Posts tagged thought fodder

Posted 1 week ago

I was an internet multiple


So in late high school and for a few years afterwards, I convinced myself I had multiple personalities and participated on the online multiple community. I strongly hesitate to say that everybody there was delusional, but I was and I was probably not alone.

As is probably often the case, I had other problems that I was afraid to name and couldn’t really understand or cope with, and was looking for something that made sense. It wasn’t a 100% retreat into fantasy; there was a grain of truth that made me choose that particular expression; I imagine there usually is. And some of what I was doing was processing my feelings in a safer way with the ability to distance myself by saying “not me”.

More detailed story under the cut. (TW for child sexual, physical and verbal abuse, gaslighting and ableism):

Read More

Posted 1 week ago


i actually think the whole model of a petition that has to reach a certain number of signatures and then ~something vague will happen!~ is really harmful

i’m not against petitions in general, honest to god i’m not. but in my understanding, apart from this model, there are basically two types of petition:

  • petitions that are judged to be successful once the thing they’re petitioning for has actually happened. example: residents petition their regional manager of post office operations not to close their tiny local post office. the petition is successful when it’s announced that the post office will not be closed, regardless of the number of signatures collected.
  • petitions that are judged to be successful once they’ve reached a certain number of signatures, but only because that will trigger something to actually happen, usually by law. example: someone wants their proposed state law or constitutional amendment (such as prop 8) to be put on the ballot for a statewide vote in california, so (after formally drafting their law and requesting a title and summary of it from the attorney general) they circulate a petition proposing it. once that petition reaches 504,760 signatures (for a normal law) or 807,615 signatures (for a constitutional amendment) it will be verified and the proposed law will appear on the ballot in the next election and have the chance to actually become law.

both of these models keep the organizers’ eyes on the prize. they know what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. they know what constitutes success and what does not. petitions complicate this. they allow organizers to avoid thinking about what their actual goal is, who they should be petitioning and why. and they provide a false goal, encouraging people to focus not on their actual end goal, but on an arbitrary number of signatures that has no guarantee of achieving anything of real value. and since that arbitrary number is high, they encourage people to put a lot of work into this false goal, to the exclusion of other efforts, without even acquiring supporters’ contact information which would be invaluable for future campaigns. then, if the signature threshold is reached, they allow people to have a false sense of accomplishment—they’ll get the feeling of success without having actually changed anything, meaning that many of them will no longer feel motivated to act on this issue.

this seems to me like one of the worst organizing endeavors one could undertake. it almost feels as though this process was specifically calculated with the aim of undermining causes by distracting organizers and supporters with a carrot on a stick. and considering that this is a service voluntarily offered by the white house—a seat of power which, whether held by democrats or republicans, is invested in protecting the status quo—that may just be the case.

Posted 1 week ago




I move that the word “advantage” take the place of “privilege” in social justice discourse.

Privilege is a loaded word and at this point it only helps to disrupt or derail discussion rather than serve it well. It doesn’t quite convey what people would like it to mean anymore.

Privilege comes across as meaning an all access pass to good times forever and that’s distracting as well as being misleading.

Advantage is a less heavy and much more flexible word. It doesn’t point to a clearly delineated concept that a group of people share across the board but any number of things that favor people’s odds in situations that when collected in an aggregate have a degree of significance.

So if you said someone had the advantage of being white/cis/hetero/able-bodied/neurotypical you’re allowing room for the idea that there are disadvantages to their life as well and more importantly that the advantage implied is not the same for all people. The nuance to the word advantage puts it well ahead of privilege in my book.

Advantage simply means that you have the edge in odds when it comes to certain aspects of your life it doesn’t guarantee total victory. Unlike privilege which never meant to but now strongly implies that one has won some sort of existential lottery.

That’s just my two cents.

I largely avoid using the term privilege anyway, but in lieu of a superior argument, I think I’m gonna take Aero up on this one.

huh, i like this. 

