Political - Tumblr Posts
iam talking politics with my best friend and like i live in germany and in my opinion politics is shit here
but we said a few things that i think explain a lot of political situations in the world:
The people who currently make the decisions are going to be dead when the consequences come.
History repeats itself until we learn from our mistakes.
You cant create something new with an old ideology.
people cant trust in a system that was created for another problem centuries ago beacuse it isnt the same world
iam talking politics with my best friend and like i live in germany and in my opinion politics is shit here
but we said a few things that i think explain a lot of political situations in the world:
The people who currently make the decisions are going to be dead when the consequences come.
History repeats itself until we learn from our mistakes.
You cant create something new with an old ideology.
people cant trust in a system that was created for another problem centuries ago beacuse it isnt the same world
Let's try to make this as clear as possible for hopefully the final time. The ONLY viable option who can beat Trump this November is JOE BIDEN! Not kamala Harris, not gretchen Whitmer, not Pete buttigieg, not Gavin Newsom. But Joe biden.
Harris can't beat Trump, she just can't, she's less popular than biden amongst moderates and her own party. Whitmer, Newsom, buttigeig or anyone else are not known enough to win over moderates this close to the election. So please just stop the "biden needs to step done" talk and accept that he may not be perfect but right now he is our only option. If you don't want Trump to be president, then your only option is to vote joe biden
004 POLITICAL THEORY
download notes
[image description: a tweet by user @indigenousAI saying
“fun fact: as a DV survivor i cannot register to vote because doing so makes my address public. anyone who is fleeing or hiding from an abuser is automatically disenfranchised from the political process and this is a feature, not a bug”]
IG: rainbow_guillotine
I made an album
2006 war die Parade noch in Ordnung ...
United we stand, divided we fall…
I don’t care on which side of the political spectrum you identify. The threat to our democracy is a clear and present danger!
A 🧵 Buckle up it’s a long one.
This is not a fight about 2A, it’s not about abortion, it’s not about education, it’s not about sexual orientation, it’s not about taxes or immigration or about healthcare. This fight comes down to a religious minority, trying to push its narrow views upon our country.
The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 threatens to dismantle nearly 250 years of progress toward equality for all. And I for one am not going to stand for it.
We must unite against the GOP with Joe Biden as the nominee. He cannot be replaced on ballots without being challenged. “Protest” voting for other parties will sign the death certificate of our nation. The same thing happened in 2016.
A very brief history. Zoroastrianism was founded around 3500 years ago. “Zoroastrianism…held that a messiah would come at some future date…to redeem humanity in an event known as the Frashokereti which was the end of time and brought reunion with Ahura Mazda…
These concepts would influence the later religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” https://www.worldhistory.org/religion/
This monotheistic view of religion has existed for less than half of recorded history and many religions still have pluralistic beliefs. #Christianity has done nothing but oppress people since its inception. And now a very narrow interpretation of it is being weaponized against us.
It’s a disease that spread throughout the world, literally killing millions of people as missionaries spread disease from one continent to another. It didn’t matter how many indigenous people died as long as they believed and converted.
Ancient rulers seized upon the opportunity to adopt the religion and thus take power and wealth* from the people. Sound familiar? Wars have been fought for control of territory around the world.
*This was the 2nd goal of missionaries.
And now a sect of ultra-conservative Christian Nationalists threatens to end our constitutional republic in favor of an authoritarian state.
They’re trying to divide us even further so they can win. We CANNOT let that happen. Moderate, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian, Conservative, it doesn’t matter, we will all suffer equally if Project 2025 succeeds.
They have been chipping away at certain liberties for 8 years already. It’s clear that they only have self-serving goals to make the rich richer and to oppress citizens like in other authoritarian regimes.
It is truly terrifying to see dystopian novels coming to life before my very eyes. These conservatives fear change and clearly believe that liberalism is the root of all evil.
On the contrary, education leads to enlightenment and free thought, so “liberal” thinking is really just how they demonize those who are educated and have opposing opinions or beliefs.
