root exploit

I just wanna say how important it is for us, as listeners and lovers of music to support artists we love n share their music. especially independent artists that we love. We are in a really strange but beautiful place in music where we are finally free from needing major labels and able to create really beautiful professional sounding music from home and release it from home n owning our own masters.

Bc just like everything in history rich white people decided just appreciating wasnt good enough they had to own – profit off poc’s creations, which is why we have the narrative of the evil record labels that know nothing about the music they are involved in releasing, bc most of them or their owners really are shit. and their history so deeply rooted in exploiting poc especially the black mans creations

Anyways technology taking the power out of big labels hands and into the artists is beautiful but only really works when we work together sharing their music with friends bc most independent artists dont have record label money to spend on advertising or promoting their music, they rely on us to help spread the love they put in the music. so yea if u actually read all this share ur fav artist w pple u love :)

The Parallels of Zutara and Kallura

Ever since the second season of Voltron: Legendary Defender has come out, Kallura—Keith x Allura—has caused… quite the controversy, to say the least. Some have embraced the pairing, while others have rejected it. Nonetheless, there seems to be a consensus that the pair mirrors another from Avatar: The Last Airbender: Zuko x Katara, otherwise known as Zutara. The question is to what degree, and is the mirroring profound or shallow?

In this meta, I’ll explore the parallels between ATLA’s Zutara and VLD’s Kallura.


Note that while I ship these pairs, I will be looking at their relationships in an objective manner. How one decides to interpret these relationships, whether it be romantic or platonic, is up to that person. This meta isn’t meant to cause shipping discourse or convince anyone to ship anything. It’s only meant to evaluate the similarities between Zutara and Kallura.

Also note, spoilers for both shows will be discussed under the cut.


Keep reading

anonymous asked:

What would you say are the "basic tenets" of liberalism?? Like whenever ppl talk about it I'm just like uh idk what ideas it espouses

Essentially, liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Besides liberals time and time again showing they are not for workers or oppressed people and are in fact a political trend of capitalism-imperialism, its important to know its basic tenants and assumptions so one can recognize liberalism and criticize it or struggle against it. I’m going to paraphrase a section of Anrudha Ghandy’s book, Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement (the original section focuses on liberalism in the feminist movement, here ive tried to paraphrase it to apply to liberalism in general):

1. [Liberalism] focuses on individual rights rather than (and even at the expense of) collective rights

2. It is ahistorical. It rejects class struggle and as such has no comprehensive understanding of workers’ and other oppressed peoples’ roles in history and society, or an analysis to explain the reasons behind their subjugation and exploitation.

3. It is mechanical in its support for formal equality, equality-in-words, without a concrete understanding of the roots of inequality, or without an understanding of the different sections of the population and their specific problems. As a result it expresses the demands of upper and middle classes, without much thought to oppressed nations or the working classes.

4. It is reformist. It focuses on changes in the law, welfare programs, education without a larger revolutionary program and does not question the underlying economic and political roots of oppression and exploitation

5. It views the state as a neutral tool to be used instead of an instrument of the ruling, capitalist class which benefits from the exploitation of workers and neo-colonies.

6. Because of its focus on changing laws and it’s general unprincipled pacifism it is unable of mobilizing workers and the oppressed to a greater stage of political struggle against capitalism and for socialism.

To add to this, liberalism’s reformist and gradualist attitudes towards progress not only run counter to a dialectical understanding of quantity into quality, where the opposites of a contradiction push forward change in both “steps” and “leaps”, but also ignores class struggle by promoting unprincipled peace and cooperation beween competing classes in capitalist society. This “live-and-let-live” attitude results in placing personal interests above the interests of the masses, and leads to opportunism in political work. It promotes superficial peace instead of working to resolve contradictions through struggle, criticism and self-criticism, and (principled) unity.

