#but in a cost of living crisis the fact that it comes down to the general populace to give a single shit about Palestinian lives

[stil-lindigo]

SPREADSHEET OF PALESTINIAN ESCAPE FUNDS‼️TIME SENSITIVE

Operation Olive Branch is a continuously updating spreadsheet of Palestinian escape funds where progress towards their goals is being tracked. As of right now, there are over 100 funds listed there.

Any amount of money can make a difference. With their recent decision to bomb Rafah, the only remaining “safe” territory in Gaza, Israel has forced Palestinians into a corner by giving them nowhere else to go. The international community has given Israel the ability to act with impunity - it is long past the point in time to rely on those in power to hold Israel to any standard of compassion.

Today, I want you to look at this document, choose a fund, contribute to it, and share it. The people in Rafah are living on borrowed time. Free Palestine.

[soft-serve-soymilk]

Gaslighting? In MY household? It’s more likely than you think

[sunderwight]

Much as I love the idea of PIDW being rife with terrible porn tropes and interesting (if contrived) erotic writing conventions, all actual evidence in canon would seem to indicate that apart from some sex pollen and "uh oh, the protagonist has gone into a fugue state, whatever shall calm him down?" type stuff, it was fairly vanilla.

Like, that's part of both Shen Yuan and Airplane's frustration with it, I think. It's full of sex and it's not even sex either of them enjoy the concept of. Airplane was fully just trying to pander to an audience he felt he knew and could manipulate, but not one either he nor his ultra mega hate reader were actually part of.

Not that they understood that themselves at the time.

I mean I know fandom likes to make Airplane less closeted than Shen Yuan (for a lot of reasons), which I support, but I feel like in canon at least... he didn't cotton on to Luo Binghe's change in interests at first either. It wasn't until he was watching his protagonist obsess over resurrecting Shen Qingqiu at any cost that the light started to dawn. For Shang Qinghua, also, many more years have passed since he was back in their original world. He's had more time to reconcile himself to certain ideas.

What glimpses we get of the person he was before he died, was reborn, and lived a whole other life well into adulthood, would seem to indicate that he probably wasn't much better than Shen Yuan back when he was writing.

I mean he probably was still BETTER (the bar is on the floor), like I bet he could have a fantasy featuring Mobei Jun without having an existential crisis or pretending it didn't happen, but he would have probably been like "wow I guess I've been writing so much m/f porn that I can't even enjoy it anymore and my brain had to come up with something else, anyway Mobei would make a hot chick tho, I'm gonna write one of his cousins as Binghe's next wife" and gotten on with things.

Basically I guess what I'm driving at is that it would be funny if SQQ and SQH figured they had a solid handle on the kinds of sex pollen-y porn tropes to expect from the world (mostly just the occasional fuck-or-die that missionary can cure), only for the rug to get ripped out from under them because the system incorporated a bunch of stuff from Airplane's subconscious to fill out the gaps. Not even his notes. His daydreams and fantasies.

SQQ: what the hell?! PIDW didn't even have werewolves or tentacle porn monsters!

SQH, suddenly reminded of some very specific fap sessions: right?! this is definitely weird and in no way my fault! it must be because of the genre switch!

SQQ: *suspicious*

SQH: which is your fault! you made the protagonist gay! in fact it's probably your fault that I'm gay too now!

SQQ: bullshit. what did you do. was this in a draft?!

SQH: *sweating* I can say with absolute confidence that it was not! I never wrote anything like this!

SQQ: *having a crisis now because maybe he DID accidentally cause the monsterfucker stuff and he desperately doesn't want anyone to realize that he's actually into it*

SQH: *continuing to sweat because the world is consistently manifesting content from his personal spank bank and if cucumber ever figures that out he's a dead man*

[lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers]

I want to write something long form about the teacher strikes and the state of education in England right now.

You’ll hear a lot of teachers in the coming days and weeks say they don’t want to strike, or they feel guilt about striking. I’ve thought about it, and I want to strike, and I don’t feel guilty, and I think I owe it to students to strike. Maybe not the ones I teach now, but the ones I might teach in five years time.

I owe it to some of the Y7s, 8s and 9s I taught last year who were deeply passionate about science. In particular, I’m think of the Y7s who loved our space topic, and may never get taught by a qualified physics teacher. I’m also thinking about the sort of country they’ll grow up in, the opportunities they’ll have and the future they deserve.

I can write some arguments within the liberal, capitalist context we live in,  for improving education, and specifically why pay and working conditions need to be improved for teachers and why striking is our only option. I know that’s not what a lot of you follow me for, but they may be persuasive if you know teachers or want to talk to people about why they should support the teacher strikes.

1)     There is a national shortage of teachers. This is a fact- we know a large number of teachers do not stay in the profession long term- 1/3 of teachers who trained in the last 10 years are no longer teaching. Other research suggests many of these teachers quit in the first 5 years of teaching. This year, we have struggled to recruit across secondary subjects. In subjects like maths, science, MFL, geography and more, the situation is especially dire- but this crisis is even starting to impact primary schools now. First and foremost, students are going without qualified, subject specialist teachers. In other professions, the Tories acknowledge high pay is needed to recruit suitable staff. Why not teaching- which after all requires a specialist degree and often a post graduate qualification too.

2)     This doesn’t just hurt individual students, it hurts the whole country, because it leaves us with a lack of people who are capable of becoming doctors, dentists, engineers, entering other health care professions, working in the STEM fields that are meant to drive our economy. Investing in education grows the economy long term, and is better for society as a whole.

3)     But it does also hurt the social mobility of individual students. Richer families can pay tutors, or go private to make up for deficiencies in teaching. But those from low income families can’t. Few parents have the time or ability to bridge the gap themselves.

4)     Furthermore, if we think about really vulnerable students- who, make no mistake will be used as a weapon against teachers during the strike- they benefit from well funded schools. They benefit from having consistent adults in their lives. They often take a long time to form relationships with staff. A revolving door of supply teachers (which is the reality in many secondary schools) really hurts them.

5)     Teachers struggle to negotiate pay for themselves. Many schools will baulk at the idea of a teacher negotiating on their own pay, and take deep offense, as if the idea of negotiating pay in a capitalist society when you have an unusual skill is totally unreasonable. So, teachers can only negotiate pay on a national scale. And because the government won’t sit down and negotiate, the only thing we can do is take industrial action.

6)     Ultimately, schools can’t afford to pay teachers well- so any pay rise needs to be fully funded. Again, hence strike action.

 We can say that the teacher shortage is about working conditions too- and it is, for sure. But it’s also true that the teacher shortage appears to be most acute where a teacher’s pay won’t stretch as far because accommodation costs and other costs are high.

I want to take a moment at this point to address the idea of “work to rule”- which doesn’t actually exist in English law, btw.

Action short of a strike in teaching would likely take the form of teachers not running clubs and trips, maybe refusing to do marking as well. These are all things that would negatively impact students, but have a totally negligible economic impact, if at all. It would, inevitably, drag on for months, because the government simply would not notice.

A teacher strike, ideally one that shuts a large number of schools, will have a noticeable impact on the economy, because some parents won’t be able to work or travel. Yes, it’s rubbish for parents, but the impact on students will genuinely be lower than weeks or months of action short of a strike. And it’s the only language the government will listen to, unfortunately.

 I want to talk also about what the Tories are doing to education. I alluded to this earlier, but I think it bears exploring specifically.

The Tories are destroying education. At this stage, I think it’s gone beyond neglect, into a deliberate policy to damage state education. They can’t say that out loud, of course, but why else, at a time of massive teacher shortages, would they cut teacher training places from 2024? Why else would they implement the ECT program in such a way it’s driving early career teachers out of teaching? Why else would they starve schools of funding to such an extent?

Why would the Tories do this?

I’ve got two possible theories for you.

One, they want a poor, uneducated underclass, with limited job prospects, in order to exploit them. And educating the working classes and providing them with opportunities for social mobility runs against that.

