#access to which is had only by those with privilege power and resources

[anarchywoofwoof]

the funny thing is that i don't think younger people - and i mean those under the age of 40 - really have a grasp on how many of today's issues can be tied back to a disastrous reagan policy:

war on drugs: reagan's aggressive escalation of the war on drugs was a catastrophic policy, primarily targeting minority communities and fueling mass incarceration. the crusade against drugs was more about controlling the Black, Latino and Native communities than addressing the actual problems of drug abuse, leading to a legacy of broken families and systemic racism within the criminal justice system.

deregulation and economic policies: reaganomics was an absolute disaster for the working class. reagan's policies of aggressive tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and slashing social programs were nothing less than class warfare, deepening income inequality and entrenching corporate greed. these types of policies were a clear message that reagan's america was only for the wealthy elite and a loud "fuck you" to working americans.

environmental policies: despite his reputation being whitewashed thanks to the recovery of the ozone layer, reagan's environmental record was an unmitigated disaster. his administration gutted critical environmental protections and institutions like the EPA, turning a blind eye to pollution and corporate exploitation of natural resources. this blatant disregard for the planet was a clear sign of prioritizing short-term corporate profits over the future of the environment.

AIDS crisis: reagan's gross neglect of the aids crisis was nothing short of criminal and this doesn't even begin to touch on his wife's involvement. his administration's indifference to the plight of the lgbtq+ community during this devastating epidemic revealed a deep-seated bigotry and a complete failure of moral leadership.

mental health: reagan's dismantling of mental health institutions under the guise of 'reform' led directly to a surge in homelessness and a lack of support for those with mental health issues. his policies were cruel and inhumane and showed a personality-defining callous disregard for the most vulnerable in society.

labor and unions: reagan's attack on labor unions, exemplified by his handling of the patco strike, was a blatant assault on workers' rights. his actions emboldened corporations to suppress union activities, leading to a significant erosion of workers' power and rights in the workplace. he was colloquially known as "Ronnie the Union Buster Reagan"

foreign policy and military interventions: reagan's foreign policy, particularly in latin america, was imperialist and ruthless. his administration's support for dictatorships and right-wing death squads under the guise of fighting "communism" showed a complete disregard for human rights and self-determination of other nations.

public health: yes, reagan's agricultural policies actually facilitated the rise of high fructose corn syrup, once again prioritizing corporate profits over public health. this shift in the food industry has had lasting negative impacts on health, contributing to the obesity epidemic and other health issues.

privatization: reagan's push for privatization was a systematic dismantling of public services, transferring wealth and power to private corporations and further eroding the public's access to essential services.

education policies: his approach to education was more of an attack on public education than anything else, gutting funding and promoting policies that undermined equal access to quality education. this was, again, part of a broader agenda to maintain a status quo where the privileged remain in power.

this is just what i could come up with in a relatively short time and i did not even live under this man's presidency. the level at which ronald reagan has broken the united states truly can't be overstated.

[fatphobiabusters]

You know what? I thought I'd seen everything, but I'm literally fucking speechless right now. My university's counseling center is so fucking untrained on fatphobia that they have a pamphlet on "Body Size Diversity and Acceptance," which I had been shocked was offered at all. But I apparently shouldn't have gotten my expectations higher than the depths of the Mariana Trench because, after a very horrible experience with fatphobia in counseling there today, I opened the pamphlet to read that thin people are "oppressed" for being thin. And I am somehow not exaggerating in any fucking way when I say that's exactly what the pamphlet claimed.

They:

Didn't acknowledge fatphobia at all (the pamphlet barely even shows any fat people and makes this entire shitty pamphlet JUST about body image. You know, as if that's all fat people have to fucking worry about. The rest of this list is just about the two circled paragraphs because I do not have the energy to dissect this entire bullshit pamphlet)

Erased fatphobia to talk about "size oppression" which is a concept they made up to pretend that ALL people are oppressed for their size. BULLSHIT.

Act like this pretend "size oppression" they used to erase fatphobia is oppression because "Everyone judges themselves about their size and that's all that's needed to be oppressed for the size you are 😔"

"Size oppression does not spare those who are naturally thin, either." HUH. HUH. ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? YOU WANT TO TAKE A SECOND GO AT THAT, BUD?

The pamphlet says thin people are OPPRESSED BY "VOLUPTUOUS AND MUSCULAR IDEALS." BUDDY, YOU CAN'T EVEN FUCKING SAY THE WORD FAT. THE WORD "FAT" IS NOT WRITTEN EVEN ONCE IN THIS PAMPHLET, BUT YOU SURE HAD NO PROBLEM WRITING "THIN" EVERYWHERE! AND "VOLUPTUOUS" IS JUST YOUR FUCKING CODEWORD FOR "THIN WITH A BIG ASS." FUCK OFF!

"[Thin people] can be just as dissatisfied with their bodies and themselves as anyone else." HUH. REALLY? YOU'RE GOING TO CLAIM THAT?????

They're the target of people's jealousy and envy, which you use to claim thin people are oppressed, AND THEN NEVER STOP TO FUCKING THINK WITH YOUR BRAIN ABOUT WHY EVERYONE WANTS TO LOOK LIKE THEM?!?!?!?! I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S AN INDICATION OF A POWER IMBALANCE SOMEWHERE IN THERE????? SOME REASONS FOR WHY THIN PEOPLE ARE SO PRAISED??? AND THEM BEING PRAISED...IS YOUR DEFINITION OF OPPRESSION?!?!?!

"For no reason other than their body sizes!"

NO REASON?!?!?!?!?!

THERE'S NO REASON WHY FAT PEOPLE LITERALLY KILL THEMSELVES TO BE THIN OTHER THAN FUCKING AESTHETICS?!?!

NOT THE MUTILATION, POLICE BRUTALITY, STARVATION, LACK OF ACCESS TO VITAL RESOURCES LIKE CLOTHES AND HEALTHCARE, FATAL MEDICAL NEGLECT AND ABUSE, BEING LEFT TO DIE IN NATURAL DISASTERS LIKE HURRICANES, COURT JUDGES SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO RAPE FAT PEOPLE, THE WAGE GAPS, JOB DISCRIMINATION, WORKPLACE HARASSMENT, FORCED SEPARATION OF FAMILIES, NOT BEING ALLOWED TO ADOPT CHILDREN, AND THE LIST GOES FUCKING ON?!?! THIN PEOPLE ONLY EXPERIENCE THINNESS AND NO AMOUNT OF PRIVILEGE OVER FAT PEOPLE?!?!?!?!

I want to kill, maim, strangle, and rip flesh with my teeth right now :)))))

-Mod Worthy

[horizon-verizon]

ON BIRTHRIGHT and RHAENYRA

As another commentator of one of the TikToker Alexa's video said, "birthrights" are not dependent on what time they were given but what group you are a part of.

Here is the definition of "birthright":

Nowhere does it state that it is about timing of when the problem was manually given. It is about a privilege one has ever since they were born. You were either born with that privilege or not, because it is a right/privilege a person has for being born into a particular group of people. A class, a heritage, a lineage, --as the definition above shows under "related" terms to "birthright".

America, Inherited Concepts from Europe

As it is everyone's "birthright" for their communities and governments to provide access to clean water because they are living beings/people and part of said communities. A social class is a sort of group with its own political privileges and "rights". The English settlers and those descendants who called themselves the new American citizens, "founded" the new country, and drafted the Constitution conceived of "birthright" as being for those white persons both born on the "soil" of the former colonies--these were considered citizens--AND those who were were born out of the colonies (the West Indies or Scotland) but participated in the Revolutionary movement in some significant way were the only those deemed eligible to become a president:

Obviously this shows an instance of the creation of an institution to be exclusive to those of an already existing socioeconomic group: rich, white, male property owners who no coincidentally also had more access to a political education inherited from their former European and English ancestry from childhood.

Application to Hereditary Monarchy (and Aristocracy)

A royal class or rank is an example of a human social group with its own exclusive "rights" to a thing, and in their case to certain privileges or access to resources and power. One such privilege is their place in the royal succession and even within their group, some have more privilege or right than others depending on how related they are to the monarch. The similar condition is for non royal aristocratic families. This is how lines of successions work in the sort of monarchist/feudalist system the Westerosi have and the most common and familiar sort of transfers of power and/or property.

Therefore, all royals or people born into royalty, thus related to the present or past monarchs, have a sort of claim on the throne; and sons, daughters are usually above uncles and aunts and cousins or second cousins in noble or royal lines of successions. As the OG Alexa said in her reply to this comment, the Targ royal succession had been in more of an ambiguous state in regards to which family member should have more claim than others in the line of succession: the brother of a king, or his children, or his daughter.

