#keeping it democratic here folks

[worstqueerbaittournament]

I completely agree with the other anon about how Buck and Eddie from 911 shouldn’t be included here. Like they said, the show is still going on so they might go canon and there are other canonically queer characters in the show already.

Before I started watching 911 I heard a lot of people compare Buck and Eddie to Steve and Danny from Hawaii 5-0 (I submitted the latter to this tournament, I was big on McDanno for a while there) but after having seen 911 I simply don’t think that’s the case. Buck and Eddie are very close, yes, and they share a whole bunch of domestic and “wait are they going there” moments which Steve and Danny also have but the key difference, at least to me, is that I never for one second thought that McDanno would actually go canon whereas I’m fairly confident that Buddie will.

And it all comes down to two things, 1) the way the show itself presents the relationships and 2) how the shows are marketed.

I’ll focus on 2) because that’s what we’re here for because, you know, queerbaiting is a marketing technique.

So here’s the thing: Hawaii 5-0 actually used McDanno as a marketing technique for the show, for example the show’s official social media posts sometimes used the hashtag McDanno in trailers and sneak peeks and such to get people to tune in to the show.

Now, 911 has never done anything like that. Sure, they might share Buck and Eddie moments in trailers and sneak peeks but as far as I know, those are rarely if ever the main focus of how they market the show. And I would also argue that they don’t even show Buck and Eddie together in trailers too often. As an example, Eddie was really struggling in season 5 and in the trailer for the second half of the season we see Eddie breaking down in his room but Buck is not shown to be there in the trailer even though in the actual episode we learn that he’s in the room with Eddie (unless you count the slightest sliver of his shoulder in the corner of the screen in the trailer that is very easy to miss especially if you’re a casual viewer).

Now let me ask you this. If they were using Buddie as queerbait, wouldn’t they have made it clear in the trailer that Buck was in the room with Eddie to get more people to tune in? Wouldn’t that sort of thing be the whole point of queerbaiting?

So no, as far as I’m concerned Buck and Eddie are not queerbait and thus should not be included in this tournament.

Thank you for your perspective anon!!

(Again, I don't make the decision, the poll is still running)

[quitepossiblytall]

I’ve seen some people on here claiming that voting democrats in the election won’t stop republicans and like…yeah, duh. Voting democrat won’t make the republicans disappear but keeping them from as many venues of power as possible is good thing.

Things don’t get better from just one election. It takes sustained effort and that’s what I think the issue is. Some people don’t want to put in the effort because it’s not just this election and it’s not just the president. It’s all elections and all electable positions of power.

There is this idea that social progress is a one way street but it isn’t. The US had black elected public officials DIRECTLY after the civil war but without sustained effort to support the cause of equality the rights of black folks were scrubbed away for almost a century. The US Revolutionary Army was an integrated force something that wouldn’t happen again until 1948.

Republicans won’t stop trying to degrade our democracy if they lose this election and, if we care about our communities, we have to be there to counter them every time. I guarantee you progress will never be a one and done effort.

[herhimthem]

KOSA ISNT BEING VOTED TODAY I REPEAT KOSA ISNT BEING VOTED TODAY!!!!

https://www.senate.gov/committees/hearings_meetings.htm

THERE ISNT ANY SENATE MEETING OR HEARING TODAY. PLEASE DO NOT PANIC. WE HAVE UNTIL AFTER MARCH 13TH.

KEEP CALLING YOUR GOVERNORS AND START ORGANIZING!!! START PROTESTING OUTSIDE BUILDINGS, START MARCHING, START FIGHTING IF YOU CAN!!!!!!! AND IF YOU CANT, START SPREADING THE WORD ABIUT THESE THINGS!!!

OH MY GOD WAIT WHAT

IS THIS TRUE?? SOMEONE PLEASE COMMENT OR REBLOG AND LET ME KNOW

────────────

Update #2 - 2/26/2024

edit in case folks don't see the reblog:

Update on this.

I looked at the website and yes, there *is* no mention of any voting on KOSA happening before or past March 13th, March 13th is where the schedule ends. I'm still not sure, so keep digging for more info.

putting the link again so others can examine

U.S. Senate: Hearings & Meetings

────────────

Update #3 - 2/27/2024

ANOTHER another update, somebody relogged this with extra info

I'm gonna start putting dates on these updates so people know what's happening when

────────────

Update #4 - 3/2/2024

So, today I was on Reddit reading about KOSA, and I found this on r/AO3

Here's the Invest in Child Safety Act, it only has five cosponsors compared to KOSA's sixty-three.. wonder why..

Anyways, I was wondering, could steering reps away from KOSA while leading them towards other and SAFER bills help? :P

If these bills really ARE safer, wouldn't it give us a better chance of KOSA not being passed if we gave our Senators and Reps examples of alternative bills they could support?

Like, instead of just saying "DON'T DO THIS!!!" We could say "DON'T DO THIS, but THIS is a better alternative that will keep everyone safe AND actually be helpful."

I have a feeling most of the Democrats supporting this bill have fallen for the "We're protecting the children!!" farse. So, let's not just tell them the problem, but offer a solution! An alternative that will ACTUALLY protect children.

I posted this as it's own thing, but I wanted to add it to this update thread so people are more likely to see it.

Please post this on other sites, on Twitter, TikTok, other Reddit pages, etc. I only ask that you cover-up my username :]

(link to the actual post)

[antidrumpfs]

Here’s the thing. It’s an agenda nobody asked for. It’s an agenda that serves nobody, except the richest and the most extreme amongst us.

Freedom. When Republicans use the word freedom, they mean that the government should be free to invade your doctor’s office. Corporations — free to pollute your air and water. And banks — free to take advantage of customers.

But when we Democrats talk about freedom, we mean the freedom to make a better life for yourself and the people that you love. Freedom to make your own health care decisions. And yeah, your kids’ freedom to go to school without worrying about being shot dead in the hall. Look, I know guns. I’m a veteran. I’m a hunter. And I was a better shot than most Republicans in Congress, and I’ve got the trophies to prove it. But I’m also a dad. I believe in the Second Amendment, but I also believe our first responsibility is to keep our kids safe.

That’s what this is all about. The responsibility we have to our kids, to each other and to the future that we’re building together, in which everyone is free to build the kind of life they want.

