#i just think that should be criminalised

[monstermonstre]

I'm a reasonable guy, I just think that the current state of italian websites should be condemned by the UN or something

[clueless1995]

god hearing ads for true crime podcasts is bad enough but the ones where they use audio/dramatised audio of people screaming or crying on the phone to emergency services are so fucking evil what is wrong with you people

[gatheringbones]

[“People are attracted to the concept of a Nordic-style law that criminalises only the sex buyer, and not the prostitute – but any campaign or policy that aims to reduce business for sex workers will force them to absorb the deficit, whether in their wallets or in their working conditions. As a sex worker in the Industrial Workers of the World observes,

I find that how easy, safe, and enjoyable I can make my work is directly related to whether I can survive on what I’m currently making … I might be safer if I refused any clients who make their disrespect for me clear immediately, but I know exactly where I can afford to set the bar on what I need to tolerate. If I haven’t been paid in weeks, I need to accept clients who sound more dangerous than I’d usually be willing to risk.

When sex workers speak to this, we are often seemingly misheard as defending some kind of ‘right’ for men to pay for sex. In fact, as Wages For Housework articulated in the 1970s, naming something as work is a crucial first step in refusing to do it – on your own terms. Marxist-feminist theorist Silvia Federici wrote in 1975 that ‘to demand wages for housework does not mean to say that if we are paid we will continue to do it. It means precisely the opposite. To say that we want money for housework is the first step towards refusing to do it, because the demand for a wage makes our work visible, which is the most indispensable condition to begin to struggle against it.’ Naming work as work has been a key feminist strategy beyond Wages For Housework. From sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s term ‘emotional labour’, to journalist Susan Maushart’s term ‘wife-work’, to Sophie Lewis’s theorising around surrogacy and ‘gestational labour’, naming otherwise invisible or ‘natural’ structures of gendered labour is central to beginning to think about how, collectively, to resist or reorder such work.

Just because a job is bad does not mean it’s not a ‘real job’. When sex workers assert that sex work is work, we are saying that we need rights. We are not saying that work is good or fun, or even harmless, nor that it has fundamental value. Likewise, situating what we do within a workers’ rights framework does not constitute an unconditional endorsement of work itself. It is not an endorsement of capitalism or of a bigger, more profitable sex industry. ‘People think the point of our organisation is [to] expand prostitution in Bolivia’, says ONAEM activist Yuly Perez. ‘In fact, we want the opposite. Our ideal world is one free of the economic desperation that forces women into this business.’

It is not the task of sex workers to apologise for what prostitution is. Sex workers should not have to defend the sex industry to argue that we deserve the ability to earn a living without punishment. People should not have to demonstrate that their work has intrinsic value to society to deserve safety at work. Moving towards a better society – one in which more people’s work does have wider value, one in which resources are shared on the basis of need – cannot come about through criminalisation. Nor can it come about through treating marginalised people’s material needs and survival strategies as trivial. Sex workers ask to be credited with the capacity to struggle with work – even to hate it – and still be considered workers. You don’t have to like your job to want to keep it.”]

molly smith, juno mac, from revolting prostitutes: the fight for sex workers’ rights, 2018

[carpe-mamilia]

Ghosts’ Larry Rickard Explains Why They Chose the Captain’s First Name

Photo: Monumental,Guido Mandozzi

It couldn’t be a joke. That was one rule laid down by the Ghosts creators when it came to choosing a first name for Willbond’s character. Until series five, the WWII ghost had been known only as The Captain – a mystery seized upon by fans of the show.

“It was the question we got asked more than anything. His name,” actor and writer Larry Rickard tells Den of Geek. “Once we got to series three, you could see that we were deliberately cutting away and deliberately avoiding it. We were fuelling the fire because we knew at some point we’d tell them.”

In “Carpe Diem”, the episode written by Rickard and Ben Willbond that finally reveals The Captain’s death story, they did tell us. After years of guessing, clue-spotting and debate, Ghosts revealed that The Captain’s first name is James. At the same time, we also learned that James’ colleague Lieutenant Havers’ first name was Anthony.

The ordinariness of those two names, says Rickard, is the point.

“The only thing we were really clear about is that we didn’t want one of those names that only exists in tellyland. It shouldn’t be ‘Cormoran’ or ‘Endeavour’. They should just be some men’s names and they’re important to them. The point was that they were everyday.”

Choosing first names for The Captain and Havers was a long process not unlike naming a baby, Rickard agrees. “It almost comes down to looking at the faces of the characters and saying, what’s right?”

“We talked for ages. For a long time I kept thinking ‘Duncan and James’, and then I was like ah no! That would have turned it into a gag and been awful!” Inescapably in the minds of a certain generation, Duncan James is a member of noughties boyband Blue. “Maybe with Anthony I was thinking of Anthony Costa!” Rickard says in mock horror, referencing another member of the band.

Lieutenant Havers wasn’t just The Captain’s second in command while stationed at Button House; he was also the man James loved. Because homosexuality was criminalised in England during James’ lifetime, he was forced to hide his feelings for Anthony from society, and to some extent even from himself.

In “Carpe Diem”, the ghosts (mistakenly) prepare for the last day of their afterlives, prompting The Captain to finally tell his story. Though not explicit about his sexual identity, the others understand and accept what he tells them – and led by Lady Button, all agree that he’s a brave man.

Getting the balance right of what The Captain does and doesn’t say was key to the episode. “It wasn’t just a personal choice of his to go ‘I’m going to remain in the closet’,” explains Rickard. “There wasn’t an option there to explore the things that either of them felt. That couldn’t be done back then – there are so many stories which have come out since the War about the dangers of doing that.

