#online religious broadcasting | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

withbriefthanksgiving · 2 years ago

Text

The director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the UN (UN OHCHR), Craig Mokhiber, has resigned in a letter dated 28 October 2023

the resignation letter can be found embedded in this tweet by Rami Atari (@.Raminho) dated 31 October 2023.

The letters are here:

Transcription:

United Nations | Nations Unies

HEADQUARTERS I SIEGE I NEW YORK, NY 10017

28 October 2023

Dear High Commissioner,

This will be my last official communication to you as Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

I write at a moment of great anguish for the world, including for many of our colleagues. Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it. As someone who has investigated human rights in Palestine since the 1980s, lived in Gaza as a UN human rights advisor in the 1990s, and carried out several human rights missions to the country before and since, this is deeply personal to me.

I also worked in these halls through the genocides against the Tutsis, Bosnian Muslims, the Yazidi, and the Rohingya. In each case, when the dust settled on the horrors that had been perpetrated against defenseless civilian populations, it became painfully clear that we had failed in our duty to meet the imperatives of prevention of mass atrocites, of protection of the vulnerable, and of accountability for perpetrators. And so it has been with successive waves of murder and persecution against the Palestinians throughout the entire life of the UN.

High Commissioner, we are failing again.

As a human rights lawyer with more than three decades of experience in the field, I know well that the concept of genocide has often been subject to political abuse. But the current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs, and coupled with explicit statements of intent by leaders in the Israeli government and military, leaves no room for doubt or debate. In Gaza, civilian homes, schools, churches, mosques, and medical institutions are wantonly attacked as thousands of civilians are massacred. In the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, homes are seized and reassigned based entirely on race, and violent settler pogroms are accompanied by Israeli military units. Across the land, Apartheid rules.

This is a text-book case of genocide. The European, ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project in Palestine has entered its final phase, toward the expedited destruction of the last remnants of indigenous Palestinian life in Palestine. What's more, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. Not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations "to ensure respect" for the Geneva Conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the assault, providing economic and intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for Israel's atrocities.

Volker Turk, High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais Wilson, Geneva

In concert with this, western corporate media, increasingly captured and state-adjacent, are in open breach of Article 20 of the ICCPR, continuously dehumanizing Palestinians to facilitate the genocide, and broadcasting propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence. US-based social media companies are suppressing the voices of human rights defenders while amplifying pro-Israel propaganda. Israel lobby online-trolls and GONGOS are harassing and smearing human rights defenders, and western universities and employers are collaborating with them to punish those who dare to speak out against the atrocities. In the wake of this genocide, there must be an accounting for these actors as well, just as there was for radio Mules Collins in Rwanda.

In such circumstances, the demands on our organization for principled and effective action are greater than ever. But we phave not met the challenge. The protective enforcement power Security Council has again been blocked by US intransigence, the SG [UN Secretary General] is under assault for the mildest of protestations, and our human rights mechanisms are under sustained slanderous attack by an organized, online impunity network.

Decades of distraction by the illusory and largely disingenuous promises of Oslo have diverted the Organization from its core duty to defend international law, international human rights, and the Charter itself. The mantra of the "two-state solution" has become an open joke in the corridors of the UN, both for its utter impossibility in fact, and for its total failure to account for the inalienable human rights of the Palestinian people. The so-called "Quartet" has become nothing more than a fig leaf for inaction and for subservience to a brutal status quo. The (US-scripted) deference to "agreements between the parties themselves" (in place of international law) was always a transparent slight-of-hand, designed to reinforce the power of Israel over the rights of the occupied and dispossessed Palestinians.

High Commissioner, I came to this Organization first in the 1980s, because I found in it a principled, norm-based institution that was squarely on the side of human rights, including in cases where the powerful US, UK, and Europe were not on our side. While my own government, its subsidiarity institutions, and much of the US media were still supporting or justifying South African apartheid, Israeli oppression, and Central American death squads, the UN was standing up for the oppressed peoples of those lands. We had international law on our side. We had human rights on our side. We had principle on our side. Our authority was rooted in our integrity. But no more.

In recent decades, key parts of the UN have surrendered to the power of the US, and to fear of the Israel Lobby, to abandon these principles, and to retreat from international law itself. We have lost a lot in this abandonment, not least our own global credibility. But the Palestinian people have sustained the biggest losses as a result of our failures. It is a stunning historic irony that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in the same year that the Nakba was perpetrated against the Palestinian people. As we commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the UDHR, we would do well to abandon the old cliché that the UDHR was born out of the atrocities that proceeded it, and to admit that it was born alongside one of the most atrocious genocides of the 20th Century, that of the destruction of Palestine. In some sense, the framers were promising human rights to everyone, except the Palestinian people. And let us remember as well, that the UN itself carries the original sin of helping to facilitate the dispossession of the Palestinian people by ratifying the European settler colonial project that seized Palestinian land and turned it over to the colonists. We have much for which to atone.

But the path to atonement is clear. We have much to learn from the principled stance taken in cities around the world in recent days, as masses of people stand up against the genocide, even at risk of beatings and arrest. Palestinians and their allies, human rights defenders of every stripe, Christian and Muslim organizations, and progressive Jewish voices saying "not in our name", are all leading the way. All we have to do is to follow them.

Yesterday, just a few blocks from here, New York's Grand Central Station was completely taken over by thousands of Jewish human rights defenders standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people and demanding an end to Israeli tyranny (many risking arrest, in the process). In doing so, they stripped away in an instant the Israeli hasbara propaganda point (and old antisemitic trope) that Israel somehow represents the Jewish people. It does not. And, as such, Israel is solely responsible for its crimes. On this point, it bears repeating, in spite of Israel lobby smears to the contrary, that criticism of Israel's human rights violations is not antisemitic, any more than criticism of Saudi violations is Islamophobic, criticism of Myanmar violations is anti-Buddhist, or criticism of Indian violations is anti-Hindu. When they seek to silence us with smears, we must raise our voice, not lower it. I trust you will agree, High Commissioner, that this is what speaking truth to power is all about.

But I also find hope in those parts of the UN that have refused to compromise the Organization's human rights principles in spite of enormous pressures to do so. Our independent special rapporteurs, commissions of enquiry, and treaty body experts, alongside most of our staff, have continued to stand up for the human rights of the Palestinian people, even as other parts of the UN (even at the highest levels) have shamefully bowed their heads to power. As the custodians of the human rights norms and standards, OHCHR. has a particular duty to defend those standards. Our job, I believe, is to make our voice heard, from the Secretary-General to the newest UN recruit, and horizontally across the wider UN system, incisting that the human rights of the Palestinian people are not up for debate, negotiation, or compromise anywhere under the blue flag.

What, then, would a UN-norm-based position look like? For what would we work if we were true to our rhetorical admonitions about human rights and equality for all, accountability for perpetrators, redress for victims, protection of the vulnerable, and empowerment for rights-holders, all under the rule of law? The answer, I believe, is simple—if we have the clarity to see beyond the propagandistic smokescreens that distort the vision of justice to which we are sworn, the courage to abandon fear and deference to powerful states, and the will to truly take up the banner of human rights and peace. To be sure, this is a long-term project and a steep climb. But we must begin now or surrender to unspeakable horror. I see ten essential points:

Legitimate action: First, we in the UN must abandon the failed (and largely disingenuous) Oslo paradigm, its illusory two-state solution, its impotent and complicit Quartet, and its subjugation of international law to the dictates of presumed political expediency. Our positions must be unapologetically based on international human rights and international law.

Clarity of Vision: We must stop the pretense that this is simply a conflict over land or religion between two warring parties and admit the reality of the situation in which a disproportionately powerful state is colonizing, persecuting, and dispossessing an indigenous population on the basis of their ethnicity.

One State based on human rights: We must support the establishment of a single, democratic, secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and, therefore, the dicmantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land.

Fighting Apartheid: We must redirect all UN efforts and resources to the struggle against apartheid, just as we did for South Africa in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s.

Return and Compensation: We must reaffirm and insist on the right to return and full compensation for all Palestinians and their families currently living in the occupied territories, in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and in the diaspora across the globe.

Truth and Justice: We must call for a transitional justice process, making full use of decades of accumulated UN investigations, enquiries, and reports, to document the truth, and to ensure accountability for all perpetrators, redress for all victims, and remedies for documented injustices.

Protection: We must press for the deployment of a well-resourced and strongly mandated UN protection force with a sustained mandate to protect civilians from the river to the sea.

Disarmament: We must advocate for the removal and destruction of Israel's massive stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, lest the conflict lead to the total destruction of the region and, possibly, beyond.

