distributed throughout our people. We take back our power to organize our own queer families, relationships, communities, and societies, on terms that privilege not sexual bonds but whatever affective affiliations are important to the collective, independent of regulatory systems. We invest in our collective not through appeals to the authorities who seek our annihilation — not through waiting for legalization and protection — but through self-sustaining mutual aid.

We reject top-down regulation and reclaim community and egalitarian accountability.

Cop mentality destroys community. Labels are useful because words are powerful. But they can also be a powerful way for those with power to sow division among those deprived of power, in order to prevent our organizing to reclaim our power. We beware those bad actors by investing in robust community accountability, oriented towards repair rather than punishment. We reject the cop mentality of ideological purity in favor of the "constant change of heart" of consciousness-raising (bell hooks). We commit to humble and generous self-reflection on the ways that we perpetuate sexual normativity at every level of society, turning away from hierarchy and leaning on each other as we collectively learn and grow towards thriving, free of oppression.

We reject mere visibility and reclaim the power of direct action.

Visibility without self-defense exposes our people to violence. Raising awareness concedes our power of self-determination to our oppressors, whereas raising our own consciousness of the operations of sexual normativity equips us to liberate ourselves. We exercise our right to opacity (Édouard Glissant) as we forge our own present and future where we will enjoy our sexual freedom (the freedom to engage as much or as little as we want with sex). We take our own actions against sexual normativity, spiting the systems that perpetuate it and making real our asexual dreams for freedom.

We reject capitalist competition and reclaim erotic excellence.

Capitalist society is a society of scarcity. In our pursuit of physical and spiritual nourishment, capitalism demands that we compete against each other and ultimately against our own interests, expending our energies on the fight to meet our mere needs. We eschew the deprivation inherent to lateral oppression and embrace collective abundance. We pursue erotic excellence (Audre Lorde), that fundamental drive for pleasure and joy and fulfillment in all our labors, not just sex, as we work together in community towards our mutual liberation.

[disappointingyellowhighlighter]

I know nobody needs to hear my opinions about the Israel Palestine conflict but I have a lot of thoughts and nowhere to put them so here goes:

1. What Israel is doing is wrong. Israel as a state should not exist, especially in the way it does now.

2. Innocent Israeli citizens exist. Jews do have ancestral ties to the land and should be allowed to exist there without having to be conflated in belief with a genocidal government. Not all Israeli citizens are Jewish, and they, too, deserve to exist there without having to be conflated in belief with a genocidal government.

3. Hamas is a terrorist organization.

4. If Israel puts down its weapons before Hamas does, innocent Israeli citizens will die.

5. Every country on earth should be calling for a ceasefire. From both sides. Yes, the sides are not on equal footing. But BOTH must put down weapons for peace to be an option.

6. Western leftists do not understand how to be anti-zionist and anti-israel without being antisemitic. It is not a fine line, but it is one that is easy to cross and many do not listen when they are called out for it. Please listen when this comes up. Please check the biases of the sources you consume media from. Check how they are funded, check where they are located. By all means read the articles but be aware where they are coming from. I know it's easy to disregard this argument, and it may even be made erroneously, but please evaluate what has been said and think about why a Jewish person may have found it offensive. If it is TRULY just because there was criticism of Israel and/or Zionism, disregard the argument. Additionally, please understand the conditional whiteness given to white Jews. Telling us we have white privilege without understanding conditional whiteness and the history of whiteness as a classification, especially in regard to how it affects Jews, is ignorant at best and antisemitic at worst. Yes, many of us have white privilege. Until we are openly Jewish.

7. A lot of people who are calling to free Palestine have not thought past that. I agree. Free Palestine. But what happens after? Are former Israeli citizens expected to leave? If so, where? If not, do you expect the two groups to work out their own peace? Or should other nations be involved? If former Israeli citizens are not given a place to go and start getting attacked by the new government, what then? How will you respond if that is what happens? Please consider these questions. I know you don't think anything bad will happen, but think about what hamas already did, think about how Jews are treated historically, and think about what the plan would be going forward after the dismantling of Israel.

