#someone else will just be voted in and they won't exactly be more progressive

[decolonize-the-everything]

Femininity doesn't belong to women. Masculinity does not belong to men. Androgyny does not belong to nonbinary ppl. There are no "biological" traits of gender.

All of those things are in everyone.

And yes in a 'men wear skirts and nail polish and are feminine' way and yes in a 'women wear binders and boxers and are masculine' way. But also in a 'there are cis women with beards' and 'there are intersex men with ovaries' and 'some women are born with boobs and penises' and 'cis men can lactate' way.

Ovaries, penises, etc. Those things aren't tied to gender. None of it. Never has been. Diverse is just how humans are. Before hrt existed and before therapy, before bottom surgery: people who never fit the binary still existed.

Ppl who say there are only two sexes or to count chromosomes or that existing as one of two sexes is the only right way, are straight up denying the reality of actual human living people. The fact that they try to make it a moral goal to convince other people to deny reality too is just the cherry on top of this delusional sundae.

Because it is delusional. People like that are delusional and I think we should get comfortable saying it and even being mean about it. Now is not the time to be conservative in your progressive beliefs.

What do you mean you don't believe in the way humans have fundamentally existed throughout all of human history? and you're being an asshole about it? In 2023? On purpose?

[theriverdalereviewer]

everyone jumping to team kamala we will never experience true freedom in this country

[greatwyrmgold]

Last year, a childhood friend of mine ran for mayor. Tonight, she gave a presentation about the experience and how to get politically involved and stuff. But I'm not here to talk about her actual thesis. I'm here to talk about some details she mentioned in passing.

I knew there was some kind of drama between her campaign and the Democrats in our state, but I didn't know the details. My friend didn't talk much about that, but she mentioned some disparaging remarks various people had said to her over her campaign, and it sounded like some of them came from institution Democrats.

One point she mentioned was that basically nobody expected her to win. She was running against someone I'll call the Incumbent; he wasn't actually in office last year, but that's just because he took a term off after sixteen years in office. He's a Republican, but a pretty mild one; conservative, but not violently reactionary. The Incumbent was expected to win with over 90% of the vote if anyone ran to oppose him.

When my friend made her candidacy official, she started getting advice from institution Democrats. (I'm not sure exactly who, because my friend was trying to explain the challenges she faced without saying anything mean about the Democratic Party, but I don't know who else would say this kind of stuff.) They told her to stop making a big deal about LGBTQIA+ rights, abortion rights, etc etc.

The things they told her to stop focusing on weren't my friend's entire campaign (she didn't mention pushback about her "affordable housing" rhetoric), but they were some of the pillars, the things that made me and other people want her to win. It almost sounded like they were asking her to be a different version of the Incumbent—a few different policies, a blue tie instead of a red one, but basically the same moderate policy proposals.

My friend ignored them, doubling down on all the "controversial" topics that she cared about. She's far from the only person who cared; she got 42% of the votes, not the <10% expected. I have no doubt that she got that many votes because she was willing to make a stink about those controversial issues, because she was willing to be more than "Incumbent, but blue".

...

My friend is a big fan of Obama. Say what you will about the man, but he promised Change You Can Believe In. Obama ran with a similar strategy to my friend's—he made big promises about things people cared about. Some people hated it, but most of them wouldn't vote Democrat. By contrast, many moderates and the disaffected liberals found his promises compelling and turned out to vote for Obama.

Candidates who promise change earn votes. But the Democrats keep supporting candidates like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, saying it's to secure the moderate vote. They take it as a given that they don't need to appeal to left-liberal voters, because who else are they gonna vote for?

(And maybe, just maybe, the institution Democrats don't actually want the change their candidates promise.)

I don't think that's unique to the USA's Democratic party. I've seen liberal politicians across the Pond compromise on progressive issues, only to be defended by their constituents. They have to make those compromises, you see, or they won't get elected! Making a big deal about serious political issues will alienate moderate voters, after all, and they're the only ones we should worry about. Who else are progressives and leftists and queers gonna vote for?

Their strategy relies on a combination of overwhelming threat from conservative politicians and "vote blue no matter who" rhetoric. (Or "vote red if they're not dead," in countries where the liberal party is red. The US has to do everything its own way...) As long as they can safely assume the left wing of their population will vote for them out of desperation, they can shift as far to the right as they want. It's better than the nascent fascists in the other party, after all!

I don't have a solution. I understand the short-term strategic strategy of voting blue for damage control, but in the long term that just enables them to slip farther to the right.

