#and then there’s those of who are disabled and/or queer and for us it’s just. a constant

[lgbtlunaverse]

Everytime I see discourse about kink or nudity at pride I get reminded of the time I went to pride a few years ago with my mother and my sibling- who was 17 at the time and is somewhere on the ace spectrum- and about halfway through, the march went under a gatehouse. Some inhabitants were sitting in their open windows watching the parade. Right before we crossed under them, one of them decided to just... take her shirt off. She wasn't wearing a bra. And you know what happened? People whooped and cheered, and then kept walking. That's it. And there were kids around!! They didn't care. My sibling didn't care. My mother, a cisgender heterosexual woman in her 50s, did not care.

This stuff stops being such a big deal when you go offline. It was basically the same amount of boob you'd see in any perfume ad. No one was like 'what about the children?' And if you didn't wanna see it and looked down, no one would've called you a puritanical prude for that. And it helps to remind myself of that everytime I see kink at pride discourse getting rehashed because at actual pride, people don't care.

[uncanny-tranny]

I saw somebody discuss it a while back ago, but it was so affirming and I wanted to open a similar discussion here...

I've noticed in myself and others this intense (genuine) trigger response to people not understanding us or our words or whatever it may be, and it can feel so important that you correct people, that people know you, not a shitty cut-out version of you.

I think this is a valid response, of course. It is completely understandable, and I get where it comes from. When I was in the middle of abuse, I was misrepresented in order to be abused, so it can be a genuine trigger for something "small" you said, did, or are to be misinterpreted or twisted into something it isn't. It turns from, "this person didn't bother reading what I'm saying," to, "this person might be just like them, they're going to hurt me."

My overall point is that a huge part of living is this misinterpretation of you or your character, and it isn't your fault, and it isn't in your control. Hell, even, a huge aspect of language itself is in not being able to fully represent you or what you're saying because language is interpretive and based (in part) on other people's interpretation of what you said. They fill in the blanks with their own experiences, desires, or their own character, and at some point, it isn't really about you, you know?

My biggest piece of advice is learning how to let people be wrong. This shit, of trying to correct every single person? Personally, I have found it to be exhausting, and it feels like I'm blaming myself not only for everybody's interpretation of every little thing I do but also for abuse that led to this intense of a response. It's really hard to let people be wrong, yes, but it also has allowed me and permitted me to be more interested in my own life, not in my life in other people's brains. It's given me that specific freedom from abuse, from worry.

[palms-upturned]

.

[whereserpentswalk]

The nazis that you see in movies are as much a historical fantasy as vikings with horned helmets and samurai cutting people in half.

The nazis were not some vague evil that wanted to hurt people for the sake of hurting them. They had specific goals which furthered a far right agenda, and they wanted to do harm to very specific groups, (largely slavs, jews, Romani, queer people, communists/leftists, and disabled people.)

The nazis didn't use soldiers in creepy gas masks as their main imagery that they sold to the german people, they used blond haired blue eyed families. Nor did they stand up on podiums saying that would wage an endless and brutal war, they gave speeches about protecting white Christian society from degenerates just like how conservatives do today.

Nazis weren't atheists or pagans. They were deeply Christian and Christianity was part of their ideology just like it is for modern conservatives. They spoke at lengths about defending their Christian nation from godless leftism. The ones who hated the catholic church hated it for protestant reasons. Nazi occultism was fringe within the party and never expected to become mainstream, and those occultists were still Christian, none of them ever claimed to be Satanists or Asatru.

Nazis were also not queer or disabled. They killed those groups, before they had a chance to kill almost anyone else actually. Despite the amount of disabled nazis or queer/queer coded nazis you'll see in movies and on TV, in reality they were very cishet and very able bodied. There was one high ranking nazi early on who was gay and the other nazis killed him for that. Saying the nazis were gay or disabled makes about as much sense as saying they were Jewish.