I'm referring to Maegor vs Rhaena or Prince Aegon. Because Maegor was male and visibly stronger and less people pleasing or hesitant than his older brother Aenys, Visenya proposed that they marry Maegor to Rhaena to sort of combine their claims into one AND prevent any sort of succession crisis, and this would have also advanced Maegor as the active heir or Aenys' heir presumptive even over Rhaena. But Aenys' choice to set a stronger precedent for a son over a brother by naming Aegon as his heir apparent and married Rhaena to him. Again, Rhaena was Aenys' oldest child. Aenys performed more of an male-preferred primogeniture bc he thought that making this Andal custom the determining factor for his choice of heir would appease the Faith and enough lords to accept some divergent decisions he will make. One of them marrying his children together. Whereas if he chose Maegor as his heir, then there would have been a precedent for the royal succession to be agnatic, where girls would have even less claim when a brother or a male cousin becomes heir or is above her in the line of succession until girls or just not considered dinnyhe line at all. However, Aenys dies, Maegor kills Aegon, Rhaena later refuses to take the throne or press for it even though she is older than Jarhaerys and there were those who argued towards her favor by her being the firstborn PLUS Jarhaerys had the male-preferred primogeniture supporter Rogar Baratheon, who housed him, Alysanne, and Alyssa Velaryon when Maegor came into power and later raised armies and levies for Jaehaerys against Maegor towards the end. So Jarhaerys became king and later we still have the matter of royal succession opened in the Great Council, where a male line and a male are both voted to matter more. And with both Maegor and Jarhaerys, girls were chosen to be their heir presumptive until such time as they had sons, but eve this choosing a girl as their heir reveals how more arbitrary the royal succession was.

All members of the royal line had a "claim" to the throne. Some obviously have more customary claims or "stronger" and prioritized claims than others because they are more directly related to the present monarch/lord. And the added layer of this being a male-preferred primogeniture society, but this doesn't negate that girls were considered viable heirs. The monarchy of Westeros has always been in more of a flux and a process and circumstantial than you'd think. And with girls and women have having had become ladies in their own independent right at times when there was no male sibling, older or younger, in other houses, yes Westeros is not an agnatic society but male-preferred one that does everything in it's power to promote men but will make use of a woman or girl if there is one, even as just placeholders. (Marla Sunderland Sheira Blackwood).

Before Viserys even named her as his heir apparent, Rhaenyra had a customary birthright to the throne by virtue of the fact that:

1) she was born into the royal family (the social group with certain exclusive rights, the throne in question) and thus a part of the royal line [thus "birthright"

2) she is Viserys' biological first surviving child

Viserys naming her as his heir AND getting those oaths to protect her rights that are also his decision, his royal declaration and thus it becoming law are all really the sealing elements of her birthright. They all revealed what was already true about girls and Rhaenyra's birthrights but was socially and optically undermined by women's social value and men's habitual violence to reinforce their own control and authority over others, and especially women. Violence used against women as well, as with Agnes Blackwood and perhaps Marla Sunderland. Later with Rhaenyra, when Aegon killed her and made Sunfyre eat her.

The Widow's Law

Even when we look to the Widow's Law, we see how Jaehaerys made it so that:

1) the sons of the first wife (thus the older children) had more claim or were legally prioritized to any resources, titles, and leadership-of-house left behind by the lord OVER any of the second/third/etc. wife's kids. If there are no sons by that first wife, then it goes to the eldest daughters of the first wife x the lord.

2) a man could NOT disinherit their kids by their first wife to "bestow lands, seat, or property on a later wife of her children".

QUOTE:

Under both conditions of such law, Rhaenyra, again, we can say has much more customary claims than her brothers born of Alicent, Viserys' 2nd wife. But this is more of a strong option at Rhaenyra's disposal to use than a necessary ingredient to how her claim is default as well as coming from a legitimate birthright and customary. Because of all I mentioned for Viserys naming her, the oaths, etc.

We see that it is, again, a matter of looking at Westerosi society being of men having more privileges and being able to lead armies and households and determining others' futures BECAUSE they EITHER have actively use armies, wars, executions, humiliations, and personal violence and executions against women to and other groups to make way for their own places as heads of those households (violent submission) OR like with the unnamed Lannister woman who married a no Lannister man who then became the head of the household, they have married a House women to a man and those around the couple--be they family or not, just those who had power and an edge over her--decided that it would be that way.

This goes to show what GRRM has already said notably recorded in the So Spoke Martin website, that this is a society where men choose which laws and which customs to either ignore or reemphasize according to their own advantage until it comes down to 'a force of arms'. ":

And it is almost always a deliberate thing to consider the language you are saying when writing up laws. Especially in the 2nd clause of the Widow's Law, Jaehaerys left open who of the first wife's kids had priority over the resources or seats the lord left behind and could bestow on an heir. It says "children" instead of "sons". Even in the first clause, Jaehaerys did not write that the second wife's sons inherited before the first wife's daughters. It just says that the first wife's sons inherit before the first wife's daughters. Thus, the language Jaehaerys uses leaves it open to argue in favor of Rhaenyra if one presses for it from a 'legal' angle instead of a custom one or if you wanted to emphasize the legality of a King's word.

Jaehaerys was not stupid, so why didn't he use more specific language in both clauses that specify a lord's second wife's sons would go before a first wife's daughters? That is the question we should be asking and speculating on, though I have my own conclusions. I think that he wanted to leave things more ambiguous so that he doesn't look like he's infringing too much on a lord's right to make his own heirs....it's just that, like what is ALREADY CUSTOM, he made it so that the eldest children's privileges & rights &/or ways of self sustaining weren't bulled over or removed for a younger child/set of children. It is already custom for the eldest living kid to inherit the most important or largest "things" in the Andal-FM feudalist society.

To Conclude 🫵🏿

Therefore, there is good reason from customary succession conditions in Andal-FM Westerosi history, legal precedent, and largely present conditions, for us the readers to say Rhaenyra had a birthright AND for Rhaenyra to claim Aegon stole her birthright that had been reinforced by the King's word and continued insistence on it.

Even without Viserys naming her as heir, Rhaenyra already had a customary birthright to the throne because she was born into the royal family and inherited the Targaryen heritage itself. Viserys naming her his heir really made her claim the strongest and the priority, despite her gender. Viserys made it official when Aenys' did not. Again, we must remember that Rhaena had supporters after Maegor's death to become Queen AND she said point blank to Jaehaerys that Dragonstone was hers by right of birthright, as the eldest child.

The insistence that Aegon instead of her become the king comes from the agenda of making men lead society regardless of their vices or virtues, as well as have privileges and powers over pretty much anyone who are not as powerful as them or could match them or that they cannot find familiarity.

[buginacup]

do you think games that are made for a niche appeal still have a future?

I think they have as much of a future as they have a present.

I think capital is always going to put financial and social pressure on artists to make things for mass appeal. No matter what circle you're in you will find a group of (probably well-meaning people) who think that making art for a select audience is a kind of moral or artistic failing.

But as new as it seems it's the same obstacle that every inspired artist has wrestled with under a capitalist system. For every weirdo niche game that gets streamed by some Twitch boy and sells gangbusters there are thousands that go unnoticed by the larger culture perhaps forever.

That being said, I have to believe that the audience one finds by being raw and honest and specific is stronger and more artistically fulfilling than the bigger audience that moves from game to game turning everything into a fandom machine. Being able to share art with people you know will give it a fair chance, and will think with it in new and interesting ways is the greatest joy of artmaking to me.

So if your idea of "a future" is big fandom and financial riches, probably not - but I don't think they've ever consistently had that. The internet may wash away into something unrecognizable, but for better or for worse there will be people sharing their weird art with each other online for as long as there are computers.*

(Footnote below)

*It's worth noting that since games are so expensive to make and often financially unrequited the only people who can typically afford to take the L and keep making their own weird games are those with a degree of privilege or comfort. That plus the material reality (cost) of computer technology means that a lot of even the more niche art is rather singular in terms of perspective.

As much as I like what the internet can do for people who struggle to have a place elsewhere there's always a degree to which it's infinitely more accessible to white people in the United States than anywhere else. I think there are a lot of voices who'd have a lot more trouble building an audience even if they had the resources - anyone who waxes poetic about the power of the web has an obligation to at least be aware of that.

