#land doesn't vote people do

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

As I leave the land of my spotty youth and leave behind most of the 2022 midterm elections, I do so with a real nostalgia for the following provision of the U.S. Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This was placed into the new Constitution as a further device to exorcize the evil spirits of the Articles of Confederation, which blew goats. The passage has gone largely unexamined almost since it was adopted with the rest of the Constitution. (For example, it’s hardly mentioned in the Federalist Papers, and the Supreme Court, when it has taken up the subject at all, is incoherent on it.) But whatever “a Republican Form of Government” means, it cannot possibly mean the situation as it stands in Wisconsin.

On Tuesday, the Democratic Party got 51% of the vote statewide. This got the Democrats…30% of the seats in the state legislature. Any reasonable definition of “a Republican Form of Government” cannot possibly include this kind of result. It is completely and utterly a product of grotesque partisan gerrymandering sanctioned by the Supreme Court in its disgraceful decision Rucho v. Common Cause three years ago.

The die was cast on this atrocity last April, when the state supreme court ruled that this year’s elections would be contested on the ludicrous maps produced by the state legislature, itself the product of past gerrymanders. The U.S. Supreme Court was a critical accessory after the fact. From Wisconsin Public Radio:

"It was a reversal for Hagedorn, who joined the court's liberals in early March to choose a legislative map drawn by Gov. Tony Evers. But after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Hagedorn's ruling based on the way it applied the federal Voting Rights Act to draw Black-majority districts in Milwaukee, it sent the case back to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to consider all over again."

You will note that the carefully manufactured conservative majority on the court was not shy about meddling with maps in this instance.

"'We could construct one ourselves or with the assistance of an expert, but time and our institutional limitations make that unrealistic at this juncture,' Hagedorn wrote. 'The remaining option is to choose one of the proposed maps we received as the baseline. Only one proposal was represented as race-neutral in its construction: the maps submitted by the Legislature.'

For Democrats, the decision was likely the worst-possible outcome. For the past decade, they've felt the sting of the 2011 map, which Republicans drew when they controlled all branches of state government. Even during years when Democratic candidates have performed well statewide, Republicans have maintained large majorities in the Legislature, thanks in part to a map that political scientists have said is among the biggest partisan gerrymanders in modern U.S. history. The new map, drawn by Republicans and made law by four justices on the state Supreme Court Friday, further entrenched that advantage, giving Republicans a realistic shot at a two-thirds majority that would let them override a governor's veto. It took effect despite being vetoed by Evers last year and being initially rejected by the state Supreme Court last month."

The best chance that Wisconsin has to un-fuck itself here comes next April, when an election could bring a Democratic majority to the state supreme court, which theoretically could open the door to maps that less closely resemble a game of three-card monte. Of course, John Roberts and the gang put the kibosh on the last attempt at un-fucking last April. The roundness and completeness with which extreme conservatism has deformed the American republic is occasionally stunning.

Maps are an indispensable tool for outlining natural features, human boundaries and transportation networks. But when it comes to depicting how many people are in a given place — how populations are distributed —a traditional map has distinct drawbacks. Mapmakers have sought to offset this limitation through an innovation that's known as a cartogram.

There are two types of cartograms. Distance cartograms are often used to show stylized bus or subway routes. They depict networks without strict adherence to location or range. The other type is called an area cartogram. In these graphics, the size of each shape making up the map — like counties, states or nations — is adjusted to represent a different variable, often the number of people living there.

Cartograms can highlight the difference between places with large populations (or large amounts of whatever variable is replacing area) and places with large amounts of land and/or water, but which have small populations. In other words, a cartogram shows population density in a graphic format.

There are many different ways to develop an area cartogram. In a contiguous cartogram, the shape of a specific area is altered to account for differences in population (or another variable), but shapes retain their positions relative to one another. This approach leads to distortion of the basic shapes. Another is a non-contiguous cartogram, which means that the shapes can move and resize without remaining in position with their neighbors. Rather, the shapes keep their usual form, and are scaled in size based on population (or other variable).

Cartograms can be helpful in interpreting data when the number of people is important. For example, area cartograms are often used to display election outcomes when the variable of interest is total number of votes — not some rate or percentage. An election results cartogram is an increasingly common tool used to help highlight dynamics related to population density. In conventional maps showing election results large areas that are sparsely populated take up the most space, and thus have the most visual impact, while more densely populated areas that take up very little land area have far less visual impact despite representing many more people.

In an non-contiguous area cartogram of Wisconsin, the state's counties have been resized according to their their populations. Counties with large populations grow bigger than they would appear on a standard map, and counties with sparse populations shrink in comparison.

These two maps of Wisconsin's counties highlight a few key points about the distribution of the state's population. First, the cartogram emphasizes how overwhelmingly large Milwaukee County's population is, relative to all other counties in the state. Dane and Waukesha counties stand out as the next two largest after Milwaukee. In addition, the other counties on the southern and eastern edges of the state together represent a preponderance of Wisconsin's total population. Another takeaway is just how different an area-based map and a population-scaled map look. It's easy to think of Wisconsin's rural areas as making up a lot of the state, but in terms of population they are quite small.

A cartogram can help make sense of any topic where the important information is in the number of people, and there is wide variation in population density in a region. For example, cartograms can be useful illustrations of economic activity, immigration, school enrollment, votes, jobs or housing numbers.

[haliasjane]

.

[flouryhedgehog]

Voting is a tool.

By which I mean, voting is just a tool; it isn't sacred or magical.

And by which I also mean, voting is one tool that is good for one kind of purpose. If it isn't suitable for the goal you're trying to achieve, you need different tools.

Every time someone makes a post on here rightly criticizing Joe Biden's support for genocide, there's at least one person in the notes saying "but remember, you still have to vote for him!" or, "did you know Trump wants to deport Muslims?" or, "then who do you want me to vote for?"

But that's like going into a plant nursery and demanding they sell you the correct drill bit for planting a tree. They will never sell you the drill bit you want, because the drill bit you want--the drill bit suitable for planting trees--doesn't exist, and also plant nurseries don't sell drill bits.

Standing in the plant nursery asking about drill bits will probably initially get you people explaining to you where to find a shovel, and a watering can, and some mulch, because those are tools that will help you plant the tree. If you ignore the attempts to educate you, and start yelling about how they must just want you to throw away your drill, and also they probably hate trees and hate you and want you, personally, to suffer in a world without shade, you'll start getting different answers, like "please stop shouting" and "I'm going to have to ask you to leave now."

Because you're demanding that they tell you how to use the wrong tool for the job. They can never give you the answer you want; the answer you want doesn't exist.

