#disagreement with government actions

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

While it's true that much of the current criticism of Israel is antisemitic...

it still feels like gaslighting when people insist that any criticism of the Israeli Government's current actions is antisemitic.

[All links are to Wikipedia articles]

Especially when I am old enough to remember watching coverage of The Camp David Accords, on the evening news ... and also sitting with a Jewish teacher* in my school cafeteria over lunch as he talked about how the Zionists don't speak for all Jewish people.

And then, watching on the evening news, a few years later, about the assassination of Anwar Sadat, by an extremist member of his own army, because, in part, he had signed those Camp David Accords.

I also remember the Oslo Accords, and how Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was also assassinated by an ultranationalist student specifically because he had signed that peace agreement.

This war has deep and long roots. But so does the struggle for peace. On all sides, we've gotten close to peace (however imperfect) only for those extremists in support of religious ethnostates (on both sides) to sabotage that peace struggle.

*(Not to be: "I can't be antisemitic, because I've had Jewish friends," but rather: "I've come upon some of my opinions through face-to-face conversations with people I care about, and not through just outrage-farming headlines."

[lets-steal-an-archive]

By Bernie Sanders | July 13, 2024

I will do all that I can to see that President Biden is re-elected. Why? Despite my disagreements with him on particular issues, he has been the most effective president in the modern history of our country and is the strongest candidate to defeat Donald Trump — a demagogue and pathological liar. It’s time to learn a lesson from the progressive and centrist forces in France who, despite profound political differences, came together this week to soundly defeat right-wing extremism.

I strongly disagree with Mr. Biden on the question of U.S. support for Israel’s horrific war against the Palestinian people. The United States should not provide Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing extremist government with another nickel as it continues to create one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history.

I strongly disagree with the president’s belief that the Affordable Care Act, as useful as it has been, will ever address America’s health care crisis. Our health care system is broken, dysfunctional and wildly expensive and needs to be replaced with a “Medicare for all” single-payer system. Health care is a human right.

And those are not my only disagreements with Mr. Biden.

But for over two weeks now, the corporate media has obsessively focused on the June presidential debate and the cognitive capabilities of a man who has, perhaps, the most difficult and stressful job in the world. The media has frantically searched for every living human being who no longer supports the president or any neurologist who wants to appear on TV. Unfortunately, too many Democrats have joined that circular firing squad.

Yes. I know: Mr. Biden is old, is prone to gaffes, walks stiffly and had a disastrous debate with Mr. Trump. But this I also know: A presidential election is not an entertainment contest. It does not begin or end with a 90-minute debate.

Enough! Mr. Biden may not be the ideal candidate, but he will be the candidate and should be the candidate. And with an effective campaign taht speaks to the needs of working families, he will not only defeat Mr. Trump but beat him badly. It’s time for Democrats to stop the bickering and nit-picking.

I understand that some Democrats get nervous about having to explain the president’s gaffes and misspeaking names. But unlike the Republicans, they do not have to explain away a candidate who now has 34 felony convictions and faces charges that could lead to dozens of additional convictions, who has been hit with a $5 million judgment after he was found liable in a sexual abuse case, who has been involved in more than 4,000 lawsuits, who has repeatedly gone bankrupt and who has told thousands of documented lies and falsehoods.

Supporters of Mr. Biden can speak proudly about a good and decent Democratic president with a record of real accomplishment. The Biden administration, as a result of the American Rescue Plan, helped rebuild the economy during the pandemic far faster than economists thought possible. At a time when people were terrified about the future, the president and those of us who supported him in Congress put Americans back to work, provided cash benefits to desperate parents and protected small businesses, hospitals, schools and child care centers.

After decades of talk about our crumbling roads, bridges and water systems, we put more money into rebuilding America’s infrastructure than ever before — which is projected to create millions of well-paying jobs. And we did not stop there. We made the largest-ever investment in climate action to save the planet. We canceled student debt for nearly five million financially strapped Americans. We cut prices for insulin and asthma inhalers, capped out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs and got free vaccines to the American people. We battled to defend women’s rights in the face of moves by Trump-appointed jurists to roll back reproductive freedom and deny women the right to control their own bodies.

So, yes, Mr. Biden has a record to run on. A strong record. But he and his supporters should never suggest that what’s been accomplished is sufficient. To win the election, the president must do more than just defend his excellent record. He needs to propose and fight for a bold agenda that speaks to the needs of the vast majority of our people — the working families of this country, the people who have been left behind for far too long.

At a time when the billionaires have never had it so good and when the United States is experiencing virtually unprecedented income and wealth inequality, over 60 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, real weekly wages for the average worker have not risen in over 50 years, 25 percent of seniors live each year on $15,000 or less, we have a higher rate of childhood poverty than almost any other major country, and housing is becoming more and more unaffordable — among other crises.

This is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. We can do better. We must do better. Joe Biden knows that. Donald Trump does not. Joe Biden wants to tax the rich so that we can fund the needs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. Donald Trump wants to cut taxes for the billionaire class. Joe Biden wants to expand Social Security benefits. Donald Trump and his friends want to weaken Social Security. Joe Biden wants to make it easier for workers to form unions and collectively bargain for better wages and benefits. Donald Trump wants to let multinational corporations get away with exploiting workers and ripping off consumers. Joe Biden respects democracy. Donald Trump attacks it.

This election offers a stark choice on issue after issue. If Mr. Biden and his supporters focus on these issues — and refuse to be divided and distracted — the president will rally working families to his side in the industrial Midwest swing states and elsewhere and win the November election. And let me say this as emphatically as I can: For the sake of our kids and future generations, he must win.

Bernie Sanders is the senior senator from Vermont.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for this disagreement with some of my friends/colleagues?

So I(40s F) used to work in local level government. I quit to pursue other career opportunities because of burnout, but they asked me to stay on in an official-unofficial advisory capacity, and I'm still pretty close with the current office holders, particularly the current occupant of my former office (A, 30s X). Their boyfriend (H, 30s M), who also works there, isn't fond of me but more or less tolerates me when they're around, which is okay enough. Both their job and my current one necessitate a lot of travel, so it's not often an issue.

Things run pretty smoothly, overall, and I do think the entire city council has the people's best interests at heart. However, recently a natural disaster devastated our area and caused a lot of disagreement over how best to deal with it, and frankly the proposal that was eventually put forward was an awful one that would return a privileged few (about 25% of the population, after estimating numbers) to a semblance of normalcy while neglecting the other 75%. Neither A nor I are willing to back the group's play on this one, for what I feel are obvious reasons. A has gone completely no contact with all of us and I don't even know where they are right now, which aside from worrying me a lot, also hurt my position in the discussion since I officially hold no office anymore.