But not everyone has that same sense of responsibility. Some folks just don’t understand what it takes to be a good neighbor. Take Donald Trump and JD Vance.

Their Project 2025 will make things much, much harder for people who are just trying to live their lives. They spend a lot of time pretending they know nothing about this. But look, I coached high school football long enough to know, and trust me on this: When somebody takes the time to draw up a playbook, they’re going to use it.

And we know, if these guys get back in the White House, they’ll start jacking up the costs on the middle class. They’ll repeal the Affordable Care Act. They’ll gut Social Security and Medicare. And they will ban abortion across this country, with or without Congress.

Here’s the thing. It’s an agenda nobody asked for. It’s an agenda that serves nobody, except the richest and the most extreme amongst us. And it’s an agenda that does nothing for our neighbors in need.

Is it weird? Absolutely. Absolutely. But it’s also wrong, and it’s dangerous. It’s not just me saying so, it’s Trump’s own people. They were with him for four years. They’re warning us that the next four years will be much, much worse. - Tim Walz

[nothorses]

youre the first person ive seen since biden drop out who seems genuinely positive abt it, everyone else ive seen is being rlly negative or making jokes and it scared me a lot.... can you explain, or link to another post or article, that explains why its good that he dropped out? i keep seeing everyone saying that biden didnt do anything, then that he did so many things, thrn stuff saying kamala is a bad choice to endorse then you sounded so positive abt her and im very confused ): i avoid politics a lot cuz i live w a very protrump dad and its so difficult to find accurate information that isnt seaped in memes and sarcasm and pessimism but you sounded very genuine! thanks for any help <3

I went into more depth over here! I also wanna share a couple of videos I've been getting these perspectives from, because these folks are a lot more educated on the topic than I am.

I first heard the perspective that Biden was woefully unlikely to win from Olayemi Ulurin, in this video. She has a kind of "I can't blame anyone for not voting" perspective that I do think I agree with, largely because she's coming at it with nuance: Biden is not a compelling candidate, he's not likely to win, it makes sense people don't wanna vote for him, and the Democrats need to get their shit together and pick someone else.

She also posted this video (below) that goes way more in-depth into the issue, and which I think reflects (and GREATLY expands and adds to) my personal stance on the "vote blue no matter who" thing: i.e., voting is ultimately about making the fight easier for activists who are working for real change. It's important for that reason, not because the person you vote for can be trusted to do anything helpful of their own volition.

If you're gonna watch any of the videos I link here, watch that one.

The other source I've looked to a lot recently is Some More News, which is where I initially heard a lot more detail on the "Biden should drop out oh god oh please it's our only hope" perspective.

First was their podcast episode immediately following the recent Biden/Trump debate, in which they delve (somewhat casually, but thoroughly) into why Biden's 2024 campaign was so fucking terrifying for everyone who needs a Democrat win:

They also get into more detail on the topic here, in another podcast episode:

Those two videos are great just for understanding this election and why Biden dropping out is very much the best thing that could have happened. That's basically the topic for the full length of both podcast videos (where Olayemi just kind of touches on that specific question, in comparison). If you just want more details on that question and only have the capacity for one of these, you could probably watch either podcast video (I personally have only watched part of the second one, and all of the first one).

I'd also recommend these two channels for political insight in general.

Olayemi is great because she comes at things from an explicitly activist perspective, and she has a huge personal background in very grounded, concrete political activism, especially as a black immigrant woman. She brings in a lot of other experts as well, often themselves marginalized political activists, which is just a fantastic way to be exposed to a really awesome diversity of knowledgeable perspectives without having to look very far on your own. She's also relentlessly hopeful- and grounded in that hope- which is so, so important and refreshing.

Some More News is a good supplementary to Olayemi, imo, just in that they have a good, upbeat (and again, very grounded) energy, and they cover a lot of very current political stuff in an easy-to-digest kind of way. I find both them and Olayemi really fun to watch, but the vibes are definitely different between the two, and they're good counterpoints to each other- plus they tend to cover different stuff, which just helps broaden your awareness of what's going on, again without needing to look super far.

I know this is a lot of information; hopefully I've made it possible to sift through for the piece you actually want to start with, though. If nothing else, I really encourage folks to check out Olayemi and see if any of her videos catch their eye. She's really fantastic, and her stuff scratches my "video to do laundry to" itch while also being, like, a really valuable watch overall.

Best of luck!!

[kp777]

By Thom Hartmann

Common Dreams

Nov. 16, 2023

What baffles me is why a TV news personality who earns $2.9 million a year would go to such lengths to avoid even mentioning a solution that’s been signed onto repeatedly by virtually every Democrat in Congress for over a decade.

Why did NBC’s Kristen Welker use an incomplete frame for her question about Social Security at last week’s GOP debate, and why didn’t Lester Holt or anybody else correct her?

Here’s her question:

KRISTEN WELKER: “Americans could see their Social Security benefits drastically cut in the next decade because the program is running out of money. Former President Trump has said quote, ‘Under no circumstances should Republicans cut entitlements.’ Governor Christie, first to you, you have proposed raising the retirement age for younger Americans. What would that age be specifically, and would you consider making any other reforms to Social Security?”

The simple reality is that if a person earns $160,200 a year or less, they pay a 6.2% tax on all of their income. In other words, a person making exactly $160,200 pays $9,932.40 (6.2%) in Social Security taxes.

If you earn $12,000 a year, $56,000 a year, $98,000 a year, or anything under $160,200 a year, you also pay 6.2 cents of tax toward Social Security on every single dollar you earn. If you made $10,000 last year, you pay $620 in Social Security taxes: 6.2 percent. Like the old saying about death and taxes, you can’t avoid it.

BUT those people who make over $160,200 a year pay absolutely nothing — no tax whatsoever — to fund Social Security on every dollar they earn over that amount. After Warren Buffett or Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos pay their $9,932.40 in Social Security taxes on that first $160,200 they took home on the first day of January, every other dollar they take home for the rest of the year is completely Social Security tax-free.

If somebody makes $1,602,000, for example, it would seem fair that, like every other American, they’d pay the same 6.2% ($99,324) in Social Security taxes. But, no: they only pay the $9,932.40 and after that they get to ride tax-free.