Two, some tories take a more eugenicist outlook, they think education is simply wasted on said “underclass”. That no amount of good education would improve the prospects of certain groups, so why bother?

Perhaps it’s a little of column a, a little of column b. Certainly, there are strong objections to teachers in state schools sharing opinions that might be contradictory to the governments’.

So I strongly believe this strike is to preserve the future of education.

 Obviously, if we consider the wider state of the country, there are lot of important reasons to join a wider worker’s movement. And I’m going to come back to that point about working conditions, because part of that is the shortage of funding in other public sector areas, meaning schools are asked to do more and more with less and less.

It’s increasingly clear Rishi Sunak’s Tories are both fascists and disaster capitalists, who are going to take what they can from this country before their party implodes. And you all know what I think of the political alternatives. It’s also true if we wait two years for an election, people will die- not least in A and E waiting rooms, or waiting for an ambulance.

The Tories are happy to let £42 Billion in tax go unpaid (largely by the rich and mega-corporations), and then they turn around and say there’s no money.

I genuinely think this wave of strikes could be the start of something- of meaningful political change that carries this country to the left. Maybe the some of the current union leaders will not push things far enough, but we are the union, so we must push further. And we can use this opportunity to really influence the UK political landscape, and build solidarity for a mass worker’s union.

[finelinevogue]

h and y/n are like cuddled on the sofa having deep convos and they’re like massaging eachother?? super duper fluffy please!!🌷🍰

okay for some reason this is both sad and fluffy, and idk how we got here

warnings: touches on sensitive topics in the current news

May 24th 2022

The BBC News was playing in the background and the clock struck 10 PM.

You and Harry were snuggled down deep on the couch, Harry spooning you from behind. One of his arms was helping keep his head up to peer over your body, whilst his other draped casually around your waist. You were both facing the TV, but neither of you were actually watching it.

Brixton ONO had finished a couple of hours before and you couldn’t be more proud of him and what he’s achieved. The rest of the band had gone out in London to celebrate, along with crew and some members of management, but Harry decided to come home with you instead.

He would always come home to you.

“The news is so sad at the moment.” You pointed out after watching the headlines.

“It’s because the world is so fucked up at the moment. It’s just, we don’t see it daily because we live on our little familiar bubble.”

“I just struggle to live every day freely when those people are suffering in Ukraine and there’s school shootings to innocent children. Then the cost of living crisis in the UK. It’s all just so fucked, H, and it makes me terrified to bring this one into the world.” You took his hand and rubbed it over your still flat belly.

You were only a few weeks into your pregnancy so there’d be no bump for a while. Harry couldn’t wait for it to start showing though. So much so he would make you wear the tightest top he could find and judge whether there was any difference in bump from the day before. You kept reminding him that it was just your extra belly pouch. He loved on it all the same though.

“I would hope that our love for this little one would be enough to keep them safe and healthy.” Harry answered, calming you down by kissing along your neck.

“You’re going to be such a good dad, H.”

“Yeah? And you’ll be an even better mum. In fact, y’already are. Keeping them all safe and warm.” Harry squeezed your belly a little tighter, as is he were giving the baby a hug.

“H, it’s a literally just a blob right now.” You laughed.

“A blob that I love.” He laughed back, kissing your cheek because he couldn’t quite reach your lips.

“Okay, off topic, but that reminds me. Have you seen all that shit with the abortion laws in America?” You felt Harry’s arm tighten around your stomach.

“Yeah. It makes me feel so sick that men in high powers think they can just take away womens rights, as if they’ve ever owned a uterus before.” Harry shook his head.

“And if we’re raped it still doesn’t constitute an excuse for an abortion? I mean what kind of sick and medieval law is that?” You exclaimed, feeling yourself get riled up over this issue.

You turned so you were now laying on your back instead of your front and turned your head to face Harry, who was looking at you with awe. His hand stayed placed on your stomach and your hands went and sat on-top of his.

“I know, baby. It’s fucked, I’m sorry.”

“Harry, it’s not you who should be apologising. I mean of course I, we, have a voice in this, but we shouldn’t be louder than the people who actually have been through these situations. Their stories need to be heard and they are the ones that deserve apologies.”

“You’re right. Do you know anything that we can do?” Harry asked, always wanting to be the first one to join the rally.

“Spread awareness on the media. Sign petitions and call up local offices. Voices need to be heard, so make everything as public as possible.” You explained and Harry nodded his head in agreement.

“I could donate to some women’s rights visitors too.”

“We both can.” You raised your hand to cup his cheek, because you wanted to remind him that it were a team and you’d face all of this together. “Sorry, by the way.”

Harry’s eyebrows furrowed and he slid his hand underneath your t-shirt so he could softly rub the skin there. “What for?”

“For you having to lay here and listen to me rant about sad issues, when you could be out with your friends celebrating your success.”

Harry chuckled, leaning down to kiss your lips softly. It had been ten minutes too long since you’d last tasted his lips and you couldn’t help but moan at how good he still tasted. He was so perfect and his plump lips fit perfectly between yours.

“You could never be sorry for that, baby, because I would rather be here, with you, than out there, with them. I celebrate my success by spending time with you and getting to be happy. Seeing that smile on your face is success enough.” He kissed your lips again and you let it last a little longer this time.

“You’re the best, ever.” You smiled up at him.

“And I thought that was you?”

[morlock-holmes]

What exactly are we trying to solve?

The incuriosity and fuzziness with which people look at the west coast homelessness crisis drives me fucking batty.

Now look, I admit up front that I am also both incurious and wool-headed about this issue, but I work in a fucking restaurant for minimum wage. If you write a book about the fucking homeless crisis or run the city government I expect you to think a little bit harder than the average schmoe on the street, and I think that's reasonable.

One thing that pisses me off about the way people talk about homelessness is that they don't seem to know why it's bad, or what it would look like to solve it. Which I know sounds crazy but hear me out.

Scott Alexander helpfully reviews San Fransicko for me so I don't have to punch any holes in my drywall, but I want... Well, actually I was composing this as I finish Alexander's review, and I got to his utilitarian discussion at the end that cuts to the heart of the matter:

Along with all the problems and preaching, San Fransicko offers solutions. These won’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s read this far: they’re basically the Amsterdam plan presented earlier. Break up open-air drug markets. Force addicts into rehab by threatening prison sentences for noncompliance. Ban camping on streets and force the homeless into shelters. Offer permanent housing when appropriate, but make it contingent on good behavior. Have a strong psychiatric system with ability to commit people who need it, and enforced outpatient treatment when appropriate.

Would these work?

I’m pretty sure they would work well for housed people and the city as a whole. Homeless people would no longer block the streets and assault passers-by; they would be safely out of sight in shelters or in mental institutions. A new generation of tough DAs would crack down on crime. Stores could reopen, and citizens could walk the streets without fear. It’s hard for me to imagine this not working.

...

I have to admit - I talk a good utilitarian talk on this, but I don’t know if I live up to my ideals. An addictionologist interviewed in San Fransicko heaps contempt on well-off liberals who get the benefits of virtue-signaling while externalizing the costs onto poor people in bad areas:

[You] sit in the suburbs and feel smug about the fact that you oppose the war on drugs and have a Black Lives Matter sign in your yard. But you don’t have homeless people taking a crap on your front stoop every day or [have] all your packages stolen every single day

So I imagine - what if I lived in the worst parts of SF, had people crap on my front steps every day, had all my packages stolen, and (by the bounds of this hypothetical) wasn’t allowed to move to the suburbs, ever? I think I would last two weeks before I sacrificed all of my principles on the altar of “less human feces, please”.

Maybe, as a lefty, I'm supposed to read that and gasp and say, "How can you be so heartless?" or maybe I'm supposed to say, "Gosh, when you get right down to it, doesn't the poor guy have a point?"

But instead I'm going to ask:

Do you have any studies showing how effective those policies are at getting rid of human feces?

I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm genuinely wondering how Alexander didn't notice that so much of the criticism he himself quotes in Shellenberger's book has nothing to do with any of that stuff.