Mediation: We must recognize that the US and other western powers are in fact not credible mediators, but rather actual parties to the conflict who are complicit with Israel in the violation of Palestinian rights, and we must engage them as such.

Solidarity: We must open our doors (and the doors of the SG) wide to the legions of Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian human rights defenders who are standing in solidarity with the people of Palestine and their human rights and stop the unconstrained flow of Israel lobbyists to the offices of UN leaders, where they advocate for continued war, persecution, apartheid, and impunity, and smear our human rights defenders for their principled defense of Palestinian rights.

This will take years to achieve, and western powers will fight us every step of the way, so we must be steadfast. In the immediate term, we must work for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the longstanding siege on Gaza, stand up against the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (and elsewhere), document the genocidal assault in Gaza, help to bring massive humanitarian aid and reconstruction to the Palestinians, take care of our traumatized colleagues and their families, and fight like hell for a principled approach in the UN's political offices.

The UN's failure in Palestine thus far is not a reason for us to withdraw. Rather it should give us the courage to abandon the failed paradigm of the past, and fully embrace a more principled course. Let us, as OHCHR, boldly and proudly join the anti-apartheid movement that is growing all around the world, adding our logo to the banner of equality and human rights for the Palestinian people. The world is watching. We will all be accountable for where we stood at this crucial moment in history. Let us stand on the side of justice.

I thank you, High Commissioner, Volker, for hearing this final appeal from my desk. I will leave the Office in a few days for the last time, after more than three decades of service. But please do not hesitate to reach out if I can be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

Craig Mokhiber

End of transcription.

Emphasis (bolding) is my own. I have added links, where relevant, to explanations of concepts the former Director refers to.

#Israel #Palestine #October 2023 #28 October 2023 #United Nations #Described #Long post #I’ll add more links to the things he is talking about later

15K notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 11 months ago

Text

Holy CRAP the UN Cybercrime Treaty is a nightmare

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

If there's one thing I learned from all my years as an NGO delegate to UN specialized agencies, it's that UN treaties are dangerous, liable to capture by unholy alliances of authoritarian states and rapacious global capitalists.

Most of my UN work was on copyright and "paracopyright," and my track record was 2:0; I helped kill a terrible treaty (the WIPO Broadcast Treaty) and helped pass a great one (the Marrakesh Treaty on the rights of people with disabilities to access copyrighted works):

https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/

It's been many years since I had to shave and stuff myself into a suit and tie and go to Geneva, and I don't miss it – and thankfully, I have colleagues who do that work, better than I ever did. Yesterday, I heard from one such EFF colleague, Katitza Rodriguez, about the Cybercrime Treaty, which is about to pass, and which is, to put it mildly, terrifying:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/un-cybercrime-draft-convention-dangerously-expands-state-surveillance-powers

Look, cybercrime is a real thing, from pig butchering to ransomware, and there's real, global harms that can be attributed to it. Cybercrime is transnational, making it hard for cops in any one jurisdiction to handle it. So there's a reason to think about formal international standards for fighting cybercrime.

But that's not what's in the Cybercrime Treaty.

Here's a quick sketch of the significant defects in the Cybercrime Treaty.

The treaty has an extremely loose definition of cybercrime, and that looseness is deliberate. In authoritarian states like China and Russia (whose delegations are the driving force behind this treaty), "cybercrime" has come to mean "anything the government disfavors, if you do it with a computer." "Cybercrime" can mean online criticism of the government, or professions of religious belief, or material supporting LGBTQ rights.

Nations that sign up to the Cybercrime Treaty will be obliged to help other nations fight "cybercrime" – however those nations define it. They'll be required to provide surveillance data – for example, by forcing online services within their borders to cough up their users' private data, or even to pressure employees to install back-doors in their systems for ongoing monitoring.

These obligations to aid in surveillance are mandatory, but much of the Cybercrime Treaty is optional. What's optional? The human rights safeguards. Member states "should" or "may" create standards for legality, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and legitimate purpose. But even if they do, the treaty can oblige them to assist in surveillance orders that originate with other states that decided not to create these standards.

When that happens, the citizens of the affected states may never find out about it. There are eight articles in the treaty that establish obligations for indefinite secrecy regarding surveillance undertaken on behalf of other signatories. That means that your government may be asked to spy on you and the people you love, they may order employees of tech companies to backdoor your account and devices, and that fact will remain secret forever. Forget challenging these sneak-and-peek orders in court – you won't even know about them:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/un-cybercrime-draft-convention-blank-check-unchecked-surveillance-abuses

Now here's the kicker: while this treaty creates broad powers to fight things governments dislike, simply by branding them "cybercrime," it actually undermines the fight against cybercrime itself. Most cybercrime involves exploiting security defects in devices and services – think of ransomware attacks – and the Cybercrime Treaty endangers the security researchers who point out these defects, creating grave criminal liability for the people we rely on to warn us when the tech vendors we rely upon have put us at risk.

This is the granddaddy of tech free speech fights. Since the paper tape days, researchers who discovered defects in critical systems have been intimidated, threatened, sued and even imprisoned for blowing the whistle. Tech giants insist that they should have a veto over who can publish true facts about the defects in their products, and dress up this demand as concern over security. "If you tell bad guys about the mistakes we made, they will exploit those bugs and harm our users. You should tell us about those bugs, sure, but only we can decide when it's the right time for our users and customers to find out about them."

When it comes to warnings about the defects in their own products, corporations have an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Time and again, we've seen corporations rationalize their way into suppressing or ignoring bug reports. Sometimes, they simply delay the warning until they've concluded a merger or secured a board vote on executive compensation.

Sometimes, they decide that a bug is really a feature – like when Facebook decided not to do anything about the fact that anyone could enumerate the full membership of any Facebook group (including, for example, members of a support group for people with cancer). This group enumeration bug was actually a part of the company's advertising targeting system, so they decided to let it stand, rather than re-engineer their surveillance advertising business.

The idea that users are safer when bugs are kept secret is called "security through obscurity" and no one believes in it – except corporate executives. As Bruce Schneier says, "Anyone can design a system that is so secure that they themselves can't break it. That doesn't mean it's secure – it just means that it's secure against people stupider than the system's designer":

The history of massive, brutal cybersecurity breaches is an unbroken string of heartbreakingly naive confidence in security through obscurity:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

But despite this, the idea that some bugs should be kept secret and allowed to fester has powerful champions: a public-private partnership of corporate execs, government spy agencies and cyber-arms dealers. Agencies like the NSA and CIA have huge teams toiling away to discover defects in widely used products. These defects put the populations of their home countries in grave danger, but rather than reporting them, the spy agencies hoard these defects.

The spy agencies have an official doctrine defending this reckless practice: they call it "NOBUS," which stands for "No One But Us." As in: "No one but us is smart enough to find these bugs, so we can keep them secret and use them attack our adversaries, without worrying about those adversaries using them to attack the people we are sworn to protect."

NOBUS is empirically wrong. In the 2010s, we saw a string of leaked NSA and CIA cyberweapons. One of these, "Eternalblue" was incorporated into off-the-shelf ransomware, leading to the ransomware epidemic that rages even today. You can thank the NSA's decision to hoard – rather than disclose and patch – the Eternalblue exploit for the ransoming of cities like Baltimore, hospitals up and down the country, and an oil pipeline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EternalBlue

The leak of these cyberweapons didn't just provide raw material for the world's cybercriminals, it also provided data for researchers. A study of CIA and NSA NOBUS defects found that there was a one-in-five chance of a bug that had been hoarded by a spy agency being independently discovered by a criminal, weaponized, and released into the wild.

Not every government has the wherewithal to staff its own defect-mining operation, but that's where the private sector steps in. Cyber-arms dealers like the NSO Group find or buy security defects in widely used products and services and turn them into products – military-grade cyberweapons that are used to attack human rights groups, opposition figures, and journalists:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/24/breaking-the-news/#kingdom

A good Cybercrime Treaty would recognize the perverse incentives that create the coalition to keep us from knowing which products we can trust and which ones we should avoid. It would shut down companies like the NSO Group, ban spy agencies from hoarding defects, and establish an absolute defense for security researchers who reveal true facts about defects.