If somebody earned $16,020,000 it would seem fair that they’d pay the same 6.2% to support Social Security as 96 percent of Americans do, but no. Instead of paying $1,004,400 in taxes, they only pay $9,932.40.

Hedge fund guys who make a billion a year — yes, there are several of them — can certainly afford to pay 6.2% to keep Social Security solvent. At that rate, they’d be paying $62 million on a billion-dollar income in Social Security taxes as their fair share of maintaining America’s social contract.

But, because the tax rate is capped to “protect” the morbidly rich while sticking the rest of us with the full bill for Social Security, those titans of Wall Street pay the same $9,932.40 as the doctor who lives down the street from you and earns $160,200 a year.

This is, to use the economic technical term, nuts.

And, while every wealthy person in America knows all about this because it’s such a huge benefit to them, I’ll bet fewer than five percent of Americans know how this scam for the rich works. (I searched diligently, but couldn’t find a single survey that asked average folks if they knew about the cap.)

There is no other tax in America that works like this. Most have loopholes designed to promote specific socially desirable goals, like the deductibility of home mortgage interest or children, but no other tax is designed so that anybody earning over $160,200 is completely exempt and no longer has to pay a penny after their first nine thousand or so dollars.

And here’s where it gets really bizarre: if millionaires and billionaires paid the exact same 6.2% into Social Security that most of the rest of us do (and paid it on their investment income, which is also 100% exempt today), the program would not only be solvent for the next 75 years, but it would have so much extra cash that everybody on Social Security could get a significant raise in their monthly benefit payments.

But because America’s morbidly rich don’t want to pay their share for keeping Social Security solvent, Republicans are having a debate about how badly they can screw working class retirees.

They ask:

“Shall we cut the Social Security payments?”

“How about raising the retirement age from 67 (Reagan raised it from 65 to 67) to 70 or even 72?”

“Or maybe we should just hand the entire thing off to JPMorgan or Wells Fargo and let them run it, like we’re doing with Medicare? We could call it Social Security Advantage!”

“Or how about turning Social Security into a welfare program by ‘means testing’ it, so rich people can’t draw from it and every budget year it can become a political football for the GOP like food stamps or WIC?”

Responding to Welker’s severely incomplete question, Chris Christie hit all four:

GOVERNOR CHRISTIE: “Sure, and we have to deal with this problem. Now look, if we raise the retirement age a few years for folks that are in their thirties and forties, I have a son who’s in the audience tonight who’s 30 years old. If he can’t adjust to a few year increase in Social Security retirement age over the next 40 years, I got bigger problems with him than his Social Security payments. “And the fact is we need to be realistic about this. There are only three things that go into determining whether Social Security can be solvent or not. Retirement age, eligibility for the program in general, and taxes. That’s it. We are already overtaxed in this country and we should not raise those taxes. But on eligibility also, I don’t know if out there tonight and if you’re watching Warren, I don’t know if Warren Buffett is collecting Social Security, but if he is, shame on you. You shouldn’t be taking the money.”

Christie was the only one of the five Republicans on the stage who even dared mention taxes.

Nikki Haley said:

“So first of all, any candidate that tells you that they’re not going to take on entitlements, is not being serious. Social Security will go bankrupt in 10 years, Medicare will go bankrupt in eight.”

Neither of those assertions are even remotely true, but, of course, this was a GOP debate. She continued:

“But for like my kids in their twenties, you go and you say we’re going to change the rules, you change the retirement age for them. Instead of cost of living increases, we should go to increases based on inflation. We should limit benefits on the wealthy.”

Her other solution, apropos of nothing, was to end government responsibility for Medicare and privatize the entire program by shutting down real Medicare and throwing us all to the tender mercies of the health insurance billionaires:

“And then expand Medicare Advantage plans. Seniors love that and let’s make sure we do that so that they can have more competition. That’s how we’ll deal with entitlement reform and that’s how we’ll start to pay down this debt.”

Ramaswamy’s answer was so incoherent and off-topic I won’t repeat it here. Suffice it to say he rambled on about the cost of foreign wars (Ukraine, Israel) “that many blood-thirsty members of both parties have a hunger for.” Apparently, Vivek doesn’t realize that Social Security isn’t part of our government’s overall budget but has its own segregated funds and trust fund.

Since it’s creation in 1935, Social Security never has and never will contribute to the budget deficit or influence any other kind of government spending.

Tim Scott said we should take a cue from Reagan, Bush, and Trump and just cut billionaires’ income taxes again because that does such a great job of stimulating the economy (not) and then claw back the inflation-based raises people on Social Security have received the past three years.

“Number two, you have to cut taxes. … So what we know is that the Laffer Curve still works, for the lower the tax, the higher the revenue. And finally, if we’re going to deal with it, we have to take our annual appropriations back to pre-2020, pre-COVID levels of spending, which would save us about a half a trillion dollars in the next budget window. By doing that, we deal with Social Security and our mandatory spending.”

DeSantis was equally incoherent, also refusing to answer the question about raising the retirement age and completely avoiding any mention of the sweetheart deal his billionaire donors get on their Social Security taxes. Instead, he said we needed to get inflation under control and stop Congress from “taking money from Social Security,” something Congress has never done and legally never will be able to do.

All this incoherence aside, Republicans appear to have a plan to deal with Social Security.

House Speaker MAGA Mike Johnson has been pushing a “Catfood Commission” just like Reagan’s 1983 commission that raised the retirement age to 67, reaffirmed the cap on taxes, and made Social Security checks taxable as income. He no doubt expects his commissioners will provide “recommendations” Republicans can run with to cut benefits without raising taxes on their billionaire donors, all while blaming it on the commissioners just like Reagan did in 1983.

When Johnson said that his “top priority” was creating such a commission “immediately” and that his Republican colleagues had responded to the idea “with great enthusiasm,” Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee responded on Xitter:

“A week into his tenure, MAGA Mike Johnson is ALREADY calling for closed-door cuts to the Social Security and Medicare benefits American workers have earned through decades of hard work.”

But back to the original question. I understand why Republicans refuse to even consider lifting the cap on Social Security taxes so their morbidly rich donors won’t have to start paying their fair share of Social Security to keep the program solvent.

