#I don't care if you're center left or radical left | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

yourtongzhihazel · 26 days

Note

The source that you yourself provided for the Uyghur post says "mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity" AND there have been multiple allegations of rape/SA from the inmates themselves. Even if it's not a genocide, it's weird that you're bootlicking for the Chinese government. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/5/14/the-faux-anti-imperialism-of-denying-anti-uighur?traffic_source=KeepReading

Which source? The foreign policy one? Of course they would say that they're a bourgeois news source. Your article, written by journalists from two western DOTBs and two strongly bourgeois institutions must have a real well rounded view when it comes to foreign countries. Just because they throw in some lines about "disavowing the american imperialist machine" while consistently citing western backed NGOS like human rights watch, who takes sponsorships from military contractors, doesn't mean they aren't engaging in blatant propaganda manufacturing. And then they go on to try and discredit sources and positions which go against them. Is this not taking the american side by default? The article tries to take a third position on the issue but what does it materially accomplish? The separatists are backed by the united states and serves usa interests in the region. The people in Xinjiang and vocational schools are backed by the PRC. You will fall into either camp one way or another.

99% of all the claims about XInjiang come from or are in some way involved with the usa state department, the NED, ETIM, or the world uyghur congress, all institutions or NGOs deeply involved with washington. The unites states and its running dogs have accused and lied about countries across the world in order to maintain their geopolitical positions. They will lie about babies being left in incubators. About WMDs. About rogue attacks. And they will lie about genocide. Take a look at the west's track history on genocide. Every single time they have done nothing to ever actually stop one and not only do they not stop genocide, they are the ones actively participating or supplies them. Look at the blatant lying about Palestine and tell me with a straight face what they actually care about genocide and Muslims. The real question is not why im "bootlicking for the Chinese government" but why you are doing the propaganda legwork for the imperialists.

As I have already said, multiple times, many international organizations, especially Islamic and Muslim ones have come to Xinjiang, investigated, and found no wrongdoing. Here's a look inside the vocational centers. Locals and attendees disavow the claims of forced labor. And there are serious issues with mass detainment claims. And people do actually graduate from the vocational schools. Contrary to popular belief, just like the province of Yunnan, Xinjiang is a province of many minorities; 19 out of the 52 nationally recognized groups. The largest are the Uyghurs, but mongols, Tajiks, and many more also live there. This is what Xinjiang is actually like. The PRC's primary de-radicalizing policy is the anti-poverty campaign. The past few years have seen tremendous material and money investment in China's poorest provinces, most notably, Xinjiang. Numerous programs like from animal husbandry, e-commerce, healthcare, clean water initiatives, childhood education, and more. The reason you don't see more new claims coming out from Xinjiang these days is that these policies have worked to reduce radicalization and poverty! The vocational schools are slowly emptying!

The american propagandists and you lot continue to come with more and more allegations and it is always the job of the communists to find evidence of the non-existence of a genocide? To prove a negative? ridiculous. You are letting the united states and its running dogs manufacture a false narrative on every country under the sun. Stop letting them take advantage of your humanity. They won't lift a finger to help the Palestinians, why would they be so fervently supportive of the Uyghurs? Where's the mass fleeing of people from Xinjiang into neighboring regions? What do you want me to show, live footage of the millions of kilometers of border? Where's the distinct targeting of intellectuals, journalists, professionals, and leaders like you see in Palestine? In occupied territories like Palestine and Kashmir, you will see consistent news about attacks and resistance movements. There are none in Xinjiang; since 2017 and the start of the de-radicalization and anti-poverty campaign. Is China so competent that they have eliminated all the resistance groups and weapons and etc. but simultaneously incompetent enough to not dismantle ETIM and other groups? You have examples of SEVERAL genocides live streamed in front of your fucking face and you still want to believe the lie about a fake one being generated entirely by foreign forces.

#Im fucking sick of this shit #mmp

84 notes · View notes

heteromerous-rhyming · 3 months

Text

i'm unleashing my inner academic i'm so sorry all.

in "Pacific-Asian Immigrant and Refugee Women Who Kill Their Batterers: Telling Stories that Illustrate the Significance of Specificity" julia tolmie writes: the true significance of this evidence for the purpose of the accused's self-defence case is properly understood only when it is explicitly understood in light of her unique positioning.

this is an article written in 1997 and it details two trials - muy ky chhay, an immigrant woman from cambodia, and jai fong zhou, an immigrant woman from china. (if you're interested at all please give it a read, it's available for download if you search up the title) they were both put on trial for the murder or attempted murder of their husbands, their abusers. the article is compelling on a number of levels but one of the parts of this article that pierced me through was tolmie's centering of these women and their narratives and their testimonies. you can see throughout this article tolmie's commitment to foregrounding the stories of these women, you can see that she's done what she can to research and understand, to show them as individuals first. (i will never be sane about this, do you understand)

that is to say: riordan was much more radical twenty years ago.