8. A lot of people think violence against Israeli citizens is justified. A lot of people think Hamas is in the right. I cannot change your mind. But this IS antisemitic. If you believe that Hamas was in the right for what they did to civilians because they are citizens of Israel, the only country in the world that's national religion is Judaism, you are antisemitic. If that statement upsets you, re-evaluate your position and why you feel the way you do.

9. Israel is indiscriminately bombing Gaza under the guise that they are somehow taking down Hamas. They are lying. Israel will claim any man killed by the IOF in Gaza is Hamas. They are lying. Israel is actively committing a genocide and if you are not against that genocide you are wrong.

10. Many diaspora Jews, because of this conflict, feel unsafe. We would be crazy not to. Any move on Israel's part always results in a rise of antisemitism worldwide, because people conflate Israel with Judaism. They are not even close to the same. I've seen appalling images of IOF soldiers using a combat knife as a yod, holding it up to a Torah. That is disgusting. But enough people conflate Israel and Judaism that diaspora Jews are affected by anything Israel does. Almost always negatively. If you are calling diaspora Jews selfish or saying we are claiming false victimhood, you are being antisemitic and you are using a genocide to justify it. If that statement bothers you, re-evaluate.

13. There is nuance in this situation. And if you refuse to acknowledge that nuance, I can assume it is for antisemitic reasons. And if that statement bothers you, re-evaluate.

11. I implore people to study Jewish history. See WHY Israel exists in the first place. You do not need to have empathy for Israel, I suggest you actively have none, but please please have empathy for Israeli citizens and diaspora Jews alike.

12. American support of Israel comes from a place of antisemitism.

14. All of these opinions can and should exist in tandem. Palestinians are being oppressed by Israel, Gaza is an open air prison, and Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza immediately. Innocent Israeli citizens and diaspora Jews should not be blamed for the actions of the Israeli government.

15. Free Palestine.

[creekfiend]

Just wanted to say thanks for "people from culturally Christian backgrounds" because that seems like a good way to phrase it, and I'm going to try to remember to use it when I'm talking about this sort of thing. (I try to not be a dick to people, when possible, and trauma's messy and complicated.) I'm sorry that some people are being horrible in this whole discussion, and I hope you are doing okay.

I'm doing fine! I really sympathize with most of the people involved in this tbh (except the outright antisemites of course lol) bc like I HAVE seen a lot of reactive and reductive and unkind blanket statements about this by some jumblr people in which they are condescendingly explaining other people's realities to them. Which is my LEAST favorite thing. Jumblr can also be really... umm, dog pile-y in a way that I find frustrating and unproductive. However. I think it's also fairly obvious that most of these reactions are trauma responses, and while that isn't an excuse it is an explanation and provides additional context that I do not feel is irrelevant. For jews we have constantly been told 'well simply stop being jewish' like all the time by everybody, often at gunpoint. So like, when I see nonjewish atheists assert that stuff jews are TELLING you they have gone through "literally never happens" that ALSO REALLY SUCKS. like so so bad. Cannot overstate how much that sucks. Cannot overstate how much it sucks to see ppl I sympathize with deeply wrt their mistrust and hatred of like, organized religious authority, align themselves with people who refer to jewish atheists as "religious nationalists" for refusing to divorce themselves from their ethnic backgrounds/culture/community/traditions. That rhetoric is Just antisemitism in a form that has been used to cause real and violent harm to us in living memory.

Also really alienated by the idea that one must be This Vitriolically Angry About Religion to "count" as an atheist. Like what? That is bonkers. I do not understand why the people making seemingly reasonable posts about "actually here's some interesting writings by people from Islamic cultures or majority Hindu cultures or orthodox jewish cultures outlining the ways that the authorities in these societies have used religion to cause harm on a systemic level" (objectively true) seem to be aligning themselves with people who are doing the SAME THING TO JEWS that they resent being done to them -- e.g. condescendingly explaining to us that our negative experiences with a certain type of atheists Don't Exist or Don't Count or cannot possibly be rooted in antisemitism.

