demonisation of the poor

anonymous asked:

Hi, what is you take on ethical fashion?xx

I have a lot of thoughts about this, so bear with me.

Firstly, I believe that where it’s possible, we should make ethical choices. However, this comes with a lot of exclusions and exceptions, not because we should make unethical choices, but because many people cannot help but make unethical choices.

Unethical fashion is a product of a capitalist society, and similarly, the people who are able to afford ethical choices - paying $70 for a T-shirt - are also beneficiaries of this capitalist system. It’s not that they’re divesting themselves of the luxuries that allow them to live comfortably, it’s just that they can afford to spend more. I’m glad that it’s not exploitative or wasteful - but it’s really only possible if you have that kind of disposable income, and if you do, it means you’re benefiting from the system anyway. And it’s important to recognise that you’re one of the very few who can do that and not preach it to the many who cannot and who should not be made to feel guilty for not being able to afford the luxuries that you can.

Poor people are stuck in a cycle of being poor without any outlet really - not everyone can afford Reformation. They have to buy cheaper clothes, and cheaper clothes fall apart more quickly, so they have to buy more clothes… and so the cycle keeps going. This cannot be changed by a few individuals. The entire system needs to be dismantled - a system that keeps poor people always stuck in this cycle. People who cannot afford stores like Reformation - the poor and middle-class - should not be demonised or condescended to simply because they cannot afford the choices that rich people can afford and make a show of.

Finally, poor people have the right to dress well and look as good as they want. They should have the choice. There is already so little choice for people who can’t afford ethical fashion. It’s unfair to expect them to pay for clothes they can’t afford and limit the choices further. (There’s also the bit where clothes with “ethical fashion” are usually from small boutiques, frequently online but in any case not easy to come across - and this renders them very inaccessible, especially once shipping prices etc are applied.)

Basically, it’s great to make ethical choices if you can afford to do that, but be aware that an individual cannot make a huge ethical revolution occur without dismantling the entire system - these changes can’t happen overnight. It’s simplistic to pretend they can, and while it’s important to make sure that factory workers aren’t relentlessly exploited, it cannot be done by taking down H&M. The problem is much bigger than one store. Instead, laws must be put in place, and there needs to be a solution where people are not taken advantage of on either side of fashion consumption - the labour and the consumer. Furthermore, people who can’t afford ethical clothing should not be preached and condescended to. Ethical fashion correlates directly with your personal privilege.

Scott Morrison says sewage will be tested to find areas of high drug use for welfare trial, thus proving Liberal policy is full of shit.

“We’ll be testing sewage to find places to target people on Newstart and Youth Allowance,” explained Morrison. “Middle aged meth users with full time jobs will be left alone. It’s the poor we’re after.”

When asked if this was just another attempt to demonise the poor he responded with “it’s not just another attempt! Don’t be so dismissive! First off: we’re not just rehashing the same old crap here in the LNP and number two: I thought it was a great idea! As Malcolm Turnbull said: we need an ideas boom. So we dug deep to see what we could find in our minds and asked ourselves “what’s there? What have we got?””

“A pile of shit,” replied a journalist.

“You mean a drug laced pile of shit” he said, tapping his head proudly.

anonymous asked:

Why do you think Corbyn is so popular between young people?

It’s essentially because he subscribes to the same identity politics and far-Leftist thinking that’s popular right now. (Shout-out to his “There’s sexual assault on trains? Gender segregate!” and “After-work drinks parties are sexist because women have to go home to see their children, because they’re all mothers, but men don’t because they don’t care – here, enjoy this after-work drinks party!” idiocy.)

The thing is, and I’m speaking from experience, the young tend to have a very black-and-white view when it comes to economics. So when a Leftist politician says, “Hey! The poor are getting screwed over, so make the rich pay for it!” that sounds like a plan, especially if you’re poor or even just idealistic. I know that, I’ve been there. 

Basic politics 101: the Left demonises the rich and businesses and the Right demonises the poor and those on whatever your country’s equivalent of welfare is. The truth is that there has to be a reasonable balance between the two. The poorest and needy need help, but those who are successful shouldn’t be penalised for doing well. It’s really tough, life isn’t fair, but that’s unfortunately just the way that it is and there are no easy answers. 

The problem with those Leftist politicians that peddle the “I care about the poor, vote for me and I’ll help unlike those greedy, selfish fatcats” is that a huge amount of them are massively hypocritical.

I mean, just look at Bernie “The rich don’t need all those yachts, but please don’t notice that I have three homes” Sanders, or Jeremy “My £137k salary doesn’t make me wealthy” Corbyn.