This is the particular quote from Shellenberger that caught me up short:

"An experiment with 249 homeless people in San Francisco between 1999 and 2002 found those enrolled in the city’s Housing First program, Direct Access to Housing, used medical services at the same rate as those who were not given housing through the program, suggesting that the Housing First program likely had minimal impact on the participants’ health."

Did it have an impact on how often they took a shit on a public sidewalk? Did it have an impact on the amount of litter they dumped on streets? Did it have an impact on time spent chasing people around and screaming obscenities? Did it have an impact on how often they injected heroine in the subway? Did it have an impact on how many sidewalks they blocked with tents?

All that fucking soul-searching, all that "Gosh, perhaps to solve the problem we simply must be cruel" and this reluctant commitment to reducing the effect of homelessness on tourists and housed locals, and realizing that, gosh, we might have to sacrifice the well-being of homeless people if that's what it takes, an utter commitment to ignoring anything but the reduction of social harm from mass camping...

And the criticism of DAH is that it doesn't improve the health outcomes of the people enrolled in it?!

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

This kind of goalpost shifting is RIFE within the discussion of west coast homelessness, where opponents of current policies or even speculative ones waffle back and forth about whether or not they give a shit about the health of the homeless or not.

Before all that soul-searching I quoted this is Scott's assessment of Housing First policy:

Conclusion: Housing First seems to work in getting people housing. It probably also helps people use fewer medical services, and it might or might not save money compared to not doing it (probably more likely when treating very severe cases, less likely in areas with high housing costs). It probably doesn’t affect people’s overall health or drug use status very much.

So... Housing first policies probably actually do a pretty damn good job at making the Homeless less obnoxious to tourists and housed people in a number of concrete ways related to litter, camping, public defecation, etc.?

There's good reason to think, pending further research, that they might actually do a pretty good job at reducing some of the problems that, after all that soul-searching, we decided were the only priorities we have?

I'm furious and unhappy at the way Portland is being covered by tent cities, mounds of trash, and grafitti. But I have this utterly baffling conversation with people where they go,

"This camping is shameful, the city should crack down on it!"

"So, get people into stable housing"

"Well, if you get people into stable housing it only puts a band-aid on the problem, they still can have health and behavioral problems that are really important."

And I always go, "Right, but I thought we were trying to reduce camping."

There's this kind of baffling goal-post moving. Alexander has a lot of paragraphs of hand-wringing over whether or not we should accept that sometimes we have to be TOUGH and HARD to really solve these problems, and accept that we may just have to care less about what Homeless people do or want, but he somehow hasn't noticed that he actually has very little data on whether or not Shellenberger's preferred policies work better than what he calls "Housing First" in terms of these metrics.

This is a wild guess and armchair psychologizing, but what seems to be happening is that in cities like San Francisco or Portland, as the problem gets worse, you, as a relatively better-off housed person, start thinking of Homelessness less and less in purely charitable terms with worries about how it effects the homeless, and more and more things like, "I don't like crossing the street because the sidewalk I was going to use is blocked by tents and piles of garbage" and "I don't like how often people chase after me screaming obscenities" and that feels somehow hard and uncompassionate, so you sort of start to assume that the only way to solve these problems is through policies that also feel hard and uncompassionate.

But I'm going to be honest, the case for that strikes me as extremely flimsy and I don't think I've ever seen anybody make it in a very convincing way.

[fatehbaz]

Forced to pay for your own murder.

---

[S]low death occurs not within the time scale of the crisis, not of the event [or singular moment] [...], but in “a zone of temporality . . . of ongoingness, getting by, and living on, where the structural inequalities are dispersed [...].” Slow death is, quite simply, “a condition of being worn out [...].” If debility is endemic to disenfranchised communities, it is doubly so because the forms of financialization that accompany [...] the privatization of services also produce debt as debility. This relationship between debt and debility can be described as a kind of “financial expropriation” [...]. Debt peonage [...]is an updated version of Marx’s critique of “choice” under capitalism. Debt as enclosure, as immobility, is what Gilles Deleuze writes of [...]: “Man is no longer man enclosed, but man in debt.” This is especially true [...] in the United States, where health care expenses are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy, a capacitation of slow death through debt undertaken to support one’s health. This theory [...] entails that [...] one is, as Geeta Patel points out, paying for one’s own slow death, through insurial and debt structures predicated on risk and insecurity, and essentially forced into agreeing to one’s own debilitation. [...] More perniciously, one could suggest, as does Geeta Patel, that finance capital enforces repeated mandatory investments in our own slow deaths [...].

[Text by: Jasbir K. Puar. “Introduction: The Cost of Getting Better.” The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability. 2017.]

---

In the early workers’ movement, slowdowns, sit-downs and the destruction of machinery took on the name “sabotage,” from the sabot or wooden shoe. [...] The clog was used in factories and mines as an early form of protective equipment, a sort of steel-toe boot that took on a distinctly working-class character as heavy industry proliferated across Europe. [...] It was factory-made footwear built for recently dispossessed peasants-become-workers, some of whom might, in fact, be making shoes. Altogether, it was the symbol for a complex, market-driven chain of enclosure, migration, boom and bust which, despite its complexity, really [...] comes down to the [silliest] of logical circles: make shoes for workers to wear as they make more shoes. [...] They wear the shoes even as they make them. [...] [T]he mines and factories make for lives that are little more than a slow disemboweling. [...] Made dependent on the wage, migrants newly dispossessed of any other means of subsistence crowded into the early industrial slums. [...] The industrial wasteland of [...] clanging machines creates desperate, alien conditions for those that live within it.

[Text by: Phil A. Neel. “Swoosh.” November 2015.]

---

[W]hat France did to the Haitian people after the Haitian Revolution is a particularly notorious examples of colonial theft. France instituted slavery on the island in the 17th century, but, in the late 18th century, the enslaved population rebelled and eventually declared independence. Yet, somehow, [...] the thinking went that the former enslavers of the Haitian people needed to be compensated, rather than the other way around. [...] Haiti officially declared its independence from France in 1804. [...] On April 17, 1825, the French king [...] issued a decree stating France would recognize Haitian independence but only at the price of 150 million francs – or around 10 times the amount the U.S. had paid for the Louisiana territory. The sum was meant to compensate the French colonists for their lost revenues from slavery. Baron de Mackau, whom Charles X sent to deliver the ordinance, arrived in Haiti in July, accompanied by a squadron of 14 brigs of war carrying more than 500 cannons. Rejection of the ordinance almost certainly meant war. This was not diplomacy. It was extortion. [...] [T]he total was more than 10 times Haiti’s annual budget. The rest of the world seemed to agree that the amount was absurd. [...] Forced to borrow 30 million francs from French banks to make the first two payments, it was hardly a surprise to anyone when Haiti defaulted soon thereafter. Still, the new French king sent another expedition in 1838 with 12 warships to force the Haitian president’s hand. [...] Although the colonists claimed that the indemnity would only cover one-twelfth the value of their lost properties, including the people they claimed as their slaves, the total amount of 90 million francs was actually five times France’s annual budget. [...] [R]esearchers have found that the independence debt [...] [was] directly responsible [...] for the underfunding of education in 20th-century Haiti, [...] lack of health care and the country’s inability to develop public infrastructure. [...] [T]he interest from all the loans [...] were not completely paid off until 1947 [...]. France belatedly abolished slavery in 1848 in its remaining colonies of Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Guyana, which are still territories of France today. Afterwards, the French government demonstrated once again its understanding of slavery’s relationship to economics when it took it upon itself to financially compensate the former “owners” of enslaved people.

[Text by: Marlene Daut. “When France extorted Haiti - the greatest heist in history.” The Conversation. 30 June 2020. Updated 9 July 2021.]

