No title available
AnasAbdin
Kaledo Art
Not today Justin
RMH
cherry valley forever
JBB: An Artblog!
pixel skylines
đȘŒ
No title available
Misplaced Lens Cap
occasionally subtle
DEAR READER
Cosimo Galluzzi
styofa doing anything
Monterey Bay Aquarium
YOU ARE THE REASON
â
$LAYYYTER
izzy's playlists!
seen from Belarus
seen from United States
seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from Ireland
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Finland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Bulgaria
seen from United States
@goodtake-badtake
people love to pretend rap is THE misogyny genre and that for some mysterious reason, itâs the ONLY genre defined by its misogyny. and, in fact, itâs PRAXIS to hate rap and never listen to it. how very interesting! i wonder what that reason could be! can any of YOU imagine what that reason may be? đ€
And people just ignore that a lot of rock is extremely misogynistic.
good takes
transmascs are privileged because they pass as cis men. like how transfems pass as cis women. transphobia isn't real actually
because cis women are famously privileged over cis men
i think one of the worst things the left wing internet ever did was push the idea that oppression is basically a virtue, and being oppressed is a sign of your morality. it has made it likeâŠimpossible for some of you to hold the idea that most people are privileged in some ways and oppressed in others. AND a lot of you seem to have it in your mind that terrible people cannot be oppressed, and that oppressed people cannot do terrible things, which is a dangerous rhetoric to hold imo.
Not only is it important so you don't get taken advantage of by terrible people wielding their oppressions as weapons, but also your convictions against oppression should not be contingent on the morality of the people suffering. Shitty people don't deserve to be oppressed either. Human rights are one of those things you only really understand and believe in if you see them as universal, not conditional.
good take
the way that people online have convinced others that mixed use zoning is required for a good life is really fucking insane to me.
you wanna live in a city that centers mixed use zoning? sure go ahead. but not all cities need to be that way. it's actually okay to have some places that are more spread out. we don't all have to want exactly the same life. why do you insist that we do?
furthermore, you wanna take a place that's not built on mixed use zoning and make it that way? well you need a plan that doesn't include gentrification and misplacing poor existing residents (primarily people of color). those people aren't actually protected by your good intentions. soooooo
i repeat: why do we have to all live in mixed use zones? literally why?
mid take
i would like to remind everyone smugly using "usamerican" that you are not being woke or reclaiming anything you just don't understand how adjectives or languages work
american - national of the united states of america
north american - individual living in or a national of a country located on the continent of north america
south american - individual living in or a national of a country located on the continent of south america
canadian - definitionally, especially lately, person who does not fucking want to be called an american, because "american" in both canadian and american english has the semantic weight of "national of the united states of america"
and this is not, in fact, limited to english
amerĂskur - icelandic adjective for american (loanword, more on the slang side, bandarĂskur more often used)
amerĂkani - icelandic noun describing a national of the united states of america
américain - french adjective or noun describing a national of the united states of america
you cannot brute force a sea change in multiple languages simply because you personally misunderstand the difference between etymology and semantics and also assume (in, hilariously, a very american-centric way) that the billion-plus individuals must have a closer connection to the concept of continent than they do to nationality or other regional identities. a catfish is not literally a cat. it is a completely random trick of language evolution that nationals of the united states of america are not called unitans or vespuccians. calm down and stop being irritating
bad take
the reason men are getting more conservative is very simply that as a class, as a socioeconomic group, their power is being threatened by womens civil rights. its the same reason for the broad surge in right wing politics. its called a backlash and its also why most civil war monuments are from the era of the black civil rights movement and not actually from the civil war.
Men literally arenât being threatened my womenâs rights. Maybe this was true in the mid 20th century when women were adding to the work force, but theyâve been there.
This view is holding water for the menâs rights movement by conceding that thereâs actually some battle of the sexes.
Men are getting more conservative because theyâre isolated from both tech and the general atomization of American life. They canât get a girlfriend because they donât talk to anyone outside of video games, not because of feminism.