What baffles me is why a TV news personality who earns $2.9 million a year would go to such lengths to avoid even mentioning a solution that’s been signed onto repeatedly by virtually every Democrat in Congress for over a decade.

I’ve been watching Kristen Welker on television for years, and she’s generally been a pretty straight shooter as a reporter. Ditto for Lester Holt, who sat right beside her. This, frankly, astonished me.

Were they afraid Republicans would exact revenge on them if they raised the question of the tax cap?

Or was it precisely because they’re making millions, just like most of the executives they answer to?

More broadly, is this why we almost never hear any discussion whatsoever in the media — populated with other news stars who also make millions a year, managed by millionaire network executives — about lifting the cap?

One hopes the answer isn’t that crass...

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

[pudding-parade]

Sorry, but I have to get political on all your asses, at least those of you who live in the US. It will be a one-time thing on this subject, the only thing that I will say here about the election before it happens. And yeah, I'm going to say this on a blog devoted to a stupid video game. Why? Because I know that I have younger American people who follow me here, and if y'all are like some of the younger people I've talked to in real life and online in other venues, I have concerns. So I'm going to say all this as an old-ass, progressive American. Because if I can wake up one apathetic mind out there, it will be worth it. And if you're pissed at me for making a single political post at this important juncture, then fuck off and unfollow me or send me nasty messages or whatever you want to do. I don't care. And I'm not cutting this, either.

My dear followers: Donald Trump cannot -- CANNOT -- become president again.

Late last night, Trump posted on his Truth Social account a video containing language and images reminiscent of the World War era. It was about his fantasies of what America would be like, should he win the general election in about five months. It contained suspicious imagery and phrases like "creating a unified Reich." Does that sort of language sound familiar? Especially when combined with his rhetoric about immigrants being "vermin" that "poison the blood of our country?" Ring any bells? I'm sure it does for any German folks who might read this.

Trump's post was only taken down about 12 hours later, after backlash over it, and then Trump claimed that a "low level staffer" posted it, not him. Which is either a lie OR he was lying when he said previously that only he and his campaign's communications director have or will ever have access to that account. If you want more info about this, here's a short video from Jesse Dollemore, an independent commentator:

This election isn't about liberal/progressive vs. conservative. It truly doesn't matter what your personal ideology is because this election is about saving democracy. This is about preserving your freedoms, because we won't be able to do anything about any other issue, whatever our individual ideologies and pet issues are, if our basic freedoms upon which this country was founded -- freedom of speech and to protest, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of the press -- are chipped away until they are gone. Because that's what autocrats do. They want freedom only for themselves, and Donald Trump and his cronies and hangers-on are all autocrat wannabes.

And if you -- Yes, you, even if you're sitting in the middle of blood-red state -- don't vote for Joe Biden, you will be doing your part to hand the autocrats what they want, because a non-vote or a vote for anyone other than Biden is in fact a vote for Trump and autocracy. Similarly, you must also vote for Democrats for all other positions, local, state, and federal so that America's overt flirtation with autocracy that's been going on since at least the 1990s might finally end once and for all.

Yes, yes, I know: "But Genocide Joe!" Think about it: Do you seriously think that Trump, who licks Netanyahu's asshole because he sees him as the kind of "strong man" that Trump wants to be, is going to help Gaza? Or that he'll go against Putin and continue aid to Ukraine? Because if you think that he will do either of those things, I have several bridges I'd like to sell you. No, Trump is going to "put America first." He says it all the time, and what he means by that is that he will do nothing except whatever it takes to keep himself and his cronies in power while also isolating America by severing ties to our allies. Gaza will be given to Netanyahu just as Ukraine will be given to Putin, should Trump win, and he won't give a shit. In the end, Biden (and Harris, should she have to take over) will listen and help Gaza, maybe not as much as we'd like because the Middle East situation is complicated and there are no simple solutions, but a Biden-led government will certainly help more than another Trumpian government would. And Biden will definitely continue to aid Ukraine, because that situation isn't complicated at all.

And in the end, it's not really about Ukraine and Gaza, though they are of course important. It's about us. Should Trump get into the White House again, he will surround himself with people who want America to be a plutocratic and authoritarian autocracy, very similar to Putin's Russia. This is not hyperbole. This is fact. A vote for Trump -- either actual or de facto by fucking around with not voting or voting for a third party because you think it's a "protest" -- is a vote to end democracy, plain and simple, which might very well mean that you'll never be able to protest again another day.

How bad could Trump be, you ask? Who cares who is president? Well, have a look at Project 2025. It's a 900-page "playbook" for the next "conservative" administration. (In quotes because there is nothing "conservative" about these people, including Trump and his cronies; they are radicals.) It is nothing less than a plan to destroy the federal government, the Constitution, and the freedoms that it enshrines and protects, which means the end of democracy. They published a similar tome before Reagan was elected, and once he was in, Reagan followed through with a lot of it. I have no doubt that Trump would, too, given that his "Agenda 47" platform is basically the same. Here is an article that summarizes Project 2025 and details some of its directives. And here is an article from Time Magazine, of all things, where the writer of it interviewed Trump about his vision for America, should he win. The first line of the article is, "Donald Trump thinks he’s identified a crucial mistake of his first term: He was too nice." You can read the transcripts of the interviews, too, so you can rest assured that the interviewer isn't being hyperbolic.

It ain't good, folks. Part of this extreme-right agenda is ridiculously expanding the power of the executive branch so that it would no longer be checked and balanced by Congress and the Supreme Court, which effectively turns the presidency into a dictatorship. And if Biden does not win, at least some of this bullshit will come to pass, especially because Trump already has the Supreme Court in his pocket. And he'll be able to appoint more young, far-right lunatics to that, too, should he win.

I'll repeat that Trump CANNOT win. I'll be the first to say that, as a pretty extreme (but also pragmatic) progressive, I'm not Biden's biggest fan, for various reasons. He is way farther right than I am, though he has been far more progressive-friendly than I expected and he has gotten some very good things done. But even if he wasn't and hadn't, he will preserve democracy and because of that, I will be voting for him without hesitation. I won't even have to hold my nose. Trump and his cronies in Congress and the Supreme Court will destroy democracy if you -- Yes, YOU! -- let them. And if you let them by deciding not to vote or doing some sort of lame "protest" vote, especially if you live in that handful of states where every presidential vote matters, you will have no one to blame but yourself and others like you. People being apathetic or doing "protest" votes is what got us Trump the first time around.