“We wanted to tell his personal story but also try to ensure that there was a level at which you understood why they couldn’t be open, that even in this moment where he’s finally telling the other ghosts his story, he never comes out and says it overtly because that would be too much for him as a character from that time.

“He says enough for them to know, and enough for him to feel unburdened but it’s in the fact that they’re using their first names which militarily they would never have done, and in the literal passing of the baton”.

The baton is a bonus reveal when fans learned that The Captain’s military stick wasn’t a memento of his career, but of Havers. As James suffers a fatal heart attack during a VE day celebration at Button House, Anthony rushes to his side and the stick passes from one to the other as they share a moment of tragic understanding.

“From really early on, we had the idea that anything you’re holding [when you die] stays with you. So it wasn’t just your clothes you were wearing, we had the stuff with Thomas’ letter reappearing in his pocket and so on. And the assumption being that it was something The Captain couldn’t put down, it felt so nice to be able to say it was something he didn’t want to put down.”

Rickard lists “Carpe Diem”, co-written with Ben Willbond, among his series five highlights. He’s pleased with the end result, praises Willbond’s performance, and loved being on set to see Button House dressed for the 1940s. He’s particularly pleased that a checklist of moments they wanted to land with the audience all managed to be included. “Normally something’s fallen by the wayside just because of the way TV’s made, it’s always imperfect or it’s slightly rushed, but it feels like it’s all there.”

Rickard and Willbond also knew by this point in the show’s lifetime, that they could trust Ghosts fans to pick up on small details. “Nothing is missed,” he says. “Early on, you’re always thinking, is that going to get across? But once we got to series five, there are little tiny things within corners of shots and you know that’s going to be spotted. Particularly in that very short exchange between Havers and the Captain. We worried less about the minutiae of it because you go, that’s going to be rewound and rewatched, nothing will be missed.”

The team were also grateful they’d resisted the temptation to tell The Captain’s story sooner. “We’d talked about it every series since series two, whether or not now was the time, but because he’s such a hard and starchy character in a lot of ways you needed the time to understand his softer side I think before you had that final honest beat from him.”

“What a ridiculously normal name to have so much weight put on it for five years,” laughs Rickard fondly. “Good old James.”

From Den of Geek

[whitelilynh]

Just feel so stupid to realise, thanks to current real life events, that Naruto really talk-no-Jutsu-ed me FOR YEARS into Konoha's propaganda.

Like, what they did to Itachi and Sasuke was monstruos, what they did to Uchiha clan was a complete and unjustified crime.

Was Konoha justified to suspect the Uchiha after a Sharingan-manipulated Kyubi attacked them? Yes, ofc. Was it a justification for a full apartheid regime that lead to a genocide? Fuck NO!

Although Konoha didn't knew Obito was still alive, hence the possibilities, according to them, reduced to the Uchiha (and Kakashi, why nobody mentions Kakashi?), instead of the racist segregation they conduced they should have, Idk, do a freaking proper investigation?

Like, oh, a Sharingan user took advantage of the debilitation of the seal because of Kushina giving birth, it must had been an Uchiha. Well, how many Uchihas actually knew the seal was getting weaker during labor? How many of them knew *when* was Kushina going to give birth? And how many of them knew *where* btw? Reduce the list to those. Include Kakashi, if he knew.

And to those, investigate, survey, and all your shit.

But why to assume a whole freaking clan that lives in peace under the supposed protection of the village would want to destroy it?

And yet, Konoha is all prideful thinking they are better. They are no freaking better. They still saw the Kyubi and it's jinchuriki as nothing but a weapon, they didn't care at all about Naruto's well being and feelings, even though he was the son of the previous Hokage, even though he was actually made a Jinchuriki and became an orphan precisely to protect the freaking village (I'm looking at you Hiruzen, I hate you!).

And on top of that, freaking Konoha took advantage of a poor 13yo boy whose love for the village divided his consciousness, to f*cking force him to kill his entire clan for them, then threw him away and hunted him as a dog, criminalise and vilify him.

And never freaking cared about Sasuke, never explained a thing to him. They even tried to blame Sasuke for not blindly believing their propaganda.

Did Konoha ever realise *they* created Sasuke?

I know Naruto fell for Konoha's propaganda, and I know the whole village wasn't to blame, but the leaders. But somehow, Sasuke should have received a sort of repair, Idk, to tell the truth about his family at least, for the world to know. For the innocents to know, and to pay respect to the deceased clan.

But instead, Sasuke got guilt tripped into serving the masters that destroyed his whole people.

A masterfully done work of propaganda.

[transmutationisms]

im an on again off again sex worker and I really resonate with your post about sex not being transcendentally special… I hear lots of marxists hate on sex work specifically, and our clients, too, saying johns should even be criminally prosecuted. Idk much about marxist theory but sex work has always felt like a normal job to me, one I enjoy just as much as any other client-provider type job. my clients are nice and the work isn’t without skill. but people put sex on so much of a pedestal, I see people saying I’m being raped every time a client sleeps with me… I’m just really feeling validated by your posts about sex and all so... thank you 🥰

yeah discussions about sex work are places where you can really quickly see what's at stake when people try to treat sex as though it has some entirely different set of social or moral 'rules' than anything else does. and i think there are particular ways this happens online, partly because most discussion platforms now are beholden to corporate interests that are hostile to both sex work and serious analysis of work and labour in general. but like, plenty of self-identified communists in general also just have a very insidious tendency to perpetuate the marginalisation and even criminalisation of sex work, often accompanied by a lot of knee-jerk assumptions about sex as a vector of morality, with a unique power then attributed to it either to corrupt or to save. it's very, yknow... "ruthless criticism of all that exists", except if that involves challenging received social truths about bodies and the derivation of pleasure from them, lol. anyway! hope you are well xx

[bibibbon]

I don't know if it's just me, but I feel like there's a disturbing trend of people blatantly misinterpreting the LOV.

