Political-Systems

Chris Pratt, attractive rich heterosexual white man, says he doesn't feel represented in Hollywood.

America’s favorite Average White Man has an interview with People magazine ahead of the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy.  

“I don’t see personal stories that necessarily resonate with me, because they’re not my stories,” Pratt, 37, told the magazine. “I think there’s room for me to tell mine, and probably an audience that would be hungry for them. The voice of the average, blue-collar American isn’t necessarily represented in Hollywood.”

I’m actually amused by how earnest he is.  Has he ever even been to the movies?

I’m pretty sure there’s a whole genre of movies based on average, blue-collar American white men literally saving some brown person’s country or the entire planet or whole other planets.  

I’m pretty sure there’s a whole genre of movies where average, blue-collar American white men pine after some woman who is probably too good for them and then a whole lot of stuff happens in the middle where she realizes whoever she’s with is a dick and she should be with the protagonist instead so the average guy can get the girl.

I’m pretty sure there’s a whole genre of movies where average, blue-collar American white men – who are usually from Chicago or Boston – go into a life of crime for some noble reason (or not) and we sit for 90 minutes rooting for a “hero” who is literally breaking the law in every frame and/or killing people.

Chris Pratt sounds like someone strapped him in to a chair and made him watch Moonlight for 17 days so now he forgot that Hollywood is literally founded on white mediocrity.  But wait!  There’s more:

“I really feel there’s common ground out there that’s missed because we focus on the things that separate us,” he said. “You’re either the red state or the blue state, the left or the right. Not everything is politics. And maybe that’s something I’d want to help bridge, because I don’t feel represented by either side.”

I actually do think there’s common ground out there, and the common ground is the provable fact that the vast majority of Americans are a lot less prosperous than they realize, especially in comparison to the corporations they work for where all of the money is being hoarded.  Our common ground as Americans would be redistributing the enormous wealth of this country so that we all could experience a higher standard of living.  Unfortunately, that’s not possible because the things that separate us (mostly race, class, education, and location) are effectively used by our political system to keep an Us vs Them society among average Americans.  This ensures that we don’t turn the country into a Haves vs HaveNots society where the overwhelming majority of Americans would define themselves as the HaveNots if they were thinking clearly and less concerned with how much they have in comparison to a neighbor who doesn’t look and/or think like they do.

But that’s not where Chris Pratt is.  Chris Pratt is one of those Everybody Is So Upset, Can’t We All Just Get Along? yokels who doesn’t want to deal with conflict.  He doesn’t have to deal with the day to day consequences of politics so to him, not everything is politics.  I’d love to see what kind of bridge he is planning to make with his everyman blue-collar American heterosexual movie that speaks to him and has never been done before repeatedly.  Let me know how it is.  I’ll go spend my HaveNot money on something else.

it always makes me laugh when an artist/entertainer takes a stance on a political issue and there’s an immediate influx of people telling them to stick to their art form and stay away from politics like…y’all realize that the point of a democracy is everyone getting a say regardless of their background right? like the career path someone chooses doesn’t negate their right to political input 

I think the issue w a lot of people invested in like “SJ” sorts of things is that they conceptualize ethics as *only* being abt these structural oppressions, so as long as you are acting in accordance w those precepts you literally cannot do anything unethical.

But like, you can be completely Right Politically in a situation and still be acting in a cruel, greedy, careless, vicious, or harmful way. And that doesn’t give that complete absolution.

We need to like, not mistake structural analysis w ethical formation, tho they are obviously connected

yes…. our political legal system….. which forms the basis of american politics….. has become… too political….. you’re right…………………

  • me: i love australia because it has a really diverse population, strict gun control, near-perfect separation of church and state, a relative absence of political extremism, great memes, and beautiful natural wonders
  • also me: i hate australia because the government refuses to legalise gay marriage, our political system is highly unstable and every time we replace our leader it causes mass confusion, a coal mine is currently being planned practically on top of the great barrier reef, and any refugees who attempt to come here by boat are locked up indefinitely in offshore concentration camps with a total media blackout in place so no-one knows the extent of the human rights violations that are happening there

anonymous asked:

what's happening in korea?