I can't tell you who to vote for to prevent the rise of fascism in the United States, both because you can't prevent something that's already happened, and because you can't vote your way out of fascism.

You need different tools; you need to ask different questions and be willing to sit with the answers, even if they aren't the answers you want.

Boycotts are a tool. Protests are a tool. Shutting down highways, physically blocking weapons shipments, picketing arms companies, those are tools. So is going to your library and checking out books about Palestine, and about decolonization generally.

Instead of asking which war criminal you should vote for, perhaps ask how you can organize members of your community to support and look after each other and keep each other safe. Perhaps ask how you can support Land Back and prison abolition. Ask how you can organize a union in your workplace.

The tool you're most comfortable using isn't going to work for this job. Learn how to use another.

[rikamae]

I understand now. I understand all of it.

All those times politicians claimed something was "too complicated" "not that simple" "we don't have the money" it's all lies to keep us complacent.

They did it about the situation is Israel. "It's too complicated" everyone said. It didn't look complicated when I did my own research, away from those shitty think pieces talking down to me. Israel was a state built off the blood of Palestinians, and they simply do not want you to think about it. Because there is oil in the middle east and Israel is our only "Ally"

Wow, so complicated! The complicated part being that our media is tricking us into thinking this is so complex so they can be evil in plain sight: yes, so complicated of a situation!!

And today I wake up to find that the House of Representatives (the lowest level of US government) has passed a bill offering 14 billion to Israel! It will go to the Senate to vote. Wow, billion with a B huh? I got a question for you.

Where the fuck did we get enough money to fund genocide? Where the hell was all this money when it comes to supporting the Americans you politicians claim to be representing? Where was this money for free college, universal Healthcare, covid precautions, the climate crisis??

"It's just too complicated! You'll make us do cuts on other programs! You'll make us raise taxes!! Think of the taxes!!!"

Then where did this money come from? Oh, the IRS, the fucking company that handles our taxes??? Yeah????? That was an option? Why wasn't it an option before but it is now? Were they over funded and we just didn't notice until now? Or are you taking advantage of the situation to cut funding to another service you hate?? The point being: if they really want something, they can find the fucking money. They haven't because they don't want to.

It's never been complicated. It's their job to move money around. It's their fucking job to raise our taxes and provide for us, but the only people they truly represent are the ones filling their pockets with lobby money. They could have done this long ago, given us what we've been demanding, but they coddled us and said it was too complicated and our baby brains couldn't handle it. And God forbid you be a woman!! That means you're double unable to understand!

Enough. Fucking enough. Every year congress votes to increase their wages and refuses to raise our minimum wage. Every year they take advantage of their medical insurance and benefits they get for "representing" us when nearly every adult I know is left to suffer with their conditions: untreated sicknesses, chronic conditions, the depression that looms over us because we live in the most wealthy country in the world but we can't make ends meet and our government is more concern with funding armies that feeding and housing us

Politics was never complicated. They just told us it was. To shut us up. To make us feel young and idealistic and stupid. And we fell for it. And now evil is moving through the wills of our leaders IN OUR FUCKING NAMES to support a genocide in the middle east. Their only crime was being born on that land. Their only crime is being Arab. That's not a fucking crime.

Our system isn't complicated. It's working as intended. Keep the people blind and claim that it's too hard, leave all the details to them. But we are smarter than they are. We are informed. The world is connected like never before and I refuse to let their propaganda ever reach me again.

Hold them accountable. Know their names. Write it in the history books. Let their legacy be known to the end of times.

Be loud about your anger. Go to protests. Write your reps to tell them your vote is on the line. And for God's sake vote in the damned elections!

THE IDEA THAT YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER IS PROPOGANDA. THEY WANT YOU TO FEEL USELESS. THEY WANT YOU TO GIVE UP SO THEY STAY IN POWER.

They want you to think it's complicated. It never has been. Be loud. Vote. Use your right to protest. Use your right to free speech. Use your right to petition. Next Tuesday is election day. Make it fucking count.

[obsessivevoidkitten]

I don't bring up politics and world events up on here very much, that isn't what this blog is about. This blog is for escapism from reality, but those who are not willing to speak out against brutality are complicit. And this is my largest platform.

Don't continue reading if you don't want to read about war and violence.

Regarding Israel and Palestine I have seen many inaccurate assumptions and outright lies.

1ST CLAIM: One claim I hear ad nauseum is that Gaza elected Hamas and therefore they deserve punishment.

Let's break this down.

A. Hamas was elected around 2006. 17 years ago. They have not allowed elections since.

B. Roughly half of the Gazan population are under 18. This means half the population wasn't born during the last election. This means that of the Gazans who were alive many were too young to vote.

C. Hamas won by a 45 percent plurality, not a majority. This means that less than half of the Gazan who did vote did so for Hamas.

So taking these facts together we can conclude that only a fraction of a fraction of Gazans alive today elected Hamas.

In fact Netanyahu was happy to fund and prop up Hamas because doing so meant dividing Palestinians between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. So Netanyahu is more to blame for Hamas than Palestinians are.

2ND CLAIM: Another thing I hear a lot is that this conflict and all of the casualties are the fault of Hamas. Let me be clear, I do not support Hamas or the October 7th attack that ended up with a civilian casualty rate of around 50 percent, but that one attack doesn't exist alone or without context and nuance as many on the pro-Israel side would have people believe.

No, that attack was one incident in a line of many. Starting with the brutal apartheid, displacement, and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel.

A slow motion genocide taking place over the course of many decades.

Let's look at some events leading up to and then following Oct. 7th.

It starts with the beginning of Israel. Even the often recited phrase "a land without people for a people without land" erases the existence of native people who had lived there for centuries.

In 1948 you have The Nakba. A mass displacement of Palestinians as Israel took their land. This flew in the face of the UN partition plan, after The Nakba Israel controlled 78 percent of the land, 25 percent more than the UN plan.

This trend of land theft has only continued.

Let's fast forward to more recent events.

2018-2019 The Great March of Return: For over a year there were peaceful marches protesting the Gaza border, this resulted in Israeli forces killing over 220 peaceful Palestinian protesters.

In 2019 Netanyahu admitted support for Hamas to prevent a 2 state solution.

In 2022 journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was targeted and killed by Israeli forces. Israeli forces also attacked her funeral.

Note that during this entire time Palestinians are arrested, even children, and kept in indefinite detention without trial.

In 2023 we then have the October 7th attack. But as you are now aware this isn't where the conflict started.

And clearly not where it has ended.

