radical libertarians

Hi! We’re friendly-disagreement and I just wanted to make this quick post to introduce us!

Mod Pink is a radical feminist, and I (Mod Blue) am a right leaning libertarian. Our goal with this blog is to open up a dialogue with all sides of the political spectrum. The political climate is so tense right now, and it becomes so easy to demonize those you disagree with. Hopefully this blog will help people learn to understand why the opposite side believes what they believe and serve as a place where sides can debate topics civilly.

If you’re reading this, I hope you have a fantastic day!

-Mod Blue

anonymous asked:

Is it possible to be gender critical without being a TERF? I just feel more and more like gender is just a big divide and conquer scam and it does more harm than good and why can't we just treat everyone as people? And I want to express that feeling but I don't want to hurt trans people because, well, they're people and deserve to be treated well. And I don't want to sound like I want to erase their identities or keep them from transitioning, but also I want to get rid of all gender categories?

Radical feminists certainly aren’t the only ones who believe in dismantling gender! Simone de Beauvoir, the author of The Second Sex, was an existentialist feminist who proposed that women “become” women through cultural, economic, psychological, and social structures rather than women having some intrinsic biological “essence” that makes them women. Her work actually provided the foundation for a lot of different feminist theories - liberal, radical, post-structural, marxist, and psychoanalytic. 

The radical libertarian feminists who believe in dismantling gender and instituting a sort of androgynous utopia are different from the radical cultural feminists who essentialize femininity to “empower” women - the former include feminists like Shulamith Firestone and the latter includes feminists like Adrienne Rich and Mary Daly (both of whom are notoriously transmisogynistic). 

However, as a marxist and postcolonial feminist, I believe that the abolition of class is not possible without the abolition of gendered and racial hierarchies and oppression. Moreover, a lot of the boundaries between different feminist theories aren’t so immutable - many ideas flow from discourse to discourse. As a marxist feminist I do not think class consciousness/the abolition of class is possible without dismantling white supremacy or patriarchy, because white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism reproduce each other and work hand in hand. 

Dismantling gender would actually liberate trans people as well, as it would liberate all people. However, there are ways to approach this discourse that can either be transphobic and transmisogynistic (the way many radical feminists approach it) and there are ways to approach it that actually emphasize trans people’s, particularly trans women’s, struggles. Trans women are an oppressed class under capitalist heteropatriarchy. They struggle under the capitalist heterosexualized gender binary in unique ways.

And trust me, many critical trans theorists and writers have already written about a trans politics that seeks to abolish gender too. Gender is an oppressive construct for trans people and it continually reproduces itself to enact violence against trans people and women. 

Dismantling gender will help everyone in the long run, but it is impossible to dismantle gender without abolishing class or race! This is where marxists differ from radical feminists - radical feminists believe patriarchy is transhistorical and that the ultimate location of women’s oppression is in the sex/gender system. The sex/gender system certainly does oppress women, but patriarchy is constructed by capital and culture. Radical feminists don’t historicize properly, nor do they employ an intersectional framework in their analysis, which is why their theories are largely inadequate and either exclude or only marginally apply to women of color, nonwestern women, or trans women. So trust me on this - while radical feminists in the 60′s and 70′s published a lot of crucial literature on dismantling gender, they are not the first to posit that gender is socially constructed, and they are not the only ones who believe that it has to be dismantled. 

Friendly reminder

All authoritarian systems use cult-like tactics and intellectual colonialism on their followers and detractors. If you can learn to identify the warning signs of cult like behavior you can learn to keep yourself safe from sociopathic ideologies that seek you out for someone else’s benefit.

Honestly, some of the worst trans politics I’ve seen has come from trans dudes, and I wish that wasn’t the case, but…then i see shit like this…

I insist my fellow trans people question the legitimacy of the Canadian state, and all states. They are violent enterprises, not our allies. I insist that if you examine the current political situation through an anarchist or libertarian radical political lens you will find legislature such as this utilizes state violence (prisons, policing etc.) to bring us a false acceptance. I think we are better off emancipating ourselves from violent institutions such as states who claim falsely to speak for us and to be looking out for our best interests, than to be calling upon them for protection like parents. The more we rely on them and utilize their power, the more they have over our lives, and the more helpless we grow in the face of their authoritarian nature.

