i thought there was a call to boycott the entirety of black friday and cyber monday?
i think there are people on tumblr & twitter that are advocating for a full boycott (which is good), but specifically with BDS & according to their website they're just calling for a targeted boycott against puma, HP, and marvel for black friday and cyber monday (along with the other targeted companies)
personally, i'm also boycotting starbucks (for their treatment of unionized workers) as well as a few of the other companies not listed in the immediate full boycott list.
as of 11/22 on their twitter, this is what they shared:
1. Consumer boycott targets - The BDS movement calls for a complete boycott of these brands carefully selected due to the company's proven record of complicity in Israeli apartheid.
2. Divestment targets - The BDS movement is pressuring governments, institutions and investment funds to exclude and divest from as many complicit companies as practical, especially weapons manufacturers, banks, and companies listed in the UN database of business involved in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise, as well as the WhoProfits and AFSC Investigate databases of companies enabling the occupation. Below we give some of the targets we are campaigning against.
3. Pressure (non-boycott) targets - The BDS movement actively calls for pressure campaigns against these brands and services due to their complicity in Israeli apartheid. We have not, on strategic grounds, called for a boycott of these brands and services, instead we strategically call on supporters and institutions to mount other forms of pressure on them until they end their complicity in Israeli apartheid.
4. Organic boycott targets - The BDS movement did not initiate these grassroots boycott campaigns but is in support of them due to these brands openly supporting Israel’s genocide against Palestinians.
ultimately the companies listed under the first category you absolutely should be boycotting 100%.
and i'm not going to tell you to not also boycott black friday, especially since it coincides with the temporary 4-day "truce." like i said, i know there are groups that have been advocating for a full boycott this weekend along with protests; there were hundreds today, from Washington, DC, to Massachusetts, to California, to Florida... i shared the creator's day because they do that every other month or so on itch.io anyways & i wanted to link the BDS information alongside it. they may update in the future as well and call for more targeted boycotts as the holidays ramp up so i suggest bookmarking the website or following them on twitter, and look for a campaign near you to get involved directly.
BDS has also called for a global day of action on November 29th, which includes intensifying all targeted boycotting campaigns.
681 notes
·
View notes
Btw, if anyone cares to know, my position on Biden and the 2024 election is this:
Starting September* 1, 2024, I will be doing whatever I can to make sure that Trump does not get a second term as president
Until that day, I'm going to be doing whatever I can to push for an end to the genocide in Gaza and an immediate ceasefire, and that includes criticizing, protesting, and lambasting Biden for funding and providing weapons for Israel's genocide
ETA: I will still be posting about significant good things the Biden administration has done, though, because some of it is a really big deal that people deserve to know about
ETA: But I will not be defending Biden from any criticism around Palestine/Israel/war crimes
*This originally said October 1st but someone pointed out to me that there are a few states where early voting starts in late September, including a couple swing states, so I changed it because that's a very good point
I don't plan to tell anyone not to vote for Biden in the meantime, myself, because shitty two party system and I'm really serious about Trump not getting reelected
But I'm also not going to do anything to discourage people who are seriously rallying against Biden, because he is, you know, literally bypassing Congress to make sure he can fund crimes against humanity
I never want to diminish that reality.
And more than that: If we want genocide to actually be a dealbreaker for politicians and presidents... then we need to start acting like it could be.