One example from #Project2025 is that “conservative” republicans have been trying to strip funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting since its inception. @NPR & @PBS are run by CPB.
Why? Because they educate people & allows them to adopt beliefs that oppose theirs. They lament that no republican president has been able to do it. They argue that most viewers are liberals & that not enough conservative programming is offered so it should be shut down. Boo hoo😢
How about that educated viewers use their common sense and reasoning to conclude that stories from 2000+ years ago are not fully relevant to modern society? 👩🏼🎓👨🏽🎓
Science is not theological yet conservatives want to apply theology to everything. The world isn’t flat. Evolution & Climate change are real. Vaccines save lives. The USA was NOT founded as a Christian nation. If not for free thinkers, we’d probably still be living in the Iron Age.
Most people want to be part of a group & religion is the most common way to achieve that goal. We are conditioned from birth to believe what we’re taught and not question it. This is how racism & bigotry continue to thrive along with political ideology.
Morals are morals. They aren’t inherently conservative or liberal. You are either kind to others or not; you follow the rules or don’t; you tell the truth or you’re a narcissistic pathological liar. It’s that simple. That is all that’s required to define a good person.
The notion that sexuality has anything to do with morality is utterly absurd, but this is what conservatives argue. They LIE to justify taking rights from anyone they don’t like. They fear what they don’t understand.
They oppose abortion because it’s a numbers game to them. They think more babies = more followers. Well, we’re already seeing that no abortion = higher infant mortality. So that myth is busted.
Much of the Project 2025 platform directly attacks the Biden administration and seemingly relies on data that is short-sighted at best. I’m sure many of the arguments for or against the many chapter topics are false-flags to make it look balanced.
I hope someone is trying to fact-check the book, as many of the end notes are just commentary or references to current laws. Statistics are cherry picked to support their claims.
Even my 16-year-old understands the implications should departments like education and health & human services get shut down or changed from what they currently are. 🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
If you made it all the way through, thanks for reading. Please share because our lives depend on it. We all need to #VoteBlue2024 to put an end to the GOP madness once and for all.
Fin.
So apparently KOSA (2024 edition) is getting either thrown out until next year or put into effect in six days.
Update that's going in the main post at the top: it has enough support to pass.
It failed the last two times because people were voting against it.
This time, KOSA has traction among the pro-LGBTQ parties. Because nobody is fucking calling their bullshit and screaming from the rooftops that calling it the "Kids Online Safety Act" is misleading.
What will it passing do?
Nothing much, only prevent any education on LGBTQIA+ (it's that stupid fucking argument about us grooming kids again), shut down nearly every fandom space on the internet, and make it required for most big tech companies to have your ID.
Want to have resources for kids to discover their identity readily available? Yes? Then fucking speak up against this stupid fucking bill.
Fandom spaces like Tumblr, Twitter (? I thought the MAGA assholes liked Musk?), Tiktok, Archive Of Our Own, and any other website that hosts fanfic or fanart? Either shut down permanently, forced to uproot to a different country and down for a while (best case scenario, and they likely won't be able to send any data, and therefore fanfics, to the US), or gutted so that you only get to put G rated cishet ships on there, if any shipping at all. How to avoid that? I've already said it: Call your fucking representatives.
Want to avoid the fucking dystopic task of being legally obligated to give big tech your government issue ID? Again, cause an uproar. Call your goddamned representatives.
If they can pass this, the ripple effects could be catastrophic.
So, for fuck's sake, any Americans that can impact this stupid fucking bill and see this? Do everything in your power to shut it down because you have until February twenty sixth (26th) to send this bill back to where it belongs.
And if you can't do that? Reblog, copy my tags, and boost the signal.
Sorry not sorry for ranting, making you scroll through that, and swearing a probably excessive amount, but KOSA is a bill with a GLOBAL IMPACT being passed by ONE COUNTRY because some old people are scared of two guys with who were told they were girls kissing within five hundred miles of a child. Fuck this shit, I shouldn't have to worry about bad bills in America but I fucking do because I use the internet and would like to avoid mass censorship. Fuck this, fuck conservatives, and fuck the fact that some boomers make your country's policies.