Like, come on. I would die within 60 days of an anarcho-libertarian state being established. I’d rather suck on the oppressive teat of my government and live another day then find myself in a libertarian “I got mine” wasteland where i’d have nothing available to offer so I could gain access to the healthcare I need to survive. Like, I’m a white trans woman, it’d be even worse for trans woc.  Like, yay, symbolic emancipation and ideological purity, all for the low low cost of an entire demographic materially suffering . yeah, I’m sure that’s something to strive for

Sorry, but until people’s libertarian and/or anarchist plans include free universal and accessible healthcare access for trans folks society-wide, then I’m sticking with the current system. Ideology cannot be prioritized over harm reduction.

I’m so tired of the “Trans rights are actually not good, because they uphold oppressive nation states and further marginalize all but a select few, we need to emancipate ourselves and gain acceptance within a borderless world” bullshit. 

Like, get that Dan Irving-style self-righteous bullshit out of my face

Saudi blogger sentenced to weekly floggings for "insulting Islam"

Just in case you thought US-ally Saudi Arabia was any less brutal than its radical neighbors. 

from BBC:

A Saudi Arabian blogger has been publicly flogged after being convicted of cybercrime and insulting Islam, reports say.

Raif Badawi, who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail, was flogged 50 times. The flogging will be carried out weekly, campaigners say.

Mr Badawi, the co-founder of a now banned website called the Liberal Saudi Network, was arrested in 2012.

Rights groups condemned his conviction and the US appealed for clemency.

On Thursday state department spokeswoman Jen Psaki urged the Saudi authorities to “cancel this brutal punishment” and to review his case.

In addition to his sentence, Mr Badawi was ordered to pay a fine of 1 million riyals ($266,000; £175,000).

In 2013 he was cleared of apostasy, which could have carried a death sentence.

Last year Mr Badawi’s lawyer was sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found guilty of a range of offences in an anti-terrorism court, the Associated Press news agency reported.

read the rest

The Saudis are every bit as brutal and vicious as the radical jihadists in Afghanistan, Iran, and elsewhere in the Middle East. 

Somebody in the media finally gets it: "The Islamic State is Islamic. VERY Islamic."

That headline comes from the least likely of sources: the very liberal Atlantic magazine.  They’ve got a piece out today that completely obliterates the Obama administration’s incessant claims that ISIS is not Islamic and their terror is not religiously motivated.  

from Atlantic:

There is a temptation to rehearse this observation—that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise—and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.

The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to “moderns.” In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.

To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)

But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

read the rest

The piece clearly explains that not only is ISIS’s reign of terror rooted in Islam, it walks out a scholarly interpretation the religion to the letter. The United State’s failure to recognize this is part of what allowed ISIS to gain a foothold of power in the first place, and failure to acknowledge that now will only continue to exacerbate the problem.

anonymous asked:

(1/4)RE: TLROGM/Blood Magic. I actually disagree with you on this, but I do see your point. Blood magic generally does seem to corrupt those who use it. (DAI SPOILERS) Sethius Amladaris was a merry, gentle person once; but Blood Magic led him to make more and more moral compromises, until at last only Corypheus remained. Orsino was a reasonable man, trapped between radical libertarian magi on one side and paranoid templar zealots on the other, and in a moment of weakness, he turned to the use...

(2/4)…of blood magic, becoming a monster (This is possibly why all Hawkes dislike blood magic, goodness knows being trapped in a small space with a Harvester would traumatise the H*CK out of me, and I’d be pretty anti-blood magic). Quentin must have been a decent person once, given that “O” and his apprentice trusted him, but blood magic gave him the delusional hope that he could restore his wife, and so, in his grief, he turned to crime. Merrill is not evil, but Blood Magic brought despair…

I’m sorry anonymous person, that’s still all I’ve got. Just for future reference, I don’t think trying to send all the messages again works. I don’t think I’ve ever got more than two at once successfully. I’ll answer what I’ve got so you don’t have to just keep trying to send, but if I’ve missed your point because I haven’t got the end, just let me know, okay? It wouldn’t be on purpose. :)

In any case … Still, no. I don’t think blood magic ‘corrupts those who use it’. I think you’re mixing up the motive with the tool or weapon of choice.

