,
33 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
Honestly, anything coming from Republicans should be presumed poisonous, given what we know about their agenda, their tactics, and their intentions.
They don't want the government to work—they WANT it to fail. "Small enough to drown in a bathtub" is their line.
(It's a laugh line. I don't know what to tell you; they're creepy.)
Point being, they aren't going to put forward a bill that makes the government work better.
(It's a laugh line. I don't know what to tell you; they're creepy.)
Point being, they aren't going to put forward a bill that makes the government work better.
They don't want government bills and programs that help people who need help.
They actually consider it immoral. They consider it slavery.
(One thing they don't seem to consider slavery? Actual slavery.)
Point being, they aren't going to put forward a bill that helps people.
They actually consider it immoral. They consider it slavery.
(One thing they don't seem to consider slavery? Actual slavery.)
Point being, they aren't going to put forward a bill that helps people.
It’s important to note that this is the present state of affairs.
But it’s also important to note that this is the INTENDED state of affairs and always has been.
They think all of this is desirable and good.
But it’s also important to note that this is the INTENDED state of affairs and always has been.
They think all of this is desirable and good.
The whole point was to give everything about our shared life together—every law, every safeguard, every benefit, every investment in our present, every plan for our future—over to private concerns.
So that it could be sold for profit.
So that it could be sold for profit.
It’s not so much that the Republicans love Putin specifically as it is they’re interested in him categorically.
A buyer is a buyer.
So sure, Putin. And others. Cash is cash.
A buyer is a buyer.
So sure, Putin. And others. Cash is cash.
Easy enough for these civic vandals to get in bed with religious hypocrites whose core tenets equate wealth with righteousness, and death cultists whose cosmology amounts to a coming apocalypse from which only they survive and everyone else is rightfully tortured and destroyed.
And this is why we need to demand absolutely no bipartisanship, absolutely no cooperation, absolutely no support.
Not because those things are bad but because they’ve been proved impossible.
These things require trust, and they’ve murdered trust to pay for a yacht and a prison.
Not because those things are bad but because they’ve been proved impossible.
These things require trust, and they’ve murdered trust to pay for a yacht and a prison.
This dude isn’t conflicted about what’s happening.
He never was.
Do they have something on him? Maybe. I doubt it’s needed.
This is all he ever wanted.
He never was.
Do they have something on him? Maybe. I doubt it’s needed.
This is all he ever wanted.
It’s a matter of public record of that Republicans, including the Trump administration, know that climate change holds a threat of extinction.
They aren’t ignorant about it. They know.
It’s just that it’s fine with them.
it suits their strategy.
They aren’t ignorant about it. They know.
It’s just that it’s fine with them.
it suits their strategy.
We need to realize this ideology foundationally believes there are a few people who matter, and that the rest do not, and it would be good if those who do not would die, and if they suffer before they die, so much the better.
They intend harm. They think harm is morally good.
They intend harm. They think harm is morally good.
We mustn't intend harm, or think harm in return is a moral good in itself.
But we HAVE to understand this knowing harm is what's intended. We can't approach this as if two sides want the same thing.
They intend harm, and they'll fight to bring harm. And they'll think it's good.
But we HAVE to understand this knowing harm is what's intended. We can't approach this as if two sides want the same thing.
They intend harm, and they'll fight to bring harm. And they'll think it's good.
And we should understand why they'll think it's good.
They'll think it's good because this strategy will bring good things to people, as they see it.
Wealth for those who matter.
Suffering for those who don't.
And at the end, an apocalypse to make both permanent.
Good things.
They'll think it's good because this strategy will bring good things to people, as they see it.
Wealth for those who matter.
Suffering for those who don't.
And at the end, an apocalypse to make both permanent.
Good things.
I want to return to this thread to make another (possibly quick) point.
There's a danger when you're dealing with abusive people, systems, or ideologies, that by simply acknowledging the abuse you're writing off the abuser(s). Or creating an inappropriate division.
You're not.
There's a danger when you're dealing with abusive people, systems, or ideologies, that by simply acknowledging the abuse you're writing off the abuser(s). Or creating an inappropriate division.
You're not.
If one's spouse is an angry and violent drunk, one's spouse is engaged in behavior that is dangerous and abusive to you and others.
The abuser's behavior creates a situation.
Those abused by this situation didn't create the situation.
The abuser's behavior creates a situation.
Those abused by this situation didn't create the situation.
The abuser may not see their behavior as abusive.
The abuser may be acting out of pain of their own.
The abuser may have been taught that this behavior is correct or even good.
But it's still abuse.
And it's still a situation.
And those abused by it still didn't create it.
The abuser may be acting out of pain of their own.
The abuser may have been taught that this behavior is correct or even good.
But it's still abuse.
And it's still a situation.
And those abused by it still didn't create it.