Instead, the Cybercrime Treaty creates new obligations on signatories to help other countries' cops and courts silence and punish security researchers who make these true disclosures, ensuring that spies and criminals will know which products aren't safe to use, but we won't (until it's too late):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/if-not-amended-states-must-reject-flawed-draft-un-cybercrime-convention

A Cybercrime Treaty is a good idea, and even this Cybercrime Treaty could be salvaged. The member-states have it in their power to accept proposed revisions that would protect human rights and security researchers, narrow the definition of "cybercrime," and mandate transparency. They could establish member states' powers to refuse illegitimate requests from other countries:

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/media-briefing-eff-partners-warn-un-member-states-are-poised-approve-dangerou

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/23/expanded-spying-powers/#in-russia-crime-cybers-you

Image: EFF https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/cybercrime-2024-2b.jpg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

#pluralistic #cybercrime treaty #un #cybercrime #treaties #eff

844 notes · View notes

ladythornofrivia · 1 year ago

Text

🍒 The Devil’s Tongue 🍒

Michael Gavey x Reader (PART ONE)

summary: you transferred into Oxford after moving out from your country for a better change, and unexpectedly meeting Michael Gavey in a quiet library, leads to something more.

warnings: creepy vibes from michael gavey, reader being oblivious, stalking, michael being horny, p in v sex, loss of virginity, jealousy, misunderstandings, obsession, belt kink, panty kink, scent kink, voice kink, breeding kink, michael gavey being a smartass, michael gavey is horny for math, michael gavey is a smartass, clueless reader, nerdy yet hot michael, lust at first sight, sex in the library, sex on the table, kitchen sex, oral sex, cam girl, fingering, sex during tutoring session, reader teasing, reader being a dominatrix in bed, food porn.

a/n: i forgot to review the movie saltburn last year, so I’ll give it a short review. Saltburn is a weird movie, but i watched it because of Ewan Mitchell. While ewan mitchell is 10/10, saltburn is 7/10, because of the bathtub scene and the grave scene. the only thing that’s good is the cinematography, music and ewan mitchell. i wish there’s more scenes from him. yes, i keep saying his name! he’s so fucking hot as a nerd. this one shot will be long.

You like cherries.

There’s something mysterious and tempting about the roundish and reddish fruits. Cherries are sweet, and it’s dark-reddish color brought an appeal to your appetite and. Appeal that also changes your view in fashion.

And as hot as the Devil’s tongue.

Red symbolized lust.

Sinful, they proclaimed.

So does your pussy, when you splayed across the bed, watched as Michael entered and his face bewildered when you splayed naked in bed with thick whip cream smothered on your tits, waist, and your pussy decorated in whip cream swirled with cherry on top.

"Hi, baby. I've been waiting for you," you said as your legs spread, thick of whip cream and candied cherry cascaded slowly.

***

A Year Ago…

Your parents and your attention seeking relatives are no good. Red is as sin as lust—the devil’s skin, the devil’s horn.

Other than black and pink, you like the dark-cherry color. All your aesthetics are cherry red—well, the undertones to match your little room at your small house belongs to your parents.

Them and their sinless views of the world has sickened to your stomach. You don’t want to be like your hypocritical, martyr parents for the rest of your life, so you applied for the university at Oxford and Northamptonshire. You got accepted to the university. Despite being a young woman, you managed to prove them wrong.

And sever ties with them to go at the University of Oxford, where you encounter numerous people. You’ve done research to get things right—not to be frigid or superficially pretentious; you didn’t want to embarrass yourself on the spot if you chose to be ignorant.

One thing that no one else knows of you, is that you moonlight as a dominatrix on a live stream. Every night, you broadcast online to pleasure yourself—that’s how you got money to bail from a strict and hypocritical religious household.

Few of the students looked at your direction, giving a side-eye. You overheard them calling you a prostitute, but you couldn’t care less. Dress to impress for yourself. You mostly wore bike leather jacket, a tank top, mini skirt and a chunky dark-cherry red boots with light make up, but the lipstick is glossy dark red—and not the irritable, sticky kind.

Your long locks tossed at the side, already at your assigned room, but you shut the windows completely. You don’t want to reveal the private side of your internet sensation. After closing the curtains, you’re off to the hall, where people gathered and talk, mainly about drama and parties.

You hadn’t known one. But you had party to yourself of gaining source of income from self-pleasure.

There you sat down, and overheard someone at your left. Afar, you saw a young man named Oliver Quick and another guy with nerdy glasses.

Michael Gavey.

“Fuckin’ ask me a sum then!” The chatter dimmed when a young man shouted about math.

No one really likes as the guy with the nerdy glasses does. But he does look cute when he’s fuming.

Maybe he’s sexually frustrated. All it needs is I need to work on a poor guy. Poor guy is so frustrated—a no man island himself, like Oliver Quick.

You could tell. So you chimed in.

“What’s the square root of 69”

Both boys turned to look at you.

“I’m sorry, who are you?” Oliver inquired, perplexed.

“Oh, just a curious person asking him a question,” you said, jerking your head towards the blond and cutely frustrated boy.

“8.30662386292,” is all the blond uttered.

Your lips tugged into a smirk, and left.

Interesting, now I have a new kink to look forward to for my next kinky session.

***

It’s quite luxurious for a library—grand yet old like wines in the cellar. You studied Political Science and Art, and while you studied and sometimes drawing, but a certain snack bar caught your eye; it was placed above your drawing.

“I got you a crunchie,” a voice said. You turned and saw Michael Gavey.

“Oh, um, thanks?”

“I have never seen you before,” he noted.

“Really? So do I.”

“As a matter of fact, you have disrupted us during our friendly conversation.”

Oliver Quick was anything but friendly and comfortable.

“Okay and?”

He quirked a brow. “Your attitude is unusual.”

“Well, where I came from, it’s not really an issue. I’m a straight forward kind of gal,” you explained.

Michael hummed, staring at you.

“Pardon my rudeness. I’m Michael Gavey.” His hand stretched out. “I never get your name.

“I’m (Y/N) (L/N).” You offered a handshake in return.

“Where are you from?”

“I’m from America.”

“Ah, yes. The land of freedom,” he commented, trying to make you laugh.

You laughed awkwardly. You have never smiled or laughed before—in a non-superficial way. You laughed and smiled during as a cam girl, but other than that, you never smile genuinely.

Somehow it caught his eye. His glasses beamed that you could see the color of his hues.

“An awkward foreign girl.”

“Yeah, so? I’m not really a people-person.”

“Why did you come here, then? For a good fuck?”

Ghastly, you turned around to see if anyone catches his words, but nobody pays attention.

“Are you going to the party?”

“What party?”

“The party Felix and his friends are heading tonight.”

“Who the hell is Felix?”

Michael darted his eyes behind you, and followed the sign; Felix and Farleigh sat at the back between the shelves.

“Apparently, he’s hosting a party tonight. NFI, me and you. Not Fucking Invited.”

“Well, I don’t give a fuck about parties that much.”

Michael tsked. “That’s a very strong language.”

“Says the guy who says NFI. Besides, I don’t like parties,” you said, and it wasn’t a half lie. You have an upcoming camgirl session tonight.

“A shame,” Michael said, then reaching for the crunchie.

You have never tried snacks from another culture.

“Is it good?” you asked him.

He ripped the snack bar open, and gave you a piece. “Try it and see for yourself.”

And you did.

It was worth it.

Nevermind how Michael watched you in fascination.

***

The roofs and walls of University has been but a sham; it was real quiet.

Too quiet.

You hated quiet rooms.

In your next session, your fingers swirled your swollen clit, thinking of Michael Gavey’s rosy lips and tongue licking and nibbling your wet cunt and a tight hole.

You never fucked anybody, but you wanted your first time to be special. You rode on a dildo, trying not to moan so loud, but you come down high. The faster you moved, the more erotic images of a nerdy Michael seeping into you.

This is my kind of party.

***

Somewhere, in a darkened room, Michael Gavey’s hand filled with cum, and his other hand pressed the send button on his computer screen.

It was sensational to see.

You.

Who would’ve thought he met you—a famous camgirl.

He couldn’t stop thinking about how your eyes twinkled when you ate crunchie for the first time—far from the horniness and snobbish act you put up in public. It was a delight to see . With your outstanding getup and attitude, he knew that he’s in a right place.