So, from the top:

Sethius Amladaris/Corypheus

To borrow from Into the Woods for a moment … nice is different than good. Sethius Amladaris had a seat in the Magisterium and was High Priest of Tevinter’s most important god when the Imperium was at its height. Tevinter is loosely based on the Roman Empire – ancient Tevinter being ancient Rome and modern Tevinter borrowing from the Byzantines. Effectively, Amladaris was Pontifex Maximus. Know much Roman history? A Pontifex Maximus (Scipio Nasica) led the lynch mob that murdered Tiberius Gracchus. Another Pontifex Maximus (Julius Caesar) invaded and subjugated Gaul.

I’m not accusing  Amladaris of anything specific – we don’t know enough about his life for me to do that. I just mean, he occupied one of the most important positions in the most powerful empire of its day. The idea that his hands were clean before his use of blood magic seems … improbable to me, at best.

He also kept slaves. Gentle, sweet Sethius Amladaris kept a lot of slaves. I’m familiar with the text that describes him as having been different, once, and I think it’s important to remember that this was written by one of his slaves. By a person whom he owned, and whose life was his to do with as he saw fit. I think that changes the perspective a bit.

In any case, that text’s author disagrees with you. He doesn’t think it was blood magic that changed his master. In fact, he tells us repeatedly what did:

‘It was good to see him smile again. He has been fearful of late, vexed by the loss of followers. He has met with the other priests, and in secret, I have heard them discussing ways to return the people of Tevinter to the ways of the Old Gods, as is only just.’

‘Master once laughed and joked. He could be stern, but he was not a cruel man. The weakening of the temples brought fear into his heart, and that fear has changed him.’

It wasn’t blood magic that led him to make moral compromises. It was fear. Fear of his own loss of status and power – and, to be fair, fear that his gods had abandoned him.

I disagree that blood magic changed or corrupted Sethius Amladaris. I think it was power, of the ordinary political kind. Power he feared losing. And power that he could guarantee he held over his slaves.

That’s the thing. Once you’ve established that a group of people exist only to be your tools, when you’re considering harming them you’re no longer thinking of their rights. They have no rights. You’re thinking about your preferences, and about the cost of replacing them.

Maybe you don’t enjoy violence, so you get no particular pleasure from hurting slaves. Maybe you’re a frugal sort of person, and don’t appreciate the cost of repeatedly buying more slaves. Maybe you understand that people get better at their jobs by doing them, so if you keep killing your slaves you have to start training them all over again and that’s inconvenient for everybody. So you feed your slaves well, and you don’t go on a killing spree just because somebody broke one of the good plates. That’s just sensible.

But sooner or later, you’re going to find something that’s valuable enough for it to be worth sacrificing a slave. For Amladaris, that thing was a trip to the Fade. You can access the Fade with lyrium, but it takes a lot. They were already using a stupendous amount of lyrium in their attempt to access the Fade physically, which apparently wasn’t enough. Lyrium is expensive, dangerous and you have to be nice to the dwarves to get it.

Slaves, though? Slaves are everywhere. Easy source of power. Entirely worth the inconvenience of replacing your entire household, if what you’re getting is to meet your god.

It’s not the blood magic. It’s really not. If you’re butchering people for your own gain, the details don’t really matter. In Kirkwall’s Bone Pit they were pushing slaves to their deaths because doing so motivated the others to work harder. That wasn’t blood magic, but nevertheless it was the exact same thing Amladaris did.

To use a modern Thedosian example, for most of her life Briala would have said Celene was a good person. Maybe not as invested in rights for the elves as she would have liked, and played the Game because an empress must, but still: decent person, loved and valued Briala herself, tried to do her best for Orlais and improve the lot of the elves.

Turns out? Elves are completely disposable to Celene. She was willing to massacre a whole lot of them to disprove Gaspard’s ‘slander’ that she favoured elves. She also had her whole household murdered, including Briala’s parents, to strengthen her position in the Game.

Briala mistook nice for good and now she has to deal with the mess Celene made of her life and of her people’s.

In Tevinter, slaves are disposable people. In Orlais, elves are disposable people. In Orzammar, they were using the casteless and criminals to make golems. Later, they did the same thing with the Harvester.

It’s not blood magic. It’s regarding people as disposable.


It’s peculiar, because I barely recognise your characterisation of Orsino. He was a fighter, passionate about the rights of his fellow mages. The defining moment of his life was the suicide of his best friend, Maude, who was destroyed by the Circle. That was when he decided not to be the good boy mage anymore. When he decided to fight.