So I took pretty decisive action to stop them, and now three of our original council (H, plus other members E and L) are extremely pissed off at me and are trying to rally the rest to oppose me, while making some extremely shortsighted and harmful moves in the process that will hurt a lot of people. They don't seem to care, however. It's like they consider the majority lesser human beings and only care about that privileged 25%. I don't think I did everything right, but I did my best. We have to let go of the past and make the best of what we have now, for everyone's sake. No more shall man have wings to bear him to paradise. Henceforth, he shall walk.

AITA for sundering reality into fourteen reflections to stop my coworkers? Or should they have accepted that their paradise is gone, and ceded the reflections to their new fragmented, imperfect inhabitants?

What are these acronyms?

[pencopanko]

Antisemitism and Islamophobia are very similar (if not the same), actually

So I was scrolling down the #palestine tag for any updates and important information, and I came across this:

And I think we need to sit down and talk about this.

I am a Muslim. I live in Indonesia, a country that is predominantly Muslim and a lot of Muslims here also support the Palestinian cause. Hell, even our government supports it by not only allowing Palestinian goods enter the country without fee, but also by taking in Palestinian refugees and even acknowledging the status of Palestine as a state while not having any political ties with Israel. The topic of the Palestinian tragedy has been spoon-fed to us at schools, sermons, media, etc., so your average Indonesian Muslim would at the very least be aware of the conflict while non-Muslims would hear about it from their Muslim friends or through media.

However, there is a glaring problem. One that I keep seeing way too often for my liking.

A lot of them are antisemitic as hell. The sermons I would hear sometimes demonize Jewish people. Antisemitic statements are openly said out loud on social media. Some are even Nazi supporters who would literally go to anime cons and COSPLAY as members of the Nazi party. This is not just an Indonesian Muslim problem, no, but this is a glaring issue within the global Islamic community as a whole. Today, this sense of antisemitism is usually rooted in general hatred towards the Israeli government and its actions against the people of Palestine, but antisemitism amongst Muslims are also rooted in certain interpretations of verses from the Qur'an and Hadith mentioning Jewish people and Judaism (particularly the Bani Israil), but in a way that is more ridiculing instead of life-threatening when compared to how antisemitism looks like in the Western world.

As someone who prefers to become a "bridge" between two sides in most cases, I find this situation to be concerning, to say the least. While, yes, it is important for us Muslims to support Palestine and fight against injustice, we must not forget that not every Jewish people support the Israeli government. A lot of them are even anti-Zionists who actively condemn Israel and even disagree with the existence of Israel as a state as it goes against their teachings. A lot of them are also Holocaust survivors or their descendants, so it is harmful to think for one second that Hitler's actions and policies were justified. It's just like saying that Netanyahu is right for his decision to destroy Palestine and commit war crime after war crime towards the Palestinians.

As Muslims, we also need to remember that Jewish people (the Yahudi) are considered ahli kitab, i.e. People Of The Book along with Christians (the Nasrani). The Islam I have come to know and love has no mentions of Allah allowing us to persecute them or anyone collectively for the actions of a few. While, yes, there are disagreements with our respective teachings I do not see that as an excuse to even use antisemitic slurs against Jewish people during a pro-Palestine rally, let alone support a man who was known for his acts of cruelty toward the Jewish community in WW2. They are still our siblings/cousins in faith, after all. Unless they have done active harm like stealing homes from civilians or celebrating the destruction of Palestine or supporting the Israeli government and the IOF or are members of the IOF, no Jewish people (and Christians, for that matter) must be harmed in our fight against Zionism.

Contemporary antisemitism is similar to (if not straight up being the exact same thing as) contemporary Islamophobia, if you think about it; due to the actions of a select few that has caused severe harm towards innocent people, an entire community has been a target of hate. Even when you have tried to call out the ones supporting such cruelties, you are still getting bombarded by hate speech. It's doubly worse if you're also simultaneously part of a marginalized group like BIPOC, LGBTQ+, etc. as you also get attacked on multiple sides. This is where we all need to self-reflect, practice empathy, and unlearn all of the antisemitism and unjustified hatred that we were exposed to.

So, do call out Zionism and Nazism when you see it. Call out the US government for funding this atrocity and others before it that had ALSO triggered the rise of Islamophobia. Call your reps. Go to the streets. Punch a fascist if you feel so inclined. Support your local businesses instead of pro-Israel companies.

But not at the cost of our Jewish siblings. Not at the cost of innocent Jewish people who may also be your allies. If you do that, you are no different from a MAGA cap-wearing, gun-tooting, slur-yelling Islamophobe.

That is all for now, may your watermelons taste fresh and sweet.

🍉

Salam Semangka, Penco

[max1461]

I've said this before, but: many political discussions are heavily informed by who the person speaking identifies as the relevant agent in some situation. For instance, consider this dialogue:

Person 1: The US needs to institute policy X.

Person 2: That's impossible, all the Republicans in congress would just vote against it. What we really need is for the Democrats to push for policy Y, which they might be able to get bipartisan agreement on.

Person 3: That's not possible either, the Democrats are too beholden to corporate interests to support policy Y. What we really need is for the president to institute executive order Z.

Person 2: Oh come on, the president would never issue execute order Z, policy Y is much more feasible than that.

And so on and so forth ad nauseam.

I don't think these people are really arguing about politics, and I don't know if they even have any substantive disagreement with each other.

In general, when people talk about "what should be done", they are always implicitly thinking of some agent, they are speaking of "what should be done by someone". And of course when we speak about different agents, we will come to different conclusions about what they should do. This is not least because different agents have different options in front of them. For instance, if you were to give me suggestions about what I could do to make the world better, they would probably not be the same as the suggestions you would give to Bill Gates about what he could do to make the world better, or the suggestions you would give to Vladimir Putin.

Normative claims presuppose an agent, and the content of normative claims will vary by the agent that is supposed. It would be useless to suggest to me "end the war in Ukraine", or to suggest to Putin "be more selective about the discourse posts you reblog", or whatever.

The problem is that when we are discussing politics, there are many different agents that we can identify with and whose behavior we can present normative claims about, and we often do not specify which one we are referring to. Furthermore, political agents can be institutions instead of just individuals, making possible the existence of sub-agents with varying agendas, and so on. Individuals might conceivably be modeled as having these too, but that's a philosophical can of worms I won't open.