I find the whole thing depressing and troubling. I don't tend to follow jumblr because of the aforementioned issues I have w it but this backlash seems to me to be disproportionate and really hateful in a way that... combines poorly with the increased antisemitic sentiments being lobbed at jews from all ideological sides recently. I wish we could all be more congizent of 1. the role trauma is playing here for everyone and 2. the inherent lack of productive discussion that can be had when two parties are simply Trauma Responsing at each other back and forth endlessly.

Then there's the people who just get super aggressive about people "believing fake things" but I'm not sure there's any help for them. Sure wish that the nonjewish atheists who are not like that would disavow them though! I certainly am more than happy to say "acknowledging a cultural/societal dynamic that privileges one religion and culture as default and that existing in thay culture might cause people to have unexamined assumptions about other religions and cultures" should not be weaponized against individual people in order to bully them by insisting they are a thing that they manifestly are not (atheists aren't Christians. The fact that atheists from Jewish backgrounds will have Jewishness shackled to them regardless of their degree of identification with Being A Jew is actually bad and a function of antisemitism; it is not an aspirational dynamic we should be applying to other people simply because their cultural background is privileged over our own in our society.)

Like can we stop talking past each other and try to understand where people are coming from

People are expressing a lot of hurt and anger about atrocities and systems of oppression that I ultimately feel are totally interconnected. Because of this hurt and anger most people are not being precise in their language or prioritizing connecting or actual dialogue about this and instead focusing on dogpiling and gotchas. It's discouraging.

I'm a secular humanist jew with complex feelings towards both jewishness and atheism as concepts and movements. I want to understand and connect with people based on our common ground.

This is I guess all me being a big baby who is unsuited to internet fights but this one specifically feels really hurtful to me because I feel like my reality is being ignored and denied. I suspect a lot of people are also feeling that way. Which might be a good place to START the discussion to be honest.

[doomed-era]

RAMBLING ABOUT CULTS TIME!!!

HELL YES

OKAY SO! CULTS. if any of this is interesting to you and you like weird indie animation movies or comics uhh you could check out the final exit of the disciples of ascensia and joe vs. elan school nooo im not shilling things i like nooo

OKAY. LET ME MAKE A LISTICLE. though there are clear indicators of cultlike behavior, the way the word cult is used is often relative and ill-defined. as a fair warning, i'm not an expert on any of this; it's just a casual interest of mine. feel free to correct me if i get anything wrong!

ONE. i think it's generally agreed upon that there's not much of a difference between high-control groups and cults. however, i think when people think of a cult, their idea of what that is is a lot more nebulous and associated with religion. cults do not have to be religious! also, i think high-control group in general suggests that it's just controlling, and so idk cults seem more like a subset of high-control groups to me i'm not going to argue about this if someone actually told me they are synanonymous (haha gotcha) but

TWO. ANYONE CAN JOIN A CULT. anyone could be vulnerable to a cult; it doesn't matter if you're smart or cool or famous or whatever. the primary reason people join is to be part of something, for acceptance and community and joining others under a common banner. people in cults are just as human as everyone else, they are not stupid or crazy or inherently bad. oftentimes, even though they may do horrible things to others, they were preyed upon themselves.

THREE. okay so I know I was like "you should look at the BITE model" earlier but it is a flawed model </3 namely there's things about it that seem to apply more to western cultural norms and i don't know if i'd apply them to others (for example, some cultures are more communal and less individualistic. the definition for what is a healthy amount of individualist or collectivist behavior depends a lot on who you're talking to.) also though there are definitely controlling religions if a controlling religion is considered an acceptable mainstream belief generally i would not consider them cults. a lot of these things are still relative.