Taglist: @toodlesxcuddles @kittendoll05 @omgsuperstarg @xcharlottemikaelsonx @paninisstuff @danika1994 @angeljcca @marvelescvpe @kukulyarva @namelesslosers @heavenly1927 @snh96 @fandom-maniac-anime @httpsmenace @velunis @nananeptune @domithebomi @moonseye @faesspace @tm-starr @xinthia19 @popsycles @halsteadstyles @lothiriel9 @liannafae @ammo23 @blackswxnn @buccini555 @watercolorskyy @taangie @qardasngan @justyelena @jolixtreesunn @runekisses @thought--bubble @remuslupinwife1 @evergreen9083 @foggypeacestarlight @dixie-elocin @galactict3a @momowhoo @saturnssrings @dani5216 @kimsubin05 @blackgaladriel @valeskafics @theboleyngirlx @elaratyrell @mylosz0

410 notes · View notes

beadyeyes · 10 months ago

Text

My proof that I was not psychotic at any point in my life organized in my notes app

1. Constantly believed the world was on the cusp of ending horrifically and that I needed to be prepepared to face extremely traumatic circumstances i.e. watching my family die, being forced to kill them or others, or being attacked/killed/assaulted/tortured

Nuclear fallout. Wore 2-3 layers even in 120 degree weather because I thought it would protect me from radiation output over the valley, wind burns, extreme weather, etc.

2. Zombie apocalypse. I was constantly afraid people in the street would start attacking and killing each other due to sickness or mass psychosis. Any time I was in large social gatherings I would costantly anticipate a massive violent outbreak. I would avoid being physically around any one I didn't know while outside in case they would suddenly try to attack me.

Obsessively watched / read / consumed every zombie related media I could find thinking it would hold secrets for survival or prevention despite how much it scared & gave me horrible nightmares

3. Rapture. Was worried my family would disappear and leave me behind to fend for myself amongst "the evil sinners" left on earth. That I was constantly committing sins that were keeping me from going with them, that I was going to hell no matter what.

Believed that god was constantly monitoring my thoughts

Through exposure to online zealots / religious texts (a specific one I remember was of self flagellating monks, book of David, etc.) I came to think that I had to use self harm to redeem myself before the world ended

4. Extreme weather/ other natural disaster. Was literally just always scared of volcanoes erupting or sea levels rising and every thing else. Was obsessed with reading "The Road" because my dad reccommended it before disowning me & that actively fed this delusion by telling me how close society was to being destroyed.

Was constantly trying to make survival routes/ plans/ caches around my house and neighborhood. Collecting things I believed would help me survive. Categorized my items by how willing I was to lose them in an emergency. Resewed my clothes to have extra hidden pockets which I packed with things I thought I could use to survive.

1. Auditory hallucinations

Heard weather sirens, alarms, air raid signals, and emergency broadcast system annoucements

Was obsessed with the silent hill / war of the worlds movies for their prominent siren motifs

Still fixated on sirens and emergency broadcast sounds; but don't hear them at random any more.

Heard people screaming or whispering. Would hear them saying my name / begging for help.

Would hear lines from movies after I fixated and binged for days/weeks continuing to play full blast over my ears and prevent me from doing any thing until it played out.

1. The "mind readers"

Was convinced that some people read minds and hide this

That every one but me could read minds & wouldn't tell me about it

Reading minds was some unspoken rule I was not apart of

Or by not being able to read minds myself, I was left out of conversations and had no context to join them

2. The "chosen ones"

Believed there were secret chosen ones amongst my peers who would go to heaven immediately during rapture and they knew it

I was excluded from the salvation for some unknown reason and because I couldn't figure out why, I was damned

Gave up at this point and left this untouched in my notes forever😜

24 notes · View notes

mysticalcream · 9 months ago

Text

Sexual Abuse in the Online Cartoon Community.

I am an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse and I have developmental disabilities. Stefan Jankovic, known on Twitter/X as @etika2001 (and using the now-banned Tiny Toon Simp account) groomed and sexually assaulted me on multiple occasions between 2022 and 2024. Acacia Schell, using the main Twitter/X handle @kcnite1 (and also using the handles @kcdaycreations / @kcnite1 / @kcdarknite) supports him and contributed to my abuse. A woman named Priscilla, using the @smolcilla Twitter account, emotionally abused and socially isolated me after I was groomed by Jankovic and Schell into drawing Lola Bunny NSFW. A man named Steve, using the Twitter handle @toasttank, doxed these images to @smolcilla and distributed them without my consent in an effort to ruin my reputation. He claimed I “betrayed her trust” by “hiding” this from @smolcilla, even though it was done after my friendship with her ended. Neither party was upset that I was manipulated into drawing things that I didn't want to draw. They were upset that I drew a fictional adult in sexual situations that would be considered tame if broadcast on Adult Swim. The details and documented proof are in the following document:

I want to be very, very clear about something up front. @etika2001 and @kcnite1 identify as proshippers. This is NOT about that. When you are sending porn to someone who repeatedly says no, when you are gaslighting them to think they’re weird for being uncomfortable with it, when you’re telling them to draw porn and to “add more tears” so you’ll cum harder when you look at it, this is not fiction anymore. Even if you are so proship that you think that as long as the realistically drawn CP @etika2001 had in his likes is fictional, it's okay (more details on this in the document), I am still a real person he hurt. Legally speaking, what @etika2001 did is a crime. Regardless of whether or not he is prosecuted (considering the complications of him being in another country) the police took it seriously when I reported it. @etika2001 and @kcnite1 use proshipping arguments that "it's all just fiction" until it actually starts harming people. If you are proship, you should not want these people anywhere near your community, and you should want the same if you're an anti.

I have included everything I can in here so you know I am telling the truth and being as open and honest as possible, to my own detriment. I reveal in this document that I have religious leanings and even some conservative opinions on certain subjects, which is social suicide in these spaces. But even if you hate me for those reasons, this is not about that. This is about their overall pattern of behavior and the other people they are harming.

If you have a soul, reblog this, share it on other sites like X, make it known. Don't let these people get away with this and keep doing it to others.

14 notes · View notes

asordinaryppl · 1 year ago

Text

A3! Main Story: Part 4 - Act 14: DREAM CATCHER - Episode 5: Dressing Room Greeting

Igawa: Should the shooting this afternoon go smoothly, we will be able to wrap everything up on the day after tomorrow.

Tenma: We have to make sure we don’t drag this on.

Igawa: The schedule was pretty tight this time around.

Igawa: Since the next drama will be an original drama only available for online streaming, I believe there will be a little more leeway with the schedule.

Igawa: There’s been a lot of talk about streaming-only drama lately, but what would you like to do, Tenma-kun? Would you rather prioritize TV broadcasting?

Tenma: Nah, I want to keep deciding based on whether it’ll help me grow as an actor, as I’ve done till now.

Tenma: They’ve both got their benefits. TV broadcasting will always have a religious following, and streaming can be viewed worldwide.

Igawa: Understood.

Igawa: Once the next filming is finished, you can focus on the performance. Your father has also expressed his concerns about the current state of the theater industry.

Tenma: Father? This is a different field from his, but he sure is staying informed.

Igawa: Your father cares about you far more than you realize, Tenma-kun.

Igawa: When there was all that commotion with the fire at MANKAI Theater and the company was in trouble, he was seriously worried…

Igawa: He was really disheartened by the fact that he was too busy to be of any help.

Tenma: It all turned out okay, though…

Igawa: Oh yes, regarding the Sumeragi Office’s policies–

[Phone vibrating]

Igawa: Ahaha, excuse me. I have to take this one.

Tenma: Sure.

[Igawa leaves, the door closes]

Tenma: (I had no idea Father cared so much. We don’t keep in contact that much…)

[Knocks on the door]

Tenma: Igawa? Did you forget something?

Hiro: Yo.

Tenma: !?

Hiro: I saw your name on the door, so I thought I’d stop by to say hi. I’ve also got a filming in this studio

Tenma: Ah, I see.

Hiro: My Tenma Sumeragi fanboy of a son has been telling me everything you’ve been up to… Sounds like you’re as busy as usual.

Tenma: I could say the same to you.

Hiro: It's tough work, but I'm grareful for the opportunities. I thought today was intense, but I'm flying to the US tomorrow.

Tenma: The US? Like an on-location shooting?

Hiro: I ain’t the lead, but I’m filming a Hollywood movie.

Tenma: That’s amazing.

Hiro: You also plan on taking the world stage the way your father has, yeah?

Hiro: Hurry and catch up.

Tenma: — —

Hiro: … Though now’s not the time for that. I’m sure the entire company has their hands full after being swept into Yukio’s typhoon.

Hiro: I’ll be rooting for you, so do your best.

Tenma: Yeah, of course we will.

Hiro: See ya.

[Hiro leaves, the door closes]

Tenma: …

Tenma: (The world stage, huh… Like he said, now's not the time…)

Tenma: (But, someday, I'll also…)

[Phone notification blip]

Tenma: ?

Tenma: (A LIME from Father…? That’s rare...)