Women having less rights means we are beholden more to men. Feminism tells women that we are worth something. "Men are misogynist because of tech and loneliness" do you think misogyny didn't exist before computers?
My point is there hasnât been a huge gain in womenâs rights in the past ten years, not like the material gains of the civil rights movement OP linked it to. Women have materially lost rights with Dobbs.
The uptick in misogyny (not all misogyny, just the uptick) can be traced to gamer gate and 4-Chan. They absolutely were affected by tech and loneliness, and they werenât responding to a loss of status, because they were always losers. Feminism didnât take anything from them. They were angry about representation in media. Which I donât think is the same thing as the kind of material loss in power as a class that OP is talking about. Itâs all just fucking identity politics.
The thing is, people donât rationally respond to threats to their power as a class. If they did they would all be marxist. Instead, they perceive that they are hurt, get angry, and channel that anger on the easiest available scapegoat.
Here, feminism is just a scapegoat.
What really bothers me is that propagating the idea that feminism is responsible for menâs suffering unintentionally aids in that scapegoating. And I think thatâs wrong. Feminism is great. It doesnât hurt me. Iâm hurt by some other socioeconomic shit.
did we all just fucking memory hole things like addressing the federal gender pay gap and the huge movement towards making stem fields accessible to women and the fucking me too movement and expanding access to contraceptives by having them covered by health insurance and improvements to maternal leave and movement for paternal leave like did none of that shit happen did i dream that. does that shit not count.
no feminism is not responsible for mens suffering and thats not what i fucking said. if women are liberated then men no longer enjoy the privileges they have over women. therefore as a socioeconomic group their power is threatened by womens liberation. which is what i DID say.
gamer gate was the start of the backlash! they SAID they were angry about representation in media, but the reality is they wouldnt care if they didnt feel threatened by the social gains women had made. dobbs is part of the backlash! we are IN the backlash! just like jim crow laws were a backlash to the reconstruction era!
and lets say these men wouldnt be misogynists if they werent lonely and atomized. lets say thats true. the reason they turn to misogyny specifically is because someone is telling them its womens fault. that the problem is that women are getting all these rights, and that it was better when yhey didnt have them. that is what a backlash is.
op: good take
I am begging people to stop using 'problematic' as shorthand for Basically Any Moral Issue Under The Sun. As slang ive seen it used to describe everything from an unhealthy ship in a tv show to real life sexual predators and I'm losing my mind a bit at this point. Stop discrediting your own arguments by using stupid vague internet slang that we should have retired 5 years ago!!!!! Is someone is a bigot, call them a bigot. If something in a movie is written badly or offensively, just say that if you want to criticise it. In a way it almost feels like self censorship because people would rather call someone or something 'problematic' as a euphemism(which is about as helpful as just calling something 'wrong' with no elaboration) than say specifically what they mean. As much as some people would like to think that something being on the internet excludes it from normal morality, you should challenge things if you believe they aren't right, be it online or in real life, but please for the love of fuck stop belittling your own opinions by not using grown up words. Just say what you mean!! Expand your vocabulary!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!
good take
I don't think goyim should be included in discussions about whether or not being jewish makes somebody "white(r)" vs "less white". hatred of jews predates the concept of race and I'm tired of getting weird looks when I try to explain that being jewish often means existing outside of the modern white/POC racial dichotomy.
like, race is a concept that so many people consider biological/set in stone and strictly define by blood quantum, but for whatever reason, that logic doesn't apply to jews - we're always whatever racial category goyim hate the most: to conservatives, we'll never truly be white. to leftists, we'll always be white (and in extreme views, we're even whiter than the whitest christians!) unless we have Leftist Council-Approved Person of Color status due to additional heritage in our immediate bloodline(s).
tl;dr: do I think jews are inherently POC by virtue of being jewish? no. ("people of color" as a term was coined for a very specific western movement of solidarity, specifically with the intention of amplifying black and indigenous voices re: defining their relationships with their phenotypical traits and bloodline-based heritage. many jews are poc, but imho, being jewish doesn't necessarily make someone a person of color.)
on the other hand, are jews inherently nonwhite by virtue of being jewish? yes.
it's like simultaneously existing outside of race while also being shoved into the cracks between every other race, prohibited from identifying with any of them - we have to take on whatever racial identity outsiders assign us.