--
Details/related thoughts:
I will still be posting about good things Biden and his administration are doing, because they are the ones running the US government and Congress is super deadlocked, so a lot of the national-level good news in the US has been done by his administration, and I'm not going to stop posting about that good news
Shout-out to the anon who accused me of being a US government propagandist with a whole PR team bc I posted about Biden a few days in a row. I promise you I'm blogging from my bed in my pjs and do not have a PR team lol
Also, for people who don't think we should be spreading serious criticism about Biden, for fear of Trump winning in 2024: I hear you--that's an incredibly valid fear. I've struggled with that myself, in the process of coming to this(/these) decision(s). But consider this: it's better that we really pile on the criticism and pressure now, because a) people are dying, and b) Biden's chances will be much worse if Israel is still bombing/decimating Gaza on election day
Relatedly, for anyone who's tempted to think Trump would be better when it comes to the Gaza genocide, again, it's really understandable to want to put your hope in any viable alternative. However, I promise you that is not going to happen. Joe Biden at least conditionally gives a couple shits about human life. Trump doesn't. Remember Trump's Muslim ban? In all likelihood, Trump would just tell Israel to bomb Gaza harder and ban Palestinian refugees from entering the US
Last thing on Trump: maybe this is naive of me, but for a lot of reasons, I'm not actually particularly worried about Trump winning in 2024. If I was, I might have made some different calls here. I have a few asks about this in my inbox and will probably make a post at some point about the reasons why, but yeah, Democrats have mostly been wanting to run against Trump instead of DeSantis or Haley or whoever for some very real reasons
You're welcome to disagree with me/this post in any direction, btw
Seriously, I'm just a random person who doesn't speak for anyone besides myself and my own blog. I'm not saying these are categorically the right answers, or that any of this is what everyone should be doing. This is simply the system I have settled on (right now) for how I personally want to handle all of this
You're welcome to disagree with me but please don't send me any angry asks about any of it. Not that I in any way get a lot of those, thankfully! But yeah, this isn't something I'm interested in debating, this is mostly for notification/explanation purposes
165 notes
·
View notes
legitimately insane how to some people, "we should wipe out this ethnic group that we've violently constrained to a ghetto because they're just genetically more violent and dangerous" is a reasonable and justifiable statement but it's Nazi Rhetoric to say something like, "it's bad that Israeli civilians are being killed but acknowledging that as tragic includes acknowledging that the almost daily state-sanctioned murder of civilians by the Israeli government is also tragic and unacceptable"
btw guys speaking of Nazi shit - can we check in, alongside what's been done to Palestinians in the last 75 years, what's the Israeli government's take on the Azerbaijani government's newest round of ethnic cleansing of Armenians? oh are the Israeli government's actions maybe not determined by Jewish identity, but by a commitment to colonial supremacy which puts them on the same page as other violently genocidal states like Azerbaijan, the US, and the UK? god can you Even Imagine?
(framing speaking against Israeli war crimes as inherently antisemitic requires understanding the Israeli state as representing all Jewish people, when it doesn't even represent all Israelis.
framing Israeli war crimes as synonymous with Jewish identity is pretty fucked up if we're being honest. I don't think that controlling water and power and movement for a captive population and shooting children dead for throwing stones is an inherent value of Judaism, any more than I think the torture carried out at Guantanamo Bay is an inherent value of Christianity - in both cases they're atrocities carried out by a far right genocidal government using religious identity as a shield.
Calling statements like "Israel is committing genocide against the people it's displaced" inherently antisemitic is doing more to further the idea that all Jewish people are associated with Israel than saying "the Israeli government is doing war crimes," which is a statement of fact about a country that exists and does war crimes. Is criticism of Israel as a nation often used as cover for antisemitism? Absolutely. Does that mean the Israeli government isn't doing literal war crimes repeatedly, on record, while talking publicly about scrubbing an ethnic group off the map? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh well in the last 48 hours they've definitely cut off water and power to almost 600,000 civilians and allegedly used white phosphorus against civilians so in an extremely factual and unambiguous way yeah man those are Literal War Crimes whoever does them.)
62 notes
·
View notes
Alright uninformed rant time. It kind of bugs me that, when studying the Middle Ages, specifically in western Europe, it doesn’t seem to be a pre-requisite that you have to take some kind of “Basics of Mediaeval Catholic Doctrine in Everyday Practise” class.
Obviously you can’t cover everything- we don’t necessarily need to understand the ins and outs of obscure theological arguments (just as your average mediaeval churchgoer probably didn’t need to), or the inner workings of the Great Schism(s), nor how apparently simple theological disputes could be influenced by political and social factors, and of course the Official Line From The Vatican has changed over the centuries (which is why I’ve seen even modern Catholics getting mixed up about something that happened eight centuries ago). And naturally there are going to be misconceptions no matter how much you try to clarify things for people, and regional/class/temporal variations on how people’s actual everyday beliefs were influenced by the church’s rules.