[commodorebuzzkill]

The problem with Revolutionary Socialism

I get it. Our system sucks and needs to die, needs to be replaced by a system that provides for the needs of everyone regardless of bank account, religion, skin color, sexual/gender orientation. It is SO tempting to just think "We'll just tear it all down! Let the people rise up and end Capitalist tyranny! Fuck voting for the stooges who get shifted around the board of politics, making speeches, offering lip service to change, while leaving everything exactly as it is!" But how close are we really to bringing about a great awakening of the working class in this country? A huge chunk of them will vote for Trump this year. Which side of the political aisle do you think is better armed? It ain't ours, and frankly, just arming everybody to the teeth when we can all get dangerously paranoid or depressed, and the absent minded squeezing of a finger can end someone's life, is just a bad idea.

And if you did decide that tomorrow, or next month, or next year was going to be the time for the glorious uprising, do you really think most of the left would follow you?

Well, maybe you don't need a full majority of people, maybe you just need a nucleus of diehards around you and get everyone else to be more or less adjacent, and given time, they'll fall into line after you provoke the response of the military, tear the veil of civilization off the government, create a few thousand martyrs and... you can see where this is going, right?

Start a civil war, and the fabric of the new state, or anarchist movement you create will trend toward warfare. The policies of your organization will probably cater to the needs of the war, producing weaponry, organizing troops, supplying them with ammunition, and when you come out the other end, you will have a war economy where the military leaders will be the ones holding the political power. And once they have it, go ask them if they're inclined to give it back. I'll bet they will use their military muscle to ensure that nobody can challenge them, and what they have, they keep.

Not to mention that you will have created the perfect breeding ground for demagoguery. Did Lenin want a real "dictatorship of the Proletariat?" Fuck no he didn't. He wanted power. To quote Maxim Gorky: "Lenin is not an omnipotent magician, but a cold-blooded trickster who spares neither the honor, nor the life of the proletariat. He does not know the popular masses, he has not lived with them."

Oh but sure, you want a state-less society, where everybody won't build big power structures ever again! Point to one time in history where that has worked out, and didn't result in said society being swallowed by a bigger more aggressive neighbor. Maybe if such a society could be maintained, it would be ideal, but I just don't think it can. For better or for worse, I think we as humans have tribalism and pecking orders baked into our DNA. I think if you create a power vacuum, somebody will come along and fill it.

Democracy for all its flaws might be the best we're capable of.

Reform is an agonizingly slow and deeply frustrating process. Progress inevitably arrives too late for so many. I get it. But really think about the alternatives.

I'm not saying that ballot box action on its own will achieve needed change, but abandoning it won't do us any favors either. Direct action is great, but it helps to have parallel effort in electoral politics too. Attack on all fronts (without guns). Offer help to all your friends you're worried about. We need to stick together right now.

[solar-sunnyside-up]

Im pretty sure thats the post that other anon was talking about. They didn't put it real well but they are kinda right.

Things are not as they were. Unless major reform is enacted a third party will never win in the usa. Not as it is. And any hope of reform will disappear if we get another red prez. Between gerrymandering and the electoral college and the pearl clutching moderates who get scared of progressives, to Republicans with no morals who will 100% vote red without hesitation. We effectively only have 2 parties. At least for now.

A Republican candidate hasn't won the popular vote in decades yet they somehow keep running things.

Everyone I know is scared. Scared this will be our last election next year. But no one is more scared than the disabled. We are terrified. Theres a lot of chatter from the right about "dealing" with us and other "freeloaders" we are legitimately scared for our lives.

Protest votes is what gave us that disaster in 2016 and why roe vs wade is gone now. If they win again they are going to push the rest of their agenda through. These posts about refusing to vote or voting third party are exactly like they were in 2016. We've been down this road once already.

If given the choice of neglect vs active homicidal intent we all have at least a chance to survive neglect.

And neglect gives us time to do something. Work locally. Try and push for reform. It's horrible but it's what we have. And for most disabled it's ALL we have. We can't run, other countries won't take us.

I've even seen some scream about revolution but with zero plans for us. What will their revolution do with us? Will we still have our medical access? Will we still be taken care of? Or will the wheels of the revolution be greased with our blood?

K so this is a lot for first in the morning, and I'm glad that someone has explained it a bit more detail bc I cannot stress this enough IM CANADIAN we live with a mutli party system. We, like most of democracies in the world, function with multiple parties at play. And tbh? They still use "splitting the vote is dangerous" talking point here. Here, it's used to prevent ppl from voting for actual reform in government. It's used to say "Green party will never win in they're trying to do rent caps and UBI!" Despite these being popular standing points with many many ppl and honestly the only reason ppl haven't voted them in is bc of this fear tactic. And yet this year, they've come in 3rd place if not 1st in several towns, cities, and providences. They've made headway, and also a lot of liberal ideals and NDP talking points are just old green party ones so ppl want those policies. But if it wasn't for those tree huggers 10 yrs ago fighting, and losing and being made fun of, as a seperate party and forcing them to move that direction they never would.