Anyway, this imprecision about what agents we are prescribing actions to leads to scenarios like the discourse above, where people who substantively disagree about very little might argue vociferously against each other because in truth they are prescribing behavior for different agents altogether. Person 1 is prescribing behavior for the US government as a whole, Person 2 for the Democratic party, and Person 3 for the president. They only disagree in that each imagines the other's agent as an object of nature governed by mechanistic processes and their own agent as possessing (practically speaking) free will. None of them are really per se correct or incorrect, I don't think.

My suggested solution to this is: specify clearly the agent you are referring to, and admit that for normative discussion to make sense at all you must model that agent as "being able to choose its action" even if deeper analysis of its internal processes reveals it to in fact be deterministic. When in doubt, recall that the only agent whose actions you can really chose (if you can choose any actions at all) are your own, and thus in a certain sense any discussion of what an agent other than you yourself should do is idle philosophizing.

Ethics (I claim) are in and of themselves only a system for selecting your own actions; their use in evaluating the actions of others is secondary at best.

[hollowed-theory-hall]

re.: the weasleys + parenting

what's always bugged me most abt percy's fight with arthur (especially in the fandom, where everyone's like 'oh, he turned his back on harry and betrayed his family to side w the ministry) is that. that's hardly what the fight is about at all. the fight is about the fact that percy, an 18yo kid who just got promoted to his dream job instead of straight up losing any chance at ever being Minister (because they tried to scapegoat him into taking the blame for the crouch business even though he managed to keep the whole department running while his boss wasn't even there), comes home all excited to tell his parents that "Hey, he's not unemployed and bereft of any and all hope for his biggest dream", but rather that his skills and competence got recognized by The Most Important Man In The Government, and molly and arthur look him straight in the face and go—"no you didn't."

there is no mention whatsoever that they even try to be gentle about it, that they congratulate him first and then bring it up later like "just be careful around Fudge, he's always looking for people to get information from and you are the best of both worlds, close to the action and actually good at the job he hired you for", nothing of the sort. they straight up don't even consider how any of those factors might've weighed in Fudge's decision to hire him.

and, perhaps worst of all, they have no faith in Percy. he tells them "I'm working for the minister", and not only do they not spare a second to be happy for him over this frankly momentous achievement (or at the very least concern for the position it puts him in), they jump straight to conjectures and accusations. "you only got this because of Harry" has got to crush Percy, who was raised to believe that good things come to honest, hard-working people and who has been working for this since he was a small child. and it digs the knife deeper when you realize that most of his siblings have basically replaced him with Harry. Harry, who also plays Quidditch and also keeps throwing himself into death-defying dangers and overalls fits much better into the family dynamic than Percy ever has.

and there's just this. crystal clear implication that they do believe Percy would spy on them. he's so Different and Other and Un-Weasley/Gryffindor-like and they've alienated themselves from him so absolutely that they can't see any reasons he wouldn't willingly and consciously jeopardize his parents' livelihood and Harry & his siblings safety just to stay in the Minister's good graces, when if anyone's actually at risk of losing their job for siding with Dumbledore is his father, who's still working there quite merrily and continues to so for a long time afterwards.

Percy, who runs into a freezing lake mid-February while attending an international event as Crouch's replacement to make sure Ron is alright, who pesters Ginny to eat and have a pepper-up potion most of her first year bc she doesnt look well, who tails Harry and Ron a lot of their second and third years bc there's something petrifying kids and then Dementors on the grounds and a mass murderer on the loose and they all just think he's being willfully bothersome like no you idiots he's worried.

of course he left. of course he left. what did he have to gain by staying at the Burrow, beyond fresh home cooked meals harassment and disagreements? why wouldn't he leave?

sorry I have a lot of feelings about this.

No need to apologize, this is brilliantly written!

I don't even feel like I need to add anything as you summed up the Percy situation perfectly.

But I can't help myself because I love discussing the Weasley family dynamics, so it's a bit more rumbley than my usual...

Percy cares so much for his family. When Voldemort is revealed and the war actually starts, he puts all his disagreements with his parents aside to come and help and make sure they're okay, because he cares. And still, he is being shunned and treated like an outsider.

Arthur and Molly Weasley are just really good at alienating their kids because it isn't just Percy.

Somehow all of them succeded in feeling like outsiders in a family of 9. Bill shows frustration with his parents and only returns to Britain because of the war, Charlie's in Romania for most of the series. Fred and George run away the moment they can and are treated like trouble by their parents most of the time (Molly and Arthur assume they are selling stolen goods from Mundungus when they hear they have money, not that they, idk, somehow earned it), Ron has a whole complex of low self-esteem and a tendency to blame himself for everything. Ginny is isolated from her brothers as the only girl and youngest...

And Percy cares and tries to be the best and most responsible sibling and gets scorned in turn.

Harry and Ron do acknowledge Arthur's and Molly's accusation towards Percy was awful and that he was right to respond negatively in OOTP. Ron is just sensitive about their family's financial state which soured Percy to him after Percy blew up at their dad (rightfully so, honestly, I'd say way worse to Arthur if it was me).

The thing is, Percy also gets scorned by his siblings, not just his parents (like Fred and George do). He gets grief for trying to be responsible and for wanting his siblings to do well in school and not get in trouble, Fred and George lock him in a pyramid...

That being said, do I think Percy is perfect? No, he is pretentious and overbearing at times, but he is a child in a large family who tries to find a place to fit himself in. According to child psychology, usually when it comes to siblings, the eldest would usually (at least in childhood) try to be everything the parents want (Bill), and then each next sibling will carve a different niche for themselves, and we see this with the Weasleys. I think the twins being born right after Percy and demanding a lot of attention from their parents from a young age as they were little troublemakers from the start is a big reason why Percy chose the niche of being bookish, ambitious, and responsible for himself. To contrast himself with them and his older brothers and get some attention from their parents.

I'm not a fan of the epilog (like everyone), but I find it hard to imagine Percy being close to his family post-books. I think he never fully got over the sting of not being seen as skilled and competent and that his parents believed he'd turn on them all without a second thought. Nor do I think he should just get over it.