Posted 1 month ago



"friendly reminder" posts annoy me, but here’s one anyway:

The word “problematic” was never meant to be the auto-win card of social justice discussions. Problematic is not a synonym for bad or wrong. Problematic literally means that an issue is complicated, open to debate, and raises important questions about an issue, questions that should be analyzed, discussed, and unpacked.

So when you say something is problematic, don’t just lean back in your chair, pat yourself on the back, and call it a day. Go deeper. Get a discussion going. Analyze that shit. Hear from others and come to some tough conclusions.

Saying “we shouldn’t do X because X is problematic” is as nonsensical as saying “the weather outside is weather.”

That is a really useful insight. Not “never go here”, but “watch out, there are pitfalls.”

Posted 5 months ago





one of the greatest pixar moments; a family thats ok with you coming 2nd 

they were hiding their identities as superheros not making a statement

one of the main messages in this movie is to not settle for or celebrate mediocrity…

"#I didn’t like that moral"

No, I didn’t like that message either, because I am not a supporter of objectivism. 

oh man I’ve wanted to talk about this for a long time, so I’ll keep it sorta brief so I don’t blab: Objectivism was proposed by Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged, as the notion that not all people are equal, and those who are better than others shouldn’t be hindered by those who are inferior, like Atlas, a titan, was forced to use his strength prop up the world(humanity). The Incredibles is basically all about this, the literal superman being made to protect the people who aren’t as powerful as they are. Brad Bird is a professed admirer of Ayn Rand and quotes her often enough on twitter that I unfollowed him :B hahaha

What it boils down to(and that’s extreme, this argument is VERY complex and can’t ever be boiled down, really), is the eternal argument of true freedom vs true equality. What is more important, freedom to do whatever you need to, including stepping over others to secure your family? This is represented by Mr. Incredible and his mission, he’s the good guy. The other side is true equality, the idea that all people must be made equal and it’s your duty to help them achieve equality, this is represented by Syndrome, who’s mission is exactly that- “when everyone’ super, no one will be”. he is presented as the bad guy, and this message to be bad.

The thing is, you can swing it the other way, too. Would you oppress somebody so that they have to stay shackled to everyone else’s normality, or let them really use their talents and become supermen- like Dash in his race? Or are the regular people being oppressed, because they- let’s not kid ourselves- do not have the power/abilities of super heroes and so their lives are at the whim of gods whose choices dictate their lives, which is wrong? (supervillains vs superheroes)

Does this sound familiar? It should- it was the plot of the first season of The Legend Of Korra. Korra, and the other benders, oppressed the non-benders with their powers. Obviously, a non-bender would be no match for a bender, and the peace portrayed in the first Avatar season was pretty unrealistic. Anyway, Korra didn’t believe the non-benders were oppressed, but it was shown plainly to us.  She even does it a bit herself. Then, Amon and the equalists appeared, and began to level the playing field. Amon and the equalists are shown to be antagonists as well, but Korra doesn’t see or sympathize with the non-benders the entire season(but for one fleeting moment when a citizen shouts “your our avatar too!!”). She never gets the chance to see their side, and the whole thing is resolved with the underdogs being portrayed as the badguys. They even develop a way to take bending powers away, thus fulfilling the objectivist nightmare scenario of the proletariat being able to rob the higher beings of their powers and dragging them down to their level. Incredibles had this too when they were forced to go into hiding.

The favourite “underdog” story, wherein a “normal” person is elevated to become one of his heroes, is a staple in storytelling that everyone loves. But this isn’t some sort of anthem of the underdog, this is just another facet of objectivism going “hey! you can be like us, let me give you a fantastical view of how you can eschew your fellows to become one of the higher beings!” and all this plays into humankind’s natural desire to climb ranks and become important. 

Anyway, the point is this: this argument is unwinnable. Both sides have good sides, and both sides have bad sides. An objectivist might be a very awesome likeable person! They wanna encourage you to be your best! Or, they might be Hitler, and believe only the best people deserve the right to live. Someone who is egalitarian is awesome too! Everybody is equal and deserves the same chance! Or, they might be Stalin, and rob/steal/kill/destroy to make every single Russian into a drone. 

