#systematic solutions

[autismserenity]

pretty please, my fellow progressives

Could we please all keep in mind that the concept of "The Jews In General, or A Specific Type Of Jew, Controls Education, Government, Media, and/or Banking", is a longstanding antisemitic trope?

And most of all, that it is false??

No, a marginalized group does not also control education, the government, the media, and/or banking?

No, Jews do not secretly control these things and just pretend to be marginalized? No, Jews have not secretly been accumulating power since the Holocaust, granted by too-generous gentiles, out of pity?

No, it isn't better if you just mean a specific subgroup or kind of Jews. It's still specifically Jews.

It's like when people who hate trans/queer people are fine with rich white cis gay men. So they think it's not bigoted to blame "people with blue hair and pronouns" for the downfall of society.

We all know this means, "I only see some of you as human like me. You have to speak and act a certain way to count. Everyone in your group has to pass a test to get into the Good group."

Doesn't work.

Sure, it gives them plausible deniability to the people who matter to them. But everyone else can see exactly how they feel.

We've all known for years that it's bad to think of a marginalized group as having some "good ones." Rein it the heck in, please.

Because YES, all of those examples are ones I've seen implied, or stated outright, over and over, within the progressive community. This month alone.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[goodluckdetective]

There’s been a push to make workplaces more accepting of neurodivergence or mental illness recently and that’s great, honestly, but there’s one thing about it that has me frustrated.

I really dislike all the emphasis on the person who is neurodivergent or mentally ill to do so much of the work.

Like in some ways it makes sense: the people who need the changes should be the ones in charge. But sometimes it feels like the good idea that “the people who are margalized should have the largest voice in the room” gets used as “and if those marginalized are having a rough time, well they should have just disclosed their situation.”

It feels like the blame goes from “society is ableist/unaccepting of diffeeence” to “if you had just SAID SO well it would be fine!” Without considering the many very good reasons people might not want to speak up. Stigma has gotten better but it’s not gone.

You can add all the stress balls and wellness seminars into your workspace as you want, but for me personally, that doesn’t mean jack shit if the only way I MAYBE can get slight flex in my lunch hours for doctors appointments is to disclose my mental illness to not only my Supervisor, but my Boss and HR. You can add in discounts to Yoga class, but if the only talk of mental stuff in a workplace is about hypothetical “other” people, can I really be blamed for not exactly wanting to play those cards?

Is it really my fault that I don’t want to label myself when that label might become the first thing people associate me with?

I’m not saying people shouldn’t do those things like get accommodations: they absolutely should and I hope no one has to fight for them. I can get defeatist at times and I want to be very clear that getting what you need is worth it and if anyone gives you shit, they’re dicks. I just wish that that more concrete policies to help people who are neurodivergent or mentally ill didn’t require folks to share what they might not be ready to talk about.

And that if that isn’t possible, to not act like the only barrier to acceptance in the workplace is created by those who need it the most.

[ardentpoop]

normal

[savengrow]

Financial Service Provider in Delhi | Investment Solutions in Delhi | Save N Grow

Save N Grow is promoted by Sanjiv Kumar Garg who is a leading financial service provider in Delhi. We offer financial planning, asset allocation, and investment monitoring at your doorstep.

[veil-of-exordia]

Overly systematic approaches are characterized by mindlessness.

[maggiefromspace]

Found this incredibly cool website that lets you explore the whole tree of life.

They have a whole page on where their data is sourced from if you're wondering. It looks like a lot of thought went into it!