Like, I'm really salty that Percy was the only one to apologize:

“I was a fool!” Percy roared, so loudly that Lupin nearly dropped his photograph. “I was an idiot, I was a pompous prat, I was a—a—” “Ministry-loving, family-disowning, power-hungry moron.” said Fred. Percy swallowed. “Yes, I was!” “Well, you can’t say fairer that that,” said Fred, holding out his hand to Percy. Mrs. Weasley burst into tears. She ran forward, pushed Fred aside, and pulled Percy into a strangling hug, while he patted her on the back, his eyes on his father. “I’m sorry, Dad.” Percy said.

(Deathly Hollows, pages 512-513)

Like, yes, it's great he was smart enough to realize the ministry is corrupt, but this demand only for him to apologize when Molly and Arthur Weasley were just as much in the wrong. Fred and George weren't beacons of sainthood here either. But none of them have apologies demanded of them. None of them are demanded to confess they are "morons". Just Percy.

Who even after his apology is still an outsider. Probably always will be one.

You said it best: "Why wouldn't he leave?"

And that's what we see him do (if temporarily).

[communistkenobi]

reading about the Soviet trials of Nazis post-WWII and how the USSR tried and convicted leagues more Nazis than did the western ally countries (the author puts the far upper estimate to 45k trials, compared to the 1-2k trials each done in America, France, and the UK). and it’s extremely funny reading about them because the author is like well of course we must acknowledge that these were show trials meant to consolidate Soviet power, compared to the beautiful western allies who only did it out of the goodness of their hearts to destroy the Nazis. like retributive justice is the prime mover of legitimacy in these cases, the purpose of international and national trials (including hundreds of death sentences) was to comprehensively de-legitimise the Nazi government by putting many top officials and collaborators on trial as representatives for the state in an effort to establish legal concepts of collective guilt, but if you do it on an industrial scale like the USSR did it’s bad I guess lol? It’s not clear from reading that this was an ineffective or overly punitive legal strategy, the number itself is supposed to demonstrate the illegitimacy of Soviet trials

and so like the eternally frustrating thing when reading international history is that it’s hard to find normal historical accounts of Soviet participation in, say, WWII because the giant red rubber stamp labelled EVIL COMMUNISM BAD keeps getting in the way of the writing. like the authors don’t do this with the Nazis, authors don’t spend pages of preamble being like btw these guys are EVIL and VILE, it’s pretty plainly demonstrated by describing the actions, motivations, and beliefs of the Nazis. And so in the exceptional moral treatment of the USSR what ends up happening in the literature is this deep existential liberal anxiety and insecurity that bleeds through the writing to the point of distraction. like just tell me what happened! If the Soviets do something horrible just describe it to me, I don’t need all historical accounts wrapped up in a moral fable, I’m not 12 years old, I promise I’ll shake my head in disagreement if they did something bad, but you have to actually make a case for bad behaviour for me to do that

[notedchampagne]

Bro the 6th familial relationships fuck me up so much like the weird Juno and Pal more of a mentor than a mother vibes? And it seems like from Dr Sex that her and Pal's dad are either divorced or just straight up had nothing to do with each other until the genomics department decided they should have a child together?? Like imagine you're a ruthless academic career-woman and one day you get an email from the government like 'congrats! You're a mother!' And they hand you a fresh vat baby that is half you and half your co-worker that you talked to one time at the Christmas party like??? I don't think I would have the most healthy relationship with that child either tbh

And Cam! Earlier in Nona when Pal and Pyrrha are talking about going to the park it is only Kiki that he mentions she might want to save, no mention that apparently both her parents are there too? Her entire family is on the line here. Then she doesn't want her dads to see the Paul transformation because they "wouldn't understand"? You just know there's some long running disagreement there with how far she's yoking herself in with Pal. Do you think they secretly resent him? Did this cause a rift in their family? And what did the conversation look like before or after the transformation? Did Cam tell them she was about to die? Or did they turn away for five seconds and she finally killed herself for her obsessions behind their back? Who broke the news to them? (Who is going to break the news to Pal's dad?) The whole thing just makes me insane!!!!

Also apparently there is some incredible nepotism going on in the 6th oversight body here (or maybe everything is nepotism on the 6th lol)

YOU GET ME i love the 6th house so so much the way the house functions both as a united family w their genetics & a university with the academic quibbling is so fun to me- the sixths weakness was described as "A sprawling organization of erratic loners, the Sixth are chaotic by nature and terrible at collective action." which is 1) hilarious. palamedes is the peoples marxist princess 2) just generally fascinating as a whole. if we take that at face value and consider the 6th house as populated by genius loner nerds, it actually makes sense that they prioritize sending out attractive people to diversify the gene pool - with reference to your statement: dr sex provided a nice handful of evidence that while palamedes and juno have a formal dynamic, theyre affectionate enough that they seem close (at most, to the extent of some gay kid and their favorite english teacher) but seeing juno like a distant mentor is most likely right

taking on more quotes from dr sex, i think its most likely that the Sixth house encourages child bearing / raising through subsidies and an extended work leave of sorts:

Palamedes said, “Enjoying parenting. Enjoying the parenting buyout, I should say. He’s only doing dissertation supervision—and half a year of Immediate History, of course—but he’s got his own projects on the go.”

alexandrites and nireids might be required to go offworld to flirt and have children (i think i came across another post floating somewhere noticing kiki and cam were half-sisters, implying their parent was one of the mentioned) but for residents staying in the sixth house, they probably have about 3-7 other people they could possibly produce children with outside of consanguinity. although forcing them to have children by way of vat birth etc etc is entirely possible in Hell Empire a lot of them probably gave in just for a few years of parental & academic benefits.

one last point - sixth house children canonically live in a dormitory! so if you consider a professor going on paid leave to raise children while doing their own projects for about 7-9 years, then going back to work while their children are sent to a dorm to do nothing but study and train with other peers their age, it falls together so perfectly bro. it makes so much sense. of course pal and cam are nice to their parents but rarely ever close - they were most likely raised and taught communally! god i love worldbuilding

[shyloverrr]

The return of the KOSA bill.

I’m sure that people have been seeing this go around, but to the people who haven’t: KOSA, has been brought back from the dead.

For the people who don’t know what KOSA is or the people who may need a refresher, here’s what KOSA is: KOSA stands for the Kids Online Safety Act. It’s a bill that the American government claims will help keep children away from content that they shouldn’t be consuming at their age. While this sounds good, it’s actually a lie. What KOSA would really do is let the Federal Trade Commission decide what is and isn’t acceptable for kids to consume. Topics like LGBTQ+ rights, gun control, racism, Palestine, and etc are all on the chopping block. Not only that, KOSA will require internet users to upload their ID just to post, and I don’t think I need to explain how dangerous that is. To sum it up, KOSA is a bill that will create a media where free speech isn’t an option and will be the death of the internet.