Someone on one of my posts (no hate to this person they weren't rude or anything) labeled Toga as a psychopath because of her hurting the bird when she was younger.

But this just isn't true.

(She could have ASPD. But even then, that's a stretch because the only symptom of hers that aligns with that is impulsivity)

"Psychopaths" (using this term because that's what they used) fake emotions, have difficulties forming emotional attachments, and lack empathy. That couldn't be further from Toga. Her emotions are almost always genuine, she VERY easily forms emotional attachments, and she's good at reading people.

(This would probably be closer to Dabi in all actuality. But even if it could be applied that still doesn't justify Endeavor's treatment of him)

But I feel like I see this with LOV critics a lot. People misuse labels and diagnoses in order to dehumanize them and justify how they were by society. It's irritating

Hi @sapphic-agent 👋

I think the misinterpretation of the league is something I have seen go both ways. I have seen people criminalise and dehumanise the league and I have also seen people babyify the league and their actions.

I think toga's behaviour and blatant hypocrisy is what makes her so interesting to me tbh. I just wish that the narrative would address it a lot more and maybe make her behaviour a bit consistent. For example we see that toga has a thing for wanting the blood of people that she cares for and loves (when she isn't fighting of course) so why don't we see her doing it with the league? I also wish that we got more of toga vs hawks since that was underwhelming and disappointing the only thing she done was scratch him with her knife.

I also love the type of imagery that is associated with toga. All of the death,blood and even cannibalism imagery that she has is well implemented into the story and I do think that the way her arc came to a conclusion was done well but like I said there are some more things I would of liked to see from her.

Heck even if toga is a psychopath then why should people have less sympathy for her? Her backstory clearly shows that it was society who influenced her to be the way she is and while yes she made mistakes and had done vile things she is also a victim the two aren't mutually exclusive and can coexist together.

I have seen other demonisation of the league and its probably Dabi and toga's demonisation that annoys me the most because most of them stem from discussions where their abusers are dismissed and all the blame is pitted on them when that's not the truth. I have seen horrible takes saying that dabi was just born evil etc etc while somehow giving enji grace in the same breath and they irritate me so much.

I must say that I do think there are some league members like shigaraki who are underdeveloped and who I was a bit confused on how they would get a redemption because instead of humanising shigaraki and having him gain a path into redemption so I wasn't surprised by the way his character arc ended but I was upset by it for sure.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Spiked

Published: Sept 16, 2024

The new UK Labour government has declared war on free speech. Within weeks of gaining power, it scrapped a law upholding free speech in universities. In early August, following rioting across England, it announced plans to tighten the regulations on online speech. Perhaps most troubling of all, Keir Starmer is also considering writing a broad definition of ‘Islamophobia’ into law, which would make it almost impossible to criticise Islam and even Islamic extremism.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali – writer, activist and author of Prey: Immigration, Islam and the Erosion of Women’s Rights – returned to The Brendan O’Neill Show last week to discuss the importance of free speech in the battle against Islamist extremism. What follows is an edited extract from the conversation. You can listen to the full thing here.

Brendan O’Neill: Why do you think politicians – even those who would define themselves as ‘liberal’ – are so willing to adopt a phrase like Islamophobia?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I think it has to do with guilt about the past. When it comes to the Jews, many European countries did not protect them from Nazi persecution, so there’s definitely a sense that we don’t want to do the same to our Muslim minorities. When I was living in the Netherlands, this was a very potent argument. The Dutch felt extremely guilty about the fact that, in proportion to the Dutch population, more Jews were removed from their homes and sent to concentration camps, than in any other country in Europe. So there’s definitely a sense of ‘let’s not repeat history’. But this is also what makes me so angry, because the Islamists – and to a certain extent, the leftists – will exploit this. They will exploit what is essentially the goodness of human beings, a desire to ‘do right this time round’, in order to do wrong.

While the Islamists want to use democracy as a tool to win power and then abolish democracy, I think the woke left also wants to do something similar. I think this is part of why the far left does rely on the Islamists to vote for them. This is then compounded by the fact that the white working class, which was traditionally the group of people the Labour Party relied on, has faded. So instead, these parties rely increasingly on migrants. This is their new demography. They think they can harness their vote to come to power. People talk about the ‘great replacement’, but it’s actually a ‘great realignment’. The parties which used to represent the working classes now no longer do so. Instead, they now just represent capital.

O’Neill: So what do you make of this idea of the ‘Muslim vote’ in the UK, particularly in relation to the new Labour government?

Ali: I see Keir Starmer as a front for the radical left. He needs the Muslim vote, and the Muslim vote can be relatively easily gained because Islamists can skillfully organise their communities to vote. But the question that Keir Starmer, and other leftist parties across Europe, should ask themselves is this: ‘What are they demanding in return?’ Because the Islamists do have many demands in return. First and foremost, they want censorship. They want ‘Islamophobia’ to be made illegal. And the way they define Islamophobia is any form of criticism of the political agenda of Islam.