i will not be comparing the cases of these women to sally jackson's fictional situation. that would diminish them, the reality of their cases.

but what i do want to do is use tolmie's methodology. i want to show the significance of specificity in sally jackson's case. tolmie organizes her article into sections, and i wanted to take a few of them to look at sally jackson. so. without further ado:

1. the accused's credibility

sally jackson has no family, no one to vouch for her. it is clear throughout the lightning thief that she's isolated - and this is in contrast to gabe, who is surrounded by his poker friends constantly. she got her diploma late because she couldn't finish high school due to needing to take care of her uncle with cancer, who then died leaving her with nothing. she was young when she had percy, and never married the man who fathered him.

in the eyes of this world, sally jackson would be often overlooked, dismissed, disdained. she wanted to be a novelist, she had passion and ambition, but these were beaten down by the world. she barely got her high school degree, there's no chance that she, a single mother, gets a high paying job, so she's working at a candy shop. a job that whether or not she enjoys was not what she'd worked towards. audre lorde speaks about the difficulty of working women to write novels in "age, race, class, and sex" because of the material demands of that process. sally jackson cannot write a novel - she's working a job that cannot possibly pay her enough for her and percy to survive in new york and she's a single mother caring for a child that the schools will often describe as "a troubled kid."

not only that - sally jackson finds it difficult to make friends, because percy is not a normal child. he's a demigod. those first few years, though we don't know much about them, must have been terrifying. she's in contact with camp, chiron probably advises her to give up her son so they can stop attracting monsters, but she refuses. she calls this choice selfish. but it is so increasingly clear that percy is one of the only bright and joyful parts left in her life, that percy is who she lives for.

she chose percy. chose to raise him, chose to protect him, chose to keep him close.

2. evidence of the deceased's violence

gabe ugliano (the name is on the nose and i'm living for it) is the manager of the electronics mega-mart in queens (i have no clue what this company is but ok) he clearly has more money than sally, and i would venture to assume that the lease for the apartment is also in his name (though i also assume that sally is paying for a good amount of that apartment). that is to say, gabe has significantly more power and "respectability" in the eyes of society than sally. he's probably the reason that they're financially afloat. despite all of this, despite the fact that gabe has a clearly expensive car, he does not ever offer to cover sally's financial situation. she's still working a likely minimum wage job even though it is probably that gabe could support all three of them with his.

it is evident, from percy's first interaction with him in the books, that gabe is financially controlling and greedy. he's not stupid (at least in this regard); he works out (with an ease that implies habit) exactly how much money percy likely has. and then he takes it. it is likely that gabe also does this to sally. it is likely that he knows exactly how much money sally makes and regularly attempts to control how much she can save (think: the money for montauk came out of sally's "clothes budget"). he restricts her movement ("my mom and I hadn’t been to montauk the last two summers, because gabe said there wasn’t enough money.")

when sally returns from the underworld, gabe forces her to work to make up for the month's salary she "lost."

this is also when percy realizes that gabe hits his mother. canonically, gabe physically abuses sally. can we assume that maybe sally has been taking hits for percy? perhaps. it is clear that percy didn't realize that gabe was physically violent towards his mother, so i assume that gabe never hit percy. we don't know the extent of his physical violence. we don't need to; regardless sally jackson is in a situation where that threat of physical violence is constantly hanging over her head.

3. the accused's options in dealing with the deceased's violence

sally stays with gabe because of a myriad of reasons, most relating to what i have described above in section 2 but also, crucially, because of the protection he offers percy due to his smell.

sally isn't weak-willed. she isn't irrational. she might plead with percy to not antagonize gabe, but that's survival instinct. she understands pretty clearly her situation.

she knows how difficult it is for a single mother to survive on her own with a child. she knows how impossible it would be to do so with a child of the big three, without combat skills, without the disguise of humanness. perhaps she's resigned herself to the fact that there is no other way. perhaps she thinks that this is punishment for keeping percy close.

she cannot divorce him; he'd oppose that, and he has the financial means to hire a lawyer. and after divorce, where would she go? without the means to support herself and percy, without a support network, what options does she have?

she cannot leave, cannot call the police. she still needs to take care of percy, she still needs a place to stay.

and yet, despite all of this, at the end of the book sally makes the choice to kill gabe. she takes back agency into her own hands, and despite the financial uncertainty, despite all of the reasons that she couldn't leave, she takes her life into her own hands. not only that, but his death leads to her financial liberation.

perhaps this was due to percy finally ending up at camp, finally having that concrete safety net to fall back on. perhaps this was because gabe threatened to call the police on percy, perhaps this was because gabe fueled the terrorist accusations, perhaps any number of things.