3RD CLAIM: And that brings us to the 3rd and most blatantly bullshit lie you will here on repeat. The notion that Israel only targets Hamas.

More UN workers have been killed in a 2 month period than have died in any other war since the UN's formation. Over 130.

If they were targeting Hamas then why have so many UN buildings, refugee camps, and hospitals been bombed?

If there goal wasn't civilians then why do civilians make up the majority of the casualities?

Why the medieval style siege/blockade that has caused hospitals to lose fuel and medicine and civilians to go hungry and thirsty?

Why parade civilians around in their underwear? Why laugh and cheer as a UN school is exploded?

Why leave babies in the NICU and force the hospital staff to leave with the promise an ambulance would be provided for the babies only for people to return once the IDF left and find the baby corpses rotting because the ambulance was never provided?

We can even leave Gaza to prove this is not about Hamas. Hamas does not lead the West Bank. And yet Palestinians there are being murdered and arrested at increased rates, their homes stolen by illegal settlers.

Israel officials have called this the Gaza Nakba, they have claimed they will make Gaza inhospitable, they have claimed there are no civilians in Gaza.

Netanyahu has said to remember Amalek.

What is Amalek? Amalek refers to Israels enemy in the bible. This phrase specifically, "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys"

Israel wants to steal the little land the Palestinians have left. Even now they are herded and concentrated into ever smaller camps with no resources.

Idk what we can do about the situation. This post seems silly for all the good it will do. But maybe it will open the eyes of a couple people. I think that would make it worth it.

[becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys]

So does Wales voting to ditch the Prince of Wales title automatically mean William ain't Prince of Wales anymore, or is there other BS they have to go through first to make England accept it?

Oh, god no, Wales has done no such thing. One of the councils of Wales, Gwynedd, has internally voted on it, basically to gauge opinion and also to make it official where they stand.

Okay, so, super quick and massively oversimplified political explanation: Wales is split into 22 counties, each of which has a council that does its day to day local governing, like when to put the recycling out and picking what colour to make the bins (recycling is a Big Deal in Wales and we are third in the world for doing it so this is a Very Important part of the job and we're Very Proud.) These councils are separate from electoral constituencies, though. Those are almost the same as the ones used for UK general elections, where we would vote for MPs to represent us in Westminster. However, there are more for Welsh elections, and in those we vote for MSs - Members of the Senedd.

The Senedd is the Welsh Parliament. That's where the laws are made in our devolved areas, aka the stuff Westminster is not allowed to decide for us, like education and cheese and recycling. That, if anywhere, is the place where we'd need politicians to demand an end to the Prince of Wales title if they were going to have a chance, because that's where the First Minister is, and he's like... the leader of Wales. Biggest Dog. The one who told the BBC right to their faces that Wales would base its pandemic response on science rather than creating a smokescreen to cover up our personal birthday party scandals. Mark Drakeford, an underwhelming but competent politician who is reportedly very good about packing his shopping away using the packing shelf in Aldi so he doesn't hold people up; which in Welsh people's books makes him Tidy.

Also, as councils go - as regions of Wales go - Gwynedd is the Most Welsh. The Welshest bit. Wales cubed. Uberwales. The land that England forgot. Come to Cymru. I Welsh, you Welsh, he/she/it Welsh. Very Welsh. Much Welsh. So Wales.

This did not require a vote, is what I'm saying.

So, what's actually happened here is that a local government of a single easily won council have agreed that William shouldn't be Prince of Wales in their opinion, and that's their official position. In terms of meaningful impact it's roughly equivalent to a custard pie dropped off a four foot ladder, except the pie was dragon shaped and sang 'O Gymru' as it fell.

HOWEVER.

It IS notable for being an official governmental body that has had the balls to OFFICIALLY tell the monarchy to do one, just as everyone is being very monarchial and shrieking 'Traitor!' at anyone not tearing their hair and beating their breast at the Queen's demise. And as long as it is an official, voted-on position, it opens up some possibilities both for other councils around the country and for the Senedd. If other councils start doing the same thing... it applies pressure. It's all about awareness. It helps grease the wheels of the actual petitions on the subject that are currently gathering signatures.

It helps establish a mandate, basically.

I suspect the next to vote will be either Anglesey, which copies Gwynedd a lot, or Monmouthshire, which will deliberately vote the other way, because their councillors are English. Alternatively nothing at all will happen. But we'll see!

[theminecraftbee]

hermit horror week day 2: season 3 or season 4 or environment

(Letters in a box that was entrusted to Grumbot in another universe.)

Dear Mumbo:

He is killing me, and I am beginning to think he knows it, and doesn't care. It's far worse from when I thought he didn't know. I wanted to think of us as friends, you know.

With each passing day, I am growing weaker still. I know, I know, you argued it was my fault, but I don't think you understand. Even if I hadn't gone and played with the mushrooms, I think I'd still be dying. It's something Scar's doing to the land. I'm in the shopping district more than most people; I practically live here part-time, with how much I've been expanding the Barge. And even before the mycellium, I was getting sicker and sicker and sicker. Ever since he became mayor.

You used to agree with me, but I'm done arguing. I don't know what it's done to your head. I don't know what it's done to mine.

And he's killing me. With every bit of the network he poisons and rips out, he's killing me. I know he knows it, now. I know you won't believe me. I just wanted someone to know. I wanted someone to know he's destroying the thing I did to keep myself alive.

I really wish you'd become mayor. Maybe then we'd just be hanging out with Grumbot.

Grian, I switched sides. You know I switched sides. You know why. I don't know if you should be sending me letters like this. I could tell Scar. I could tell anyone. I could make you go home and rest and let someone actually check out the fact you say you're dying. They would make you go home. We'd be able to actually fix the shopping district, you'd be able to rest, and Scar would be able to focus on more important things. You are still friends, I'm sure, once we fix this.

Dear Mumbo:

You won't. You're still a good enough friend to keep my secrets at least. Thank you.

Grian, I don't think that's a good thing.

Dear Mumbo:

Maybe I just want someone to know. Maybe I want you to come back. Maybe I just want someone to understand what they're doing to me.

I thought you'd understand.

I thought maybe I'd want you to remember when I was gone.

Grian, Frankly at this point I'm not convinced you're not lying. Scar's a good mayor. He's done what he promised. It's not like either of us voted for me either; we both wanted the shopping district to be made prettier too. I don't understand why you're trying to make me come back like this. Please just come talk. We can fix this.

Dear Mumbo:

You know, maybe you're right. I do regret sending you this. Would you do me the favor and burn it?

(There is no reply.)

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

IF STATE MOST RED WHY REPUBLICAN NO WIN??