Its individualism is not one of any socialist conception, even. Rather, this individualism is to show that the individual is threatened by the community. It says that the individual has to be protected from the community (either through an increase in government action and programs or through smaller government). As a result it promotes a lot of capitalistic ideas about the role of the individual- that the individual exists only to care for itself, that success and failure is simply a matter of how hard one works (the market being seen as a neutral tool to determine marginal productivity), and that the individual as a political unit exists before and outside of society and the community.

This all goes to show that liberalism is an ideology not of the oppressed and workers, but of bourgeois intellectuals, those who, because they are not oppressed or exploited, can afford to “see both sides” and “find a middle ground” instead of taking a firm stance on a question of a struggle for power, justice, and equality. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, of the ruling and middle classes, and it will never be able to liberate the working class.

anonymous asked:

What is a summary of Marx's deconstructions of markets?

I first of all just want to make clear that Marx’s analysis in Capital is not literally a “deconstruction” in the sense of the term typically used to label Derrida’s sort of procedure. That is just the word i happened to use.

At any rate, Marx’s task in Capital is essentially to look at the capitalist system when it is in equilibrium, and then to uncover all its inner contradictions, ultimately concluding that all the features that bourgeois economists chalk up to some “distortion” of the free market model (e.g. massive inequality, crises, social upheaval) are in fact inherent features of the normal operation of the capitalist system even if you assume that the system is always “in balance” in the way that economists would like it to be. The most fundamental thing that Marx gets at is that profit is rooted in the exploitation of wage labor. Workers produce more wealth than they receive for their labor. Marx argues that this relation is at the very core of capitalist production. The accumulation of massive wealth into relatively few hands is thus a feature of the very way in which capitalist commodity production works. Another prominent aspect of capitalism Marx highlights is the constant drive of capitalists to incorporate new technologies and new production methods that speed up the production process. This drive to speed up production benefits individual capitalists in the short term, but in the long run, Marx argues that it causes an overall slow-down in the economy which, if not corrected, ultimately leads to crisis.

In Capital vol. 3, Marx begins to explore the fact that, in addition to all the problems that arise even when the capitalist system is in balance, the capitalist system in reality does not “naturally” or automatically even tend toward equilibrium at all. Marx argues that the very nature of commodity production and exchange creates huge obstacles to the formation of “equilibrium prices.” The very separation between production, consumption, distribution, and exchange means that supply of and demand for commodities are often not, nor do they need to be, in balance with each other. Money also exacerbates this possibility, because money allows people to buy goods without having to sell a good at the same time, and vice versa. Because of this, in order for exchanges to take place, there does not have to be a continuous balance of supply and demand. An imbalance can go on for a very long time without causing immediate problems because a sale of a good does not immediately have to be balanced by a purchase of another good, considering that goods are sold for money. When credit becomes a replacement for money, it makes this problem even more pronounced, since credit can create purchasing power greater than the actual amount of money in circulation, further separating demand from supply and increasing prices above their “equilibrium” level. These sorts of imbalances do ultimately lead to crisis according to Marx, because they will eventually disrupt the ability of the system to continually produce goods. But the point is that, up until the crisis, there are no intrinsic factors which would cause the system to “naturally” balance out, and in fact there are many factors intrinsic to capitalism which cause the system to be not in balance.

So to summarize: even when the capitalist system is in balance, inequality, crises, unrest, state intervention, etc. are all features of how the system works. The “free market” that bourgeois economists envision is a myth that does not in any way correspond to reality. Furthermore, there is no real reason that the capitalist system has to be in balance, and in fact there are many reasons why it tends to be out of balance. This leads to even further possibilities of instability and crisis.

German people are so dumb because they seem convinced that the ability to exploit others is progress. Import a bunch of Turkish people as cheap labor, and refuse to give citizenship even to their German-born kids? Awesome, we’re liberal on migration and accepting of immigrants! Normalize German men going and sexually abusing impoverished Eastern European women in legal brothels? Perfect, we’re open and healthy about sexuality, unlike all those other prudish people! Of course this kind of attitude exists in a lot of places, but I’ve never met people who were so good at putting a new shiny spin on utter shit in order to clean up their own reputation in the eyes of the world. When will people realize that increased ability to do a certain thing isn’t progress when that thing is fundamentally rooted in severe exploitation?

