almost home
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Misplaced Lens Cap
Show & Tell
Claire Keane
trying on a metaphor
@theartofmadeline
🪼
Game of Thrones Daily
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
shark vs the universe
pixel skylines
⁂
macklin celebrini has autism
Product Placement
Sweet Seals For You, Always
RMH
No title available
todays bird
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Netherlands
seen from Panama
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Panama
seen from Jamaica
seen from United States
@factionafterdark
Sideblog for stuff we don’t want on our main. May include but not limited to: politics, discourse, or suggestive content
Main is @m1nus-one, and our proper intro is there. Anyway, just don’t bother bring any bullshit onto here bc we block at will.
“Why don’t we see trans men making xyz kind of media?” They are, you’ve just proven you’re not a safe person to be in community with so it’s not shared with you. Remember the dozens of trans men bullied for their art specifically because they’re trans men? Remember when everyone was praising and adoring “Welcome to the Internet, Transvestite” until it came out that a trans man wrote it and all of a sudden it was tasteless and transmisogynistic and evil? If you’re not seeing transmasc art, it’s because you are not in community with trans men, likely because you’ve proven yourself unsafe to be in community with.
tony's chocolonely mildly pisses me off every time i eat it. like yeah i get it ur doing a whole symbolism thing about unfairness and whatever, but its actually SO DIFFICULT to eat fucking. gerrymandered chocolate. your symbolism is ruining my chocolate experience.
who approved this.
like. ur already more expensive. i understand this. i am willing to pay more money to have slave-free delicious chocolate. why must you punish me further by making it a goddamn puzzle to break a piece off.
Tony's Chocolonely does not ensure a living wage for cocoa workers in West Africa (see 2020 report by Voice Network).
Food Empowerment Project maintains an updated list of chocolate brands they recommend based on the following standards:
transparency about the country of origin for cocoa
if sourced from Western Africa, the workers must own the companies/be in charge of the profits from their labor (this standard is because child labor and slavery have been widely documented for decades in this area)
if sourced from Brazil, the workers must own the company and/or be in charge of the profits from their labor, or the company must be going above and beyond to support the workers and their families (this standard is because "child labor and slavery only recently have been documented in cocoa in Brazil" and they are "giving Brazilian companies that are trying to address the issue by supporting the workers and their families the benefit of the doubt.")
this isn't perfect, obviously, but it is much more grounded in the rights of workers than the various certifications (e.g. Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, etc.) you'll see on product packaging
I think it should be noted that the Food Empowerment Project specifically only lists companies making "at least one vegan chocolate product" and that they only ask about the companies' vegan chocolates specifically. Their list is not an exhaustive resource for every type of chocolate.
[Source: "Understanding Our Chocolate List" from their website]
Before I found that link I was curious as to why I didn't see any Norwegian manufacturers on their list(which makes sense now, as their chocolates are almost exclusively milk chocolate) and looked up where our companies source their chocolate from and found Nidar gets theirs from the Rainforest Alliance and Freia from Cocoa Life, both of which have been under scrutiny for not preventing child labour and not paying farmers a living wage among other things. So it appears Norwegian chocolate is out of the ethical picture.
I stated this in the comments of the post already, but it’d probably be better to add it as a reblog, so it’s more visible and doesn’t need to be restated by anyone else in the future.
So, Tony’s allied with Barry Callebut to get its cocoa. Barry Callebut is one of the biggest chocolate companies in the world, and it is unethical, obviously. This led to Tony’s revealing in February 2022 that 1701 child laborers were in their supply chain. Barry Callebut had over 21K at the time. Both of those numbers have risen, and Tony’s has outright admitted they don’t give a fuck about child labor laws when asked about it, content to let children to continue farming their cocoa instead of actually doing the activism they claim to do. (business-humanrights.org, feb 6 2022)
About a week ago, Tony’s joined Barry, Nestle and Ferrero in pushing against the reinstatement of important EUDR deforestation legislations. Under that regulation that they pushed against, they would’ve had to be more transparent about their supply chains for their more key ingredients - So Tony’s is lobbying against the exact thing they claim to stand for. (confectioneryproduction.com, mar 18, 2026)
Won’t restate @closet-keys’s addition, of course. That’d just be redundant and maybe annoying since, yknow, it’s already been said.