---

Today, as you read this [...], there are almost 2 million people locked away in one of the more than 5,000 prisons or jails that dot the American landscape. [...] [P]olicymakers and government officials also know that this captive population has no choice but to foot the bill [...] and that if they can’t be made to pay, their families can. [...] Rutgers sociology professor Brittany Friedman has has written extensively on what is called “pay-to-stay” fees in American correctional institutions. [...] Fees for room and board -- yes, literally for a thin mattress or even a plastic “boat” bed in a hallway, a toilet that may not flush, and scant, awful tasting food -- are typically charged at a “per diem rate for the length of incarceration.” It is not uncommon for these fees to reach $20 to $80 a day for the entire period of incarceration. [...] In 2014, the Brennan Center for Justice documented that at least 43 states authorize charging incarcerated people for the cost of their own imprisonment, and at least 35 states authorize charging them for some medical expenses. [...] [T]hose who work regular jobs in prisons [...] earn on average between $0.14 and $0.63 an hour. [...] Arkansas and Texas don’t pay incarcerated workers at all [...]. Dallas County charges incarcerated people a $10 medical care fee for each medical request they submit. [...] Michigan laws allow any county to seek reimbursement [...] [from] a person [...] sentenced to county jail time -- up to $60 a day.

[Text by: Lauren-Brooke Eisen. “America’s Dystopian Incarceration System of Pay to Stay Behind Bars.” Brennan Center for Justice. 19 April 2023.]

---

The Slavery Abolition Act didn’t apply to India or Ceylon, and though it technically liberated over 800,000 British slaves in the Caribbean and Africa, all of them (excepting only small children) were forced to continue to labor as unpaid “apprentices” for a further six years, on pain of punishment. Under the terms of the act, they were protected against overwork and direct violence from employers, but remained their “transferable property,” subject to punishment for  “indolence,” “insolence,” or “insubordination.” So many black West Indians were jailed for resisting these outrageous terms that full   emancipation was eventually brought forward to August 1, 1838. [...] A century on, the independence of most Caribbean colonies in the 1960s was followed by decades of racist British immigration policies that not only sought to prevent black West Indians from coming to the UK but eventually, under the Conservative governments of the past decade, ended up deliberately destroying the lives of thousands of lifelong legal residents by treating them as “illegal migrants.” In the meantime, for almost two hundred years, British taxpayers funded the largest slavery-related reparations ever paid out. Under the provisions of the 1833 act, the government borrowed and then disbursed the staggering sum of £20 million (equal to 40 percent of its annual  budget -- the equivalent of £300 billion in today’s value). Not until 2015 that debt finally paid off. This unprecedented compensation for injustice went not to those whose lives had been spent in slavery, nor even to those descended from the millions who had died in captivity. It was all given to British slaveowners, as restitution for the loss of their human property. 

[Text by: Fara Dabhoiwala. “Speech and Slavery in the West Indies.” The New York Review. 20 August 2020.]

[thetardisisnotourdivision]

Is it just me who's seriously worried about the fact that they're not even imprisoning the migrants in a secure, safe, on-land building, but on a boat? I have a horrible feeling about where this is going. They're literally imprisoning people who just wanted to be safe and live better lives, and on a boat, no less, which feels at best like a cruel joke ("they come over here in boats" rhetoric) and at worst feels like a setup for a horrific "tragedy"... I genuinely wouldn't put it past the Tories at this point to do something like that, and the scry thing is how many people would be unbothered. One of my mum's friends, who has always been generally left-wing, the other week said something about immigrants being WORSE than ACTUAL CONVICTED CRIMINALS. It's scary how easily people are falling into this trap, I've said it once and I'll say it again; it's terrifying how many parallels there are between modern Britain and Nazi Germany. THIS IS FASCISM. First prosecution, stripping them if their human rights, then "rounding them up" and putting them in camps. We know where this goes. We know what comes next. WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN.

It frustrates me how powerless I am - I can't even vote yet, so here I am desperately shouting into the void on Tumblr, hoping that someone with some semblance of power and influence will read this. Even without the "migrant issues", this country is falling to fascism - I've just started questioning my gender and I'm terrified by the new laws being put in place. Up and down the county, more and more people are in danger, are vulnerable, homeless, struggling, in poverty, in the town I live in - a very white, very middle-class town, so you can imagine what it's usually like (there's like four churches too, whatever you're picturing as the average citizen before the cost of living crisis is probably accurate) - people are having to shut off rooms in their houses and sleep in their living rooms because there's mould or damp or other things that are making their children ill. This country is in chaos, people are dying, there are fucking fascists in government and yet STILL PEOPLE INSIST THAT THERE'S NO POINT VOTING ANYONE ELSE IN. Let me tell you now - Starmer might not be great, but at least he's not a fascist - and his party are a thousand times better than the Tories. This country is falling apart.

If you live outside the UK, you might or might not know all of this. It's awful. It's chaos here, there's basically Nazi's in government and no one gives a shit. There are a few people who quietly talk about where this is heading, how we've seen this before in every genocide in history, but nobody else seems to care. We have a whole generation of people starving, unable to afford to live, and no one cares. Innocent people looking for a safe place to live are being forcibly imprisoned - their children are being stripped of any sort of comfort DELIBERATELY - for the crime of fleeing danger.

I don't know. I really don't know. I've forgotten what my point was. I hate this country. I hate these fuckweeds in government who think they can do what the fuck they like. I hate it I hate it I hate it. And I hate that there's nothing I can do.

[random-thought-depository]

As somebody who was born in, grew up in, and lives in California, I'm pretty down with criticism of California, the place really does have some serious problems, but it's frustrating watching right-wingers bash it, because I know their idea of how to make it better is to diminish or destroy most of its redeeming features while leaving the things that suck about it untouched or actually intensifying them.

Most of California's problems are down to the fact that California isn't actually all that left-wing. We have a housing crisis because our state and local governments favor property owners who financially benefit from high housing prices and don't want a new twenty story apartment tower marring their nice view and bringing poor people into their neighborhood (this has been getting a little better lately, but we've still got a long way to go to get out of the hole we're in); the obvious way to fix it would be to have the government build lots of housing and sell it at more-or-less the cost of construction or rent it out at more-or-less the cost of maintenance plus recapturing the cost of construction over a few decades, but this would be anathema to the right-wing, which favors property owners and would react by shrieking about taxes and socialism. Our big cities have a homelessness crisis because we have a housing crisis (see previous) and because the approach to homelessness of their city governments is characterized by the usual moderate liberal mix of good intentions, appeasement of factions who hate poor people, and paternalistic belief that aid to the poor is best delivered with strings attached, which functionally results in taxpayers getting charged more so the poor can be given worse and less accessible products and services; I'm not sure what the solution to this would be, but I strongly suspect it would also be anathema to the right-wing and they'd react to it by shrieking about taxes and socialism and welfare queens and people being given something for nothing. We have this underbelly of poverty in close proximity to Croesian wealth because that's just how capitalism works by default; it creates inequality; the obvious solutions to this are, of course, anathema to the right-wing, who have economic ultra-liberalism as one of their primary political projects. We have a giant class of hyper-exploited undocumented immigrants because we're a southern border state and we have immigration policies that cater to racists and to business owners who financially benefit from the existence of a class of hyper-exploitable workers with functionally less rights than ordinary citizens; the obvious solution to this is to just figure out what an economically realistic level of immigration would be, let that many people come in, and give them the same rights and protections as US workers, but that would be anathema to the right-wing, which caters to racists and to business owners who financially benefit from the existence of a class of hyper-exploitable of workers with functionally less rights than ordinary citizens.

California run like a red state would be the same cyberpunk dystopia it is now, but with less welfare and more police violence.