If you talk about the radical views being preached in the mosques or the schools, that’s Islamophobia. If you question the fact that some imams are telling their congregations not to assimilate and to distance themselves from ‘the infidels’, that’s Islamophobia. If you talk about the recent examples of sexual abuse against women and girls, some perpetrated by Muslim immigrants, that’s Islamophobia. If you highlight that there is a kind of soft Sharia law in Britain – which is well established in many Muslim communities when it comes to marriages, divorces and inheritances – that’s Islamophobia. The same goes if you want to talk about the fact that there are Muslim women in Muslim households being beaten, curfewed, removed from school, forced to marry and then raped. If you want to expose any of this, you’re committing Islamophobia. And so, all of a sudden, you can’t fight sexual violence against women perpetrated by men.

That is what banning Islamophobia is going to ban, if you allow it. It will ban discussing these issues in the name of human rights and equality. If you question this and ask, ‘Do we really want this parallel society?’, you’ll be called Islamophobic.

These days, the Islamists are less and less secretive about their agenda. This can be seen recently in the blatant anti-Semitism in some Muslim communities. But if you bring this stuff up, and try to get politicians to discuss it, you’re again accused of Islamophobia. This is the question that we have to ask governments, particularly the leftist governments that are trying to outlaw Islamophobia. It is criticism of Islam that’s going to be banned. Journalists and newspapers will no longer be able to exercise their free-press rights to investigate crimes that are being committed.

O’Neill: The unwillingness of the woke left, even the moderate left, to ever criticise radical Islam is extraordinary. We really are in a difficult situation, aren’t we?

Ali: Absolutely. We’re emboldening them. The woke left is the enemy of civilisation, and they say so themselves. They’re deconstructing everything. On the other hand, the Islamists are also clearly an enemy of civilisation – our Western civilisation in particular. We’ve got to stand up to these two forces now. The silent majority has to stand up and stop this before they stop us. And the only way to do that is through freedom of speech, which is exactly what they want to take away from us.

As voters, we still have the capacity to organise, vote, find new leaders and reject what is being imposed on us. In the decay of the universities, alongside the censorship in schools, there’s definitely a concerted effort to silence us. Most worryingly of all, I think, is what we’ve seen after the riots and how the government has responded. Whereas previously you might be cancelled or piled-on online, now the elites are using the law. British prisons, which are effectively full, are clearing out convicted criminals, some of whom have done all sorts of horrible things, to put people in prison for putting words and images online. They’re using the awesome powers of the state to censor and to silence us. Soon we could be banned from saying things that are, in this very sinister phrase, ‘legal but harmful’. This should be met with the greatest opposition of all time. All of us need to go out into the streets and say, ‘stop right there’.

--

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was talking to Brendan O’Neill on The Brendan O’Neill Show. Listen to the full conversation here:

==

A modern Islamic insurgence is no longer conducted with swords on horseback, but with the aggressors using the language of victimhood.

[thedreadvampy]

I think there's a huge gap in language when talking about British legislative and social racism bc some of the most overt and unchallenged legislative racism lately is against GRT people and a lot of countries (especially America) do not use the term GRT.

The G in GRT stands for Gypsy (using this bc it's as-self-described, like it's the term the British GRT community uses often) and bc this is for a lot of people exclusively a slur and bc it has a lot of historical weight, people will often object to use of the expanded acronym slash try to correct it to Roma or Rroma.

But the GRT community as a political class and as a group subject to racism includes, but is not synonymous with, Roma, cause it also includes Irish Travelers (who are another large nomadic minority ethnic group, aka Pavee), Scottish, English and Welsh Travelers (a mix of indigenous nomadic groups), and other nomadic peoples in Britain.

In some, but not all, contexts, GRT also includes non-ethnic nomadic communities: New Age Travelers (people living nomadic lifestyles by choice - full-time caravanners or van lifers), Bargees (people living full time in canal boats) and showmen (traveling funfairs and circuses). Not being a specific ethnicity, New Agers and Showmen have a different relationship to racism and marginalisation than Roma and Travelers (a settled Roma or Traveler family are still Roma or Traveler, it's not just a question of lifestyle and community) but obviously anti-Traveler legislation and bias harms everyone living nomadically.

I think (and I'm not GRT and my thoughts should be taken with a truckload of salt, I just feel like it's worth explaining what the terminology actually means) that a lot of the nuance around GRT identity is kind of lost in transnational discourse (particularly with Americans) because. the G bit of GRT has been used as a blanket term for hundreds of years to refer to multiple groups of nomadic peoples in Europe and so there are ethnocultural groups included under that term who aren't Roma but also are GRT and are racialised as GRT.

People racialised within the GRT community (as Roma or Travelers) experience way higher rates of social and economic exclusion than any other ethnogroups in the UK, including if they're settled (living in brick-and-mortar housing, which around 75% of people recorded as GRT do).

Both Roma and Traveler kids are systemically excluded from education (Gypsy/Roma kids are 6x more likely to be suspended from school and 7x as likely to be expelled than the national average, and Traveler kids aren't much better off (4x more likely than average to be suspended and 5x as likely to be expelled)). GRT people face systemic employment discrimination, being 6x more likely than average to be long term unemployed and 1/4 as likely to be offered high-level or management positions. GRT folk have the worst health outcomes of any ethnic group, and consistently report high levels of medical discrimination and trouble accessing healthcare. As a result, GRT infant mortality and maternal death is way higher than average, and GRT life expectancy is 10+ years shorter than average. GRT communities are disproportionately criminalised, settled GRT families have spoken often about having been treated as inherently suspicious on the basis of their ethnicity.

A lot of people write these issues off as being, like, a product of a nomadic/no-fixed-address lifestyle, but a) it's a problem with the system if our social care systems don't account for the fact that some people are nomadic, itinerant or have no fixed address. there is no reason why nomadic life needs to be more dangerous or excluded than settled. but also b) as stated a majority of GRT people included in these figures do have fixed addresses. it is just racism.