If you wanna find a better chocolate brand it’s really damn easy. There’s lists on slavefreechocolate.org of both the ethical and unethical companies. Both lists can be found here:
Below is a list of chocolate companies that only use ethically grown cocoa. Find out how you can tell if the chocolate you are ea
And it doesn’t have the vegan product restriction the other list has, which solves @aloofraven’s issue.
This is the world capitalists want to return to.
Your therapist can't diagnose people you talk about in session, including confirming armchair diagnoses that you made.
Any commentary they make in response to you raising the issue of someone else's diagnoses should be something to the effect of "it's possible that they have x disorder, but it's more important to focus on how their behavior affects you / the relationship."
If your therapist says "you parents are narcissists" or "your ex is a sociopath," that either didn't happen, or they're creating an ethical violation.
They aren't allowed to diagnose someone who isn't their client, i.e. has consented to treatment.
Even if they were allowed to do that, your secondhand account of that person doesn't constitute an assessment.
Even if they were allowed to do that and could use your secondhand account, they wouldn't be able to tell you about someone else's diagnoses because of confidentiality.
Further, your therapist can't diagnose you with "narcissistic abuse syndrome" etc. because it doesn't exist. There are no legitimate diagnoses based on the (speculative!!!) diagnoses of an abuser; you're likely talking about complex PTSD, which commonly results from abuse (including emotional abuse).
I don't trust therapists who slap diagnoses on their clients' abusers. You shouldn't either. You should know the basics of clinical boundaries and the correct terms for things so that you don't feed into stigma or put up with a therapist who's willing to engage in unethical practice.
If they're focused on diagnosing your abuser, they've got blinders on and won't be able to objectively evaluate your situation to help you heal. Ultimately, telling someone that their abuser is a special type of person and they have a special type of trauma rather than focusing on behavior, impact, and symptoms isn't good therapy and it won't help you heal.
UNPOPULAR OPINION: A lot of "mental health issues" disappear when bills are paid, rent is secure, and the fridge is full. Peace is expensive. And pretending money doesn't affect mental health is privilege.
Since Canada is currently trying to sell itself as an "ethical alternative" to Iran's oil, I would just like to remind folks / share some quick information:
More than 50% of Indigenous communities in reserve areas in Canada are at high risk of pipeline spills. When there is a spill, reserves are disproportionately impacted.
The National Energy Board and Supreme Court of Canada has a history of declaring the "public interest and economic interests outweigh Indigenous and treaty rights." Basically, Indigenous peoples don't count enough as "public" to matter.
Pipelines are built without proper consent from the Indigenous Nations they choose to occupy. Keep in mind I say choose, because this is the case even when alternative pipeline routes are suggested that could avoid reserve land. This is a direct, constant, and often violent threat to Indigenous sovereignty.
The MMIW crisis is funded by the oil industry through the creation of worker's "man camps" near reserve land. These "man camps" are nothing but pits of sexual violence and human trafficking of Indigenous women and girls. I am not exaggerating; this is well studied and well documented.
Resources & Sources:
To become an ‘energy superpower’, Canada wants to bulldoze Indigenous rights (START HERE!)
Indigenous Resistance to Alberta Oil and Gas Development Report
When the environment is destroyed, you're destroyed: Achieving Indigenous led pipeline justice
First Nations Consent Ignored as Canadians Asked to Subsidize LNG Expansion
Oil pipelines and food sovereignty: threat to health equity for Indigenous communities
Is Violence against Indigenous Women in “Canada’s interest”? Liquified Natural Gas in B.C., Sexual Violence & Narratives of Terra Nullius
The colonial playbook never ended, Canada’s pipeline deal proves it
Stand together: Alberta's First Nations and non-Indigenous unite against Big Oil
hate when men complain about how theyre not allowed to be vulnerable and people will be like "and who set that system up?" as a gotcha moment. stop acting like patriarchy was funded by calling in Every Man Ever in a room and letting them all singularly decide if they wanted it. patriarchy hurts everyone in different ways, they're allowed to complain and you shutting them down and telling them to stop complaining are doing exactly what toxic masculinity wants you to enforce
“And who set that system up?”
That’s one question to ask, sure.
But when a little boy is being told by his mother to suck it up or else he’ll never be a real man?