FOUR. cults are all about control!! this above all else is what sets them apart from any other type of gathering or organization. they will isolate you from others and attempt to control you by any means necessary. some of these are more obvious, like physical isolation, keeping you from accessing information that isn't approved by the cult (they'll usually give a reason for this), or frequent monitoring. some of them are more subtle, like sending you out to "see the outside world" for a specific task to reinforce how "bad" the outside world is. there's very much an "us vs them" mentality going on. think of cults as a bit like an abusive relationship, except on a broader scale!

FIVE. cults often have a charismatic leader and a strict hierarchy! also honestly the things cult leaders do sometimes can be just so goddamn funny like these guys will buy 27 yachts and watches and sex fifty people while the rest of their group lives in complete squalor but it's fine because Reasons!!! they frequently break their own rules it's kinda funny. people further up on the hierarchy will usually get more privileges than those at the bottom. also if the cult leader writes a book they get bonus points from me because lmao

uh i'm kinda out of things to ramble out for now unless its something specific hope u enjoy

[dailyanarchistposts]

Chapter IV. Second Period. — Machinery.

“I HAVE witnessed with profound regret the CONTINUANCE OF DISTRESS in the manufacturing districts of the country.”

Words of Queen Victoria on the reassembling of parliament.

If there is anything of a nature to cause sovereigns to reflect, it is that, more or less impassible spectators of human calamities, they are, by the very constitution of society and the nature of their power, absolutely powerless to cure the sufferings of their subjects; they are even prohibited from paying any attention to them. Every question of labor and wages, say with one accord the economic and representative theorists, must remain outside of the attributes of power. From the height of the glorious sphere where religion has placed them, thrones, dominations, principalities, powers, and all the heavenly host view the torment of society, beyond the reach of its stress; but their power does not extend over the winds and floods. Kings can do nothing for the salvation of mortals. And, in truth, these theorists are right: the prince is established to maintain, not to revolutionize; to protect reality, not to bring about utopia. He represents one of the antagonistic principles: hence, if he were to establish harmony, he would eliminate himself, which on his part would be sovereignly unconstitutional and absurd.

But as, in spite of theories, the progress of ideas is incessantly changing the external form of institutions in such a way as to render continually necessary exactly that which the legislator neither desires nor foresees, — so that, for instance, questions of taxation become questions of distribution; those of public utility, questions of national labor and industrial organization; those of finance, operations of credit; and those of international law, questions of customs duties and markets, — it stands as demonstrated that the prince, who, according to theory, should never interfere with things which nevertheless, without theory’s foreknowledge, are daily and irresistibly becoming matters of government, is and can be henceforth, like Divinity from which he emanates, whatever may be said, only an hypothesis, a fiction.

And finally, as it is impossible that the prince and the interests which it is his mission to defend should consent to diminish and disappear before emergent principles and new rights posited, it follows that progress, after being accomplished in the mind insensibly, is realized in society by leaps, and that force, in spite of the calumny of which it is the object, is the necessary condition of reforms. Every society in which the power of insurrection is suppressed is a society dead to progress: there is no truth of history better proven.

And what I say of constitutional monarchies is equally true of representative democracies: everywhere the social compact has united power and conspired against life, it being impossible for the legislator either to see that he was working against his own ends or to proceed otherwise.

Monarchs and representatives, pitiable actors in parliamentary comedies, this in the last analysis is what you are: talismans against the future! Every year brings you the grievances of the people; and when you are asked for the remedy, your wisdom covers its face! Is it necessary to support privilege, — that is, that consecration of the right of the strongest which created you and which is changing every day? Promptly, at the slightest nod of your head, a numerous army starts up, runs to arms, and forms in line of battle. And when the people complain that, in spite of their labor and precisely because of their labor, misery devours them, when society asks you for life, you recite acts of mercy! All your energy is expended for conservatism, all your virtue vanishes in aspirations! Like the Pharisee, instead of feeding your father, you pray for him! Ah! I tell you, we possess the secret of your mission: you exist only to prevent us from living. Nolite ergo imperare, get you gone!

