Tumgik
#antiauthoritarian
nando161mando · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
10K notes · View notes
cyberianpunks · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
anti-authoritarian pro-human
225 notes · View notes
dr-chibbers · 1 year
Text
I don’t want anyone to ever think I’m trying to take away their freedom and rights as people. Trans? Come on in! LGBTQ? Lemme pull up a chair.
Where ya from? Cool! Lemme hear about it once I’ve made some tea! You want to tell me about your beliefs in a non-proselytizing manner?
Come on in! Let’s have a chat! Do we not look similar? Good, let’s not trigger the Uncanny Valley! Do we disagree? Let’s find a middle ground.
But if you try to take away the same rights you enjoy from others, get out!
Also, remember that we all have preferences and tastes. And that is okay. It’s how you go about it.
183 notes · View notes
luvsjimmyreed · 9 months
Text
I understand that when people mock, taunt, or bully others - it's usually a case of putting others down to make oneself feel superior... which isn't quite the same thing as doing so out of a strong moral conviction against being eccentric or whatever. However, the fact that remains is this: When you feel a need to mock, taunt, or bully someone for being 'weird' - you *are* making a moral judgement. Essentially, the act of doing so conveys a message that you think not conforming to the status quo is a morally contemptible act.
Jimmy Reed, On Bullying and Moral Condemnation
72 notes · View notes
imaginal-ai · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
"Keep the Flame of Democracy Alight"
Join me in standing up for democracy, resisting hate and racism, and building a world that works for all, everywhere.
16 notes · View notes
varii-corvid · 2 months
Text
That one episode of TAWOG where darwin tries to make everyone overly safe and uses media censorship, coersion, and imprisonment to become an authoritarian dictator really says a lot about anti shippers playing into conservative hands and how fascists use appeals to safety to manipulate people into supporting them. There is no ethical governance under hierarchies and there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. By stating that people are unfit to govern themselves without hierarchies, it justifies and normalizes manipulation, abuse, and exploitation of vulnerable people. Remember to kill the cop in your head and wake up to injustice.
8 notes · View notes
dariainfj · 1 year
Text
I'm a student in 8th grade. I have straight 'A's and a great status. BUT....I HATE school, and so does every other teenager or child, I think. Today, during Chemistry, my classmate was called up on the blackboard. He knew absolutely nothing, so everyone was helping him. I decided to help him too, so I corrected a mistake he had made. Somehow, the teacher got mad and yelled at me. After thinking about it and asking several people, I came to the conclusion that I had insulted her authority and in her eyes, acted like I was the teacher. And somehow, this is wrong. Instead of being glad that somebody had revised, she, a 50-something-year-old woman, got upset that I wasn't catering to her superiority complex. Don't these teachers know that we're in school to learn, that it's literally the point of the institution, and that this matters more than their silly obsession with being completely superior to their students? I mean, she definitely knows more about the subject than I do, so this shouldn't be a threat to her position at all.
As kids starting out at school, we're told that we know nothing, that we are useless, powerless and that we should know our place. That we should always respect authority, no matter what. That they know better. It's calculating the intelligence of children based on how willing they are to obey the commands of adults. All they're doing is preparing us for the real world, but not in a way that would benefit us. In a way that teaches us to believe the lies of those in power and ALWAYS KNOW OUR PLACE. I will NOT! Let's all turn against this nonsense.
22 notes · View notes
nicklloydnow · 18 days
Text
“This campaign against Rowling is as dangerous as it is absurd. The brutal stabbing of Salman Rushdie last summer is a forceful reminder of what can happen when writers are demonized. And in Rowling’s case, the characterization of her as a transphobe doesn’t square with her actual views.
So why would anyone accuse her of transphobia? Surely, Rowling must have played some part, you might think.
The answer is straightforward: Because she has asserted the right to spaces for biological women only, such as domestic abuse shelters and sex-segregated prisons. Because she has insisted that when it comes to determining a person’s legal gender status, self-declared gender identity is insufficient. Because she has expressed skepticism about phrases like “people who menstruate” in reference to biological women. Because she has defended herself and, far more important, supported others, including detransitioners and feminist scholars, who have come under attack from trans activists. And because she followed on Twitter and praised some of the work of Magdalen Berns, a lesbian feminist who had made incendiary comments about transgender people.