Vaush explains how population density/distribution relates to voting trends, gerrymandering, "tyranny of the majority" lies, and how conservatives are desperately trying to retain control over their electorates.

Lots of cool data visualization was shown, some of which you can see here:

Here are some that weren't shown that tell the same story:

[scintillyyy]

a view at perceptions of dick's economic situation at the circus through the years

alright, we start at detective comics #38, the OG introduction. and, nothing is really said either way about what dick's economic station would have been, because really, the only thing it's there to tell us is that dick is an acrobat--which gives him the skills needed to fight crime by batman's side.

of absolute note to me, though, is the fact that his family was famous for their triple spin & what that potentially means for his upbringing. because, if you've been following this journey with me, means a lot. because we have a real life example of that to compare to get an idea of what may have been his childhood. i am of course, talking about the flying concellos && i did find another one and that would be the flying codonas (alfredo codona being the first man to land a triple somersault).

now, let's be clear--dick being the son of famed circus trapeze artists, especially ones who could land a triple, in 1940, means that he grew up the son of stars. they would have been center ring performers, and likely had amenities and pay that reflected that. now i won't deny that as circus performers they were likely 'othered'--there was likely a prejudice against what they perceived circus folk to be, but that does not likely completely reflect the actuality of what they may have had access to as a result of being entertainment stars. because they were othered--but at the same time, if they were famous enough for their skills, they were definitely adjacent to the rich and famous, not just poor, exploited workers. there was a lot of overlap between famous acts, longstanding families, and ownership. after doing...a lot...of reading on the most famous circus stars of the era of the 1920s & 1930s (especially alfredo cordona + his eventual wife lillian leitzel and the flying concellos), i think i've determined a couple of things:

one, these circus stars feel very akin to movie stars wrt their fame. and they were messy as hell. lillian leitzel in particular was a prima donna--she was the first circus star who was able to catapult her worth into luxuries. she was the first star to ever get her own private train car and personal dressing tent and was known to be the prima donna of the circus. she was also known for her temper--her personal maid would sometimes get fired and rehired several times a day. when she married alfredo cordona between acts in chicago, it was considered the royal wedding of the circus world. may wirth, a trick rider, was frequently in the gossip column of newspapers & had many, many admirers. lillian leitzel was voted the most beautiful woman in the world by american soldiers in wwi. like, these people were stars in every sense of the word.

two, these performers were not just meek, exploited poor people. with the right skills, they had power, they had ambition & they had money. they were center stage performers. arthur concello was huge in investing in and modernizing the circus--likely because of the money he made through the years of performing his act.

so frankly detective comics #28, and later batman #32, doesn't really delve into what dick's life experiences may have been on the circus--because that's not the point. the only thing those are their to do is establish dick as an orphan & and acrobat, and thereby skilled and motivated enough to work at batman's side.

but based on the era in which he was created and in comparison to similar acts of the time, it's easy to take a gander. because john & mary being able to perform a triple would have been huge. they'd be center stage acts, high in hierarchy. with mary being a young, attractive woman who could perform a triple, she may have had plenty of admirers & been in the gossip columns of the newspaper. her wedding to john may have been a whole thing to circus fans. i read a lot about those types of acts being invited to perform and star in european shows over the winters at old, respected circuses && they had enough international star power that they drew crowds there based on name alone. i know the impulse is to think that dick would have had no experience with the wealth of bruce's world, but conversely in that day and age and his parent's skillset it's highly likely he would have been exposed to the glitz & glamour of the famous high life. they may have been invited to do private performances for other rich & famous people & rubbed shoulders with them. alfredo cordona was in a few hollywood movies for his skills & arthur concello had connections to hollywood due to brokering the movie 'the greatest show'--is it out of the realm of possibility to believe that john would have had the same opportunities?

anyways, moving on. i find myself extremely intrigued by detective comics #484, which brings dick back to haly's circus. now there's some hilarity here in that dick has no clue if it's possibly the same haly's circus he and his parents worked for, and he meets linda--of the flying graysons! (get her ass for copyright infringement, dick). jk. linda is a very nice girl & it's just a stage name. dick confirms they were circle ring stars & says that haly's was the greatest show on earth (the ringling bros & barnum and bailey about to come for haly...)

now this issue is interesting because while it doesn't necessarily give us an idea of what dick's economic status would have been, it does establish that the flying graysons were famous enough that the evil stepfather conviced haly that by yoinking the name for his family they'd be able to draw in more customers based on name recognition alone & that the name would put him in the headlines/give him headliner credibility for his act and the circus to get sold to a bigger show & that he would be able to "ride the crest of the wave" and become very successful (and presumably rich). which definitely implies that the grayson name is worth something. now haly's circus is shown to be getting by with generous checks from bruce wayne, and i feel like here we start to get what i feel is a fairly consistent incongruency where haly's circus is often shown to be barely getting by (despite their full audiences), yet the flying graysons were famous.

so then on to secret origins #13, which has dick tell joey about his journey to robin, and...briefly goes into his childhood (he started performing with his family at 5), but again the focus is, as always on the acrobatic portion. there's an interesting opaqueness there about what his childhood was like. just acrobatics and loving parents. nothing is ever really suggested with regards to their fame, they're just vaguely famous & circus stars. nobody seems interested in interrogating that.

and then we get to year three & batman #436 and this is the first time we get any sort of nugget as to dick's potential economic status, and it's not bad? his dad references getting world series tickets and dick wants to go to a movie with harry so he can skip out on homework. the average price of movie tickets in the 70s (when this is implied to take place) adjusted for inflation would be equal to about ~11 dollars today and dick clearly doesn't seem to think this is a huge expenditure. i mean, i wouldn't say that they're rich here by any means (unlike the potential implications of his 1940 introduction), but they're clearly comfortable enough to afford small luxuries without worry. which, again, as a named, headlining act doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. as the headliners, they're probably making the most of all the acts, as they're the ones bringing in the crowd. mary is said to be a third generation circus performer, which. to me. implies some success, that the circus family continued on. a lot of the people i mentioned before were ostensibly part of circus families that continued the tradition as that's what they were raised in. alfredo was first brought on stage at 7 months. & i think the fact that dick was a part of a longstanding circus family that would have had deep ties not just to the community but also would have likely been very entwined and friendly with management due to the nature of a long work relationship together. there is a stability there that wouldn't necessarily be seen with. someone new, i guess?