Homelessness is also a huge problem in the community, with many landowners refusing to rent land to Travellers, residential camping berths being oversubscribed by something like 10,000%, and significant difficulty accessing affordable housing. The land which is available to Traveling communities is increasingly ringfenced, often specifically with the intention of discouraging nomadic communities.

given that it is. racism. with an exceptionally long and brutal history of genocide, criminalisation and systemic social exclusion. it is also striking how often open, sometimes genocidal, racism against GRT people is handwaved or accepted as normal. anti-GRT legislation is explicitly passed on the regular. people are incredibly comfortable referring to all GRT people as thieves, scroungers, criminals and frauds. I have had literal circular mailings offering to "remove vermin, pests and Gypsies from your land." and yet calling this racism is often treated as an overstatement. Even though it's explicitly ethnically-driven bias, and has deeply entrenched social impacts affecting everyone racialised as GRT regardless of cultural behaviour or lifestyle.

anyway that's what GRT means, it stands for Gypsy/Roma/Traveller and it's an extremely underserved and marginalised racialised group in the UK and Europe. It includes Romani ethnic groups, but also includes non-Roma ethnic groups (like the Pavee) and Roma subgroups (like Sinti). They're united by a common experience of anti-nomadic racism, criminalisation and social exclusion and, as an aggregate group, are consistently among the most directly disadvantaged racial groups in the UK.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

some of yall should consider unlearning your superiority complex regarding drugs for real. you can talk about the issues with drugs from production to trade, addiction and social consequences without demonising individual drug users. if you want to be supportive of homeless, mentally ill, prostituted, traumatised and otherwise marginalised women - who obviously are not all on drugs but might be at a higher risk - you cant go around and scream about how evil they are for struggling with addiction and substance abuse.

a lot of people with substance abuse issues have started young and often have a family history of drug and alcohol abuse. and if this is the case for you and you didnt develop addiction - congratulations, good for you. if you could just turn addiction on and off, a lot of people would be a lot happier, but fact is that most people with addiction will relapse even if they try going sober, and guilt just makes it more difficult to stop.

if i have to see one more feminist comparing drug use to watching porn i will go feral. porn is harmful to the people in it and women as a group, drugs are primarily self harm. which is an issue but not a moral failure. a lot of porn consumption is literally getting off on violence, the product is the harm done to others, meanwhile buying drugs - like many other products under capitalism - is supporting a system that sadly exploits the most vulnerable without enacting or even engaging with violence yourself. and additionally, a lot of women exploited by the sex industry are on drugs. now what? they are the same as porn consumers? fuck off.

of course it is unethical to buy drugs when it directly supports gang violence, and i understand that someone whose home and people they know have been destroyed by drug use or the drug trade doesnt have the patience for drug users, but its also extremely oversimplified to think these issues will be solved if people just stopped buying drugs. 

blaming drug users for gang members raping and murdering women as a feminist is fucking wild. a woman smoking a joint is responsible for a gang member sexually assaulting another woman? like okay. people also dont need chocolate or coffee which is produced under infamously exploitative conditions with no regard for human rights, should people stop buying that also, or is it more useful to the workers to establish fair trade and urge governments to force corporations to adhere to human and workers rights? what good is it to coca farmers to demonise drug users when gang violence is a result of systemic destabilisation of governments and poverty in production countries as well as the war on drugs, which is directly supported by the demonisation and stigmatisation of addicts?

and dont get me started on gendered aspects of gang violence and how masculinity and machismo play into it. if gangs dont sell drugs, they go more into human and sex trafficking, weapons, and other shit, as long as corruption and poverty are not alleviated. the local drug dealer is also just trying to get by and make cash in a rigged system.

in my humble opinion, legalisation of production, trade and consumption would help both the regions where its produced and the people affected and exploited in the drug trade as well as addicts because a fair trade, workers rights and unions and so on could be established, and money saved on persecuting drug dealers and users could go into rehabilitation programs, and taxes could be used to support everyone involved. resources wasted on the war on drugs could be used to fight remaining gang activity. and so on!

drug use in dedicated places and moderation just like alcohol is not the issue, the issues are one: the production and trade, which is illegalised and criminalised and because of this in the hands of brutal gangs (while other products under capitalism are in the hands of unregulated corporations who care as much about human rights and dignity as gangs do); and two: addiction and other consequences of substance abuse like lowered inhibitions and the link to domestic abuse and other violence, which is also not helped when drug users are stigmatised and buying drugs is criminalised.

i completely understand if you personally take issue and voice criticism of buying drugs especially towards privileged westerners as someone from a country of production, all im asking is some more nuance and as a feminist, compassion with women who have substance abuse issues. no need to coddle anyones feelings, but most addicts - especially women - already feel bad about struggling with addiction and frankly dont need women telling them what a terrible person they are for it, or be told they are just like people who get off on sexual violence.

[beardedmrbean]

The UK’s first professor of Black studies is facing a criminal investigation over a video in which he called right-wing commentator Calvin Robinson a “house n*gro”.

Professor Kehinde Andrews was visited by three police officers at his Birmingham home on Wednesday morning and invited to attend a voluntary interview.

In a video posted online in June, the academic argued that terms such as ‘coconut’, ‘house n*gro’, ‘c**n’ and ‘Uncle Tom’ are “vital expressions of Black political thought that should be celebrated and not policed”.

But the comment Prof Andrews made about former GB News host Mr Robinson in the video has prompted a complaint to West Midlands Police.

In the video, Prof Andrews went on to explain the origins of the term: “Malcolm X popularised the idea of the ‘house n*gro’: Those people who, because of their relative privilege, relative connection to the master, tend to be deluded into believing they’re not slaves,” he said.