[redsolon]

Real Democracy

Despite liberal claims, Athens wasn't the source of our modern bourgeois states. Even the most democratic of the liberal democracies is only a "democratic republic", a marketing gimmick if there ever was one. Athenians did not recognize republics as democratic, but as what they are: oligarchies. Republics have always emerged out of the desire of elites to divide political power fairly among themselves. Key to this project has always been the maintenance of the ruling class as a ruling class, and the prevention of any one faction within it from siding with an outside class force to overthrow them. Greek Tyrannies, despite the inevitable dysfunction of hereditary rule, usually came to power on the back of popular discontent, as a way to discipline the aristocrats and force through reforms.

Election is a filter process that privileges the most eloquent, the most well-connected, the most acceptable and personally appealing, and those with the most time and resources (which in a settler-colonial context, means able-bodied cis-het white men). Unless re-election is forbidden, once in office an official can use their position to enhance their wealth, influence, and notoriety, and thus increase their odds of getting re-elected. Thus the "democratic" office becomes a kind of property, even hereditary property. The ideal of election says that the people own the office, but the reality shows that the incumbent political class do.

While direct voting is a possibility, in reality asking everyone to vote on everything translates quickly into asking everyone to be a professional politician, or to spend all their free time obsessing over politics. This is unrealistic. Some claim that only having a motivated minority vote on any given issue is ideal, because the uninterested are usually both uninformed and unaffected; that the non-voting public implicitly consents to their concession of power. Anyone who's dealt with voter turnout has had to confront the material, social, and psychological barriers to voting, even for people who can be identified as having a material political interest in the issue--and yes, this also applies to ballot initiatives. Not everyone can be perfectly informed about every upcoming vote that affects them--and is that even how people want to live?

To concede to the limitations of voting-based systems is to accept that the most structurally disadvantaged people don't deserve a say, and that if people miss an opportunity to intervene in an issue that it turns out affects them after all, then they are out of luck. Statistical, demographic representation is the only system which guarantees everyone an equal chance to have a say at every level, regardless of background. It also possesses many of the benefits of electoral systems--a dedicated body of people who are employed full time to investigate an issue before voting on it--and some benefits beyond pure election--breaking the incentives for corruption and vote-buying. Both bourgeois and proletarian republics have shown the severe limitations of a purely electoral system. Even if we include election and direct voting in our systems, sortition needs to lie at the core.

During crisis, if delegates are killed, then every republic relies on unelected officials to be interim officials, breaking the system's legitimacy claims. Systems of mass voting require secure, wide spread vote collection and tabulation at all times. If the voting system is every disrupted, the entire system ceases to be democratic according to its own standards. Sortative bodies, however, can be reassembled at any time with no delay, and only require that the few individuals selected by lot are able to be escorted to wherever they'll meet (or that they have access to secure communications). No other system possesses such a high level of speed, efficiency, and robustness.

Remember: every ancient republic, and most modern, fell to reaction and tyranny. The Greek democratic model never fell to internal enemies, only to external invasion. In fact, while Rome fell to tyranny forever, Athens was the system which rectified itself after a brief period of tyranny. And from a communist perspective, sortition is the system which most embodies the Mass Line at large scales.

[shitpostingkats]

Would you enjoy explaining the entire lore of 5ds at someone who would very much enjoy reading it cos I know I fuckin love just rambling about lore of my favourite media at people

I have been saving this ask for days as a little treat for myself. This ask is a little cookie on the top shelf of the cupboard that I've been keeping for a rainy day.

Also, I had a hard time figuring out where the lore of 5Ds even starts. Because all of yugioh is a collage, layers and layers of the most bizarre worldbuilding all stuck together with spit and duct tape and I love it very very dearly for that but it makes it very hard to know what to cut from an overarching summary.

In short (is lying), the world of yugioh is fundamentally linked with a magic dimension of monsters and spirits that, against all logic, manifest multiple times, through the course of all human existence, as collectable trading cards. That is wild enough. Defensible, maybe, given the nature of the show as being designed to sell pieces of cardboard to children, but still incredibly extra. How does this affect human history? What are the rules for such a strange and seemingly duelist dependent magic system? What are these spirits, and what does their world look like?

Yugioh will answer none of these questions.

The only true tennant of ygo lore is that it all leads back to card games. The afterlife? Card games! Dimensional astrophysics? Card games! The creation of the universe and all life as we know it? Card games!

It doesn't really matter the staggering repercussions this has on lore, because the only thing we the viewers need concern ourselves with is how this affects the present of the shows' world. And with every new series, the standards of society become more absurd. Which is saying something, because DM features the invention of the game, an event that causes one billionaire teenager to destroy millions of dollars worth of military research, halt the production of the world's leading weapons manufacturer, and invent portable hologram projectors and several theme parks.

Yeah. The bar only gets raised from there.

Cut thirty years down the line.

There is a magic, running deeply ingrained in the structure of the universe. There are gods and ancient battles and prophecies to be fulfilled. There is an explosion of people with special powers and psychic abilities. The year is 2034.

And it's all fallen to the mundanity of the modern era.

Ygo 5Ds is one of my new paragons of urban fantasy. It truly is an ice cold and honest look at what society, specifically capitalism, would do if granted access to magic; They'd treat it like any other energy.

Magic is real, and dangerous, and it's a battery that powers your toaster. Magic is a tool and a resource, just another thing to dole out to consumers. Which means it's also something that lower classes can be deprived of. Magic is a privilege for the wealthy and the elite, and used to control those who are not. Magic is central to the workings of the universe. And we've figured out how to make it a commodity.

Now, read that previous paragraph again, but replace the word "magic" with "Card games".

[gaia-prime]

Radfem/💇‍♀️: Are you a radfem, just radfem-adjacent, or just gender critical?

radical feminism is the form of feminism to actually aims to improve to material reality of women. choice-y lib-y pomo-y “feminism” is just decorating the cage, radical feminism is getting out of it 🐅

Peak/🌄: What was the first thing that peaked you, and when did you peak (not just specifically “peak trans,” but anything “peak patriarchy”)?

peak trans was the rape rhetoric towards lesbians

Everest/🏔️: What has been your worst subsequent peak?

when nobody who supported the gender movement was pushing back against the rape rhetoric towards lesbians.

one time i did see someone say “don’t say that” not because it was, you know, rape, but because it’s quote: “bad optics”

Separate/🚷: Are you a female separatist or a lesbian separatist, and to what extent?

GNC/🥾: Are you GNC, and to what extent?

no one would describe me as gnc, and i’ve got shiny long hair and pretty privilege (lol) to thank for that. i mostly only leave the house for work (in scrubs) or or the pottery studio (in a tshirt and overalls or sweatpants.) but when i’m wearing something in my style it’s usually pretty feminine, albeit practical. i refuse to wear anything debilitating or uncomfortable. i straight up lose respect for anyone who has those long false nails 🤮

Orientation/🩲: Are you a lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual?

lesbian 🌈 lucky me ☺️

Bi/🔺: If you’re bisexual, are you a febfem?

Hetero/👫: If you’re heterosexual, are you choosing to be celibate?

Picrew/👤: No more identifying information, make a picrew icon of yourself that doesn’t look like you.

what about some of my photomode snaps from horizon zero dawn and forbidden west?

Leg/🦵: Where does your leg hair start getting darker (above the knee, mid thigh, dark from the moment hip ends and thigh begins)?

at my knees

Body/🔍: Do you have more/darker body hair on your left side, right side, or about equal on both sides?

equal i think?

Carnivora/🦊: Are you more of a cat person or a dog person?

I’m bipetsual.also i think hating dogs or hating cats is embarrassing and demonstrates poor character and you shouldn’t admit that in public…

Baby/👶: How do you feel about the baby plane (funny answers only)?

i’m zooted out on benzos seroquel and complimentary drinks when i’m flying so i am OUT snork mimimimimi on planes…

Natal/🤰: Pronatalism, antinatalism, or natalism neutral?

natalism agnostic i guess? natalism skeptic? i cannot relate to wanting to give birth,but i get that not every woman desires the same thing. and i have no interest in denying women the opportunities and resources to be mothers. however, i believe in the importance of empowering women worldwide with access to education autonomy over their reproductive health. when women are empowered, birth rates go down. this is a good thing. woman choosing when to be mothers , or not, is a good thing. i believe in humanity (despite everything) and would like to see us continue to survive as a species. however unending population growth only serves a few very powerful people because capitalism demands endless growth. it’s not a sustainable future and it’s not the future women want.