How to Spot and Stop Manipulators

“There are those whose primary ability is to spin wheels of manipulation. It is their second skin and without these spinning wheels, they simply do not know how to function.”

― C. JoyBell C.

Psychological manipulation can be defined as the exercise of undue influence through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, with the intention to seize power, control, benefits, and privileges at the victim’s expense.

It is important to distinguish healthy social influence from psychological manipulation. Healthy social influence occurs between most people, and is part of the give and take of constructive relationships. In psychological manipulation, one person is used for the benefit of another. The manipulator deliberately creates an imbalance of power, and exploits the victim to serve his or her agenda.

Most manipulative individuals have four common characteristics:

They know how to detect your weaknesses.
Once found, they use your weaknesses against you.
Through their shrewd machinations, they convince you to give up something of yourself in order to serve their self-centered interests.
In work, social, and family situations, once a manipulator succeeds in taking advantage of you, he or she will likely repeat the violation until you put a stop to the exploitation.
Root causes for chronic manipulation are complex and deep-seated. But whatever drives an individual to be psychologically manipulative, it’s not easy when you’re on the receiving end of such aggression. How can one successfully manage these situations? Here are eight keys to handling manipulative people. Not all of the tips below may apply to your particular situation. Simply utilize what works and leave the rest.

For more in-depth tools on how to effectively handle difficult individuals, download free excerpts of my publications (click on titles) “How to Successfully Handle Manipulative People (link is external),” “How to Successfully Handle Narcissists (link is external),” and “How to Successfully Handle Passive-Aggressive People (link is external).”

1. Know Your Fundamental Human Rights*

The single most important guideline when you’re dealing with a psychologically manipulative person is to know your rights, and recognize when they’re being violated. As long as you do not harm others, you have the right to stand up for yourself and defend your rights. On the other hand, if you bring harm to others, you may forfeit these rights. Following are some of our fundamental human rights:

You have the right to be treated with respect.
You have the right to express your feelings, opinions and wants.
You have the right to set your own priorities.
You have the right to say “no” without feeling guilty.
You have the right to get what you pay for.
You have the right to have opinions different than others.
You have the right to take care of and protect yourself from being threatened physically, mentally or emotionally.
You have the right to create your own happy and healthy life.
These fundamental human rights represent your boundaries.

Of course, our society is full of people who do not respect these rights. Psychological manipulators, in particular, want to deprive you of your rights so they can control and take advantage of you. But you have the power and moral authority to declare that it is you, not the manipulator, who’s in charge of your life.

2. Keep Your Distance

One way to detect a manipulator is to see if a person acts with different faces in front of different people and in different situations. While all of us have a degree of this type of social differentiation, some psychological manipulators tend to habitually dwell in extremes, being highly polite to one individual and completely rude to another—or totally helpless one moment and fiercely aggressive the next. When you observe this type of behavior from an individual on a regular basis, keep a healthy distance, and avoid engaging with the person unless you absolutely have to. As mentioned earlier, reasons for chronic psychological manipulation are complex and deep-seated. It is not your job to change or save them.

3. Avoid Personalization and Self-Blame

Since the manipulator’s agenda is to look for and exploit your weaknesses, it is understandable that you may feel inadequate, or even blame yourself for not satisfying the manipulator. In these situations, it’s important to remember that you are not the problem; you’re simply being manipulated to feel bad about yourself, so that you’re more likely to surrender your power and rights. Consider your relationship with the manipulator, and ask the following questions:

Am I being treated with genuine respect?
Are this person’s expectations and demands of me reasonable?
Is the giving in this relationship primarily one way or two ways?
Ultimately, do I feel good about myself in this relationship?
Your answers to these questions give you important clues about whether the “problem” in the relationship is with you or the other person.

For more in-depth information on reducing or eliminating over fifteen types of negative attitudes and feelings, see my book (click on title): “How to Let Go of Negative Thoughts and Emotions (link is external).”