Tenma: !!

previous episode | masterpost | next episode

#a3!#translation #a3! translation #tenma sumeragi #hiro hyuga #igawa #hi guys sorry for the delay i'm posting from my phone LOL #not as easy i thought...#editing this a day later as a realize. an actors office is usually ... called an agency #i know english guys. i promise.

13 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 1 year ago

Text

French politicians from across the political spectrum Wednesday denounced what they called an "Islamist" attack on education after a school principal resigned following death threats over a Muslim veil.

The headmaster at a high school and college in eastern Paris quit after receiving death threats online following an altercation with a student, officials told AFP on Tuesday.

In late February, he had asked three students to remove their headscarves on school premises, but one of them refused and an altercation ensued, according to prosecutors. He later received death threats online.

According to a school letter sent to teachers, pupils and parents on Tuesday, the principal stood down for "security reasons", while education officials said he had taken "early retirement".

"It's a disgrace," Bruno Retailleau, the head of the right-wing Republicans faction in the Senate upper house, said on X (former Twitter) on Wednesday.

Voilà à quoi aboutit le « pas de vague », voilà où nous mènent les petites lâchetés et les grands renoncements. La démission de ce proviseur est le résultat de la démission de l’éducation nationale et de l’Etat tout entier. Une honte. https://t.co/OAC8fpHDxg— Bruno Retailleau (@BrunoRetailleau) March 27, 2024

"We can't accept it," Boris Vallaud, the head of the Socialist deputies in the National Assembly lower house, told television broadcaster France 2, calling the incident "a collective failure".

Marion Marechal, the granddaughter of far-right patriarch Jean-Marie Le Pen and a popular far-right politician herself, spoke on Sud Radio of a "defeat of the state" in the face of "the Islamist gangrene".

Maud Bregeon, a lawmaker with President Emmanuel Macron's Renaissance party, also took aim at "an Islamist movement".

"Authority lies with school heads and teachers, and we have a duty to support this educational community," Bregeon said.

A 26-year-old man has been arrested for making death threats against the principal on the internet. He is due to stand trial in April.

France is home to Europe's largest Muslim community.

In 2004, authorities banned school children from wearing "signs or outfits by which students ostensibly show a religious affiliation" such as headscarves, turbans or kippas on the basis of the country's secular laws which are meant to guarantee neutrality in state institutions.

#nunyas news #religion of peace #is at it again

17 notes · View notes

steviewashere · 11 months ago

Text

One of my biggest (and admittedly nerdier) fascinations/special interests is lost media. Doesn't matter the type of media; it could be a TV show, animated children's movie, a commercial that premiered once and was subsequently vaulted, a religious show on a local public broadcasting channel, a misprint copy of a book, etc. etc.

I just love it all. Anyway. I want to share a lost media thing of my own that I remember interacting with at one point in my childhood, but has little to no attention on it. More on it below the cut, if you're interested.

If you were a kid (fuck it, any age) in the late '90s and into the 2000s/early 2010s specifically, you might've had one of these:

This is a Baby Bottle Pop. They are a sucker/sugar combo candy. Basically acting similar to FunDip; you suck on the lollipop top (the part that looks like the nipple for a baby bottle) and then dip it inside the bottle, where there's flavored sugar. Typically, the sugar is flavored something like strawberry or blue raspberry, something fruity. These are still produced; although, I haven't seen them on a grocery store shelf in years—seems like they're sold at special confectionary stores in malls now, like Lolli & Pops, but I haven't seen them next to Kit-Kats at the checkout stand since I was a kid.

Anyway.

Back in the early 2010s, Baby Bottle Pop had this promotional thing going on. Where, if you bought one of these candies, you'd be given an exclusive online code. (The cultural zeitgeist of late 2000s/early 2010s internet.) The online code gave you access to this MMO game, much like other exclusive online codes on products at the time—functionally similar to Webkinz, though you weren't redeeming a virtual pet to take care of.

You'd make an account via Baby Bottle Pop's website, babybottlepop.com, once you had access to the code. You needed a code from a purchased product in order to get in. (If the product wasn't purchased and you tried to use the code, it would be immediately invalidated as it hadn't been activated. Y'know, think of it as an inactive gift card). (Also, this is what really separated BBP's MMO from other advertised children's MMOs. Webkinz, you didn't have to purchase a pet in order to play, but it was cooler if you did. BBP required that you purchased a product or you couldn't play. Shitty, I know.)

Once in the game, you'd design an avatar that looked exactly like a baby, and then you'd have access to mini games, other player's avatars, and a point and click free roam world (highly similar to how Club Penguin functioned).

There is one commercial that I found from the Baby Bottle Pop campaign I'm thinking of. It's circa 2012, advertising the candy (of course) and then telling you that if you redeemed the code given to you, you could make what they called a "Crazy Baby."

That's it. It's a fifteen second commercial. The live action kids turn into Crazy Baby counterparts, the art style similar to that of the game. Featuring them complimenting each other on the way they eat their Baby Bottle Pops.

And, also, I don't even know if this commercial is advertising the MMO. It could just be advertising the exclusivity of making an online avatar. This commercial mentions nothing about roaming around a virtual world and making friends with other Crazy Baby players. But since it advertises something that could be similar or even exact to what I'm talking about, I'm bringing it up.

The only things I've found that mention or are on the same lines as this game/avatar creation are one article from 2008 (when the website first launched, I'm assuming?), this commercial, a post made on the r/LostMedia subreddit, and a singular twenty-five minute YouTube gameplay video.

Speaking of the gameplay video, it's from user, Crawler929. It's the only gameplay video I found. It's the only one other people have even mentioned. And while I'm a little skeptical of the commercial I linked, it's worth noting that this gameplay video and that commercial are from the same year, 2012. It's highly likely that those things are connected. Though, there was a promo campaign for another online game called Baby Bottle Pop Message in a Bottle from the late 2000s—probably 2009, as that is the posting year from the person who shared it. (And considering how the main child actress looks similar to Hannah Montana, the character from the show of the same name that was on air at the time, this year could be accurate).

Visiting the BBP website on the Internet Archive via the Wayback Machine is basically one huge error. You'll reach a turquoise and orange-accented screen with a load up bar with the word "Ruffle" on it, and then be met with a black screen. Scrolling up and down on the black screen leads you nowhere, it's basically just a void.

There's nothing else. No other part of this MMO shows up on the internet. The original site no longer exists, now replaced with something called Candy Mania. I'm assuming BBP is owned by the same company or is made by the same manufacturer as Push Pop, as Push Pop has a game on this site. BBP, though? There's barely anything, possibly nothing.

Honestly, I just wanted to share this because it's kinda crazy and kinda sad that stuff like this is just gone. But it's worth saying, too, that this game will most likely never exist again or be resurfaced. Games like this made for promotional events for products never last. They're around for like a year and then get shut down when the event is over. It's sad, but true.

These games also don't have the same sort of fanbases as other big MMOs for kids did at the time. They won't be remade like Club Penguin, ToonTown, or even The Pirates of The Caribbean Online were. Lost to time and also conglomerate company greed.

Anyway, this is just some nerd stuff that I'm into. And I have so many other lost media stories that I like talking about, but this is the only one that I actually have ever interacted with. A game I never thought I'd lose.

Protect all media types and archives, as you never know what could become lost media next.

#lost media #shit that I'm interested in #because lost media makes me go crazy

5 notes · View notes

yuri-for-businesswomen · 1 year ago

Text

since the end of world war two - which was a reset as the world was devastated by war and shocked about the holocaust and other atrocities committed by nazi germany and the axis powers - the usa (in no particular order):

had segregation until only around 50 years ago despite taking the moral high ground for beating the racist nazis

granted immunity to nazis and actively recruited nazi scientists

declared the war on communism costing hundreds of thousands of lives and ravaging vietnam as well as funding islamistic terrorism as a countermeasure

then declaring the war on terrorism after the war on communism backfired with 9/11 costing another thousands if not millions of lives with devastating consequences for countries like afghanistan

destabilised and hindered democracy in several countries and regions that still deal with the consequences today such as venezuela

declared the war on drugs but also had a cia funded crack epidemic

have built a wall on the mexican but not the canadian border

spent billions over billions for military and other operations to control other countries and have the most power on a global scale while many of the population cant even afford healthcare and live in very precarious situations or even without housing due to the unwillingness to regulate corporations and grant better workers and tenants rights

refuse to regulate big corporations and let technology companies grow unchecked which is kind of ruining the internet

claim to hate religious fundamentalism when its about islam while evangelicals are one of the most powerful political groups and fundamentalists are allowed to homeschool and isolate their kids

abused the jews wish for their own country to install the state of israel for control in the middle east, funding displacement and systematic cleansing of palestinians with the help of the british

still systematically discriminate against the native population and leave them in a vulnerable position leading to a huge issue with kidnapping, trafficking and unsolved murders of native girls and women

has almost 5 % of its population incarcerated who then are not allowed to vote with 30 % of the female prison population being prostitutes

have a sham democracy run by billionaires and reagan is mainly responsible for undoing social progress by enforcing neoliberalism and lying about trickle down effects

have no public broadcast and all news sources are privatised

still have the death penalty and abortion bans in some states

probably a shit ton more im forgetting now

yet usamericans have the gull to get on a high horse and point fingers at other countries because what? a european was mean online? lmao. and what gets me the most is that they often couldnt even name the president or point out said countries on a map.