So it becomes your choice… think really hard about it. You might realize that “the only winning move is not to play” and that both of them must find a grey balance point between them for humankind to be happy, and that’s what we’re all searching for, all the time.

(Source: attackoncat)

Posted 9 months ago




hey look bmo

A discussion of pop culture, third wave feminism, and gender that isn’t terrible or cissexist, hooray PBSIdea channel!

this is really, really good. he switches bmo’s pronouns throughout the video and also gives a good and respectful explanation of gender

Posted 9 months ago






If you aren’t totally quaking in your boots at the news of millions of bees dead, yet again, you’re nuts.

this should be concerning a lot more people than it is

not only because bees are one of the most important animals in the world and their job is a lot more than gathering honey but also because they are what scientists refer to as an “indicator species”

this means that when their populations start dwindling and then rapidly dropping, humans need to watch their shit because that means that environmental factors are too difficult for THEM to live in, so it might be difficult for US to live in, too. bees basically act as an indication that humans have a lot to worry about and when they start dying like this it deserves a lot more than a few headlines.


Mind you the source MSN live, sources itself, and then finally a grassroots organization who’s goal is global change. So of coarse they are going to report these numbers. While things for the honey bees seems dire you must research the numbers before you point fingers.

While much of the honey bee die off has been attributed to neonicotinoids there are other combined factors that have resulted in honey bee die off such as parasites, practices of beekeepers, and some of you might have read about cell phone signals

There were honey bee die offs on a similar scale in the 1980’s and run in a cycle of around every 20 years. Meaning since commercial honey bee beekeeping began there’s been massive die offs every 20 years starting in the earliest recordings in the 1869.

If you look further into the Oregon numbers it was actually the result of spraying 50 tree to kill aphids in an area near a local mall. These were wild bee colonies, meaning not domestic, meaning not commercially pollinating the food you eat. Unfortunately, the workers who sprayed the insecticide didn’t look at this handy dandy list of poisonous insecticides for honey bees published by Purdue University’s entomology department.

The recorded loss in Canada which touts over 30 million honey bees was a single beekeepers farm of 600 hives. In Canada there are over 7,000 beekeepers with in total, 600,000 hives, which is .001% of the total domestically owned bee population in Canada. 

Another issue is that presently there are only 2.5 million beekeepers in the United States in comparison to 5 million 50 years ago. So any loss is going to be magnified just because of the limited number of beekeepers. While many people have tried to start their own backyard hives, city and state legislation has barred future beekeepers feeding the problem of less and less beekeepers in the United States.

As far as the neonic sprays go, they were actually implemented to save honey bees! That’s right. I said neonic parasite sprays were used to save honey bees. Organophosphate sprays are bad news and when they were proven to not only harm the wildlife, but cause neural damage in people, the move to neonic sprays was a must. Studies that have been used to prove neonic sprays effects on honey bees have been shown to be inaccurate and have been DEBUNKED.

So where does this leave the honey bee and us? Well, we still need to avoid insecticides for our own health. While become propagators of our own environment as well. Putting further restrictions on a declining food supply and declining honey bee population is not beneficial to either side. Personally, I want to see a honey bee sperm bank put into action, but that’s just me.

Additional Sources:

Bee-ing Smart: Regulators must Distinguish Activists’ Bad Dreams from Good Evidence  - Forbes

Neonicotinoids and Honey Bee Health - Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

American Beekeeping Federation - For Future Beekeepers


I love being friends with smart people.

Posted 10 months ago



This hit me like a ton of bricks. I’m still feeling a little nauseous after this realization.

I also put it on DA

This is a wonderful presentation. I just had to add these:







Don’t ever let anyone tell you that gender egalitarianism isn’t possible among humans, or that our species’ “natural” state is one of gender oppression.

