talking liberally

because the priest at my parents’ church gave a painfully abstract and apolitical sermon on the Beatitudes in Matthew today. as if the Beatitudes weren’t explicit enough. 

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. I.E. THE NAMELESS MASSES WHO ACT QUIETLY AND HUMBLY, WHO DONATE TO JUSTICE ORGS WITHOUT LETTING THEIR LEFT HAND KNOW WHAT THEIR RIGHT IS DOING 

Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the land. I.E. THOSE WHOSE VOICES HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AND SILENCED BY STATE VIOLENCE

Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted. I.E. THE MOTHERS OF BLACK MEN KILLED BY THE POLICE STATE 

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill. I.E. THE CROWDS OF PROTESTORS AT MAJOR AIRPORTS ACROSS THE US STANDING AGAINST THE RACIST BAN ON MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. I.E. THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY AND THE PRISON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX 

Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God. I.E. THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST THE DEHUMANIZATION AND SEXUAL COMMODIFICATION OF WOMEN 

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. I.E. THOSE WHO WORK TOWARD A JUST RESOLUTION TO THE ISRAEL/PALESTINE CONFLICT 

Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. I.E. DISSIDENTS AND POLITICAL PRISONERS (LIKE JESUS) 


@ the church: ur vague “Christian” platitudes don’t cut it. 

  • 16 Year Old Me: Why are people poor? There's enough food and shelter for everybody.
  • Conservative Parents: You're too young to understand. Go to college.
  • Goes to college. Acquires bachelors in political science. Reads books and essays for a decade on structural poverty: Turns out poverty is a man-made creation structured to maintain a hierarchy of power. Vast majorities of people have little to nothing because the top of the capitalist hierarchy deploys state violence to horde wealth.
  • Conservative Parents: Bla bla bla, liberal commie-talk. A college degree don't make you smarter.
  • Me: Liberals and communists aren't the same thing.
3

An AU where young Keith, a Filipino-Korean, moves to the USA; on his first day at school, he refuses to talk, partly because he’s not exactly very sociable but mostly because he’s incredibly embarrassed about his English and lack of proficiency in it. O and shiro walks in

TRIPS OVER MY OWN FEET oh my god this was supposed to be black and white but then i wanted to paint but then gave up andCHRIST. my art style changes 600 times during this comic its dISGUSTIGN. THEN AGAIN it was rly rushed i just wanted to get this idea outta my head before school starts.

anonymous asked:

I honestly can't stand sebastian. I find him to be a fanatic and his opinions on the companions bother me. Anders might be a little abrasive but he's not the abusive evil guy everyone makes him out to be. Sebastian tells you that if you don't kill your friend/lover he'll leave. How is that not abusive?

Sorry, I must have forgotten that I asked for anon opinions on Sebastian.

Anders just murdered Sebastian’s family while Sebastian watched.

Let me say that again: ANDERS JUST MURDERED SEBASTIAN’S FAMILY WHILE SEBASTIAN WATCHED.

That’s why demanding that Anders die is not abusive. It sucks that Hawke seems to be the only city official left who is willing to step up and make a decision here, but Anders 100% deserves to die and denying Sebastian justice is morally reprehensible. I would leave too, if I were in Sebastian’s shoes, and I just might be so disgusted with Kirkwall’s corrupt government that, had I the power to “fix” it, I might be able to convince myself that fixing it by any means necessary was the right thing to do.

If you honestly think that mass murders shouldn’t be punished and that their victims should just get over themselves and accept that they don’t deserve justice and that their loved ones lives were worth less than the life of their killer, please stay far away from me.

There’s “TED Talk liberalism”. This is largely an economic position that takes an implicitly trickle-down approach; very much concentrated among wealthier cosmopolitan types who drop all kinds of techno-jargon and pseudo-progressive terms when discussing basic capitalist tactics. The Edgy White Liberal page on Facebook is the pinnacle of this. Think millionaire/billionaire CEOs who actively campaign for Hillary Clinton and other establishment shills, CEOs who donate lots of money in bulk at set times to increase their cultural capital and to supposedly offset the structural theft they participate in every day. Obviously not everyone who fits this bill is a CEO, but they are pretty much exclusively wealthy.

There’s “Buzzfeed liberalism”. This one may acknowledge the existence of white supremacy and patriarchy, but it condenses all of the revolutionary potential of knowing these things into a defanged form of privilege politics. White supremacy and patriarchy are understood as merely held in place by attitudes rather than by a structural reality of capitalist class society. Sure, class may get acknowledgement here, but it’s generally within the context of “don’t be classist” alongside the “don’t be the racist” and “don’t be sexist”. This form of liberalism gets insidious because all kinds of mainstream outlets are jumping on this bandwagon. Hegemonic liberalism has become perfectly comfortable elaborating vaguely on injustices, but you’ll never see it point to the root causes, lest otherwise receptive people organize and topple the system that maintains the TED Talk liberal’s power.