It is likely that the bill will be going to markup this Wednesday, which is tomorrow. So, we need to hurry when it comes to taking action.

“How can I help to show my disagreement with KOSA?”

Here’s how: Call your state senators and call the house leaders and house majority speakers, both republican and democrat.

Here’s a link to Alpha’s video to see how that can be done

[kittensartswriting]

I watched a book review video, where there was a broader argument that political fantasy is inherently hard to end in a satisfying way and it got me thinking. Because I'm writing a political fantasy myself, I have a lot of thoughts.

I do agree with the argument in some ways. I think many fantasy genre conventions work against political plotlines, so ending it in a satisfying way requires breaking those conventions. So, the argument was that there's broadly three ways for a political fantasy to end and none of them is very satisfying. First, it can end to the protagonists losing. Second, it can end to a protagonist becoming the monarch. And third it can end to the protagonists abolishing monarchy. First is kinda obviously unsatisfying. Second is unsatisfying because it doesn't address the underlying systematic problem about the previous regime, monarchy being inherently unjust, that in a political fantasy should be one of the core themes explored. Third is unsatisfying because establishing democracy after monarchy is in reality a process that takes generations of political struggle, not last act of a book.

There is of course couple of assumptions already in these arguments, which are typical genre conventions. Fantasy governments are usually feudal monarchies and the protagonists are very often royalty or have potential in becoming one, and this is doubly true with political fantasy. I agree with the argument that all those three options are unsatisfying, but I don't think they are the only possible endings, just what usually happens in political fantasies. Specifically I think they are the options when following genre conventions. The genre conventions I'm talking about are not necessarily the assumptions I already mentioned (monarchy and royal protagonist) though changing them can open more possibilities, but rather protagonist with strong character agency, closed endings and story structure with rising action and decisive battle at the climax. Basically I'm talking about the story where saving the world/country rests upon the hero and they defeat the villain which fixes everything.

There's nothing wrong with these genre conventions on their own and they do work very well in a lot of fantasy, but I would argue that they clash with a political story. In reality real political change doesn't come to the scheming or battle between couple of people, it's collective work done for generations. Every person under a political structure has agency (though often power to use that agency is not evenly distributed), which means that politics is in mathematical terms a chaotic system - unpredictable and complex. That's why it's impossible to predict in the moment the political outcomes, but later, when looking at history, the patterns are easy to see. The agency of one person doesn't mean much in grand scheme of things, not even a very powerful person. Their power comes from something, so if they wish to wield that power, they have to uphold it. So if you give the protagonist in a political story a lot of agency, suddenly they are the one single-handedly making the politics and the people of that world become a mass of drones without agency, who don't have ideology, material interests or even opinions. This completely flattens politics and imo any ending will be unsatisfying.

One thing that I find is very much lacking in most political fantasies, is ideology. I think because we are not often taught about the ideological debates and disagreements that led to every political change in history, we often think of ideology as a very modern thing, but it's just inherent part of politics. Every political change starts with ideology, which comes usually long, generations even, before any large political action. It can start with intellectual elites or on grassroots level, but there will always be some thought leaders that define the emerging ideology, which allows it to spread. For ideology to spread the ground needs to be fertile for it. For example instability, economic or otherwise, is very fertile ground for anti-authoritarian ideologies, even more so than injustice and lack of personal freedom. Different classes are also more fertile for different ideologies. Those in power are obviously more open to ideologies that justify their power, while those not in power are more open to ideologies that question the power structures. After ideology has become popular, it still needs power to actually enact change. If it's popular among those with high relative power, that's easy, but if the opposite is true, to gather enough power, they need a popular uprising with power in numbers. That requires much more resolve from each individual, because while they have collective power individually they are still vulnerable, so uprising is personally extremely risky. Which is why a popular uprising needs in addition wide spread desperation.

Still, popular idea and power to enact it is just the beginning. Then starts the long and hard process of actually doing it, which is basically never linear. There were peasant uprisings thorough Middle Ages trying upturn feudal system, but it took centuries for it to actually collapse, in some places in Europe and around the world there were still feudal structures in 1800s. For a major change to really take root, it has to become generally accepted, and when you have just overturned a previous regime, there's obviously still a lot of people who do not accept the new system. There's couple of options, you can go the guillotine route, where you can try to forcibly strip them of their power and/or kill them and their supporters, which most certainly leads to a civil war with uncertain outcomes. Or you can try to work with the old powers, which most certainly leads to them resisting change as much as possible and diluting the changes. It's not really possible to get a clean change from one system to another at one go. It can even get reversed quite quickly. Usually large systemic changes require at least couple of attempts before they stick.

The point of this tangent is to illustrate that if a political story ends neatly tied up, it feels untrue to reality. A revolution, a coup or a reformation is just the beginning of a structural change. The structure of rising action and decisive climax also doesn't fit to how politics work. Winning an army or dethroning a monarch is just a step to the direction of a new regime. The ideological opponents won't just abandon their deeply held beliefs the moment they lose power. It also ties to the character agency, if the protagonist is part of a regime change, they definitely shouldn't be the one coming up with the new regime or it's ideology. There should be already existing popular movement for it before the MC comes into the picture. (Looking at you game of thrones with the last episode going "what if we come up with a new system out of nowhere without any prior ideological discourse on the spot and everyone just agrees?")

But usually strong character agency, closed endings and decisive climax are thought of as basis for a satisfying fantasy story, so how would a political fantasy be more satisfying without them? Firstly I would argue they are not always necessary for a satisfying story, but I will say it's harder to make a story satisfying without them. My solution to this is to have different primary plot than the political plot. By that I mean for the protagonists to have different primary goal from the political struggle and it's pursuit being the primary plot, while the political struggle is the secondary plot. The primary goal should of course be connected to the political goal. I think the best way to handle it is to have that primary goal be the reason why the character has their political goal, so the political struggle is an obstacle in their primary goal. The primary goal should be something personal, more intimate in scale and tied to their character arc. This allows the character to have more agency over the outcome of their primary goal and for their primary plot to have a closed ending even if the political struggle doesn't, and has the added benefit of making the political struggle more personal and concrete. The primary plot could be revenge against a monarch or freeing from a political marriage or a lot of other options that forces the character to enter the political arena.