-Fem/💻: Do you identify as a member of any of the -fem titles (factfem, nicefem, rudefem, etc)?

not really. however the only posts and comments i have made that seem to get any attention are snarky comments and jokes, so i guess i come off as a rudefem more than anything else. which is not how i conceptualize myself and not exactly the energy i want to put out there to lesbians and gnc people who go along with gender nonsense. or especially to ones that are really struggling, feel pressured, or have existing trauma or mental illness exacerbated by gender propaganda. above all else i just want lesbians and gnc people and kids to be safe and healthy. i just don’t know if there’s much i, using a tumblr blog, can do about that.

Animal/🦕: If you had to pick an animal to represent your blog, what would it be (catfems, you don’t have to answer cat)?

a wolf 🐺 because i want my mate . AwoooOooo

Labrys/🪓: If you’re a lesbian, how do you feel about the labrys (both the flag and the icon)?

uhhhhmm..

Interest/😍: If you weren’t a radblr user, what would your blog be about?

i wouldn’t be me if i weren’t a feminist and weren’t true to myself and my interests. if you can’t be a feminist in a low stakes forum like tumblr, where Can you be a feminist?

Gender/💩: Here’s the link to get a random Wikipedia page. You now have a neogender based off of the page that was pulled up–what is it?

Man on the Moon (soundtrack) oh?

Feminist/🦸‍♀️: Are there any particular feminists or feminist groups you look up to?

i look up to every lesbian who is being true to herself and not taking male bullshit

Woman/🧑: For $0, name a woman.

Azealia Banks

Man/🧔: If you could kill one man (excluding politicians, billionaires, and those responsible for world tragedies), who would it be?

kAm

[likeacaliforniasky]

I am exhausted and heartbroken and continually ashamed to be an American. I’ve lost my faith in this “system.” I will never stop fighting, especially now, for my future children and their children. We cannot stop now. That is exactly what they want from us.

To my male followers — we NEED you. Always have, always will. Please think of the women in your life, those who gave you life, and speak out, show your support, give a voice to those with less of one than yours. This is literally life and death. We need all hands on deck. This cannot and should not fall solely on the shoulders of women. We are already burdened with too damn much.

And to those who have the audacity to make light of and joke about this situation in any way, regardless of intent, and ESPECIALLY if you are not a woman, please read the room and shut the fuck up. No one asked for your petty jokes, stupid comparisons, or selfish behavior. I promise you are only making it worse.

For those who say this is a strictly American issue, you are wrong. Respectfully. You don’t think the world is watching, plotting to make similar moves across the globe? OPEN YOUR EYES. I am begging you. If you care an ounce about humanity and the basic human right to choose, this directly impacts you.

From personal experience, I can attest that abortion is health care and a fundamental human right. My body, my choice. The fact it is even up for debate should make you sick. With so many other more important issues to address, the fact that women are being so blamed and heavily regulated for their personal choices says everything you need to know about the power imbalance in America.

If you consider yourself “pro life,” explain to me why you are: anti-vaccine and anti-mask, anti- LGBTQ+, vote against common sense gun safety measures, do nothing to help the poor and homeless, and continue to support processes that enable bias, racism, sexism, and classism. The math isn’t mathing. You clearly hate yourself and need to get some serious help.

I urge those who are able to show up for women and human beings everywhere in whatever way you can, now and forever. Use your social platforms (who cares about the size of your following). Donate if you can. Call your local and national reps. Protest. Call out hate when you see it. And never stop fighting. As I said, those who care for the greater good need to band together and do everything we can to defeat this evil.

I imagine this will lose me followers. So fucking be it. I don’t want and certainly don’t need you around if you disagree with anything I just said.

For those willing to join the fight for reproductive rights, below are some resources I’ve collected over the years. Please share far and wide. This fight will require all of us who are willing and able.

Lastly, I recognize my privilege as a white woman who lives in California. So before you use that against me, consider the fact that I am personally impacted by abortion access due to being sexually assaulted several times as a teenager. This is far bigger than me. And this is not to say you have to have had an abortion to care or want to join this battle. I’m shedding light on my journey, which I hope is met with respect and compassion, if nothing else.

I hope you all join me in some serious reflection and action. One love.

☮️ 💛🚺

RESOURCES:

- https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/

- https://linkin.bio/abortionfunds

- https://www.plannedparenthood.org

- https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/

- https://mashable.com/article/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-overturned-protest-near-you

- https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/

[a-shared-experience]

The last few days have been really incredible. I ended up joining a peer voices caucus after a presentation they did brought me to tears. It was a panel of women who had been incarcerated, sexually abused, discriminated against for substance use, forced into involuntary treatment, as well as, those who sadly had lost loved ones to poisonings. It’s a frustrating world full of power dynamics and politics - this world of harm reduction.

We had an opening ceremony with an elder from the Blackfoot confederacy, smudged & introduced ourselves. We gave respect to treaty 7 territory & I ended up meeting a lot of really cool locals who handcrafted indigenous art. I treated myself to a very fierce pair of bitch hoops from a lady whose boutique was called “ native diva”.

One of the most influential women in my field came up to me and told me she digged my vibe. Apparently my outfit was 90’s nostalgia and my earrings screamed “ I’ll bust a cap in yo ass” - her words , not mine. Haha. As I walked in the room another girl grabbed my arm and said “ you are so pretty” and it caught me by surprise because no one ever says stuff like that to me.

I got invited to dinner at a fancy restaurant with my boss and actually got to know her. Afterwards I sang happy birthday for my friends late spouse who had overdosed alone last year. It was incredibly sad followed by incredibly empowering. We should never underestimate the power of coming together as women. For two days we discussed ways to support community in the face of provincial and municipal crackdown on open air drug use, drastic and catastrophic changes to bylaws affecting our most vulnerable and how to hold agencies accountable and demand transparency, collaboration and timely data collection. We discussed with health Canada the importance of being witnesses to the injustice, harmful ideologies, lack of trauma informed practice and also being present so that we could support clients as they see fit. It’s possible we may be designing the first program in Canada to allow for peer support within the recovery model to ensure that advocacy for human rights is done in the moment and not following tragedy. The reality of treatment facilities is that there is no standard of care, no accurate reporting and an undeniable risk of fatal overdose. We talked about how to utilize media to our advantage which I suggested we move away from the question of whether we should help people who use drugs and instead of pitting political parties and their followers against one another, use the platform already in place to drive home the importance of including mental health in our federal healthcare program. Instead of trying to make people care about something they are conditioned to hate we should be discussing the reality of mental health disorders and the lack of resources available which ultimately is what leads to addiction. Addiction is merely a coping mechanism in lieu of better supports. It typically is never a stand alone issue related to drugs. We should shed light on bipolar disorder, bpd, schizophrenia, schizo affective disorder, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. we may never reach the population of people who firmly believe that drug use is bad. addiction is a scapegoat painted with the lens of houselessness and social disorder despite there being only a correlation and not a cause and effect. We discussed ways to report injustice within the medical industry and all levels of enforcement. I stood up to health Canada and let them know that I feel the way we collect data is harmful to individuals and reinforces the archaic concept of having to audition for care. We have the data on who’s dying, where they are dying, and how many interactions agencies are having with individuals along with what type of services they are accessing. We shouldn’t have to keep subjecting people to forcefully tell us their stories which ultimately are a privilege to us , we shouldn’t measure successful health outcomes by abstinence alone or demand personal and identifying information which can lead to dangerous practices by our government. It was a place where peer voices were actually heard and many professionals stepped back to let us lead. There were a lot of stories, tears and big hugs and even bigger ideas. We learned how to rebel and be shit disturbers, how to find powerful allies and do things sanctioned and unsanctioned. There were a lot of women breaking laws for the betterment of society and I resonated deeply with that. I was blessed to make new friends and allies province wide, including a French girl from NB who was also a Taurus, an IV drug user with punk rock attire who treated me to jager bombs at noon, the program manager for a very esteemed anti government/ drug policy reform organization who took me aside to discuss the potential of creating a role within harm reduction that emotionally supports frontline staff who may be experiencing trauma responses including relapse. She thought I would be great at that. I’ll meet with her later in the month to discuss it more in depth. All in all- it was such a promising conference with so many powerful people in one place.

[entrepreneurstreet]

Dr. Aftab Anwar Shaikh: Professional acumen and Towering Leadership

l have a rare privilege rather, a very divine blessing to be bonded in a special close friendship with Professor Dr. Aftab Anwar Shaikh, Principal of Poona College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Pune for more than three decades.  I always reckon him as a trustworthy and faithful friend and personally for me as a family member beyond any blood relation.

There are no words to praise or applaud.  Dr. Aftab Anwar Shaikh who is not only a good human being, a Teacher, a Principal, a dynamic educationist but he's an institution by himself with academic expertise, professional acumen and towering leadership, endowments and qualities.