And he took any angle he could to achieve his goal. He overpriced Circle-made goods to bring in money, he brought his cause to the Viscount, he corresponded with anybody who could give him an edge.

His tragedy was that he wanted to save his particular Circle. He wanted to give these people life and purpose. I’ve said it before: a Circle is not an army. It contains the very old, very young, the sick, the (especially in Kirkwall) traumatised, plenty of people who’ve never raised a staff in anger. The Circle mages could only escape by fighting, and Orsino couldn’t bear to lead them to war because so many of them would die.

I’ll agree that the circumstances of his death are weird, but that’s because Bioware decided we needed another boss fight there. But it wasn’t a moment of weakness, it wasn’t corruption, and it wasn’t immoral. It was heroic.

You know that moment in a film where the good guys are about to be overcome by the bad guys, and someone says ‘You go on. I’ll buy you the time you need’? That’s Orsino. It was a good (if tragic) plan. He turned himself into something that would inspire fear in the Templars, and would be a formidable opponent, and he prepared to die for his people.

The game designers decided not to let Hawke leave. The only way you go on is if you fight Orsino. Yes, that’s stupid. But he didn’t do that.


Quentin was a serial killer. You don’t need blood magic to be a serial killer. In fact, earlier in the game, we are confronted with another serial killer whom they confirm is not affected by magic or demons.

I’m not going to say there aren’t problems with the stories, here. There’s a fairly strong thread of ‘Hey, look at the crazy guy who kills people!’ running through Dragon Age, and no, that’s not good or right, and perpetuates ugly stereotypes about the mentally ill.

But to blame this on ‘good man corrupted by blood magic’ is to pretend that there aren’t people in the real world who kill, repeatedly, because they want to.

In point of fact, this is one case where I’d point out the contrast between the inherent good of the magic and the evil of the man’s actions.

I mean … did he or did he not just discover organ and limb transplants, skin grafts and blood transfusions?

These are things we know actually work. These are good things.

Quentin abducted and murdered women to obtain his materials, he was overly ambitious (I still don’t know how he thought this was going to work. ‘Angry Leandra’ is not really a satisfying outcome of all that labour), and since Leandra ultimately died his work needs refining. Those are horrible things.

But … shit. Just imagine a world where blood magic was taught and researched properly, and where materials were obtained through ethical means. Can you honestly say that being able to give someone who needed it a new hand or eye wouldn’t be a good thing?

When something is made illegal, the criminal and the desperate take it over. Just to use a really broad and well known example, when the Americans had Prohibition, the alcohol industry was run by gangsters. Which meant you had a lot of blood and shooting and other horrors going on over the production of liquor. None of which makes having a drink a bad or corrupting thing.

I wonder if they know how to perform transplants in Tevinter.


And … well, that’s the point, isn’t it? Merrill isn’t evil or corrupted or murderous. She has some character flaws, yes, but she is basically a kind and sweet person. She’s generally kind even to people who aren’t kind to her.

To say that her blood magic brought despair is to blame her for things other people did. Mostly Marethari. I have a hell of a bone to pick with Marethari over what she did to Merrill.

Marethari drove Merrill from her clan. Marethari spread horrible and untrue rumours about Merrill so that her people feared her and wouldn’t accept her help. Marethari decided that getting possessed by a demon was a fucking terrific plan. And the rest of the clan? They went along with it. They were all too happy to ostracise Merrill and blame her for things she didn’t do. Not one of them said ‘Hey, you know what? Merrill is a bit socially awkward and tends to fixate on things, but I’ve never heard of her mistreating anyone and she’s utterly devoted to all of us. So, frankly, Keeper, you are full of shit. We love Merrill.’

Merrill didn’t do any of this, with her blood magic or anything else. Being a victim of prejudice and bullying does not make you wrong.

And for the record? My Hawke does not hate blood magic. I have my own reasons for the things she says in Inquisition. She loves the Wardens. They’re important to her. Her baby sister is a Warden. So is her lover. In other circumstances, either of them might be there – haunted by the Calling, desperate, broken, betrayed. She knows a lot of the mages there will be ex-Circle mages, and be predisposed against blood magic. She’ll play that card if she has to, to save them.

