Musings I Guess

[aropride]

please god let chatgpt die out like nfts did. With a fast and graceless fall into irrelevancy

[bladespark]

Like to charge, reblog to cast.

[conservethis]

Casting with all my might

[lesbianshepard]

Just heard a customer two aisles over go “Hey, I think this is that special glass that doesn’t shatter when you drop it” followed by the sound of shattering glass. I hate retail.

[ex-riddlecats]

poly shipping solves this

[ex-riddlecats]

i bring a sort of "what if they had a threesome?" vibe to the shipping convo that both misogynists and homophobes dont like

[eebie]

guys don't worry about ai anymore

[inkandguns]

Olivia is on it fellas nothing to worry about

[foxgirlmigraine]

Everyone say thank you to Olivia

[avhira]

Thank you Olivia

[otiksimr]

Thank you Olivia.

[strongintherealgay]

You don't have to like weed but I find people who are vehemently anti-weed but claim to be left leaning infuriating. If you go into a rage because you smelled someone smoking pot, how the fuck do you expect to form community with people addicted to meth? It's easier to say you hate smokers than to say you hate all drug users in leftist spaces because one makes you sound a bit like a square while the other is the writing on the wall. You aren't anti-weed, you're anti-drug user and anyone who uses substances is not safe around you.

[strongintherealgay]

I know dozens of people who use meth, coke, and fentanyl. While heroin is harder to get I do know some folks who use it when they can. Some of these drug users are my neighbors, some are my clients, and some are my friends & family. One does not cease to be human just because they use a substance you find scary.

Community doesn't mean you need to invite them to your home and look away if they smoke there. It means you don't call your property manager because you suspect your neighbor uses. It means you don't require drug tests for homeless shelters and housing services. It means the very idea of someone who smokes meth in your community doesn't make you go, "what the hell."

Genuinely kind of a wild thing to see in the replies as someone who has been professionally practicing harm reduction for years.

[strongintherealgay]

Considering recent events over here in the States, this seemed like a good time to bring this back. Over the next four years, expect an increase in discourse around "undesirables." This will include but not be limited to drug addicts.

[cowboymalewife]

Also, from someone who works at a smoke/head shop: WAY MORE PEOPLE ARE DRUG USERS THAN YOU THINK. Way more people are addicted to opiates, meth, whippets, cocaine, you name it, than you have been lead to believe, and on top of that, they are often the "normal" or "functional" people you see every day, not just the person tweaking out at the gas stations. Judges, bank tellers, grandmas, teachers, the nice lady who runs your bakery— all of them. You are ALREADY IN COMMUNITY WITH THESE PEOPLE. Start fucking acting like it.

[blackwoolncrown]

I'm gonna keep repeating this: 'community' is not a fucking friend group.

It's not a clique. It's not you and the people YOU think are cool and funny.

Drug users are your neighbors whether you're too much of an obnoxious self-righteous asshat to be aware of that or not. You don't *get* to say drug users don't deserve to be meaningfully connected to and included in the populations they call home (which is what community actually means, btw) and the mere assertion that you can is a big part of why ppl seek connection in drugs in the first place.

It doesn't matter if ppl use or not but tbh if we really wanted to cut down on addiction all we'd need to do is have fewer stuck up motherfuckers who look down on 'undesirables' in the first place.

'community' is not a fucking friend group.'community' is not a fucking friend group.'community' is not a fucking friend group.'community' is not a fucking friend group.'community' is not a fucking friend group.'community' is not a fucking friend group.

[blackwoolncrown]

[rednqueer]

In this argument tho, there seems to be a huge bloody leap from "being annoyed by drug use" to "literally can't stand anybody who could possibly have ever used any drug"

I'm by no means a puritan, but not wanting to be exposed to fumes against your will is a pretty fucking normal thing.

it is, however, telling that anarchists once again seem to only have any sympathy for the most run-down strata of the lumpenproletariat, leftovers of a bygone mode of production and various rejects of the system. yes, we should sympathise with them, but it is seriously not irrational to exclude them from some things. drug addicts make terrible revolutionaries.

[queeranarchism]

I don't usually reblog shitty responses to go 'whoa look at this shithead', but I'm gonna go for this one because it's an educational example and if you reblog this stuff directly from me and then write this, you're gonna piss me off. So here goes:

Look at the first two paragraphs, the way the post tries to start with a reasonable sounding take, of just 'being annoyed' and 'not wanting to be exposed to fumes'. It's a weak take because nobody said you can't be annoyed by people or that you can't have any non-smoking spaces. Everything was just about accepting addicts as members of your community and not subjecting them to isolation.

But, you see, the first two paragraphs are not meant to be a coherent response to the above, they're meant to set the tone 'I am the voice of reason', to soften the taste of what comes next.

And what comes next, the third paragraph, is just a bunch of slurs about addicts and very poor people. For those unfamiliar with marxist lingo:

Lumpenproletariat = very poor and long term unemployed people, people who do criminalized work to survive, people living in the worst neighborhoods. Lumpen means 'rags', so it literally means 'the oppressed people in rags'.

Leftovers of a bygone mode of production = long term unemployed people whose jobs have disappeared.

Rejects = should I even explain this one?

And this is ended by rejecting the call of accepting addicts as members of your community because they supposedly 'make terrible revolutionaries'.

Note the huge shift here from 'annoyed by smoke' to judging the character and abilities of the entire group labelled 'addicts'. The original post said 'it's easier to say you hate smokers than to say you hate all drug users' and this poster just did exactly that: lead with 'not wanting to be exposed to fumes' to then whip out the open bigotry in the third act.

