ivorymorning reblogged
They are not just numbers that are meant to shock you when you hear the large amount of them. They are human beings with lives and they deserve to be remembered as such. Inna lilahi wa inna ilayhi raji'oun.
Source: x.com
ivorymorning reblogged
Anonymous asked:
Care to talk about how anti-LGBT Palestinians are? Everyone seems to be just glossing over that fact
Yes GLADLY because I absolutely hate how often pro-Israel ppl use pinkwashing (please read that link if you don't know what pinkwashing is and how Israel has constantly used it as part of its global image agenda) to justify genocide and war crimes. I'll let you guys read that article because it does more justice to explaining this than I can.
First, it's really dumb to expect colonized nations to develop socially. Palestine was occupied by the British and then by the Israelis. Now here's something most people actually gloss over: anti-sodomy laws and anti-homosexuality laws were put into place in Gaza by the British Mandate Criminal Code Ordinance, No. 74 of 1936. Which still remains in effect to this day.
Same-sex acts were actually decriminalized in Jordanian-controlled West Bank in the early 1950s and are still upheld to this day.
Palestine itself has no legislation either for or against homosexuality.
What we SHOULD talk about is how imperialist states (mostly the US and UK) have notoriously supported and propped up Right-Wing regimes in the Islamic world to combat communist ideology. The US, UK, SB, IL have all backed right wing movements like the Muslim Brotherhood (which then became Hamas) just to thwart leftist movements like the PLO who are pro-communist elements of the Islamic world.
Maybe stop colonizing and bombing these countries so they can socially develop. I’m begging you to read Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs so you stop making stupid arguments like this.
Also idk why people have to keep saying this, but just because a country doesn't have legislation to protect the LGBTQ community, doesn't mean they deserve to be genocided. JFC
Also so funny how it's mostly Americans asking why a country with questionable politics should live. Should the United States be severely bombed and have half of its population displaced because 417 anti-LGBT bills have been introduced this year alone?
Can we talk about how anti-LGBT Americans are? Everyone just seems to be glossing over that fact.
ivorymorning reblogged
The Palestinian Ministry of Health released a full report with names, ages and IDs of those who were killed – maybe at least in part as a fuck you to Western media and the US president who suddenly cast doubt on the number of fatalities. Over 7000 people died. Whole families wiped out forever. It's beyond comprehension. May their memory be eternal.
ivorymorning reblogged
Altogether, I really like the way americans say "can I help you?" as a polite general one-size-fits-all stand-in for "who the fuck are you/what the fuck are you doing here/how the fuck did you get in here/what the fuck are you staring at/what is your fucking problem." Such a polite way of going "bitch what the fuck."
Oh you're gonna love the things people do with friendly language in the South.
ivorymorning reblogged
the fact that Al-Shifa Hospital is a hospital, and tens of thousands of refugees are sheltering there, is more than enough reason to be horrified by the occupation's stated intent to bomb it. but I think it's also worth mentioning that Al-Shifa is Gaza's communications hub right now. the hospital has a solar roof, so it's the only place in Gaza with (limited) electricity, and every journalist goes there to charge their equipment and write/edit/post content (Hind Khoudary talked about this). every photo or video you see from inside Gaza comes from a journalist operating out of Al-Shifa. the occupation knows that when they drop bombs near Al-Shifa, as they have been daily, they have a higher chance of assassinating a journalist
(Nov 3) they just bombed the main gate of Al-Shifa Hospital as a group of ambulances prepared to bring injured patients to the Rafah crossing, killing at least 15 people, including the journalist Haitham Hararah
ivorymorning reblogged
Left vague on purpose. Some songs definitely overlap categories (e.x.: Fairytale of New York could be both Offbeat as well as a New Standard) so just pick whichever one you think describes your general preference the best.
ivorymorning reblogged
i wish people didn't make it seem like your options for medically transitioning as a nb/gq person are "do nothing" or "the binary opposite of whatever you started with"
#genuinely curious though: what are your other options?#there is no androgynizing hormone#it is just T or E#if you're talking about surgeries you are correct though
There is no "third hormone" but there are ways of going on HRT that are not the typical binary way.
Microdosing, for one, as well as going on HRT for a certain amount of time before stopping, which can leave you with certain effects but not others, or effects to a lesser degree. There's also a certain class of medications (SERMs I believe?) which are popular with NB/GQs who have a naturally T-dominant body, because they block some of the effects of estrogen like breast growth (there may be something similar with testosterone but if there is I can't remember it).