At what point will Buzzfeed liberalism go to? Will it ever acknowledge owning the means of production as problematic? Will it ever trace the power of white supremacy and patriarchy to the material oppression of class society? I highly doubt it.

I want to talk about this whole “punching nazis” thing, which I have been thinking about for some days.

To start, let me clarify that I have no moral or ethical qualms with Richard Spencer getting punched in the face on tv. I’d be happy to see it happen again.

But I do have a couple issues with much of the dialogue that has emerged in the wake of this event.

A lot of the people suddenly talking about nazis right now are people who didn’t seem to even realize they existed in this country prior to this election.

A lot of people seem to have gotten some strange ideas about how and where nazis are typically encountered, or who they actually are.

So, I’d like to talk about some of the times in my life when I’ve encountered nazis.

Before I do that, let’s try to establish a definition. There are a lot of different stripes of fascists and white supremacists out there, with varying agendas and varying degrees of organization. In the US we’ve got many types, ranging from the KKK and Aryan Nation to various unorganized skinhead rabble to the newish group calling itself the Alt Right. It seems easiest, at least for the sake of this argument, to lump those all together under one general “nazi” category. But does that really make sense? I’ll come back to that. But for now, in most of the examples I will describe below, these were people who openly called themselves such.

Also, I want to establish a bit about who I am. I don’t like to discuss any of these things publicly, but I also feel like I kind of have to, to explain where I am coming from. So: I am Jewish, I am bi, I am neurodivergent. Due to this last thing, I have certain issues navigating the physical world. I am physically fit but not athletic. I have very little self defense training. By occupation I am a musician.

And lastly I want to point out that these examples are from 15-20 years ago and describe some of my earliest encounters with these forces to provide context. And I’m going to start with some clear cut cases:

I first became aware of the existence of modern nazis my first year in high school. This was in the suburbs of San Francisco. I had a few friends who were into punk music and culture. I heard about “white power punks” and nazi skinheads who would sometimes show up at shows. When I started going out I would see them every once in a while. When I started going up to the city, at that time there were places that were absolutely notorious for nazi skinheads. I never interacted with them, I always steered clear of them, and never really fell in with the punk scene anyway. But that’s when I first became aware that there were people in modern America who called themselves nazis and directly advocated for white supremacy.

To be honest I did not think of myself as their “target” because (in my mind, at that time) Jewish culture in the SF Bay Area was practically invisible and unlikely to be on their radar. In fact I didn’t think too deeply about who their target was. I mostly thought they were crazy people who loved violence and called themselves “nazis” because it was the meanest thing they could think of, that they were in favor of “white power” because it was so obviously wrong. At this time, there was fair amount of tension in the state around the issue of immigration from Mexico. But it did not occur to me then that there could have been any relationship between the xenophobia I saw expressed by mainstream circles in conversations about Proposition 187 and the blatant, violent white supremacy expressed by the skinheads on the periphery of local punk scenes. (also please note that I am aware that not all skinheads are nazis and that there is an anti-racist element within skinhead culture as well)

In college, in Pittsburgh, I lived on a store with a convenience store on one end. One of the people who worked in this store was a skinhead who wore a jacket covered in various white power/“rock against communism” band logos. He had a group of similar buddies that often hung around nearby, a couple of whom had aryan nation tattoos. On several occasions when I woke up in the morning I would find leaflets distributed up and down the block decrying the Holocaust as a “Jewish scam to make money”. These flyers were attributed to Church of the Creator, one of the more active neo-nazi groups in Pennsylvania at that time. Every once in a while I would cautiously engage in arguments with some people on the fringes of that crew of guys who hung out in the area. Things were sometimes tense but never got physical. Soon after 9/11 most of them disappeared. I don’t know why or where to.

While traveling alone in Slovenia, I nearly ran into a parade of about 40 skinheads chanting and marching in the street while I was on the way back to where I was staying. I do not know what specific group they were affiliated with but wore patches with the common “celtic cross” symbol used by far right/white nationalist groups all over the world. At that time, fascist graffiti covered Ljubljana.

Those are just a few of the more blatant examples from that time. These experiences were not rare. The KKK and various neo-nazi groups held public parades and rallies all throughout this period, and sometimes showed up as counter protestors or forces of violence at protests for progressive causes. They marched through downtown Pittsburgh - with the local government’s blessing - and many other cities in that region.

There were protestors at those marches, and there were people who fought the nazis directly, but the general consensus in mainstream liberal circles at that time seemed to be that nazis had the right to march just like anyone else, that any violence against them would be bad. It certainly wasn’t at all common to hear college educated, NY Times-reading liberals talking about the glories of “punching nazis”. This is a problematic but very complicated phenomenon: they were to be tolerated up until the point at which they’ve come into power.