people joke about the usa because they have made themselves out to be land of the free, the best country in the world, the worlds cop, the poster child democracy, while miserably failing their own people, immigrants following the promise set by the usa for a better life, and every country that was unlucky enough to be invaded and destabilised by the us military and the cia. on top the usa have a hegemonic grip on the majority of the globe and export culture wars and propaganda through hollywood movies and shows especially to other western countries. so give me a break

#im not saying usamericans can never criticise other countries especially western ones #its the attitude that gets me #and sometimes maybe its better to focus on domestic issues because there are more than enough #i know my usa critical posts are not very popular but i dont care #i cant always be posting peer approved takes #rambling

18 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 2 years ago

Text

By: Christina Buttons

Few topics are more politically volatile right now than trans issues. Matters such as pediatric medical transition and questions about access to and the purpose of women's sports and spaces are complex debates that require nuance and time. Unfortunately, discussions of these issues are generally dominated by extreme, intolerant ideologues who fail to distinguish between ideas and people. As someone deeply concerned about some aspects of trans ideology, it pains me that the discussion of these delicate issues more often resembles a Jerry Springer marathon than a meaningful public policy debate.

The currently dominant, no-holds-barred strain of trans activism has spawned a right-wing backlash that has troubling implications for the broader gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities. During Pride month, this became even more evident. The right led boycotts against stores with Pride displays, leveraged the excesses of trans activism to give new life to old arguments — that the legalization of same-sex marriage was a “slippery slope” — and broadcast alarmist warnings about “state-enforced homosexuality.” This has emboldened religious fundamentalists and opportunistic provocateurs eager to seize this opportunity to propagate homophobic messages. The backlash has sent the right veering ever further towards extremism that may have the political result of curtailing the hard-earned basic rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

Pushback against the more extreme aspects of the transgender movement is absolutely warranted, but it isn't a partisan issue, despite how frequently the political left and right portray it as such. Like so many issues that get caught in the warring political tribes dynamic, we should refrain from seeing ourselves in an existential fight against evil, irredeemable forces. The fact remains that most people across society are good and have good intentions — even those who disagree with you politically. Those of us who are critical of the excesses of trans activism need to raise awareness and a better understanding of the actual issues. And currently, it is the left that will require the most persuasion from us.

The stakes are too high to take the wrong approach. Pediatric gender medicine needs to be subjected to systematic evidence reviews. The widespread implementation of “gender-affirming care” — a dangerously broad medical model supported by weak evidence — is a genuine cause for alarm. If we do not want the left to dismiss our valid concerns as mere bigotry, we must approach these matters judiciously. Otherwise, US-based medical organizations will continue to dismiss even the most reasonable calls to reconsider their treatment protocols as simply part of a right-wing moral panic.

It is natural to feel frustrated and angry in the face of what many of us sincerely believe to be an unfolding medical scandal — but we must redirect this energy into constructive dialogue and strategic action rather than resorting to counterproductive hyperbole. People’s beliefs can change with exposure to new information. I’m living proof: I used to be a so-called “social justice warrior”, but I changed my own views on “gender medicine” (and other important issues dumbed down by the culture wars) after discussing the issue with people who presented compelling evidence and reasoned arguments, rather than inflammatory rhetoric.

Our best chance of facilitating positive change is to try to gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved, learn how to communicate more effectively, base our arguments on credible evidence, avoid taking part in online pile-ons, and employ precise, careful language that addresses beliefs or specific policies — not individuals. The first step is understanding the beliefs and policies involved. Conversations about transgender issues can be difficult because there are so many different interpretations of the relevant terminology. Even the basic definition of what it means to be trans is a subject of intense debate.

Many people on the political left insist that everyone possesses an innate and immutable “gender identity” present from birth, which can be known from a very young age, and rarely, if ever, changes. In this view, being transgender is an inborn trait (like sexual orientation) rather than a choice: people are born that way, and they have no say in the matter. For many, to question these views is to attack the very existence of trans people.

This belief is sincere, but it is not accurate. The empirical evidence does not support the idea of an inherent, hardwired “gender identity.” There is currently no objective test — neither neurological nor of any other kind — that can differentiate between an individual who identifies as trans and one who does not, especially when we control for confounding factors like sexual orientation. Even most definitions of gender and “gender identity”, increasingly cemented into law and public policy, are circular and self-referential.

However, there is a wealth of evidence that gender nonconformity — encompassing preferences, behaviors, traits, and presentations that deviate from the norm associated with one's biological sex — is a natural part of human variation, influenced in part by prenatal testosterone exposure. Gender nonconformity is strongly associated with homosexuality and is particularly prevalent among those with autism. Prior to 2006, gay male children dominated pediatric gender clinic referrals. That has changed dramatically in recent years. Nowadays, adolescent females, many of whom are autistic, make up the majority lining up at gender clinics. For activists, this apparently doesn’t even raise an eyebrow. It is simply a sign of greater societal acceptance. For me and many others, given the permanent impacts of gender medicine, such a rapid flipping of demographics warrants, at a minimum, closer inspection. Up to 35% of adolescents referred to the largest gender clinic in the UK displayed "moderate to severe autistic traits", with some pediatric gender programs reporting that approximately half of the youth in their studies are autistic. Shouldn’t that set off alarm bells?

People are born with various inherent traits, such as gender nonconformity, sexual orientation, and neurological differences like autism. Additionally, some individuals may be born predisposed to psychiatric conditions, which may include gender dysphoria — the significant and persistent distress with one's biological sex. However, a predisposition towards gender dysphoria does not guarantee a transgender outcome. In fact, the vast majority of children who experience gender dysphoria do not identify as transgender into adulthood. Most of them simply end up as homosexual adults.

Many scientific and civil rights organizations, however, have begun broadening the definition of “transgender” to encompass all instances of gender nonconformity. According to this wide classification, if a person's behavior or gender expression doesn’t align with traditional expectations for their sex, they are transgender. This expanded definition, a symptom of concept creep, is likely playing a large role in the rapidly escalating rates of people identifying as trans. Certain individuals who are born gender-nonconforming may interpret their sex-atypical traits and behaviors (including same-sex attractions), along with any distress their gender-nonconformity may cause them, as evidence that they have a "gender identity" mismatched from their body. As a result, they may wish to identify as transgender, be acknowledged as the opposite sex, and seek medical procedures that they believe will bring their bodies into alignment with their perceived sense of self.

Worryingly, many well-respected medical organizations and healthcare officials in the US are perpetuating this confusion. Informed by a misguided and imprudent model, they are prematurely “affirming” newly-adopted cross-sex identities by psychosocial, chemical, and surgical means without sufficiently investigating the root causes of the individual's gender-related distress. Meanwhile, the “Dutch Protocol” which guided, inspired, and justified the establishment of current American gender care standards, involved extensive counseling and other safeguards — safeguards which now have been largely removed in the US.

Most people are not aware of any of this. When this information is presented to them in alarmist language that suggests the speaker is primarily motivated by partisan scaremongering, they are less receptive to it and may even feel attacked. But if we present the facts calmly, people are reachable. By fostering sincere and compassionate communication, we can also assist those who might regret transitioning in the future to make informed decisions while still respecting the choices of adults who wish to maintain their trans identity.

Those of us who are critical of some aspects of trans ideology often point to the importance of social influence when we talk about people adopting transgender identities. But we forget that we can exert an influence on the behavior of people in our own peer groups too and that we therefore have a duty to model reasoned discourse if we don’t want the entire debate to descend into frenzied partisanship.

It can be reassuring to find a community of like-minded individuals online, especially if you have to self-censor in real life — as is the case with many who hold gender-critical views. It’s tempting to focus on winning allies among your new in-group, and one cheap and easy way to garner online popularity is to deride members of the outgroup. But it’s important to resist the influence of groupthink, or we can quickly end up in an echo chamber in which our opinions are never challenged.