But even then, that’s not what works. You know what does work? Having the History knowledge perk. Then your Inquisitor can tell the Wardens that they know the Wardens would not be doing this if they didn’t feel it was their only chance to stop the Blights. They’re not going to give them any shit about blood magic, because that’s beside the point. They just need to believe that the Inquisitor wouldn’t be trying to stop them if they didn’t know they were being fed lies.

Your Hawke can hate blood magic. That’s fine. It’s not my place to tell you how to enjoy your game. But Joanna Hawke loves Merrill like a sister, and Merrill has saved her life dozens of times with blood magic. Her opinion on the matter is more nuanced than that.

To retreat all the way back to the original point … The Last Resort of Good Men didn’t change my opinion of blood magic, because blood magic isn’t the thing that Halward Pavus did wrong.

It’s not like he was a perfect paragon of virtue, and then one day he thought ‘Hey, I’ll try blood magic’ and became corrupted. Dorian talks fondly of his father, sometimes. He talks about him having some principles. I’ll believe that. People are rarely one-dimensional.

But he says a lot of other things about his dad, too. Halward Pavus has entirely bought into the Tevinter Magister lifestyle. He married for political connections and good bloodlines (and he and his wife hate each other), he’s got his seat in the Magisterium and his family legacy. He’s got his power and his slaves and his ambitions. And he’s got his prejudices, too. Magic isn’t considered shameful in Tevinter. Homosexuality is. Dorian got inconvenient in a hurry once that came out.

Halward’s crime wasn’t using blood magic. I’m sure that was the most convenient option for him, given his background, but there were other ways to apply pressure. Torture, drugs, traditional brainwashing, threats and blackmail – this sort of stuff happens in the real world, without blood magic being an option.

It was that, when his kid looked him in the eye and told him that doing what he asked would destroy him, Halward responded with ‘Fuck that. My dreams are more important than your life.’

Aristocrats hurt their slaves, but they sometimes hurt their kids, too. Kids are currency. Marry them off and create an alliance that will bring you power. Never mind what it does to them.

It’s not the blood magic. It’s power and control. It is, to steal from Granny Weatherwax (because, hey, I might as well end as I started :) ), treating people as things.

ISIS beheads 30 more in Libya, saying all Christians must convert to Islam or pay jizya

When it is said that Islam is a “religion of peace,” you must question what the definition of “peace” is.  For many in the Muslim world, peace comes when Islam conquers all, and those who do not convert must pay the jizya (an extortionary tax prescribed by the Quran for non-believers).  This message was clearly on display yesterday as ISIS terrorists marched 30 Ethiopian Christians to the sea and beheaded them on camera.

from CNN:

The al-Furqan Media video – which is highly produced and titled “Until There Came to Them Clear Evidence” – shows two groups of men in orange and black jumpsuits being killed at different locations in Libya, according to the video’s narrator.

“All praise be to Allah, the Lord and cherisher of the world and may peace and blessings be upon the Prophet Mohammed. To the nation of the cross, we are back again on the sands, where the companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, have stepped on before, telling you: Muslim blood that was shed under the hands of your religion is not cheap,” the narrator says in Arabic on the 30-minute video.

The narrator continues, “In fact, their blood is the purest blood because there is a nation behind them (which) inherits revenge. And we swear to Allah: the one who disgraced you by our hands, you will not have safety, even in your dreams, until you embrace Islam.”

Quoting Mohammed, the narrator says that those who “perform prayer and pay alms” will have “their blood and property” protected by the Prophet unless Islam dictates otherwise.

“You pay (tax) with willing submission, feeling yourselves subdued. Our battle is a battle between faith and blasphemy, between truth and falsehood, until there is no more polytheism – and obedience becomes Allah’s on its entirety,” the narrator says.

read the rest

The point here is not to besmirch any Muslims who are willing to stand up and openly denounce this violence and the entire concept of the jizya (which is wholly antithetical to liberty).  I have no quarrel with any Muslim who boldly defends the liberty of those who disagree with him.  

Where are those Muslims today? 

ISIS executes 5 men because their wives wore the wrong kind of hijab


Five Iraqi men were publicly executed in Mosul by the ISIS after their wives did not comply with orders to wear a new “Afghan-style” hijab.

The executions were reportedly carried out on January 12 in the Al-Muthanna area of Mosul, according to the Alhurra website.