“On the plantation, they live in the house... get slightly better conditions; they’re not catching hell from sunup to sundown. So, because of that, house n*gro starts to identify with the master... more than the master identifies with himself.

“The point of this is to say that house n*gro’s wrong. Because they’re treated slightly better, they’re missing the point they’re still slaves. This is ‘love teaching’ from Malcolm. He’s calling out, saying ‘you are still a slave, you are still suffering from racism (...)’.

“The whole point of it is to say we’re all in the same boat, we’re all catching the same hell but you can’t see that because you’ve got the house n*gro mentality.”

When approached by The Independent, Mr Robinson declined to comment about Prof Andrews’ video and the investigation.

However, he posted on X, stating he had filed a complaint against Prof Andrews, and saying that he believed the academic was racist.

West Midlands Police told The Independent: “We’ve received a report of racist comments being posted online and we’re carrying out enquiries. There is no place for hate crime and we’ll investigate any reports we receive.”

Prof Andrews, who teaches the UK’s first undergraduate Black studies course, described the police probe as “utterly ludicrous”.

“As I go to lengths to explain in the video, ‘house n*gro’ is a political critique and has never been used as a racial slur,” he told The Independent.

“The whole point is to remind those who think they have ‘made it’ (...) that we are all still ex-slaves, colonial subjects, who will experience racism no matter how much they embrace the ‘master’ (in modern times, this would be the nation, government, etc).

“Malcolm X uses it as an anti-racist metaphor to promote resistance, which is exactly what I did in the video. The fact this is a police issue just shows how little respect there is for Black political thought.

“The terms ‘house n*gro’ and ‘field n*gro’ have a decades-long history, with countless books including their use.

“It is deeply concerning that the police would want to haul in a professor to question me about my area of expertise. This would never happen if I were white or the work I do was given the respect it deserves.

“The police have a long history of criminalising Black and brown people, now we are seeing that converge with the wider attack on Black knowledge which is being erased from university, the closure of Black courses and more.”

The investigation follows a string of cases where Black and Asian people have faced prosecution for hate crimes after using specific language to criticise other people from ethnic minority communities.

In March, The Independent first reported on the case of a Black man who was acquitted of hate crime charges after sending a raccoon emoji to Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty on social media. A Black HR professional was interviewed under caution for sending a GIF of Daffy Duck tap-dancing to the same politician, as first reported by The Independent in May.

Prof Andrews has said he will attend a voluntary interview later this month. The CPS has been approached for comment.

[killshopdeluxe]

purity culture thoughts (some gripes) (light cw for mentions of sexual assault)

Once again prefacing with the “these are just my own personal thoughts I wanted to share on my personal blog; I’m not arguing with anyone or trying to drop a hot take” disclaimer LOL

But purity culture discourse has reached such unhinged levels where I keep seeing people fail to realise that “censorship and punishment of expression, even sexual or transgressive expression, can toe the line into fascism” and “exposing nonconsenting parties to overt sex acts in public is rude” are statements that can and should coexist 😭  Like there should be proper times and places for things, the problem is some people want those times and places to cease to exist…

I saw this post earlier and agree with OP and the QRT like.  Making a joke about feeling personally uncomfortable seeing people heavy petting on a public train is not a ‘slippery slope’ to wanting to criminalise having sex?!  And there was that one batshit post on this site going around where OP was asking why public sex was wrong and genuinely thought “exposing unconsenting parties, who could even be children, to sex, is violating” was a bad argument…  Like guys, willfully exposing children to sexual material can constitute CSA…

IDK I have strong feelings about this cuz of my own experiences growing up—adults/seniors showed me things I shouldn’t have seen and then convinced me it was normal and aspirational and I should ‘explore’ my sexuality more and if I wasn’t I was a prude/enforcing gatekeeping (a mentality that lead me to getting raped + forcing myself to engage with harmful situations + being too open about personal info online as a teen =__=).  

By all means, sex and sexual expression/exploration should be normalised, but I feel like some people have a mindset that this means like…  Making every space a sexual one, insisting that people who are uncomfortable or don’t want to engage with sex are repressed prudes who are part of the problem…  When in reality it just means education should be readily available, people should have spaces where they can explore and be themselves, and sex/sexuality shouldn’t be punished for merely existing.

And that last point I feel like should include everyone’s various relationships with sex and sexuality?  The focus should be on preventing harm, so as long as no one is harming others, they should be able to explore how they’d like—and BOTH policing who people love or what they wear or what they like to create or where they like to spend their time AND exposing unconsenting parties to lewd acts or insisting their discomfort (a feeling, not an action) is wrong are harmful.  These things can coexist!

Sometimes I feel like the prude-shaming mentality can be harmful to people who are on the ace spectrum, sex-repulsed, have sex trauma, or just like.  Have more reserved/modest proclivities (could be inherent or could be cultural, and in the latter case, criticism can be racist).  A disinterest or discomfort with sex and desire to personally steer clear of exposure is not inherently a desire to police anyone.  Actions > Feelings.

I feel like this much be such a terminally online people problem though since I know IRL—at least where I live aha—in the RACK/BDSM community for example, there’s knowledge on kink ≠ sex, but consent and clear boundaries are paramount in both.  It’s pretty understood that doing any sort of play in a public setting where onlookers haven’t consented to be in the scene is not good…  (Though, thinking about it, there is starting to be overlap…  Which I’ve seen firsthand cause problems cuz terminally online people will try and police members of the community, often older and more educated ones OTL)

Anyway this got long and winding and rambly, but just as someone who is actually into kink/BDSM in real life (and exploring transgressive/taboo erotic works in fiction), BUT is also aspec and traumagenic sex-repulsed, the discourse often makes me like

THINGS HAVE NUANCE AND NOT EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE

(Closing disclaimer I’m just sharing my personal thoughts and not trying to argue with anyone or drop a hot take, but I’d be curious to hear other people’s POVs if they want to share!)