For fuck's sake, do the right thing.

[the-rad1o-demon]

Please share, and donate if you can!!

$375 is way too low right now to be of any use in stopping KOSA, so the more you share, the better, and it's also great if you're able to also donate (only if you're able to do so without worsening whatever monetary and/or safety situation you're in)!!

This bill affects all of us. Both children and adults of the following: the LGBTQ+ community, Black communities, Latinx communities, Native American communities, Asian communities.

It will affect ex-Jehovah's Witnesses, and younger folks still trapped. Same thing for ex-Catholics and children/teens still trapped in the Catholic Church. Same thing for Mormons.

This bill affects everyone, okay? There is no beating around the bush. It has been stated time and again by literal lawmakers that this bill is a censorship bill. Senator Blackburn, co-author of the KOSA bill, said herself it would be used to "protect children from the transgender."

So please help keep the fight going. Because the more of us contribute, the bigger chance we have of winning.

And don't fall for that "oh, what I do won't matter much, other people will do it" line of thought.

Even if you think other people will help: please help anyway. We are running out of time, and when one person falls into this line of thinking, so does everyone else, and then nothing happens. So if you can, please help anyway, because we need all we can get. It's all hands on deck at this point.

So far, chances of KOSA being enacted is 31% according to the site linked below.

We need to get it down to zero. 31% is way too big still.

Also, here's a petition you can sign!! If you can't donate, signing will also be a big help (I also recommend signing even if you do donate).

You can also call your senators' offices!!

(Correct call script document in post this time as opposed to comment section, ha!)

The call scripts linked below were originally for Congressional representatives, but now that the bill is in committee consideration by Senate Commerce, you should call your Senators instead and you can use the scripts for them. Also, when calling your Democrat senators, make sure to add that Senator Blackburn explicitly stated in interview that it would be used to "protect children from the transgender." I think it's pretty clear that this is not meant to protect children. It's just going to harm children further, especially trans children.

(Article below with a video of the interview embedded.)

Please help keep the fight going. If we let up for even a second, the bill might get passed and the fucking conservatives will win this round. Yeah, we can still fight after, but it's going to be so much harder with how much damage KOSA is going to do to social media sites and our ability to communicate online.

We need to stop KOSA now, if we want the best chance at protecting our freedom on the Internet.

[newdog14]

I want to talk to everyone who's still saying "I know Biden is bad, but Trump is worse, so just vote Blue."

I know that American Politics sucks right now. Everyone is a bad option and every year our options get worse. I get it, and it sucks, but here's the thing: If we keep saying "Vote Blue no matter what!" then the Democratic party is never going to get better. In fact, it'll probably get worse, because if ignoring the voices of their voter base doesn't lose them votes, then why bother listening?

If you want things to get better, if you want politicians that you can vote for without feeling like you've betrayed your ethics, then we need to show that we WILL stop voting for people who we don't agree with. We need to show that the American people have heard Biden's Administration say "There are no red lines for Israel" and we do not agree.

Politicians only care about us for our votes. If supporting genocides demonstrably loses votes, then politicians will take note and change their policies in accordance. But if we vote Biden no matter what, if we vote Blue no matter what, then they aren't going to listen to us when we call and protest and scream.

Now, some of you may be thinking, what about Trump?

There is a chance he won't be able to run after all; he's currently in a legal shit storm that got his ability to do business in New York revoked. And with many of his co-defendants and associates pleading guilty things aren't looking good for him. Even if he can dodge the numerous felony fraud charges he's been hit with, this is going to be an expensive, embarrassing, dragged out process that will severely limit his time and funds for campaigning.

That doesn't mean he won't find his way onto the ballot anyway, but he hasn't won the Republican nomination yet. Even if he does though, sticking by Biden doesn't mean you're putting someone better in the White House. Given the ever climbing death toll that Biden is not just ignoring but enabling, it’s getting increasingly difficult, at least for me, to believe that Trump is actually worse. They’re both bad, and they’re both hurting people, so instead let’s look at why so many are clinging to the democratic party, even in the face of a genocide.

I know the biggest reason so many folks are hesitating to cut support for Biden is that they're worried about what that means for those of us in the United States.

Who will stop the anti-trans bathroom bills that keep popping up? Who will keep abortion bans off the books? Who will prevent censorship in schools?

Well, in point of fact, not your president!

Think about it. Did Biden being president put a stop to Florida's "don't say gay" bill? No. He had zero impact there.

Is he what stands between Virginia and the Abortion Ban currently being proposed for the state? Also no. He's not involved at all.

Has Biden stopped the bans on Drag Shows so many states are trying to implement? No, the Federal Courts have been doing that, including judges who were appointed by Trump.

See, the President of the United States is all about the big picture. Their opinions matter, and they can set a tone for their party, but they don’t control everything. Their impacts on the governing of states come from the people they appoint, like judges, but even then, most people will still do their jobs over pleasing the person who got them that job. Especially so because federal judges are actually really difficult to remove, and that only really happens if they’re so bad at following the rules that congress gets rid of them.

I’m not sure if Biden can’t stop states from making laws or if he just wouldn’t, but either way he’s not protecting us. 

The President honestly can’t do a hell of a lot to the American people, especially not in just four years. That’s why we survived Trump’s first presidency, and it’s why we as a whole would survive it if he got a second term.

The place where a President’s influence is immediately and drastically felt, however, is in the international sphere. The American people are protected, the citizens of the world are not, and with that fun little “well we’re not declaring war” workaround, the President, aka the Commander in Chief of the US Military, can do a hell of a lot of damage.

The people of Palestine may not survive another four years of Biden’s presidency. If things carry on like they are, they may not survive the remaining one year of his term.

So we the American people need to show that we will not stand by a president that endorses genocide. We need to show that we will not stand by a party that endorses genocide. We need to start talking, and loudly, about how we will not be voting for Biden next year. We need it to be clear that it is specifically his foreign policy that has lost his support, and that we will not be willing to just switch him out for a newer model who reminds me of no one so much as a modern day Aaron Burr.