The nazis weren't mentally ill. As previously mentioned they hated disabled people, and this unquestionably included anyone neurodivergent. When the surviving nazi war criminals were given psychological tests after the war, they were shown to be some of the most neurotypical people out there.

The nazis weren't socialists. Full stop. They hated socialists. They got elected on hating socialists. They killed socialists. Hating all forms of lefitsm was a big part of their ideology, and especially a big part of how they sold themselves.

The nazis were not the supervillians you see on screen, not because they didn't do horrible things in real life, they most certainly did, but because they weren't that vague apolitical evil that exists for white American action heros to fight. They did horrible things because they had a right wing authoritarian political ideology, an ideology that is fundamentally the same as what most of the modern right wing believes.

[luckyladylily]

So a few months ago there was the discourse about would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods. I didn't want to touch it while the discourse was hot and everyone dug in hard because those are not good conditions for nuance, but I waited until today, June 1st, for a specific reason.

I'm not going to take a position in the bear vs man debate because I don't think it matters. What is really being asked here is how afraid are you of men? Specifically, unexpected men who are, perhaps, strange.

People have a lot of very real fear of men that comes from a lot of very real places. Back when I was first transitioning in 2015 and 2016, I decided to start presenting as a woman in public even though I did not pass in the slightest.

I live in a red state. I knew other trans women who had been attacked by men, raped by men. I knew I was taking a risk by putting myself out there. I was the only visibly trans person in the area of campus I frequented, and people made sure I never forgot that. Most were harmless enough and the worst I got from them was curious stares. Others were more aggressive, even the occasional threat. I had to avoid public bathrooms, of course, and always be aware of my surroundings.

I know how frightening it is to be alone at night while a pair of men are following behind you and not knowing if they are just going in the same direction or if they want to start something - made all the worse for the constant low level threat I had been living under for over a year by just being visibly trans in a place where many are openly hostile to queer people. You have to remember, this was at the height of the first wave of bathroom law discussions, a lot of people were very angry about trans women in particular. My daily life was terrifying at times. I was never the subject of direct violence, but I knew trans women who had been.

I want you to keep all that in mind.

So man or bear is really the question "how afraid of men are you?", and the question that logically follows is "What if there was a strange man at night in a deserted parking lot?" or "What if you were alone in an elevator with a man?" or "What if you met a strange man in the woman's bathroom?"

My state recently passed an anti trans bathroom bill. The rhetoric they used was about protecting women and children from "strange men", aka trans women.

Conservatives hijack fear for their bigoted agenda.

When I first started presenting as a woman the campus apartment complex was designed for young families. The buildings were in a large square with playgrounds in the center, and there were often children playing. I quickly noticed that when I took my daughter out to play, often several children would immediately stop what they were doing and run back inside. It didn't take me long to confirm that the parents were so afraid of "the strange man who wears skirts" that their children were under strict instructions to literally run away as soon as they saw me.

"How afraid are you of a strange man being near your children?"

I mentioned above that I had to avoid public bathrooms. This was not because of men. It was because of women who were so afraid of random men that they might get violent or call someone like the police to be violent for them if I ever accidentally presented myself in a way that could be interpreted as threatening, when my mere presence could be seen as a threat. If I was in the library studying and I realized that it was just me and one other woman I would get up and leave because she might decide that stranger danger was happening.

Your fear is real. Your fear might even come from lived experiences. None of that prevents the fact that your fear can be violent. Women's fear of men is one of the driving forces of transmisogyny because it is so easy to hijack. And it isn't just trans women. Other trans people experience this, and other queer people too. Racial minorities, homeless people, neurodivergent people, disabled people.

When you uncritically engage with questions like man or bear, when you uncritically validate a culture of reactive fear, you are paving the way for conservatives and bigots to push their agenda. And that is why I waited until pride month. You cannot engage and contribute to the culture of reactive fear without contributing to queerphobia of all varieties. The sensationalist culture of reactive fear is a serious queer issue, and everyone just forgot that for a week as they argued over man or bear. I'm not saying that "man" is the right answer. I am saying that uncritically engaging with such obvious click bait trading on reactive fear is a problem. Everyone fucked up.