anyways, honestly i feel like year three & later a lonely place of dying are really the stories that try not to stereotype circus life the most. there's no "wow circus people are so othered & weird", they're just normal people who work at a circus & are treated as such. even jack and janet stopping for a photo is treated like "let's show our son that these performers are just people like us under their costumes". which, honestly reads more like that time i was brought to a local haunted walk when i was like 7 and i was in tears because i was so scared and one of the performers took off their mask to show me he was just a normal guy underneath the costume.

devin grayson, of course, retcons this long-standing family history of his mother being part of a circus family in nightwing annual #1 and changes it to his father instead & is very, hm, married to the idea that circus workers are poor in her conceptualization of how she writes dick as evidenced by her interview in "dick grayson, boy wonder" where she says the following:

god. the racism. it's something. and now. i'll say i have no issue with the idea of clarifying dick as not necessarily white. i do have slight issue with the idea that because he was a circus performer, he was poor. because this is the first time someone i think has actually tried to take into account the childhood dick may have experienced, and she definitely inserted her own stereotypical biases into it. and is a bit at odds with how skilled, famous american circus workers who have his parents' skillset were treated back in the time of dick's conception. they traveled in the winter because they were stars and were invited to perform in prestigious european circuses due to their fame. i just. and i will point out that a lot of these famous circus performers were hot blooded and it had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the fact that they were stage divas. idk. obviously, conceptions of circus workers were likely not the greatest in the 90s. they were nowhere near what their fame was in their heyday. clowns were definitely starting to be seen as more creepy and by this point, circuses were far more criticized for their treatment of animals. but i feel like there's a bit of a leap here wrt devin grayson's assumptions of circus life because of the fact that they travel & doesn't do near enough justice to the worth of the skill of dick & dick's parents. because being able to perform a triple & a quadruple would have still been extremely rare and highly valued. so rare it wasn't performed until 1982 & can still hardly be achieved.

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/13/arts/a-quadruple-for-the-flying-miguel-vazquez.html

this article is a fascinating review of exactly how rare and dangerous it is. & hey, alfredo mention.

batman legends of the dark knight #100 seems to go along with this idea that a circus is a dirty and poor place.

and, like. okay so the graysons are still shown as an act important enough to have their own dressing/prep room, per usual, as expected for their skillset. haly's circus in modern day is usually shown in more modern comics to be a small traveling circus that's not doing...super well--at least in comparison to previously established show selling out lore, but the only thing i really take umbrage with here is that alfred describes it as decrepit. which. i feel like even if haly's is small and maybe not super profitable it should at least be shown as a well kept, nice place & the only reason for that is because if it was practically falling apart, there's no fucking way jack would have won the battle of 'let's bring our son tim to the circus' if it was falling apart. janet would have been out here on beyondthebump all 'help my DH wants to take our son to a circus and it's falling apart, located in a terrible part of town, and looks like it employs murderers, how do i tell him no?' and she would have been met with a chorus of 'stand ur ground girl, do NOT let him endager your baby like that!!'.

anyways, the new 52 also gives us almost nothing to go on either. dick's parents' trailer looks nice enough, indicating they do make enough money with their act to afford a semi nice trailer. john is an asshole, dick is out of character. lovely, thanks new 52. the secret origin is as least much better but does go into how the circus has no money--which, hm. doesn't really tell us anything re: the grayson's economic situation. the circus might be struggling and have to close down soon, but it doesn't mean a lot for what contracted rates they pay their acts. in fact, paying for an act as skilled as the graysons and not getting enough profit in return could be part of their money troubles.

and then finally we end with nightwing 82-83 by tom taylor, with the meili lin thing (and, while meili is nice enough, i must say i still don't like this whole thing because the point of zucco should not have been he had a longstanding grudge against the graysons, gdi-). which, again, all it confirms is that the grayson's were the star attractions and does nothing to interrogate what that might've been. it does focus a lot on the idea of they were free and happy, which. um. sometimes the focus on how happy people are is usually "despite the fact that they don't have x". then again i do feel like i will give tom taylor the fact that he also seemed to have just written the graysons as normal people, but he also doesn't seem interested in interrogating what dick being the son of the star act might have actually meant for him.

honestly, a lot of what i'm finding is that much like tim, dick's childhood is left frustatingly opaque--there's a lot of room for interpretation, honestly. it's not ever really said on paper if they struggled with money growing up. you have writers who have all but confirmed they wrote dick with the understanding that he grew up poor because he worked in a circus, but at the same time does ignore the fact that the grayson's had such a unique and special skillset that it's hard to say that makes sense. & is rooted in stereotypical biases. the only aspect of it that's ever considered is "dick's the son of the skilled, star performers and also has those skills ergo he has the skills to be a vigilante". they're cast in this light of famous & skilled!! but the circus they work for is poor and barely getting by, and you can only assume that because they worked for a poor circus dick was probably also living on the poverty line, wholly dependent on the success of the place they worked for because at times their wages were struggled to be paid (despite the fact that as a contract act, to underpay them would absolutely be a breach of contract). there's no confirmation or in-depth look at his childhood, only vague implications, throwaway lines & stereotypes. they want the grayson's to be probably the most skilled circus act in the world. they don't want to look at what that would realistically mean. because only the acrobatics is the important.

[hussyknee]

The wild thing about the Vote Blue rhetoric is that according to them, Biden is an uwu helpless baby who's had no power to stop any of the shit that's gone down the last three years but if Trump comes to power he can end democracy as you (don't) know it. You just have to get through this election cycle because the GOP can't find its own ass with both hands and a mirror on a stick and they're breaking apart, but they're also about to transform into the Third Reich. If Biden gets a second term you can totally push him further left when he isn't even up for re-election, but not with half the country on the streets a year out from when he does still need their votes. Biden can't get Netanyahu to stop because he has no power over Israel, but Trump will be able to destabilize democracy all across the world. The enemy is either weak or strong, y'all can't have it both ways.

Also, "If democrats haven't earned your vote, what has the republicans done to earn your complicity"????? You think this is how democracy works??? But oh, that's right you don't have a democracy, you have Evil (genocide without personal enjoyment) and Super Evil (genocide with personal fun). But you need to Vote Blue to save the democracy you don't have. Which they've had three years and one more to get around to saving, just like they had two years to legislate Roe vs Wade and eight before that, but they need another four to do anything.