all this to say. somehow, riordan, a white cis man, twenty years ago, managed to capture in sally jackson something real. he managed to show the structural inequities that she faced, her lack of options, and gabe's abuse in a book meant for children. in a book meant for twelve-year-olds.

and this was without explicitly showing any physical violence from gabe.

sally jackson's story is engaging because we understand somehow, despite the majority of us condemning murder, why she killed her abuser. we understand that this isn't just a toxic relationship, that this isn't a situation that sally can just leave, that both real and fantastical forces combined compel her to stay, and we cheer for her.

i want to end this unfortunately long post with a quote from tolmie, from the article i started off with:

"It has been suggested that women rarely succeed in arguing self-defense because legal doctrines and notions of what is "reasonable" do not encompass the realities of women's lives."

what better way than to break this doctrine of "reasonability" through the lens of a fantasy world.

#percy jackson #percy jackon and the olympians #percy jackson and the olympians #pjo show crit #(ultimately yeah ig that's what this is)#analysis #who needs to write academic papers when you can post on tumblr #sally jackson #percy jackson analysis #.

78 notes · View notes

aprilsadviceaskblog · 1 month

Note

Hi! I love your blogs! I've never seen such radical acceptance and compassion for BPD. I've always thought I had BPD so to see your blog being so uplifting and accepting instead of...well, you know what else is out there...it's made me inexplicably happy. Thank you so much for the work you do.

I was wondering if you had any advice/resources on reacting better to other people being angry? If it makes a difference, I also have anxiety and may have ADHD and/or autism.

If somebody comes at me with an angry tone accusing me of something, I immediately get defensive/hostile/irritated myself (rolling my eyes, sighing) and kind of shut them off in my head as being unreasonable because they're not approaching me the "right" way.

I'll also sort of shut off any other emotional expression and try to stay as even toned as possible which....apparently comes off as hostile (to one person, at least?). Idk, it feels like my brain just can't work when people are angry at me.

Later I don't feel the need to apologize at all as (in my head) they were the one who "started" it.

I guess - also I know your blogs center around trauma and BPD, but would you suggest anything different for someone autistic? Emotions are...difficult for me to feel and express in most situations.

Hi anon,

This is really hard to say without knowing the specifics of the situations and people involved, but it is understandable to get defensive if someone comes at you with an accusatory tone. Throwing accusations isn't an okay way to handle things. There's a difference between someone saying "You don't care about me! Or you wouldn't have changed our plans" verses "I'm feeling really insecure as a result of our plans being changed. Can we talk about it?" And I don't think accusing is a fair way for them to approach their anger, but sometimes there isn't much we can do about that.

In that case, if someone came to me in an accusing tone, depending on the situation, I might remove myself from it.

I might say something like "I am willing to have a discussion about this, and I am sorry that you're upset, but I am not willing to discuss this until we're both in a calm state of mind."

I might also talk to this person when we're calm afterwards and mention that while their anger is valid, the way they reacted to it left me feeling unsafe, and in the future, I will walk away. I might also use this opportunity, if they're willing, to discuss how we can handle conflict in the future.

While it is not your fault or responsibility to do this, I personally find it helps me with my frustration at someone if I remind myself that they're likely lashing out because they're hurt and it's coming out as anger. While it still isn't okay for them to do that, it helps me be less frustrated because I realize it isn't personal but is coming from them struggling to manage their emotions in a healthy manner.

When it comes to apologizing, even if they started it, I might approach that with a similar example I used in my apology post. It's valid to apologize for your part in things, but you shouldn't be apologizing for everything without them having some accountability. You can find my apology post here.

I also personally don't think there's anything wrong with even tones or not expressing emotions (I am autistic and that might be a factor?), but it's possible in these situations it might make the person feel like you "don't care" and that's why it's upsetting them. I use an approach where I validate their feelings as much as I can, while also telling them I'm sorry they're upset. Even if it's not my fault they're upset, I am still able to express that I wish they weren't upset. I don't know the person but it's also possible that they're upset to not get a reaction, which is what they're looking for and that's not okay.

I think that your feelings are completely valid, anon. And I think it's understandable that you get defensive. I think it's great that you're wanting to work on your part in things, but please don't forget that you don't deserve to be treated poorly.