The Islamic State (IS) militants have also set up roadblocks to ensure that women comply with the new dress code imposed by the militants in Mosul and other areas under its control. The roadblocks are manned by the Hisbah, the Islamic State’s Sharia police.

The Afghan-inspired hijab covers the entire face except for a slit for the eyes.

Meanwhile, in another gruesome video released by the ISIS, a child soldier is seen shooting and killing two prisoners whom the militants accuse of spying for Russia.

VIDEO: CNN host dumbfounded by Muslim cleric who flatly tells him there are no moderate Muslims

This is Muslim cleric Anjam Choudary.  If there’s anybody out there making the case for Islam as the “religion of peace,” it certainly isn’t him.  In this clip, he refuses to condemn ISIS’s beheading of an American journalist.  He openly advocates sharia law.  He poo poos the fact that Christians are being forced to convert to Islam in Syria or face death at the hands of ISIS.   

Here’s the video:

“You are either pregnant or your'e not pregnant.”  Anjam Choudary says it is the same with Islam: either you’re a follower or you’re not.  There are no radical or moderates, just people who follow Islam and people who don’t. 

I’ve actually heard many non-muslim westerners make the same point and get called bigots for saying so.  Personally, I happen to know a handful of peaceful Muslims, but unfortunately, they keep to themselves and don’t publicly condemn people like Choudary or the actions of ISIS.  This seems to be a major problem in the Muslim community.  

Where are the Muslims who are willing to boldly stand up and condemn the violence in Syria and Iraq?  Where are the Muslims who are willing to publicly say that people like Choudary are advocates of evil? 

Back in 2008, French news agency AFP did a world wide survey of Muslims and estimated that only 7% are radical Islamists.  However, with 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, that leaves 112 million radical Islamists, and that’s not a number that can be easily shrugged off.  They’re also the loudest voices in the room.  

New video shows ISIS prisoners forced to kneel over bombs as execution for apostasy

ISIS keeps inventing new forms of depravity.  In their latest video, the Islamic terrorist organization forces prisoners to kneel over bombs buried in the ground before detonating the bombs. 

from Daily Mail:

They have burnt men alive and drowned prisoners in metal cages but now ISIS have released a new video showing off their new horrific method of committing murder.

Filmed in an unknown location in Afghanistan, ISIS militants are shown burying several explosive charges beneath the ground before covering them with earth.

The ten prisoners are blindfolded and led up to where the bombs have been buried before they are forced to their knees. The bloodthirsty jihadis detonate the charges, killing all the prisoners.  

All the victims are described as ‘apostates’, according to the ISIS video, which appeared on jihadi social media accounts last night.
It is believed the victims are from the Shinwari tribe and were accused of aiding the Taliban in the Afghan province of Nangarhar, where ISIS was recently expelled.

Several of the other victims were also condemned to death for helping the Afghan government counter the longstanding insurgency in the troubled country.

read the rest

Pure evil.

Lots of fat shaming going around in anger towards the cops with the “fat pig” talk. It’s a bit like calling a misogynist a weak little bitch. Criticizing the state with patriarchal masculinity and ableism is the kind of shit I expect from rightwing libertarians. It’s not even about hurting a cop’s feelings; it’s about what you’re indirectly saying to everybody else and how you’re normalizing ableism and shitty body standards. Radicals, get it together, quit the fat shaming.

the-physics-nerd  asked:

Wil, You described yourself as a left-libertarian who voted for Ralph Nader, but has disliked the recent "anti-tax republicans". What is your view of Gary Johnson and his recent leftward trend?

Pre-Bush, I was a self-described left-libertarian. Because the Overton Window has been moved so far to the right, I can’t identify as a centrist or even a left-centrist, or a left-libertarian. Bush radicalized me, in a sense, and forced me to be really honest with myself: until America moves back to the left, after the unprecedented lurch to the right that happened under Bush and Cheney, I’m a hard-left lefty left leftist. 

When I was in my 20s, I voted for a number of Republicans, including HW Bush, because the party wasn’t totally fucking insane. Well, it’s not totally fucking insane, and the base of the party has ensured that it will stay that way for at least a generation.

I say all this to give context: I’m not paying attention to Gary Johnson or anyone else this election, because they aren’t serious challengers to Donald Trump, who must be defeated in a landslide so that he is humiliated, and the movement he represents is completely and utterly discredited and destroyed.