It is not a moral failing to experience fear, but it is a moral responsibility to keep a handle on that fear and know how it might harm others.

[hexastitchimera]

Genuine observation, no sass and no disrespect, but being someone who is chronically OFFline & an active volunteer/activist for over a decade, and seeing what people say is "crucial discourse" online is... Quite the trip, honestly.

[angelcatsiel]

ooof there goes my dad pissing me off with his opinions again

[vmures]

Since I'm already thinking about James Somerton, I might add this to my musings on his videos and the take aways from his errors, lies, omissions, and plagiarism.

He's a great example of the problems that arise when you decide to categorize a minority group into good and bad members of the group instead of focusing on individual bad behaviors and just that--individual. He's also a great example of the same type of behavior the 9-1-1 stans I was talking about earlier love to revel in.

He's white, a cis dude, and gay. He acts like he's uplifting minority voices and speaking for more marginalized groups when in reality he was spreading a lot of hate and using voices of those more marginalized than himself to boost his fame and fortune. There's a lot of misogynist language in his videos. There's also a whole lot of "good gays" talk. While he doesn't go the puritanical route for describing good gays (meaning a gay person who fits into heterosexual norms and thus is less likely to upset the far right), he does still paint a picture of there only being one right way to be queer while deriding those who do fit into heterosexual norms.

Claiming the opposing stance (we're good because we're freaks and they're bad because they pass) is just another tactic that divides the community and causes strife and in-fighting which weakens the whole community and makes it easier for outside forces to oppress and harm the community.

Of all the videos that pissed me off, the one where he claims that all the good gays died in the AIDS crisis was probably the one that made me most feral with anger. I was too young to be active in the queer community during the Act Up years. I was only able to become more active in the community when I got to college in the late 90s. But I watched the news and read and tried to come to terms with being queer while living in the rural deep south (and let me tell you, finding supportive info was hell before the internet). I saw the work people were doing to fight for housing, for employment rights, for fair treatment in all walks of life. It was never just about marriage and joining the military. Honestly 20 year old me didn't think we'd ever see gay marriage legalized in all 50 states. So hearing that blatant lie was infuriating. It was a sign that not only did he not do his research, he deliberately created misinformation to try to radicalize members of the community and get them to hate other members of the community.

The other problem with his stance about the only good gays being the visibly wild and weird ones is that it ignores the realities that a lot of LGBTQUIA+ folks face. I tried hard to pass, and failed spectacularly especially in middle school where I was severely bullied for looking like a boy and being to masculine and possibly being gay. I did eventually get better at passing as a protective measure.

When I officially came out in college, my cousin thought I was brave as hell, but kind of insane. Not because it was wrong, but because it literally put my life in danger. My college was a small private liberal arts college but was still located in a very red, very conservative state and city. I ended up helping start the college's first gay-straight alliance group (and as far as I know it's still an active group on campus). People were afraid to come because they didn't want to become targets. We had our flyers torn down and some of us had our cars keyed. Thankfully I don't recall us having any violence to people just a whole lot of microaggressions on campus.

A few years after college, I joined the Peace Corps and was told point blank that the country I would be serving in was very homophobic and it would be best if I stayed closeted while there for my own safety. There are lots of people in many US states who still face the choice of being closeted or being victims of violence and for those who simply cannot pass it is a terrifying world to live in. Instead of dividing it into good and bad camps of who can pass and who cannot, it's a lot more effective if both groups stand together and work for change. We are so much stronger when we join forces and stand in solidarity. Calling out those who are afraid to come out, or who feel like they only way to live safely is to pass, isn't an effective way to create change. Just like alienating those who cannot pass or choose not to is not an effective way to create change.

Neither extreme take is fair to the other group. And these sorts of takes tend to result in a sort of "I got mine, and you can go die" mentality. We shouldn't be leaving any member to the hatred and abuse of oppressors. And for those who join our oppressors in hopes of sparing themselves...well, we should pity them because in the end they will find that once the other scapegoats have been slaughtered they will be the ones on the chopping block.