[in-kyblogs]

https://www.tumblr.com/in-kyblogs/759335807826935808 what was that silly take!! (i agree with everything btw)

lmaoooo you’re here for the tea™️ and I respect that🫡

So I have seen two takes today (yes, only today. A lot of silly takes out there) that made me mad:

1) There are some takes out there about 2x05 saying that Armand purposely waited for Louis to get burned before saving him and also refused to give him blood to let him stay in pain. I think that there are actually zero subtextual hints in that scene to suggest that, in fact: 1) a small amount of time passes before Armand follows Louis outside, and the perception of the longer time people saying this have is largely due to the fact that the scene cuts to Dubai in the between. So, a media literacy problem. 2) Louis says ‘the pain is back’, so Armand already gave him blood and Louis is asking for more every time the pain comes back. Implying that Armand behaviour in that scene is the behavior of a twirling moustache villain intentionally causing pain is short sighted, in my opinion, and takes away from the masterful portrayal that the show does of the emotions stemming from a suicide attempt and from being the person witnessing a suicide attempt of someone close to you. Also it’s an insane mischaracterisation of Armand, whose evil is much more subtle and so much more scary for that, because he commits his most atrocious act (Claudia) from the shadows, not out in the open, cause he needs to be perceived in a somewhat good way. His whole deal is mental manipulation. I previously reblogged a post from @wizardpink that also pointed out how unfair it is to criminalise Armand for that (again, with zero hints given by the scene itself) when Lestat literally dropped Louis from the sky. Like. How does being petty about being called a groomed little bitch compares to that?

2) I was already mad about that when I saw someone saying that Lestat exhibited predatory behavior towards Louis, in the context of sexual predators. And I was like ??? He literally wants to make him a predator too. To bring him to his same world, to make Louis superior to his peers and to the same level of Lestat. He goes about that in a totally fucked up way and he totally lacks an understanding of how race will factor into Louis’ transformation, we all agree about that but comparing it to sexual predators is just misunderstanding the premise of this show. Which well, happens a lot with this show. This is also why I mostly don’t like when people analise iwtv like it was hbo succession. They sure handle some of the same themes, but it is important to remember that in literature and cinema the genre in which the story is set matters a lot to the context. People should read more fantasy and learn to move in the setting of the world they are reading about, it would do wonders to us all.

I think the crux of the matter is something Sam Reid said in that recent podcast: this is a really silly show that takes itself very seriously, and we all should be able to take it very seriously when watching it, but also recognising the silly premise it has. A lot of people aren’t able to do that. I guess this is also why people are having problems with rockstar Lestat and all that stuff, they thought a show about vampires was a psychology master thesis.

[gatheringbones]

[“In the autumn of 2016, the two of us and a colleague attended a feminist conference in Glasgow. A somewhat hostile but curious woman came over to speak with us. She ran an NGO, it turned out, that defended the rights of migrant women across Europe, and she wanted to talk to us about the men – the punters. Weren’t they disgusting, she wanted to know. How could we disagree that they should be punished? We agreed that clients are often bad, but explained that punishing them produces harms for people who sell sex. We mentioned the evictions of sex workers in Nordic countries. Our interlocutor agreed that these evictions are real; women are thrown out of their houses in Scandinavia, yes. In fact, she told us, migrant women come to her NGO complaining that they have been thrown out of flats or hotels in Sweden, sometimes in the middle of the night. She continued, a note of derision entering her voice: ‘When that happens, I just think to myself’, she told us, mimicking her interactions with these evicted women, ‘I just think, lucky you: at least you’re not murdered’. She rolled her eyes at us.

We aren’t asking you to love the sex industry. We certainly don’t. We are asking that your disgust with the sex industry and with the men – the punters – doesn’t overtake your ability to empathise with people who sell sex. A key struggle that sex workers face in feminist spaces is trying to move people past their sense of what prostitution symbolises, to grapple with what the criminalisation of prostitution materially does to people who sell sex. People in these spaces see abstractions like ‘objectification’ and ‘sexualisation’ as universally relatable everywoman concerns. When we point out that the policies which flow from such discussions often lead to sex workers being evicted or deported, we are seen as raising ‘niche’ issues – or as obtusely unable to understand the ‘bigger picture’. We need to push our sisters to grapple with the ‘niche’ questions. Nobody can build a better, more feminist world by treating sex workers’ current material needs – for income, for safety from eviction, for safety from immigration enforcement – as trivial.

Both carceral and liberal forms of feminism are attractive because they offer seemingly easy answers to complex problems. Women’s work is underpaid and undervalued? Ask for that raise! Sexual violence is endemic? Fund more cops! There’s commercial sex online? Pass legislation to kick sex workers off the internet! Carceral feminism even styles itself as radical in doing so: radically uncompromising with male sexual entitlement, radically seeking to ‘burn down’ the sex industry. Such radicalism evaporates on closer examination: cops are not feminist. The mainstream feminist movement is correct in identifying prostitution as a patriarchal institution; they conveniently miss that policing is, too. Attempting to eradicate commercial sex through policing does not tackle patriarchy; instead, it continues to produce harassment, arrest, prosecution, eviction, violence, and poverty for those who sell sex.”]

molly smith, juno mac, from revolting prostitutes: the fight for sex workers’ rights, 2018

[ovwechoes]

Juno Headcanons!