3 notes · View notes

obsessivelollipoplalala · 2 years

Note

Mhm ok, I disagree I guess. Why would they be a deal breaker? Being queer myself, I hate how normalised some of the disgusting situations Ratty describes are, but what you're saying makes no sense to me. Should I be more bothered? 🤔🤔 because if people ask ME what are some good books about Queen I always recommend Ratty's book (together with Jim's and Phoebe's and a couple more) because he can give a perspective on Freddie, Queen and life on tour that no one else can. Of course I warn about the homophobia, etc, but usually people expect them, given the time period. No one has to LIKE Ratty. I don't. From the laughable way he acts like he deserved more gratitude from the band to the disgusting comments he makes, he really doesn't sound like a great person. But I still think his book is one of the best ones about Queen for other things like his perspective on being a roadie for a major touring band and the (biased) way in which he describes the boys as one of their employees (you can really tell who his faves are and they're not Brian and Roger lmao), it's one of the most truthful ones compared to the blatant lies from the likes of LAJ, Bret or Blake and he also isn't out making some scandalous claims about Freddie which are the things that usually make me close the book. Not trying to make you like Ratty's book lol, just trying to give you a different perspective, I guess. In general, I don't see how liking a book that contains homophobia, transphobia etc should mean that one doesn't care about those things or that they're not bothered by them irl. I mean, I may dislike that they were a reality then, often worse than what it is now, but since I can do nothing about it I don't see a point in getting mad about it? I already get mad about it IRL enough. And unfortunately they are extremely common in any memoir/biography from basically any time period (and don't get me started on the racism and antisemitism). I just don't feel I have any obligation to like the person I'm reading about while still thinking the book was worth a read because it made me understand that person better (for better or worse), or because it opened a window on a time period. But I guess if you don't see it that way you don't see it. Sorry for the long ask. Also I'm esl and sometimes misinterpret things so if I completely missed your point, apologies for making you read this novel for nothing 😅

My answer got a little long, so I'm going to put it under a cut:

Okay, so, let me try to make myself clear, since perhaps I didn’t explain myself well enough before. First of all, yes, Ratty’s book is not full of lies, compared to shit like LAJ’s “biographies.” Accuracy isn’t the issue at all, and I think it’s actually one of the few positive points of the book. If someone wants to read about what it was like to be a roadie for a band like Queen, the book is a good source. I’m not talking about how you should feel. If you get angry enough at IRL stuff and don’t want to be mad about Ratty’s book, that’s fine and in your right, but my post wasn’t about fans’ opinions on the book at all.

My original post was specifically talking about Roger stans who I have seen on here, instagram, and twitter who have overstated the progressive nature of his politics and almost present him as an activist. He’s not. And there’s nothing wrong with him not being an activist or super left of center, but the problem is people pretending he is those things for the purposes of 1) projecting their politics onto him or 2) using him as their “unproblematic” fave (which doesn’t exist, btw). Ratty’s book wasn’t the only example I used in that post. I pointed out how a lot of Roger’s public statements on politics are actually rather generic and not very radical. Once again: that’s FINE. But “gangsters are running this world” or “Nazis are bad” are not ground-breaking statements lol, and another issue is people using those generic things to say “well he can’t be problematic because he said this thing!!!” I’m not even out here trying to say he’s “problematic” or whatever the fuck, but that his public political statements aren’t as drenched in social justice as (usually) young stans have claimed.

In addition…look, there was homophobia directed at Freddie in the book with Ratty remembering when he called him a slur to his face (“p00fy”) for playing an acoustic guitar on stage, and when he told a homophobic joke with Freddie not far away, then Freddie heard him and called him out, and Ratty just sunk in his chair. As people pointed out in the past, Ratty does not tell these stories with any sort of self-awareness or reflection. He doesn’t say “I did this, and looking back, it was fucked up.” Going by his writing, he doesn’t give a shit. That’s the bigger problem than all of this stuff happening in the past. Let’s be clear: all of that shit was still wrong back then and I think the fandom as a whole gives all of this too much of a pass, but Ratty publishing the book just 11 years ago with no qualms with the prejudice inside is more worthy of anger than all of this being the reality of 40 years ago, in my opinion.

So with all of that said…if I read a book with homophobia directed at my gay best friend, yes, that would be a deal breaker for me. I would not praise it. I would not endorse it. It isn’t simply that Roger liked the book, but basically said “I usually don’t like any books about the band, except for this one!”, and that one just so happened to contain numerous instances of blatant bigotry. Sorry, but no, I don’t think it’s something which a person who is deeply political and driven by social justice would do, and I’ve talked to several people in the fandom who feel the same way and think Ratty’s book is so dripping with ignorance that people shouldn’t even give him their money to pay for it. I only bring this up to say my opinion is not an isolated one. This is NOT to say Roger didn’t really care about Freddie or doesn’t really care about social issues at all, but that maybe he’s not quite as bothered by social justice issues as some people claim, given he went out of his way to praise a text with such garbage in it, and acting like he’s some woke, unproblematic fave is silly and not reflective of reality.

This makes sense, right?

#replies #Anonymous

6 notes · View notes

barbarian15 · 3 years

Text

How do conservatives get pulled into conspiracy theories and things like QAnon? Why don't they just trust the "experts"? Did they not hear what was just reported?