Now, if you won't mind me, I'm going to be up until three in the morning downloading fanfiction or copying and pasting them into a a text file if I can't so I can read them by the end of the week.
Whenever I'm studying Marxism (and that's quite a lot of times actually) I remember Marx's idea that Revolution can only take form through hate.
Of course, I know now it's a very specific form of hate and that it's pointed to a specific community of people but when I started learning about it, I often found myself rebelling at the notion of hatred as a conductive to Revolution.
I thought hate was too volatile, too savage to be trustworthy but as I grow older and see the world as it is I see myself tasting that hate — and it's hard to actually put into words but this hatred is not ugly and unpredictable.
This hatred is actually quite beautiful, it's not a firing blaze scorching down the earth but a burning fire cleansing a wound, it's born out of indignation and love for humankind. It's there because I love humanity so much I can't help but feel the indignation for what happens to us to my very core and I can't help but turn this into anger, into hatred against those I know are responsible for this.
I really think Marx was onto something with this besides the whole political and economic points he usually made.
please write your rant about male domestic abuse victims
Okay, I'll do this but fair warning, I might include some kind of parallels to the Depp vs Heard trial(s) because my mind functions better if I have some kind of real-life or fictional literature to support me through the development of my thoughts, so if you believe Amber Heard for some reason, you might not like what I have to say. Also, please if you're gonna comment, be gentle and polite, I'm always open to new (well-based) points of view and I promise I'm open to an honest conversation with anyone who is kind <3
Observation: I will use Domestic Violence (DV) as a broad term throughout this but know that I refer mostly to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) here. The difference between the two is that DV can happen between members of the same nuclear family (between brothers, partners, or child and parents) while IPV happens only between romantic partners.
The reason I don't use DV especially is because abuse against boys (by parents, sisters, etc.) also falls under this category and then it's a whole other discussion about the socialization of children and teenagers, the social minority they represent and how that's a whole new discussion (that I'd be happy to extend in another post actually if there are any other people interested).
To begin with, we have to understand some things: we don't have exact data about male victims of domestic abuse, not only because it's severely under-reported but also because many reports are not even filed because the lines for escaping domestic violence (police, shelters, phone lines, etcetera.) attend only women and girls, or demonstrate a clear bias towards those victims. Plus, as it happens with women as well, abuse doesn't present just physically, but also emotionally and psychologically.
However, just to give you all an idea, in the UK, for example, it's estimated that almost 20% of domestic violence reports were from men in the last two years (2022-23), according to ManKind Initiative. In the US, according to The Tech Report, almost 45% of men believe they were victims of abusive relationships in their lives. In Australia, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 38% of victims of violence in the country were men, 64% being DV-related.
Now, there is a reason for this, and this is called patriarchy. Patriarchy is the concept of one of the pillars of how our society is built, and it means the subjugation of one binary gender (female) by another binary gender (male) - although this definition is more for this essay's purpose than accurate for an academic study for example. It's important to note that gender violence presents itself against women institutionally (through proper institutions, such as the legal system, for example, or a company's hierarchy) and structurally (it's in the roots of our society culturally and thus, infecting everything else).
According to The Patriarchs, journalist Angela Saini's latest book, the Patriarchy is something tricky to explore even for our earlier academics, such as Engels, for example, because it presents itself in many different ways. For example, it changes its characterization according to culture, environmental needs, History, and other factors. Still, the important thing is that it has various different aspects in the areas it's present.
What I want to explore goes a little bit further: I want to understand how the oppression of women affects men because, unlike many other kinds of oppression, gender-related violence affects their enforcers (men) as well as their victims (women). Now, I am not saying this violence is equal to each other: violence against women permeates our societies' very core, it's ingrained in our institutions, in our culture. But on an interpersonal level, gender violence affects men and women both.