With a dark political fantasy, the ending also doesn't need to be perfectly happy to be satisfying, in fact in dark fantasy the ending is usually more satisfying as a tragedy or bittersweet ending. It could even have a corruption arc, where we watch the hero turn into a power hungry villain, or the protagonist could be antihero from the beginning. In a story like that it can be a perfectly satisfying tragic ending for them to lose or to get to the throne and be just as terrible as the previous monarch. Related to this, I have seen couple of popular posts that express annoyance at people who complain about fantasy having overwhelmingly monarchies as settings. The argument is often that part of fantasy is exploring a completely different mindset from us and to people who lived under monarchy it was just expected fact of life. I think this is generally compelling argument. For a fantasy adventure to have monarchy that goes without questioning is not some secret monarchist messaging. Same goes for a dark fantasy where there's oppressive monarchy that's not changed by the end. But I think with political fantasy it's different, because the main theme should by definition be about politics and power. So if monarchy (or a different political structure) goes without questioning in a story like that, I think the story is lacking in depth. Or maybe it is secret monarchist propaganda.

Also just to add to what I alluded in beginning, I think there's a lot of potential for interesting and satisfying political fantasy with different political system from monarchy and/or protagonists with lower class status, but I wanted to mainly make the point that I think the issues with political fantasy are mainly in the story structure. I don't think there's anything wrong with monarchies in fantasy, I have written monarchies in fantasy, and will in future too, but I do think that beyond political fantasy too sticking to monarchies by default is a little limiting.

To be clear, these are just my thoughts on this, not any rules that would apply to every story that could be described as political fantasy, definitely not. And a lot of this is about preferences. I would love to hear other toughts too!

[butchgtow]

Introduction to Armchair Activism

Current feelings about the state of radblr.

Fundamentals

"Yes, Everyone on the Internet Is a Loser." Luke Smith. Sep 3, 2022. YouTube.

An activist movement can be a place to build community with like-minded people, but action is its foremost purpose, not community. To allow yourself and other activists to remain effective, you are obliged to abandon your personal dislikes of other individual activists. Disagreements are worth discussion, but interpersonal toxicity is not.

Connect with in-person community and do not unhealthily over-prioritize online community. Over-prioritization of online community is self-harm.

Luke is a loser, but his channel is teeming with entry-level digital literacy information and advice pertaining to healthy use of technology for us cyborgs.

"Surveillance Self-Defense: Tips, Tools and How-Tos For Safer Online Communication." Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Hackblossom, outdated, is discontinued. The EFF project Surveillance Self-Defense is up-to-date, comprehensive, and follows personal educational principles of simplicity and concision.

To learn more about general (not focused solely on personal action) cybersecurity, visit Cybersecurity by Codecademy and Cyber Security Tutorial by W3Schools. Both contain further segueways into other important digital literacies.

Direct recommendation: Install and set up the linux distribution Tails on a cheap flash drive.

Direct recommendation: Develop your own home network security schema.

Direct recommendation: Always enable 2FA security for Tumblr, disable active / inactive status sharing, and learn to queue reblogs and posts to protect against others' interpretations of your time zone.

Direct recommendation: It's both possible and relatively simple to host your own instance of a search engine using SearXNG.

Zero-Knowledge Architecture.

As a remote activist (even if also a hybrid activist), none of your action should be taken on, using, or interfacing with non-zero-knowledge-architecture services. Tumblr is, of course, a risk in and of itself, but you should not be using services provided by companies such as Google, Microsoft, or any others based in or with servers hosted in 13-eyes agreement nations.

Search for services (email, word processor, cloud storage) which emphasize zero-knowledge architecture. Businesses whose services are structured as such cannot hand over your data and information, as they cannot access it in the first place. If they cannot access the majority of your metadata, either - all the better.

Communications for Armchair Activism

"Technical Writing." Google.

Contained within the linked page at Google Developers, the self-paced, online, pre-class material for courses Technical Writing One, Technical Writing Two, and Tech Writing for Accessibility teach activists to communicate technical concepts in plain English.

"Plain Language." U.S. General Services Administration.

Plain language is strictly defined by U.S. government agencies, which are required to communicate in it for simplicity and quick, thorough comprehension of information.

"Explore Business Law." Study.com.

Extensive courses are offered to quickly uptake principles of business law such as antitrust law, contract law, financial legislation, copyright law, etc. Legal literacy is often the difference between unethical action of a business and its inaction. Legal literacy is also often the difference between consideration and investment in your policy idea and lack thereof.

"Business Communication." Study.com.

Now that you're able to communicate your prioritized information, you may also initiate writing with bells and whistles. While other activists care most about the information itself, business communication allows you to communicate your ideas and needs to those who you must convince worthiness of investment to and win over.

Logic.

Learn it through and through. Start with fallacies if you're better at language and work your way backwards to discrete mathematics; start with discrete mathematics if you're better at maths and work your way forwards to fallacies, critical literacy, and media literacy. State that which you intend to state. Recognize empiricism and rationalism for what they are. Congratulations: you are both a mathematician and a law student.

Economic Literacy for Armchair Activism

"Microeconomics." Khan Academy.

"Macroeconomics." Khan Academy.

The globe operates on profitability. Women's unpaid labor is a massive slice of the profitability pie. While it's possible to enact change without understanding all that drives the events around you, it's impossible to direct or meaningfully manipulate the events around you beyond your scope of comprehension.

Understand economics or be a sheep to every movement you're active in and to every storm that rolls your way.

[commiepinkofag]

Contact your government

Council to greenlight Chat Control – Take action now!

It is crucial we demonstrate that civil society is alert now. You can either contact your ministries of the interior and of justice, or you can contact your government’s ‘permanent representation’ to the EU. You can find the contact details for all permanent representations on the website „EU Whoiswho“. Tell your government that the current draft on Chat Control (officially called “Regulation … to prevent and combat child sexual abuse”) is unacceptable. You can find a summary of the draft in this blogpost, and there is critical analysis by European Digital Rights and CDT. Be polite but also resolute and ask them to clearly voice their disagreement with the proposal and to vote against the proposal. Further, ask them to insist on a formal vote and for the abstentions to be properly counted by the Presidency. (Otherwise, in the Permanent Representatives Committee, sometimes the procedural trick is used not to ask for abstentions and to ignore them).