You can take e without taking t blockers. You can use monoxidil for hair growth and not take t. You can take t and finasteride (which blocks dht and so prevents things like bottom growth and baldness). You can maybe use t cream (cream! not gel) applied locally to get bottom growth but less of the other effects of t. You can take t and get laser hair removal on your face if you dont like facial hair. You can get top surgery without taking t at all. You can get electrolysis and not do feminizing hrt at all.
ivorymorning reblogged
Anonymous asked:
Hi, this is very ignorant. I'm trying to read as much as I can on Palestine and Zionism but there is one point I cannot find an answer for. Given that Zionism is not Judaism, given that at the beginning most Jewish people did not share this view and was actually supported by christians with antisemitic views, given that it was conceptualized as a colonial project that could only be actualized by ethnically cleanse Palestine, one thing I don't know how to disagree with Zionists is the idea that Jewish people do come from that land. Even if European jews are probably not genetically related to the Jewish people from there, I think Jewishness is something that can be constructed as related to that land. This of course does not mean that Palestinians are not natives too and they have every right to their land. However I don't really know how to answer when Jewish (Zionists) tell me that Jewish people fled that land during the diaspora. Other than "yeah but the people that stayed are native that underwent christianization before, arabization later, grew a sense of nationhood in the 19th century and are Palestinians now"
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what "indigeneity" is to believe that it means "whoever has the oldest claim to the land." Rather, to describe a people as "indigenous" is a reference to their current relationship to the government and to the land—namely that they have been or are being dispossessed from that land in favour of other private owners (settlers); they have a separate, inferior status to settlers according to the law, explicitly; they are shut out of institutions created by the settler state, explicitly; they are targeted implicitly by the laws of the settler state (e.g. Israeli prohibitions against harvesting wild thyme or using donkeys or horses for transportation); the settler state does not punish violence against them; &c. &c.
It is a settler-colonialist state that creates indigeneity; without one, it is perfectly possible for immigrants to move to and live in a new location without becoming settlers, with the superior cultural and legal status and suppression of a legally inferior population that that entails.
If all that were going on were some Jewish people feeling a personal or religious connexion to this land and wanting to move there, accepting the existing people and culture and living with them, not expelling and killing local populations and creating a settler-colonialist state that privileges them at the expense of extant populations, that would be a completely different situation. But any assertion of the land's fundamental Jewish-ness (really they mean white or European Jewishness—the Jewish Arabs who were already in Palestine never seem to figure in these arguments) is a canard that distracts from the fundamental issue, which is a people's right to resist dispossession, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
Decolonize Palestine lays out some of the ethnic and cultural history of the region, but follows it up with:
So, what does this all mean for Palestine? Absolutely nothing. Although the argument has many ahistorical assumptions and claims, it is not these which form its greatest weakness. The whole argument is a trap. The basic implication of this line of argumentation is as follows: If the Jewish people were in Palestine before the Arabs, then the land belongs to them. Therefore, the creation of Israel would be justified. From my experience, whenever this argument is used, the automatic response of Palestinians is to say that their ancestors were there first. These ancestors being the Canaanites. The idea that Palestinians are the descendants of only one particular group in a region with mass migrations and dozens of different empires and peoples is not only ahistorical, but this line of thought indirectly legitimizes the original argument they are fighting against. This is because it implies that the only reason Israel’s creation is unjustified is because their Palestinian ancestors were there first. It implies that the problem with the argument lies in the details, not that the argument as a whole is absolute nonsense and shouldn’t even be entertained. The ethnic cleansing, massacres and colonialism needed to establish Israel can never be justified, regardless of who was there first. It’s a moot point. Even if we follow the argument that Palestinians have only been there for 1300 years, does this suddenly legitimize the expulsion of hundreds of thousands? Of course not. There is no possible scenario where it is excusable to ethnically cleanse a people and colonize their lands. Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years. If we reject the “we were there first” argument, and not treat it as a legitimizing factor for Israel’s creation, then we can focus on the real history, without any ideological agendas. We could trace how our pasts intersected throughout the centuries. After all, there is indeed Jewish history in Palestine. This history forms a part of the Palestinian past and heritage, just like every other group, kingdom or empire that settled there does. We must stop viewing Palestinian and Jewish histories as competing, mutually exclusive entities, because for most of history they have not been. These positions can be maintained while simultaneously rejecting Zionism and its colonialism. After all, this ideologically driven impulse to imagine our ancestors as some closed, well defined, unchanging homogenous group having exclusive ownership over lands corresponding to modern day borders has nothing to do with the actual history of the area, and everything to do with modern notions of ethnic nationalism and colonialism.
I would also be careful about mentioning a sense of "nationhood" or "national identity" in this context, as it could seem to imply that people need a "national" identity (a very specific and very new idea) in order not to deserve genocide. Actually the idea that Palestinians lacked a national identity (of the kind that developed in 19th-century Europe) is commonly used to justify Zionism. Again from Decolonize Palestine:
This slogan ["A land without a people for a people without a land"] persists to this day because it was never meant to be literal, but colonial and ideological. This phrase is yet another formulation of the concept of Terra Nullius meaning “nobody’s land”. In one form or the other, this concept played a significant role in legitimizing the erasure of the native population in virtually every settler colony, and laying down the ‘legal’ and ‘moral’ basis for seizing native land. According to this principle, any lands not managed in a ‘modern’ fashion were considered empty by the colonists, and therefore up for grabs. Essentially, yes there are people there but no people that mattered or were worth considering. There is no doubt that Zionism is a settler colonial movement intent on replacing the natives. As a matter of fact, this was a point of pride for the early Zionists, as they saw the inhabitants of the land as backwards and barbaric, and that a positive aspect of Zionism would be the establishment of a modern nation state there to act as a bulwark against these ‘regressive’ forces in the east [You can read more about this here]. A characteristic feature of early Zionist political discourse is pretending that Palestinians exist only as individuals or sometimes communities, but never as constituting a people or a nation. This was accompanied by the typical arrogance and condescension towards the natives seen in virtually every settler colonial movement. That the early settlers interacted with the natives while simultaneously claiming the land was empty was not seen as contradictory to them. According to these colonists, even if some scattered, disorganized people did exist, they were not worthy of the land they inhabited. They were unable to transform the land into a modern functioning nation state, extract resources efficiently and contribute to ‘civilization’ through the free market, unlike the settlers. Patrick Wolfe’s scholarship on Australia illustrates this dynamic and how it was exploited to establish the settler colony.