so much stuff dude. so..much…there’s been lots of stuff happening for the past few weeks so honestly im overwhelmed by all the info also im gonna swear a bit cuz im pissed

im not sure i can tell you the whole thing without being inaccurate but basically our shitty useless president was nothing but a marionette and the people ‘controlling’ them used up a mass amount of money that was meant for us and the people who actually need help in this good for nothing country

and a lot of the politic systems are significantly rotten so all the money we payed for things like national pension have no meaning to us?? because the fuckers used everything up for their own good that’s why

so many citizens work real hard to earn money and everyone found out it practically went to no good and we’re never going to get any benefits from it even though its our money

this. this happened yesterday. more than 1 million people came to protest this day. a lot of people are protesting(non-violently) but the police are suppressing us with violence(not all, but people on twitter say that they started using violent methods after the crowd started clearing up a bit) and the president obviously has no conscience b/c they dont seem to think about resigning hohoho

more and more corruption is getting exposed and the public is getting more and more furious

many people in korea kill themselves because its hard living in poverty in korea, and the fact that maybe all these people didnt have to if some people had just done their fucking jobs is a major piss off

If you want to learn more specific stuff i suggest you google ‘choi soon sil’ cause they’re a huge reason for this current situation (or maybe ‘korea protest’? probably)

independent.co.uk
A national strike has been called to stop Donald Trump
'These protests are too easily ignored and forgotten by those who wish to ignore and forget them,' claimed one of those backing the strike

Activists are calling for people to stop working and buying things for a day to bring down Donald Trump.

A national general strike across the US is being called for 17 February – the Friday before President’s Day – as a way of protesting the new administration.

Those behind the strike hope that they can cause enough disruption to bring about change in the political system.

4

Trump’s plan to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group is about going after American Muslims

  • Trump is expected to sign an executive order that could clamp down on mosques, Islamic charities and Muslim civil rights groups.
  • The anticipated order (CNN) would designate the Muslim Brotherhood — a transnational political Islamist group — as a foreign terrorist organization, a former senior Obama official, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of harassment by the far right, told Mic.
  • State Department officials and DHS are objecting to the designation, the New York Times reported
  • However, several Muslim-American organizations were told the order is imminent and is expected to be signed some time next week.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood, established in 1928 in Egypt, is an Islamist organization — it sees Islam as a political system — with a number of independent branches, political parties and related social initiatives.
  • The Brotherhood, as an ideological movement, has repeatedly denounced violence and encouraged civil engagement, but at times various factions have been accused of engaging in violence.
  • Robert McCaw, director of government affairs for the Council of American-Islamic Relations, said in an email that designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization is the Trump administration’s strategy to carry out McCarthyesque witch hunts on Muslim leaders and organizations within the United States. Read more (2/12/17 1:47 PM)
2

The U.S. Census director is resigning — and that could be bad news for immigrants and communities of color

  • The director of the U.S. Census Bureau, John H. Thompson, announced his resignation this week as the agency faces a funding crisis leading up to the 2020 decennial count, the Washington Post reported. 
  • His resignation will be effective June 30, the Commerce Department announced on Tuesday.
  • That means that the agency tasked with accurately counting the U.S. population so that funds can be adequately doled out to various communities will be left effectively leaderless. 
  • Officials are worried that a permanent replacement won’t be named any time soon — a reality that could have far-reaching consequences for immigrants and communities of color who are relying on a more accurate electronic system for political representation moving forward. Read more (5/10/17)

follow @the-movemnt

benjaminikuta  asked:

What effect does punching Richard Spencer have? Please cite reliable sources.

It denies fascism a platform to legitimacy. 

Transcription of an interview with Mark Bray from WNYC’s On the Media – Feb. 10, 2017

Brooke: But not just that, right? Antifa is fundamentally against the right of fascists to speak and be heard.

Mark: That’s entirely correct. So, in your open you mentioned the popular slogan that liberals have adopted from Voltaire that, “I may disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Anti-fascists fundamentally disagree with that premise. They argue that, given the horrors of Auschwitz and Treblinka, the destruction that Nazis have caused, that fascists, white supremacists shouldn’t be granted the right to express their ideas in public, in part because, they argue, had that been done earlier in the 1920s, the 1930s, we might have been able to bypass what ended up happening.

Brooke: I get that as a tactic, but I’m still not sure how the philosophy of anti-fascism squares with the liberal values of free speech and open dialogue, and I guess it doesn’t.

Mark: To some extent, it doesn’t. The question is: if we want to prevent something along the lines of what happened in the 1930s and 40s from happening again, how do we do it? And the liberal prescription for doing it is, essentially, free and open debate and dialogue, and if Nazis do something illegal then hopefully the police will stop them. Anti-fascists recognize that in the 1930s, 1940s, the police supported fascism. The fascists didn’t actually stage a revolution to come to power; they worked within the political system. And all the reasonable dialogue and debate that one could muster did not do the job. The argument is that, if we want such a horrific crime to not reoccur, it needs to be nipped in the bud.”