Timeline

On Thursday, 13 June, ministers of the interior discussed the progress of discussions (find a recording here). The Belgian Council presidency announced that they will present a new compromise proposal afterwards. According to documents leaked by netzpolitik.org, the COREPER 2 meeting in which they will put it to a vote will already take place on Wednesday, 19 June. So we all need to take action as soon as possible and demand a firm “No” by our governments against the Chat Control proposal to ward off this attempt to greenlight Chat Control in the Permanent Representatives Committee on 19 20 June. Time is pressing. This may be our last chance to stop Chat Control!

[pocketseizure]

Governance in Hyrule

A hundred years after the Calamity, the Hyrulean monarchy only exists in the form of a ruined castle and a legendary princess. Not much can be said about the monarchy in its absence, but it’s interesting to think about in relation to the other systems of governance in Hyrule.

Although the Zora have a royal family, they’re essentially living in a communist utopia of shared resources and communal living spaces. Everyone works according to their interests and talents, and individual disagreements are given voice but ultimately suppressed for the good of the group.

Rito society seems to be the opposite. Warriors are highly respected, and they act according to their own individual ideas of what they think is the best course of action. Kaneli, the chief of Rito Village, is a retired warrior whose role seems to be largely symbolic. Although the village chief is respected, he has no real control over the younger warriors.

Kakariko Village seems to operate somewhere in the middle. As the village elder, Impa maintains cultural lore and tradition, and she can suggest courses of action. Still, her role is symbolic, and she does not directly arbitrate disputes or issue commands.

The Yiga are a bunch of obnoxious theater kids who have formed a cult around the most obnoxious theater kid. They are an outlier and should not be counted.

The Gorons seem to be set up like a corporation. Bludo is the founder of the Goron Group Mining Company, and he oversees its operations and manages trade. He commands respect, but he isn’t particularly concerned with anything outside his own interests. A lot of people who work for him don’t agree with his decisions, but they take it for granted that “labor” is what they should be doing. The Gorons are modeled on a stereotype of the traditional working class of downtown Tokyo, and I think their portrayal is meant to be a lighthearted parody of working-class solidarity.

Riju is the only person even remotely resembling a true ruler, and she’s an almost platonic ideal of a just and benevolent sovereign. She commands soldiers, directly confronts outside threats, enforces security over the market, ensures the fair distribution of resources, holds audiences with advisors and individual citizens, and generally works to maintain the wellbeing of her people. The idea seems to be that, as the only actual city in Hyrule, Gerudo Town is the only place that requires an actual government.  

Meanwhile, the Hylians seem to be doing just fine without any sort of government at all. They live in a beautiful and happy post-scarcity world where everyone has a place to live and enough to eat. Roads, bridges, and public stables are carefully maintained, and trade flows smoothly. People travel for pleasure and are free to pursue their own interests, whether it’s studying leviathan bones or writing magazine articles or hunting for mushrooms or searching for romance.  

It feels like the only real function of the Hyrulean monarchy was to combat Ganon, and Ganon only exists in opposition to the monarchy. I don’t mean to suggest that the destruction and loss of life that occurred during the Calamity was a good thing, but maybe it wouldn’t be such a tragedy if the Hyrulean monarchy were to end with Zelda…?

[lullabyes22-blog]

A la “Have Some Madeira, M’Dear”. Love love love the journalist’s exploration of Silco’s new Zaun. One of the chapters briefly outlines how sex and relationships are quite casual and seen as natural parts of life, but that rape and other sex crimes are given harsh penalties. I forget if FNF or HSMM’D, mentions anything on domestic violence, because even in supposed “developed” countries IRL, there is still a huuuuge issue with how DV is handled in many places, and a lot of it, to me, has to do with the philosophy of how DV is seen, i.e. the loathsome British euphemism “domestic” which seems to encompass everything from a simple argument (“row”) to chasing someone with a golf club around the house (God how I hate that slang word). How much does the law involve itself in DV and how much is left up to a “you got yourself in this situation, you can get yourself out of it. That’s Zaun, baby.” I’m not expecting perfect laws in this city, but am curious about where the libertarianism begins and ends when it comes to the privacy of the household in this quasi metropolitan London/LA/NYC Steam-Chemical-Tech-Magic-Punk city. Also does Zaun have the death penalty?

tw: domestic violence, abuse

Thank you so much<3 So happy you're enjoying B. Goode's descent into the depths!

Honestly, given Zaun's libertarian ethos, private matters tend to be left… well, private. There's a pretty strong push, given the city's historic scars re: government encroachment, against anything resembling surveillance, invasion or oversight by a perceived "outside" force, even one that's ostensibly benign.

There's very much a mindset of: "What goes on within the four walls of the home is not the problem of the community at large unless those inside those walls bring the problems beyond those walls."

There are, of course, exceptions. These include:

1) if a minor is involved 2) if the parties in question are disturbing the peace 3) if the parties in question have been explicitly warned previously that their behavior is unacceptable and they have failed to change their actions or, indeed, intensified them. 4) if a member of the community is harmed by said actions.

In this case, it won't be the Eye's blackguards who'll intervene; it'll be a local authority, such as the underboss responsible for the sector, and the night watch on his payroll, who will be tasked with investigating the complaints and taking whatever measures are necessary.

However, this is an extreme rarity; more often than not, citizens are expected to deal with issues themselves or to take them up with a mediator before matters escalate. If they do, it's more likely the case will be tried by civil court and not criminal, as the law does not have any particular interest in, nor duty to intervene in, affairs that are purely a matter between two or more private individuals.

It's not a perfect system, and there are plenty of pretty horrific cases that make their way into the newspapers or into the public psyche. But on the whole, the citizenry is encouraged to police itself.

Silco, Sevika and the crew, having grown up in environments where the state was an adversary rather than a help, are very much in support of the hands-off approach. The fact that they all hail from backgrounds where abuse was commonplace plays no small part in shaping their mindsets, either.

For instance, Silco is fully one of those, er, charming types who'd call a slap in the face a 'minor disagreement' and a black eye a 'stern reminder.'

And, yes, this includes both dishing it out and getting it dished.

So, uh. Yeah.

Zaunites are, at the day's end, fiercely protective of their home and the right to be left the fuck alone.

Re: the death penalty- the city occupies a very gray zone. While it's not legally codified, there's an informal consensus that a particularly heinous crime is, well, a heinous crime, and warrants a punishment in kind. The courts and prisons won't enforce sanctions. But those within and beyond the system- inmates at Dredge, vigilantes on the streets, the black market, etc - certainly will.

If a crime is especially repulsive, and the perpetrator's identity is known, a mob may very well descend upon them and exact retribution.