[ascentsoftware]

Start a SIP with us to meet your Financial Goals

Start a SIP with us to meet your Financial Goals

Start Investing now:

💬-https://wa.me/919075056050

📷-9850554268

#AscentSoftwareSolutions

#Tally #TallyPrime #Accountants #Accounting #Finance #mutualfunds #Mutualfund #SIP #investment #InvestmentOpportunity #MoneyManagement #invest

[intersectionalpraxis]

I have transcribed the English translations on this video below:

"With God and the IDF's help, after we turn Khan Younis into a soccer field, I'm sure there will be international pressure at some point -hopefully after we finish the job -to rehabilitate Gaza and [to think] what needs to be done with Gaza. And then we need to take advantage of that. To take advantage of the destruction that we will wreak upon them, in order [to tell] the countries of the world, that each one of them should take a quota, it can be 20,000 or 50,000 [to say] that they too should shoulder the burden in order to allow them to leave. You have to understand it was hard for them to leave until now, it was complicated to leave Gaza. We need to change our mindset, and let them leave. We need to let them leave. As Tzvika said before, in the last few years half a million young people emigrated. We need 2 million to leave. In all honesty, that's the solution for Gaza."

On national television, as so many of them have proudly and publicly declared; a former Israeli Minister encourages mass displacement of Palestinian people on HISTORIC PALESTINE as a way to continue their Zionist agenda -she, as many of the liberal zionists do -propose this as a solution to end THEIR OWN systematic violence against Palestinian people... the audacity.

Do people sincerely think this isn't ethnic cleansing? Like at this point, settlers will literally say they want to burn Gaza to the ground and make it their 'paradise,' and western/European politicians and people will say that there's '2 sides to this...' and Israel has a 'right to defend itself,' despite breaking international laws, committing war crimes and genocide, and being a terrorist state with fascist mentalities...

I'm disgusted.

[beeseverywhen]

Me to my little sister: Right now you've got a replacement phone you'll actually keep this one on you when you go out alone right?

Her: Yes!

Her: Unless i go to the shop

Me: What? That's the only place you go without an adult, why wouldn't you take it there? It's the one place you actually need it

Her: Why would i need a phone in a supermarket

Me: Why would you need a phone anywhere? To get help if you need it. Besides you aren't teleporting in to the supermarket! You have to get there first. You're taking it to the supermarket so you have it there and on the way there in case you need to call us because there are no public phones! If you go out without it, you are the only person walking about without one.

Her: OK, I'll even take it to the supermarket

[yourtongzhihazel]

Ive fucking had it up to here with symptomatic solutions to structural problems. You cant fucking vote out fascism its already fucking here for 60% of the world population. You can't fucking solve homelessness or joblessness or prison slavery by starting a fucking company or employing more vulnerable people. You have to upend the whole system of exploitation that creates these inequalities in the first place and that means organizing and educating and agotating, not jerking off people slapping bandaids on systematic problems amd trying to "fix" capitalism using capitalism.

[hazardous-waste-containment]

Objectively the best comparisons are going to be contemporary ones – Malay nationalism in Malaysia, anti-immigrant parties and counterjihadism in Europe; I believe Wirathu has compared himself to Trump – but since it wasn't* a political party and instead focused on lobbying the government ‘from outside’ to implement specific policies, a weird comparison for Myanmar's 969 Buddhist ultra-nationalism might be the second Klan, of the 1920s.

There's also the fusion of race and religion, and more importantly the element of technically, but unscrupulously, supporting democracy: in the early 2010s Wirathu supported democratization and demilitarization, but he's since become rabidly pro-Tatmadaw, denied the Rohingya genocide, and was released from prison by the junta last year. The interwar Klan never radically challenged democratic institutions at home (it considered ‘Liberalism’ with a capital ‘L’ to be a core American value), but did voice support for the Mussolini regime (as did many conservatives in the 1920s).

On a more basic level, both sported what seem like generically fascist (or rather right-wing populist) ‘ideological contours’ – a hostile minority threatening to invade and overwhelm the majority; a liberal multicultural elite that favors, or is even controlled by, said minority; the need to preserve and strengthen national identity; etc. But neither 969 nor the second Klan had the revolutionary program to drive it home, focusing on particular reforms to the democratic establishment rather than a totally new political and economic system (this is true of all the modern comparisons as well). The exception for the Klan was a breakaway faction called the Black Legion that supported revolutionary action to create a white supremacist dictatorship in the United States, but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent in Myanmar.