Everyone with any sense at all can look at them and go, “Hey, if you care about the poorest, why don’t you just keep a salary that allows you to live comfortably, but then give the rest to charity?” but defenders have to twist and turn to ignore the facts. Sanders’ fans manage to say, with a straight face, “Sanders is in the top 4% wealthiest Americans – but at least he’s not in the 1%!” and Corbyn’s fans ignore that the average salary in the UK is around £27/8k, over £100k less than their glorious leader.

It’s basically oversimplification and enemy-creation. Plus, in today’s world, the twisted idea of “social justice” means more demonisation and an excuse to feel as angry as possible.

Sometimes, these people say the “right” things, the things that the young today want to hear. Obviously I’m massively generalising, but for those that want to be angry and feel victimised and hate others over thinking rationally and being fair? The extreme simplicity and hate-mongering of the Left creeping even further Left is “right” for them.

And then when those members of the young wake up and realise how wrong they are, they’re going to feel extremely foolish and even more guilty.

shitty cursed child review

I’m jet lagged and I can’t sleep so here’s my very eloquent review of certain points of the cursed child. keep in mind that i didn’t get past page 200 of the book so not everything is in here. also if you liked the cursed child id advise you not to read this or you’ll end up hating me 

plot: it was absolutely like crackfic. It made no sense and it was rushed and felt ridiculous. It was just bringing back dead characters to life one after the other and it wouldn’t stop. also, plot hole after another 

trolley lady: wtf I was cackling out loud what was even that scene like no give me sweet and innocent trolley lady not a trolley lady who becomes a clawed monster who throws explosive sweets at children while running after them on the the Hogwarts express roof 

scorbus: give me more and make it gay 

snape: idealisation of snape fuk no 


ron:  it’s like they took all the stereotypes he gets from the fandom like being the comic relief, clumsy, useless friend and double it I’m not here for that 


albus: he’s a slytherin: yes! But he’s an outcast for it: no no 

cedric: brining him back to life unnecessarily to demonise him fuck no that poor boy has stuffered enough there’s no way he’d become a death eater for being ridiculed at the triwizard tournament that’s just butchering his characterisation let the boy rest in peace 

heteronormativity™: no no

alternative universe where harry died: it pretty much felt like any other dystopian novel it was unoriginal and over the top

if you want to read non shitty reviews unlike mine pls read @emerald-dshere, @itsclydebitches here or @gxldentrio‘s here

on correlation vs causation

Contagion is not caused by poverty, but when when the poor can’t afford to go to the doctor, any illness they catch spreads. Likewise, when the poor cannot afford or are not allowed to take time off from work when they or their children are sick, their quality of work suffers, and they make others sick, too. This affects everyone, as contagion is indiscriminate, transmitted by breath and touch, putting a heavier strain on all healthcare systems by letting illnesses fester rather than seeing them dealt with early on. Therefore, by preventing the poor from accessing affordable healthcare - by forcing them to work when sick, and their children to attend school when sick; by pricing them out of the medications they need - you are not only punishing the poor, but weakening the whole community.

Ignorance is not caused by poverty, but when the poor are given a substandard education and barred from accessing the lessons and advantages made freely available to the middle class and the wealthy, ignorance becomes endemic. Likewise, if tertiary education is priced beyond the means of the poor - if poverty becomes a genuine risk for the middle class when they send themselves or their children to university - and there are few or no alternatives to enter a  well-paying field otherwise, then you are ensuring that poverty becomes generational. This affects everyone, as the whole of society is handicapped by the struggles of a group who cannot be helped by superficial measures and who cannot institutionally help themselves, no matter their intelligence, their work ethic or their eagerness to learn. Therefore, by preventing the poor and the middle class from accessing the same level of education as the rich, you are not only punishing those groups, but seeding ignorance, generational poverty and dependence in the whole community.

Trauma is not caused by poverty, but when the poor are made more vulnerable to problems of exploitation, disability, mental illness and abuse for want of services to address those problems - or when those who, through their struggle with these issues, are reduced to poverty for lack of help - then a disproportionate duty of self-care is placed on the poor; a duty which, under the circumstances, cannot possibly be fulfilled. If possessing independent wealth is the only way to afford medication, physical therapy and counselling, or to break free from abusive domestic situations, in a context where all these issues make it either difficult or impossible to work independently, and where in any case such services are so expensive as to be priced beyond the means of even the working poor or working middle class, then you are ensuring these issues become entrenched in poor communities. And this, too, affects everyone, as the whole of society is deprived of the positive contributions such people might otherwise make, as well as suffering the effects of these conditions being left unchecked on a large scale. Therefore, by preventing the poor from fulfilling their need for self-care, you are not only punishing them, but actively fostering harm and trauma within the whole community.