ivorymorning reblogged
You mean like slavery?
Image Description.
Facebook post from Matt Norris.
Post reads like a conversation between 2 people:
Prison labor is a problem we need to address soon.
Convicts in prison should have to work like the rest of us.
No, we’re giving them 3 meals and a bed, at our expense, while they just sit around and watch TV. They should have to work!
Right. Like slavery.
It’s not like slavery!
Can they leave?
No.
Can they refuse work?
No.
So how exactly isn’t this slavery?
We DO pay them!
Do we pay in accordance with labor laws?
No. We pay them between 33 cents and $1.41/hour with a maximum daily wage below $5, then take up to half of that as room&board fees and victim compensation.
Right. So like slavery.
BUT.
No.
Image then links to this url.
Below URL image reads “fun bonus fact: enough of our labor market currently relies on labor at these depressed rates, that it has a substantial downward pressure on both wages and job availability in low-skilled sectors. Immigrants aren’t taking your jobs. Slavery is.
End description.
I’d also like to add it’s not just private prisons. It’s also private detention centers where ICE keeps the immigrants.
-fae
The constitution even acknowledges that it’s still slavery
a hefty chunk of items with that ‘made in america’ sticker are in fact made by prison labor at the very least anything that is a product of prison labor should be required to have a similar sticker to inform consumers they are taking part of this system, which is difficult to track because prison made manufactured goods include almost the entire uniform of a US soldier, road construction in most southern states, and agricultural goods sold in most stores
this…. looks familliar
Prison is just covert slavery and that’s why they wanna keep so many black people in there for the smallest offences.
This is insane
(Just to clarify, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just giving you more information because you’re right, and I like your blog, and I want you to have sources in case you need them.)
It’s not even covert. It’s blatant and overt. It’s even called slavery in the constitution.
“Slavery is illegal except as punishment for a crime.”
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
People just don’t care because they think it’s all murderers and rapists, despite the fact that the number of violent criminals in jail is so small it might as well be negligible.
As of September 30, 2009 in federal prisons, 7.9% of sentenced prisoners were incarcerated for violent crimes,[39] while at year end 2008 of sentenced prisoners in state prisons, 52.4% had been jailed for violent crimes.[39] In 2002 (latest available data by type of offense), 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails were in prison for violent crimes. Among unconvicted inmates in jails in 2002, 34% had a violent offense as the most serious charge. 41% percent of convicted and unconvicted jail inmates in 2002 had a current or prior violent offense; 46% were nonviolent recidivists.[46]
It’s literally slavery, just dumbass racists and capitalists don’t care enough to figure out why we’re calling it that.
-fae
Actually, no, I got something to add and it’s this video by Knowing Better on Youtube:
Slavery is baked into the US American system so much more firmly than anyone ever really acknowledges.
There’s a very good and very hard-hitting documentary about it on Netflix
Also… even if someone has committed a violent crime, enslaving them is… ya know… still a fucked up thing to do? How is that even in question?
The whole discourse of “well they’re not even all violent offenders” has this weird undertone of ‘if they’re good people they shouldn’t have to be slaves’ that horrifies me. Even if 100% of them were violent, Slavery. Is. Wrong. All humans have rights.
ivorymorning reblogged
THE LOVE WITCH 2016, dir. Anna Biller
ivorymorning reblogged
One of the things I resent most about being Animal Brain Apex Predator trapped in Maximum Productivity Society is that I have to work when the weather is gross, instead of following my natural instinct to burrow myself into something dry and soft and sleep until Optimal Foraging Conditions
It is dark and cold and wet and miserable and I have a warm dark quiet hideaway full of food and drinking water that is safe from interlopers and for some ungodly reason instead of holing up there to conserve my energy, I am standing up in a brightly lit beige room for several hours. A possum wouldn't put up with this shit. I'm going to bite someone
ivorymorning reblogged
All hail Volcano Snail
ivorymorning reblogged
Free Palestine.
Free Congo.
Free Sudan.
Free Armenia.
Free Hawaii.
Free Tigray.
as i’ve seen someone state online today & i agree:
“liberation for one, means liberation for all”
ivorymorning reblogged
ivorymorning reblogged
the US fucking sucks like it's not a good place at all. shit country
ivorymorning reblogged
Do they want that list in alphabetical, chronological, or body count order?