These polarized environments inherently reward extreme views and penalize moderation. Online interactions make individuals more likely to engage in antisocial behaviors due to factors like anonymity, reduced accountability, and a mistaken feeling that what we do online doesn’t matter in the “real” world. In one particularly disturbing new example of this phenomenon, people in the gender-critical camp have been using the unfalsifiable claim that “being kind is what got us here” — a form of slippery slope fallacy — as a license to now be wantonly vindictive and cruel. And while it's true that the notion of kindness was too often misused by trans activists to shut down debate and critical thinking, disparaging people now won't win us any allies. For better or worse, a person’s sex cannot truly be changed, but insulting people who think otherwise will not change their minds.

This underscores the importance of setting boundaries — establishing limits on what is acceptable or tolerable behavior from others. Boundaries allow you to protect your values from being compromised by external influences. If someone oversteps a limit you've set, you have the right to voice your disagreement or distance yourself from that individual or organization. Remember, you can always opt out of group membership and still continue to fight for what you believe in.

Online tribalism is also heightened by algorithmic bias, which fills our timelines with outlier events presented as if they were the norm. In gender-critical discourse, our social media feeds often amplify the worst and most extreme examples the transgender community has to offer. Of course, nothing we see on these platforms is an accurate, representative sample of the millions of trans people globally.

Like all groups of people, those who identify as transgender or transsexual (as some prefer to be called) are not a monolith. There are many ways of being trans. Most trans people are not interested in erasing sex-based legal rights: they are simply trying to live their lives as an integrated part of society. And, as we know from the growing prevalence of detransitioners, trans-identity is not always permanent.

We should differentiate between the broader population of trans people and the social media activists who promote radical ideologies — many of whom are not themselves trans. Our criticism should target ideological beliefs about gender and the specific actions of individual activists — not trans people as a whole.

People on both the left and right tend to become emotionally invested in their beliefs and may find ingenious ways to rationalize them. Leftists are often highly skeptical of the right and of anything that challenges dominant left-wing narratives. This makes them more resistant to changing their minds on this issue. It can be a very disorienting experience — it was for me — to realize that the sources you’ve come to trust are wrong about trans issues and could therefore be wrong about other things, too.

It’s especially difficult to admit that you might have been wrong if you have already taken drastic and irreversible steps to medically transition yourself or to allow your child to medically transition or if you are a healthcare professional who has facilitated the medical transitions of your patients. That’s why it’s so important to approach this topic sensitively and refrain from catastrophizing. Detransitioners have frequently pointed this out, requesting not to be referred to as “mutilated” or “ruined” — descriptions that insinuate that they are damaged beyond repair.

Many people grappling with gender-related distress are in genuine pain. They are struggling to reconcile fundamental human needs of identity and belonging. They deserve our compassion and understanding, even as we critique the ideologies and practices that we believe are causing so much harm.

I am firmly convinced that those of us who are critical of trans ideology possess the best evidence and the most compelling arguments. We need to take the ethical high ground. Some socially conservative commentators seem primarily focused on gaining popularity by publicly dunking on their opponents. But genuine persuasion isn't about who can land the most devastating verbal blow. Civility and decorum are themselves conservative values, and we demean ourselves and our cause when we forsake them in favor of mudslinging.

Now, more than ever, we need open and constructive dialogue with people of different viewpoints, especially those from the left. If we want to convince people, we need to learn to communicate more effectively, and that means challenging beliefs without alienating people. We can do so only by making calm arguments supported by evidence from reputable sources. We're unlikely to see a dramatic shift in public opinion overnight, but each respectful interaction we foster brings us closer to achieving public awareness of these issues and ultimately, more informed and evidence-based policies.

Same principle as criticizing Islam.

#Christina Buttons #genderwang #gender ideology #queer theory #gender identity #gender cult #medical scandal #medical malpractice #criticism of ideas #sex trait modification #religion is a mental illness

34 notes · View notes

inbredfawn · 2 years ago

Text

UN Human Rights New York Office Director Craig Mokhiber has resigned in protest against the UN's incompetence and failure to intervene and acknowledge Israel's crimes against humanity in Palestine.

Dear High Commissioner,

This will be my last official communication to you as Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

High Commissioner, we are failing again.

Across the land, Apartheid rules.

Volker Turk, High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais Wilson, Geneva.

In such circumstances, the demands on our organization for principled and effective action are greater than ever. But we have not met the challenge. The protective enforcement power Security Council has again been blocked by US intransigence, the SG is under assault for the mildest of protestations, and our human rights mechanisms are under sustained slanderous attack by an organized, online impunity network.

In recent decades, key parts of the UN have surrendered to the power of the US, and to fear of the Israel Lobby, to abandon these principles, and to retreat from international law itself. We have lost a lot in this abandonment, not least our own global credibility. But the Palestinian people have sustained the biggest losses as a result of our failures. It is a stunning historic irony that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in the same year that the Nakba was perpetrated against the Palestinian people. As we commemorate the 75* Anniversary of the UDHR, we would do well to abandon the old cliché that the UDHR was born out of the atrocities that proceeded it, and to admit that it was born alongside one of the most atrocious genocides of the 20* Century, that of the destruction of Palestine. In some sense, the framers were promising human rights to everyone, except the Palestinian people. And let us remember as well, that the UN itself carries the original sin of helping to facilitate the dispossession of the Palestinian people by ratifying the European settler colonial project that seized Palestinian land and turned it over to the colonists.

We have much for which to atone.

But I also find hope in those parts of the UN that have refused to compromise the Organization's human rights principles in spite of enormous pressures to do so. Our independent special rapporteurs, commissions of enquiry, and treaty body experts, alongside most of our staff, have continued to stand up for the human rights of the Palestinian people, even as other parts of the UN (even at the highest levels) have shamefully bowed their heads to power. As the custodians of the human rights norms and standards, OHCHR has a particular duty to defend those standards. Our job, I believe, is to make our voice heard, from the Secretary-General to the newest UN recruit, and horizontally across the wider UN system, insisting that the human rights of the Palestinian people are not up for debate, negotiation, or compromise anywhere under the blue flag.

What, then, would a UN-norm-based position look like? For what would we work if we were true to our rhetorical admonitions about human rights and equality for all, accountability for perpetrators, redress for victims, protection of the vulnerable, and empowerment for rights-holders, all under the rule of law? The answer, I believe, is simple if we have the clarity to see beyond the propagandistic smokescreens that distort the vision of justice to which we are sworn, the courage to abandon fear and deference to powerful states, and the will to truly take up the banner of human rights and peace. To be sure, this is a long-term project and a steep climb. But we must begin now or surrender to unspeakable horror. I see ten essential points:

One State based on human rights: We must support the establishment of a single, democratic, secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land.

Fighting Apartheid: We must redirect all UN efforts and resources to the struggle against apartheid, just as we did for South Africa in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s.

Return and Compensation: We must reaffirm and insist on the right to return and full compensation for all Palestinians and their families currently living in the occupied terntones, in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and in the diaspora across the globe.

Protection: We must press for the deployment of a well-resourced and strongly mandated UN protection force with a sustained mandate to protect civilians from the river to the sea.

Sincerely,

Craig Mokhiber

#free palestine #save palestine #gaza #united nations #un human rights #israel is a terrorist state #netanyahu is a war criminal

16 notes · View notes

eretzyisrael · 2 years ago

Text

JORDANIAN DISINFORMATION GOES UNCHALLENGED ON BBC RADIO 4

Former Jordanian minister Jawad al Anani told listeners to that programme (which is no longer available online) that: [emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]

“Actually, even before 1967 Jordan respected the rights of Jews to go and come to their holy places.”

CAMERA UK submitted a complaint on that topic, pointing out that not only did Jordan not ‘respect’ the religious rights of Jews during its illegal occupation of parts of Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, it destroyed dozens of synagogues and desecrated the ancient Mount of Olives cemetery. In direct contravention of the 1949 armistice agreements, Jordan did not permit Jews access to their holy sites or to the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives during that period and, notably, Israeli Arabs, were also denied access to the Al Aqsa mosque on Temple Mount.

On April 26th we received an email informing us that it would take more time to address that very straightforward complaint. On May 17th we were told that the time limit for addressing our complaint had expired.