4. Put the Focus on Them by Asking Probing Questions

Inevitably, psychological manipulators will make requests (or demands) of you. These “offers” often make you go out of your way to meet their needs. When you hear an unreasonable solicitation, it’s sometimes useful to put the focus back on the manipulator by asking a few probing questions, to see if she or he has enough self-awareness to recognize the inequity of their scheme. For example:

“Does this seem reasonable to you?”
“Does what you want from me sound fair?”
“Do I have a say in this?”
“Are you asking me or telling me?”
“So, what do I get out of this?”
“Are you really expecting me to [restate the inequitable request]?”
When you ask such questions, you’re putting up a mirror, so the manipulator can see the true nature of his or her ploy. If the manipulator has a degree of self-awareness, he or she will likely withdraw the demand and back down.

On the other hand, truly pathological manipulators (such as a narcissist) will dismiss your questions and insist on getting their way. If this occurs, apply ideas from the following tips to keep your power, and halt the manipulation.

To learn more specifically about how to deal with narcissists, see my book (click on title): “How to Successfully Handle Narcissists (link is external).”

5. Use Time to Your Advantage

In addition to unreasonable requests, the manipulator will often also expect an answer from you right away, to maximize their pressure and control over you in the situation. (Sales people call this “closing the deal.”) During these moments, instead of responding to the manipulator’s request right away, consider leveraging time to your advantage, and distancing yourself from his or her immediate influence. You can exercise leadership over the situation simply by saying:

“I’ll think about it.”

Consider how powerful these few words are from a customer to a salesperson, or from a romantic prospect to an eager pursuer, or from you to a manipulator. Take the time you need to evaluate the pros and cons of a situation, and consider whether you want to negotiate a more equitable arrangement, or if you’re better off by saying “no,” which leads us to our next point:

6. Know How To Say “No”―Diplomatically But Firmly

To be able to say “no” diplomatically but firmly is to practice the art of communication. Effectively articulated, it allows you to stand your ground while maintaining a workable relationship. Remember that your fundamental human rights include the right to set your own priorities, the right to say “no” without feeling guilty, and the right to choose your own happy and healthy life. In (click on title) “How to Successfully Handle Manipulative People (link is external),” I review seven different ways you can say “no,” to help lower resistance and keep the peace.

7. Confront Bullies, Safely

A psychological manipulator also becomes a bully when he or she intimidates or harms another person.

The most important thing to keep in mind about bullies is that they pick on those whom they perceive as weaker, so as long as you remain passive and compliant, you make yourself a target. But many bullies are also cowards on the inside. When their targets begin to show backbone and stand up for their rights, the bully will often back down. This is true in schoolyards, as well as in domestic and office environments.

On an empathetic note, studies show that many bullies are victims of violence themselves. This in no way excuses bullying behavior, but may help you consider the bully in a more equanimous light:

“When people don’t like themselves very much, they have to make up for it. The classic bully was actually a victim first.”—Tom Hiddleston
“Some people try to be tall by cutting off the heads of others.”—Paramhansa Yogananda
“I realized that bullying never has to do with you. It’s the bully who’s insecure.” —Shay Mitchell
When confronting bullies, be sure to place yourself in a position where you can safely protect yourself, whether it’s standing tall on your own, having other people present to witness and support, or keeping a paper trail of the bully’s inappropriate behavior. In cases of physical, verbal, or emotional abuse, consult with counseling, legal, law enforcement, or administrative professionals. It’s important to stand up to bullies, and you don’t have to do it alone.

8. Set Consequences

When a psychological manipulator insists on violating your boundaries, and won’t take “no” for an answer, deploy consequence.

The ability to identify and assert consequence(s) is one of the most important skills you can use to "stand down” a difficult person. Effectively articulated, consequence gives pause to the manipulative individual, and compels her or him to shift from violation to respect. In my reference guide (click on title) “How to Successfully Handle Manipulative People (link is external),” consequence is presented as seven different types of power you can utilize to affect positive change.