Men are pressured into "being a man" (a white person doesn't have to prove they're white in the same sense or with the same intensity as a man has to prove his man-ness), they're molded to become people in disconnection to their own emotions, they're encouraged to be violent or at least not to be "emotional", to the point of not even noticing when they're suffering some kind of violence or from a mental disorder, for example.
This plays a significant role in how we view abuse when perpetrated by women against men but it's not all we need to observe when talking about male DV victims.
Another matter I'd like to point out is the way we view feminine violence: in the Introduction of her best-seller, Lady Killers, Tori Telfer talks about how violence committed by women is often put under one of three categories: the mysticism, the sexualization, or the banalization. That is, socially, we have a habit of thinking about violence perpetrated by women as either mythological, sexy, or just plain silly, and therefore dumb and/or laughable.
Telfer's examples throughout the book are great and I recommend the book for more insight, but to me, three cases stick out to follow as examples:
How the first woman serial killer we have Historical records of, Elizabeth Ridgeway, was killed for being a witch (mysticism);
How Nannie Doss, an old lady who fit all the 50s housewife stereotypes and killed men with poison in her cakes, had her intelligence belittled by people trying to paint her as insane despite many psychiatrical reports of her being exceptionally clever, how she was labeled by the media as "Arsenic Nannie" (banalization)
And finally, how women who perpetrate violence are often sexualized, such as Raya and Sakina, from the beginning of 20th-century Egypt, who were tied closely to the criminal underworld of their neighborhood and who actually developed a method of killing four people with little blood and avoiding messes; or Lizzie Halliday, who was labeled "the worst woman on earth" with clear implications of her ugliness; or at last, Erzsébet Báthory, known more popularly as Countess Dracula despite having been a lot crueler than the name leads you to believe; they were all sexualized one way or another, their crimes fitting their appearances rather than their acts.
What I mean to point out by that is that feminine violence is something we as a society have a tendency to downplay to a dangerous level. Part of that is a result of downplaying violence as a whole, doesn't matter the perpetrator, but a big part of it is because we see violence as a men's trait. Culturally, violence is a characteristic we attribute to men while women are "even-tempered", motherly, nurturing, and delicate.
Those are the traits of femininity. Violence is not something we easily attribute to women, while men can be only violent, domineering, "warriors".
Now, intimate partner violence (IPV) against males and perpetrated by women is significantly overlooked and under-researched. Hell, there was a real and huge doubt whether men could be r*ped at the beginning of the 2000s, and even now there are people who still don't see how men can be sexually abused.
What we do know about IPV is that, according to this article, women and men have roughly the same rate of occurrences of physical abuse against their partners, and in most of the non-reciprocal violent relationships, women were mostly the perpetrators, although it is true that the more violent abuse occurrences are mostly perpetrated by men:
"Archer Reference Archer5 attempted to resolve two competing hypotheses about partner violence, either that it involves a considerable degree of mutual combat or that it generally involves male perpetrators and female victims. His meta-analysis of 82 studies of gender differences in physical aggression between heterosexual partners showed that men were more likely to inflict an injury; 62% of those injured by a partner were women, but men still accounted for a substantial minority of those injured. However, women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. Younger aged couples showed more female-perpetrated aggression."
Again, that's not to say that violence committed against women in our patriarchal society is in any way equivalent to what men suffer as victims of IPV because that's not true. Violence against women is in every corner of our culture, it's in the roots of our society, and violence against men is not as institutional or structural as acts of violence perpetrated against men.
But I have to criticize how we view (or maybe it's best to say how little we view, or even consider) male victims of DV when we're talking about the matter because not only we are then perpetrating patriarchal beliefs that continue to harm us, we're also portraying women as being inherently and perpetually victims of violence, always in a place of perceived inferiority (although I need to point out there is nothing inferior about suffering violence) while men fall under the category of always the perpetrators of that violence.