There are a lot of things that we can do to express our displeasure for Biden, and for Israel, and there are a lot of people who can help you call for change, plan boycotts, organize marches, and determine where to aim direct action to have the greatest impact. But all of that needs to be done while putting our votes where our voices are, or else all of that rage will burn out and nothing will really change, just like it has in the Black Lives Matter movement.

In this case, as we do not currently have a better option, the place to put our presidential votes is with no one.

It’s not an ideal solution, I know. After all the years we’ve spent saying, “Vote! Vote no matter what! Vote or else you can’t complain about what happens!”, not voting feels like one of the most counterproductive moves to make. The reason we have to do it though, is because voting in the same sort of people and hoping they’ll make things better isn’t working, and we’re never going to get new options if we keep supporting the old ones. Cutting support for Biden, for Democrats on the national level, without a viable alternative isn't an easy choice to make. It's scary and I admit that it's kind of a gamble. No one has ever tried it before, not the way I'm hoping you all will.

Have you ever heard the phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?” It’s time for us to break. No more unconditional blue votes. 

We have to force the Democratic party to recognize that their voting base will not just mindlessly support them, and that the candidates they put forth will be expected to hold up a certain moral standard. Our democracy is skewed to favor the opinions of corporations and the mega rich, but politicians do still need the masses to vote them into office, just like companies need us to buy things so that they can make money in the first place, and voting margins are tight enough that just like in the Speaker of the House vote, it won’t actually take that many of us to throw a wrench in the party’s bottom line.

We might not be able to win, but we can make sure that they lose until they shape up and start making meaningful changes.

And you may be thinking, won’t that just leave us in the hands of Republicans?

I want you to scroll back up. Look at all the bills I brought up that Biden didn’t stop. We are already in Republican hands, and the majority of Democrats are not willing to actually stand up to them.

That said, not voting across the board isn’t what I’m asking you to do. 

Our choices for President may be shot to hell, but there will be other people on that ballot in 2024. Local people, who will very directly affect your hometown and not much outside of it. Vote for your local sheriff, for your school board members, for your mayor and your state delegates. 

These are the people who control whether or not your senator can pass a drag show ban. These are the people who enable or block bills that hurt LGBTQ+ students. These are the folks who vote on whether or not to pass abortion bans. And in local elections? Your vote really, truly counts in a way that it just can’t on a national level.

And it’s not just people who wind up on your ballots. Local initiatives for conservation, funding for infrastructure, redistricting drives, and changes to your state’s constitution appear on your ballots too, and those are things that you’re going to want to have a say in.

There’s more to this mess than just voting or not voting, of course. There is always going to be more than one step we have to take to force change. That's why we cannot and do not vote inside a vacuum. We still have to make calls, and go to protests, and put our money where our morals are. Change isn't easy, and when you're fighting a decades old machine it's not quick either. But the longer we drag our feet about pushing back, the longer we keep betting on the lesser evil to change, the worse our options will get.

It might feel hopeless right now. Like our voices don't matter, and that we're screaming our lungs out alone. We can't give up though. We can't give into despair, and we can’t let up the pressure before new voices step forward, even if it takes time, and even if it takes more effort then checking a box or sharing a post.

One step will never be enough on its own, but every step we take adds up, and when we take those steps together we magnify our voices into something that cannot be ignored.

This is how we force our politicians to change: consequences and losses. If we start up early enough we might even get better options who could actually win the presidency, but we can't balk if we don't.

I know you might be scared to lose this election. As I write this, it feels counterintuitive, and it's something I never could have imagined saying years ago. But we can't change our political options unless we force politicians to change, and that only happens if they can't get elected as they are.

So don't elect them, and make sure they know that you're doing it on purpose and for a reason.

[ladydeath-vanserra]

Rural Communities, Illyria, Yt Liberalism/Leftism + Classism

I'm having a hard time putting into words how I feel performative activism and political pandering plays into the way the IC works with Illyria

like

ok so I'm from rural Iowa. I am from a community of people who are prideful and hate handouts. we'd rather break our backs working ourselves into the ground instead of asking for help

now, I am looking at these Illyrians. these close-knit peoples who are prideful and work themselves ragged. As someone from a poor family, in a poor, prideful, relatively 'conservative' area, I can see a lot of similarities between Ilyria and my home. Not so much the rampant wing clipping and violent misogyny, but the pride and stubbornness that gets in our own way (note: misogyny, racism, ableism, etc etc etc are often the results of settler colonialism + yt supremacy. they just don't come out of NOwhere and were/are used as a tool to keep yt rich folks in places of power by causing class divide)

enter Cassian and the IC, people who greatly dislike the Illyrians, who routinely look down on them and call them backwards, uneducated, etc (note: this stereotypical language is due to racist undertones, canonically. This is just from my own perspective as someone from a low class rural area)

Cassian, who somehow has a victim complex due to the systemic problems of Illyria, but also does not actively push for Real Systemic Change outside of making the women Also be warriors, comes into the camps, he brings blankets, small tokens to help aid them and personally, if I saw someone from my home town who had made it very clear of how he actually feels about us try to give us blankets? I would not take a damn thing from him bec which is it? are we just the absolute Worst People Ever or do you feel *sorry* for us. And even if that is not his intention, which I don't think it is at all, he has proven time and again he's "better" than them

Cassian more-or-less scorned the Illyrians, as did Rhys and Azriel, and the more Cassian keeps aligning with Rhys compared to finding solidarity and alliances and progressivism with the Illyrians, the more alienated and isolated he's going to make himself from them

Cassian aligning himself with Rhys and the IC and Velaris and the High Lord's family removed him from the class and community solidarity if his own community. He profits off of the systemic problems that are in place despite having been a victim of the same problems

a lot of the ICs performative actions and pandering towards the Illyrians, just enough to get what they want out of them (bodies for a war), and their inability to push for actual, progressive and real change quite honestly reminds me a lot of the yt liberal and democratic politicians who look down on rural folks and have called us backwards and uneducated and hicks.