The idea that drug addicts can't be revolutionaries is bullshit of course. But this reveals the value system of the 'revolutionary' tumblr user writing this, They see nothing of value in including the most oppressed in their communities and their solidarity, simply for the sake of not leaving anyone behind. Their only standard for who matters is whether they can be productive enough to contribute significantly to the revolution.

With that kind of take, it's understandable why they want you to think it's just about 'being annoyed by drug use'. Because what comes next is just 'fuck the poor' wrapped in marxist language.

[strongintherealgay]

This is such a good breakdown of what I made this post about. It's so ironic to see people essentially complain about a supposed strawman and then reveal they themselves are made of straw.

Even if you claim to be a Marxist, you are not immune to conservative ideas and propaganda. The US has never truly left the War on Drugs. It is so ingrained in us that people have been using that same rhetoric against certain medications for years. I was not surprised by RFK Jr's anti-medication stance because of what was said to me when I first started taking medication for my mental illnesses as a teenager in the 2010s.

Being against one form of substance use is a pipeline to being against any form of substance use. Yes, this includes whatever you take that you think is safe from these talking points. The "Make America Healthy Again" movement in the US views you as inferior because you need support. When you understand that most drug use is self-medication, it's easy to understand the connections.

Also, I want to address the "of course anarchists are going to care most about the most poor of us" crap that one person spouted in fancy language.

First, just because it's kinda funny, but I never really claimed to be an anarchist. I don't think I am enough of an anarchist to call myself one, though I do really value their teachings and the work they do. If the anarchists think I am one of them, hell yeah, I won't complain. Fucking love anarchists.

Second, and more importantly, saying that caring for the most disenfranchised of our population is a bad thing is really weird. It doesn't mean we don't care about anyone else, but if you won't figure out how to advocate for those with the least power in the room then you will only be able to serve those with the most power. This doesn't even go into the complexities of who is seen as a "good" drug user and a "bad" drug user in slightly more progressive spaces.

But if folks are going to freak out about accepting that they're going to be exposed to stoners, I really don't think those same people are ready to talk about people who take the "scary" substances, or even who is "allowed" to use substances and who isn't.

[queeranarchism]

I think they referred to 'anarchists' because they reblogged this from me and I have anarchism in my username, but I'm glad that you like anarchists and welcome to the club. :)

About their response being weird... in case you're not aware (hope I'm not over-explaining): this persons' disdain for the most disenfranchised probably comes directly from Marx and Engels. They theorized that the 'working class' were those who sold their labor - who worked (legal) jobs. And according to them, there was another, inferior, underclass which they called the 'Lumpenproletariat': People of low morals who did not do recognized work and who were incapable of gaining class consciousness and of becoming true revolutionaries. Their description varies and often amount to a list of stigmatized groups. One description from Marx:

"Vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks (charlatans), lazzaroni (beggars), pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux (pimps), brothel keepers, porters, literati (no idea what that means in this context), organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers (traveling pan repairers), beggars"

It's not hard to see how 'drug users' would make it on this list for a modern Marxist.

Marx and Engels were wrong about the 'Lumpenproletariat', of course. Escaped slaves, homeless people, sex workers, traveling workers, people doing criminalized work and addicts have always been class conscious and have frequently been fierce revolutionaries.

But for the dogmatic Marxist, the 'Lumpenproletariat' remains a tool of exclusion and of respectability politics. Is anything that poor people do to survive morally complicated or does it scare you? Then you can just call them the lumpenproletariat! Only the noble non-criminal, non-sex-worker, housed and employed worker is the true working class!

It's a no-true-scotsman game that allows the dogmatic Marxist to distance themselves from anyone among the oppressed who makes them uncomfortable, maintaining an exclusive club of appropriately civil revolutionaries and actually being proud of their exclusion of the most disenfranchised.

[queeranarchism]

I wanna add to this that a thing Marxists like this have conveniently memory-holed is that tons of Marxists included queer people in the 'Lumpenproletariat' until the early 00's.

These homophobic and transphobic Marxists jumped on the fact that everyone from bourgie gay men to poor street queens visited the only gay bar in town, and used that to argue that queer people were 'class traitors' and that their 'obsession with sex and gender' kept them from developing real class consciousness. Along with all the 'not real workers' stuff because of the many queer people who couldn't get a legal job.

And this is how 'Lumpenproletariat' has always functioned. It's a left-wing spin on calling groups of marginalized people 'degenerate' or 'anti-social'.

[mildly-a-musing]

After all this time, after everything I’ve done… don’t you think the universe owes me this?

[mildly-a-musing]

All you’re doing is giving her hope.

Since when is hope a bad thing?

[mildly-a-musing]

Look how far I went, for fear of losing you. This has to stop. One of us has to go.

[mildly-a-musing]

Look how far I went, for fear of losing you.

[mildly-a-musing]

I’ve been watching stars die. It was beautiful.

[mildly-a-musing]

I’ve been watching stars die. It was beautiful.

No. It was sad.

No, it was both. But that’s not something you’d understand, is it?

[mildly-a-musing]

Don’t be smug. Smug belongs to me.

[mildly-a-musing]

My friends have always been the best of me.

[mildly-a-musing]

HONOR IS DEAD—-

—-but I’ll see what I can do

[thistlescratch]

I've opened my Commissions again! Full Color and Shading- $25 Flat Color- $20 Line Art- $10 I'll happily draw ocs, pets, fanart, D&D characters, etc! I'm alright with drawing mild NSFW and moderate violence/gore. if you're interested please message me so we can work out details! (i have commissions set up on DeviantArt and can also take payment with Paypal)

[mildly-a-musing]

I don’t like to kill people, but if I pretend they’re my mom it’s easy.

[mildly-a-musing]

Killing must feel good to god too; he does it all the time.

And are we not created in his image?