Posted 10 months ago

Framing is magic












Framing is the thing where you change how you describe something, and it alters how people perceive it, even though it’s the same thing. Like, if you replace “10% chance of dying” with “90% chance of survival”, people treat them very differently.

So, here’s a cool one. Say I hate your culture because it is Not Mine, and therefore horrible and strange. I could eradicate it over time by simply prohibiting members of your culture from teaching their Foolish Heathen Ways to anyone else. You can have your culture, we’re not interfering or anything, but keep it to yourselves. It’s horrible for you to corrupt other people with your crap.

Would you stand for that? I bet you wouldn’t.

But framing is magic. Consider what happens if I point out how beautiful and amazing your culture is, and how it should be protected from pollution. For instance, we don’t want your culture corrupted by other people learning its ways. If they do that, it’s like they’re stealing your culture! Your beautiful, pure, culture will be lost. You must keep it for yourselves exclusively, always.

People apparently stand for this. I am mystified. The name of the game remains keeping your Strange Culture Which Isn’t Mine from being influential or changing other people. It’s about reducing the number of people who will learn those traditions or participate in them, because as soon as we are allowed to draw lines and say “it’s fine if a few people do this, but only these people, not others”, those lines are gonna get narrower and narrower until one day there’s just that one person and the news stories are all about the attempts to write down everything they remember from being a little kid. Mission fucking accomplished.

There is such a thing as misuse of cultural things, and it sucks, and it can be offensive. But never let anyone trick you into thinking that you are doing your culture any favors by trying to keep other people out. Sharing is good. Finding that someone, somewhere, has a word for what you’ve experienced is a glorious thing, and being told you can’t have a word for your experiences because you were born in the wrong place and have the wrong color of skin is not a glorious thing.

I’ve always raised an eyebrow for some of the appropriation stuff, for various reasons, but I never thought of it from a “purity” perspective. 

There is definitely a balance you have to strike between cultural identity and cultural survival. I don’t think there’s going to be a cut and dry answer. Focus purely on surviving traditions? Die. Focus purely on trying to survive at the cost of your identity as a people? Die. 

There’s got to be a happy medium out there. Something where you can open up and share with each other without losing your identity. But you’d have to ask someone else where that is. 

I actually think the answer is probably: There isn’t. Culture changes over time. We grow. We adapt. We combine things and change them, and this is okay. So insofar as my identity is tied to a particular culture… It’s gonna change, or be lost, and I am not sure how to tell those two things apart.

You know where I hear the most complaints about cultural appropriation? Video games and comic book nerds complaining about fake geek girls. Look at those not-us stealing our traditions and stuff?!? They don’t actually appreciate them correctly! If we let them use these things our culture will change!

Yeah, they’ll change. I betcha that, 50 years from now, sci fi geeks and comic book geeks and video gamers will not have a culture in which women are decoration and macguffins. The culture I grew up with will not really still exist; it will have changed into a new culture. I am fine with that. And the US is no longer as focused on one man, one woman, and two point three children as a “family”. And that’s a change, and people are outraged about it, but fuck them.

Think of it like genetics. The way you preserve your genes isn’t to carefully avoid ever mixing them with anyone else’s; that’s called being culled. The way you preserve them is you get them out there in the gene pool, mixing and matching with other genes, and hope that they convey advantages which result in the offspring who carry them doing well. And it’s true, those offspring won’t be clones of their parents, but that is okay. This is why cultural imperialism is so damn effective — it’s pushing the culture out there where everyone else can have it, whether or not they want to.