On June 8th we received the following communication from BBC Complaints:

“Thanks for contacting us about The World this Weekend, broadcast on 9 April. We apologise for our delayed response. We have shared your concerns with the senior editorial team at the programme. The focus of this interview was the flashpoints which had occurred in the preceding days in the area around Al Aqsa mosque, and generally across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territories, and the response of Jordan and other countries in the region. While we accept the point made may well be contentious, presenters don’t always have the time to try to challenge every point made, or give a wider or opposing viewpoint. This is a complex area about which interviewees often seek to make a variety of historical references to back up their positions and we can’t always examine every point in the time available where it is not central to the subject at hand.” [emphasis added]

On June 10th CAMERA UK submitted a Stage 1b complaint, pointing out that BBC editorial guidelines on accuracy state that in live content, “Significant inaccuracies that may arise should be corrected quickly”. We asserted that the topic of our complaint was indeed a significant inaccuracy which materially misled listeners, concerning a matter of historical fact which has been known for decades.

On June 18th we were once again informed that it would take more time to address our complaint. On July 18th we received the following communication from BBC Complaints:

“Thanks for contacting us again about The World this Weekend, broadcast on 8 [sic] April. We apologise for our delayed response. We’re sorry your [sic] weren’t satisfied with our previous reply. We have discussed your further concerns with the senior editorial team at the programme. Our decision not to press Jawad Al Anani on how Jordan maintained access to the holy sites of Jerusalem pre-1967 was a finely balanced one. Mr Al Awani had been invited on to the programme to discuss the challenges and opportunities for a regional role in conflict resolution – his interview followed a meeting earlier in the day of regional representatives and the US in Jordan. Although interesting, Mr Al Awani’s comment about access to the Holy sites wasn’t relevant to the developments of the preceding few weeks, which was the focus of the discussion and why we didn’t scrutinise this point during the interview. As we previously said, while we appreciate this area of history may be contentious, our presenters can’t explore every point made.” [emphasis added]

In other words, the BBC claims that Al Awani’s false claims concerning access to holy sites during the 18 years of illegal Jordanian occupation of parts of Jerusalem “wasn’t relevant” to an item about deliberate Palestinian provocations at one of those sites and related attacks on Israeli civilians.

Also worthy of note is that in both those responses, BBC Complaints chose to present historical fact as “contentious”.

As we noted in our second complaint:

“The failure to correct this item makes a mockery both of supposed editorial standards as laid out in the editorial guidelines on accuracy and impartiality and the BBC’s branding of itself as a body which tackles disinformation, including by means of the recently launched ‘BBC Verify’ project. Fighting disinformation should begin at home. When a Jordanian politician is allowed to promote serious disinformation unchallenged on a BBC radio station, audiences will rightly not trust the BBC’s claim to be an ‘antidote’ to disinformation elsewhere.”

#jordan #jordanian disinformation #bbc #media bias #camera #jawad al-anani

17 notes · View notes

40ouncesandamule · 2 years ago

Text

Transcription:

Dear High Commissioner,

This will be my last official communication to you as Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

High Commissioner, we are failing again.

This is a text-book case of genocide. The European, ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project in Palestine has entered its final phase, toward the expedited destruction of the last remnants of indigenous Palestinian life in Palestine. What’s more, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. Not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations “to ensure respect” for the Geneva Conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the assault, providing economic and intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for Israel’s atrocities.

In concert with this, western corporate media, increasingly captured and state-adjacent, are in open breach of Article 20 of the ICCPR, continuously dehumanizing Palestinians to facilitate the genocide, and broadcasting propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence. US-based social media companies are suppressing the voices of human rights defenders while amplifying pro-Israel propaganda. Israel lobby online-trolls and GONGOS [sic] are harassing and smearing human rights defenders, and western universities and employers are collaborating with them to punish those who dare to speak out against the atrocities. In the wake of this genocide, there must be an accounting for these actors as well, just as there was for radio Milles Collines in Rwanda.

Decades of distraction by the illusory and largely disingenuous promises of Oslo have diverted the Organization from its core duty to defend international law, international human rights, and the Charter itself. The mantra of the “two-state solution” has become an open joke in the corridors of the UN, both for its utter impossibility in fact, and for its total failure to account for the inalienable human rights of the Palestinian people. The so-called “Quartet” has become nothing more than a fig leaf for inaction and for subservience to a brutal status quo. The (US-scripted) deference to “agreements between the parties themselves” (in place of international law) was always a transparent slight-of-hand, designed to reinforce the power of Israel over the rights of the occupied and dispossessed Palestinians.

But the path to atonement is clear. We have much to learn from the principled stance taken in cities around the world in recent days, as masses of people stand up against the genocide, even at risk of beatings and arrest. Palestinians and their allies, human rights defenders of every stripe, Christian and Muslim organizations, and progressive Jewish voices saying “not in our name”, are all leading the way. All we have to do is to follow them.

Yesterday, just a few blocks from here, New York’s Grand Central Station was completely taken over by thousands of Jewish human rights defenders standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people and demanding an end to Israeli tyranny (many risking arrest, in the process). In doing so, they stripped away in an instant the Israeli hasbara propaganda point (and old antisemitic trope) that Israel somehow represents the Jewish people. It does not. And, as such, Israel is solely responsible for its crimes. On this point, it bears repeating, in spite of Israel lobby smears to the contrary, that criticism of Israel’s human rights violations is not antisemitic, any more than criticism of Saudi violations is Islamophobic, criticism of Myanmar violations is anti-Buddhist, or criticism of Indian violations is anti-Hindu. When they seek to silence us with smears, we must raise our voice, not lower it. I trust you will agree, High Commissioner, that this is what speaking truth to power is all about.

But I also find hope in those parts of the UN that have refused to compromise the Organization’s human rights principles in spite of enormous pressures to do so. Our independent special rapporteurs, commissions of enquiry, and treaty body experts, alongside most of our staff, have continued to stand up for the human rights of the Palestinian people, even as other parts of the UN (even at the highest levels) have shamefully bowed their heads to power. As the custodians of the human rights norms and standards, OHCHR has a particular duty to defend those standards. Our job, I believe, is to make our voice heard, from the Secretary-General to the newest UN recruit, and horizontally across the wider UN system, insisting that the human rights of the Palestinian people are not up for debate, negotiation, or compromise anywhere under the blue flag.

1. Legitimate action: First, we in the UN must abandon the failed (and largely disingenuous) Oslo paradigm, its illusory two-state solution, its impotent and complicit Quartet, and its subjugation of international law to the dictates of presumed political expediency. Our positions must be unapologetically based on international human rights and international law.

2. Clarity of Vision: We must stop the pretense that this is simply a conflict over land or religion between two warring parties and admit the reality of the situation in which a disproportionately powerful state is colonizing, persecuting, and dispossessing an indigenous population on the basis of their ethnicity.

3. One State based on human rights: We must support the establishment of a single, democratic, secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land.

4. Fighting Apartheid: We must redirect all UN efforts and resources to the struggle against apartheid, just as we did for South Africa in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s.

5. Return and Compensation: We must reaffirm and insist on the right to return and full compensation for all Palestinians and their families currently living in the occupied territories, in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and in the diaspora across the globe.

6. Truth and Justice: We must call for a transitional justice process, making full use of decades of accumulated UN investigations, enquiries, and reports, to document the truth, and to ensure accountability for all perpetrators, redress for all victims, and remedies for documented injustices.

7. Protection: We must press for the deployment of a well-resourced and strongly mandated UN protection force with a sustained mandate to protect civilians from the river to the sea.

8. Disarmament: We must advocate for the removal and destruction of Israel’s massive stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, lest the conflict lead to the total destruction of the region and, possibly, beyond.

9. Mediation: We must recognize that the US and other western powers are in fact not credible mediators, but rather actual parties to the conflict who are complicit with Israel in the violation of Palestinian rights, and we must engage them as such.

10. Solidarity: We must open our doors (and the doors of the SG) wide to the legions of Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian human rights defenders who are standing in solidarity with the people of Palestine and their human rights and stop the unconstrained flow of Israel lobbyists to the offices of UN leaders, where they advocate for continued war, persecution, apartheid, and impunity, and smear our human rights defenders for their principled defense of Palestinian rights.

The UN’s failure in Palestine thus far is not a reason for us to withdraw. Rather it should give us the courage to abandon the failed paradigm of the past, and fully embrace a more principled course. Let us, as OHCHR, boldly and proudly join the anti-apartheid movement that is growing all around the world, adding our logo to the banner of equality and human rights for the Palestinian people. The world is watching. We will all be accountable for where we stood at this crucial moment in history. Let us stand on the side of justice.

Sincerely,

Craig Mokhibe

#palestine #genocide #ethnic cleansing #gaza under attack #israel palestine conflict #israeli apartheid #israeli occupation

9 notes · View notes