As for us, who view the mission of power from quite another standpoint, and who wish the special work of government to be precisely that of exploring the future, searching for progress, and securing for all liberty, equality, health, and wealth, we continue our task of criticism courageously, entirely sure that, when we have laid bare the cause of the evils of society, the principle of its fevers, the motive of its disturbances, we shall not lack the power to apply the remedy.

[arieso226]

The Inconsistencies of Race and Class

   NO. 1

  Class is primarily an economic measure, of course, based on wealth and income. This is explained more in Karl Marx’s and Max Weber’s ‘The Communist Manifesto, where Marx touches on Capitalism, an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than the state's need to expand throughout Markets. The three main groups in class society are 1) The Aristocracy, 2) the bourgeoisie, which owns most of society’s wealth and production. And 3) the proletariats, or the working-class people. These terms are even more present today than during the Industrial Revolution. The bourgeoisie thrives off alienation and false consciousness, which is the way of thinking that prevents a person from understanding the true nature of their social or economic status.

NO. 2

Patricia Hill-Collins writes in Toward a New Vision, ‘’Each group identifies the type of oppression with which it feels most comfortable as being fundamental and classifies all other types as lesser importance. Oppression is full of such contradictions. Errors in political judgment that we make concerning how we teach our courses, what we tell our children, and which organizations are worthy.’’ (Collins, 1993).  Oppression of education and fundamental voting rights happened exclusively to minorities, especially black people. During the ’50s and the ’60s, Brown vs. The Board of Education was one of the most iconic moments in history when the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that the segregation of public schools between blacks and whites was unconstitutional.

NO. 3

Basically, proving that separate is not equal. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, and of course, the Civil Rights Movement that led up to it, was a landmark civil rights and U.S. labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Now, with the Civil Rights Movement passed, it makes it seem that all people have rights, but it’s not true. Minorities alike do not have the same rights, no matter the changed laws and how much we think we’ve changed. White privilege is the societal belief that benefits white people over non-white people. It makes it almost impossible for all minorities to overcome the system. White privilege is the belief that there’s nothing wrong with being a white nationalist and that the removal of our nation’s past physical examples of racism, ex. The erasure of Confederate statues, affirmative action, and other such policies is an attack on white heritage.

NO. 4

Whether they want to admit it or not, the overlap between race and class has a great impact on society, and it intersects in complex ways, and simply focusing on one aspect alone may not lead to comprehensive solutions. Affirmative action was used to bridge the gap between racial and class disparities, and now that it is being threatened and taken away, we must carefully consider the impact that it has had and continues to have on marginalized communities. Carol Anderson, the author of White Rage, talks about the definition of white rage, which is how their anger fuels hatred, and that hatred fuels violence which has caused the deaths of black people, men, and women alike, ever since the first boat brought the slaves. It touches on white privilege and the indifference white people feel for black people, sort of like colorblind racism, a ‘toilet assumption’, the naivety that all people are created equal, when that’s far from the case. 

[odinsblog]

Nothing screams fascism quite like encouraging students to rat out their teachers to the state

Last week, the state House joined the state Senate in passing a bill that encourages children and school employees to turn in teachers who mention "divisive concepts" in their classrooms.

As for what Tennessee lawmakers consider to be "divisive concepts," it's quite the hodgepodge, but it mostly boils down to mentioning racism or sexism in any way that might make a Tennessee Republican school or university student sad. WBIR gives a rundown of banned concepts, and the definition sandwiches no-brainer violations like teaching "that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" with other, much weirder prohibitions like:

• That a person, by virtue of their race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex

• That a person should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress because of their race or sex

• That a meritocracy is inherently racist, sexist or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex

• That Tennessee or the U.S. is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist

• Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government

• Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people

• Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges or beliefs to a race or sex, or to a person because of their race or sex

• That the rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups

State universities can't use state funds to support organizations that promote "divisive concepts, and are now required to allow any guest speaker on campus regardless of "non-violent political ideology." That requirement is an obvious nod to far-right white nationalist, white supremacist, and antisemitic speakers who have been having a harder time booking gigs now that those events have become notorious for instigating on-campus and near-campus violence.