The problem (and I think a big part of the reason why people get so angry about cultural appropriation) is that the playing field is unequal. White culture is demonstrably larger than many of the other cultures it’s trying to mix with, and it’s backed by economic and social advantages they don’t have. We still have a lot of imperialistic practices that rig the game so that instead of cute little dragonflies flying around mixing our genes together, white culture is more like a bed bug, traumatically injecting its cultural genes where they don’t belong. And taking anything that looks shiny and turning it into an out of context fashion accessory, which isn’t really bedbug behavior but I’m still waking up so that metaphor kind of got away from me. XD;

Oh, there’s definitely problems there. But the proposed alternative, that if something might be at risk of turning into an out-of-context fashion accessory, it’s better to do our absolute best to make sure it turns into nothing but a footnote in anthropology texts, is not an improvement.

So you end up with people who want to level the playing field somewhat by giving their culture some protection, so it’s harder to wreck or steal it. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this (or if there is something wrong with it, I don’t think it’s the place of people who don’t belong to that culture in any way to decide when they’ve gone too far.)

“Wrong” is not the relevant criterion, though. Mostly, I just think it’s depressing that people are so easily suckered into doing something that they would be absolutely unwilling to tolerate anyone else doing to them.

But there is a thing that’s wrong, and that’s the thing where people start coming down on other people for adopting a thing which has meaning or value to them. That’s a problem, because it’s abusive. It is not my place to tell people who want to come to comic conventions that they don’t value the comics enough, or in the right way, to participate. If someone who’s not otherwise a part of my religion wants to just yank one little bit of it and use it, even use it poorly, well. I might not like it, but it’s not my place to tell them they can’t, because I don’t have exclusive ownership of the cultures I participate in.

Part of the nature of communication is that, if you communicate stuff, people are allowed to receive that communication. If you tell people that you believe a thing, and they say “wow, I never thought of it that way, but that is so obviously true”, you don’t get to say “well, you’re not allowed to believe it.”

And other people are allowed to share something even if you don’t personally feel like it. I have the right to choose not to share my obsessive love of comics with someone. Heck, it’d be stupid, but I have the right to refuse to do so simply because I don’t like girls. But I don’t get to tell other people they can’t choose to share their love of comics with girls, and I don’t get to tell girls they can’t really love comics.

Same thing applies. My Buddhist friends are welcome to decide whether or not they want to talk to me about Buddhism. They don’t have the authority to tell me I can’t decide I want to learn more about it, or to tell other Buddhists not to talk to me. And if they don’t like my use of Buddhist imagery or terms to refer to things, they can argue with me about it, but that’s as far as it goes; they don’t have the authority to tell me I’m not allowed. (Not that they would. They are all enthused about my plans to use a bodhisattva in a story.)

I agree in theory, but this still ignores the gross inequalities that occur in real life.

I’m not ignoring them. But they don’t change things.

The issue here isn’t that non-white cultures are choosing not to share (in nearly all cases I’ve heard about where white people approach other cultures with a sincere and respectful desire to learn, other cultures have no problem with sharing) it’s that white people are barging in and taking things with no regard for what they might mean to the original culture.

See, that’s a rude thing. But this is tumblr, where any vague approximation of a good heuristic turns into an absolute, ironclad, rule.

The thing is, it’s not that people have a problem with sharing their own cultures. It’s that random bystanders jump in and accuse someone of “cultural appropriation” any time they use words, phrases, clothing, or anything else associated with… well, that gets complicated. But it’s used very aggressively even in cases where there is no indication whatsoever that the victim did not learn something sincerely and respectfully.

It’s like the difference between baking cookies for the entire neighborhood versus someone walking into your house uninvited and taking a cookie. You might even have been happy to share with them if they’d asked, but they didn’t, and when you try to tell them that you’re upset they just shrug and say that it’s only one cookie, and they liked how it tasted, so what’s the big deal?

That’s not quite a fair analogy, though, because in that case, you lose the cookie that someone took. I don’t dispute that lack of respect is a problem, but I am not sure it rises to the level of a problem that makes it okay to push other people around, either.

It’s not so much a matter of authority as respect. When white people (or other imperialistic cultures, of which we are only one of several) erase or appropriate other cultures, we’re showing a lack of basic respect for their beliefs and traditions.