[quietwingsinthesky]

actual proper 11089 snippet that is Not from a hypothetical future au. real actual 11089 content that is canon to them! probably! it is still not anything Actually Happening and continues to be the aftermath of Things and subsequent conversations alluding to them.

like say, what if u were a spaceship baby allowed to leave for the first time (and the last) and ur first question was ‘can we pretty please try to get my ship towed in early so that everyone i know doesn’t live their whole lives and die on it’ (<- you do this after having an existential crisis about the fact that the place you were supposed to be traveling to to build a home there (not someplace you, personally, were meant to live to see, but the hypothetical you that encompasses every individual who lives or ever will live on your spaceship) is already inhabited by other people who got there faster when technology advanced after your ship got shot off into space) and then adventures happen, you save some lives, but that doesn’t actually mean enough against how much it would cost to bring your ship in, so you get a thank you, a pat on the back, and a gift basket. and everyone you’ve ever known will live and die on the ship you were supposed to do the same on, except that you left and they can’t.

but this isn’t any of that because instead its what happens after that.

“Is it meant to happen?” 11089 asks. It’s a glorious, sunny day, and they are shivering because they aren’t used to wind yet.

The Doctor doesn’t consider lying to them. In the end, the truth is harsher but healthier.

“No,” he says. 11089 is watching the way their shadow moves below their foot when they shift. “If it was, I couldn’t have picked you up. It’s not fixed, if they arrive on time or thousands of years early.” Or not at all, he doesn’t need to say. They already know that. Instead, quietly, he adds, “I really thought you could convince them to take up that rescue mission.”

11089 laces their fingers together until their knuckles go white and then lets go.

“Could we go back and get them?” they ask in a very small voice, one that already knows the answer but has also seen the Doctor do impossible things.

“Do you think they’d come?” They look up at the sun. They don’t look down again, and he realizes belatedly that they don’t know they should. He shades their eyes with his hand, and they blink up at his palm as their pupils dilate into comfortable darkness again.

“But they won’t ever-” 11089 gestures at the whole of the world they aren’t supposed to be standing on, at the strangers and the sky and the streets.

“They know,” the Doctor says.

“I knew!” they argue back. It’s an unused muscle and still sore from shouting their lungs out at people who thought it cost too much to listen.

11089 drags their legs up onto the bench and bunches themself up.

“Do they get celebrated, at least?” With detached regret, the Doctor notes that they’ve stopped talking about the people of the starship Persistence as ‘we’, and that there is nothing he can do to change that now that it’s happened. “They make it all that way. People have to celebrate.”

“Some do,” he answers.

“Some,” they echo.

“Look-“ He stops halfway through look at me, but 11089 never really does. They’re always looking somewhere else, behind him or at another part of his body, so he changes course to say, “Look over here.” They swing their head in his direction and blink towards him. Their cheeks are turning pink very quickly under the sun. “They make it,” he reassures, “they do that because of you. And me. I helped. Well, I did most of it. Well-“ 11089 wrinkles up their nose and makes a chuffing sound that’s nothing like the full-throated laughter that had rung through the TARDIS when they’d first been let inside. He smiles. “But they will make it now. They’ll be just as excited as you are to get sunburnt and roll around in the dirt, and soon enough, they’ll settle in. They may not have been the first to get here, but that just means the malls are already built.”

11089’s brief smile falters, and their gaze traces along a wrinkle in his coat and back up it again. “They must make it to very high numbers by that point.”

“No more ship computer, no more need for numbers. They’ll be able to pick out names.” 11089 still breathes shallowly on instinct, surprised when they do take a deeper breath and sneaking guilty glances at him like they’re checking if that’s really allowed. There are conversations they aren’t ready to have yet, and he does have to try to be gentle. Still, he nudges their side, “You could, too.”

11089’s head snaps down to the point of contact. They don’t flinch, just watch.

“I could what?” they ask, not picking up on the hint at all. He withdraws his elbow from poking into their side, and they look properly upset about it. So much so that he scoots closer and lays his arm over the back of the bench behind them. 11089 leans back, tipping their face up to the sunlight again as they rest on his arm. At least they close their eyes this time.

“Pick a name,” he says. “Something you’d like to be called.”

“I’m 11089,” they rattle off the numbers easily.

“You want me to say that every time? It’s a bit of a mouthful.” He’s teasing, mostly, — because taking their lack of understanding too seriously is going to make a good day go bad quickly — but they frown.

“I’m 11089,” they repeat, sounding confused.

So, this is another conversation they might need more time to be ready for.

If the Doctor has one thing in spades…

“You’re 11089,” he agrees, for now. “You’re sure you want to stay with me?” They jolt, and for a second, they meet his eyes before their gaze jumps away like they’ve been burned.

“Do you want me to go back?” Fear. Tremulous and trying their hardest not to believe what their mind has jumped to, but palpable all the same in their voice.

“No! No. I thought it’d be polite to offer.” 11089 visibly relaxes, leaning back against his arm again. When they shift, he can feel the fuzz of their shorn hair against his hand. He wonders if they’ll let it grow or if he’ll be standing over a sink with them in a few weeks, shaving it all off again.

“That’s… That’s good.” 11089’s voice drops lower, like they’re scared someone might hear when he’s the only one around. “I don’t think I could survive that. You let me see the sun.” Their voice warbles higher with barely suppressed excitement. “It’s all so- It’s so much bigger on the outside. I can’t go back.”

“There’s more out there than you can imagine,” he says. 11089 swallows and looks at him with wide, hopeful eyes.

“Promise?” they whisper, as if he’s playing a trick and they’re going to turn a corner and find the walls he’s been hiding from them, the ones keeping their world small and cut off from the rest of the universe. Maybe one day they’ll stop expecting to run into one.

“Why promise anything when I can take you there?” 11089 is smiling, and if it still hurts, knowing how they failed to change history, the future, the present, then he has places they can run to. He doesn’t even have to go for the most impressive, though he will anyway. If they can be spellbound watching pigeons like earlier, then he could show them a single ocean and change their life forever.

He stands up. He can hear 11089’s shoes scuff against the ground, and when he turns back to them, they’re poised on the edge of their seat. “Where?” they ask.

“Everywhere.” He offers them his hand. They don’t hesitate to spring to his side.

[silas-lehnsherr]

just read a post of yours and was wondering why you think harry manipulated the other members or one direction into leaving? it seemed to me like it was a mutual decision, and over the years the hiatus ending just became less and less likely

The important thing you need to understand is that One Direction did not go on hiatus, they broke up… in 2015. The question is whether or not any member understood that other than Harry. A hiatus is a common boyband next step when the band has either reached a breaking point or is no longer making the kind of money their handlers are expecting, and so it is announced the band is going “to take a break”. The purpose of this “break” is for one of the members to make an attempt at going solo. Sometimes this solo bid is successful (Justin Timberlake) and sometimes it is not (Nick Carter). In the former case the break becomes permanent, but in the latter the one that made his solo bid can crawl back to the band and still save face because after all “it was just a break”. They don’t have to publicly carry around their failure and can pass it off in interviews as something fun that wanted to try while the band was off.