Early Slave Rebellions: Many Black slave rebellions and insurrections took place in North America during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Of those documented, there is evidence of more than 250 slave uprisings or attempted uprisings involving ten or more slaves. Three of the best known in the United States are the revolts by Gabriel Prosser in Virginia in 1800, Denmark Vesey in Charleston, South Carolina in 1822, and Nat Turner in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. The 1811 German Coast Uprising, which took place outside of New Orleans in 1811, involved up to 500 slaves. It was suppressed by volunteer militias and a detachment of the United States Army. They killed 66 black men in the battle, executed 16, and 17 escaped and/or were killed along the way to freedom. Slave resistance in the South did not gain academic or popular attention until the 1940s when historian Herbert Aptheker started publishing the serious research on the subject, stressing how rebellions were rooted in the exploitative conditions of Southern slavery.


For more info, search: 1811 German Coast Uprising, Nat Turner Rebellion, Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey,   Herbert Aptheker

be-your-way-out  asked:

I've been sifting through your blog for a while now, and im curious, what is your main arguement against capitalism? im independent and live in america and i like to have both sides of the story, what are key principles of socialism/communism?

Capitalism is a system that involves private ownership over the means of production and socially-operated property. By that, I mean that sole individuals can own factories, apartments, and other institutions that involve other people, people who actively use them. In effect, it is a system analogous to feudalism, with people given a “choice” over who their lord is. Living standards have improved since feudalism, and it is true that capitalism generates new products that have made our lives easier over a short span of time, but as a system it hoards those benefits at the top of the pyramid. As long as you have a system where unelected autocrats sit at the top of property pyramids and milk people of value they create at work and rent when they live in apartments, you wind up with an inherently class-based system rooted in exploitation and extreme inequality.

Our solution isn’t to create a huge government bureaucracy that will actively redistribute wealth. We want to cut inequality out at the source – sole individuals should not be able to own property and institutions that are socially-operated. We accept that dismantling concentrations of power in the political realm is a good idea, and it’s the same principle in the economic realm. Socially-operated property ought to be socially-managed, with democracy and meeting needs becoming new center-points. You would still be allowed to own personal possessions, but enterprises, institutions, and collective housing (things other people actively need to use and work in) should belong to all the participants. Socialism/communism is about dismantling concentrations of power and elevating democracy/social ownership over that which is social; those latter two things are the surest roads to classlessness, not bureaucratic states that sit there constantly redistributing wealth. (I recommend checking out Richard Wolff and his YouTube videos. He makes a good case for workplace democracy and worker control of industry.)

By this same token, it becomes foolish to argue about “small government” while in a capitalist system, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, private ownership over the means of production is upheld by the state, and history has shown that cops will literally beat the shit out of (and sometimes kill) striking workers who challenge this idea of private ownership. That’s not “small government” – that’s “big government” (a police state) defending more “big government” (autocratic control over social institutions). Secondly, what conservatives and right-libertarians describe as “big government” – welfare, corporate regulations, minimum wages, etc. – are actually things undertaken by the state to curb the tensions set up by capitalism as a system. People need set minimum wages and government assistance and oversight over unelected corporate bodies IN A SYSTEM that already actively works against them. A larger portion of Americans were actively socialist back in the late-1800s and early-1900s because these checks to capitalism didn’t exist – work days were longer, safety was consistently an issue, people took home pennies on the dollar (on the dollar they produced, I might add). The state combatted revolutionary socialist zeal with the implementation of those checks to capitalism and intense propaganda against socialists. So really, the things rightists argue are “socialist”, are in actuality just tools to keep capitalism afloat and free of tension and animosity. We socialists typically still support these tools going into effect, but we still push for a society beyond it that is rooted in democracy, meeting needs, and social ownership over the social. (We support bigger scraps from the table, but we still ultimately want a seat at the table.)