That’s a woman placing that system’s constraints upon her son. She didn’t set it up any more than her son did, or her father did. But she is being the enforcer of the system.
We need to stop talking about patriarchal systems as though the current men who live under it made it, and we also need to stop talking about patriarchal systems as though they are ever only enforced by men.
And, as OP pointed out. By doing the, “and who set the system up?” at a man expressing that he’s constrained in certain ways by the patriarchy, you’re dodging the opportunity to deconstruct toxic masculinity (a crucial element of the system) and are instead enforcing that over him.
The reality is that men are hurting and that the whole culture responds to them by saying, “Please do not tell us what you feel.” I have always been a fan of the Sylvia cartoon where two women sit, one looking into a crystal ball as the other woman says, “He never talks about his feelings.” And the woman who can see the future says, “At two P.M. all over the world men will begin to talk about their feelings—and women all over the world will be sorry.” If we cannot heal what we cannot feel, by supporting patriarchal culture that socializes men to deny feelings, we doom them to live in states of emotional numbness. We construct a culture where male pain can have no voice, where male hurt cannot be named or healed. It is not just men who do not take their pain seriously. Most women do not want to deal with male pain if it interferes with the satisfaction of female desire. When feminist movement led to men’s liberation, including male exploration of “feelings,” some women mocked male emotional expression with the same disgust and contempt as sexist men. Despite all the expressed feminist longing for men of feeling, when men worked to get in touch with feelings, no one really wanted to reward them. In feminist circles men who wanted to change were often labeled narcissistic or needy. Individual men who expressed feelings were often seen as attention seekers, patriarchal manipulators trying to steal the stage with their drama. When I was in my twenties, I would go to couples therapy, and my partner of more than ten years would explain how I asked him to talk about his feelings and when he did, I would freak out. He was right. It was hard for me to face that I did not want to hear about his feelings when they were painful or negative, that I did not want my image of the strong man truly challenged by learning of his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Here I was, an enlightened feminist woman who did not want to hear my man speak his pain because it revealed his emotional vulnerability. It stands to reason, then, that the masses of women committed to the sexist principle that men who express their feelings are weak really do not want to hear men speak, especially if what they say is that they hurt, that they feel unloved. Many women cannot hear male pain about love because it sounds like an indictment of female failure. Since sexist norms have taught us that loving is our task whether in our role as mothers or lovers or friends, if men say they are not loved, then we are at fault; we are to blame.
from The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love by bell hooks
When a man earnestly tries to verbalize the immense pain and suffering he experiences under patriarchy, and your response is a witty quip that shifts the conversation away from vulnerability towards mockery and blames him for the existence of the system both of you were born into without choosing, you are acting as a patriarch would like you to act: man up, shut up.
(Also, before anyone gets mad at hooks, the above quoted section comes right before she discusses the fear of violent men and the difficulty of women and men, in confessing how much they fear the men in their lives, referencing her own family's experience with her violent and abusive father. She is not ignoring or ignorant of (cis) male violence when she talks about love and loving men.)
this is also not true btw. everyone needs to get more kyriarchy in their feminist analysis.
there is no "ongoing collective permission of men," because patriarchy is not a fucking democracy. it is one element of an entire matrix of domination (to use Patricia Collins' term from Black Feminist Thought) and the majority of man are, at best, foot soldiers and cannon fodder for the (white supremacist imperialist eugenicist cisheteroperisex-)patriarchy.
patriarchy, as all systems of oppression do, creates an illusion that the majority of people have some inherent connection with those in power, in order to convince them to support the system and so that they do not recognize how the system truly works. when you say shit like this, you are buying into that patriarchal illusion.
and like, yes, if all men / the majority of men suddenly developed a feminist consciousness and became dedicated to anti-patriarchal action, obviously that would be a massive blow to patriarchy and kyriarchy as a whole. but realistically, that will never happen in a way perfectly removed from everyone else? there is no way the majority of men will become anti-patriarchal without it having anything to do with women. there will never be a world where men simply decide that patriarchy is bad and deconstruct it while all the ladies sit around a pool drinking cocktails.
the system of white supremacy, of imperialism, of ableism, etc. could not exist without the participation of white people, citizens of the imperial core, abled people, etc. which is why these systems do not ask permission from these groups, they construct institutions and social worldviews which manufacture these groups & their participation in the system. these institutions and worldviews are difficult to separate oneself from, hard to even fully understand in the first place. it will NEVER ever ever ever ever be as simple as "everyone who is classed as the dominant group one day simply decides to reject it and then the whole system crumbles and everyone celebrates." liberation will always require solidarity. which itself requires emotional intelligence, conflict resolution skills, and not waiting for the people one suffers alongside to be ideologically perfect/ly aligned with you before they "deserve" your solidarity.
the correct answer to a man saying "damn living as a man under patriarchy fucking hurts" is to say "you are right, i'm sorry we have to live like this, let's talk about how we can fight patriarchy(/kyriarchy) together."