I've heard some variation of those questions asked a hundred times in the last several months, but the answer is obvious. If you want to see it, or perhaps I should say if you're open to seeing it, you will, because the Left is way past the point of caring whether or not they keep up the charade.

During a weekly press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was pressed to explain her inability to rally both lawmakers and the general public to support the gargantuan $3.5 trillion spending bill that she, President Biden, and Democrat party leadership are pushing. To Pelosi, the issue is a lack of propaganda. That is, she's frustrated over the lack of any effective public relations campaign that focuses on what the bill will give to people rather than what it will cost them.

Whose fault is that? A fair-minded person would say the responsibility for such an effort falls squarely on the shoulders of the leaders wanting to enact the legislation. But Pelosi's not a fair-minded person.

"Well I think you all could do a better job of selling it, to be very frank with you," the Speaker said to the press gathered in the briefing room.

If you've ever wondered how leftists in positions of power view the mainstream media, this is all you need to hear. They see them not only as allies, but as propaganda agents, who bear the responsibility to "sell" Democrat party policy to the American people. It's an astounding implicit admission from the Speaker.

Meanwhile, just a day later, The Daily Mail broke what should be scandalous news that then-reporter Katie Couric intentionally edited a sit-down interview she conducted with the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Make sure you grasp the full shame of this admission. In the pivotal election year of 2016, Couric admits that she felt obligated to "protect" the late liberal justice from public backlash after she made comments that would be perceived as disrespectful to the race radicals the media was promoting at the time. Rational minds will be asking an obvious question: why does she feel such an obligation?

Couric wasn't employed by Ginsburg. She wasn't a biographer getting paid by the family's estate. She was not the hired reporter for the DNC or a left-wing judicial organization. She was writing for YahooNews at the time, supposedly churning out hard news stories, interviews, and features.

But she claims to have faced a "conundrum" when the 83-year-old (at the time) Ginsburg carried on about the racially motivated national anthem kneeling. Athletes participating in the protest like Colin Kaepernic, "probably could not have lived in the places they came from," had it not been for the government they were protesting, Ginsburg told Couric.

There's little question that such a take, including her assessment that "as they became older they realize that this was youthful folly," would have landed her a total social media/pop culture cancelling. It would have sent the Left reeling. So Couric decided Ginsburg's age likely prevented her from fully "understand[ing] the question." So rather than report honestly, she decided to largely bury that portion of the exchange.

Would she have done so for Donald Trump, the late conservative justice Antonin Scalia, or any other elected Republican? I can't even ask the question with a straight face.

Remember, the least pernicious form of media bias comes in what is actually said. Far more often, the worst bias is represented by what is not said, what is omitted, and what is buried for the sake of "protecting" favored figures.

It's no surprise that the same day the Couric story broke, the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell highlighted the real issue goes way beyond Katie's bias.

I know narrowcasting is a concern. I know the tendency we all have for seeking out voices that agree with us, that affirm our priors, and that augment our self-assuredness. I see how all that is a problem, but with a mainstream media that has so utterly disgraced itself as little more than proud propagandists for the progressive Left, conservatives have no recourse but to search out alternative sources of information.

That doesn't seem like it's changing any time soon

#notthebee #babylon bee #katie couric #ruth bader ginsburg #rbg #media #media bias #propaganda #mainstream media #msm #yahoo news #nancy pelosi #journalist #journalism

2 notes · View notes

restoringsanity · 6 years

Note

Right... I don't think you understand how normalization works. You're so close to it... but then your ideology prevents you from getting all the way. If you want to look at something that has done more for white nationalists, than "drumpf", look at the left. Feminism. Critical Race Theorists. Academia in general. Media. To list a few examples, "Campus newspaper editorial: 'Your [white] DNA is an abomination'", "Want to Heal Yourself from 'Toxic Whiteness'? This Class Can Help" - VICE

“Professor Says ‘Mathematics…Operates As Whiteness’”, “Admin slams 'homonormative whiteness’ of LGBTQ Centers”, “Prof: 'meritocracy’ is a 'whiteness ideology’”, “Professor teaches students about ‘the problem that is whiteness’”, “'Abolition of Whiteness’ course offered at Hunter College”, “UCLA paying students to fight 'whiteness,’ 'patriarchy’”, “Profs say classroom 'civility’ promotes 'white racial power’”, just a few from last few months alone. Leftists have done more to convert people

to right (I say RIGHT for a reason, because “white supremacists” are a huge minority), than right itself has. Swap it with “blackness”, and let’s see how that goes. Let’s see it taught at colleges. Hell, use Tumblr search and look up “white extinction”, and see how that goes. Or, simply, “black supremacy”. Because Tumblr has a bigger problem with hundreds of such blogs, as opposed to “white supremacist” blogs which barely exist.