And let's be clear, Trump won bc of electoral collage he did not win popular vote in 2016 you where overruled the vote didnt matter. Just like Bush did against Al Gore in 2000

That doesn't mean its hopeless or that you shluldnt vote particularlly on local levels. More ppl then ever in history are voting!! Turn outs are the highest they've been since 1950s!! (Also the last peak in union reforms btw) It's scary flipping parties, you might loose to Democrats or Republicans. It will be horrible. But yall are on the cusp of a civil war and fascism anyway, as an outsider who should hold little say over what you choose in this election, I'd still endorse the 3rd party. idk yall your system seems fucked and legit doesn't seem to care how you vote so scare them into using your vote for someone else and make them admit they're not actually counting your votes.

If there's so many ppl like a different policy and candidate it forms another party then you NEED a different party to have a voice anyway. Even if it's in defeat it must exist and I'll happily be on the loosing side.

These are talking points that are used to stagnate progress and to (rightfully) scare ppl into voting for someone they don't like. So if it scares you too much, i wont be upset with however you vote. Its yours. It's scary out here no matter the outcome rn. But I can't let myself be shaken when there is hope and I will personally work for that hope so it's no longer a scary option for those who can't afford the choice.

[headspacedad]

Have you seen Hot Ones on YouTube? Where they eat progressively spicier hot wings until the last three leave people begging for mercy? How far do you think each paladin get on those 10 wings?

sorry this took so long to answer. I have used up most of my energy with just getting through the holidays thanks to working at a bakery. I have only seen snippets of Hot Ones but enough to get the general idea. REALLY good ask!

Let's see - headcanon only with the acknowledgement that others will see it differently -

I'd say Pidge is probably the first one to cave. Given she has issues with peanuts vs. peanut butter I think despite the fact we often peg her as a gremlin in fandom, she's got very mild tastes and possibly is pretty picky even about food textures and such. I suspect her family tends to the more bland foods (her father's favorite food is peas for instance). And so I'd say Pidge taps out super early in.

Next up I'm going to say that Keith is next to go. He strikes me as someone that will pretty much eat anything and not complain (or perhaps even pay attention) but he's also been through the foster care system and I don't know - it just strikes me that he doesn't have a lot of experience with a lot of foods. Like, he can probably eat stuff from a can that expired two years ago without his stomach noticing but when you throw in wild flavors/sensations his tongue probably doesn't put up with much from simple lack of training. Unless there's a Galra thing going on there but who knows whether that would help or make him even more sensitive. So I'd vote Keith taps out next.

I'm going to have Lance tap out next. Sure, he's Cuban and so he's got some experience and a lot more flavor varieties and hot sensations under his belt. He probably goes a pretty decent amount of wings before he has to tap out and he probably holds out through sheer stubbornness longer than he would if it wasn't a competition and he didn't have to 'do his heritage proud'. I'd say in a normal competition he'd actually probably win.

But he's up against Shiro and Hunk.

So Lance goes next.

After that we're down to Shiro and Hunk and I think they both last as long as they do for vastly different reasons. Shiro isn't inexperienced with hot foods. Let's just mention wasabi but also the fact that hot sauce covers a multitude of sins when it comes to food. Which when you don't often pay enough attention to what you're cooking to time it well is probably a mercy. But I think he might have actually tapped out before Lance except - 1. super HUGE competitive streak but even more 2. I think that he lost a lot of his attention to taste when he was a Galra slave. There is no way the Galra had food designed for humans. There was probably just some scientific, easy to produce slop that was engineered to hit the most nutrients across a vast array of species to keep them functioning without really caring if it met their energy needs or not. Taste was absolutely never a thought. Shiro -

Shiro probably got very good at swallowing things down without letting himself taste them.

Down side is that, these days, he has to stop himself and make himself concentrate on flavors when he wants to enjoy eating something or else his brain will automatically shut things down so he won't taste. Upside? He can look like a bad-ass chowing down on hot wings as long as he's careful to concentrate on other things to keep his mind from paying attention.

But let's face it - that's only going to hold off the burning so far.

He'd tap out.

Hunk is our clear winner. Because Hunk is a chef. He knows his flavors. He knows how to appreciate flavors. Hot is hot but what kind of hot and how hot and what would go good with the hot? He's got experience and tolerance under his belt way more than the others but he's also got a mind that needs to figure out flavors. What exactly went into each of the hot sauces and how would he duplicate or improve on them? I think Hunk's our clear winner and he'd probably be asking for recipes afterward too.