Apart from handling so many responsibilities, posts and wearing different caps during the last 60 years, he has also very successfully won our hearts with his simplicity, gentle ways & smiles coupled with a consistent humor and friendliness.

He has always been an unassuming, caring, gentle and ever helpful person. As a matter of fact he is a role model for all of us. On this occasion, I salute him with all my admiration and appreciation for his skyrocketing achievements. During a period of 60 years he has been bestowed with so many state, national and international awards including many Lifetime achievement awards.

Well done Dr Aftab Anwar Shaikh! Well played!! You are still young enough, with rich experience, charisma and caliber to complete another 60 years. Yes, surely you're still in the game! May god bless you abundantly not only on your 60th birthday, but always.

Professor Dr. M. D. Lawrence

Vice Chancellor,

Dr. P A Inamdar University, Pune

===============================================================

Prof. (Dr.) Aftab Anwar Shaikh: A Motivational Journey of Empowering Lives

Prof. (Dr.) Aftab Anwar Shaikh is an exemplary individual whose relentless dedication to helping people has transformed countless lives. His motivational journey is characterized by a profound desire to uplift others and empower them to reach their full potential. Born and raised in a first-generation family, His upbringing instilled in him a deep sense of empathy and compassion. His quest for knowledge led him to pursue higher education, where he excelled academically. He obtained his doctoral degree in a specialized field, which laid the foundation for his future endeavours.

Recognizing the power of education as a catalyst for change, He established various platforms aimed at empowering individuals from marginalized communities. He spearheaded initiatives that focused on providing access to quality education and skill development opportunities to those who had limited resources. Through these endeavours, he aimed to bridge the gap and create a level playing field for all.

By sharing his personal journey and highlighting the importance of perseverance, he has inspired countless individuals to overcome challenges and pursue their dreams. Understanding the potential of young minds, he focused on fostering entrepreneurship among the youth. He initiated programs that encouraged innovative thinking, providing aspiring entrepreneurs with mentorship, guidance, and resources.

His commitment to community development and philanthropy is commendable. He recognized the importance of sustainable development and initiated projects that aimed to uplift underprivileged communities. As a respected thought leader and change-maker, he has been invited to speak at prestigious conferences and forums, where he shares his insights and expertise to inspire positive change on a global scale.

Being as colleague Prof. (Dr.) Aftab Anwar Shaikh's motivational journey of helping people is a testimony to the transformative power of humanity, compassion, education, and empowerment.

Wishing you the most amazing of special days on your 60th birthday.

Arjina Shaikh, Assistant Teacher,

Department of Physics,

Poona College of Arts, Science and Commerce,

Camp, Pune

==============================================

The Art of Education: Prof. (Dr.) Aftab Anwar Shaikh's Exemplary Journey

In the field of education, Prof. (Dr.) Aftab Anwar Shaikh stands as a true visionary, exemplifying the art of imparting knowledge and shaping young minds. His life story is a testament to the transformative power of education, highlighting his unwavering commitment to empowering individuals and nurturing future generations. His exceptional academic record, coupled with his remarkable teaching prowess, quickly established him as a respected figure in the educational community.

He tirelessly worked towards making education accessible to all, especially marginalized communities. Through scholarships, community outreach programs, and partnerships with government and non-governmental organizations, he facilitated educational opportunities for individuals who would have otherwise been deprived of them. A strong advocate for research and innovation; he always encouraged both students and fellow educators to embrace a culture of inquiry. He spearheaded research initiatives, fostering an environment that promoted cutting-edge research, pedagogical advancements, and educational reforms.

As a mentor, his guidance, support, and passion for education inspired aspiring teachers to pursue their dreams and make a positive impact in the lives of their students. He instilled in them the importance of fostering a love for learning, empathy, and lifelong growth, imparting the art of education beyond the confines of a classroom.

Happy 60th birthday. Hope you continue to live life to the fullest, in good spirits, good health and good times.

Dildar Shaikh

Ex-Student Poona College

Dr. Aftab Anwar Shaikh: Countless students have achieved success through his guidance and expertise.

Dr. Aftab Anwar Shaikh, Principal of Poona College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Camp, Pune is the name of an institution where numerous students have been given life learnings, and countless students have achieved success through his guidance and expertise.

I am extremely proud and honored to be one of his students. He has always encouraged me and provided such guidance that I will forever be grateful. Dr. Aftab's message, which deeply resonates with me, is that students possess a treasure trove of talent. 

It is crucial to determine the type of teachers who educate students, whether they are capable of igniting a fire within them, enabling them to break the walls of societal norms, hierarchies, wealth, poverty, opportunities, disappointments, and despair, and paving their own path to success.

Teachers have the ability to put food on our plates. However, it is education that teaches us how to bring that food to our mouths. It is not just about eating fish but also about learning how to catch fish. 

The appreciation we express for him falls short of what he truly deserves. Dr. Aftab has always risen above himself and helped others according to his capabilities. He has inspired his students and employees throughout his life.  Dr. Anwar is a shining star in the galaxy of our society. His brilliance and light have always motivated and propelled us towards progress and advancement. I am filled with immense joy and enthusiasm as Dr. Aftab Anwar celebrates his 60th birthday on 29th May, 2023. I offer countless salutations to such a great teacher from whom I have continuously learned and will continue to learn. My prayer to God is that this shining star named Dr. Aftab Anwar Shaikh continues to illuminate the society forever and keep guiding us and inspiring us with his light. Thank you.

Dr. Firoze Khan, 

Senior Faculty, Westford University College, 

Sharjah , UAE.

www.mywestford.com

[katiap24]

CHAPTER 10 FIELDWORK

Marx's Theory

Marx's theory of social class and inequality has been influential in shaping political and social movements around the world. It has inspired various forms of socialism and communism, which seek to eliminate the class system and promote equality among people. Marx's work has also been criticized for its focus on economic factors and its neglect of other aspects of social inequality, such as race, gender, and sexuality. In contemporary discussions of social class and inequality, Marx's ideas continue to be influential, although they are often used in conjunction with other theories and perspectives. Many scholars and activists continue to draw on Marx's work to critique capitalism and advocate for a more just and equitable society.

https://catalyst-journal.com/2017/11/bourdieu-class-theory-riley

Bourdieu's theory has also had a significant impact on the understanding of social class and inequality. Bourdieu's theory emphasizes the role of cultural and symbolic capital in reproducing social inequality. According to Bourdieu, social class is not just a matter of economic position but is also shaped by cultural factors, such as education, language, and taste. Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital refers to the cultural knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are valued in society and can be used to gain advantages. Bourdieu argued that cultural capital is unequally distributed in society, with those from privileged backgrounds having greater access to cultural resources and thus greater opportunities for social mobility.

Weber's theory has also had a significant impact on the understanding of social class and inequality. Weber's approach emphasizes the multidimensional nature of social stratification, which includes not only economic factors but also social status and political power. Weber argued that social class is determined by three factors: economic resources (wealth and income), social status (prestige and honor), and political power (the ability to influence political decision-making). According to Weber, these factors are interrelated but can also be independent of each other, leading to more complex forms of social stratification than those proposed by Marx.

[freecandychaos]

#Historywrittenbythevictors

The statement history is written by the victors is at best, deeply misleading and at worst, entrenches the world as it appears now.

First, most history was/is orally transmitted because literacy was privilege only for royal and religious men, and those who trained them.

Second, it suggests that everybody agrees with who the victor is, which is simply absurd. History is a human invention and therefore can be neither universal nor neutral.

Third, it implies that History is rooted in some social Darwinian concept that victors are paragons of natural greatness or virtue, that’s why only their stories were preserved in writing.

 A cunning piece of propaganda, one that gives the writer (read historian) an inordinate amount of uncontested power. Writing a history is a years-long commitment that requires both incredible talent and skill, along with resources and access to the source material.

What if only certain people are given those necessary funds and access, and this person has, like we all do, blind spots and biases? Could entire societies just disappear? The ones, perhaps, that challenge the victor’s story? How can you argue if you’re not supposed to exist?

Or the historian could just lie. Like about the great war of 1422, the one against ‘the gays’? It’s famous and is why until recently we didn’t teach LGBTQ+ history.

Not because of centuries of dehumanizing religious, cultural, social, and legal oppression. Not because those who control our history have actively denied their existences. It’s to “protect” children from the “losers” of a fake war I just invented. See how easy that was?

Like reminding you of your first ‘Industrial Revolution day’ at school. The one where we all re-enacted the pivotal battle between factory owner automatons and the perpetually starving, physically mangled workers. That’s why there is such wealth inequality in our society. To the victors the spoils, etc.