TLDR; Misinformation and framing things in a way to fracture oppressed minority groups even farther is one of the things we all need to be wary of when we're taking information in. Because in the end it only ends up hurting the entire group.

[tododeku-or-bust]

What I need for White Americans (ppl in general really, but I'm talking to the U.S.) to understand about Americans of Color is that You don't know Us, but We know YOU.

We've spent generations upon generations of our entire lives learning YOUR social norms, forced to assimilate to YOUR idea of society. We live and learn entirely separate cultures, but we also learn from birth what it means to have to cater to Whiteness in America. It's why I can name so many famous movies with white casts, but most white people didn't even know where "Bye Felicia" came from. It's why I was raised to professionally Code Switch from childhood, but grown white people struggle to even grasp the basics of the grammar of AAVE. It's why people who speak different languages think they have to give up their own mother tongue just to function in this country.

It's why you all are so uncomfortable with the idea of people of color questioning and rejecting what seems "normal" to you- and to be honest, I actually think older white generations are better at admitting this than younger ones. It's because what you know as normal is usually not "normal"- it's White. Whiteness is just as loud as any other presentation of race in this country, you just don't see it that way because everyone else has been forced to maintain your comfort. The entire system is built around it, and you don't even know it.

It's why it frustrates white Americans of some marginalization- queer, disabled, neurodivergent- because you do not have access to the "norm" as it is shown to you. But that frustration- literally everyone of color (who shares those identities btw) lives under that understanding.

Idk, I didn't really have a direction. I just think it's wild how so many conversations require this... Constant Verbal Leveling of the Playing Field simply because Whiteness blinds white people to what things ACTUALLY look like out here.

[paris-geller-was-straightwashed]

'hazbin hotel is such a great queer show!' haha right except it's sister show set in the same universe & made by the same person, has the main character blatantly call someone a r*tard as a way to insult them soooooooooooooo......hard pass

[rum-maj]

im expecting a lot of "pride month is over, now it's time for wrath month" posts. that's cool and all. but july is disability pride month.

pride month is when you're SUPPOSED to be angry. it's a celebration AND a riot. that was the best time to get angry. second best time is now. but it's not wrath month. let disabled people have this.

please get angry with us. please fight with us! we are both losing our rights, if we ever even had them to begin with. please don't talk over us, especially during our own pride month.

did you know over 10,000 people die a year while waiting to be told whether or not they can receive disability benefits?

did you know while being provided disability benefits, disabled people cannot have more than $2,000 total in their bank account? the average rent for an apartment in the united states, as of last month, is $1,995. per month.

while they want to kill queer people, they want to kill disabled people just as bad. please look out for your disabled friends and family. please look out for those of us who don't have friends and family. those of us who are out on the streets.

[genderqueerdykes]

as someone who has been scarred for life by experiences at gay bars, i need people to understand it's beyond tacky to mock people who want queer spaces beyond queer bars- it's dangerous.

let me explain. i went to 2 of my local queer bars a lot last year, as much as i was able to despite being poor. i witnessed a fist fight that was so bloody that ended up with a transmisogynistic drag queen getting hit in the head with a metal baton. the sight caused me to uncontrollably throw up in the bathroom of the club because of how gruesome it was. they had to close down the club and forard people out the back door because of how out of hand this person got- he was screaming transmisogynstic slurs and phrases at the bouncers were were transfem.

i was also sexually assaulted at these places, i was repeatedly groped by several people who i was not interacting with in the first place who found me attractive and decided physically grabbing me on numerous occasions was the way to get my attention. being femme in a queer bar is dangerous even if the people groping you are gay men.

i am also a recovering addict who dealt with alcohol issues in the past and could be considered a recovering alcoholic. i don't want to be around alcohol. i don't want to smell it. it triggers awful memories and also sometimes makes me consider getting a drink, but i can't have one, because the medications i take will cause a fatal reaction- i don't want to be tempted to drink, because it will kill me.