But let me explain why _I_ didn’t go around punching the nazis I saw, during those times when I encountered them personally. To some extent, part of me did follow that logic mentioned above, but that’s not the real reason. The real reason is pretty simple: most nazis are a lot better at fighting than I am, they do it more frequently, they usually travel in numbers, they are often armed, and in almost every circumstance when I’ve encountered them the odds would not have been remotely in my favor had things gotten physical.

Richard Spencer was alone and unarmed standing in front of a video camera busily talking about an internet meme while he was sucker punched. This occurred in broad daylight in a very crowded, open area with a ton of media and police present. While I applaud the anonymous puncher for seizing upon that opportunity, that’s not really a typical situation in which one encounters nazis.

Recently, Richard Spencer posted a video in reaction to this incident. In this video he mentions that the Alt Right will not succeed if they are unable to be who they are in public. I’ve seen a lot of people pointing to this video as a sign of victory over the Alt Right, a sign that they are scared. I think the latter half is true but not the former. What Spencer is saying is that they are going to ramp up security. And I would anticipate that these people will begin to receive even more protection from the current administration.

So, this is one conclusion I’d like to leave here - in most cases “punching nazis” means getting involved in serious physical violence in which your life will be at risk. And that risk is only going to increase in the future. Fantasizing about punching some idiot talking about a frog on tv is fun, but I think it ignores the realities that many have faced and many more are about to face. And while many of us have disabilities that hinder us in this department, I think it would behoove anyone who is serious about getting physical with fascists to study and learn how to do so before getting involved in a situation you are unprepared for. I would also think long and hard before making that demand of anyone else. But that’s not the most important point.

I’d like to circle back to talking about definitions. The examples I gave above are obvious. These were people who, in almost all cases, were openly wearing the actual logos of white supremacist organizations. So let me bring up a different example:

About one year after 9/11 I was in Budapest, taking an overnight train to Amsterdam. I had a spot in a sleeper compartment on a train. I got on and a couple other passengers came in. One of them was a young guy, a little older than me (I was in my early 20’s at this time). He spoke English very well and we got to talking. It turned out he was an Austrian who worked in finance. Middle management at a major bank. He bought us a couple of beers and we were getting along. Inevitably, the topic of 9/11 came up. Seemingly out of nowhere, he explains to me how “there were no Jews in the building that day”. He then goes on to explain how 9/11 and the entire War on Terror that was then unfolding was all a Jewish plot to direct money to Israel’s armed forces. And hinted that the Holocaust was a similar plot. I tried to argue with him for a bit (without letting on that I was Jewish) but it was nearly impossible to get through to him, and he soon became surly and then passed out. I tried to do the same. But what caught my attention was that this man was well spoken, dressed conservatively, he looked every bit the upper middle class finance professional. It was difficult to imagine him in a street fight. No one would have described this person as being on the fringes of his society.

Up until a year ago, if I told this story to a European, or to an American person of color, they were unsurprised. But if I told it to a white American their reaction would usually be “yeah, well, that’s Europe for you”.

But that’s never been the case.

One common narrative is that many of the groups of fascists have figured out that they aren’t going to get very far if they are seen just thugs who march around on the street wearing in leather jackets getting in scraps. many of them have figured this out some time ago, and have been infiltrating mainstream education and corporate life. And yes, that is happening.

But there is a big problem with that narrative: it ignores the fact that many of America’s institutions and businesses are, themselves, organizations that promote white supremacy. Many of our banks, many of our police departments, our prison system, much of our media. Does these mean they are all “nazis”? Not really. But what it does mean is that white supremacy is not some outside force that just suddenly popped out of Steve Bannon’s suitcase. It’s been here for a long time. It is deeply engrained in our society. Fascism is not some new danger that we suddenly need to prevent from being “normalized” - for much of America, fascism has been the norm for a very long time.

Here’s my point with all of this: sooner or later, Trump will be defeated. This regime is monstrous, but I have seen the power and anger and sheer volume of opposition to it, and I do not think that this regime will last. My worry is, once this most obvious of enemies is defeated, the liberal establishment will go right back to completely forgetting that white supremacy and fascism are a major problem in this country. The sad fact is, even when Democrats in power, even when the POTUS is the most progressive sounding person electable, the nazis are still here, white supremacy is still here, fascism is still here. And not always on “the other side”. We need to remember that, we need to keep pointing to them and ostracizing them and speaking out against white supremacy and fascism even when it looks like things are more comfortable, because that comfort is a trap.

Real Talk

Anyone who has ever called liberals “snowflakes” has obviously never seen a man react when he’s told no 🙄🙄🙄

And to clarify (because I guess some people missed the point) I’m talking about how butthurt some people act when they get a response they don’t like.