You might disagree — perhaps strongly — with Rowling’s views and actions here. You may believe that the prevalence of violence against transgender people means that airing any views contrary to those of vocal trans activists will aggravate animus toward a vulnerable population.
But nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic. She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.
Take it from one of her former critics. E.J. Rosetta, a journalist who once denounced Rowling for her supposed transphobia, was commissioned last year to write an article called “20 Transphobic J.K. Rowling Quotes We’re Done With.” After 12 weeks of reporting and reading, Rosetta wrote, “I’ve not found a single truly transphobic message.” On Twitter she declared, “You’re burning the wrong witch.”
(…)
Phelps-Roper has taken the time to rethink her biases. She is now the host of “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling.” The podcast, based on nine hours of her interviews with Rowling — the first time Rowling has spoken at length about her advocacy — explores why Rowling has been subjected to such wide-ranging vitriol despite a body of work that embraces the virtues of being an outsider, the power of empathy toward one’s enemies and the primacy of loyalty toward one’s friends.
The podcast, which also includes interviews with critics of Rowling, delves into why Rowling has used her platform to challenge certain claims of so-called gender ideology — such as the idea that transgender women should be treated as indistinguishable from biological women in virtually every legal and social context. Why, both her fans and her fiercest critics have asked, would she bother to take such a stand, knowing that attacks would ensue?
“The pushback is often, ‘You are wealthy. You can afford security. You haven’t been silenced.’ All true. But I think that misses the point. The attempt to intimidate and silence me is meant to serve as a warning to other women” with similar views who may also wish to speak out, Rowling says in the podcast.
“And I say that because I have seen it used that way,” Rowling continues. She says other women have told her they’ve been warned: “Look at what happened to J.K. Rowling. Watch yourself.”
(…)
Phelps-Roper told me that Rowling’s outspokenness is precisely in the service of this kind of cause. “A lot of people think that Rowling is using her privilege to attack a vulnerable group,” she said. “But she sees herself as standing up for the rights of a vulnerable group.”
Rowling, Phelps-Roper added, views speaking out as a responsibility and an obligation: “She’s looking around and realizing that other people are self-censoring because they cannot afford to speak up. But she felt she had to be honest and stand up against a movement that she saw as using authoritarian tactics.”
As Rowling herself notes on the podcast, she’s written books where “from the very first page, bullying and authoritarian behavior is held to be one of the worst of human ills.” Those who accuse Rowling of punching down against her critics ignore the fact that she is sticking up for those who have silenced themselves to avoid the job loss, public vilification and threats to physical safety that other critics of recent gender orthodoxies have suffered.
(…)
In the words of Fiennes: “J.K. Rowling has written these great books about empowerment, about young children finding themselves as human beings. It’s about how you become a better, stronger, more morally centered human being,” he said. “The verbal abuse directed at her is disgusting. It’s appalling.”
Despite media coverage that can be embarrassingly credulous when it comes to the charges against Rowling, a small number of influential journalists have also begun speaking out in her defense. Here in America, Caitlin Flanagan of The Atlantic tweeted last year, “Eventually, she will be proven right, and the high cost she’s paid for sticking to her beliefs will be seen as the choice of a principled person.
(…)
Because what Rowling actually says matters. In 2016, when accepting the PEN/Allen Foundation award for literary service, Rowling referred to her support for feminism — and for the rights of transgender people. As she put it, “My critics are at liberty to claim that I’m trying to convert children to satanism, and I’m free to explain that I’m exploring human nature and morality or to say, ‘You’re an idiot,’ depending on which side of the bed I got out of that day.”
Rowling could have just stayed in bed. She could have taken refuge in her wealth and fandom. In her “Harry Potter” universe, heroes are marked by courage and compassion. Her best characters learn to stand up to bullies and expose false accusations. And that even when it seems the world is set against you, you have to stand firm in your core beliefs in what’s right.