Do you, perhaps, enjoy content created by ‘Youtube Skeptics’? Just curious.

I know exactly how normalization works. My ideology doesn’t prevent me from anything in any way, because my judgement doesn’t rely on idealism, but logic. The one bias I have is Humanitarian.

Why did you bother to send me an ask like this, anyway? This blog isn’t strictly political, it deals with niche interests and introduces a political perspective on those very subjects. Also, I’m not a U.S. citizen. I’m aware of your political climate, and I have opinions regarding your political climate, but I don’t think I could speak on racial dynamics in the USA with any authority.

Anyway,

If you want to look at something that has done more for white nationalists, than “drumpf”, look at the left.

I don’t much appreciate looking for blame. Your obsession with pointing the finger is both tiring and perplexing. Regardless, if you think the far left has significant political sway in the U.S., you’re lying to yourself. You’re just over-exposed to alternative facts that claim as much.

Feminism. Critical Race Theorists. Academia in general. Media.

I’m openly critical of radical feminism. I don’t even know what Critical Race Theorists are. Is it about the same as Race Realists? Academia has a hard left lean, as much is obvious and understood. Of course it does. Media isn’t as leftist as you might think. It’s left-leaning.

Again, you need to understand that not everyone on the internet is a U.S. citizen. Whether I’m speaking to the left or right, the assumption is always that I’m 100% informed on U.S.-specific issues, and when I’m not, I’m frequently met with disapproval, rather than the willingness to humor me. You’re already critical of my political view, without knowing anything about what it inspired it. You didn’t even ask. Why is that so common?

“Campus newspaper editorial: 'Your [white] DNA is an abomination’”

Who cares?

“Want to Heal Yourself from 'Toxic Whiteness’? This Class Can Help” - VICE

I’d be curious what that class is talking about. Do you honestly want me to judge every article on the internet by its mere title alone? It’s clickbait. That’s just how it works. It’s going to attract attention - from people who think ‘whites’ are garbage and want their opinion reinforced, and from people who get salty about titles like that.

“Professor Says 'Mathematics…Operates As Whiteness’”

See, I don’t even care to find out what that means. It’s probably completely inconsequential. Also, what are you redacting there?

“Admin slams 'homonormative whiteness’ of LGBTQ Centers”

Sounds like a personal account, which are often biased. I’d still read it, because the person might have something interesting to say.

"Prof: 'meritocracy’ is a 'whiteness ideology’”, “Professor teaches students about ‘the problem that is whiteness’”, “'Abolition of Whiteness’ course offered at Hunter College”, “UCLA paying students to fight 'whiteness,’ 'patriarchy’”, “Profs say classroom 'civility’ promotes 'white racial power’”

More of “this professor says a (wild) thing”. Intellectuals are boring in their desire to stand out at all costs. It’s a performance. If someone talks at length about a problem but never offers a solution, they’re less interested in a solution than they’re obsessed with hearing themselves talk. They’re professors. That’s what they do.Frankly, this obsession with ‘whiteness’ to me is just indicative of how some individuals are still missing the mark.

Your last paragraph is disgraceful. Please, be a little more dignified. Don’t whine into my inbox about how unfair life is. Of course you’ll suffer a significant backlash if you’re openly critical of ‘blackness’. If you haven’t reached equal standing among the races and sexes, being critical of those who have yet to be elevated is going to result in disapproval.I’ll say it once more - my understanding of U.S. politics is limited, but even to me it’s fairly obvious that you still have to make an effort to address inequalities (just like the rest of us, more or less).

Finally, ‘normalization’ is a top-down process. Be honest with yourself and address who’s at the top in the U.S. Just be honest with yourself in general.

#Trump #Politics #for that one anon

7 notes · View notes

yourtoradorasextendedwarranty · 5 years

Text

The Problem with MSM

So I honestly don't have many followers. I'm also prone to going on tangents. And most of my posts are rooted in politics. Not by choice mind you. I was not the one that decided literally everything in existence is political. I'm also not the one that created the view points that want everything to be political. TL;DR At the bottom.

To start off however, I need you to understand the process of radicalization.

Find someone who feels discontent with how a situation is, or how their life is

Tell this person that what's happening to them is not their fault

Place the blame for this person's problems on a certain group (political group, racial group, religious group, etc.)

Talk to the person like you know how they feel, "drop your guard" and tell them "problems you've had that were not your fault" blaming that same group

Show them that they are either a victim or oppressed in some way, shape, or form.

Slowly start swaying their views further to the extreme, by showing them other instances of "others who are being attacked or are victims" of said group.

