When I stepped outside the bar to smoke I heard a guy say “look I’m no longer a cop” and so, ofc, I was like “you have no further affiliations with the CPD” & he said “yeah I’m all done” so I said “sounds like what an undercover agent would say”
he said “dude I’m moving to Arizona!” and I said “are you going to be a cop in Arizona?” and he said “what if I work for border patrol?” and I said “don’t do that, you actually have a chance to make up for your damage to the world”
He asked why, and so to put it politely I said “we are living under a humanitarian crisis right now, and you absolutely do not want to be a contributor to that”
I love the avg ancap dweeb has effectively no real autonomy under capitalism, and would, for all intents and purposes, be in no worse a situation vis-a-vis freedom in the USSR etc, yet they're like "I prefer fascism to communism bc at least there's economic freedom!"
It’s not even disputable—the quality of life was substantially better in the USSR & PRC than in Spain, Portugal, Chile or Argentina (I choose those because they’re longer lasting and less ‘exceptional’)
50s/60s USSR or Yugoslavia vs. 50s/60s Spain or Portugal? Easy.
Amazing how banal a realization it is, yet one so infrequently practice, that you have a better chance understanding something if you watch what it does, rather than what it says or claims to intend.
Of course, speech and declarations of intent ARE actions, but--again, a remarkably trite point, yet one which is rarely followed--they must considered in the whole context, including the means of behavior and its outcomes.
When we like a system, we claim its negative consequences are accidental, when we don't like it, we claim they are intrinsic. When we like a system, we claim its means are necessary, when we don't like it, we claim they are not.
how does ‘queer’ rationalize compulsive heterosexuality? The term was ‘appropriated’, as they call it, to critique exactly that.
Also ‘’’true’’’ sexuality lol
Also, to be clear, ‘fluidity’ and ‘plasticity’ are actually well documented empirically known things. As to whether they should be included in Queer, idk, but that sort of seems secondary to me. would they be okay with the concept if it were labelled differently?
Ruthlessly critiquing gender, patriarchy, sexuality & heteronormativity, by policing those liminal exceptions to them bc they don’t fit into down & pat ‘negations’
What's funny about this is that leftists, in my experience, (not liberals, but leftists) tend to care less about the former kind of issues, and certainly don't think the State should get involved--there are plenty of non-carceral ways to deal with a shit head homophobic baker.
And, actually, that goes to the asymmetry of these two cases: in the former case, a person is actually 'harmed' (at least in the sense of being *denied* a benefit, they would have otherwise gotten, were it not for discrimination). There's a plaintiff.
The plaintiff, then, can deny business to the store, go public with it, OR, in the heat of validly righteous anger--not that I would ever recommend this--punch that asshole straight in his lily white conservative dumbass face, or do some Keynesian stimulus with his bakery windows
Science and technology, as aesthetics, a belief in Star Trek style technological change, overwhelms science and technology as concrete socio-techno-ecological systems, in the framework of which, none of this claptrap is remotely acceptable.
UGHHHHH I was just walking around my neighborhood pouring sugar into the gas tanks of cars with Trump stickers, and I just got sugar ALL over my hands, and now they’re sticky af. wtf!!! do any of u fellow #resistance have any tips for the future? I hate this ugh 🙄
I normally do bananas but those get all mushy so I thought I would try sugar tn and it sucks !!
#resistance work is SO hard. I know I get an Open Society check for every Trump supporter car I sabotage, but sometimes it’s just a lot of work for no reason, and, as I’m sure all of you know, Soros isn’t exactly punctual when it comes to paychecks!
rn i’m dealing with a psychiatrist who passive aggressively isn’t prescribing me the medications i literally need to survive but is sending prescriptions i don’t need to the pharmacy to teach me a lesson
i literally hate MDs so much
one time i literally almost died (my entire right lung collapsed) bc an MD fronted on me, and didn’t like that I had self diagnosed myself as having a pleural effusion so they said “oh it’s only viral take some tylenol and you’ll be fine”
I’m a public defender in the Tri-State area. Whenever I find out my clients are Trump supporters, I always make sure they plea guilty, so they get the maximum sentence. If that doesn’t work I make sure that the prosecutor ‘accidentally’ receives incriminating evidence.
I always try to do my part for the #resistance I know I’m not the hero who makes sure Trump supporters get abortions, but I do my best
On weekends I volunteer for a service that helps do tax and other legal services for the underserved. If my clients are Trump supporters, I make sure they obviously misfile their taxes, so, at the very least, they get an audit, and if I’m lucky, they go to jail.
Did I ever tell you how when I was 15/16 I FOIA'd myself and got this dumb letter like "by executive order 10 something something, we cannot tell you about the existence of these records or lack thereof or the method by which we acquired them" lmao
I was like, I'm 16, I don't have a file, don't front, and just say that you dweebs
it was like when I 'wrote' Bill Clinton in, like, 1999, and they sent me this dumbass form letter and picture of him with Jiang Zemin getting off a plane together and laughing, and I wasn't even stupid enough at 7 to fall for that
It's amazing how many disputes in scholarship, political theory & praxis, and public discourse come down to the fact that some people think there can only be one thing, some think there can only be two things, & some people think there can be more.
This is on the level of form, obviously. On the level of content, there are those agree there can only be one thing, but they disagree on what that one thing is.
Alternatively, there are disputes on style or practice, rather than form or substance; the parties agree there's only one thing, agree on what that one thing is, but disagree on how much or why or how to deal with that one thing.
How did the Nazi party come to pre-eminence, and who voted to legitimate their national security law that ultimately was the proverbial straw to the camel's back? Hint: it was the progressive opposition party.
The leader of the Social Democrats took a cyanide pill to parliament the day he gave a final, defeated, broken speech on how voting can still cause real change and people will stand up to the ignoble depredations of the Nazis
But, the majority of the Social Democratic party having JUST voted in FAVOR of the Nazi security law, the response to his, in context, relatively stalwart and brave speech, was raucous, humiliating laughter from the quarters of the Nazi section of parliament.
lol it’s literally indisputably the case that civilization as a concept in normal discourse is a racist, imperialist, extractivist and xenophobic concept. literally indisputable. get the fuck over yourselves.
if you want to subscribe to an alternative concept of civilization—take Wengrow’s, for example—that’s fine, but it’s not gonna support your teleological, extractivist bullshit.