So what does that mean in terms of Harry? Well, it is important to also understand that the one pegged to go solo does not happen organically. That’s something Harry’s fans particularly have trouble understanding. At some point in the early years of the band it was decided that Harry was the one by all the business people behind the scenes. Why they chose him only they know, but it was 100% about business. And so they began to make plans for Harry. They made sure to skew articles about the band in his favor and had him spotted more on his own than the others, began to push him out front a bit more. It didn’t matter he wasn’t the best singer in the band (according to vocal experts, that’s not just me being biased in Liam’s and Zayn’s favors, though I do acknowledge I am a bit biased towards them). What mattered was that they thought they could make a lot of money off him as a solo artist, and that is what they cared about: money and control. And starting in about 2013, Harry starts to be seen in the company of people like Jeff Azoff. Now these people are there to continue the work begun by Simon, etc. to whisper in Harry’s ear and made sure he knows he’s “the best” and that the others are dragging him down, he’d be so much better off without them. And then Harry starts talking about the hiatus (more than a year prior to it being announced). But it doesn’t actually happen then. 1D is still under contract and there is time. But then Zayn leaves and it is crisis mode. It is get Harry out there making solo music as soon as possible mode. Because there is this risk by not being the first out Harry’s career could be in jeopardy. After all, when Robbie Williams left Take That, he derailed Gary Barlow’s solo career. Gary had been the chosen one, but Robbie going rogue interfered with that. So the pressure was on to get Harry out of the band at whatever cost. In my opinion that involved a lot of promises and half truths, a lot of “it will be good for all of us” and emphasis that it was a break not a break up. But Harry knew it was not a break, and even though he was definitely manipulated by Simon and by Jeff and I’m sure by others, if he looked his band mates in the face and lied, if he used their personal struggles, things he knew about them because he was in a position of trust, then that is manipulation. If you look at their behavior after the hiatus was announced (it was primarily Liam who was giving any kind of time frame and never Harry promising to come back), and then further once it came into effect (Niall on vacation, Liam and Louis writing together for the next album, Harry on a yacht signing his solo contract two months after the fact). It does not look good for the notion that everything was above board and honest. I could be wrong. I could be biased. I lived through the hiatus of *NSYNC, and what I remember about the announcement was that though they were promising to come back as all boy bands do they also acknowledged that Justin was going solo. Harry never made such an acknowledgment, and frankly I do side eye him a bit for it. Maybe he was honest with them. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Looking at his solo career, Harry has a history of avoiding tough questions though, has a tendency of not picking a side for fear he might pick the wrong one. I mean, he data mined his fans to make sure he could come out in favor of BLM. He’s not the heroic freedom fighter he’s painted to be. But like I said, maybe I’m just biased. Maybe I’m just fed up. Maybe I’m just sick of watching a talented musician self destruct while his less talented band mate gets heralded as a rock god.

Anyway, thank you for the ask. I hope that answers your question. If kind of distanced myself from the Harry hate lately. I just don’t particularly see the point in wasting my time on him anymore.

[justbeingnamaste]

The government in the Netherlands is planning to conduct forced buyouts of 3,000 Dutch farms with the intention of closing them down to cut nitrogen emissions in half to meet the country’s climate goals. As many as 11,200 farms will have to close, and another 17,600 farmers will have to significantly downsize their livestock operations to meet these draconian targets.

The plan could not come at a worse time because grocery prices are skyrocketing, and world leaders are warning about an oncoming food crisis caused by supply disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine and rising input costs resulting from the energy crisis.

In fact, the United Nations notes that the number of people affected by hunger has “more than doubled in the past three years, and almost one million people are living in famine conditions, with starvation and death a daily reality.”

Shutting down Dutch farms will make matters substantially worse because the Netherlands is the second-largest agricultural exporter, by value, in the world, with the USA being number one.

These farms help supply the rest of Europe with ornamental horticulture, which means flowers, meat, dairy and eggs, vegetables, and several other vital products that you can see in the graph below, which was produced by the Dutch government.

....This war on agriculture is being driven by comfortable bureaucrats in Brussels that have probably never missed a meal in their lifetimes, and their short-sighted focus on reducing emissions is creating problems that are much worse than the problem they are trying to solve.....

[unovanhunny]

Back at it again with another New AU with @tombstone-pisa

Dubbed "Teen Emmet AU" (Even though they're both Teens, but Emmet is the focus of the AU)

If you're familiar with how we do AUs, it won't be a surprise that there's mentions of abuse and potential murder. Here we go, under the cut

At a young age, Ingo and Emmet were essentially sold into the foster system and were separated. Ingo went with a family that generally treated him well (aside from the fact that they gaslit him into thinking Emmet was an imaginary friend). Meanwhile Emmet had a hell of a time in a lot of ways, physically mentally and emotionally. When Emmet got old enough, he got himself out of the place where he was and got his own apartment and started attending the same school as Ingo.

Initially, Ingo only knew about Emmet because he kept getting in trouble and detention for things he Didn't Do. Because Emmet cannot behave himself, but most people just thought he was Ingo. And when he's finally about to confront the person making his school life so hard, Emmet excitedly calls his name and hugs him and Ingo starts going through a sort of existential crisis. Emmet wasn't real. He had made him up as a kid because he was lonely. This doesn't make any sense-

But Emmet is certainly real and he keeps talking about how much he missed Ingo and how much he loves him and Ingo just... kinda goes along with it for a while. His life has been a lie and he's processing and if he ends up kissing or getting intimate with this figment of his imagination made real, so be it. He seems very genuine in his affection after all.

As for Emmet's side of everything... When they were separated, Emmet mourned. But he didn't have much time to dwell on it because his experience was just a hell nightmare. The only thing that got him through it was his personal vow to see Ingo again and to be able to see him smile. He had some photos from when they were young still, his most precious possessions, until they were ripped up by someone taunting Emmet and hoping to break that smile. They survived, but they certain got a scare. The home they were in didn't bother to report the incident so Emmet faced no consequences. Which he shouldn't anyway. Ingo's smile was taken away from him Again. And that kinda set something off in him. He would find Ingo and protect his smile, no matter the cost. It was the only reason for him to continue living. So finally finding Ingo was a dream come true.

Ingo's parents certainly didn't approve of any association between the two of them and after a series of events, including Ingo questioning the validity of his own memories and demanding to know why they lied to him, Ingo gets kicked out. He goes to stay with Emmet, who now really really wants to kill Ingo's parents. Ingo keeps talking him down from it, but otherwise their life together, while not easy, is peaceful. Though now they both suffer from severe separation anxiety. Not while theyre in classes or anything, but whenever they Could be together, if they weren't, it would set in. But absolutely nothing will keep Emmet away from Ingo.

Despite all this going on in their lives, they're still dumb cringey teenagers from the 00s and go to anime clubs, (which is why Emmet calls Ingo Niisan, because he's a cringy baby weeb)

Also yes Ingo is a goth with dyed hair and yes he's reading Twilight. He's Team Edward. Emmet apologises that he can't be a vampire but he'll happily watch him sleep if he wants. Ingo finds the possessive behavior ~Romantic~. They have dates at the graveyard because Emmet doesn't care as long as Ingo is happy. It suits his Aesthetic.

Side note: This AU does take place in a pokeverse. I'll do another post later about their pokemon

[ingek73]

Scobie: Princess Kate’s Early Years work is ineffectual because of her ‘limitations’

February 02, 2023

By Kaiser

It’s been Keen Early Years Week, where the Princess of Wales has launched yet another awareness-raising campaign centered on Kate going around, telling people that the early years are important. Shaping Us is no different than the Five Big Questions, which was no different from Big Change Starts Small (rip to that initiative). None of these “campaigns” are any different and none of them actually does something substantive. It’s all white noise, gurning, wiglets and gloss. It’s Kate preening for the cameras and telling everyone that she’s a credible expert and a big girl doing important work! As I said, we’re past the point where Kate is a chaotic neutral – the messaging has gotten harmful. Even credible childhood development experts are coming out and saying that Kate’s fluff is dumb and unimportant, that these resources should be focused on actually solving very real problems for kids. All of this and more made it into Omid Scobie’s latest Yahoo UK column – you can read the full piece here. Some highlights:

Kate’s 2012 ‘listening and learning’ charity visits: Chatting with her press secretary at the time, I was told how the duchess’s “keen interest” in childhood development will likely lead to projects focused on supporting the young. A month earlier she had also taken on a patronage with Action on Addiction, a charity working with those suffering from drug and alcohol addiction and the children affected by it. “Right now she is listening and learning… in the future she hopes to find practical ways to contribute,” the palace aide explained.

All of Kate’s sound and keenery, signifying nothing: It’s an extremely important subject. But after 12 years of work, the goods being delivered right now feel light. Some within the early years sector have already voiced frustrations. “We are well accustomed to MPs and royalty visiting early years settings, praising the invaluable work of practitioners… but nothing is done,” a statement from the Practitioners of the Early Years Sector group says. “The time has long passed for ‘awareness’. We need action – long-term investment and funding in the early years.”

Kate’s big-girl problem: And this is where the Princess of Wales will no doubt find herself stuck. Because while elevating the importance of helping children in their first five years of life to thrive is certainly necessary, there are very few options available to Kate when it comes to actually helping solve the main issue at the heart of Britain’s early years crisis – funding. Budgets for preventative services for children in the country have been slashed by more than £400m since 2015 . And 4,000 early childcare providers have shut down in the last year alone due to chronic underfunding.