For Antifa, No Platform for Fascism | Abolition Journal

I can say very definitively that race is an invented political system; it is not a natural biological condition of human beings. The human species is a single race. It is not biologically divided up into distinguishable races.  - Dorothy E. Roberts (b. March 8, 1956) 

She is an internationally recognized scholar, public intellectual, and social justice advocate, she has written and lectured extensively on the interplay of gender, race, and class in legal issues and has been a leader in transforming public thinking and policy on reproductive health, child welfare and bioethics.

anonymous asked:

What's the difference between classical liberalism, modern liberalism, and neo-liberalism?

Classical liberalism involves the original values espoused by the bourgeois revolutionaries of the 18th and 19th centuries, an elevation of liberty and freedom of speech and stuff. Nine times out of ten, advocates aim for a representative political system and a market economy with “little to no government involvement” (i.e. little to no democratic economic presumptions or social welfare reforms that could help tip the scale of power towards labor and away from capital). In this way, it really is the complementary ideology of the capitalist system – an ideology that seeks out “liberty” to the extent that capital can still remain firmly in charge of society. Some people, like Noam Chomsky for instance, believe that the actual logical conclusions of classical liberalism now imply libertarian socialism, since material conditions have changed a good bit since CL’s conception. I’m skeptical of this idea – I think it’s a very capitalist framework. (This isn’t to say that I don’t think a libertarian socialist society shouldn’t champion many of this things classical liberals champion, like freedom from political tyranny and a great respect for the individual. I just think that classical liberalism stops way short of a more holistic conception of “liberty, equality, solidarity” that achieves ACTUAL human liberation, something that libertarian socialism is actually consistent on via economic democracy and the abolition of class domination.)

Modern liberalism generally implies some degree of social liberalism, which in turn is an ideology that takes many of the assumptions of classical liberalism for granted and further argues that greater equality is needed before liberty can be fully utilized. This is why modern liberals/social liberals will generally approve of welfare policies and some concessions for workers’ rights; working- and middle-class social liberals usually support these policies from a genuine perspective to bring about more equality, but upper-class liberals will support them to an extent that capital still remains firmly in charge and class stratification becomes normalized. That latter point is important – nominally about equality, social liberalism is structurally about “reforming so that you can preserve”, essentially passing bigger and better-tasting scraps down to the masses so that they feel more content with their position in life (i.e. still lacking fundamental control at work and in living arrangements, still having to foot colossal bills, but receiving nice benefits and some social prestige).

Neoliberalism is a set of policies and practices that seek out the privatization of economic utilities – a “new liberalism” that essentially just repackages the old ways of pure class domination from capitalists. Neoliberalism took form in the late-70s and early-80s under Reagan and Thatcher and others, and it was mainly a ruling-class response to the 30-year period of social liberalism after World War II. Trickle-down economics, “free trade”, job-outsourcing for cheaper labor, the War on Drugs, etc. – these are all policies that the ruling class pushed to undo any progress being made, especially after the growing revolutionary attitudes of the 1960s. By no means is neoliberalism limited to Republicans; Democrats will happily embrace it, from Bill/Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. Some say neoliberalism is on its last legs now that Trump and other proto-fascists are gaining power around the world, giving way to a new divide between populists on the left and the right (rather than the old 40-year divide between Whole Foods neoliberalism and 700 Club neoliberalism); I’m not entirely sure about this claim, but my instincts are telling me it might be the case.

Capitalism is now pushing two phenomena that will ultimately lead to its own destruction if we’re sufficiently organized: automation and global climate change. Proto-fascist right-populism can’t address these problems (since it’s merely a front for elite domination), but a socialist left-populism can. Harness the automation for human need/use rather than elite profit, put an end to the unceasing accumulation of capitalism that’s accelerating climate change. All of this taken together might mean that liberalism itself is on its way out. Only time will tell in that regard.

Hope this was informative/answered your question sufficiently!

-Daividh

I love Padmé Amidala. She’s brave, passionate, and compassionate. She’s an amazing public speaker and a crack shot who’s not afraid to put her life on the line for her ideals. She’s a literal queen who ended a centuries-old conflict between her people and the Gungans, saved her planet, and looked amazing doing it. It would be pretty easy to imagine she’s perfect, especially in comparison to her human disaster of a husband. She isn’t though and her flaws are an essential piece of her character.  They are what make her so compelling and so relatable.  So, what are they?