Rep. Justin Jones (D—Nashville) spoke about the bill when he returned to the House of Representatives after he was expelled and reinstated. He asked a series of questions, such as whether "college students are mature enough to talk about race and systemic racism, some of the concepts you want to prohibit being discussed at the college level?"

"I believe in God. All else is settled by facts and data," Ragan said.

Jones was quite blunt in his evaluation of the "racist" law, and not just in pointing out that the bill would seem to plainly ban discussions of systemic racism. "How will we be honest about our history if you're prohibiting any concepts about America's racist history? This sounds like fascism. This sounds like authoritarianism."

The Republican push to ban "divisive" discussions of American racism past and present, new Florida prohibitions against university professors giving expert testimony that contradicts the governor's views, and book bans that have expanded into threats to close public libraries entirely rather than tolerate court rulings that return "disputed" books to the shelves: Yes, it all sounds like fascism. Republicans have lost every cultural war they've joined and have decided that it's democracy that's the problem, not them.

(continue reading)

[khaleesiofalicante]

I was asked to facilitate an in-depth discussion about inclusion within the queer community and here are some quick learnings which blew my mind.

We get discrimination by the cis het world. But there is so much discrimination within queer spaces too - based on our other identities.

These other identities are not just our race or religion, but also even our jobs. Some jobs (such as teaching or military) are harder for queer people to access and keep.

We talk so much about who we want to include but we also need to talk about who we should exclude too. There are queer people who make queer spaces more dangerous because of their radical political ideologies or queer billionaires who contribute to more economic disparities. We need to hold them accountable - even if they’re queer.

Indifference is not acceptance. People ignoring your sexuality and “not caring” is not acceptance.

Queer spaces need to (safely and consciously) include people who feel like they don’t belong there - such as cis het men. They need to be included when necessary. They don’t get to stay out of these conversations. If you’re part of the problem, you need to be part of the solution.

Inclusivity is not a feeling. It’s a practice. So organizations need to have policies that support that.

Keeping the door open is not enough. You need encourage people to come in.

You can’t just include people when it’s convenient for you or because you need “representation” and visibility.

Even if you are queer, be conscious of your privilege. You still have some more than others.

[itsnickha]

The Star Wars prequels are about a teenage boy whose profound feelings of love, loss, and abandonment go utterly ignored by a religious organization that instead demanded he repress his emotions rather than validate them and help him work through them... allowing a fascist autocrat to scoop him up, offer him the care and guidance he needed all his life, and sway him into political extremism.

"The prequels are the story of an arrogant religion who get a hold of the Messiah and then hand him over to the Devil." —So Uncivilized

The Jedi may have upheld justice and order, but they also didn't give a damn about your emotional well-being, mental health, self-care, or individuality. The Sith may have sought to commit unspeakable evils, but they won over the aimless and forsaken to their cause by expressing a facsimile of care for your personhood and empowering you to take what you so desperately needed instead of waiting for someone to give it to you.

This is why the Star Wars prequels are important. Even if the movies themselves are hilariously bad, the lessons they're trying to impart through the story they tell are more relevant now than ever before. We are seeing this pattern play out today through GamerGate, Sweet Baby Inc Detected, the Proud Boys, the Incel movement, and countless other extremist causes. We've seen this pattern repeat endlessly throughout history, with violent gangs, religious crusades, and bloodthirsty militaries.

The wellbeing of men matters. We need to take care of them, especially when they break from the hypermasculine mold in some way or haven't benefitted from the privilege that society tends to grant men. If we decide not to give a shit about men in need, then each one we abandon is one we forsake to the wolves. And all the wolves need do to win him over is to give him a pat on the back, a listening ear, and a finger pointed directly at those of us who left him behind to explain all of the ills he's suffered in his life.