More slashes to the social safety net: Cuts have also seen the closures of children’s centres nationwide, despite the fact they help prevent more serious social services intervention at later stages in childhood. Britain’s social care system, which is already on its knees, estimates that over 15,000 young people will be taken into care over the next three years. As the country falls deeper into its cost of living crisis, and childcare providers raise prices due to funding pressures, is Kate’s awareness project really able to do much at all?

Ineffective royal work: If anything, Shaping Us exposes the ineffectiveness that the Royal Family’s charity work can have. Because it is almost impossible to make an impact in this field, or even usher in the smallest of change, without considering all the social factors that have an impact on early development. And that cannot be done without stepping into policy or politics — the one thing Kate can’t do as a working member of the Royal Family.

The Art Room disaster: Two years ago The Art Room charity Kate first visited in 2012 shut down its facilities for good after it became no longer financially sustainable. Shrinking school budgets from the government were to blame, and while Kate was able to shine a light on their work through the odd royal engagement, her limitations as a royal patron meant that she would never be able to lobby to keep it going.

The third landmark announcement: This week’s awareness drive launch is the third “landmark” announcement by the Princess of Wales on this topic in as many years. The message is essential, and she makes a serious case, but no matter how many versions of it we hear, Kate’s hope and a wish are unlikely to bring the necessary solutions. Given that Kensington Palace says this is her “life’s work”, I hope she can eventually prove me wrong.

[From Yahoo UK]

While I know what Scobie is doing here – and god knows, he has his own set of limitations as part of the royal press pack – it would be interesting if he actually came out and said it. Like, he’s going too far to half-way excuse Kate here: “while Kate was able to shine a light on their work through the odd royal engagement, her limitations as a royal patron meant that she would never be able to lobby to keep it going.” Kate could easily brush off the shackles of her royal patron “limitations” if she wanted to. She could have hosted fundraisers for the Art Room, she could have used her staff to come up with some kind of scheme to raise money online by selling the students’ art, she could have done a lot more than she did. It wasn’t because of the limitations of the royal role, it was because Kate is lazy, dull and unimaginative.

THAT is the larger problem – while the royal-patronage system is deeply flawed, all of these people could do a lot more without being called “political.” And seriously, if the point of Kate’s dumbf–k Early Years campaign is to raise awareness of just how basic and fundamental it is to give children a head start in life, why is that political? That’s the argument she could make, if she had two brain cells to rub together. “All kids need access to nursery schools and Head Start programs” is only a political hot potato if you think poor children don’t deserve to be nurtured.

-

" her limitations as a royal patron meant that she would never be able to lobby to keep it going."

Complete nonsense. Meghan would have found a way.

Kate really is a useless waste of space. Who just loves to pose. And copy Meghan's outfits.

[annashadowstar]

Name: Lay Copperbottom

Age: 9

Sexual: Non-binary

Height: 115cm

Pronoun: They/them.

From: Mix of China and American.

Birthday: May 21

Family: Chris Galeforce(Big brother), Reginald Copperbottom(Dad) RHM(Father)

Background:

Lay goes by a different name, Lily Dreamer, which they despise. Therefore, they prefer to be addressed as Lay Dreamer. Lay's parents had been treating them very badly since they only want a boy so he can run the company. Lay has a big brother, Daniel Dreamer, aka Chris. Chris also didn't like his name and is called Chris. Chris's parents also hate him since he acts nothing like his parents and keeps being nice to Lay, even though they tell him to abuse Chris. On Lay's 4th Birthday, Chris gives Lay a scarf as a present. before kicking Chris out of the house. Chris exited the house, while Lay begs their brother not to leave them. Lay had been living with their 'parents' for 4 years, suffering. When Lay had enough, they use their magic for the first time, killing their parents from rage, and burn the house down. Lay then run into the streets and live there for a few days until they steal from the Toppat Clan. The Toppat leader, Reginald Copperbottom, notices the chaos Lay had done and decides to adopt Lay as his own child. Lay's last name was now changed to Copperbottom. Their job was to show the new Toppat member around the ship so they have a lot of free time.

Magic/Power

Lay possesses three distinct types of magic: string manipulation, time travel (like Henry), and the ability to communicate with ghosts, curses, and spirits. Whenever Lay utilizes their magic, the right side of their eyes will turn blue, except when communicating with ghosts.

Strings

Lay's strings could be as hard as a diamond or as soft as cotton. Usually, when someone was tied up by Lay's strings, they will need to cut it, untangle it, or wait for Lay to get them down. Untangling the strings will be very confusing since it's all around the victim's body. If you want to cut the string, you might need to start from the top of the string, it will help to untangle much more easily.

Time-travel

Lay has a similar magical quality to that of Henry Stickmin. When faced with a decision, Lay must choose a path and move forward. If their choice leads to failure, they will return to a void and have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and retry. Lay will remember both their own ending and Henry's, as this magic requires no further explanation.

Communicating with ghosts(I don't think I need to explain this, right?)

Lay possessed the unique ability to communicate with ghosts, spirits, and even curses. They had the gift of sight, sound, and touch, but only if the spirits permitted. Due to the fact that most people are unable to see ghosts, Lay's actions of embracing thin air may have been misunderstood by some.

Bonus magic

In times of crisis, Lay can rely on their brother's magical powers. However, this ability comes with a cost - Lay's energy will be drained completely after borrowing their brother's magic. To activate this power, Lay's left eye turns yellow while their right eye turns blue. This also serves as a means to determine if their brother is still alive. If he has passed away, the power will not be accessible. Following the use of Chris's magic, Lay will inevitably lose consciousness and sleep to recharge their energy, causing concern among those close to them. Another way to gain energy is by eating some food. Lay could also borrow Kai’s power. But since they have no idea they have a big sister, they didn’t borrow her magic. Yeah f they did borrow Kai’s magic, both of their eyes will turn teal green.

Personality

Lay is usually very kind, helpful, and curious. If you got their bad side, they will hurt you. They are still a Toppat member after all. Lay is good at everything that has to do with crimes. Like snicking, shooting, parkour, and a lot more. They have a lot of scars due to the abuse from their 'parents.' Another reason why they are wearing a scarf is to hide the scarf on their neck. The pink rose circle on their cheeks is also a scar.

Lay has a penchant for pranks, but they limit themselves to once a week. During April Fool's Day, one must exercise caution around them. Lay shows remarkable intelligence for their age, understanding how most things operate without formal education.

Like: Helping other people and pranks.

Dislike: People hurting their families.

Hair color: Brown

Go Back to the introduction

I use Grammarly so don't judge me!

[reptilia2003]

So, I also live in the Bay Area, and I obviously think that NIMBYS and zoning laws are a huge problem, but I'm also wary of any call to drastically reduce regulation and business costs - a lot of people seem to be arguing that the housing crisis is strictly an issue of the big bad Democratically Elected City Council beating up the Smol Well-Intentioned Housing Developers, and that if we just gave developers free reign to build whatever they want wherever they want things would be strictly better.

I'm not even sure that's wrong, but it's something I've been grappling with. What're your thoughts?

okay sorry it took so long for me to answer. first off, you have come to the right place with this question. I first got involved in housing advocacy in college—I signed a lease for my apartment 9 months before the lease began cause it’s that hard to find housing in the town my school was in—and learned that this is because the town basically didn’t build any housing for 20 years. thus began my yimby-pilling, and I’ve stayed involved in housing organizing since then. this is absolutely my pet issue—one thats connected to so many other issues (income inequality, racism, climate, etc) and i will yimby-pill anyone who gives me a chance to. warning, this turned into a very long essay but I hope you learn something.

first off, I understand the inclination to be skeptical towards deregulation and business interests. i am a democrat! it’s not in our nature to want to get rid of regulations! but the fact is that not all regulations are necessarily good. That said, completely deregulating building is not a solution (and I think you’ll find most people who identify as yimbys agree with that). Houston is a good example of somewhere that’s basically zoning-free, and what that’s resulted in is abundant housing (and therefore Houston is pretty affordable), but a lot of that is suburban sprawl—not the kind of housing we want! We’ve all seen this picture of Houston:

Sprawl is bad for the climate, environment more broadly, unpleasant to live in, forces people into cars, etc etc. But therein lies the problem—the type of housing that’s easiest to build (and in many places, the only type that’s even allowed) in this country is not the kind of housing we want (or at least not the ONLY type). But people need somewhere to live, and if they can’t live in cities, they will move out to suburbs where there is housing.