Defending those who have been scorned isn’t easy, especially for young people. It’s scary to stand up to bullies, as any “Harry Potter” reader knows. Let the grown-ups in the room lead the way. If more people stood up for J.K. Rowling, they would not only be doing right by her; they’d also be standing up for human rights, specifically women’s rights, gay rights and, yes, transgender rights. They’d also be standing up for the truth.”
“But I do like the phrase, implying as it does a refusal to bow down to the establishment. Although we had a Labour government from 1974, it’s fair to say that the establishment of the 1970s was a fusty right-wing thing, sexist and racist and snobbish. But funnily enough, it’s still sexist and snobbish, in that women and the working-class are expected to obey (transvestite) men and the liberal elite respectively; it’s not racist in the old vulgar way but in a modish, middle-class way, dealing in the poverty of low expectations, seen best in that hilarious Labour election promise that only Jeremy Corbyn ‘can be trusted to unlock the talent of black, Asian and minority ethnic people’ when the Tory cabinet already featured more black, Asian and minority ethnic people than a Labour one ever had. Oh, and racism is also judging people on the colour of their skin as opposed to the content of their character – as Martin Luther King preferred – which is inherent in every diversity and inclusion drive, every taking of the knee, every ‘black-out’ theatre performance. When people of colour refuse to lose their agency by identifying as underdogs and waiting for whitey to save them (some to the point of becoming Conservative politicians), they may be called ‘coconuts’ and all sorts of nasty names – but in a caring, anti-racist way.
(…)
Punk wasn’t ever left-wing – it was anti-establishment, so whatever the establishment is for, punk was against it. The anti-Lydon lot will always bring up The Clash as an example of a left-wing punk band, but this was more a difference of class origin than of politics proper; Joe Strummer was a lovely fellow, but he was also an upper-middle public schoolboy and thereby prone to a bit of P’n’P (poncing and posing) with his R’n’R. Of the other big punk bands, The Damned were about as political as The Munch Bunch, The Stranglers had a soft spot for the crazed Japanese militarist Yukio Mishima and The Jam were young patriots who pined for ‘the great empire’ and spat loathing at avuncular James Callaghan (‘The truth is you’ve lost, Uncle Jimmy!’). Unlike the cosy 1960s scene, they barely spoke to each other; that was the whole point of punk, to be different. But the rewriting of punk history by anxious middle-class lefties happened almost from the start; by the 1980s, punk was being recalled as a reaction against Thatcher’s Britain, despite it all kicking off three years before she became prime minister. Indeed, with her desire to destroy anything which seemed weak and outdated, there’s a case for saying that Mrs T was the most punk politician thus far. This was echoed in Sex Pistol Steve Jones’s autobiography Lonely Boy – surprisingly good – in which he understandably writes that he went into showbiz to make money as much as music, and that when he finally scraped enough royalties together to buy himself a second-hand car, Vivienne Westwood accused him of ‘selling out’. This would be the Vivienne Westwood who took an honour from the monarchy and was a shameless tax avoider. Hypocrite, heal thyself.
Punk was, as Westwood and McLaren so flagrantly demonstrated, always marbled with corruption, as indeed is every place where art meets showbiz; it gives it its piquancy. But punk is like a religion to some pathetic purists now. There was a long-running argument on a social media forum a few weeks ago about whether Anarchy In The UK was a call to real anarchic communal living. (No, that would be for the filthy hippies.) Others said (correctly) that it was simply a call to smash the status quo – and the status quo is now woke.
Punk can be traced back to historical anti-establishment art from the political cartoons of the 18th century, through Beyond The Fringe to Monty Python, all mocking the monarchy, judges, police and politicians. It couldn’t have started anywhere but England; someone said that Brexit was an amalgamation of South Downs Tories and snarling inner-city punks. It was only natural that the great charismatic loner contrarians of 20th century pop, Lydon and Morrissey, were in favour; If you’re independent and rebellious, you certainly weren’t going to be a remainer.
Predictably, the vast majority of those who identify as punks these days come across as extremely wet blankets who get their knickers in a twist over weird things; think of the hissy-fit Rage Against the Machine had over people who wouldn’t wear masks at their gigs and the American ‘punks’ who beat up ‘fascists’ who aren’t fascists in the least unless one uses the word in the manner of Rik in The Young Ones. Then we have the weirdest cause of all, trans. whereby privileged white men can whack on some rouge and call themselves women – the war for the soul of punk is being fought on this front, too.
(…)
When I started out as a musician, I thought that punks were anti-establishment; then when my first album was released, I passed through the scene and realised it’s full of Stasi boneheads who love the boot when they’re the ones wearing it. Punks pretend to be rebellious musicians but act more like bureaucrats and propagandists who contribute nothing to music except a pathological hatred of women and the highest form of wokery I’ve ever personally encountered. Speaking your mind publicly is what making music is all about; freedom of speech and our hard-won rights as women – especially in male dominated music industry – is something that should be protected at all costs no matter what -ism we’re living under. But when the establishment and corporations support you, you are the establishment. So, for me being a Terf is about as punk as it gets.
I was there; I may not have liked the music much, but I lived the ribald and riotous experience that was punk – and I know a short-haired hippie when I see one. As I wrote in Welcome To The Woke Trials: ‘Woke is the revenge of the dullard on the wit, the curtain-twitcher on the headline-maker, the wallflower on the whirling dancer’ – add to that ‘the establishment stooge who believes himself righteous on the outlaw’. So, punk’s not dead – this time, she’s a Terf.”
3 notes · View notes
nando161mando · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
This is the kind of free thinking Fascists want to crush.
8K notes · View notes
acab4dahood · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
All.creations.are.buried
5 notes · View notes
gastromancer · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media
[ID: Photograph of the front page of a ‘New York Post’ newspaper. Titled in large bold white letters it says: CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS CLAP?
The caption beneath it reads: “CUNY (City University of New York) deans applaud anti-cop, anti-Israel remarks that own Trustees label ‘hate speech’”. /End ID]
Spotted in a grocery. Lmao. Threatening me with a good fucking time.
5 notes · View notes
kilowogcore · 10 months
Text
youtube
Kilowog's lecture series on ways ta turn US flags inta energy (with music) continues!
This might as well be a song from me ta' my younger self. Or maybe it's the tragic love story of people torn apart by fascism. I dunno, I only know I love it!
3 notes · View notes
luvsjimmyreed · 11 months
Text
In summation, the difference between respectful children and compliant children are as follows: Respectful children consider the feelings of other people to be paramount, while compliant children would beat up a homeless person if instructed to do so by an authority figure.
Jimmy Reed, On Respect versus Compliance
41 notes · View notes
yourneighborpersephone · 10 months
Text
If the children do not stop using the language of social justice to reinforce the same tired segregationist boundaries I swEAR TO MYSELF
“Maybe I shouldn’t hang out with the working-class kids because I am upper-middle class and my privilege might be a problem” is the second most cop thing I have read today
3 notes · View notes
asheimmortal · 11 months
Text
I've been meaning to do a video on this, but ya know, can't make videos in or around the shelter at all.
So throughout my life I used to think that super skinny hot girls only get into whatever to snag the men. This could be scenes or specific sports, what have you. Scenes can mean music genres or things like hanging around tattoo shops. There is a bit of that need to be the queen bee and stick their nose in the air that they married a tattoo artist, a doctor, a pro dirt bike rider, whatever the fucking scene they choose to rule over. As a younger adult I was trying to figure out why every last guy who is into goth, punk, metal, etc. will ONLY be with a size 0 perfect 10 normal looking preppy queen bee. Like don't you want someone who shares your interests?! But at this age I've learned the answer is NO, cis het men are 1000% about LOOKS and looks alone.
Then fast forward to recent times and before I got into the shelter I bought a pack of poster board to make signs to panhandle with. And I was trying to think of something kinda funny about like "goths can be homeless too", or something. But I couldn't think of anything. Then it dawned on me that there ARE NO other homeless goths today. Maybe when I was a teenager, but not now. And so maybe I've been asking the wrong questions all of my life! 😮
1. Why does every other goth have a good job and financially secure life?!?! How come everyone else can have crazy hair, be covered in tattoos, face tattoos, holes in their face and whatever else the fuck they want to do with themselves and STILL get to fucking work at Bank of America, Microsoft, a doctor's office, a regular retail store, or what have you??!? Why does everyone else get to do what they want and still get a job when I've been completely outcast for being a fat girl just in itself?!?!!! That has driven me nuts my whole life!!! It's always been expected of ME to ultra conform, be under 100 lbs, be 0% body fat, have long hair, and appease the cis het yt man's ideals in order to ever have hope of having a job or a man in my life ever! It's what they've all been trying to pound into my head since I was old enough to walk & talk!!! Why in the fuck does everyone else get to be exactly who they are but I've been condemned to a lifetime of unemployment & homelessness?!?! Why is every other goth financially secure and not in danger of homelessness?!?! Why does everyone else get to do as they please but I'm expected to finally conform and fit all of the boxes of under 100 lbs, 0% body fat, long blonde hair & pretty in order to get a job & be a part of society?!?! It's the endless cycle of WTF I've been stuck in my whole life!!! I'm autistic and I need answers!!!!!! It's fucking maddening!!!!!!
SO the conclusion that hit me was, I'm sort of asking the wrong questions... Maybe the bigger question is why don't other fat girls have any kind of personality?!? Why aren't there other obese people (specifically afab ones) that are hardcore into goth, punk, metal, etc.?!?!?!!? Maybe if there were representation and a wide variety of what obese people were into, maybe we could have normalized this in society by now that not all obese people desire to be ultra conformist?!?!!!?! So why is it all the obese people are all the God, guns, church & football 'merica conformists?!?! I'm just the ONLY fat ass afab anti-capitalist, anarchist, punk, goth, metalhead in existence?!?!!! No wonder it's been so rough!!! I'm the outcast of the outcasts! Yeah if I had no personality and watched football and only babbled about God, Jesus and the bible I probably would have been married and had some average life and not be homeless! But I've always been the rebellious, fuck this, fuck society, fuck12, goth little horror kid from the start and I always refused to conform! I just happen to be fat and afab too. And the unholy trinity of fat, afab & rebellious means I truly am cast out to this lifetime of unemployment, homelessness and loneliness.
Even if I finally figured out what has plagued me my whole life, I STILL flat out refuse to even try to conform. Fuck no. It's too exhausting. I have tried before. I really have tried. But the vampire freak who likes food is just who I am. I wish I didn't have to be homeless to be me. 😞
SIGH.
Tumblr media
3 notes · View notes
cosmoshiden · 1 year
Text
What are the Earth Federation’s acts of misconduct in Gundam 0079?
In the opening scene of each episode of the anime and each instalment of the film trilogy Mobile Suit Gundam, the audience is shown the horrific, genocidal, and destructive massacre of a major city and people from a space colony. This action was done deliberately by the antagonist, fascist nation, the Principality of Zeon. While the Principality, headed by the Zabi family is based on the fascist governments of Italy and Nazi Germany, and some their genocidal actions based on Imperial Japan’s own terrorist acts in Manchuria, and many of their crimes against humanity and other war crimes are easy to point out, it’s not always the case when it comes to the Federation in my opinion. So what are the Federation’s own crimes against humanity and war crimes? That we shall see below and conclude how every morally gray UC Gundam is.
To begin with, what could be considered a real world war crime the Federation commits is the fact that Amuro Ray, Hiyato Kobayashi, Kai Shiden, Sayla Mass, and Fraw Bow are recruited as child soldiers to fight for the Federation. Now according to the Geneva Convention and the International Criminal Court, recruitment of child soldiers is indeed a war crime. This is but one war crime committed by the Federation. Another war crime committed by the Federation in concert with child soldiers is how Amuro Ray goes through physical and mental abuse by his commanding officer, Bright Noa, captain of the White Base. For instance, Bright Noa resorts to hitting the 15-year-old Amuro in the face in episode 12 when he refuses to fight, after going through shell shock, and the captain disregards his mental health as a result. Bright. Not to mention that, Bright also has Amuro and company are conditioned to hate the Zeon when watching dictator and fleet admiral Girhen Zabi’s broadcasted speech, and to serve the Federation’s “cause” to defend “democracy and individual rights”. We see later that Amuro considers the Zeons to be evil space invaders in episodes 13, 14 and 15 as per his conditioning by Bright. Ergo, Amuro is taught to see all Zeon as evil and thus is gas-lighted to seeing them as dehumanized beings. 
Aside from being condited by Bright, Amuro and company have also been recruited unwillingly as human guinea pigs. What is meant by that is how Amuro and co. are made to test experimental weapons in battle. This also comes at the cost of the child soldiers in the Federation’s prototype mobile weapons, to suffer further from shell shock. Additionally, the kids are also being used as part of the Federation high command, especially General Revil, to be part of a eugenics program to breed newtype troops. Revil in specific, wants to breed a new race of super soldiers in order to help the Federation not only win the war, but to enforce its will over the colonies and defend the neoliberal order.
In addition, other war crimes and crimes against humanity are the use of human shields. This is not stated in the tv series and film trilogy, however, the Federation does have a habit of placing and intermingling military personnel and installations in civilian areas. To give an example, in the first episode of the tv series, the Federation has a base and testing ground for their prototype mobile weapons, which makes it a target for Zeon attack, and an endangerment of civilians. Not only that, but there was also a military installation in Belfest in the tv series, which was also in a civilian area. This can be assumed that the Federation is using civilian areas as human shields as the Federation assumes that their foes won’t attack an area full of non-combatants in them. However, it seems that they did not learn this lesson, especially as earlier in the war, they did the same thing. It can also be inferred that the Federation thought that the colonies of Sides 1, 2 and 4 would not be attacked by Zeon; yet this proved to be disastrous and entailed the deaths of 4 billion people. As such, it puts blood on the Federation’s hands. Plus, another instance of human shielding is when the refugees of Side 7 were left on board White Base. This happens in episode 4 of the tv series when the White Base arrives at Luna II, but are refused to leave the ship and settle on Luna II by order of the paranoid Admiral Watkins. 
In another case, we see a pair of war crimes committed by Federal troops when Amuro visits his hometown. One is a squad of drunken federal soldiers in his mother’s home. In this instance, we see the Federal soldiers disregarding his personal property and possessions. Here it can be inferred that the Federation during the war has resorted to destruction, looting, and pilagging of civilian property, which is yet another war crime on their part. Then when Amuro goes to visit an apple vendor who is an old family friend, we see Federal troops harassing her over not paying the vendor for food. This shows the elitism and disregard for the poor on the part of the Federation. Not to mention the human rights abuse of economic harm in not allowing a poor vendor to have basic income.  
One final war crime and crime against humanity that the Federation committed we shall explore is unlawful imprisonment and forced deportation. When attempting to leave the civilian population behind on Luna II, Admiral Watkins places the crew of the White Base and its civilian refugees under arrest, imprisonment, and accusses them of being spies. This is done on a pretense of suspicion, but without due process or evidence. Hence, Watkins causes willful harm to the civilians aboard White Base, unlawful arrest, detention without trial, disregard for human rights, willful harm to political groups (refugees notwithstanding), extrajugdicial punishment, and dehumanizes them through his suspions. 
As for the act of forced deportation, this is an act committed by the Earth Federation before the One Year War. When it came to the planet’s environmental catastophy, the Federation began their massive colonization program by forcibly evicting, displacing, and relocating 7 billion people in the O’Neill space islands, under the guise of relieving the earth of its “excess population”. This is for the most part a crime against humanity, as the civilian populace had no say or consent to being coerced into deportation. Other crimes to consider is how this also means that the Federation used political repression in deporting hundreds of millions of people into space and how it also leads into curtailment of human rights, such as crushing demonstrations and assembly rights.This also entails that the Federation used climate change as an excuse for land grabs, in order to satisfy their capitalistic interests. 
Overall, I just wanted to put this out as there isn’t a whole lot of talk on some of the Earth Federations’ own war crimes during the OYW. It’s pretty common to hear of their usual war crimes, human rights abuses, and crimes against humanity. Normally, common responses to abuses by the Federation are that it’s bascially the military and not the civil government of the Federation. My response to that is, the military is the government of the Federation. Other responses in defense of the Federation is one is reading too much into the lines. Although, there is no such thing and that is more like what we call interpretation. With all that, I hope this sheds some light as to how in Gundam UC, the Earth Federation is a totalitarian police state. 
3 notes · View notes