If the poor wanted to be remembered, they should have “worked harder.” They should have used their “natural” greatness. The kind they gained by deciding to come out of a rich person’s vagina. If only they had controlled the family they were born into and ensured that both they, and British society, agreed they were a straight cisgendered man we would have reason to care. Why do the poor insist on being born, and remaining, poor?

What?

You’re not a man, then you must be a woman. Those are the only two possibilities. Weird how in capitalistic societies, if you have enough money, your choices are limitless, but society gets to pick and enforce your gender. A binary that doesn’t solely exist to maintain the patriarchy through inheritance, coverture, and the unequal division of labour.

It’s fixed. Always has been. Do not consult physicians, psychiatrists, scientists, or anthropologists. No intra-faculty fraternization. Disciplinary identities are fixed.

Back to women. If you’re a woman, you must have a uterus. That’s how women work see and that means you’re asking a lot of questions when you should be busy securing that line of succession.

Now if you survive that person being violently ripped from your body, and the decades of illness and potential destitution that threaten you and your offspring(s), you’ll be written down in History as the mother or sister or daughter or aunt of a great man. You know, as a treat.

What?

How are you still not happy?

What else could you possibly want?

An identity of your own?

In this economy?

Who wants to read about how you nearly died of blood loss, in a dirty, badly maintained hospital, at 21, because you were a victim of s*xual violence?

People want to hear about victors Babe, like that man who nearly died of blood loss, in a dirty, badly maintained hospital, at 21, because a sniper shot him when he went ‘over the top’ in contravention of a direct order. He grew up to be a one-term politician of no repute and you?

Oh, you raised your children on your own, became a professional and revolutionized how we conceive of the human mind or eye or something.

Well, it doesn’t count because I wasn’t listening. Your body was too distracting. Cover it up please.

This part about historic erasure started out as parody but based on the programming in the UK is it possible that this conversation may have genuinely occurred? What other explanation could there be for the lack of diversity in British history, both academic and otherwise?

Or are the executives correct in arguing that they must rehash the same story because “people” aren’t interested in anything else. But who, exactly, are these “people”?

Are they suggesting that millions of Britons or the hundreds of millions who descended from them, desperately desire incessant discussions of the s*xual exploits of an abusive addict who left massive, gaping wounds across both the psychical landscape and the bones of those who displeased him?

Is it possible that the billion plus people who speak English find the sounds of the deadliest war ever so comforting that they can be lulled to sleep by the warbly, watery voice of Sir Winston Churchill?

Maybe, in fact, the populations of those countries that make up the Empire, sorry “Commonwealth”, ARE still waiting for yet another documentary about the Queen who, to the public, will always be a morbidly obese middle-aged widow despite evidence to the contrary.

Or maybe?

No, that would be silly.

It’s not like recording every detail of the lives of mass murderers, making them the foundation of British history, and then forcing generations of school children to learn it uncritically, would create a nightmarish hellscape where the justification for all brutality is that someone was “asking for it?”

Nor could anyone seek to perpetuate a narrative that entirely erases centuries of involvement, and the tremendous wealth gained, from the trafficking of millions of human beings simply because their skin was darker.

Surely, no one in Britain could possibly still believe that their ancestors “explored” three “barren” continents, right? They know millions of Indigenous people HAVE and CONTINUE to exist, don’t they?

Something as crucial as the collective story that informs our laws, society, culture, identities, and worldviews, could not possibly be marred in the same prejudices and inequalities as our health, housing, education, immigration, justice, media, and political systems are.

We live in a meritocracy, have since 1945, just check our surplus of publicly available history. Books, magazines, blogs, social media, podcasts, tv shows, history weekends and tours, and dozens of sites and museums that will take your money in exchange for a story that is in no way as white-washed as their walls.

Speaking of stories, there’s a streaming service, one that is certainly not a backdoor advertisement for the 200-billion-pound tourism industry, started by someone who earned their place. No nepobabies here, stop asking!

History TV is also very progressive. So committed to women’s equality it is that most female history presenters have a doctorate, a significant social media presence, years of “in field” experience, a posh British accent, are aged between 25-55, beautiful, and blonde (preferably).

It takes at least a hundred thousand dollars and nearly a decade of work to complete a doctorate, and the equivalent amount of “do for the exposure” years of unpaid labour to reach such professional heights.

Not to mention the astounding amount of emotional energy and psychological agility it must take to create and maintain a captivating enough persona, in addition to a private identity, so you can charm people with a curated version, in hopes they will continue to demand you as a possibility.

A possibility unavailable until the year 2000.

Most of today’s female history presenters grew up in a world where the government was headed by two women but could not teach you about the significance of that as the sole tv presenter. What fun!

Even more fun, most of the earlier female led history shows were so wide ranging that they included sex workers, Henry the VIII, and the home. Nothing says women’s equality like allowing them to talk only about sex, a husband, or domesticity.

And what about the men?

Don’t worry, the executives have enough self-awareness to realize that letting men have only a bachelor’s from Oxbridge and no professional experience, or just be famous actors with educated friends, would be proof of the entrenched sexism that continues to run rampant.

Plus, they are smart enough to recognize that forcing women to keep their mouths shut about how they are treated, or they will be damaged and defamed by the very media they need to promote the work that IS truly meaningful to them, would show that women’s voices are continuing to be silenced despite the shopfront of pretty people in historic dress.

History TV, proving that no matter how educated, accomplished, inspiring, or talented a woman is, all anyone will ever do, is talk about her hair. History Barbie, now available.

Oh, have you noticed that nearly every host has similar complexion and ability level and that could give the viewer a distorted belief about who is “allowed” to “exist” in British history.

Why would they do that?

Certainly not to empower one group to perpetually reinforce systems that would only benefit them.

That would be horrifying.

It’s just an extraordinary coincidence. Don’t investigate. Besides, history tv is a just a bit of fun. “Real” history occurs in universities. You know those places filled with people who don’t have “real” jobs.

Funny how when only a minority of people could attend universities, those professors had “real” jobs. But when women and minorities began to attend in larger numbers, suddenly those jobs were “useless” and “elitist.” I wonder why?

How could having an extensive knowledge on how our society developed in hopes that we may possibly redirect it and create one that is more equitable, inclusive, and just be “elitist”, yet having an extensive knowledge of a trade, medicine, technology, or the law is not?

Plus, higher ed institutions are posting record high profits, like all healthy businesses, and like all businesses the wealth is shared equally. Those impressively dedicated and immensely talented employees have been in no way harassed, demeaned, or threatened with starvation, homelessness, or deportation if they speak out about the atrocious working conditions.

Nor has anyone complained about the *extortionate* prices that young, mostly international students, pay for a degree that may be their only path out of material poverty.

But what if you can’t afford University, public or otherwise, because of that material poverty, or other reasons not mentioned, and cannot access history tv or sites, there are still books and libraries, aren’t there?

First, who needs libraries when you have free wifi?

All libraries do is grant individuals a safe, clean, and warm place to access the world’s repository of (admittedly somewhat biased) knowledge for free.

A place that does not require you to buy anything to stay there.

One that may help you develop a community that can shield you from the cutting loneliness of a cruel, suspicious world.

Somewhere with devoted professionals that genuinely care about their community and deliver the highest quality of services despite decades of austerity. Just like the people who work for the university you can’t afford, what rotten luck.

Besides, what has a publicly funded, free-to-access library ever done for you that personal data stealing social media sites and paid streaming services haven’t? If there isn’t a library near you, you can still buy history books, right?

Hopefully from an independent bookstore that does not need to listen to a sinister corporation that may want to supress uncomfortable topics. There are some, somewhere, that haven’t been crushed into oblivion by an online marketplace that will slowly consume everything in existence.

That is unless you are one of the millions of Britons who can’t afford rent, food, electricity, and heat making books a luxury.

Or perhaps you are not fluent in English. Or speak English and are functionally illiterate. Or are a fluent English speaker and are literate but have a condition that makes reading and processing difficult.

Or have such bad mental or physical health that even if wanted to you don’t have the energy, ability, or support. Or maybe you don’t have a safe place to sleep. Or maybe you do and its only one room.

Or maybe you have the space but not the time because you are so busy working to keep yourself and your family alive. Maybe you are single parent, or a couple with jobs that do not pay enough. Maybe you are caretaker for a family member, or as a profession.

Maybe your job fills you with such anxiety and dread that all you can only do is focus on surviving tomorrow. Maybe you live far from the seats of power or belong to a community that was violently persecuted for trying to educate your children and then were violently punished for not having done so.