Edit:

pulling this out of the tags in case anybody misses the point:

#If you use this to try and clapback against feminism kindly fuck off #Women’s issues are also real as fuck #Instead of invalidating women’s lived experiences of suffering, go volunteer at a men’s shelter or do gang member outreach #There are so many men’s causes that are deserving of your energy more than women deserve your vitriol #The patriarchy oppresses us all and it will not fall as long as we stand divided

[dolphin1812]

Fauchelevent continues to be so entertaining.

I love how he’s so adamant on slipping his “brother” into everything here. Mother Innocente is clearly absorbed in her own issues, but he’s doing all he can to promote him. Admittedly, the tropes he relies on to do this (patriarchal attitudes about women and racism) are repulsive, but it’s funny how Mother Innocente is easing him into doing something illegal for the convent while the entire time, Fauchelevent is saying: “you know who could do this better? My brother, who’s stronger than everyone here!” (He’s not exaggerating, but it’s hilarious). And he succeeds! Valjean and Cosette are now allowed to enter! He put his social deftness to great use here, even if he almost slipped up with the “more often.”

The political currents at play are fascinating as well. As a nun, it’s not surprising that Mother Innocente is likely a royalist (hence “Buonaparte” rather than “Bonaparte”). Yet Fauchelevent, as a peasant (albeit one with some education, since he was also a notary) not only has opinions on this matter (being a bit of a Bonapartist), but has enough familiarity with this discourse to alter his word choice to appeal to the nun. “Emperor” may be his first choice, but he knows to use “Buonaparte” here, suggesting that political allegiances were not only common across class boundaries, but that different political discourses were equally well-known. There may be limits to this (perhaps someone who was illiterate would not have so much knowledge of political language, for instance), but it still underscores the deep impacts France’s political turmoil had on multiple groups. 

We also see how changes in the bureaucracy have affected the convent with the turmoil over this burial. One of the convent’s privileges was to bury its nuns underneath it so that their bodies would bless it. Now, such a practice is illegal, with officials in sanitation and other public affairs scrutinizing how the convent buries its dead. Mother Innocente appeals to a higher spiritual authority (the state on earth cannot compete with God) and cites historical examples of such a conflict, stressing tradition and the centrality of the Divine. However, these figures didn’t face the exact same dilemma not because there were never conflicts over the role of the state and of God, but because these agencies were relatively new. Fauchelevent isn’t disagreeing with her, really (beyond saying that Valjean could do it better than he could), but the way her perspective reflects on politics is intriguing:

“By order of the king signifies to-day, by order of the revolution. One no longer knows what is due to the living or to the dead. A holy death is prohibited. Burial is a civil matter. This is horrible.”

She’s justified in pointing out that France’s social order has changed dramatically, leading to uncertainty over how people should be treated (that uncertainty can be productive - Hugo’s in favor of social change - but it is complicated nonetheless). No one knowing what “is due to the living” is, in a way, one of the central issues of this novel, with questions over how people should treat each other (the themes of compassion and love) appearing alongside the obligations people have to others as a society (how to help the misérables). The “dead” she mentions here is a nun, but Fantine’s burial demonstrated the same issue in a different way: no one knew what was “due” to her because she was poor, and without a powerful figure directly dictating how she should be buried, the process was no longer seen as important. 

Her issue, though, is specifically the shift of death from the domain of religion and the Church to the state (as a “civil matter”) as it tried to better organize lives and matters relating to health. Miasma was a popular medical theory back then, so it’s possible that they feared leaving bodies underneath the Church would expose people to bad odors and make them ill. As the Revolution and the growth of the state’s power brought the Church under scrutiny, this may have simply been one other domain where policy changed, with medical thought now taking precedence over the spiritual. 

It’s also interesting that this appears here given that cholera - a major public health crisis in the 19th century - will show up later on. We’re made to engage with this theme relatively early in the novel as a site of contention between different social orders (in this case, the Church and the state). It’ll be fascinating to see where it goes from here.