"We cannot afford to divide the left and alienate voters!" you yell, as you harrass people whose relatives are currently being starved and blown to pieces as the entire world watches, a full year before elections, proving you have no intention of holding the Dems accountable even for a literal genocide. Because your winning strategy here is to scream at people for having a moral compass and basic empathy for their fellow human. These are luxuries you cannot afford because the GOP doesn't have any either, but the two parties are different bro, I swear bro, pay no attention to Hakeem Jeffries standing next to Mike Johnson and Christian Zionists bro, don't look at how much AIPAC has bought and paid for the whole of Congress bro, don't look at the bipartisan support for sending billions to Zionists overseas while cutting funding for every public service bro, don't look at how much more land for fracking they've sold off than Trump ever did bro, don't look at cop city and the border wall and ICE crackdowns and kids still in cages three years later bro, Biden totally controlled COVID and saved millions of lives unlike Trump and the pandemic is definitely not still raging bro, queer and reproductive rights are definitely not flaking off piecemeal under the Dems right now bro, Project 2025 can definitely happen when Obama couldn't even push through Medicaid with a trifecta bro, bro where are you going bro—

[apas-95]

there are plenty of things harmful to individual sections of the bourgeoisie that aren't harmful to the bourgeoisie as a class (and are often a net benefit to the bourgeoisie as a class), generally consisting of infighting between these 'hostile brothers'

the proliferation of a new type of car that runs on hamburgers would be very beneficial to mcdonalds, to the beef industry, monoculture agribusiness by extension, and whatever, while being harmful to the oil industry, car manufacturers needing to retool, etc - and would be strongly fought against by the oil industry (and the lobbies and parties representing them). just because the oil industry opposes it doesn't mean that it's a threat to capitalism on a wider scale, just to these specific capitalists. further, the competition between capitalists can be an overall boon for their class, such as in the case of war. in times of plenty, capitalists divide the spoils, and in desperate times, they apportion losses - wars between empires with no land left to colonise, no profit left to extract, are fought *between* capitalists, but fought *with* the blood of the workers, all in pursuit of regaining profitability. your boss outcompeting a market rival doesn't mean you're getting paid any better, and, in fact, you'll probably be paid less, now that you're competing for your job with a large number of suddenly laid-off workers from that 'rival'.

now, to the point: a lot of people will chastise those who outline the ineffectualness of voting by saying 'well, if voting didn't do anything, why do the right try so hard to stop you from voting?' - as we can probably understand by now, this is a moot point. the right *do* want people to vote, they just want people to vote *for them*. just because one or the other section of the bourgeoisie will be harmed by something doesn't mean it actually harms bourgeois rule as a whole, and can in fact strengthen it. surely the armies of WW1 also attempted to inspire desertion in the enemy ranks, but nobody now could try to claim that this was because fighting for Germany or France was doing something to defeat colonialism - quite the opposite, in fact. they could probably also recognise that, however much as was claimed at the time, fighting for either side of that conflict led to absolutely no difference, just more death and impoverishment for the working people (while the rich gained massively). similarly, in the lower-intensity conflicts between the bourgeoisie of the same nation, both sides represent functionally the exact same interests, save for which capitalists exactly stand to profit - and, as before, participation in their conflict on one side or the other only aids their class as a whole.

the idea that in any conflict, there always exists a 'lesser evil' who should be supported is incorrect, because the conflict itself may be what needs to be fought against. when the police play 'good cop bad cop', there is no side you can take that will lead to any difference to you, and partaking in it at all is precisely what dooms you.

[lercymoth]

I'm watching the State of the Union and I'm reminded why no matter what, we won't have justice as long as we have representative democracy. Biden just claimed "I will not rest until we rescue all the hostages held by Gaza" and then realized it was bad press to not be against the Palestinian genocide and then immediately started stating he wanted a ceasefire and wanted innocent Palestinians to be protected, and THEN stated he sided with Israel.

Typical politician... Just say the words people want to hear about the issues they care about just to get votes so you can stay in power. Politicians don't, won't, and never will care about what we want except for how it relates to them.

As long as we let them have power over us, we will never have power over what atrocities they will support and enable, both on our own land, and all over the world. The US government won't stop destroying the environment and keeping us in poverty if we ask them politely to stop. They won't dismantle a police system built on favoring police officers and the incarceration and execution of innocent people, they won't give stolen land back, they won't completely outlaw slavery or dismantle the numerous eugenics laws towards disabled people that still exist. They won't be against genocide, even when it's actively happening.

And even if they do, it'll be a means to an end. It'll be a distraction. They'll just be dangling it in front of our faces saying "Look! We did what you wanted! We're on your side! We totally care about social justice!"

Although I dont want to, I'm voting for Biden just so Trump doesn't become president. But mark my words, whats stopping the next democratic president from doing stuff like Joe Biden did? Lying to us about caring about justice, just saying what we want to hear? And even if we vote, say, a socialist president, whats stopping them from doing the same thing?

I dont know what we do about this, but when the time comes, we need to organize on a large scale and do SOMETHING. I dont know what or how, but we need to change something, and not be okay with system where people in power make the big choices for us, and we just hope they do what we want with not a care in the world about injustice.

[lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers]

I want to write a little bit about structural racism in the UK against Travellers, and the Labour Party's complicity with this because I think it might help explain why that letter from Diane Abbott disturbed me so much.

Romani and Irish Travellers in the UK experience discrimination all the time. They'll be barred from shops and pubs, they experience discrimination from the police, they experience racial abuse. If they are living a nomadic lifestyle, they struggle to access schools and hospitals. Educational outcomes for Romani students are the worst in England by a large margin, followed by Irish Travellers. They're also over represented in the prison population compared to the proportion of the general population they make up.

Irish Travellers are generally "white/white passing" although they are a distinct ethnic group from the settled Irish. However, not all Romani people are "white passing" and some see themselves as PoC. Both groups have fought for a long time to be recognised officially as ethnic minorities and to gain legal protections.

In 2022, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts act was passed. This is the "bill" that was the focus of the "kill the bill" protests, and lots was written about the restrictions it placed on protestors. However, part 4 of the bill related to unauthorised encampments. Although the law does not specifically name any ethnic groups, it effectively criminalises the traditional nomadic traveller lifestyle.

It creates an offence of residing in a vehicle (this would include a caravan) on land without permission. It allows the police to seize the vehicle, even prior to the offence being committed. It allows the police to impose fines and prison sentences.

Although the bill itself does not name any particular ethnic group, much of the advice and communication around the bill does. This is because it's clearly designed to target certain groups who live a traditional nomadic lifestyle. It's designed to make them homeless, and force them into housing- essentially forced assimilation. The British have been trying to do this to Romani and Irish Travellers for centuries.

This law was passed by the Tories, but one thing people don't know is that Starmer whipped the Labour party against most sections of the bill. He allowed a free vote on Section 4- the section that specifically related to "unauthorised encampments".

Around the same time, in 2021, his party produced local election leaflets which mentioned "traveller incursions"- eventually they admitted the leaflets were racist and destroyed them. It's not the first time, and won't be the last, that Labour use racism against these groups to win points with the electorate.