Right. But not all adoption of things that come from other cultures is done without any respect. And tumblr is full of people who assert with absolutely no limitations or qualifications that anyone white who uses anything from another culture is always guilty of “appropriation”. And that it is by definition a lack of respect.

Those cultures have, as you said, no authority to make us stop, so instead they rely on social tools such as shaming and ostracization. The downside to this approach is that innocent people who just wanted to learn something new may now be denied access (now nobody in the neighborhood gets cookies, for example) but the injured culture was just trying to protect itself.

Which is where it’s useful to point out that it’s hurting innocent people, and does not actually protect the injured culture. It’s not just that it does harm; it’s that it does not actually have the intended benefit.

Like you said this isn’t a perfect solution, since if a given culture closes itself off too tightly it’ll die out (though this would vary depending on how large that culture was in the first place) but I don’t think the fault here lies with them, since closing themselves off was a reaction to somebody else’s harmful action.

If your reaction to somebody else’s harmful action doesn’t actually help you, and also hurts other people, then that is a fault. It is not “the” fault, but there’s no such thing as “the” fault. “Other people are at fault” and “I am at fault” are not mutually-exclusive claims. The point is, the “no one else is allowed to adopt this, only these people can ever use it” thing is not merely harmful to others; it’s ultimately even more harmful to the people being “protected” by it. The question isn’t just whether they are justified, or whether someone else caused them to do it, but whether it will actually benefit them in any way.

I’m not so much making a moral argument here as a pragmatic one. If the goal is to defend a culture, yelling at anyone and everyone who adopts any of that culture’s teachings or practices for “appropriation” is absolutely not going to attain that goal.

Okay, but this argument doesn’t work as a pragmatic solution either because people are still being hurt.

I didn’t say it was a solution to the problem. I’m just pointing out that the thing all the tumblr “social justice” people are doing isn’t preventing people from being hurt. It’s hurting even more people, but it’s not making things better. It’s not even a tradeoff. It’s not that it’s making things better, but some people get hurt. It’s just hurting people.

I’m not suggesting that, if they stopped doing it, the original harm would go away; just that it wouldn’t be being compounded by even more harm.

Culturally significant items are being used as fashion accessories and traditions are being forgotten, while the people who actually know how to use those items and traditions properly are targeted by racists.

Yes. But the thing is… It’s happening worse/more/faster in communities where the “white people can’t ever use this” meme has gotten a foothold. Because, well. The people who are trying to learn how to use those items and traditions properly are, in fact, being targeted by racists.

Non-white cultures lose either way, but they’re still losing more than us because at the end of the day, we’re still going to have our culture and the things our ancestors stole. They stand a chance of losing everything that was theirs.

Yes. I do not deny that this is the case. I do not deny that it sucks. I merely deny that making it worse makes it better.

True pragmatism would be cutting off access in the short term, so they can consolidate their position as the keepers of their particular strain of cultural traditions, and then start gradually letting people back in.

It is always a dangerous sign to identify one particular thing as “true” pragmatism. Especially when it’s a thing which hasn’t been shown to be workable. And frankly, it isn’t possible — there’s no way to “cut off access” that would actually work. The world is too connected. So even if it would work if it could be done, it’s irrelevant because it can’t be done.

Furthermore, humans being humans… There’s no “in the short term”. We’re back to Martin Luther King’s most excellent point about how it’s always in the future that things are supposed to improve. You can’t pick a clearly defined point at which the “right” people are adequately consolidated as the keepers of a set of cultural traditions, and then it’s okay to start let people back in. I mean, even if you could, that time would always be after just a little longer, because once people have power, they do not generally willingly let it go. And even if they were willing to let go of that power, you can’t “gradually” let people have access to culture. If it’s out there, it may spread unexpectedly quickly or slowly. You can’t control all the people.

So that’s not “true pragmatism”, or even pragmatism at all, because it’s not a thing which can be done, and it’s not at all obvious that it would have the desired effects even if it were possible.