Promptly but softly oppose any "differing views" with warped information or flat out lies

Get them to start going to events and taking to others that have already been radicalized

Have you and another radicalized individual, keep track of this person and say you support them and their issues

Sit back and watch

Now this is a rough lost but more or less the bare bones basics of radicalizing other people. Though in some cases it takes more steps and in some others it takes less. So what does this have to do with MSM (Mainstream Media)? Quite a few things in modern day actually.

The job of MSM is to get you information, as fast as humanly possible. This however was not the first goal priority in the past. In the past, the first priority was to cover a story as factually as the could, and look for more information keeping people constantly updated. Here we get to our first real problem for Media today. Technology. The Advent of modern technology has been both a blessing and a curse in this regard. And of course I'm talking about the internet in its current form. The internet being the very center of information distribution in 2019. And it has been for almost 12 years now.

So what did this change? Basically everything we know today. "Old wives tales" are now a Google search away. Feeling sick? WebMD says you have Cancer. Looking for the next hour story? Check CNN's Twitter account. The Internet brought us a great, many things. But it has taken away just as many. MSM has had to slowly move operations into social media in order to try and stay relevant. This because many people have unplugged, and have gone full digital. The only real exceptions being places of business. And with the world at your finger tips at the clock of a button, being factual has lost its relevance. Not to mention that as far back as 2013-2014 activists started working for MSM companies. Most notably progressive activists. This causes many problems we currently see today. Below is an example of what a headline used to look like, and what most headlines look like now:

Normal headline: Shooting in Birmingham leaves 3 dead and several injured during city wide festival.

Headline now: White, Trump supporter, Nazi, KKK, skin head, punches 2 people in hate crime.

See the difference? The first headline shows the basic facts and dives into known details during the article. Often they'd avoid opinions all together. The second one one the other hand, blatantly discloses anything that could generate clicks. Why? Because true or not, outrage sells. So over the past several years, MSM has been slowly radicalizing us. But they do this on a bipartisan level.

Are you black? The cops will kill you, and the white man is evil. Can't find a job? Racism. Are you a woman? Then you're unhappy because "rape culture". Do you regret having sex with that guy? Well guess what? He actually raped you without you realizing. Are you white? You're evil. Are you strait? You're a monster and should give all your money to gay people. Are you a man? You are responsible for every rape ever committed. You're also a pedophile and violent. Are you a strait white man? Oh boy you won the jackpot because you're basically Hitler.

See my point here? MSM spends most of it's time trying to rage bait you into clicking their articles. And in doing so we've gotten so lazy as a country that half the time, we don't even read past the headlines. And MSM knows this. They don't care if you read what they write. They are just radicalizing you so they can keep feeding you outrage. Because the more often they do it, the more often you will click it, skim all of 3 lines and then hop on Twitter and talk about how outraged you are. Sure, we are just as to blame for letting it happen to us, but most of us used to have at least some trust in the media. But after SEVERAL severely awfully false hit pieces that were headline news for almost months, many of us have started staying away from MSM.

What incidents might I be talking about?

Covington Catholic controversy (Almost every media outlet took a 7 second clip and ran with it. Turns out, there was a full 2hr video out there, and the Native American man, whom CNN interviewed, lied his ass off. Most media also chose to ignore the VERY beginning of the video which showcased a group called The Black Hebrew Israelites. These individuals, called Trump a homosexual, called the Native Americans there "Uncle Tomahawk", and said Gay people should not have rights. THESE CATHOLIC STUDENTS, were appalled by this statement. But what did we see in the media? "Racist Maga hat kid threatens and blocks the path of a Poor innocent Native American man."

Duke Lacrosse. Years after these kids were crucified by the Media and many others, the girl actually came out saying it never happened. You know who reported on this? Next to no one.

Ferguson. Now as controversial as this one is, the media took and RAN with it. What followed after the skewed coverage was a cult like gathering that led to phrases like, "hands up don't shoot" and "oink oink, bang bang". But Obama had the issue federally investigated. Both witnesses and the coroner report said basically the same thing. That he was aggressively wrestling with the cop trying to take his gun. But, it's too late. Now all cops are evil, and Democrat politicians are quoting it like it happened yesterday, and claiming the cop guilty. Why? Because MSM already got what they needed. They radicalized the individuals they wanted, people who will come back to them for, "facts".

And what does all of this boil down to? A video that made me write this out.

2 things need to be said here. 1. The "manifesto" as it were, was actually debunked to have been uploaded by the shooter, by the site admin himself. As well as several other sources. 2. If, by some chance the manifesto was real, and he had someone upload it for him, he mentions several liberal talking points, like universal basic income, saving the environment, among other left policies.