In this context, Abbott is part of a system which is systematically discriminating against Romani and Irish Travellers- yes, Labour aren't the party in power, but they are a part of the system enabling this to happen.

So, I read her letter in that context. I read her minimisation of the struggles of the most marginalised ethnic groups in our society in that context (I don't want to make this "who has things worst" but it's nonetheless true). At best, she's throwing them under the bus to make a point she thinks will be popular with her supporters. At worst, she's actively affirming her own party's racist policies.

"It doesn't matter if we criminalise their way of life, because it's not "real" racism".

She is someone seen to be on the left, seen to be anti-racist, and she's effectively saying this prejudice is acceptable.

[our-flag-means-love]

by popular demand (aka the 63 people who voted "yes" in my poll (six months ago oops) for whether or not i should do this)

here's why ofmd is a romcom, beat by beat

so for the purposes of this analysis, the ten stages outlined in this article are what i'm using for reference.

(and for the sake of everyone's dashes, i've added a cut because This Got Long. like, genuinely, 1.6k and 24 images. you've been warned.)

1. Unfulfilled Desire: something important is missing from the love interests' lives.

before the love interests meet, both of their lives are lacking in some way, often in a way they hardly realize. and this unfulfilled desire doesn't have to be romantic love in and of itself, and quite often it's not. and the things missing from ed and stede's lives are not romantic love. not at first.

what stede's missing is skill and structure. to put it bluntly, he has no idea what the fuck he's doing as a pirate, and without the guidance of someone more experienced, he'd likely get himself and his whole crew killed soon.

meanwhile, what ed's missing is interest. he's just about as bored with his life as anyone can be. every day is the same, and he needs something new—a new environment, a new challenge—to bring the spark back into his life.

2. Meet-Cute: the love interests meet, and at first, their personalities clash.

now, granted... in most meet-cutes, one of the protagonists isn't like three-quarters dead and nearly unconscious. but, as we know, ofmd is not like most shows.

but when we fast forward a bit to their real proper first meeting, we can quickly start to see how their personalities differ. in many meet-cutes, the love interests start off on bad terms, but in ofmd it's more of a contrast than a real clash, as stede and ed take a liking to each other right away.

in their very first conversation, stede is self-conscious and fretting, while ed is relaxed as can be. and as they talk, ed is in awe of stede's eccentricities, and stede is in awe of ed's powerful reputation.

and nothing exemplifies their contrast better than what they spend the rest of the episode doing—literally switching clothes and switching roles, getting a taste of what it would be like to be each other.

3. Happy Together: the love interests spend time together and grow to enjoy each other's company.

the classic honeymoon phase—not necessarily denoting romance yet, just a bond that continues to grow stronger the more time they spend together.

one of their first, biggest bonding events, just a few days after they met, is of course the fancy french party. while the night ends in disaster, the two end up much closer after the experiences they shared.

however, i think by far the best example of this stage is the montage at the beginning of episode 6, narrated by none other than my favorite (derogatory) terrible little rat man, izzy hands, who will become relevant soon. in romcoms, this stage is often shown through montages, so it only makes sense that that would be a great demonstration of it here as well.

4. Obstacles Arise: the love interests' original lives and obligations catch back up with them.

it's no longer possible to avoid the hard truths their happiness let them ignore. while both ed and stede go through this, i think stede goes through it differently and at different, non-linear times, so i'll talk about him first.

the pre-edward life that stede has been forcing to the back of his mind is, quite obviously, his wife and children back on land. and he's done a very effective job of ignoring it while he's been around ed.

he was fretting about it before—like in episode 2 with nigel's guilt ghost—but it doesn't seem to fully hit him again until he learns in episode 9 that he'd been declared dead. (in my opinion, the dreams/flashbacks in episode 4 feel less about stede's guilt, specifically, than these other instances do. but even if they are, that's still before he properly met ed.) so he does go through this stage, but it happens in slightly different ways and at different times.

ed, on the other hand, has a very specific and concrete obligation that catches up with him: a promise he made two weeks ago.

this is where izzy comes in. just as mary is the personified symbol of stede's old life, izzy is the equivalent for ed. whether ed initially intended to follow through on the plan or only said it to placate izzy is up for debate (and my personal take is that it's somewhere in between, but that's a story for another time), but izzy is going to hold him to it regardless.

and when ed can't bring himself to do it, because of both his growing feelings for stede and his trauma around killing people himself, izzy is determined to carry out the act for him.

5. The Journey: the love interests face and overcome the obstacles together.

what better way to overcome adversity than by getting thumbtacked to a mast by the same Very Angy Little Guy who's the source of the adversity in the first place? with izzy banished, the biggest obstacle to ed and stede's love is out of the way (for now).

stede still hasn't overcome his big obstacle, of course, but as i said, that happens very non-linearly with regard to the romcom structure.

the two also overcome other minor obstacles, like their bickering during the treasure hunt adventure. the key is that they face what's in their path and settle into a new normal with each other.

6. New Obstacles: despite solutions seeming effective, more hardships arise.

the next big issue thrown into ed and stede's relationship has a name, and its name is calico jack rackham, my favorite (affectionate) dumpster fire of a man. which makes sense—after all, his sole purpose in meeting up with them was to separate them before the english navy arrived. and he does a damn effective job of it.

and even once he's gone, they're still faced with chauncey badminton, stede's near-execution, and his and ed's eventual surrender to the english. they may have escaped chauncey's wrath (for now), but they bought it at the cost of their freedom.

and on top of all of that, now they finally confess their feelings for each other and make plans to run away together, and the choice—really, stede's choice—of whether or not to go through with running off to china looms in the distance. speaking of which…

7. The Choice: the love interests have to decide if the relationship can work.

a turning point is reached, and a decision has to be made. can they go through with it? are they really the best thing for each other?

the choice stede makes here is helped along in no small part by chauncey badminton, whose encounter just solidifies the beliefs stede already held—that he abandoned his family, and that ed is better off without him.

so stede makes the choice to run.

he goes home to his family, and ed is left to return to the ship alone.

8. Crisis: the love interests—now apart—ruminate and face the consequences of their choice.

the winter of their discontent. stede has made his choice, they've separated, and they're both worse off for it.

ed is depressed, retreating to his blanket fort and writing sad songs while eating marmalade.

and meanwhile, stede is back with mary and the kids, but learns that they'd all moved on and were much happier without him around. so he's left trying to force himself back into a space where he no longer fits, and all the while he misses ed more than anything.

and of course, ed takes it one step further by going full emo kraken mode. he's so distraught about stede leaving that he too forces himself back into the shell of what people expect of him—of what he was supposed to be before he even met stede—despite not fitting there anymore.

it's obvious that without each other, they're both in pretty rough shape.