When poverty is viewed as a moral failing for which its victims are solely responsible, the systems that contribute to making poverty inescapable are ignored. A child born in poverty, denied healthcare and a good education, can still succeed in life, but this task is made exponentially harder if the jobs they must work to build their wealth do not pay a living wage; if they must go into debt in order to study; if a single accident of trauma, injury, violence or genetic bad luck is enough to negate their every achievement. A healthy society is not some perfect utopia in which nobody ever suffers hardship, but one in which those who do suffer have access to the necessary support and resources to succeed regardless; one where the game is not fundamentally rigged against a large proportion of the populace by an accident of birth. 

It is cheaper to cure a single sick person at the onset of an illness than to cure a hundred in its extremis.

It is cheaper to provide birth control and sex education to the population than to support the unwanted children they have no choice but to raise.

It is cheaper to educate a child and to provide them with opportunities than to struggle, over and over again, to inadequately shore up the broken foundations their absence creates.

It is cheaper to provide actual homes for the homeless - to enable them to live and support themselves independently - than to continually provide only the resources necessary to let them live in the moment.

It is cheaper to build schools than prisons.

Stop acting as though demonising the poor is a sound financial choice, one made with an eye to what’s best for the whole of society. It’s not. It’s bullshit. Scrapping social support systems is a short-term financial gain enacted at the price of a massive long-term financial loss. It’s unjustifiable, and it needs to fucking stop

I see lots of people complain about Chara being demonised, but you know who also gets a lot of hate? Flowey! Poor guy never choose to be this way, he just wanted to feel some compassion, and when he realised he can’t have it, he decided to experiment with killing. Even after he got bored of that, he decided to bring back everyone the way they were. I never understood why people praise Asriel as a saint, but want Flowey to burn in hell.

Early Modern False Friends: Naughty

Nowadays ‘naughty’ is a relatively mild word, used on children (or, I suppose, in a more kinky sense), but when you see the word ‘naughty’ in Shakespeare, it tends to mean something a lot worse.

Because in Shakespeare’s time, the word was more akin to ‘evil’, ‘morally bad’, even ‘vicious’ or ‘wicked’.

  • So the Earl of Gloucester calling Regan ‘naughty lady’ (3.7.37) in King Lear? Quite a strong term.
  • Elbow says that Pompey works at a ‘naughty house’ (2.1.74) in Measure for Measure? It’s a house of sin *say in appropriately threatening voice*
  • Dogberry calling Conrad a ‘naughty varlet’ (5.1.71) in Much Ado About Nothing? A little more than a tap on the wrist kind of comment. Sheds some light on Falstaff calling Hal a ‘naughty varlet’ (2.4.420) in Henry IV Part I: he’s being overdramatic.
  • Cressida telling Pandarus (and I love this one) ‘Go hang yourself, you naughty, mocking uncle!’ (4.2.26) – yep, she’s ballsy.
  • Portia describes a candle in The Merchant of Venice (which contains the most uses of ‘naughty’ in any Shakespeare play), saying, ‘so shines a good deed in a naughty world’ (5.1.91). She means that it is an evil world, not just a little bad. The word is used in serious situations too.
Etymologically, 'naughty’ stems from ‘naught’ as in ‘nothing’, and is sometimes used in that form (Ophelia: ‘You are naught, you are naught’ [3.2.129]) to mean ‘wicked’. The first uses of the word ‘naughty’ suggest that it means ‘having or possessing nothing; poor, needy’ (OED). It’s relatively common that words meaning ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ stem from a word referring either to poor people or women (See villain and hussy for examples). A demonisation of the working poor you see even today.

anonymous asked:

I really hate how everybody is trying to demonize Levi right now for choosing Erwin. Levi said 3 chapters ago that Erwin and Eren are the two keys to humanity’s victory. In his mind, so long as those two are alive, humanity can move, and how can he NOT think like that? How can people not realize he’s witnessed all of the shit these two have accomplished first-hand, and prioritize them over anybody else? Fuck this garbage about how Erwin is useless, and as such Levi shouldn’t choose him. ...