it's not right to mock someone or call them childish or whatever for not wanting to go to a club. whenever alcohol is involved, people's inhibitions are gone and they will do whatever. this includes fighting. i witnessed several other fights. just because it's a queer bar doesn't mean there won't be fights. and it especialyl doesn't m ean that you won't get groped or assaulted because, like i said, since alcohol is involved and it's a bar, there's a high chance this can and will happen.

queer people are not inherently safe angels to be around by virtue of being queer. there are still transphobes in queer bars. tranny chasers come to these bars. homophobic lesbians show up and lesbophobic gay men show up. drag queens and performers bring their cishet friends and family to support their shows. these are not perfect havens. they are not safe. we should not force other queers to interact with inherently dangerous spaces if these are supposed to be our safe spaces.

also these spaces are not friendly to people with disabilities; wheelchair users have nowhere to go especially when it's very crowded. other mobility aids get kicked and knocked over. neurodivergent people can get overstimulated by the deafening music very quickly. photosensitive people can have seizures due to the strobing lights. people with emetophobia like me run the risk of running into those types of triggers. people who are overstimulated by intoxicated people have no choice but to deal with it. dancing is one of the only activities to do other than drink and not many disabled (or even abled) people can dance for extended periods of time comfortably.

not to mention these spaces are not geared toward aromantic or asexual people at all, either. there is a long list of reasons why bars should not be our primary venues of interaction with one another. they serve a specific purpose- for people who want to cruise- but for the rest of us, it's really crucial that we have spaces that provide meaningful interactions with other queers on other levels of our identities.

some people just want to hang out with other queers in a quiet environment and craft, or shop, or drink coffee, or read books together, or just about any other activity on planet earth, and that's not "lame" or "cringy" or bad in any way- these are extremely normal and necessary parts of human interaction that we all require and crave and it's normal to want to do healthy, domestic things with other queers. we need this in our lives.

please take it seriously when people attempt to create queer spaces that don't involve alcohol and bars. it's necessary for our survival and well being as a community.

[drchucktingle]

THE TEXAS LIBRARY ASSOCIATION HAVE ISSUED AN APOLOGY AND A RE-INVITATION. HERE IS MY STATEMENT

hello buckaroos. the TEXAS LIBRARY ASSOCIATION have issued a formal statement and apology which you can read at the attached link.

while i find the language used to discuss what was done a little unsatisfying, i would like to start by saying i appreciate anyone taking steps to prove love is real and make things right. the genuine feeling of ‘realizing you have made a mistake and hurt someone else’ is a terrible one, and i have so much empathy for this group as they reckon with their choices causing harm. i appreciate their apology.

i also think more good than bad has come from this situation. i am so thankful this happened to me (someone with a large social media presence) and not a smaller buckaroo author without the means to stand up for themselves. i think the next time someone comes to the TXLA with an accommodation need, they will hopefully be taken more seriously

lets trot down to business about specifics now. the TXLA has re-invited chuck to the original panel and even offered to take a moment at the top of the panel to talk about what happened. this is very kind of them and i will say THANK YOU. 

unfortunately i will also have to decline.

the fact that it took this much effort, social media backlash, and discussion to let me simply EXIST PHYSICALLY in a way that is authentic to myself is not a good sign. if this organization immediately questions an authors chosen presentation in this manner, i cannot imagine what my other accommodations would be met with.

sometimes i am at an event and i very quickly need extra space to breathe. sometimes i am at an event and i need special guides to help me along from place to place. these are not ‘big asks’ and every other conference has gladly provided them, but if the TXLA had this kind of initial reaction to my physical appearance, i cannot imagine them readily helping with my other needs without ‘proof’.

this is clearly not a safe place to trot for those who require additional accommodations. regardless of any apology, their ACTIONS have shown that people who appear unusual or unique are not welcome at this event on a subconscious level. i believe the TXLA have some serious inner work to do beyond this apology, and i believe this inner work will involve actions more than words.