*tenses were kind of tricky in this post because 969 formally no longer exists but Wirathu and his followers are still kicking

[reasonsforhope]

"Parents of tweens will likely be aware of the daily battle over when to give their child a smartphone. They are probably forced into discussing it over breakfast, on the school run, at bedtime – after all, no kid wants to be left out if their friends all have one.

Which is why a town in Ireland came together to devise a solution.

Parents and teachers in Greystones, County Wicklow, launched a town-wide ‘no-smartphone code’ in May, when headteachers from the town’s eight primary schools wrote to parents asking them to sign up to the ban. By coming together en masse, the thinking went, parents could do away with the peer pressure around smartphone ownership.

Now, ministers in the Irish cabinet have approved new guidelines on the banning of smartphones in school, which were brought by education minister Norma Foley on 7 November. The proposals would help parents to collectively implement smartphone bans, with government support. Ministers are also considering outlawing the sale of smartphones to all children of primary school age.

“We can already see smartphones creeping into our primary schools,” explained Rachel Harper, headteacher at St. Patrick’s school, which led on the initiative. “Parents, even at the junior end, were already getting worried about what age their kids were going to be asking for smartphones.”

Parental concerns around the dangers of smartphones are justified, according to the latest scientific research. In 2020, a systematic review of academic studies investigating smartphones, social media use and youth mental health found that, in the last 10 years, mental distress and treatment for mental health conditions had risen in parallel with the use of smartphones by children and adolescents...

There’s also a desire, said Christina Capatina, a Greystones parent whose daughters are aged 11 and nine, to prioritise face-to-face interactions over digital ones for as long as possible. “Childhood is getting shorter,” she said. “It’s really important for them to be in a place where they can be happy and enjoy being out, just being children.”

Parents in Greystones are now empowered to hold off giving their kids access to the devices until the age of 12, when they transition to secondary school in Ireland.

Eight months since the ban came in, what has its impact been? “It has completely solved the problem,” said Capatina. “Instead of having long conversations about it, this is so simple.”

The code is voluntary, so some parents have chosen not to take part, but enough have signed up to create a sense of phoneless-ness being the norm. While some in the media have argued that the code demonises technology, Harper refutes this: “We’re not against technology. We’re not against phones. We’re just simply asking them to wait till secondary school.” [Again, that's age 12 in Ireland.]

She said the launch of their no-smartphone code led to school principals all over the world getting in touch with messages of support, an indication it seems of how universal parents’ fears over childhood smartphone use are.

And with ministers now working on guidelines for communities that wish to follow in Greystones’ footsteps, Harper is proud of all she and fellow parents have achieved. “It’s nice to be an ambassador in a positive way,” she said.

-via Positive.News, November 17, 2023

[end-otw-racism]

On "Moderation"

We've seen some... creative interpretations of our requests over the last few weeks, and we'd like to address some of them now: we are NOT expecting comprehensive and exhaustive 'moderation' of existing or future work posted to AO3.

That is to say, we are not expecting AO3 to ban every work with even a whiff of racism in it, and to then systematically comb through the millions of works that currently exist on the site and delete any that may be vaguely "offensive," nor to pre-screen every work that will be posted in the future.

The way AO3 handles TOS violations now is to respond to user-submitted reports about work posted to the Archive, and only then to examine and evaluate the reported work to determine whether it violates the TOS. If the work does violate their TOS, they choose how to handle it (deletion, as we understand it, is a last resort).

We are simply asking that they expand their existing TOS to address explicitly harassing works and extremely racist works designed to harm fans of color, and to apply their existing moderation process to such reported works as they do to other violations of their TOS. This will not require a catastrophic increase in the staff they have on hand for Policy & Abuse. If they design the new TOS terms and policies with care and foresight, they will have guardrails to prevent/minimize abuse of the new terms.

The elaborate descriptions of why comprehensive, full-scale moderation of each and every work on AO3, now and in the future, is impossible and unfair are dramatic - and possibly willful - misinterpretations of our demands. Moreover, it's another example of how fandom will leap to the worst possible interpretation of antiracist goals in order to justify feigned helplessness and total inaction in the face of fans being actively harmed by racists.