The IC hide their own prejudices and bigotry behind a shield of contempt and the systemic problems of the Illyrians, the same way I see from a lot of leftist + yt liberals here in the cities

The Illyrians have very real problematic systemic issues that need addressed and actively changed. And it's very interesting, for me, that the wing clipping and violence towards Illyrian women are so highlighted when violent misogyny seems to be fairly normal/common among the fae, in general, according to SJM, anyways

The way you combat systemic issues is through education, social programs and funding, policy changing, etc

what, exactly, is the IC doing for the people of Illyria outside of small performative gestures and "change takes time"

I see the same social problems of "change takes time" with democratic policies and I look at rural areas, and the Illyrians, who need help NOW. they're people getting routinely abandoned or forgotten unless we're needed for something bec they're "backwards" and "uneducated" and "hicks"

I'm not sure if I'm wording this well, tbh, but it feels very... familiar to what I have experienced living in rural Iowa for most of my life compared with the last few years here in the city

tagging: @bookishfeylin @kateprincessofbluewhales @acotardeservesbetter @ae-neon @andramoreaux

[faranae]

So the mainstream media is basically bullying Biden for ratings and indirectly helping Trump's campaign. (Rant.)

It's cooling down a little now, but it's been genuinely distressing how even the more left-leaning mainstream media won't shut the fuck up about Biden doing bad at the debate.

We get it: Biden is old. But why so little coverage on all of Trump's lies through and since the debate? Because the American people already know Trump lies, and they're desensitized to it. Talking about Trump's lies doesn't get clicks. Making people angry about Biden, however, does bring in the views. Lemme say that one more time:

Reporting on Trump's lies doesn't make them as much money; Exaggerating Biden's flaws, however, does.

Americans are literally fighting to keep their democracy and these outlets only care about bringing up the same drama over and over again for ratings. They can hardly mention a single good thing Biden has done without shoehorning in at least one or two comments about how "everyone is saying he should step down." If Biden steps down, Trump will most likely win. Full stop.

The other day I was listening to 4 different mainstream news outlets talking about how "so many" Democrats in the house and senate had publicly called for Biden to step down. The total at that time? Nine people. That's 9 out of over 250 Democrats. A few more have popped up since, but that was "so many"?

It has never been so obvious that CNN was essentially taken over in the shadows a couple years ago by billionaire John Malone (who claims he's a Libertarian, but is a Trump donor who hangs with far-righters.) Watching otherwise competent newscasters and panelists resort to soap opera-levels of bad acting to push the narrative their bosses wanted was some painful secondhand embarrassment.

Another example: MSNBC, which is pretty damn left, posted the following the other day:

That sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? Here's the thing though: SEN. BLUMENTHAL LITERALLY DID NOT SAY THAT. The actual quote is as follows:

"I am deeply concerned about Joe Biden winning this November, because it is an existential threat to the country if Donald Trump wins. So I think that we have to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. And I think, Joe Biden, as the Democratic nominee, has my support."

What kind of context-shredding garbage was that, MSNBC? It's straight-up misleading; A lie through omission. But unless you were to look up the video or a full article, you'd never know that.

We get it. Biden is old. Here's the thing though: It's not only a vote for Biden, it's a vote for the Democratic administration he brings with him. Biden may be the nominee, but he is surrounded by highly educated folks who have the American people in mind rather than blind MAGA loyalty. You may not agree with some of their policy, but you cannot deny that a MAGA administration would be far, far worse.

If you haven't yet, please look up "Project 2025".

As much as it sucks being in what is essentially a 2-party system, it's what the Americans are stuck with for now. So I leave you with this:

Not voting is a free vote for Trump.

Voting third-party is a free vote for Trump.

Voting for a write-in is a free vote for Trump.

For the love of democracy, vote blue; No matter who.

/endrant

[kojoty]

It's obviously a complex question and discussion and I'm certainly admitting to a level of blue-state privilege wherein my vote really only matters in so far as working towards getting funding for a third party, like green; not to mention the privilege of, being in such a blue swaddled state, my rights are not immediately at stake-- so I am including myself in this but.

I really, really, really, really wish people in blue states like Cali, new York, Illinois, etc-- heart of dem territory and the places where your rights are NOT at contest-- would sometimes shut the fuck up and listen to the extremely valid worries and fears and pleas of people in deep red states. I think saying 'it doesn't matter who is in office, they're basically two sides of the same coin', while true ideologically in the grand leftist scheme, it also does betray a certain level of handwaving to millions of Americans where who is in office DOES matter.

And I know this is the anti colonialism website, and so we don't really want to talk about domestic issues as much as foreign policies-- completely understandable given the current global conflict-- but consider America is a vile colonial project, that which we do to our domestic underclasses IS a colonial issue as well.

I am not going to say 'go vote!' because who am I, Hillary Clinton? But I guess I am trying to say... It is really frustrating as someone who does a lot of on-the-ground community resource work in his fairly privileged area and see how the difference in economic status between a democratic and a republican president really matters, and then come on here and see the ever present leftist issue of taking ideology over material. I cannot imagine the landscape of on the ground resource work in more impoverished areas.

(most Marxists in this website really obfuscate how much material work they actually do, and are, in fact, often pontificating on ideological castles in the sky, but that's another post)

The tldr here really is: the amount of deep red state southerners who are telling you with crystal clarity that someone like Harris in office is magnitudes safer than someone like Trump in office, and urging people in states where it matters to vote....... I mean. You don't have to listen to them (even though I think you should hear their perspective), but the least you could do is not completely ignore and shun the very real realities of millions of Americans who are with good reason scared shitless that one nominee will keep the liberal hegemony (also vile-- don't take this as me condoning it), and the other will systematically make their very existence illegal. That isn't to say it can't still happen-- roe v wade-- under a dem, but. You... You do realize that it does actually matter to some people in certain states whether the pres is red or blue, right? And that yes it sucks that we have to play by American rules to keep some folks safe but.

Idk. The amount of 'leftists' on this site who paradoxically care far more about their ideological purity than the actual people who need actual material work done is... Well, that's not my leftism tbh. The amount of condescension I see levied at people daily on here. It's not just a bad look. It's Imo betraying to me that your politics are more about signpostibg and being right than actual community and human care and connection . And it happens! Ideology is a tantalizing thing. I have to constantly divorce myself from it and reintegrate into the ground. But you can't make policy out of air. You can make policy out of soil. You have to remind yourself of the faces and the beating hearts your ideology is addressing. Even if you're RIGHT are you giving the infoemation in a way that actually cares?