but even more importantly i would like to make this very important point: IT DOES NOT MATTER IF MY MASK IS A DISABILITY AID OR NOT. i appreciate the way this discussion has allowed us to trot out some deep talks on autism and proved love in this way, but i think there is a much more important point at hand.

regardless of WHAT someone looks like, it is not the job of an event or conference to pick apart WHY. physical presentation can be a part of someones neurodivergence, or gender, or sexuality, but i can also just exist as a nebulous undefined part of their inner self. it can be a piece they are not ready to openly discuss yet. the guests at TXLA are authors (aka ARTISTS) and the idea that a conference dedicated to an ART is going to deny people with unique and unusual presentations for ANY reason is absurd. since when are we applying a ‘dress code’ to our artists?

without knowing it, i personally believe there is an element of the ‘good queer, bad queer’ phenomenon going on here. there is a push to say ‘LOOK we accept these marginalized groups and cultures’ but behind the scenes that means ‘we accept these marginalized groups and cultures who are quiet and speak in turn and wear the metaphorical suit and tie’. it is easy to show diversity when you only take on the voices that arent too ‘strange’.

to prove my point i ask you this: do you think orville peck would have FOR ONE SECOND been asked to perform at the texas library association event without his mask?

so with that i say ‘very sincerely, thank you, but i will have to decline the re-invitation. maybe next year’

[renthony]

[Image description: A photograph of a page from a spiral-bound sketchbook. The page has an illustration of the covid-19 virus and overlaid text that reads, "If I die of Covid-19 - forget burial - just drop my body on the steps of the C.D.C." A caption on the bottom of the page reads, "Ren Basel 2024. In memory of David Wojnarowicz and everyone killed by AIDS, COVID-19, and the government's negligence. Fight back!" End description.]

In 1988, AIDS activist David Wojnarowicz was photographed in a now-famous image, wearing a jacket that read, "If I die of AIDS - forget burial - just drop my body on the steps of the F.D.A.." I am far from the only person to adapt Wojnarowicz's words to COVID-19, but today I am feeling especially angry at the world. Holding the rage in my chest hurts--it hurts so fucking much--so instead, I've put it on paper.

Living through government negligence and community indifference during COVID-19 in 2024 fills me with rage and grief in equal measure, and as a queer person who studies queer history, I can see the echoes of AIDS in the way marginalized communities are being left to die.

As a disabled person who lives in a household that is very high-risk for COVID-19, the C.D.C.'s recent decision to shorten the COVID-19 isolation period feels like a slap in the face.

COVID-19 is not over, and it is vital to take steps to protect yourself and others. Please, follow the work of the People's CDC, an organization dedicated to COVID-19 safety, activism, and education.

Our government has failed us. Our communities have failed us. For those of us who are immunocompromosed or otherwise high-risk, we only have each other.

Remember us. Fight with us. Mask up, get vaccinated, get boosted.

Please.

[transvarmint]

The reason why you can't seperate our transness from our manhood is the exact same reason why transmisogyny is one word.

Its not just transphobia and misogyny. It's transmisogyny. The discrimination transfems face isn't discretely divided into 2 categories. Those experiences overlap in a way where you can't adequately address one without acknowledging the other. That's why it was crucial to come up with vocabulary to describe this intersection. To seperate them is to attempt to erase intersectionality.

In the same way, you can't adequately address the oppression transmascs face without addressing all aspects of our identity.

Manhood and/or masculinity in isolation may not be targeted by a specific axis of oppression; but when they intersect with a marginalized identity, they become a target for gendered violence. Because our manhood does not, and cannot, exist removed from the context of our transness and life experiences. That is the entire purpose of intersectionality.

To remove our manhood / masculinity from that equation is to refuse to view us holistically, and is an attempt to seperate us from our identity - exactly the same way transphobes do.

The term intersectionality was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a black woman, who was pointing out that her various identities do not exist independently, rather, they inform each other, and create a convergence of social positions.