I realize this answer was a little long-winded, but I wanted to give you an accurate assessment of why we support socialism and want to see it built on the ashes of capitalism. Of course there is plenty more to anti-capitalism than what I described above, and I strongly recommend checking out some Marxist readings and some of the ideas put forward by the striking workers from that time in history I described. If anything, we’re pushing for a society based MORE on democracy than the current system; the current system uses the pretense of voting on a corporate-bought suit every four years as a cover for the overwhelming majority of society being undemocratic. We want something drastically different that actually works for people, and that means bringing democracy into the workplace, into collective housing, and into the economy as a whole.

There’s virtually no reason why you shouldn’t try.

Went I first went vegan, I was an activist. I went around, asking people to sign petitions, to get involved, to become aware. I was filled with a lot of passion, and none of my peers (none that I took seriously, anyway) made fun of me or told me it didn’t matter. Perhaps it was because we were all so young and so many of us were interested in positively changing the future for the better. We had open minds and open hearts. 

I spent a long time collecting information, analyzing studies and statistics and reading and watching and absorbing so that I could be a good advocate for veganism and animal rights. I had met many people who expressed misunderstandings about animals’ lives and the state of their treatment in society, and I had a die-hard wish to dispel those misconceptions, because I felt that the closer we approach the truth, the more we alter our behaviour to match that truth. Simply put, deep down I felt that exploitation took root in a simple ignorance of fact, and not from a place of malice.

The longer I have been an advocate, the more I have been proven wrong about this belief. There are many people who know and don’t care; there are many more who refuse to open themselves to new information that might challenge their preconceived notions of moral treatment towards animals (or how human rights and the environment are connected to the issue). There are also millions of people who fabricate an overly complex philosophy that justifies unnecessary harm to others under the guise of transcendentalism or being “above it all”. Sufficed to say, people’s reactions towards animal rights, and especially just vegans as people, has given me a lot to think about. Sometimes it has made me blindingly angry at how horrible people can be, other times it has made me crushingly sad. Too many times, I think, has it made me want to shut off my emotions from other human beings in an attempt not to be harmed by it.

I still desperately want to change the minds of others for the better, and I know that thousands of people have their minds changed, even slightly, every day - a change that pushes them towards feeling again that we can do good, that we are responsible for the world we live in, and that unnecessary harm is never permissible. But I’ve also resigned myself to a very cold reality where there are droves of other sentient, feeling, living people who hold a very rabid hatred towards me and people like me who seek to challenge their way of living. Often I forget that it exists. Often I forget that this issue is responded to with anything from mockery to outright vitriolic rage. It is sad to see people say they want you to die because you are trying to prevent unnecessary death and torture. It is sad to see people make very unoriginal and trite jokes because you’re defending a very serious, complex cause.

There are many, many reasons to be vegan and very few reasons for the vast majority people to reject this change in their lives. And there is virtually no reason why you shouldn’t at least try. Genuinely trying, without shielding your current worldview from criticism in a blanket of excuses, can only benefit you. There are millions who stand to benefit from everyone (myself included) being more willing to make changes for the better.

Before you let your mind pull up barriers and excuses for why you shouldn’t try, think about the myriad reasons why you should.

social service or social change?

“…social service work addresses the needs of individuals reeling from the personal and devastating impact of institutional systems of exploitation and violence. social change work challenges the root causes of the exploitation and violence…while there is some overlap between social service provision and social change work, the two do not necessarily go readily together…the tasks of funding, staffing, and developing resources for our organizations to meet those needs are difficult, poorly supported, and even actively undermined by those with power and wealth in our society. although some groups are both working for social change and providing social services, there are many more groups providing social services that are not working for social change. in fact, many social service agencies may be intentionally or inadvertently working to maintain the status quo. after all, the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC) wouldn’t exist without a lot of people in dire straits. the NPIC provides jobs; it provides opportunities for professional development. it enables those who do the work to feel good about what we do and about our ability to help individuals survive in the system. it gives a patina of caring and concern to the ruling class which funds the work. while there is always the risk of not securing adequate funding, there is a greater risk that if we did something to really rock the boat and address the root of the problems we would lose whatever funding we’ve already managed to secure.”

-paul kivel, excerpt from “social service or social change?”