But it would help if historians studying the Middle Ages, especially western Christendom, were all given a broadly similar training in a) what the official doctrine was at various points on certain important issues and b) how this might translate to what the average layman believed. Because it feels like you’re supposed to pick that up as you go along and even where there are books on the subject they’re not always entirely reliable either (for example, people citing books about how things worked specifically in England to apply to the whole of Europe) and you can’t ask a book a question if you’re confused about any particular point.
I mean I don’t expect to be spoonfed but somehow I don’t think that I’m supposed to accumulate a half-assed religious education from, say, a 15th century nobleman who was probably more interested in translating chivalric romances and rebelling against the Crown than religion; an angry 16th century Protestant; a 12th century nun from some forgotten valley in the Alps; some footnotes spread out over half a dozen modern political histories of Scotland; and an episode of ‘In Our Time’ from 2009.
But equally if you’re not a specialist in church history or theology, I’m not sure that it’s necessary to probe the murky depths of every minor theological point ever, and once you’ve started where does it end?
Anyway this entirely uninformed rant brought to you by my encounter with a sixteenth century bishop who was supposedly writing a completely orthodox book to re-evangelise his flock and tempt them away from Protestantism, but who described the baptismal rite in a way that sounds decidedly sketchy, if not heretical. And rather than being able to engage with the text properly and get what I needed from it, I was instead left sitting there like:
And frankly I didn’t have the time to go down the rabbit hole that would inevitably open up if I tried to find out
128 notes
·
View notes
absolutely sucks shit when people are like HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST PUTTING ANY CONDITIONS ON YOUR VOTE as if. the constant shift right doesn't have to do with the belief in major parties that they're owed votes by default on account of not being the other guy.
like they're going to ignore the public's wishes either way but fuck, you don't have to make it that easy for them. literally the second they get in. oh pwetty pwease Mr Biden can you wespect basic human wights? don't worry sir you'll still get my vote if not but I thought I'd ask nicely!!!!
hold their fucking feet to the fire dude. make it clear that your vote is conditional on them listening to the public on the clear and vital points.
(btw 'refusing to vote for Clinton is how Trump got in' no it literally is not. please remember that Trump lost the popular vote anyway and only got in because your country has a weird fucked up system where states are allowed to ignore how their constituents vote.)
(Refusing to vote New Labour after the Iraq War is how the Tories got in over here. Kinda. because what actually happened was we had the first hung parliament since 1979, and then the Lib Dems sold the country up the river for some minor concessions. and then Labour spent the next 10 years actively kneecapping itself by painting its own leadership as a bigger threat than the Tories, and when they had a leftist leading them they still brought the Tories to a hung parliament again in 2017.)
(anyway the point is you all seem to have a majorly inflated sense of how much democracy is involved in elections. Ultimately in cases where the race is close-run it is not the electorate that decide, it's like 100 people in positions of high power, be it the electoral college, the party leadership, or otherwise.)
(none of which is to say your vote is useless. your vote is valuable to politicians. there's a limit to how much they can get away with ignoring the public. but. because your vote is valuable, it's only useful as leverage if there's a possibility you might not give them it. and let's be clear, people WILL change direction if they're worried about losing votes. but unless you're offering them massive funding, then the only reason your opinion would carry any weight is if there's a possibility of your vote being withheld. if you stand up and say VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO YOU'VE GOT MY VOTE WHATEVER HAPPENS then like. You might as well just say 'ignore me, pay attention to those guys who might not vote for you'.)
if the centre and the left's votes are vocally assured regardless of the party's policy or stance, then the party will move right. bc they've already got you, so it's time to court the undecideds. YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT NECESSARY TO A POLITICIAN'S SUCCESS TO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU WANT. they don't care. you have to use what little leverage you have, your vote, to make them care. it's the only form of accountability we can bring about that doesn't involve, like, storming the winter palace 🤷♀️
27 notes
·
View notes