If it occurs, the government will turn a blind eye rather than admit they condone such behavior. But it's no secret that Silco and his ilk believe in an eye for an eye, and that their city is better off for it.

Catharsis, as the wise man said, is good for the soul.

[homoquartz]

Big government news. Several governing factions in Gaza, including the major ones Hamas and Fatah, have signed a unity deal brokered/mediated by China.

These two main factions have a lot of major disagreements, most notably about armed resistance, but have declared they will work together to resist Israel's attacks. They also say they will establish an interim reconciliation government if and when the genocide ends.

Many people doubt they'll be able to overcome their differences to be an effective team, but I guess we'll see.

The fact that China is intimately involved in this agreement is absolutely going to freak out the US Government. Keep an eye out for rising anti-Chinese rhetoric and action in the coming months.

The US and Israel are very upset by this development, representatives of both countries declaring there can be no stop to the attacks until Hamas is destroyed. But remember that to them, all Palestinians are Hamas.

[sensualnoiree]

astro notes: daily transits 9/15

Sunday, 9/15, holds a mix of challenging and healing energies. While the day starts with a tense Mercury–Eris sesquiquadrate, setting the stage for potential misunderstandings or conflicts, the Aquarius Moon works to balance out the tension with its trines and sextiles to Jupiter, Chiron, and Eris, encouraging optimism and emotional healing. However, the key transit today is Mars squaring the Moon’s nodal axis, highlighting unresolved issues related to personal boundaries and independence versus codependency. This aspect has the potential to stir old emotional wounds or ignite quarrels that we may have thought were behind us.

Key Influences

Mercury Sesquiquadrate Eris: Difficult Conversations and Misunderstandings: The day begins with a tense sesquiquadrate between Mercury in Virgo and Eris in Aries, creating an atmosphere ripe for disagreements. Mercury governs communication, while Eris, the dwarf planet of discord, thrives in situations of strife. This aspect suggests that conversations may quickly devolve into arguments, especially if unresolved grievances or frustrations come to the surface. The sesquiquadrate aspect indicates that this tension may feel inevitable, even if the disagreement seems minor at first. It’s best to avoid bringing up controversial or sensitive subjects in the morning, as people may be more prone to reacting defensively or provocatively.

Aquarius Moon: Emotional Detachment and Objectivity: The Moon continues its journey through Aquarius, encouraging emotional detachment and intellectual objectivity. The Aquarius Moon helps us see things from a broader perspective, making it easier to navigate interpersonal conflicts or emotional upheavals without getting too caught up in them. However, while the Moon in Aquarius supports a lighthearted and independent approach, its efforts to maintain emotional equilibrium may be undermined by more intense planetary configurations later in the day.

Moon Trine Jupiter, Sextile Chiron and Eris: Optimism, Healing, and Emotional Balance: The Aquarius Moon forms a supportive trine with Jupiter in Gemini at 11:04 a.m., enhancing optimism and encouraging expansive thinking. This aspect helps to counterbalance the tense Mercury–Eris energy from the morning, as it promotes open-mindedness and the ability to find silver linings in challenging situations. Later in the day, the Moon also sextiles Chiron (2:24 p.m.) and Eris (6:55 p.m.), offering opportunities for emotional healing and reconciliation. The Moon–Chiron sextile encourages us to address old wounds with compassion, while the Moon–Eris sextile suggests that we can navigate discord with more ease and find innovative ways to resolve conflicts.

Mars Square the Nodal Axis: Tension Between Independence and Codependency: The most significant aspect of the day is Mars in Cancer forming a square to the Moon’s nodal axis (Aries–Libra), also known as Mars at the "bending" of the nodes. This transit can create a sense of tension between our personal desires for independence (North Node in Aries) and the lingering pull of past relationships or codependent patterns (South Node in Libra). Mars, the planet of action and aggression, in sensitive Cancer, may ignite old emotional wounds or reawaken conflicts we thought were resolved. This square can bring up issues around personal boundaries, caregiving, and how we assert ourselves in relationships. It’s a time when old habits or relationship dynamics resurface, demanding attention and resolution.

Integrating the Influences

Navigating Tense Conversations and Conflict: Mercury Sesquiquadrate Eris: The morning's tense Mercury–Eris sesquiquadrate suggests it’s wise to avoid bringing up difficult or controversial topics. If a conversation starts to escalate into an argument, it’s best to pause and step back rather than push forward. Eris can ignite conflicts around fairness and justice, so it’s important to be mindful of any deep-seated frustrations that may arise. Instead of reacting impulsively, take a more diplomatic approach and use the Aquarius Moon’s influence to maintain emotional distance and objectivity.

Embracing Optimism and Emotional Healing: Moon Trine Jupiter and Sextile Chiron: The mid-morning trine between the Moon and Jupiter encourages a more positive and open-minded outlook, offering a window of optimism and generosity. This is a great time to focus on solutions rather than problems. The Moon’s sextile to Chiron later in the afternoon enhances opportunities for emotional healing. If conflicts from the morning have left you feeling raw or vulnerable, this is a chance to address those wounds with compassion and understanding. The Aquarius Moon helps you approach healing from an intellectual and detached perspective, allowing you to gain insight into your emotional responses without being overwhelmed by them.

Facing Old Patterns in Relationships: Mars Square the Nodal Axis: The square between Mars in Cancer and the nodal axis is likely to stir up unresolved issues related to personal boundaries and relationship dynamics. If old habits of codependency or self-sacrifice resurface, it’s important to recognize these patterns and make conscious efforts to break free from them. Mars at the bending of the nodes often brings up feelings of frustration or anger, particularly if we feel like we’re not being true to ourselves in our relationships. This is an opportunity to assert your needs and desires in a healthy, balanced way, without falling back into old, unhealthy patterns.

Balancing Independence and Cooperation: Mars in Cancer and the Nodal Axis: The tension between Mars in Cancer and the nodal axis highlights the struggle between asserting your personal needs (North Node in Aries) and maintaining harmony in relationships (South Node in Libra). While Cancer’s energy is protective and nurturing, Mars here can be defensive or reactive. The challenge is to find a way to assert yourself without feeling the need to either dominate or submit. By recognizing where you’ve fallen into codependent or self-sacrificing roles in the past, you can begin to break free from those dynamics and move towards a more balanced expression of independence and cooperation in your relationships.

follow for more astro insights like this and head on over to @quenysefields or my etsy --> sensualnoiree to grab my new astrology guidebook on reading your own natal chart :)