That's undeniably harmful because it generates a dangerous generalization in individual cases, such as Johnny Depp, for example. Many of the people I saw defending Heard seemed to not comprehend that only because Johnny Depp was in a place of societal power in relation to AH (because he was, as an older, richer man) that wasn't enough of a reason to believe he was guilty of what she accused him of. Just because generally we might rightly point out a systemic oppression of women by men, it doesn't mean that we should apply those principles to individual cases, especially when we don't have access to concrete evidence and in high-profile cases such as Depp v Heard.
Now, after all of that, I need to point out a personal opinion of mine and bear in mind I don't have anything to base myself here so feel free to criticize it if you disagree (just remember to be nice, please): all of these facts make me ask myself how many of those cases of IPV were labeled as "mutual" (because there's actually a pretty fierce discussion on the matter of whether or not mutual abuse exists from what I could find, and mostly of academic research seem to understand that mutual abuse does exist) are actually mutual and not - in case of heterosexual relationships - emotional manipulation on the perpetrator's side.
And that leads me to ask myself how many of the false reports made by women against their male partners (which are the minority of reported DV cases, let's be clear here) were labeled as mutual because the men "fought back"? How many men who were victims of emotional manipulation didn't stay in those relationships or settle cases because of the threat of their female partners reporting them back from abuse as well?
And amongst those people, how many men did actually something that could be considered violent against their partner (talking now about emotional and psychological abuse, excluding the physical aspect for now) in an act of self-defense or instinctual nastiness as a defense mechanism against something that hurt them?
Having been a reactive victim in an emotionally abusive relationship myself, I can say with some ease that I said things that I know for sure truly hurt my abuser, I know I said things in the last days of our relationship that I would never say to other people if I wasn't so defensive right out the beginning of our latest interactions. But I refuse to fall into the trap of believing myself to be an equally abusive part of that relationship because I also know I did the work to try and better our relationship, I know because my other relationships are healthy and close and emotionally vulnerable and the whole circus.
So what I do have to ask myself is that in those IPV cases in heterosexual relationships where our first reaction is to classify them as mutual abuse or something like that... what do we expect from our male victims of IPV? What does the perfect male victim of IPV look like? Is it reasonable for us to expect men not to defend themselves at all because they're generally stronger than women?
Of course, I'm not advocating here that any kind of violence against your partner is okay because they're abusing you to any gender - self-defense has explicit rules to be applied for that exact reason. I'm simply pointing out that maybe we're diving into dangerous territory, or being overly zealous, considering mutual abuse at the maximum, or not believing men at all on the other side of the spectrum, when we're presented with a heterosexual case of IPV where the female was clearly or almost undoubtedly violent throughout the relationship.
That's the many reasons I can think to question people when they are presented with a case of DV of a woman committing abuse against their male partner. Because as much as women are socially oppressed, our biases in regard to gender affect our views of both men and women and can be really dangerous when generally applied to individual cases.
So yeah, I'm not thrilled with our critical skills when it comes to male victims of abuse, loves.
Not at all.
(if you're gonna answer, remember to be nice!)
My TikTok has decided against my will that I'm a young American voter and can't stop sending me Kamala Harris election propaganda...
I need to go back to communist/socialist TikTok ASAP
Because if I don't I might start sharing my opinions on the lib feminism and weaponized racial identification to masquerade genocidal agendas and I'm too lazy to deal with the backlash even if I do have a small account
How come the media could have endless coverage about every time Biden made a gaffe or slurred his speech but there's not the same furor and energy around covering the fact that Donald Trump literally openly admitted that he wants to abolish voting?! (X) (X)
Vote Blue all the way down the ballot to save democracy. This is so much bigger than any type of partisanship or party alignment or petty politics. Dictatorships hurt EVERYONE. Everyone's future and freedom and safety is at stake. Vote to save your freedoms. Vote to save your life.
Vote now because if the GOP gets their way you won't get another chance. Abstaining or voting for a third party makes you complicit.
The choice is simple: Freedom or Fascism.
Artwork of Trump, made up of headlines stating things him and his running mate have said or done.
"Daniel Day Lincoln". Illustration of Daniel Day Lewis as the Penny President. Illustration by Christian Cimoroni.