[reuters]
This sketch is incredible. Perfect moment to capture. 10/10 for the artist.
Link to post
A hearing in Luigi Mangione’s state murder case in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was postponed until Wednesday after pr
Remember, everyone, the guy is fucking innocent! And I'm not just talking innocent unless proven guilty! Although that is also important!
I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for the gunman to leave his bag with stuff for the police to find in New York and then be found several days later with stuff he'd want the police to find in it in Pennsylvania.
Even if the dude's not rational, he would've ditched that. He wouldn't be holding onto it. If he wanted to be found with it, then what was the point of running? What would be the point of pleading not guilty? If you're carrying around your manifesto for the police to find when they get you, why would you plead not guilty and insist that it wasn't you?
There was a gap of time where the police took Luigi's bag, and then they brought it back and it magically had evidence in it. He does not look like the guy in the photo beyond the barest of resemblances. They don't really have a case! And they're clearly sloppy! Look at the article!
I know everyone is joking about "oh yeah he's innocent *wink*" but like genuinely. The man who shot the United Healthcare CEO and the guy they forgot to bring into court are not the same person. And joking that "we all know he did it but we're saying he didn't" is still implanting into the public subconscious that he's guilty, which can fuck up a jury ruling. He's not guilty! They have an innocent man!
Repeat that until you understand it!
Honestly it’d be safe to assume EVERYONE in the criminal justice system after 2024 is innocent, but him especially- we KNOW he was set up and we KNOW he didn’t do it.
all cops are bastards because all cops are just doing their jobs
“I’m just doing what I’m told. If I am ordered to remove gold fillings from refugees theeth then that’s what I’ll do”, says police officer Michael Hansen. Just thought I’d add this since not a lot of people outside of the nordic countries seem to have seen it. This is a danish police officer discussing a new danish law that says the police should seize the possesions and money of refugees to finance the integration.
He uh, skipped awful quickly to “stealing gold fillings” didn’t he?
Original Article the image & caption are taken from.
It’s real.
Remember that “just following orders” was a claim made by the nazis who survived World War Two who were charged with warcrimes.
They also stole the gold from people’s teeth.
Oh. So there are other places headed this horrid path? It’s not just US?
its so awkward when people ask me why i dropped out and i have to be like "inadequate disability support" bc no one wants to hear this. they're always like i thought they had to provide that though isn't it the law? girl you might want to sit down i have some bad news about the litigation-based enforcement of the americans with disabilities act
then if i do say that theyre like, couldnt you sue? well theoretically maybe but not without spending more money than i have and putting myself through absolute hell. so no. no i can't.
it’s just this
“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be free” men CAN get pregnant and they’re treated worse than women who can get pregnant
oh folks really don't like being asked to consider trans men
Over a thousand Rikshospitalet patients were included in scientific studies without consent. Now, researchers await the National Research Et
actually pigs shouldn't be at pride even outside of uniform. fuck those guys
if you decide to become a police officer then that outweighs any other marginalised identity you can rustle up like. not sorry, who asked you to willingly become a pig
I have heard of black people warning their kids that the race of a police officer is cop and you should not expect solidarity from them. The same applies to other types of minorities.
The sexuality of a police officer is cop.
The gender of a police officer is cop.
When you become the enforcer and protector of capital, you are making the deal to be slightly favored by the system over others like you, in exchange for being its servant. Your solidarity is with the system that you serve, even if it hates you.
If you want solidarity with those the system hates, you cannot be the system's servant and defender.
if you think saying "trans men have gynecological body parts and are thus are affected by misogyny" is equal to saying "all trans men are actually women" then sweetheart you might be a bioessentialist
A reminder for those who need it