Maybe you don’t want to participate in a community that glamourizes those who tried to obliterate your culture. Maybe it took too much from you to involve yourself in a system that demands your labour but denies your humanity.

Maybe, it just hurt too much, to see your ancestor’s blood pouring from the pages but never being told of their resilience, beauty, power, or successes.

But back to the original point, that history is written by the victors, and victors are winners, so who wins history prizes? Awarding committees wouldn’t overwhelmingly favour those connected to elite academies, or men, or white people. Impossible! We live in a meritocracy, remember?

That’s why there is nothing revolutionary about a winner, who was state educated somewhere your post code is an expiration date, survived a series of compounding socio-cultural traumas, and built a remarkable career in a new country without the aid of a notable last name.

In the years since the book’s release, the powerful have not continually sought to recreate the merciless society it describes and cement their own political and economic hegemony by destroying the tools the writer used so no one could replicate its cultural impact.

How lucky are we that no one with money and privilege decided to use this exceptional book, one that will bewitch you with its brilliant empathetic prose, so hauntingly beautiful you will grieve people you have never met, to push a vilely transparent narrative that crumbles under any scrutiny, because that, would be indefensibly villainous. Good thing villains do not control or write our history, victors do. And as you know, victors are paragons of natural virtue. Why else would we learn from them?

[rityl2]

Chapter 5. (Fieldwork)

Racialization: the textbook defines racialization as, The process of categorizing, differentiating, and attributing a particular racial character to a person or group of people.

For example, the media paints the African American male to be a savage by their overrepresentation of violent crime. Because of this, many people who aren't black (and even some who are) become uneasy around African Americans because they think they could pop off and go feral at any second. The overrepresentation of violent crime committed by African Americans is not only destructive to those being held responsible, but for the entire community as well; Stereotypes can not only be created, but also enforced by this negative aspect of media.

(https://www.americanprogress.org/article/dangerous-racialization-crime-u-s-news-media/)

White Privilege: White privilege is essentially the unfair advantage that white American citizens hold all other ethnic groups, simply because of the color of their skin.

White privilege is still alive to this day despite the claims of many white people arguing that it doesn't, and never existed. One criterion where white privilege is abundantly clear lies within police interaction. In the past decade we've seen countless times in the news how unarmed black men have been shot, tazed, and choked to death for misdemeanor and minor felony offences. Last year in July (2022) a 25 year old unarmed black man later identified to be Jayland Walker was shot dead by 8 police officers after fleeing. Bodycam footage displayed Walker running away from a traffic stop, obviously unarmed, before all 8 officers discharged their firearms into his back killing him on the scene. Just a year prior to this event, a white man named Robert Aaron Long went on a murder spree in Atlanta Georgia, targeting and killing people of Asian descent. Long was apprehended, given a fair trial, and sentenced to life without parole with an additional 35 years. In the end, Long's life was taken from him in a sense that he had to spend the rest of it behind bars, whereas Walker didn't get the opportunity to be tried in a courtroom. Excessive force and malice is seldom used against a white suspect even if all fingers point to them committing the crime.

(https://www.npr.org/2021/09/28/1041137210/atlanta-spa-shooting-suspect-pleads-not-guilty-robert-aaron-long)

(https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-man-unarmed-ohio-officers-opened-fire-family/story?id=86149929)

Microaggression: refer to common everyday verbal or behavioral indignities and slights that communicate hostile derogatory and negative messaged about someone's race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

Prior to the 2021 election, Joe Biden made a few questionable statements, some of which regarding the race and racial identity of African Americans. In one instance, Biden is being interviewed by Charlamagne and says, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, the you ain't black". This statement stirred up a lot of controversy due to the fact that it offended many individuals who are black and unsure of who to vote for. Although the statement was not made to be intentionally offensive, Biden was under fire nonetheless.

Racism: individuals thoughts and actions, as well as institutional patterns and policies, that create or reproduce unequal access to power, privilege, resources, and opportunities based on imagined differences among groups

After the abolition of slavery and the riddance of Jim Crow laws, racism remains to linger in the United States. In 2020, a black man was bird watching in New York City's Central Park when he confronted a women walking her dog. Christian Cooper (bird watcher) asks Amy Cooper (dog walker) [no relation] to follow park rules and leash her dog. Amy cooper then calls the Police and tells them that there is an African American male threatening her life; Christian cooper records the interaction. While Amy Cooper's intentions were not clear, it can be inferred from the video that she was using the police as a weapon against Christian. The video was uploaded on May 27th 2020, 2 days after George Floyd was killed by police officers in Minneapolis.

[rrivlet]

So of course, capitalism and fascism go hand-in-hand, we know this. There’s a point that’s made about the Red Scare that goes along the lines of “all the things that scare them about communism are really authoritarianism/fascism,” which is really true, I think, or at least it is more or less. The thing is though, this seems to imply that we could have non-authoritarian capitalism, which. . . Well, no, we can’t.

Nationalism, fascism, authoritarianism, and capitalism all have one thing in common: Oligarchy. In other words, it is their goal to have all political and economic power in the hands of one group of people. It’s the same destination with a different road, maybe from a different direction. In the end, they all work through private ownership, which can only be attained if you are a member of a privileged group or have ties to such.

Communism, socialism, etc. all work on the principal of public access to resources. Everything (or at least many things) must be shared for the good of all. Public interest over private interest.

Most examples of “failed communism” I can think of off the top of my head (and that are commonly used to refute communism) have not been “actual” communism by definition, though there is much debate to be had as systems of governance are complex and nuanced.

Still, most instances of communist nations (eg. soviet russia, maoist china) involved a highly centralized seat of power. One person, or even a small group of people, still hold the power to make decisions over what resources go to whom. Private property was masked as public property through guise of ration or control to show that everyone “got their share.” This is a rough explanation, and there have been examples of communist governments that differ, but the point is that most “bad communism” fails because of authoritarianism. They’re antithetical, and the theory of communism is, as it’s root word would suggest, about community.

Capitalism is the opposite in that it strives for rugged individualism and privatization. Fascism also strives for this, mainly as a means to concentrate its power. Does this mean that fascism and capitalism are inseparable? Not necessarily, but it is difficult. Fascism controls by utter force, while capitalism controls more by access to resources. American capitalism is a fun blend of fascism and nationalism that results in our police force, racial discrimination, etc. Japanese capitalism is more simply nationalistic, as non-Japanese people (and even mixed Japanese people) are discriminated against and don’t have equal access.

A kind of capitalism that is free of nationalism and fascism is hard to imagine because fascism and nationalism tend to be the determiners of who gets the capitol in the first place. Theoretically, capitalism without either of those would be up to the luck of the draw, but even in that scenario we still end up with an almost identical issue. One group gets lucky, and that group tends to stay lucky, which will breed it’s own sort of fascism and/or nationalism.

All of this to say that the issue with capitalism is not, in fact, money or labor or anything of the sort. The issue with it is that its ideals are so damned intertwined with fascism’s ideals that capitalism will eventually lead to fascism whether it was there to start or not. It all leads to homogeneity, and if you aren’t part of the privileged few, something is wrong with you.

This is why communism HAS to learn as it goes. If the essence of communism is community, then it has to suit each individual community. Even further, every community has to consider its impact on other communities. If we assume that what works for us will work for anyone, we risk becoming the privileged few that all others must conform to.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How one of America's most abusive employers gets away with it

I spend a lot of time looking in detail at abusive situations where tech plays a starring role: stalkerware, bossware, remote proctoring, etc. But nothing I'd read really prepared me for the tale of Arise Virtual Solutions, an abuser without parallel.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/02/chickenized-by-arise/#arise

Arise sells itself as a "virtual call center" and boasts of blue-chip clients like Disney, Carnival Cruises, Comcast, Airbnb, Intuit etc. If you've ever called one of these companies, you may have spoken to an Arise worker.

But that "worker" was not an employee. Arise is a pioneer in worker misclassification, and treats all the people who work for it as "independent contractors." So even though these workers are more tightly supervised and managed than any regular employee, they have no rights.

You have to pay Arise for the privilege of working for them. Not just buying your own computer, but also paying to be trained in how to pretend to be an employee of Disney or Airbnb and Arise's other customers.

Execs at these giant corps listen in on your calls while they are in progress or after the fact - and if they detect so much as a squeak from a child, or a noisy neighbor, they can terminate your contract and you lose the money and unpaid labor you spent on training.

Likewise, you can be summarily fired for hanging up on - or mildly chastising - a caller, even in the face of sexual harassment, racist abuse, or threats of violence. Being fired means losing your training "investment."