White feminists did not (and often still don't) acknowledge the ways that other axes of identity and oppression inform misogyny. They excluded women of color from the conversation because they did not want to discuss how racism intersects with misogyny. There was similar silencing of queer and disabled women, as well, for the same reason.

By telling us "it's because you're trans, not because you're men" you're just repeating history. The marginalization of non-hegemonic manhood and masculinity is a very real axis that must be addressed when discussing the oppression of trans men and transmascs - as well as other marginalized men.

If you refuse to hear about this aspect of our experience, our voices will never truly be heard. You are actively contributing to our erasure and to our continued harm.

I am a transgender man. I am a whole person. Treat me as such.

[bynux]

"don't vote for Harris or you're supporting genocide" "voting blue is still voting for fascists" Then what else do you expect us to do?

Here are some options y'all seem to insist on and why they're fucking stupid:

Vote Third Party :: Until we have ranked-choice voting (and probably even if we did have ranked-choice voting), it is practically impossible to make a 3rd-party candidate viable. There's not enough of the population that's far enough from moderate to give up their "safe" blue vote for some "revolutionary."

Don't Vote At All :: I'd prefer to pick my enemy. If I'm going to be working in spite of the government, or even against it in some ways, I'd rather the people I'm working against not already be targeting me for being queer, for example. If my options are "bad" or "much, much worse" I'm gonna pick "bad" and try to improve things from there.

Violent Revolution :: It's a cosplay power fantasy in the same vein as the Right-wingers looking for a reason to shoot protesters. Assuming you even have enough people organized and enough firepower to pull that off in the first place…have you prepared a plan to keep the innocents alive and safe? Are you sure you can keep supply chains for food and medicines intact? Are you sure there will be resources available for the disabled, the scared, the young and old, those who won't be able to fight and still need to be taken care of? Turns out revolution is ugly and causes a lot of undue collateral damage. Are the lives "saved" really going to outweigh those whose lives will be upended and destroyed? It's not like a newly-toppled, unorganized country will be able to do anything about Israel/Gaza, so you're just hurting and killing far more people than you're saving.

As for the power you do have to better things (and make Leftism more viable as a political stance in the US)?

Work at the level of your local government. If you're in a small enough town or neighborhood and think you have what it takes, run for local office. Be a local face of the left wing; you're far more likely to sway a small town to your views than the whole country, and each small town with a socialist-leaning government is a dot on the map for larger-scale viability, and you can help keep your community safe while trying to build up in scale.

Build community so we can keep each other safe if worse does come to worst. Push mutual aid initiatives, help at food banks, grow produce to donate to those in need, apply to work at your local free clinic, empower local businesses whenever possible so that if there is a socioeconomic collapse, you and those you love aren't left completely without resources.

Protest, and make it disruptive. You can be disruptive without being violent: graffiti, blocking roads, encampments, sit-ins, to name a few examples. Create inconveniences so it gets people's attention whether they like it or not.

Above all, FUCKING VOTE BLUE. You're choosing your enemy. You get to help decide if the government we're working in spite of is run by milquetoast neoliberal war hawks who do, on some rare occasions, actually make things marginally better…or full-tilt Christo-fascists who want to kill some of us for kissing people with the same genitals as us. There aren't any other options that are going to be picked. It sucks, but at the bare minimum we can pick the option that isn't going to actively murder us while we try to build up viability for a candidate who won't sell out brown people to an ethnostate.

If you aren't doing at least one of the things above, then don't lecture me about how I keep myself and my community safe. I'd love to see a United States (or some future iteration of it) that acknowledges the sovereign rights of indigenous peoples, that doesn't fund genocide, that provides healthcare as a basic human right, that doesn't meddle in every other country's business. But if we are to see that, let alone help that happen, we need to survive this next presidential administration.

Edit: y'all have lost reblog privileges. If you wanna screenshot this and have stupid unnuanced opinions OFF of my post, be my guest. Just leave me tf alone.