First and foremost, that isn’t a very convincing argument, especially since the sole reason the Scouting Legion has gotten as far as it has is because of him. The government was overthrown because of him. Annie was captured because of him. Eren has been saved twice because of him. He’s brought together the likes of Levi, Hange, Mike, and Nanaba, and as such, probably formed the strongest army the Walls have ever fucking seen. I get Armin is young, and that he’s done a lot, but if we’re …(2/3)

…speaking logically here? Erwin has done far more for humanity than anybody else within the Walls has, and for people to try and demonize Levi for wanting to save him because of that? … Get out of here with that bullshit. You cannot tell me you wouldn’t do the same. How hard is it for one to slip themselves into Levi’s shoes? To realize that this man has witnessed all of this progress /first-hand/? It just baffles me. (3/3)

I understand your pain, anon. It’s a very poor reason to demonise a character, and a petty one at that. I’ve come to notice this fandom is very selective with its sympathy, particularly towards the older characters; the people who cannot understand Levi’s situation are people who do not make the effort to see things from his perspective. He’s doing something they don’t like, so they don’t like him for it. Many of these people also don’t like Erwin or refuse to give him credit, so we end up with this nonsense that Levi has no right to feel the way he does.

I wrote a while back why Levi would be feeling the way he does, and it’s exactly as you say, this is because Levi has firsthand seen the change Erwin has brought about, and the lengths he’s gone to, to create that change. It’s nothing out of the blue or 100% irrational; Erwin has worked hard and done his best to do the right thing for as long as Levi has known him, and he stands by him while they together have changed history. These achievements aren’t ignored in canon, either, they’re very much there, but people deliberately choose to glaze over them. No one else has done what Erwin has, and that’s the bottom line. There was a chapter pointing this out with Shadis, even, and I believe that was partly Levi’s influence for making this decision, early on.

It’s a headache and a half, I know. It’s upsetting that so many facts and positive points are blatantly being glazed over because people don’t want the story to go down certain paths. This isn’t the first time a character’s been attacked for being human, though, it happens quite a lot. In this case, such a choice and burden on Levi’s hands would not be easy to deal with. It’s not as simple as “oh, it’s his best friend, he’s being biased”, there’s a very logical side to all this, as well. Levi is trying to do the right thing by humanity, and this is what he believes to be right. It’s terrible to see fans reacting this way to such a thing.

No offence but when u talk about “benefits scammers” and fraud in the benefits system without mentioning how it accounts for just 0.7% of welfare spending, u are actively contributing to the demonisation of disabled and poor people.

Reminder that the entire concept of superheroes is problematic. They solve their problems with punching. They are shot through fascist ideas about superior humans.

Reminder that the entire concept of heroic crime fighter stories of any kind is problematic. They require concepts of good and evil that inevitably demonise the poor and mental health issues, and play on paranoia created by a fear mongering right wing media.

Reminder that action adventure stories are inherently problematic. They glorify and revel in violence for entertainment.

Reminder that while it is possible for the above genres to subvert these elements, to present and examine alternative ideas, and in doing so to mitigate some of these traits- that without tipping over into outright comedic satire, it is still necessary for stories within these genres to buy into at least some of these concepts in order to simply function.

Reminder that if you are trying to present yourself as a better person than someone else because you prefer the above genres to have more jokes and brighter colours- or vice versa- then you’re fooling yourself.

Reminder that it is entirely okay to enjoy problematic media. Our culture is problematic. Art and entertainment are a reflection of that. They are our way of examining and processing the world we live in, and that includes the bad stuff.

It is important to recognise what is wrong with the things we enjoy. It is important to talk about it. Political interrogation of art is 100% a good and necessary thing.

But we all have our lines we draw that will stop us enjoying something, and we all draw them in different places. You are not a better person for where you choose to draw that line, and someone else is not a bad person for where they choose to draw theirs.

Caring too much. That's the curse of the working classes

This is true not only because most working-class people are women (since most people in general are women), but because we have a skewed view even of what men do. As striking tube workers recently had to explain to indignant commuters, “ticket takers” don’t in fact spend most of their time taking tickets: they spend most of their time explaining things, fixing things, finding lost children, and taking care of the old, sick and confused.

If you think about it, is this not what life is basically about? Human beings are projects of mutual creation. Most of the work we do is on each other. The working classes just do a disproportionate share. They are the caring classes, and always have been. It is just the incessant demonisation directed at the poor by those who benefit from their caring labour that makes it difficult, in a public forum such as this, to acknowledge it.

