@likeabadreligion - Tumblr Blog

Posts

spookyseinaka-remade-deactivate

is your dad’s side of the family highkey fucked up or are you normal?

kiwipeel

this shit sucks. wish bulbasaur was real .

slayerbuffy

GO, LUKE. RANT, LUKE.

diioonysus

greek mythology | cursed images

robertreich

The New Republican Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court won’t block a Texas law that allows private individuals to sue to enforce a ban on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy – before many women are even aware they’re pregnant. The law went into effect Wednesday, September 1.

It’s the most restrictive abortion law in the country, imposing a huge burden on women without the means or money to travel to another state where later abortions are legal.

It’s also a sign that the Republican-appointed justices, who now hold six of nine seats on the Court, are ready to overturn the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, striking down anti-abortion laws across the nation as violating a woman’s right to privacy under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

Last week the Court held that Biden’s moratorium on evictions was illegal. A few days before, it refused to stay a lower court decision that people seeking asylum at the southern border must remain in Mexico until their cases are heard – often subjecting them to great hardship or violence.

What links these cases? Cruelty toward the powerless.

I remember a very different Supreme Court which I had the honor of arguing cases before almost fifty years ago. It embodied the idea that the fundamental role of the Court is to balance the scales in favor of those who are powerless. The other two branches of government cannot be relied on to do this.

Even Nixon appointees Harry Blackman, Lewis Powell, and Warren Burger understood that role. Blackman wrote the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and Powell and Burger joined him, as did four Democratic appointees to the Court – William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart.

The cases I argued were insignificant. I was a rookie in the Justice Department who was given either sure winners or sure losers to argue. But I vividly recall Douglas, who had recently suffered a stroke and was in obvious discomfort, looking sharply at me as I made my arguments.

I was awed. Here was the justice who wrote the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, finding that a constitutional right to privacy forbids states from banning contraception. The man who argued the Vietnam war was illegal and issued an order that temporarily blocked sending Army reservists to Vietnam. The justice who wrote in the 1972 case Sierra Club v. Morton that any part of nature feeling the destructive pressure of modern technology should have standing to sue in court – including rivers, lakes, trees and even the air – because if corporations (which are legal fictions) have standing, shouldn’t the natural world?

Sitting not far away from him was Thurgood Marshall – who succeeded in having the Supreme Court declare segregated public schools unconstitutional in the landmark 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education, and who did more than person then alive to break down the shameful legal edifice of Jim Crow.

Today’s Supreme Court majority is a group of knee-jerk conservatives whose intellectual leader (to the extent they have one) is Samuel Alito, perhaps the most conceptually rigid and cognitively dishonest justice since Chief Justice Roger Taney.

Five of today’s Supreme Court majority were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote; three of them by a president who instigated a coup against the United States.

The authority of the Supreme Court derives entirely from Americans’ confidence and trust in it. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers 78, the judiciary has “neither the sword” (the executive branch’s power to compel action) “nor the purse” (the Congress’s power to appropriate funds).

The Court I was privileged to argue before almost fifty years ago had significant authority. It protected the less powerful with arguments that resonated with the core moral values of the nation. Americans didn’t always agree with its conclusions, but they respected it.

Today’s cruel and partisan Supreme Court is squandering what remains of its authority. It is also imposing unnecessary suffering on those least able to bear it.

tiktokdickcocks

insomniac-arrest

me: I’m immune to “sexy” god-characters. Like I just don’t get the power-play appeal. Loki? Thor? Goofs. And in The Bear and the Nightingale book–

The Sinbad movie or whatever:

me: … I am not immune to one sexy god-character.

likeabadreligion

Michelle Pfeiffer voicing Eris really just made it

theghostnugget

Every Friend Group Should Include:

A Bimbo

A Mean Bisexual

An even meaner lesbian

She/theys

He/Theys

A Token Straight Who's on Thin Ice

An Astrology Bitch Who Has Everyone's Birth Charts Memorized

And A Short King

yurarneshi

phoenix-effigy

Slice of life anime really is the best

nightonblogmountain

Some of y'all hide mean girls tendencies under the pretense of wokeness, and its not subtle.

kuroaoki

A relatively new term being used to describe this is rigid radicalism or “congealed and toxic ways of relating that have seeped into social movements, posing as the ‘correct’ way of being radical” (Montgomery et al., 2017). This also ties in very strongly to the MAD model of moral contagion theory and respectability politics. The former posits “that people are motivated to share moral-emotional content based on their group identity, that such content is especially likely to capture attention, and that the design of social-media platforms interacts with these psychological tendencies to further facilitate its spread” (Brady et al., 2020, p. 980). With regard to this particular issue, the latter describes the behaviors dedicated to upholding the White patriarchal status quo, whether consciously or unconsciously, in order to find acceptance within it.

Essentially what this boils down to is these folks want to be activists but do not want to put in the work or put themselves at risk. The work of course, involves doing self-examination of their own prejudices, biases and what their role has been in upholding or benefiting from the status quo. Putting themselves at risk means actually going out and doing real work to further their cause, which tends to involve confronting people with real power without the benefit of hiding behind the anonymous internet façade.

There are a lot of other psychological processes involved in why they are mean. They want control over things because they lack control over their own lives. They feel better about themselves when they convince themselves that they are better than the people they denigrate because they have poor self-esteem. They get attention and sometimes appreciation from their peers for engaging in this behavior. And the behavior is reinforced by living in an echo chamber of only like-minded individuals because they lack the capacity to tolerate distress in a healthy manner.

All of this to say: you’re absolutely right.

References:

Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J., & van Bavel, J. J. (2020). The MAD Model of Moral Contagion: The Role of Motivation, Attention, and Design in the Spread of Moralized Content Online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 978–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917336

Montgomery, N., Bergman, C., & Alluri, H. (2017). Joyful Militancy. Amsterdam University Press.

anirishwomanabroad

Who knows what future movies or projects were ruined.

Okay, I don’t know how true this is - but this is huge fucking news.

I’ve been saying this for a while now, but Disney, Amazon and co. are trying to return to the studio system of the old Hollywood days that got - rightly - discontinued in the 1960s. Those were the days when each studio owned their own cinemas that could only stream their movies, where they owned actors who could only play in their movies (unless hired out by others) - and that led to people like Judy Garland, Marilyn Monroe etc. literally being owned by studios that fed them non stop pills and driven to overdose.

That’s the end point. That’s not the point we’re at now. But you’ll notice that in the last 3 or 4 years, every major production company now has a streaming platform. Much like up until the late 1960s in America, you can only see movies on company-owned platforms. This, with Johansson, is a huge step further - the largest production company in the world - who breached contract, not the other way around - are now essentially blacklisting Johansson from working with them for speaking out against them. Sure, this isn’t a blacklist on the level of the red and lavender scares - but if they can do this to Johansson, the biggest actor in the world, it sets a huge fucking precedent for blacklisting anybody who stands up for workers’ rights.

It also sees Disney - and other companies will follow suit, as they always do - moving a step closer to owning their stars. What Disney is trying to say is that Disney and Johansson are not equal partners in the contract, but that Disney has the ultimate say over everything. This idea that the contract is a formality is absolutely fucked, because it means that artists have no rights under the corporations, and if they want to continue to work they have to obey. Nobody is signing exclusive contracts yet, but you bet this is reverting to Judy Garland times.

We are not going forwards. The movie industry is going backwards to the days of Louis B. Mayer (and it’s capitalism’s fault) and we all need to boost the fuck out of this. The courts will handle the Disney case - but we must support ScarJo (I say as very much a non ScarJo fan) and make sure that she continues to have a career after this, to set the precedent that audiences will not stand for future blacklisting.

#also not a ScarJo fan but this is so dangerous