Those abused by this behavior should seek a healthier situation. We should all want that for them.
There exists no path to a healthier situation—none—that doesn't begin with a realization that the abuser is an abuser, and that the situation is real, and that it is a problem.
There exists no path to a healthier situation—none—that doesn't begin with a realization that the abuser is an abuser, and that the situation is real, and that it is a problem.
Acknowledging a problem doesn't create the problem. It's actually the first step to solving the problem.
SOLVING the problem.
For BOTH the abused parties AND the abusive parties.
Calling abuse for what it is doesn't write off the abusive party.
It invites them into health.
SOLVING the problem.
For BOTH the abused parties AND the abusive parties.
Calling abuse for what it is doesn't write off the abusive party.
It invites them into health.
Somebody who abuses others—whether intentionally or not, whether maliciously or not—is in an unhealthy situation, and should seek health.
There exists no path to health for them—none—that doesn't begin with an acknowledgement that they are engaged in abuse, and it's a problem.
There exists no path to health for them—none—that doesn't begin with an acknowledgement that they are engaged in abuse, and it's a problem.
If an abusive person refuses the invitation into deeper truth and health, then the next healthy step for those abused by the abusive situation—the situation the abusive person is CREATING—is a boundary.
That boundary isn't writing off anyone.
That boundary is part of health.
That boundary isn't writing off anyone.
That boundary is part of health.
We have to acknowledge about Republicans, based on the clear evidence before us, based on their actions and the things they say about how they want to order the world, that their worldview is rooted in intentional harm for most people.
That acknowledgment is the start of health.
That acknowledgment is the start of health.
If we pretend otherwise that isn't health.
If we give them the benefit of the doubt for good intent, that isn't health.
That isn't health. Not for us. Not for Republicans. And certainly not for those that Republicans overtly and specifically have told us they intend to harm.
If we give them the benefit of the doubt for good intent, that isn't health.
That isn't health. Not for us. Not for Republicans. And certainly not for those that Republicans overtly and specifically have told us they intend to harm.
I am aware there's a wide spectrum of reasons why people support these things. Everything from laziness to ignorance to fear to deliberate malicious hatred.
But we have to speak the truth about what it is
It doesn't write anybody off
It invites
It's the only path to health
But we have to speak the truth about what it is
It doesn't write anybody off
It invites
It's the only path to health
And we have to be very clear that those who lead this movement know exactly what they are doing. They are motivated by very dark things. They cannot be trusted on any level. And they do intend destruction and harm.
That's the situation.
Saying so doesn't create the situation.
That's the situation.
Saying so doesn't create the situation.
So ends the thread (for now at least), later nerds
Oh wait, one other thing about boundaries:
Understand a boundary is the result of an abusive person's refusing your invitation into truth.
A boundary you make between yourself and somebody who has proven themselves abusive and (key point) unwilling to acknowledge it, is health.
Understand a boundary is the result of an abusive person's refusing your invitation into truth.
A boundary you make between yourself and somebody who has proven themselves abusive and (key point) unwilling to acknowledge it, is health.
Boundaries are often compared unfavorably with restoration.
Restoration is great. Restoration means you and your abuser have managed to find a path to coexist in healthy relationship again.
Restoration is the abusive party's responsibility.
Restoration is great. Restoration means you and your abuser have managed to find a path to coexist in healthy relationship again.
Restoration is the abusive party's responsibility.
If an person who harms others refuses to acknowledge that they're harming others, refuses to acknowledge it's a problem or that the harm is even happening, insists the situation they've created is being done to them...
Restoration is impossible then. There must be a boundary.
Restoration is impossible then. There must be a boundary.
An abusive person often points to the ideal of restoration, not as a way to actually move toward health, but to shame a person who has created the less obviously good solution of a healthy boundary, and has thereby escaped their abuse.
But a boundary is very good.
But a boundary is very good.
A healthy boundary separates people from somebody who otherwise would harm them.
Refusal to trust someone proved untrustworthy.
Refusal to engage in toxic interaction.
Sometimes even some sort of physical or legal separation.
A boundary is very good.
Abusive people hate them.
Refusal to trust someone proved untrustworthy.
Refusal to engage in toxic interaction.
Sometimes even some sort of physical or legal separation.
A boundary is very good.
Abusive people hate them.
You don't have to debate an abusive person about the boundary.
You don't have to convince them the boundary is good before you make it.
They don't get a say about the boundary.
They don't get to decide when the boundary goes up or comes down.
You don't have to convince them the boundary is good before you make it.
They don't get a say about the boundary.
They don't get to decide when the boundary goes up or comes down.
They want reconciliation without reparation.
They want a false restoration that allows them to go on as they have.
They're used to getting it.
They can't have it.
They want a false restoration that allows them to go on as they have.
They're used to getting it.
They can't have it.
OK now for real I'm out.