If I tell someone I don’t want your sexual advances or unsolicited dick pics I shouldn’t expect to get nasty comments in response.

Honestly, I am sick of tired of it being ok to call people radical liberals/feminists as if it is some sort of insult but it’s not ok to call the exact opposing side Nazis. Like one is pushing for equality the other is pushing for genocide, but which one is getting the respect here? See the issue?

White women don’t want black women to seprate from feminism because we’re women. The black community doesn’t want us to separate from pro-blackness because we’re black.

Both groups have done nothing to make our stay at the Solidarity Inn comfortable.

This is the mental gymnastics that black women have to go through just to find a place in this world. Can’t rely on mainstream feminism, because if the struggle doesn’t center white women, then apparently, it isn’t a struggle. And we can’t rely on the Pro-black movement or the RBG movement, because if it doesn’t center black men, then apparently it isn’t a struggle.

So what do we do? Create our own spaces for ourselves, right? The gag is…Both groups get angry the moment you exclude them from any talk of Black Female Liberation when none of them cared enough to assist us in gaining our rights in the first place.

Liberation vs. Exploitation 101

For feminism to be effective, to become a changing force, we need to prioritize women. We need to talk about female specific oppression. We need to talk about our bodies, how they are made taboo and at the same time made into everything we are; how we are shamed for bleeding but stolen and used as objects for men’s sexual gratification. We need to talk about how and why society and men try to own our bodies and our childbearing through legislations and violence. We need to talk about structural liberation. We need to talk about the nine in ten women in prostitution who want to get out but can’t, and support them, and help them find ways, and never support or pave the way for those upholding their exploitation. We need to prioritize the structural resistance against violence against women and fight everything that allude to sexual violence as normal. We need to talk about the women who are denied reproductive health care; the women dying in child birth; the women held as sex slaves; the women raped in their marriages; the women who are married away as children. We need to talk about how many women are taught self hate from the day they are born and it’s confirmed “it’s a girl”. We need to prioritize women because in this world, that is revolutionary.

anonymous asked:

A white woman interrupted a black woman's presentation on American prison industrial complex in my class today and said that "its beneficial to the prisoners since even though they get paid little, they don't have to pay rent and they learn new skills". Liberal white women are demons????

I do not trust the vast majority of white liberals or leftists of any stripe lmfao

No doubt a lot of the same people defending can a nazis like Richard Spencer, the same people who erroneously include hate speech in free speech, the same people talking about offended liberals, the same people fawning over pos like Milo Yiannopoulos and “trump won so get over it!” are a lot of the same folks getting upset over a show pointing out racism.

Talk about being sensitive.

I love how conservatives can go on and on about topics such as global warming, LGBTQ+ issues, racial equality, and the economy using only their emotions as evidence and everyone will take them seriously.

I love how minority groups and liberal people can go on and on about the same topics using science and statistical studies and everyone just seems to laugh about the “”emotional”” special snowflakes.

I love how conservatives can ruin this country using their feelings alone, but weaponize the emotions and humanity of minority groups against them.

And by “I love” I mean I fucking hate it.

anonymous asked:

I'm a little confused... I thought liberal was the good side. Can you explain what the set of tweets is talking about?

First, I am going to refer you to an ask that I have answered previously on this topic:

When you say “Liberal” context is important. Are we talking economic issues, social issues or the amount of cheese on nachos?

The “Liberal” talked about in the Tweets is Neo-Liberal economic policies as espoused by Democrats. 

In the last ask, some people had an issue with how i “conflated” Democrats and Republicans with both being Neo-Liberal. This is a perfect opportunity to clarify how that works better. 

Neo-Liberalism is currently at the heart of both political parties, but not in the same ways. As most know, Democrats and Republicans both espouse very different economic views. Neo-Liberalism itself is a return to late 19th Century ideals of economic liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism. Just to give some greater clarity, here are a few policy positions of Neo-Liberalism. 

  • Lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
  • Free Trade across national borders
  • Little to no regulation on businesses or the market
  • Relative ease in immigrating across national borders
  • Privatizing public institutions

If you notice, some are Republican policy positions, others are Democratic policy positions. 

Honestly, this is the greatest coup of the wealthy, getting both parties to each support one-half of their economic view. No matter who wins, they will get half of what they want. Thay may have some things they don’t like happen, like the expansion of social safety nets, or decreases in the ease of immigration, but in the long run, the wealthy will get almost all of what they want, no matter who is in power. 

This perpetuation of a failed economic ideology has damaged both parties. The rise of the Sanders left and the Trump right are proof of this. Neither group of voters supports neo-liberalism, they rebelled against it by voting for party outsiders, people that, at least, spoke of a different way of approaching economic governance.

The point of the tweets was that if the Democrats continue to use the same failed system of economics to prop up the party people will begin to flee, looking for any alternative to the current system, even if it is worse.

- @theliberaltony