Rules for commenting on this take: at least understand the smallest bit of race theory - especially how race isnt JUST skin tone, its not the same as ethnicity, its a complex social construct made for oppression. I don't wanna hear some american goy in my ear about how the only two races are black (anyone whos brown) and white (highly specific lightskinned europeans)
Okay go nuts.
I do want to put my hand up and say that as a goy who was raised by white supremacists, I and people like me are uniquely positioned to confirm that, according to white supremacy, Jewish people are absolutely not white. Jews are the supposed great enemy of the white race and no Jewish person, even the most fair-skinned ones, are white.
Humbly, I believe this is an important perspective to offer to the discussion and hope that it is of value.
out of curiosity, I would guess this makes white goyim who convert... some kind of traitors? do they lose their white status or become some kind of special Bad White?
Yes, we do.
I've said before that all the proof you need that race is a construct is that I literally watched my race change in realtime as I went through the conversion process. People started looking at me differently, treating me differently. I lost a few friends. I started hearing Jew jokes from people who previously hadn't said anything of the kind.
I went from white to white-passing without even getting a suntan.
bad takes all around
ok i got bored
If you see a feminine-presenting trans man or a masculine-presenting trans woman and your first thought is to make comments like THIS (shown below), you are not as âwokeâ as you assume that you are in any way.
Clothes do not have assigned genders. Anyone can wear anything. Your judgment is simply alerting others to your bigotry.
good take
All the arguments about why death penalty should be allowed cause it would be weaponized *against minorities* forget that death penalty shouldn't be allowed *cause it is intrinsically bad*.
Like yeah, they would be weaponized as such but even if the state could tell me with 100% certainty "It will only be used for killers and rapist we promise!" I still wouldn't want it being a thing.
It's just not something that has any positive value other than some misinformed sense of "justice".
good take
firm believer you can't be a ''good person''. too much niuance to life.
you can be good (adjective) but you cannot be good (identity)
if you think you are good (identity) you are more likely to cause harm as you don't consider yourself to be capable of it
Everyone who is a good person who does harm is no plonger a good person. It is simple.
op: good take
reblogger: open the schools
This paper explores unconscious symbolism of the battlefield cross memorial for fallen soldiers that consists of combat boots and a rifle, o
Abstract
This paper explores the unconscious symbolism of the battlefield cross memorial, which is comprised of combat boots and a rifle, often with dog tags attached, topped by a helmet. While the memorial's manifest function is to provide solace, build solidarity, and convey respect for patriotic sacrifice in response to grief, the battlefield cross also exalts masculinity at a subliminal level. Because of the latent ways in which the components of the battlefield cross reinforce fallen soldiers' masculinity, the memorial provides an outlet for bereavement according to a masculine script that treats virility as sacrosanct. The resonance of the battlefield cross and its synergism with unrecognized gender coding in broader society illustrate how a powerful symbol intended to honor members of the military also valorizes machismo. This qualitative interpretation could help explain impediments to women achieving parity with men in the military.
==
Imagine the unrestrained psychopathy to look at a memorial to a man who died for his country, inventing a non-existent problem with it, then having no more pressing issues, no more troubling concerns, no greater life stressors, the privilege of all the time you need â thanks to the sacrifice of the men you're denigrating â to write a navel-gazing paper to lecture the world about how your retarded, mentally unwell preferences should be treated as moral imperatives for society as a whole, because you're just that deep and insightful.
Trying to shame the same evolved masculine impulse to fight and protect that gave you the comfortable first world privileges you spit on, while writing deranged propaganda from your comfortable office â that men built â is utter demanted narcissism.
Perhaps it's time to start publicly executing the worst published academics alongside the worst convicted felons.
article: interesting take
op: bad take