My vision of good housing policy is one that encourages building in cities and closer-in suburbs, and *discourages* it in farther-out suburbs and exurbs, especially the wildland-urban interface (WUI). So no, not all housing is good housing! We should not completely deregulate it and let developers go wild.

(quick tangent about the WUI, since it’s especially relevant to us as bay areans. you’ve probably noticed that there’s a lot of sprawl out in places like Vacaville, since that’s currently where you *can* build a lot of housing. you’ll also probably remember 2020 when the lightning complex fires burned down a lot of houses in Vacaville and made our air unbreathable for a month. As people move farther out into these areas, they get closer to areas that are likely to burn in fires and thus more people lose their homes and lives in fires. it also is more likely to lead to fires, since many fires are human caused—cigarettes, driving on dry grass, barbecues, etc)

TLDR here: not all new housing is good housing, new housing should be built in cities.

However, all that said, I’m guessing what you’re getting at with this question is more this: if we give developers free reign, won’t they just build a bunch of luxury apartments? Why do we want that? Doesn’t that cause gentrification?

to which I’d say yes, they would build a lot of luxury apartments! And that’s *not* a bad thing.

People are going to move to where jobs are. (Yes, this is complicated by the rise of work from home, but overall, people want to live near their work, and in general in areas of economic opportunity.) They have been moving to the Bay Area for tech jobs for decades at this point. And those people need somewhere to live. The Bay Area has done an absolutely terrible job keeping up with housing growth as compared to job growth, with a ratio of 3.6 new jobs to new units over the decade of the 2010s. https://economics21.org/bay-area-the-land-of-many-jobs-and-too-few-homes

there’s a concept called “yuppie fish tanks”—basically, those big new fancy glass towers. You put all the richer people who move somewhere in there, because if they don’t go there, they will rent other apartments—those in older buildings, those that are currently more affordable for low- and middle-income people. And because an engineer at Google can afford to pay more for an apartment in a small building in the Mission than the working class Latinos who used to live in that neighborhood, the working class gets pushed out.

“But wait?” you may ask. “Isn’t building those big glass towers gentrification?” Gentrification can mean a lot of things, but at its core what we should be concerned about is the poor and working class being pushed out of a neighborhood they used to be able to afford. The biggest problem isn’t a neighborhood full of $7 lattes, it’s the people who lived in that neighborhood being pushed out in favor of those who can afford $7 lattes. And in general, the order of operations isn’t a tower being built and then displacement—developers build where they see opportunity. Generally, richer people have already started moving into a neighborhood (because there aren’t enough yuppie fishtanks, and they can outbid current residents for rent), bringing with them cafes with $7 lattes. Displacement is already happening, then developers then identify this as a good place to build (and additionally, are less likely to face NIMBY pushback, since residents are usually less organized and have less time and incentive than those in wealthy white neighborhoods to oppose new housing). Neighborhoods getting more amenities isnt even necessarily bad—decreased crime and more access to grocery stores is a good thing!

Studies consistently find that adding new luxury housing supply helps rents, not hurts.

TLDR on this part: building housing generally prevents displacement, even if it is fancy new buildings.

“Okay fine,” you’ll say, “I get that we need some of these fancy new apartments. But why can’t we just build affordable housing too? Require them to build affordable units too! Inclusionary zoning!” To which I say yes! We need more capital-A Affordable Housing. (capital A meaning that the units are subsidized, not just that the units happen to be affordable). More permanent supportive housing for people who are currently homeless and struggling with mental health. More housing set aside for teachers, nurses, and other middle class jobs. More public housing in general.

Currently, developers are usually required to set aside a certain amount of their new buildings as Affordable housing, or pay fees towards affordable housing funds. So why don’t we just force them to be 100% affordable? Because then the developers would have no incentive to build. They are a business, and if they aren’t going to turn a profit on building, they aren’t going to build! 100% of 0 is 0. Which is why it is so deeply frustrating to see people who ostensibly care about affordable housing oppose projects because there’s not enough Affordable units—they are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is the “how many affordable units did the Burger King have” theory of housing.

Inclusionary zoning (requirements for numbers of affordable units) is not evil, but done in the wrong way it can end up causing more harm than good with regard to housing affordability, if no units get built in the first place. So if we do want more Affordable units, more permanent supportive housing, more housing for teachers, etc, the government needs to build them. (And there are people working on this—check out Alex Lee’s bill AB2053 from this year, which was killed by squishy centrists :( but was supported by many YIMBY organizations, who recognize the need for more social housing). We need more funding for subsidized housing, and make it easier to build.

TLDR on this part: Yes, building new market rate housing is good, but there will always be people who can’t afford market rate even if that price comes down, and for that we need the government. Simply increasing requirements for affordable units can backfire

So, after all that, to provide an answer to your question.

No, developers aren’t necessarily well intentioned. They are a business. The way that our housing system is currently set up, we need those businesses to be able to conduct their business efficiently so that they can supply the demand for housing. There are a lot of actors—individuals, city councils, regulations, red tape—that make it so those businesses cannot efficiently supply the market. Attend any city council meeting where a new project is proposed and you’ll see what I mean. People will come up with any crazy reason to oppose housing. I once attended a city council meeting in college where a woman expressed opposition to a seven story building because she wasn’t sure how emergency helicopters would be able to go around such a tall building. Guessing she had never heard of manhattan? That project was in fact killed, due to NIMBY opposition. In another example from college that radicalized me, every project above a certain size in the town had to go to the voters. We worked our asses off to the the measure passed, it passed in 2018, but the project still hasn’t been started because the NIMBY-in-chief in town sued the project. Meanwhile there are students living in their cars. Because people are allowed to sue projects, because the process is so lengthy, projects don’t get built.

Is the market the way that housing should be supplied? Personally I think there should be a mix of both private and public development, and you’ll find a lot of smart people on various points of that spectrum. But the fact is that we are not going to transition to 100% public housing tomorrow, and therefore we need developers to be able to do their job efficiently, which they currently cannot do. San Francisco has started construction on a measly 660 units this year. Meanwhile there are over 7000 homeless people in SF.

The fact is that the process to build housing is too complex and lengthy right now, and bad actors have too many opportunities to deny housing, like the examples from college I just talked about. For example, here’s the process in Oakland.

And it’s gotten so ridiculous in SF that this week the state announced it’s investigating.

I think you’ll find that there’s not a lot of people in the broad pro-housing movement who think we should completely deregulate housing. There are people with a lot of different views but the broad consensus is that more housing is needed, period. And for there to be more housing it has to get easier to build housing. This means legalizing denser housing in areas where it’s not allowed currently (most of this country is single family only zoning, meaning the only thing you’re allowed to build is single family houses. Not even duplexes. Insanity!). And this means cutting red tape so that it doesn’t take so much time and money to build housing.

There’s a lot of great resources on these topics if youre interested in learning more—I’ll plug the stuff listed on YIMBY Action’s website

as well as Jerusalem Demsas’ writing in the Atlantic/

Darrell Owens’ substack

And if you want to get involved, find your local YIMBY group! Or just start showing up to city council meetings. if you let me know where in the bay you are I can suggest some places to start. Or if you have more questions, I love to talk about this.

if you made it to the end you are very brave. Sorry this turned into an entire think piece, please enjoy some memes: