#if you're actually interested in at all understanding actual leftist politics you have to do research into actual anarchism

[hussyknee]

Fellas, is it an act of war against a Western European country to hold their citizens prisoner in the open air prison they're carpet bombing?

Lebanon's Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthis have been launching attacks on US military bases in Syria and Iraq and firing missiles at Israel in tandem with Hamas's attacks. All three are funded by Iran.

(I am HEAVING with laughter at Vox and every single one of these propagandist chucklefucks calling them "militias" and "terrorist organisations" and trying to frame this as justification for continuing to fund Israel like. MOTHERFUCKER WHOSE REGION ARE YOU IN EXACTLY?? WHO IS GENOCIDING PEOPLE ON THEIR OWN SOIL??)

"But they're fundie theocratic military states!!!"

*looks at Israel*

*looks at you*

*looks at current state of US*

Oh, ARE they?

US officials have met with the Lebanese caretaker government in an effort to try and prevent the conflict from spreading into Lebanon.

Um. Was this before or after Israel poured white phosphorus on Lebanon? Do y'all even have any control over your dog?

(Btw if you MCU brainrotted Western leftists don't stop trying to pick a Good Guy out of this mess instead of understanding basic geo-politics and the horrific ground realities of the countries the US and its allies have left in tatters, you're frankly just as much of an enemy to the people in those countries as your leaders are. Every one of these people are fascist cunts.)

For those of you who have been BLEATING about Ukraine non-stop, like it's NOT an expendable non-NATO country they're only interested in defending in case Putin gets any bright ideas about Poland, here's an opinion that makes sense to me:

Tell me it wouldn't be perfectly on brand if the US government announced, "Our great democracy bows to the will of the people. We hear you, we see you. We will divest...from Ukraine."

The West has never given one singular shit about protecting ANYONE from genocide. Vulnerability is liability. The only difference between them and Putin is that Putin is greedy megalomaniacal fascist surrounded by self-interested yes-men and the US is run by a committee of greedy egomaniacal fascists surrounded by self-interested yes-men whose end goal is keeping the death machine spinning money rather than even "winning" territories. All they have to do to turn this around is divest from Israel and focus on Ukraine. And no, Israel can't throw in with Putin because it'll be too busy trying to fight off three countries at once without the sugar from its Daddy.

Putin will not stop at Ukraine, for the same reason the US didn't stop at Afghanistan. Empires are built on their military power and militaries need to be fed and kept active and kept active to be fed. The minute you stop, it tries to eat itself. If Putin makes a move on Poland, NATO has to respond, and if the West is also embroiled in an all-out war with the Middle East, well. It looks kinda like a global conflict.

Oh and btw, if this does escalate into another regional war in the Middle East, we're going to be plunged into an oil crisis. Which might actually be the last straw for the UK economy, but it very DEFINITELY will be for the rest of the Global South.

(Also Biden's already auctioned off the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska for oil companies for such an intensive scale of fracking that it's projected to tip the world over the edge of climate collapse. In the event of a war in the ME, the US is going to need that oil soooooo. Good luck stopping it.)

#gaza genocide #free palestine #war in ukraine #death to america #death to israel #geopolitics #us politics #middle east #iran #hezbollah #lebanon #world news #current events #knee of huss

[goodgirl4daddy4evr]

Hi just some warnings and general info about the blog. There is sexual content about so minors/no age in bio will be blocked.

Some kinks that you may be interested in knowing may lie ahead:

bioessentialist ideology

misgendering kink (afab enby-> cis afab)

patriarchy kink

breeding kink

orientation play

religion kink

black supremacy kink

bimboifcation

dd/lg

infidelity kink

intox kink (weed, nothing else)

general dominance/submission dynamic

bondage

exhibitionism

cuckcake content

some very light cnc, I'm more into playful campy scenarios than forceful ones

If any of these things bother you please take care, including blocking if that's what's best for you.

I'm not really going to be posting/rb-ing anything other than text posts. This will mostly be an erotica blog with the occasional sfw spicy pic.

Things that I will not engage with and would prefer you leave alone:

adult diaper baby lovers (abdl)

anal play (giving or receiving)

blood play

degradation

breastfeeding/lactation kink

candle wax

guns, knives, other sundry weapons

sadism and pain play

watersports and scat

human toilet

human furniture

self harm

weight gain/fat fetishizing

Some things to know if you'd like to chat:

Identify your age somewhere

I will frequently be medicated if I'm online

I'm in EST in USA and I have the freedom to leave the chat whenever. I'm usually just busy or going to sleep if I leave

This is a new side blog, the blog I follow from ends in 1003

Send me an erotica prompts as asks! If it turns me on enough, I'll write something up!

I'm actually nonbinary and pansexual but I'm super into the idea of "being fucked into a straight woman" but uh, don't be a bigot

Don't be a bigot. It'll get you blocked

I'm far more leftist than most usually consider "politically correct" and I'm quite secure in my self attachment so I won't be "converted" to whatever ideology or religion you're peddling. Actual fascists will get blocked

I love praise and affirmative dialogue, spicy or not. I like support and being supportive in return

FRIES consent is everything. Freely given. Retractable. Informed. Enthusiastic. Specific.

All people have an innate human dignity and should be treated as such, so if I don't feel like you're understanding that it ain't gonna vibe

If you wanna do any chat where having me submit interests you, we should negotiate while not actively horny

I'm solo polyamorous so I'm not looking to actually help people cheat. That's wrong. I just really dig the fantasy of it

In case it wasn't clear, I'm absolutely not a raging bigot. I'm a pretty chill bimbo stoner commie interested in the liberation of all people. I just get really horny fantasizing about certain power dynamics real and imagined. But I prefer exploring them in safer pre negotiated settings. Also here in my text posts. There will be the occasional thirst trap too, not gonna lie, but it's mostly erotica here.

#pinned intro

[flameswallower]

recs?

Hi, guys! I am thirty four years old, and pretty much the only philosophy/ theory I’ve ever read is stuff I was assigned in college (I was studying English and visual art)— mostly excerpts from longer texts I don’t remember well anymore.

I do like to read, both fiction (short stories and novels, some poetry-- shh on the question “is poetry fiction,” I’m trying to make this brief) and nonfiction (usually middlebrow “popular” nonfiction, or at least nonfiction that deals with more concrete subject matter— eg a work about the conditions in modern American prisons, who gets sent to prison, and what prisoners think about their situation rather than, like, Foucault on prisons or whatever). However, I am a slow reader, particularly with material that requires a lot of thought or parsing, particularly particularly if it’s also the case that I find the material somewhat boring or impenetrable in places. I have been about thirty pages into Hegel’s preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit for like a year now!

I would like recommendations of key texts, or even chapters/excerpts from key texts, in philosophy, leftist (anarchist or socialist) political thought, academic theory, etc. that meet some (say, at least two) of the following criteria:

Easy to pick up and put down and come back to without losing track of too much

Short

Written in a relatively simple, straightforward, and/or concrete style (vocabulary is not an issue if the meanings of all novel terms and unconventionally used terms are clearly explained in the text or very easy to guess from context— but long sentences with convoluted syntax are often an impediment for me)

“Flashy,” ie exceptionally humorous, on-its-face interesting to someone without a pre-existing love of theory, exciting, beautiful, poetic, written in a way that might “grab” a person with severe ADHD and draw them in and keep their attention without a moment-to-moment struggle

I’m looking for things that are crucial reading in and of themselves, things that an unsophisticated person could use as a step towards understanding more complicated "crucial" works, and things that might be interesting to me specifically and personally (like, if you're reading this and you know me). It’s okay if you recommend something I’ve actually already read (VERY unlikely), I’m just looking for ideas here.

Please do not recommend that I read any TERFs or crypto-TERFs. At this point, right now, I don't want to do that even "so I can understand the history of second-wave feminist thought"/"so I can understand how my opponents think"/etc.

[transmutationisms]

HI really love your thoughts on stuff. do you think succession - as a tv show with a script - makes all of its negative statements negatively or positively? this is something im having trouble with, specially with shiv and the overwhelming misogyny. i understand its quite literally real life. but they know the importance of media as a statement that defines real life - its sort of meta, but the whole thing with whether or not calling mencken, knowing it would affect politics, is something that can reflect on the show itself. i dont think i fully agree with what they do to shiv in the way they portray the misogyny. it feels like a "and thats how it will always be" more than "thats how its been". idk. maybe I just hate misogyny and cant stand to see that. but everything is a statement. what do u think?

well in general i agree that, yeah, the show is more interested in satire and criticism than offering any kind of imaginative solution or alternative. so, if you want to watch something that suggests alternatives to logan-style misogyny (& i'd understand why) then i think you're going to be dissatisfied with this show. like, obviously even with logan gone, his influence still haunts the company and the family, and anyway the broader structures of capitalism and its use / exploitation of women were always much larger than logan alone. all of this also applies to how roman and kendall (& to a lesser extent connor) are punished for failing to live up to standards of masculinity; logan feminised kendall to punish him for business failures and derided roman for what he saw as a more innate femininity that made roman disgusting to him.

i actually think gender is a strong suit for the show. it's very deeply interested in how they each relate to standards of bourgeois masculinity and femininity, and how these strictures are confining and punishing (often literally, as logan used them as tools of his abuse). for shiv she lived up to some of logan's femands for an heir (her emotional repression, flashes of killer instinct) but was ultimately always doomed by the fact that logan saw her as permanently being his little girl, denied a body (bc this was less disgusting to him than thinking of her as a woman) and never the right fit for his corporate mould, even when she was trying her hardest to fit it. roman and kendall ofc pick up on this and the way her gender can be used in itself to lock her out of the upper echelons of power (a walking pair of teats, all the men got together in man club). but ultimately this is a dissection of misogyny and masculinity, not a suggestion for escape.

i have mixed feelings about the sort of ethical argument here. it is fair to say that succession has a fundamentally conservative ethos in the sense that the satire and snark angle is uninterested in offering solutions or imagining alternatives. it's grounded in exploring capitalism, fascism, the resulting gender politics, &c, and to the extent that it challenges these things, it's by portraying them as worthy of mockery. it's not a leftist political treatise. but like, i think there's a can of worms to open here in terms of asking how revolutionary a television show is capable of being simple by virtue of the medium. like, even if the content is radical internally, does is matter that the form is still one embedded in capitalist production, ie, that the show is a commodity on the same market? i identify the root of misogyny within the capitalist mode of production; how far is something made within these parameters capable of going in offering any kind of alternative? and also, do we care? like, am i watching tv because i'm looking for radical politics? again, this doesn't negate the critique of succession's critique. but i do think it's a bit... trite? to ask tv to be some kind of moral guide---particularly on a show where the premise is such that any 'challenge' to misogyny would still be constrained within the bourgeois world the characters inhabit.

#he doesn't even trust water

[communist-ojou-sama]

This isn't meant to be an insult since I'm not either but I'm curious if you're even an anarchist anymore? Like, not because you dismiss 'authoritarian' as a useless idea, I know anarchists that thing it's a worthless distinction, but you seem to think that a transitional state is necessary to overthrow capitalism so I wanted to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your position.

At first I was gonna give this an unfocused, rambling answer, but I feel like it's worthy of a somewhat more focused answer so I'll try to wrangle my thoughts into concrete points. There's a reason why despite my url, which I've been using for like 7 years at this point, in my bio I merely describe myself as a "Marxist" and in short that is because after a lot of reading anarchist theory, lots of talking to other anarchists and looking at anarchist positions on things, I realized anarchism as a theory of revolution and change has really very little to offer anyone who isn't a white person in the imperial core relative to other left-wing ideologies. First of all, anarchism as a whole has a very bad habit of flattening injustice and taking the structuring of society as a purely moral exercise, often demonstrating blindness to the scarcity of resources that caused societies of the past to take the shapes that they do; if you have any knowledge of or interest in societies of the ancient near east then the truly laughable anarchist characterization of these societies puts that reality into sharp relief On another point of "flattening injustices", in order present the transhistorical entity of "the state" as the ultimate evil you will frequently see anarchists not directly, but as a rhetorical slight of hand imply that, for example, censorship on the one hand and starvation of the populace, or lynchings, are basically equal, never bothering to develop an understanding of why some societies maintain strong support form the populace while others quickly fall apart. On the point of the collapse of societies, the collapse of "oppressive" regimes is romanticized among white anarchists despite the fact that they have been some of the greatest humanitarian tragedies ever. Anarchist ethics often acts as the total triumph of the concept of the human over real human beings and their needs, and there is no substantive anarchist program for challenging existential challenges that inherently will require organization and coercion (e.g. green energy transition). Anticiv anarchists and their fellow travellers plainly admit that they have no intention to engage in any real political activity, so whatever they say can be safely ignored, but even putting that aside, ordinary anarchists base much of their view of world-wide geopolitics on a number of racist lies propagated by the countries in which they live, believing that asians or black people are simply enduring conditions that would cause revolts, and have before, as if their will to freedom is less than that of whites, and in general western anarchists exercise a total failure to appreciate US imperialism as a world system, and what that actually means, much less develop an understanding of things like color revolutions. As a result they constantly demonize non-white leftists for self-defense, and glorify compradors and counterrevolutionaries that masquerade as "progressive", as if any state founded on them would not be a US puppet state, and treat the very suggestion as some kind of tin-foil hat conspiracy, not much different than the average white liberal. There's plenty more I can elaborate in my problems with anarchism as it is practiced in the 2020s, but hopefully this is a decent starting articulation.

[property-is-theft]

If you're not an anti-semite, why is an anti-semite your go-to guy for criticising the concept of law? If you could have quoted someone who wasn't an anti-semite, why the fuck DIDN'T you?

Were you just hoping everyone else would go "oh yeah I've vaguely heard of that guy" and think you were smart?

Because congratulations dipshit, your big moment of fame is geting called out for doing PR for an anti-semite. That's your entire reputation now.

The name of this blog, btw, is also inspired by Pierre Joseph Proudhon. The fact of the matter is that the dude is also the (although arguably there were proto-anarchists before him) first dude to seriously call himself an anarchist and he also invented the circle A as far as I know. The entire series of analysis passes through him.

In the history of socialist thought in general he is also one of the most important dudes of all time - anyone with more than a passing interest in political theory, especially this strain, should be aware of him. Communist anarchism arose later but all mutualists owe an especially heavy debt to PJP. Far from thinking that most people would be vaguely aware of him, I’ll go a step further, if you are only vaguely aware of him you are uneducated on this matter. You are a tadpole in leftist political thought.

The fact of the matter is that talking about anarchism without this dude coming up would be like trying to talk about “western” ethics without Kant (despite him being mind-meltingly racist) or the development of Continental philosophy at large without Hegel (once again - a racist). In fact to not mention these dudes and their contributions would be pretty close to intellectual dishonesty. Hegel is baked into Marx but Marx himself, despite being Jewish, had some pretty fucking dicey shit to say about them.

There is no evading this. I am influenced by all these guys. YOU without even realizing it are influenced by these guys. OUR COLLECTIVE UNDERSTANDING AND DISCOURSE IS ALL INFLUENCED BY THESE GUYS AND I SAY INFLUENCED AS IF MOST OF YOU PEOPLE ARENT JUST STRAIGHT COPYING THEM UNKNOWINGLY.

The saving grace here is that the various types of awful all these men were guilty of is secondary to their primary theoretical achievements. Philosophers were often awful people - even the fun postmodern ones.

Maybe that is my reputation in your eyes. People with a measure of consideration and who have engaged with actual theory can see that wider picture. Name an important political philosopher or school - especially one pre-absolute now - and I will provide you some tripe to dismiss entire schools of thought if you’re prone to anaphylactic shock at the sight of something problematic like this with everyone.

[archaeocommunologist]

imagine posting on the leftist antisemitism tag only to show you're a leftist antisemite. imagine.

The reason principaliteas was getting hate is because they supported peace instead of yelling about killing all the evil baby-murdering Israeli civilians. Not very pro-Palestine of them, since in order for Palestine to be free half of the world's Jews simply must be gotten rid of.

Also you were being absolutely moronic in the comments. "Anyone can know things regardless of their background." imagine telling that to any other minority. Imagine telling a black person calling out racism that, imagine telling a trans person calling out transphobia that. You don't know bigotry better than the victims dumbass.

Whoever you are, and I suspect you're a fan given that this sounds very similar to another ask I received, you should know by this point that I'm not susceptible to this line of argumentation. Anyone can know anything regardless of their background. This is a true statement, and also a good thing.

Compare to your assertion, that only the "victims" of a social system can credibly understand it. This is 1.) very obviously not true, 2.) trivially easy to disprove, and 3.) actively detrimental to good activism. Now, you don't care about any of these things, because the actual purpose of this argument is to use as a cudgel, but I will nevertheless grace you with an explanation.

1.) It just isn't true that the only people who can understand a social system are its victims. This isn't true for antisemitism, it's not true for racism, and it's not true for transphobia, homophobia, and misogyny. This assertion is a corrupted form of the actual insight, which is that it's important to consider the perspectives of people who have direct experience with bigotry. It is important to listen to Jewish perspectives on antisemitism, rather than getting all your information from gentiles. But it doesn't mean that only Jews can understand antisemitism as a social and historical force, and it absolutely does not mean that gentiles need to blindly defer to any particular Jew on the topic.

Also: isn't it funny how you don't apply this exact logic to Palestinians? I mean, logically, as the victims of Zionism, you should be asserting that only Palestinians can understand it, right? If not, why not?

2.) Here, I'll disprove your assertion right now. So as a goy, I need to defer to Jews when it comes to antisemitism and anti-Zionism, right? OK, I pick Meir Kahane. Heck, I pick Netanyahu! After all, they also say that I, as a goy, ought to defer to them when it comes to the meaning of Zionism and antisemitism. Oops, guess I'm a Kahanist now. Am Yisrael Chai!

Obviously, gentiles need to be able to apply critical thinking to Jewish perspectives on antisemitism. We need to develop the capacity for discernment, in order to confront and dismiss the demand from people like Kahane to blindly defer to them based on their identity. You yourself fucking believe this, you just pretend not to when you want to beat somebody about the head.

3.) Maybe I'm biased because of my background in HIV activism and as an HIV+ person, but when I do activism, my goal is to provide people with the tools and understanding to come to the correct political stance on HIV, regardless of their identity. I want HIV-negative people to be able to speak confidently on the history of the AIDS Crisis and on the importance of U=U. Insisting that only HIV+ people have the right to speak is actively detrimental to my political goals. Yes, I think it's important that HIV+ people be able to speak for ourselves too. But that doesn't mean I want to silence HIV-negative people who are working to understand and support us.

You, however, want something different. You are interested in silencing, which is why you insist that only certain people can credibly speak on certain topics. This is also why you insist that I am an antisemite, despite the fact that my views on Zionism are developed in large part by listening to Jewish anti-Zionists. Oh, but of course, they don't count, because they're the wrong kind of Jews. Hypocrite.

Anyway, feel free to come off anon if you tire of this ludicrous game of telephone, and decide to quit being a spinless little coward. Otherwise, get thee gone, and darken my doorway no more.

#leftist antisemitism #free palestine #receipts #liberals!

[sapropel]

Every time you treat an enfranchised, establishment Democrat like Biden as a doddering old fool who is out of touch and doesn't understand anything about what's going on, you're doing what the Democrats want actually. Democrats aren't your awkward, embarrassing, but ultimately harmless aunts and uncles. They're vicious warmongers. They are violent racists, just as much if not more so than many establishment Republicans, but with a deliberate enough vocabulary to placate large swathes of their liberal voter base. They won't hesitate to sell you down the river the second they get the chance. Democrats count on their Incompetent and Spineless and Defanged images to keep you from rolling up to their houses and blowing their fucking brains out because if the general public understood that Democrats are cold, calculating, manipulative, heartless, violent, and joyful participants in this fucking merry-go-round they've put us on, rather than victims of the System, just like Us, we'd put them in the ground in a second. Joe Biden was a segregationist btw. Why on earth do you think he would do anything to help anyone? Democrats are "powerless" to do things that would be good and just because things that are good and just take power out of their hands and out of the capitalist class. Biden can squash unions in a second, increase military funding to bomb more 3rd world countries, keep kids in cages, and btw lie about every single campaign promise and never be held accountable for that, but he can't ACTUALLY protect abortion rights. Oh and Congress can unanimously change daylight savings time in a heartbeat but they can't ameliorate the climate crisis because that's not conducive to their bourgeois interests. Democrats can never Actually Do something that helps us. Not without ceding power to the people, which is too dangerous of a game for Democrats. Biden and his sycophants can't protect Black people or trans people or Jews For Real because the second he provides something materially, something REAL and not smoke and mirrors bullshit, to vulnerable Americans the grip that white supremacist and capitalist exploitation has on the people weakens ever so slightly. Democrats are not in government to fight for the people, they're in government to play shitty civil war reenactments of social liberties through a thinly veiled allyship with their Republican counterparts. American politicians only care about upholding America's capitalist and imperialist hegemony and any domestic concern that doesn't pertain to this can kick rocks. And btw the Democratic party as an institution doesn't give a shit if Republicans kill every minority in the country because Democrats literally aren't even there to protect us. They are there to protect class interests. They just run PR for The System and fundraise lmao. I hope you dumb fucking liberals who keep lashing out at leftists for not sacrificing ourselves at the altar of Electoral Politics are having fun watching the Wizard of Oz piss all our rights away while you hold his dick graciously in your hands.

[duskmite]

so a little under a month ago i volunteered at a food bank run by a communist organisation and decided to go along to the meeting afterwards because i thought hey! i'm a socialist who has been to socialist meetings and wants to be more politically active and become better versed in leftist theory so why not?

anyway it was an off the wall experience and i wanted to share it so people can tell me if other communist meetings are like this:

before i start, let me first say that one guy from the organisation called me every single day for five days to confirm i was coming. i understand maybe a second call the day prior to double-check i could still make it but christ. every day? i've already said i'll be there, my guy.

anyway! onto the actual meeting. the first red flag, albeit not a huge one, was that all the chairs faced a desk at the front so we could sit and listen to the speaker. i'm used to a more casual, open setting where everyone faces each other (eg. around a table), but i thought it might be because the room was pretty narrow.

while we waited for the meeting to start, i took the chance to look around the room which i'd only gotten a quick glance at before getting started with the work earlier. on the walls were several framed pictures of marx, lenin, and trotsky. i don't have a massive problem with that as, lenin aside (though obviously i recognise his importance), i admire those men and lowkey would have clement attlee as my pinup girl, but the level of idolatry was a bit unsettling.

the speaker, a young guy from new york, read a long prepared speech covering current affairs worldwide and the communist perspective on said events. i disagreed with some of what he said, but it was mostly informative and interesting.

the first thing that made me consider leaving was something i'll admit was extremely petty: during his speech, johnny new york said the phrase "here in the united states". for context, we were in london.

the speech ended and the floor was opened up for questions and discussion. it was vastly ideological with no talk of action plans for how to make things better. now, i've got no issues with debate! i love debate! but an organisation that puts a heavy emphasis on being anti-war just talking about israel-palestine and russia-ukraine felt strange. in my previously experienced socialist meetings, a lot of the time would be taken up with coming up with ideas, talking about collaborations with other organisations, and letting us know the schedule for actual planned events and demonstrations we could help with. those happened in a town. london is a CITY. there's loads more going on, so many more people we can collaborate with, so why aren't we doing anything? the food bank was great and i get that it takes up a lot of time, but why are you advertising yourself as a fighting force against war if all you're doing is talking about it?

among the ideological comments came a voice from the back of the room, a woman who appeared to be in her late 20s or early 30s. this was where things got truly wild. she expressed admiration for stalin. yes, that stalin. i can't remember where she said she was from (romania maybe?), but it was definitely a former soviet state as she talked about all the good stalin had done for her country while it was under his control. everyone in the room was - and this isn't a phrase i really use anymore - shook. nobody knew what to say or how to react to a bona fide and vehement stalinist. it was at this point my general discomfort turned to a desire to flee.

not long after miss stalin lover had finished her tirade, a young lad i'd been working on a team with at the food bank left. he was nice enough, but strangely out of place being as posh as he was. picture an oxbridge boy who got lost and ended up at king's college studying the bizarre combination of philosophy and maths. though he said he just needed to go home, he'd had some of the same reservations i'd had so i suspect that might also be what tipped him over the edge.

emboldened by his exit, i also left. the serial caller guy hurried after me while another member hurried after oxbridge, asking what we thought of everything before we left. i relayed some of my discomfort and he made sure i knew that he and the organisation disagreed with stalin girl. after some light pressuring, i agreed to come back and help at the food bank sometime, letting him know i'd soon be going back to my hometown for the holidays and would be gone for about a month.

that's where things ended that day, but homeboy called me again about a week ago to follow up. i reminded him that i'm not in london right now and he said he'd call when i was back. i'm feeling uncomfortable with telling him i've decided i won't be coming to help again. i think i'll say something along the lines of i'm planning on volunteering somewhere closer to my flat because i can't afford to take a bus and a tube there and back every week. that's true, but not the whole story.

something else that might be interesting for those who have never been to any kind of leftist meeting: people call you comrade in complete seriousness. i wasn't shocked by this as it was the same in the socialist meetings i went to, but it does still feel weird.

#personal #the hallway into the meeting room deadass looked like steban and ulixes' place in disco elysium which was wild #especially considering the ideological discussion meets very little action thing

[deqdyke]

Fuckin floored by the fact that there are third-worldist leftists on Twitter who are genuinely really well read and have amazing politics, are communists/anticapitalist, oppose the nation-state apparatus, etc. etc. but then are pro criminalization of sex work? Like... What don't you understand. I think third worldist critiques of modern sex-worker advocacy have a lot of merit! Namely that the claim that the majority of sex work is consensual is primarily true only in the global north, and even then it is heavily coercive for sexually exploited groups like twoc. However, the question of whether or not sex work is consensual or coercive isn't the question at all. The question is "do you think the state has the best interests of the marginalized, including sex workers and the trafficked, at heart?". The answer for that is no. Multiple people I've met who work in fighting sex trafficking have repeatedly stated that explicit legal punishments for sex trafficking are almost exclusively used as a means of control and punishment internally AGAINST sex workers, and almost never actually help anyone who is being trafficked. Even the ones who are freed from sex trafficking often end up in prison or held by immigration until they're deported.

Like, decrim is IMO the only approach you can support if you're anti-state. Regardless of whatever your thoughts on sex work, there isn't any benefit to be gained through criminalization. If you are genuinely concerned for the well being of the trafficked or socially coerced sex workers, the best thing you can do is decriminalize it so they can pursue support, and to offer your material support to your local sex workers. It's not complicated!

#dnt rbg #also if any westerner esp a white person comes in arguing that this is whorephobic #keep in mind i and many of my loved ones are part of the affected populations #who ARE socially coerxed into covert and overt sex work #and take a moment to recognize that if sex work is genuinely something u consent to and want to do then nothing ive said contradicts that #or denies you that option

[grim-echoes]

i still really love that like, time and again the only people who actively complain about cancel culture like it's a real, tangible thing are ambiguously-but-more-likely-than-not right-leaning celebrities who will quite literally never be noticeably affected by a deplatforming attempt. when you ask someone what they think cancel culture is it's some politically wishy-washy statement about "humanity being divided by hate and nobody being able to agree to disagree anymore"--and when you look into it, it turns out what they're angry about is The Evil Liberals asking them to have basic empathy for minorities and to be careful with their language, and to accept responsibility for heinous actions they perpetrated either recently or in the past, and you realize that all of this empty preaching about "loving one another and accepting our differences" is a kneejerk reaction to the rapid change in social language that's happened in the past decade or so that they have trouble understanding, exacerbated by being constantly enmeshed in a heated environment of online discourse that they struggle to navigate.

while i do think Logging The Fuck Off would help a lot in these circumstances i also find it interesting that i basically never see leftist personalities doing this whole song and dance because what usually happens when you're vocally left-leaning (and therefor either a minority or an ally) is that you're subject to actual hate campaigns that can potentially endanger not just your life but the lives of those around you because the right has absolutely no qualms about what they think they need to do to silence the opposition because of that lack of empathy, and will actively try to ruin your personal and online life if that's what they think they need to do to make you go away.

#thinking about this again #stark contrast between what actually decent people need to worry about vs #what regressive and isolated boomers think they need to worry about

[lonesomedotmp3]

it's not even that big a deal it was just so obnoxious (also this isn't relevant to anything but I've lost my retainer and I'm seconds away from losing my mind about it. but whatever.) but the thing I was gonna complain about was basically that an old friend of mine (HISTORICALLY a friendship that was never difficult per se but not something I enjoyed experiencing for longer than a few hours because we are both way too similar and fundamentally different people. especially politically. but anyway) told me today that she's gotten into supernatural and that I should watch it and I was like. first of all did I hear that right. second of all respectfully I will not be doing that <3 and she was like why not and I gave all my reasoning this and that and THEN. when she kept pushing. I was like idk I'm just not interested in a show where all the main characters are men. and oh my god you guys you would've thought that I demand those actors be publicly executed. you would've thought I said we should take away men's rights to vote and let women have dictatorial control over every state and every country on earth. it was ludicrous. she couldn't get her head around it. "but their gender is irrelevant!" absolutely not fucking true do not pass go do not collect 500$ on SUPERNATURAL. you're telling me it doesn't matter that it's a show fronted entirely by men written by men with at least initially a male audience in mind. the show that I haven't seen but also know from being on here is supposedly about tenets of masculinity and (and I don't know if I believe u people but it's what I've heard) deconstructing the myths that surround it? that's not relevance? it's not relevant that I've been told all the women we're introduced die? "well everyone except the main characters!" YES. THE ALL MALE MAIN CAST DON'T DIE. it's literally tiring to get stories about men all the time. all the time. and not a single woman in sight in that one. so no I don't want to watch it at least not now. because I'm so tired of watching a story entirely about men. that's not a crime. and she was like yeah but they're not homogenous archetypes due to gender they're all different like the brothers' relationship is the heart of the show and they're so different from each other. and I fully just had to be like yes I understand how characters work. I still don't care. It's not that I think all male characters are the same it's that I'm tired of all stories centring men. in fact I'm tired of men getting varied and complex stories and characters while women are pushed to the side and ignored! so no! I don't care about those men! and then she went "you realise you're making no sense right now" (direct quote she actually said this verbatim to me) which just proves there was no point attempting to get her to understand this at all because she's so stuck in the mindset that equality means never thinking about how gender impacts things at all (this type of thing has happened before. anything more leftist then "women can do whatever men can do!" is too much for her apparently. and she hasn't budged on this in several years) that she'll never consider for a moment that it is not deranged nor evil of a person to want to see more women on their tv. wow I had more to say about that than I thought. but isn't that fucking insane?

#like i guess I've been spending too much time on here apparently it's controversial to say u don't want to watch a show that's all abt men #i also said that the nov 5 episode was homophobic and she was like i actually think it's incredible and generous #and revolutionary of the writers to acknowledge the relationship on the show even if they didn't intend it #and they didn't know how to write it but it's nice they tried! like jesus are you always like this. sorry that's mean #but can you be a fucking hater with me for a second? #she's just so naive about everything gender and sexuality like oh well I'm sure they meant well oh how could that be homophobic #oh im sure that wasn't what they intended but what about this etc etc. and it's like sometimes shit is just sexist. or homophobic #.txt #and fucking post! #found my retainer over the course of typing this btw

[thosearentcrimes]

You know what I haven't seen in years? The whole "not my job to educate you" thing. You know what I see all the time? One of you people bringing it up again and complaining about someone not wanting to engage in good faith debate (on your terms of course), even though they have political opinions you disagree with and have stated them online. I'm not saying you're wrong to be frustrated that you're not getting the argument you wanted, and I'm not saying people don't still use the "not my job to educate you" line, I just think maybe there's a better way for everyone, one that starts with not worrying so much about random people being Wrong On The Internet.

When I talk to people in real life, I am usually the person who would like to discuss some political matter of great importance in detail, while other people insist on their unjustified kneejerk opinions. It's very annoying for both sides! Which is why when I get the impression that someone's making political statements not as an invitation to debate but merely to inform people around them what they believe, I try to just register my disagreement or ignore them, saving everyone a lot of time and frustration. Please understand, it is in fact unusual to be constantly looking for arguments and debates. Leftists are not going to alienate most people by having beliefs that they're not willing to exhaustively justify at a moment's notice, for the simple reason that most people don't really think much about politics or discourse until it starts actually being immediately relevant to their lives.

Of course, I should also note that matter-of-factly stating my own beliefs as if they were obvious is in fact a relatively effective way for me to initiate an interesting debate, precisely because my beliefs are relatively unusual. It drives people to be curious how I could end up where I do, which then allows me to explain the reasoning, where if I had started from the reasoning, I would get entirely stonewalled. It is unfortunate (though I think not a coincidence) that it can be so hard to distinguish a statement meant to clearly state an opinion and a statement meant to provoke discourse, especially over the internet. Sometimes, communication is hard.

[musicalqwertypenguin]

dear mom and dad

i give you such a hard time, i know. the thing is, im hurt. i feel like you dont love me and that you're not interested in me. i feel like i always have to achieve something to be acknowledged and to be valid. i feel like im never good enough. you always tell me that i expect perfection from you, but the truth is i expect perfection from myself and i just want you to love and recognize me. i want so badly to have a relationship with you, but when i open up to you, you make me feel awkward or you just dismiss my feelings. you always make me feel like an inferior child. you call me a wise ass for always wanting to know everything, but the reason i feel the need to know everything is because i feel obligated to be an adult already. i feel like if i just don't know something one time, that you will once again not take me seriously and treat me like a stupid child. but it happens anyway. you never recognise me for how intelligent i am. you just always brush everything i have to say off because "one day i'll learn" or you just call me a wise ass. why is nothing i do ever valid to you??? im always just a stupid kid!!! and you tell me i always pretend to know better, but that's exactly what you do! you never even acknowledge my opinions as valid or try to listen to what i have to say, because "i dont know what im talking about" or i'll still learn and one day understand why you are right. but i understand why you believe what you believe, im not missing anything, i just see it differently. cant you just accept and respect that without making me feel stupid? and you're always so mean. you are impatient and expect everything to be perfect and instead of showing us how to do things to your standards you just yell at us and break down the little self esteem i had left. and why cant you just trust us without invading our privacy. you just prove to me over and over how little you think of me and how no matter what i do you'll never trust me. i just want to be able to spend time with you without constantly feeling like you dont give a shit about what i say. and everytime you threaten to take my phone away or go through my phone, you just push me further away because it just shows me how you're never even willing to talk to me about why i act a certain way or why i feel the way i do. you just see me as a stupid rebellious teenager and the only way i will pull myself together is if you threaten me with a hiding or going through my personal stuff. you don't see me as a complex intelligent individual with complex and intelligent thoughts and actions. you see me as a dumb child who acts up just because they feel like it and the only way to fix them is to give them a hiding. have you ever considered talking to me? asking me why im acting this way? asking me how i actually feel? because im actually hurt. and i dont know how to tell you that, or even how to deal with that, so instead im just angry. im angry all the time. but underneath all that anger is so much pain and hurt. why can't you see that?

ps there's nothing interesting on my phone anyways, im not wathing corn, im not talking to older men, im not sharing nudes. the only thing you'll find is an embarrassing amount of youtube videos in my yt history with most of them being leftist politics ohh and i text my friend a lot. that's it, now why can't you trust me??? have i ever done anything terrible. and you know what's ironic, you not trusting me just makes me want to do things you don't want me to do. you believe i watch corn so i might as well.

#i hate everything #even if i watch leftist media #it doesnt mean i believe everything just at face value im just like forming my own opinions because you never allowed me to think in any #and not just that #but cant you except that i am able to believe something different from you and still respect that #i strongly disagree with many of the things you believe in #but i still try to respect you #just because im still a teen doesn't mean everything i believe is invalid because #i have the ability to understand opinions and views and form what i believe in #and after all you did raise me to care a lot about human rights #so it kinda makes sense for me to find interest in left wing politics #and that's kinda on you isn't it?

[morethanonepage]

5 6 7 & 8 👀

5. Something you hate to see in smut.

Discussed here but also just to set up the answer to #6, I don't necessarily HATE it but. I do find it kind of boring when all sex ever between two characters is The Best Sex Ever Had by either of them/anyone ever in the universe. Like I understand that smut writing is about the fantasy and as much as we say we want more realism to it the actual reality of "bad" (meaning unsatisfying and/or just meh) sex is kind of a bummer to read. And I esp get that a lot of first time sex fic is about the like, JOY and excitement of finally consummating after a slow burn relationship so they kind of HAVE TO be momentously awesome. but when it's like, written as an established relationship and they fuck three times a day and each time is absolutely PERFECT i'm like. dang. all right then. not realistic stick to bondage like the rest of us etc.

Oh also I know it's a personal preference but I find a lot of dirty talk in fic to be. Too funny to take seriously. and i fully acknowledge that's a ME problem but anyway. there we are. i also think it's too funny to take seriously when i write it, fwiw

And ultimately, i can't ALWAYS tell when this is happening, but i hate the idea that some people write smut into their work bc they feel like they HAVE TO or something. but if it feels very derivative of other fic and/or just very perfunctory tab A into slot B thrusting, without any really purpose in the narrative and not as a one shot in itself making it THE WHOLE purpose of the narrative, that's what i assume is going on and it makes me sad. don't write smut if you don't want to/enjoy it! fade to black and keep it all PG if that's what you're more comfortable with. No one who matters/deserves fic from you will mind that.

6. Something you love to see in smut.

Aging userbase of tumblr dot com or whatever but I do just find it kind of charming when characters have sex that's just....ok. Like it's fine, it scratches the itch, but really it's more about the closeness that comes after or even just the intimacy in the moment (esp for characters who are NOT good at sharing feelings but ARE better at physical affection and so that's just how they let out those ~emotions). I just think that's more interesting. (like i get that doesn't really work for getting together/first time stories, but i vastly prefer established relationship fics anyway and that's where this stuff really has the chance to add a different layer to things).

in terms of things that will land me in horny jail iiiiii really like it when things get really intense and they do it people are so turned on/in the moment they don't get their clothes all the way off and/or don't get into the bedroom or on the bed in time. i don't know why, it's just hot.

(of course in line w/ what's above the aftermath of that -- aka the mess and/or bruises and/or rugburn from fucking on the floor or w/e is esp delightful to me.) 7. Something you hate to see in dialogue.

I complain about it all the time and now it's worse bc it's started to creep into pro fic too but GOD i hate it when characters sound more like their authors than what ACTUAL PEOPLE with their ACTUAL BACKGROUNDS and ESTABLISHED PERSONALITIES would sound like. The tumblr/twitter/tiktok twang will show up in the mouth of a fifty year old english sports reporter and i'll be like, fuck offfffffff, he would not sound like that.jpg

which isn't to say like. if a character is from a working class background or doesn't have a college education or isn't up to date on leftist politics and vocabulary that you have to write them as being close minded and cruel or w/e. there are WAYS to get your characters to express the "right" opinions you want them to have but also not sound like an instagram infographic. it's like anything else -- you just have to take the time to listen to the character/think through their background and imagine what they might've been through that might make them more sympathetic to XYZ or w/e, and also take the time to think about how they would express that, if they wanted/had to. It's a good exercise in characterization, even. Just -- make an effort.

8. Something you love to see in dialogue.

I like seeing characters use slang/figures of speech i'm not familiar with. That kind of really localization is great to me; I'm personally not very good at it, I always feel a little cringe writing characters saying things I would not say bc as an American from a mid-atlantic state I have literally the most basic accent & speech pattern imaginable. so I just genuinely love it when characters are written as not sounding Just Like Everybody Else. It makes them seem more real and grounded in their reality.

(also when they say sentences that aren't complete or lose their trains of thought or make grammar "mistakes" bc very few people speak perfectly at all times always. and then when they code switch bc of the situation they're put in, it's especially just *chef's kiss* for me)

#Fic Writer Asks

[anarchistettin]

if you told me I was your Enemy because I wasn't interested in voting for your guy, you were mistaken:

I'm not your enemy, liberal, I'm your target. Old enough to have watched you lie, collectively, continuously, knowingly, for forty years or more, now. First cajoled, then abandoned, then lied to, then lied about, by you, up to and including being threatened with violent death by your commander in chief.

You haven't once surprised me, in all this time. You will lie. You'll say any combination of leftist-adjacent phrases as long as they don't bind you to any particular sacrifice of your rulers' power. You won't drag anyone left. You won't spin down the war machine (you will spin it back up and you will say ra ra ra like it's a football game, you did, you are, I don't know how you can stand yourself? Unless you're all massive liars? about what you think is good and right?)

you are my enemy. I have no real power over you. You can have me killed whenever, for whatever.

Your guy said I should be kneecapped and then you threatened me to try to get me to say "yep: he's the Head Boss". Fuck you. 😂

idk how liberals are still carrying the image of the less violent team, facts aren't in support of it.

their guy vastly overfunded police in response to widespread protest, and still found it necessary to "suggest" that states spend covid money on more police. Just a diddle compared to fomenting major wars around the world. Biden, Obama, Clinton, fuckin everybody's beloved Carter: warmongers. How do you keep pretending this isn't so?

More war, more cops, more insane amounts of money forked right over to people that already have the huge cuts

??? what are you, liberal??? aren't you the most dangerous of all the idiot political fans? if we go by lives destroyed instead of offensive utterances? the numbers are not on your side in this thing.

if you hate republicans, but don't hate democrats, what's the deal? is it that you demand racism that's quieter and more effective than repubs can manage? is it that any movement toward the values you espouse reveal you for a massive hypocrite? and mass murderer?

liberals are way better at lying about their beliefs & values than their maga whipping post, but, the proof is always in the pudding. look at the outcomes. look at how the "news" representation of slain Ndn & Black people changes when it's happening under Big Joe instead of Big Don. Look at how the individual liberal's tune changes when the racist slaughters at home & the imperial ones abroad are being done in their name instead of their hated maga cousins'.

look at how fast they made heroes out of maxed-out Ukranian nazis!

look at what they work toward, look at what actually gets them working in real life. it ain't got shit to do with anything that any human being needs.

liberals are a more dire threat than magas. most magas are witless and incapable of understanding the world in material terms. liberals know what they're defending, and have the intelligence to fight for it. They don't have the "middle class" nonsense to pretend is important anymore & they can't actually be seen to be antiracist, since their rulers require racism to be in place for their power to continue.

magas will try to kill you - liberals will call the professionals to come do it for them