As the child of a working-class family, I can attest this is what we were actually proud of. We were constantly being told that work is a virtue in itself – it shapes character or somesuch – but nobody believed that. Most of us felt work was best avoided, that is, unless it benefited others. But of work that did, whether it meant building bridges or emptying bedpans, you could be rightly proud. And there was something else we were definitely proud of: that we were the kind of people who took care of each other. That’s what set us apart from the rich who, as far as most of us could make out, could half the time barely bring themselves to care about their own children.

Read the rest…

hannahandonlyhannah  asked:

Hey Lucy! I don't know anything about English politics and research doesn't really clear things up, but would you mind telling me what's made the election a disappointment to you/what's wrong with the conservative party? I know my girlfriend voted for them, but she can't really explain why. Who did you want to win the election? x

Hello! I’ll try and summarise as best I can.

In short: the Conservatives are right-wing, well-off, Eton-educated pompous old white men. Their main focus, despite what they may say, is to make life easier for the rich. Under Tory power, rich people get special tax cuts that the rest of us don’t get. (Because rich people need tax cuts, right? It’s basically legalised tax evasion).

They’re privatising everything, and shredding up our welfare. We can say goodbye to public transport, pension plans, our Post Office, and most importantly, the NHS – something millions upon millions of people rely on for basic healthcare which they otherwise could not afford. Including my mother, by the way. Oh, and you can absolutely forget about mental health services. Depressed? Anxious? Suicidal? Put a plaster on it, and good luck. People will die because of this. But don’t forget, the rich are still okay, because they can afford expensive healthcare already! Sucks to be the rest of us, eh? While the rich are lying in their Bupa beds, I hope they think of the kid with cancer who now can’t afford to get treatment because of their utter selfishness.

Tuition fees will now rise and rise and rise. There’s no cap anymore. So poor people can forget about getting their degrees – university is now just a right for the privileged. And of course, Cameron knows all about privileged. He went to Eton, for crying out loud. He probably wears a black tie to bed. (Fun fact that someone pointed out: Cameron, Boris Johnson and many others were in a club at University where to join, you have to make an outrageous statement of your riches – most popularly, burning a £50 note in front of a homeless person. Let that sink in).

He’s making sure that poor people and/or immigrants are demonised. They’re his scapegoat. He’s blaming benefit fraud and illegal immigration and using them as scare tactics to hide the bigger picture, and sadly, people fell for it. But watch. The poor will get poorer, and the rich will get richer. The wage gap will get wider. Poverty will increase. Rights for women, the elderly, the young, the disabled… you can forget it (they’re scrapping the Human Rights Act, you see. Yes, you read that correctly. Apparently some people don’t deserve basic human rights). The arts will become a national running joke. Charities will dwindle. And then, just maybe, people will realise the mistake they made.

It’s selfishness. The country has been divided between the rich and the selfish, and the poor and the helpless. We’ve forgotten our common humanity. It’s now every man for himself.

Oh, and just as some icing on the caviar cake – fox hunting will be legalised again. Because on top of everything, what’s more fun than hunting and killing innocent animals for fun?!

This is the beginning of a dystopian future in which the government will constantly reassure us that everything’s fine while they slowly dismantle the sanity and health of general public behind closed doors.

Despite prior claims from Murdoch owned media and Tony Abbott, it’s been revealed that no overseas Australian jihadis were on welfare. The Liberals + Murdoch must now find a new way to demonise the poor by coming up with more random story such as:

  • They’re using welfare to steal water from the desert
  • They’re the reason why the sun goes away at night (and the night is dark and full of terrors)
  • The poor are secretly bees refugees that cut in line at bank queues just before closing time (and no one can escape the bees this rude behaviour)
  • They want to bring back slavery just to know what it’s like to have someone on a lower rung of society than them
  • They’re in your house right now pretending to be your furniture and will kill you when you sleep!

The most shocking and unbelievable of the stories (as tested via an audience of geriatrics in aged care facilities and a professional speaker with a flashlight underneath his face) will soon appear in a Murdoch owned newspaper near you.

You Are Complicit.

If you didn’t vote, or voted Tory, you are complicit in every drowned person washing up on an Italian beach, complicit in every starving child and pensioner who queues at a foodbank, complicit in every library closure, every hospital cut and every time a school has to wash and feed a child because their parents can’t.

You are complicit in the rising rhetoric of hatred towards foreigners, you are complicit in the demonisation of the poor, you are complicit in the destruction of public services and worker’s rights.

Ignorance is no longer an excuse, it is the 21st Century and information is freely and easily available. People have built tools that even allow you to just click on the things you like and will then tell you which party is suited for you.

You are complicit.