Simply reminding people to be respectful doesn’t work because a sizable, vocal group has established that it doesn’t care about that.

It doesn’t “work”, but then, nothing “works” in the sense of meeting all the goals that are basically reasonable.

Yes, there’s also a very loud, disrespectful group working in the other direction as well, but who is actually doing more damage here?

“Who is doing more damage” is not a useful question unless you have the power to unilaterally force them to stop. Unless you have that kind of power, the only question that matters is “are my actions doing damage?”

The dogmatic rule that only people with a given genetic background can use a given word or phrase is doing damage. It will never stop doing damage. It is a direct and effective advancement of the goals of the people who want the marginalized cultures eradicated. That it is being done out of presumably good intent to try to protect or preseve doesn’t change the effects it has; it has the effect of further-marginalizing and shrinking the things it supposedly wants to protect.

The only time that “X doesn’t work, we have to do Y” is a useful argument is if Y works. The dogmatic “no X can ever use this word” rule doesn’t work. It doesn’t even work a little; it actively undermines the goal it’s nominally intended to serve.

I am all for trying to find a solution, but the fact is, if someone’s badly burned, even if I don’t have any burn ointment handy, I am at least going to start by pointing out that setting them on fire more isn’t going to help.

Well, this post blew pretty much all of my arguments out of the water. I think I need to do some more thinking and reading before I can come up with any new suggestions, since…yeah, you’re right. Dogmatic rules aren’t going to cut it, regardless of the intention in making them.

Damn, people are complicated.

I was… not expecting that.

I should point out, I think you made some points I need to think on more too. I mean, there really is a problem with people grabbing things, and in particular, with grabbing them and repurposing them. But I don’t think any of the stuff that’s being done right now is actually helping.

Someone told me that some tribal group, sick of hipster chicks adopting war bonnets without any thought of what they meant, started selling t-shirts of hipster chicks in war bonnets. I think that is somehow the first step towards a more effective solution.

Posted 10 months ago



Let’s go back to 1945…

Let’s not… Let’s play a game called “Context Matters!”
That picture on the left, so iconic and romantic?  Yeah, that’s a sexual assault right there.  That man was a stranger, a strong stranger who grabbed a random woman on the street, and “kissed” her.  In her words:

Suddenly, I was grabbed by a sailor. It wasn’t that much of a kiss… “I felt that he was very strong. He was just holding me tight. I’m not sure about the kiss…it was just somebody celebrating. It wasn’t a romantic event.

That picture on the right, the one that looks like a man holding a woman down in the mists of a riot, her clothes disheveled as he kissed her hard?  That man is her boyfriend.  He’s comforting her.  Her real attackers are the police.  An eyewitness stated:

The girl who was knocked over landed head first on the pavement with her boyfriend landing partially on top of her. She was in visible pain, crying, but the two officers gave them a parting shove and moved on.

The left picture: an icon of sexism, male privilege, and female objectification.
The right: real love in the face of brutal state force.

Fuck 1945




Let’s go back to 1945…

Let’s not… Let’s play a game called “Context Matters!”

That picture on the left, so iconic and romantic?  Yeah, that’s a sexual assault right there.  That man was a stranger, a strong stranger who grabbed a random woman on the street, and “kissed” her.  In her words:

Suddenly, I was grabbed by a sailor. It wasn’t that much of a kiss… “I felt that he was very strong. He was just holding me tight. I’m not sure about the kiss…it was just somebody celebrating. It wasn’t a romantic event.

That picture on the right, the one that looks like a man holding a woman down in the mists of a riot, her clothes disheveled as he kissed her hard?  That man is her boyfriend.  He’s comforting her.  Her real attackers are the police.  An eyewitness stated:

The girl who was knocked over landed head first on the pavement with her boyfriend landing partially on top of her. She was in visible pain, crying, but the two officers gave them a parting shove and moved on.

The left picture: an icon of sexism, male privilege, and female objectification.

The right: real love in the face of brutal state force.

Fuck 1945