Not to mention, we aren't asking for anything the OTW themselves didn't already promise they'd look into. This suggestion is one they made themselves three years ago as a potential solution to make AO3 more welcoming of fans of color - we're just asking them to follow up on their promises:

"Moderate" is also a noun. And to be a naysaying "moderate" when marginalized people are simply asking an organization to fulfill its own promises to stop platforming abuse... just enables more of that abuse.

[carriesthewind]

"Although hired as a consultant by Washington County in this case, Baird had a long-standing independent agenda: helping foster parents across Colorado succeed in intervening and permanently claiming the children they care for. Often working hand in hand with Tim Eirich, she has been called as an expert in, by her count, hundreds of child-welfare cases, and she sometimes evaluates visits between birth families and children without having met them. Baird would not say how many foster-parent intervenor cases she has participated in, but she can recall only a single instance in which she concluded that the intervenors should not keep the child. Thinking that particular couple would be weak adoptive parents, she told me, she simply filed no report."

"With the supply of adoptable babies dropping, foster children were becoming a “hot commodity,” he said, and he and his colleagues (among them Tim Eirich’s law partner Seth Grob) realized that attachment experts could be called into court to argue that foster children needed to remain with their foster parents in order to avoid a severed bond."

"The judge ruled in favor of Eirich’s clients, a social worker and a real-estate agent. “Court found [Baird’s] testimony credible. She has significant experience,” the judge said, adding approvingly that Baird’s analysis had “focused on primacy of attachment over cultural considerations.”"

"Was Baird’s method for evaluating these foster and birth families empirically tested? No, Baird answered: Her method is unpublished and unstandardized, and has remained “pretty much unchanged” since the 1980s. It doesn’t have those “standard validity and reliability things,” she admitted. “It’s not a scientific instrument.”

...

Had she considered or was she even aware of the cultural background of the birth family and child whom she was recommending permanently separating? (The case involved a baby girl of multiracial heritage.) Baird answered that babies have “never possessed” a cultural identity, and therefore are “not losing anything,” at their age, by being adopted. Although when such children grow up, she acknowledged, they might say to their now-adoptive parents, “Oh, I didn’t know we were related to the, you know, Pima tribe in northern California, or whatever the circumstances are.”

The Pima tribe is located in the Phoenix metropolitan area."

"We found that — leaving aside the question of whether attachment theory should even be used as an argument in these cases — Baird’s assessments of foster children’s relationships aren’t just unscientific. They barely touch the surface of a child’s life.

“I don’t know these children,” she testified in one 2017 case, adding, “I have not met anybody.” Still, she said, she “strongly” recommended that those children’s birth parents’ rights be permanently terminated and that the kids be adopted."

"She also regularly uses terms like “mirror neurons,” “neurotoxins,” “synapses,” “hormones,” and “encoded trauma in the central nervous system” to justify her conclusions about children’s family relationships. (Baird is not a neuroscientist.)"

______________________

The New Yorker article focuses on possible legislative solutions, but I think these articles point to something more pernicious and more difficult to address. Judges - in all kinds of cases - routinely give credence to professionals and "experts" who are biased, bigoted, and testify far outside their expertise (if they have any expertise at all). These professionals have credentials (like being a police officer or social worker) that are validated by institutional hierarchies. Their frequent systematized interaction with the legal system is mistaken as experience that makes their subjective beliefs more credible, when in truth they lack any objective expertise. They are considered credible and unbiased because they conform to, and validate, systems of hierarchical oppression, while the people they hurt - often poor, marginalized, and most frequently, not white - are viewed with inherent distrust.

The ProPublica article focuses primarily on Baird. I'm more concerned with the judges who believed her, who used her to justify funneling children away from their (safe and loving, but poorer and frequently browner) birth families. She was only able to do so much harm because of the the power given to her by courts, and the judges inside them.

The ProPublic article ends with the line, "This past fall, with Baird’s help, the foster parents were granted full custody of the baby girl through her 18th birthday." It names Baird as a force that led to the theft of this child. The passive voice hides the judge who made the ultimate decision.