Since Juno's a new hero, these are just some headcanons and things I'd like for her to have as apart of her lore! This was requested in my last post, just in a separate one c:

Juno's main inspiration for becoming a space ranger was Winston; she was very young when she heard about the monkeys on the moon that were developed to be able to talk, understand science, and was fascinated with these discoveries. The more she learned about the work on the moon and what happened, the more her love for space grew and she entered program after program to keep improving her knowledge, and keep growing her interest in space. She always reminds Winston that he should be proud of himself because without him, she wouldn't be able to work alongside them in the way she does now.

She's not directly related to Mei, but her family were extremely close and her mother was one of the experimental scientists who worked with her in Antarctica. This is sort of confirmed with the picture of Mei and another woman inside Juno's airship on the Dorado map, but it would be really cool if it was a situation where Juno had heard all about Mei from her mother, and that Mei helped her join Overwatch and learn the ropes.

Speaking of Juno and Mei, I think while working together, Mei would definitely be like a mother to Juno. She would always try and keep her safe, tell her off for getting herself in too much danger (in a very kind and soft way of course), and would make sure she was eating and taking care of herself between missions. She knows first hand how much stress gets put on them as Overwatch agents, so she wants to help Juno as much as she can.

Juno would probably be good friends with D.Va, Tracer and Kiriko. She'd relate to them a lot more and she'd be fascinated with their own stories and life experiences, especially Tracers and with her particle accelerator. Mei would have to remind her that it's rude to ask Tracer about how it happened so bluntly, but Tracer wouldn't mind if it satisfied Juno's curiosity. She would love to learn internet slang off D.Va and would be open to joining her on live streams (since D.Va's the type to vlog everyone and hold interview style streams just so she can beat them at video games they've never touched) and Kiriko would teach her about what's going on in the world and keep her in the loop with the news.

Juno's the type of woman that once she's invested in something, there's no stopping how far she'll go to learn everything about it and understand it completely. She would get involved with it as though it was her life long dream, when in reality she's just a curious cat who needs to know everything about something that's peaked her interest.

I can imagine Juno's the type to 'kill them with kindness' and she lives by that motto. She's been raised with the same mindset as Mei's where she believes that violence isn't the answer. But, she also understands why it's used sometimes and knows that if she needs to use it too, she won't hesitate if it's for the right reasons.

Everyone keeps Juno out of the loop with what happened to Overwatch initially. It was Winston's idea, even though Brigitte is against it. He doesn't want her image of Overwatch to be tainted with Blackwatch and vigilantes that have come out as a result of Overwatch being banned. Juno knows she's working with a secret organisation that's criminalised, but she doesn't know why and it seems like she'd be the type to turn to the wrong people for answers if she was backed into a corner.

Juno has a hard time with people pleasing in the sense that she doesn't know how to stop it. Tracer's teaching her how to be better with it and stand up for herself, because it's hard for her to see someone so naïve on the frontlines. It's easy for naivety to be used against you, so she knows that Juno needs to learn how to stand up for herself and say no before it's too late.

[drbased]

This argument is fascinating to me. This whole thing is one big ad hominem, and the question is still left on the table: do you agree with the 'swerfs', then, that selling sex is bad?

Look. When it comes to 'sex work', I'm still not personally fully convinced that criminalisation is the way forward. I've seen articles and stats say that the nordic model is the best way to go about this, and I've seen articles and stats say that attempts to legalise 'sex work' have resulted in more human trafficking. I've also seen sex workers themselves arguing that things like the nordic model don't really do anything other than take their clientele away, putting them in further financial trouble, and they're not given support in terms of a real exit strategy. I don't know enough about the details of this topic to have a full opinion on it either way; being truly fully informed would mean critically combing through all sorts of statistics and spending time getting information from two incredibly opposing sides with strong agendas.

But what I do know, is that under a leftist framework, 'sex work' is categorically rape. All work under capitalism is coercive, coerced sex is rape, ergo 'sex work' is rape.

Now, in regards to defining rape, I've seen this person say that 'if that's rape, I've been raped thousands of times, and it cheapens the times when I've actually been assaulted'. To this, I say:

How many times do we hear women say 'if that's assault, then I've been assaulted?' as some sort of 'gotcha'? It has taken a great feminist effort to expand the definitions of things like rape, abuse and sexual assault from a female- and victim-centric point of view. At what point is something 'cheapening a definition'? Where do we draw the line, and why?

If trauma is the line, and real rape has to cause some categorical, measurable trauma for it to 'count', then is it even possible to draw that line? Many people who are experiencing repeated abuse (probably most, tbh) are not aware that they are traumatised. A lot of the time, people don't realise how bad something is until after the fact, when they have something to compare it to. I know we should 'listen to victims', but many victims - let's just think about victims of domestic violence, here - will swear that they're not being abused. Listening to victims, a lot of the time, means reading between the lines rather than taking them at face value. This is not duplicitous; we do this all the time with DV sufferers, cult members, etc. etc. I see no reason why rape should be treated differently.

You do realise that saying 'the majority of people sell sex because of financial desperation' is a 'swerf' argument, right? You realise how that sounds from a leftist perspective, from a feminist perspective? And if you believe that 'swerfs' are inflating the numbers of sex trafficking, then you'd better have data to back that up, because that's a monumentally evil hill to die on otherwise. But back to my main point:

If you think it was a good thing that your support network helped you to stop selling sex, if you think that financial desperation forcing you to sell sex is a bad thing, then do you agree with the 'swerfs'?