But this brings me back to both the beginning and to this story. Assuming for a moment, the manifesto was his. How did this happen? Most of you might just jump and say, "RACIST NAZIS", or something slightly more colorful. But here is the thing. MSM is partly responsible for all of this. Assuming the conspiracy that the CIA or FBI is responsible is false, I agree with the YouTuber in the picture. I believe that if you belittle and berate someone enough over time, you can cause them to do extreme things. I mean look at this site. Look at Twitter. Look at MSM. "White people bad", "white people are evil" "K*LL all whites" "white privilege", "fuck men", "male tears", "man spreading", "mansplaining", "Yes all men". All of this. This is popular. This is a trend. And it's unacceptable. Because frankly, it's basically bullying someone into a corner. Personally? I've been told by a few companies that are scared of social justice warriors and the online hate mob, that their company is actively not hiring white individuals. And I wish, REALLY WISH, I was making that up.

Is it any wonder, that people who go to the internet as an escape end up in a low point in their lives and then decide to do something awful? And it's the same with school shootings too. The news puts out, the name, ethnicity, how tall they are, and their entire life story, for weeks at a time. And now for much longer, because they support the desire to ban guns. So they need these things to happen more often. So the glorify the shooter, and keep talking about him/them for months. But here is where the story gets fun.

Columbine's shooting, was actually supposed to be a bombing. The kids who did it? Not the "school losers" the media talked about. The trench coat club? They were not even apart of it. More info on that here. As well as other places on Google.

youtube

More or less This video covers what the media got wrong in their rush to cover everything. What they did not intend on, was making these two boys heros to those bullied in school. Mostly boys, who are torn down and told they aren't enough, that they don't matter, they are isolated, bullied, harassed. So they look for someone who stood up to their bullies. What they were given, was a sociopath who manipulated a suicidal boy into helping him commit mass murder. Almost all of MSM were quick to say they were bullied into it. What's worse however, is Parkland. The Parkland 5, (the students whom MSM propped up for months) one of them came out admitting, that she bullied the guy who shot up the school. Said he was weird and that she needed to do it. This is one of the teens the media has PROPPED UP, saying we should listen to their infinite wisdom. A girl who is probably half responsible for the shooting.

Start paying attention. Start doing research. And for the love of all that is holy, STOP BULLYING PEOPLE! I don't care what your narrative is, or what it means. IE:

White people are human

Black people are human

Hispanic people are human

Gay people are human

Strait people are human

Women are human

Men are human

Stop normalizing anything to the contrary. Because when you do, you become part of the problem.

TL;DR The media only cares about themselves and clicks. They don't care who they radicalize, so long as you keep giving them traffic. Which for them is money. Do your research, look into things, and don't bully people. I'm looking at you progressives.

0 notes

barrydeutsch · 7 years

Note

You're someone I respect a lot who, AFAICT, when thinking about privilege, centers thought on race and gender(roughly feminism + GSM-focused issues). I think that there should certainly be some people who do this, and when I consider the historical developments behind movements I can understand why it's many. In my more cynical moods, I can understand it being most, or nearly all. But even then I don't understand why class isn't more prominent, as it seems to me to more strongly predict outcomes

I had to google to figure out what “GSM” meant, and the first thing I found was “Global System for Mobile communication,” and I was momentarily confused. :) (For anyone else reading who doesn’t know, it stands for “gender and sexual minorities”).Anyhow, thanks! I respect you too.I’m not sure if you’re asking why I, personally, tend to write most about race and gender issues, or for my opinion as to why they get talked about more in general. So I’ll answer both.I’m not sure I agree with your assessment of what issues matter most. But even if I did agree, I don’t decide what issues to talk about in order of importance. If I did, I’d probably be talking mostly about climate change issues, or the war in Syria. I don’t think most people choose their passions in that way.Some issues, like feminism and fat acceptance and the ACA, I’m interested in them at least partly because I see them as directly linked to my own well-being. Other issues, like trans rights and anti-racism, I’m interested in because I think they matter. But why those issues that matter instead of other issues that also matter, but which I somehow fail to fixate on? I don’t know.

Regarding why The Discourse tends to focus more on racism, feminism, and GSM issues, again, I don’t know. But I’d point out that there is a large contingent of the radical left that does seem more focused on economic issues. Many (not all) Bernie diehards argue that there’s too great a focus on “identity politics” on the left and not enough focus on class.But it does seem to me that there’s more active discussion about GSM, feminism, and anti-racism. One reason for that may be the relative collapse of the unions in the USA. We used to depend on unions to be the leading advocates for the working class, but unions have gotten much weaker and can’t provide that level of leadership anymore, but nothing else has risen to take their place.

I’d also point out that the Affordable Care Act is largely a transfer of resources from the wealthy to the lower class. So it’s not like class issues are totally dead on the left, even if they generally aren’t talked about as “class” per se.

For what it’s worth, here’s a link to some of the cartoons I’ve done about class and unions. I’ll be posting a new one, about the Dem and Republican responses to poverty, on Friday.

11 notes · View notes