  • Privilege. Padmé comes from a place of incredible privilege, especially in contrast to characters like Anakin. She grew up on a prosperous Mid Rim world in a wealthy, if not aristocratic, family which owned at least two homes, one of which was a huge lake-side villa. As queen and later senator, she has power to effect the fates of billions (and more), as well as servants, bodyguards, fabulous clothes, and a private ship. This woman has benefited mightily from the GFFA’s political and economic system. In TPM she is frustrated by system’s inability to address her needs in a timely manner, but she never feels victimized or betrayed by it.  Padmé sympathizes with the plight of the oppressed, but she never really takes the time to question the structures which cause their suffering or her role within those systems. 
  • Hubris. Padmé freed her planet from invaders at age 14 and saw herself as a savior from that point on. Throughout the films and the Clone Wars series, she puts herself in danger convinced that only she (and occasionally her friends) can save that person, negotiate that treaty, right that wrong.  Sometimes she’s right and it works, but just as often someone ends up dead.
  • Rose Colored Glasses. Padmé tries so hard to see the best in everyone she often overlooks things that are actually problems.  Anakin and Palpitine are the most obvious examples, but there are several more from the Clone Wars series. She also does this with the Republic as a whole, right up until it all goes to hell.
Gender Studies/ Feminism

tumblr folks sometimes ask me to make posts about social justice related subjects and I haven’t because these subjects aren’t as popularized in korea so the proper vocab is hard to find. but now I’ve actually come across some stuff on gender in my university lectures so here you go~~ keep in mind that just because a word exists doesn’t mean the general population will always know what it means, though!

여성주의(페미니즘) feminism

성소수자 LGBT (lit. sexual minorities)

여성학 women’s studies

가부장제 patriarchy

젠더 gender (the korean 성별 refers to sex, and there is no separate word for gender, so the english is used when you must differentiate, another option is to describe them as 생물적 성 vs 사회적 성)

상호교차성 intersectionality

트렌스젠더 transgender

특권 privilege 

성역할 gender role

젠더 이분법 gender binary

섹스 긍정성 sex positivity

강간문화 rape culture

성희롱 sexual harassment

내면화된 성차별 internalized sexism

여혐 misogyny

몸에 대한 긍정 body positivity

몸에 대한 자율권 bodily autonomy

성 지향성/ 성적 지향 sexual orientation

성 정체성 gender identity

자유주의/보수주의 liberalism/conservatism

평등 (성평등, 기회편등) equality (gender equality, equal opportunity)

해방 liberation

~~특유의 경험 the unique experiences of ~~

참정권 political rights

여권 women’s rights (not to be confused with 旅券 lol)

옹호 defense (of a point/ ideology)

사회변혁 societal revolution

억압 oppression

연좌시위 sit-in protest

타파(하다) overthrow

(성)추행 molestation

인신매매 human trafficking 

성매매/공창 prostitution 

철폐 abolition

생존권 right to live

투쟁 (the) struggle (for..)

정치 세력 political power

호주제 patriarchal family system (the system in which men are the head of the household)

59.  Macron defeats Le Pen for presidency of France; 5/7/2017

“The pro-EU centrist Emmanuel Macron has won the French presidency with a decisive victory over the far-right Marine Le Pen that his supporters hailed as holding back the tide of populism.

“Macron, 39, a former economy minister who ran as a ‘neither left nor right’ independent promising to shake up the French political system, took 65.1% to Le Pen’s 34.9%, according to initial projections from early counts.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/07/emmanuel-macron-wins-french-presidency-marine-le-pen?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

6

These photos of Ilhan Omar’s swearing-in ceremony shows exactly why representation matters

  • On Tuesday, Ilhan Omar made history in the United States in more ways than one when she was sworn into the Minnesota House of Representatives.
  • She became the first female Muslim and Somali-American legislator.
  • Omar, who serves House District 60B in Minnesota, held the Quran during her swearing-in ceremony, becoming the second person to do so after Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison.
  • One photo, in particular, shows just how powerful this moment was and exactly why representation matters in the political system today. 
  • In this photo, Omar is seen standing tall — donning colorful accessories and her bright orange hijab — among a sea of white faces. 
  • This is a historic sight that doesn’t come too frequently for young women of color and Muslim Americans, especially in politics. Read more

follow @the-movemnt