9. Epiphany: one or both of the love interests conclude that they belong together and rush to reunite.

think of this stage as the person running through the airport to reach their love interest before the flight leaves.

in ofmd, it's clear who has the epiphany, because we watch it happen in real time. stede sits down with mary and asks her how it feels to be in love, and while she describes it, all he can think of is his time with ed. he finally realizes that what he's been feeling all along is love.

once he knows this, he knows he has to leave his family again, so he can reunite with ed. he and mary stage their fuckery, and stede rows off in a dinghy bound for wherever ed is, because he knows that as long as he's with ed, he'll be happy and everything will be okay.

10. Resolution: the love interests are reunited. desires are fulfilled, and all is well.

sooo… stay tuned for october 5th, i suppose?

[incorrectmahabharatquotes]

Genuinely curious, because you seem to hate the Ram Mandir... or how you think one party/ruling government is using it for political gain/votes or how it's wasting money etc.

What do you have to say about the Waqf board act? Or the infamous Shah Bano case and the way the Rajiv Gandhi government went against the decision of the Supreme Court to favour Muslim patriarchy. Or the fact that the Congress government banned books like the Satanic Verses to please a certain community. Is this not politics of appeasement?

You say that the ruling party is playing politics over religion, but hasn't every party done it? It's not like BJP was even hiding it, they've been campaigning for the Ram Mandir rebuilding for decades. It doesn't make it automatically a bad move.

Besides, Ram Mandir is built through devotee donations, so why so much vitriol against it? If Hindus are giving money to construct a temple, it's solely their own decision. I genuinely don't understand why there's so much hatred for it. If a community is reclaiming their holy land, which had been forcibly ruined and rebuilt into another type of building, it's not a bad thing. Plus, a big chunk of land was given to the Sunny Waqf board to build a beautiful mosque in Ayodhya itself, which has begun construction this year (iirc). Both communities will have their interests restored.

Why can't we move on and celebrate the Ram Mandir rebuilding and inauguration? Is decolonization and reclaiming of a place of cultural significance not important?

(I know that some people are being too aggressive about it, but the majority isn't. They're simply celebrating and praying. And some of them actually got attacked for it.)

Okay. Since you're genuinely curious, I'll answer this.

"Why am I criticising the current ruling party for playing politics of appeasement and not any of the other parties?" I'm criticizing them BECAUSE they're the ruling party. They have been in power for close to 10 years now. That's more than 1/3rd of my whole life. This is a hilarious question because I would've been criticizing the same action if it would've been taken by any other political party. I don't have a problem with the party, I have a problem with what they're doing. All citizens are SUPPOSED to do this, my friend. Criticizing your government on what they're doing wrong is a fundamental part of a democracy.

"Politics of appeasement." I hope you understand the difference between appeasement and religious nationalism. The ruling party isn't appeasing anyone. Their acts are guided by their political ideology of Hindutva. I fundamentally disagree with their ideology. I do not agree with them when they say being Hindu is integral to being an Indian. I do not believe in maintaining a Hindu hegemony in India. I simply refuse to accept an ideology that was LITERALLY INSPIRED BY FASCISM AND THE IDEAS OF RACIAL SUPERIORITY.

"What do you have to say about so-and-so?" You know, I would've criticised things I believe are harming our country and power when the governments you speak of were in power. Unfortunately, in certain cases I was not alive then to criticize them and in a few cases, I was a child and I did not know how to form complex sentences. I do not believe in essentialism, you understand? I do not believe that any religion or political party is essentially good or bad. I believe in judging them for what they do.

"They've been campaigning for the Ram Mandir for decades. It doesn't make it automatically a bad move." It's imperative for you to understand this, it is politically a good move and in all other ways a HORRIBLE move. They get the support of all the Hindus who make up the majority of the population? Decent political move. Who could begrudge them for using DIVIDE AND CONQUER as a strategy? But in doing so, what kind of monster have they created? Have they created a billion people who think religious-nationalism is an okay direction for the country's future? Is that a good move, I ask you.

"Ram mandir is built through devotee donations so it's okay." That's close to ₹1,800 crores. (Estimated amount because of course, there's no transparency in the donation system so that we know who donated what amount.) Do you seriously believe all that money came out of the pockets of average working class Indians? Or did the ultra wealthy businessmen fund this religious project and get massive tax breaks in the process? But yes, I'm sure there's no fuckery going on with the money because it's out of DEVOTION. That makes it okay, I guess.

Now we come to the part that is the worst part of this anon message, according to me.

"Reclamation and decolonization." You use these words so lightly and I find that offensive. These words are HIGHLY tied to power structures. Who has the power right now? Is it the mythic evil Islamic conquerors of 400 years ago? Or is it a political party that believes in hindu nationalism and is funded by the ultra wealthy billionaires because said party helps them get even richer? Who is reclaiming what here? I want you to ask yourself this. Can a powerful majority claim reclamation when they tear down a building to build another building there?

"They tore down the temple and built a mosque there" And now you've torn down the mosque and built a temple there. Congratulations, you've won the game. Where do we go from here? Will everyone be happy now? Has peace been restored? A great evil destroyed? What story are we telling ourselves here? Will the religious fanaticism go away now? Will the hatred that has been cultivated in the hearts of Hindus against Muslims be sated? Or will it find more avenues to spread itself?

Decolonizing the mind, right? I wonder why we're only focused on decolonizing against the islamic past and not anything else. But it's okay that India is currently colonising Kashmir. We don't believe in decolonisation when it comes to Kashmir. We don't believe in decolonizing from the system of capitalism that is choking the lives out of us. HELL, WE DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN RECLAMATION SEEING HOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GIVING THE BARE MINIMUM RESERVATION TO CERTAIN COMMUNITIES AS A REPARATION FOR THE HARM THEY'VE HISTORICALLY AND CURRENTLY SUFFERED AND ARE STILL SUFFERING.

I don't want people to talk to me about reclamation, reparation and decolonisation before they accept their own hypocrisy.

Anon, you say have so much vitriol and hate towards a mandir. I should let people celebrate. Did I stop you personally from celebrating? Did I beat up somebody for trying to shove their religious agenda on me? All I did was talk about how sad I am that this is what we've decided to do with our country's resources. Why is one voice of dissent such a big deal to you? Do you want me to shut up and fall in line? Will that be acceptable?

- Mod S