The company will not assign a regular working schedule: rather, you are assigned 30-minute shifts, scattered through the day. Turning down a shift can mean losing access to future shifts.

Why would anyone work for this shitty, shitty company? Put simply: it's a pyramid scheme that preys on women, especially Black women. The company deceives the workers it recruits, then rewards them for roping their friends into the job.

These workers are the most precarious, desperate part of the US labor force, and Arise brutalizes them by remote control. Workers talk about the terror that they'll lose thousands of dollars and their income if their children cry or laugh too loud.

The whole family goes into lockdown like Anne Frank in the attic as soon as Mom dials into her terrible job. They have to sit in silence while Mom smiles through calls where she can receive death and rape threats, racist abuse, and sexual harassment.

And here's the kicker: if this all gets too much for Mom and she quits her job, *she has to pay Arise an "early termination" penalty*. This is the kind of thing that happens under worker misclassification: you have to pay to get a job, and you have to pay to quit it.

Now, Arise are pioneers in worker misclassification and their abuse stretches all the way back to the Obama administration. They were dirty from the start. In 2008, the US Department of Labor launched an in-depth investigation into rampant wage-theft at Arise.

The investigation took two years and involved interviews with at least 56 workers. It concluded that Arise had stolen $14.2 million from its workers, and that it owed double that in damages to be paid to those same workers.

But Arise didn't pay a cent.

What nefarious legal trick did Arise use to avoid $28.4m in liability? How did it wriggle free of the Department of Labor's airtight case?

Well, it's like this. When Arise's lawyers met with the DoL's lawyers in 2010, they "politely disagreed" with the DoL's conclusions, so the DoL walked away from the case.

https://www.propublica.org/article/arise-department-of-labor-2010

In yet another landmark piece of reporting, Propublica's Ken Armstrong, Justin Elliott and Ariana Tobin document how the DoL lawyers dutifully noted that Arise disputed the report and would not be changing its labor practices and then washed their hands of the matter.

They even have an official notation for when this happens: they mark the file as "RTP/RTC," which stands for "Refused to pay, refused to comply." In the years that followed, top Obama DoL officials narrowed the complaint from $14m to $40k.

Why did the DoL do this? According to DoL insiders quoted in the Propublica article, the DoL won't take on cases with big firms that can afford to drag out the proceedings and tie up department resources.

The circular reasoning goes: we need our lawyers and investigators to protect workers. But if we discover a bunch of workers in harm's way, we can't afford to protect them, because then we won't have those resources to protect workers.

The DoL was a known problem in 2010. The Government Accountability Office had already identified its inability to fulfill its mission, and they tested the Department with 10 fictitious complaints to see how they'd be handled. Only half of those were even entered into the DoL's database.

DoL intake staff tried to convince people who filed complaints to drop them, told them that the DoL had no power, lied about what they were doing to address the issue, and failed to investigate a claim of child labor in a meat-packing plant.

In the years since Obama's DoL walked away from Arise, its misclassifed workforce has grown from 20,000 to 70,000.

The factors that allowed it to flip off the DoL in 2010 are far stronger today, and the company has more than tripled the number of workers it has ensnared.

Worker misclassification didn't start with Uber, or even with Arise. It really began in the poultry industry, which is why labor economists call it "chickenization." The US has only three monopolist chicken processors.

These monopolists have carved up the country so that chicken farmers only have one company that can process their chickens and get them to market. That company calls farmers independent contractors, even as it treats them like employees with no labor rights.

A chicken farmer gets their chicks from the packer, which owns them, tells the farmer what to feed them and when, which meds and vets can be used on 'em, when the lights go on and when they go off.

Packers design the chicken coops and then order the farmers to borrow the money to build them. Farmers sign nondisclosure agreements so they can't complain, and arbitration agreements so they can't sue.

Packers tell the farmers what they must and must not do, but there's one thing they NEVER tell farmers: how much they'll be paid. It's only when chickens are sent to market that packers declare a price for them, just enough to service farmers' debt, but not to get ahead.

Of all US occupations, "farmer" is presents one of the highest risks of dying on the job. But their leading cause of death isn't falling into a threshing machine: it's suicide. And chicken farmers lead farmers in these deaths of despair.

Arise has chickenized a 70,000 person workforce of call-center workers whose homes are rent-free office space for a wildly profitable company that serves other wildly profitable companies. Most of those workers are women, and most of the women are Black women.

Biden faces an immediate, urgent test of his willingness to tackle worker misclassification. One of Trump's last-minute regulations was a rollback that protected workers from being misclassified as contractors. The Biden admin could reverse that regulation.

Then there's the matter of what he does with his DoL, which has shed 25% of its investigators over the past decade, even as labor abuses have skyrocketed.

The Biden admin's actions here will speak far louder than any soaring inaugural rhetoric.

If Biden cares about gender justice, racial justice, inequality, fairness and corruption, he will immediately reverse the Trump rollback and massively staff up the DoL's investigative division.

[bitchesgetriches]

Aunties, this isn’t finance related per se, it’s privilege related. I had a really rough start to adulthood - abusive parents isolated me from friends and family, wouldn’t allow me to get a job or license, then kicked me out as soon as I turned 18. I struggled to even finish high school, let alone get a job, but a few years have passed and I have a nice car and trailer in really proud of, I graduated and planning to go to college next year, I have a pretty okay job that pays above min. wage (1)

And knowing me now you’d never know I was violently suicidal for all my teen years and had a brief stay in a mental hospital, shortly before my parents kicked me out. All in all I’m in a much better place, and I know I’m lucky to have gotten out of that place, but... my coworkers drive me crazy. The job I have now would have been impossible for me to get back when I was really struggling, so a lot of the people I work with never struggled like I did, they came from middle to upper middle (2)

Class families, young people still living with their parents who pay all their bills, only part time work so they can go to college full time which their parents also pay for, parents bought their first car, etc. And I find myself resenting them because they don’t seem to know how good they have it, how lucky they are to have loving supportive families. They didn’t understand why it was such a big deal to me when my car broke down at work, because they didn’t know I struggled for four years (3)

To even get a license, let alone a whole fucking car. Not only do I resent them but I feel like I can’t relate to them at all, which makes it a little lonely sometimes. My old job was in the middle of a very impoverished area, all my coworkers were in my same position, we all related to each other. I felt like I belonged. I don’t feel like I fit in with these privileged people, even though I recognize I’m also privileged myself to even have all the things I worked so hard for (4)

The cognitive dissonance is real. I know it’s not my coworkers fault that they’re privileged and I should be glad they all had better upbringings than I did, so how do I stop feeling so bitter about it? (5)

My darling child, your story is fucking important. Not only do I feel you on a lot of levels (feeling bitter about privileged friends and colleagues yet also guilty about my own privilege), but I think a lot of our other readers do as well. And this is a really, REALLY good example of how privilege works to divide us, even when someone like you claws their way over a mountain of extremely difficult odds to earn a place of stability and status in their community. 

I have a lot to say about this whole feeling, which I wrote here:

The Subjectivity of Wealth, Or: Don't Tell Me What's Expensive

But I’m going to take a detour from our usual advice here and make a radical suggestion. It’s ok to stay bitter and angry. Especially when it comes to class discrepancies and cluelessly privileged people. 

I just finished reading “Rage Becomes Her” by Soraya Chemaly, which is a wonderfully vindicating book, but also very hard to read because every 10 pages or so I had to throw it across the room whilst screaming in anger about all the things we have to be justifiably angry about. But the last two chapters of the book are extremely useful because they’re about weaponizing our anger--using it as a tool for change both in our private lives and in our culture at large. 

So I’m going to make the radical suggestion that instead of trying to get over your bitterness, you embrace it. The next time someone makes you feel small or angry because of your struggles... tell them so. Practice telling pieces of your story calmly and firmly, in a tone that doesn’t invite contradiction. Practice walking away after telling this story. And practice telling people, “Not everyone has access to the same resources and advantages that you do. For example, let me tell you how my parents denied me access to resources and education that would help me be independent and support myself, and then kicked me out at age 18 in spite of these disadvantages.”

Feel free to tell me to go to hell, though! If you’d rather work on tamping down your anger and bitterness, that’s totally legit. Write back and I’ll point you to some resources about how to resolve those feelings.

But I think you could do a lot of good for yourself and your peers if you stopped swallowing your feelings and instead bared them for all to see. While no one is entitled to your story, I just read it and I think it’s fucking powerful. The cluelessly privileged need to learn. And they’re less likely to do so if they blithely assume you grew up with all the same advantages they had.