Idk. I don't wanna tone police. But there's a very deep seated and real classism and privilege issue within the online left that is...... Distasteful to say the least. Idc if you go vote. But the least you could do is not bully people who are more scared for policy changes that will actively affect them. It is not betraying fear and outrage at what is happening outside of these borders-- the atrocity in Gaza-- to also be scared of your own living conditions. One can balance both.

[barefootbaltimore]

I want to know one thing from people who think Donald Trump should become president as a form of protest against the United States government, just one thing:

How am I, how are any of us, going to be of any use to Palestine if things over here get worse than they are?

Because we all recognize that our government is complicit in genocide, we recognize that voting for a democrat is not going to change that. We know this. But right now, as hard as things may be for many of the folks in the US we are still about to give time and energy and money to people who need it more than us. That stops being true if "the revolution" happens. That stops being true is more of us are hungry or homeless or in active danger from our government.

I would rather things stay the same over here for just a bit longer if it means I can keep protesting and keep donating and keep screaming about Palestine and Sudan and Congo and everything else that truly matters to me. I don't think Harris is going to save us from the awful things that currently exist. I just know that Trump will make things so bad for so many of us we won't be able to help anyone but ourselves.

[izooks]

The stakes could not be higher in this election when it comes to protecting our democratic rights and freedoms from the agenda of the religious right. If we fail to elect Biden and keep the presidency in responsible Democratic hands, a conservative Supreme Court supermajority is all but guaranteed. We're looking at a horrifying reality where basic liberties are stripped away by judicial activists hellbent on turning this country into a theocratic nightmare.

A Trump second term means likely cementing a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court majority for decades. You can kiss goodbye any hopes of protecting reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ equality, voting rights, action on climate change, and so much more. We'll be living under American Christian Sharia law before you know it. Justices like Clarence Thomas want to unwind centuries of social progress.

This is it folks - our last chance to save American democracy from being strangled by radical religious fundamentalists. Failure is not an option. Everyone needs to vote like your basic constitutional freedoms depend on it, because they absolutely do. The future of our secular democracy is at stake here.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[nothorses]

With the whole voting shit going on, I've felt incredibly conflicted about voting. But recently, the opinion I've landed on is similar to Kelly Hayes. I am roughly paraphrasing here, but she said that it's incredibly insensitive to ask Arab Americans and Palestinians, people who have outright LOST their family members due to the US's unrestricted military aid to israel and the genocide, to vote. That makes sense to me. I absolutely agree with that, and I don't think it makes sense to yell at these people to vote. BUT, Kelly then goes on to say that the argument that if you're voting, you're got blood on your hands, is just wrong. Because living in America, benefiting from the imperialistic violence, we always had blood on our hands, and no one's breaking solidarity with marginalized folks simply by voting. You break solidarity when you justify your politicians' horrible actions, such as police brutality, prison industrial complex, etc. But in this case, when someone acknowledges these politicans aren't gonna get the real important shit done, only direct action works, and you're voting to choose your opponent--I don't think that's breaking solidarity. Or throwing people under the bus. The truth is even if every leftist didn't engage with electoral politics at all, and spent it on mutual aid, community defense, these things--there would still be a president until we somehow destroy settler nation America. And that president will destroy public infrastructure and attack marginalized folks a lot quicker if he isn't a democrat, because the Republicans are literally just--fascist party.

I dislike people whose only engagement with politics is to vote shame. But I also think it's just a wrong take to act like people who vote, who aren't vote shaming, who do think it's harm reduction, are all idiotic liberals. As we try to mobilize against imperialism, it's crucial to try to pick our enemies when we can. I understand the fact our wealth, the fact we have these healthcare systems, this public ifnrastructure and government assistance even if it's nowhere near enough--it comes from blood of the Global South. And there is a real problem with liberals who care about these elections only to maintain their quality of life, don't care about imperialism and global oppression at all. These people exist, and if we do start dismantling imperialism ina meaningful fashion, USA quality of life will drop. But people voting Democrat because they don't want the Affordable Care Act dismantled, want to keep their food stamps, their schools funded--they're not inherently selfish and breaking solidarity with third world folks. There's nuance here, a lot of nuance. Which is why I like Kelly saying we can't let electoralism destroy our relationships., because we are going to need to build, build, build if we are going to survive. I'm going to vote because ultimately it won't take me much time, but I also won't judge the people who refuse to, choosing to invest their efforts in direct action.

I also think the people who say voting doesn't do anything...they also ignore the nuance. I get it. I get the frustration. But as I read various perspectives, I'm starting to realize the treachery of black-and-white thing. Before there's a revolution, it's more likely we are going to build new things out of the old system, incrementalism, before we make any foundational leap. Again, this shit has nuance.

Yeah, I think this resonates a lot for me. And I'm not really here to "vote shame" either! I think I do have a similar opinion on it to FD Signifier, though, who says he thinks of voting like washing your hands.

You can choose not to, it's not the end of the world. But like. Why? Who is this helping? I mean maybe it's not my business, maybe you have a good reason, whatever. It's just one of those things that, y'know, especially if it takes you 5 minutes to mail a ballot in... it's just good hygiene.

And I think a lot of people say, "put your energy towards these other things instead!" without any intent to actually do so, and without any follow through themselves. And do you really need to not vote in order to do those things? Like is voting the thing preventing you from Doing The Revolution? For real?

At the end of the day, I'm not going to shame anyone for not voting. I talk about it because I think some people are misguided about how all this works, and I think some of the opinions people put out there just, like, suck. But it's ultimately not up to me. 🤷‍♂️

[astriiformes]

It really has been extremely delightful watching Minnesota and Michigan both vote in powerful Democratic trifectas at the same time that have, in both states, already gone incredibly hard on passing really critical legislation defending queer folks, abortion rights, unions, welfare programs, and etc, to a degree that hasn't even been seen in most other blue states. It really feels like a rejuvenation of the strong progressive and labor history here that had been waning for a while, and I for one am all for the northern Midwest and Great Lakes region reclaiming their place as important bastions of civil and labor rights.

As a Minnesotan I know am offering all my pals in Michigan a gleeful handshake, you guys keep this up and my friends and I will keep fighting the good fight here. The Lake Superior Alliance.