And then he'd go and make something to help soothe the other paladin's tongues and throats because he's a good guy like that.

As for Allura and Coran - they'd either wilt immediately at the horror of human spices - or they'd drink down the bottles of hot sauce like soda and giggle about it. Depends on how you want your aliens.

So how about it gang? I know I'm not the only one that loves to come up with headcanon. Share your thoughts on how you'd rank things! I'd love to hear ideas not my own and I'm sure that @the-last-spoken-word would love to get more than just my opinion on this!

[ramialkarmi]

What to do when you have a problem at work, and human resources won't help you

What do you do when human resources turns its back on you?

That's exactly what former Uber engineer Susan J. Fowler alleges happened to her. She wrote in a blog post that during a year working at Uber, she was sexually harassed and experienced gender bias. Her post prompted the tech company to launch an internal investigation.

In the post, Fowler claimed that Uber's HR department was part of the problem. She wrote that it covered up for "high performers" and failed to take action against instances of gender bias in the office.

So what do you do when you're having a problem at work, and it feels like the people designated to help you at the office won't? 

First, follow company procedures and file a complaint with HR. "Always give the employer an opportunity to fix the problem, first," Expert Human Resources president Vanessa G. Nelson told Business Insider.

Executive coach and Learning Engine president Dr. N. Elizabeth Fried said that HR will likely attempt to establish a "pattern of behavior" and proceed from there. Make sure to consult your employee handbook's policies and maintain a paper trail throughout the entire process.

However, it's a whole other ballgame when HR ignores or mishandles your complaint. If you feel completely left behind by HR, here's what to do next.

Start searching for another job

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace indicate a certain level of dysfunction on the part of the company. If the situation has progressed to the point where you've found that HR won't even handle sensitive complaints, then it's probably time to move on.

"Regardless of the brand, if these are the conditions an employee is subjected to, it's probably time to find a new place to work," John Hudson, a Chicago-based HR business partner with Slalom, LLC., said in an email.

That's easier said than done, in some cases, but you should at least start making arrangements to get out.

"Rather than spend your time and your precious career in an organization that lets situations escalate, you should vote with your feet and go find a company that values you and is committed to a hostile-free work environment," Raleigh, North Carolina-based human resources consultant Laurie Ruettimann told Business Insider.

Go outside your company for help

If HR has made it clear that they don't have your back, it's time to start looking for support elsewhere. Fried recommends alerting the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"The best course of action for an employee to take when HR dismisses their complaints, if they are that egregious, is to go to the EEOC and file a complaint," she said. "No company wants the EEOC in their office."

Nelson adds that, in extreme cases where you feel like your safety is threatened, you can also report to the US Department of Labor's Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

Fried recommends looking anti-discrimination laws in your state. She said that, in some cases, managers can actually be personally liable for punitive damages.

The EEOC mandates that employees cannot be retaliated against for "asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment." However, Nelson said it's important to know that not all companies follow the rules regarding retaliation (it's "the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector," according to the EEOC's website).

"If the employer is saying things like, 'We can't take action because we don't want to mess with this employee's reputation,' that means that they're not afraid of being unfair," Nelson said. "They would probably not have a problem with retaliating."

Remember: Your HR department makes mistakes just like anyone else

At the end of the day, it's probably a good idea not to place blind trust in any HR department.

"People behave in really shady ways at all kinds of organizations throughout America and throughout the global employment landscape," Ruettimann said. "What's shocking to me is that we're having the same conversation in 2017 that we were in 1977."

Hudson said that abuses do occur, even when employees follow the rules and report discriminatory or harassing behavior. "Unfortunately, in many organizations, 'high performers' are given a little more latitude in their leadership behaviors," he said. "If they are bringing a lot of revenue into the company or leading a major innovative team, some organizations tend to look the other way. But, in the cases of discrimination or sexual harassment, these behaviors should never be tolerated, regardless of the person's role in the organization."

Ruettimann said that, in the future, informal online networks will inform prospective employees about work culture and environments. She said that companies that tolerate harassers or promote discriminatory environments will be labeled.

"Whether it's a formal registry online or an informal conversation at a women's networking event, stuff like this is going to start to get out," Laurie said. "Like a FICO score, you're not really going to know the methodology of why someone's labeled a workplace predator or not. Women talk and women connect on the internet. That's the true power of the social web and the movement that we're having right now."

SEE ALSO: Cocaine and groping — bombshell report on Uber's work environment makes it sound awful and full of bros

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to be an assertive woman in a sexist workplace