đ
Sade Olutola
occasionally subtle
PR's Tumblrdome
Xuebing Du
romaâ
No title available
YOU ARE THE REASON
Game of Thrones Daily
shark vs the universe
NASA
Keni
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Kiana Khansmith
untitled
One Nice Bug Per Day
Product Placement
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
â
titsay
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Finland
seen from France
seen from France
seen from Brazil
seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from Thailand
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Taiwan
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from India
seen from India
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
@positiveaien
Alternate timeline in which all Greek and Latin roots are swapped:
catastrophe -> contraverse cephalopod -> capitoped chlorophyll -> viridofolia democracy -> populimpery homicide -> anthropoctony homosexual -> equigamic kilometer -> millimensure interregnum -> mesarchy magnanimous -> megapsychic manuscript -> chirography motorcycle -> ergatorote microscope -> parvovisor oxygen -> acidofex polyamory -> multierasty television -> remotoscope universe -> monostrophe
Fascinating how what's considered feminine and what's considered masculine can change over time. The rebranding of being a horse girl into being a stereotypical feminine girly trait needs to be studied.
Look at classic children's novels. As recently as the 50s and early 60s, being obsessed with horses as a girl was depicted as strange and tomboyish, and the very concept of being obsessed with horses from early childhood and loving toy horses and desperately wanting your own horse being a "little girl thing" and not a "little boy thing" would send someone from the 1800s and earlier into a coma.
There's maybe a point to be made here somewhere about how when keeping and riding horses stopped being necessary to the functioning of society and became a more "frivolous" thing, it was rapidly rebranded as silly and girly and for women, but what do I know.
ROMĂNIA NUMÄRU' UNU!!!!! STILL ALCOHOLISM CENTRAL IN 2026!!!
Why are trots like this đĽ
it makes me think of when i said hillary had slaves in the 1980s, like actual black slaves who were prisoners who had to serve her and her evil ass husband without pay in their mansion, providing free labor for cleaning cooking waiting on them yard work the list goes on, and if they did not comply they would be sent back to prison and risk solitary confinement, and when i said this hundreds of ppl were angry and saying i was attacking a wonderful pure democrat woman who âwas fighting for my rightsâ as a black personâŚ. as if forcing imprisoned black people into slavery and threatening them with cruel retaliation isnât indicative of who she is as a person
Hey, So do you have any goddamn proof of this or do you expect everyone to take your smear campaigns on democrats as the truth? Stop making up hogwash.
u coulda googled this in like 5 secondsâŚ.but yes i have proof bc hillary herself admitted to this in her autobiography book âit takes a villageâ that she released in 1996, where she openly defends the fact that she had slaves as tradition and a âgood thingâ, there is an entire article and book that the article mentions here about her and her evil ass husband happily being antiblack demonsâŚâŚ.any other questions ?
I am not clicking a random link so that you can give me a virus or doxx my information. People like you are the reason that Donald trump won the election, take your conservative bullshit elsewhere.
genuinely desktop linux will never see mass adoption until some huge mega corporation or future socialist state produces a centralised out of the box version that comes packaged with physical devices. 99% of users do not want to do research on different forks and their strengths they want a box that turns on and shows them the button for the internet
Ok this made me laugh a lot đđ
yes I'm a dialectical materialist. I know all about the following rigid schematics: infrastructure/superstructure, thesis/antithesis, the five historical economic stages, spontaneity yielding to consciousness the moment the vanguard shows up, finding the main contradiction in any situation, et cetera.
"no one is owed anything, except for me who is owed your money"
this might be a bit of a shock for american authors but your right to your intellectual property does not take precedence over our right to read whatever the fuck we want and your shit wouldn't be half as popular as it is if it weren't for piracy
I don't know this author or her work & also this is going to get me crucified but she is 100% right. The idea that you should be able to use the fruits of someone's labor for free is entitlement. For some reason everyone on this "leftist" site forgets that if someone does not get to reap the (financial) rewards for their own work, that is a form of injustice and will lead to alienation.
Yes, you can make very valid arguments for pirating textbooks, medical texts or other books that are necessary for your survival or the betterment of your life. But as everyones derogatory comments in the notes already show, we all know Booktok books don't fall in that category. If you think you have a right to read because reading will make you more intelligent or empathetic, you still must admit that some books have no such effect. They're just entertainment, and thats fine, but it's also a luxury! It is not something you NEED, let alone something you have some unalienable right to. And honestly I don't even care that much if you pirate a book (some people really cant afford to buy it or have no other way to access it), but to act as if you deserve to read everything you want for free even though you could afford to buy it, is pure entitlement.
Someone being upset that you're significantly undermining their livelihood isnt ridiculous. If you can see why artists deserve to have high rates for their commissions (because they put a lot of skill and time and effort into their work), then why can't you apply that logic to writers? Even if you think their work is bad, they did put in the hours. And so did their editors, the cover illustrators, the marketing team and everyone else at the publishing house. Do none of these people deserve compensation for their work? Do you really believe that no one who pirates a book might otherwise have bought it, or could have borrowed it from a library? What is it about books that makes you feel like you're owed free access to them?
If you want to talk about exploitation of writers (and their team's) labour here, i suggest you point fingers at the publishing houses that hardly allow these people to have a cut of the profits from book sales, rather than the people who are barred from being able to access knowledge around the world for one reason or another. If you are able and want to support the author financially you are better off finding their social media and checking if they have a patreon you can pledge yourself to, rather than expecting the publishing houses to share a decent cut with them.
Small booktok authors aiming their frustration with the capitalist system that exploits them at the people who are barred access from information is ridiculous, and frankly they only serve the global push right now to cut off our access to the repositories that have copies of ANY of these books, not just the booktok ones.
The fruits of your labor are realized the moment your publisher prints your books and places them on bookstore shelves. That is the product of your work. At that point, your contractual obligation has been fulfilled, and you have been compensated according to the agreement you made with your publisher.
You are not entitled to perpetual "rent" from every person who encounters your work. It is unreasonable to demand payment from people who have no ability to pay. A right to be compensated for creating a work is not the same as a right to extract payment from every possible reader forever.
Once your books leave the publisher's printers, they become physical objects circulating in the world. You no longer have the authority to dictate every use of those objects. People may lend them to friends, donate them to libraries, resell them to used bookstores, or give them away. None of these actions requires additional payment to you because your compensation was tied to the creation and publication of the work, not to every subsequent transfer or use.
The same principle applies to digital copies. If someone uploads your book to the internet and it reaches people who would never have purchased it in the first place, that does not necessarily deprive you of income. Your payment came from the publishing agreement that enabled your work to be printed, distributed, and sold. The existence of a digital copy does not automatically create a new obligation for every recipient to pay you, particularly when they lack the means to do so.
The value created by your labor is the book that enters circulation through publication. That is the tangible product of your work and the basis on which you are compensated. Digital copies shared among people who cannot afford to buy the book do not generate additional value from which further payment can reasonably be demanded.
The fruits of your labor are the books that reach the marketplace through publicationânot every digital copy that exists afterward.
You make one (1) response to someone insisting that "umm no Radfems are super cool with trans women, like Andrea Dworkin! She's a good role model!"
And now my dash is covered in sex work moralism (it's more "exploitative" than normal work, y'know. Surplus value? What's that?) and transmisogyny.
There's a whole world of ideological contradictions out there.
how are you a Marxist and a fucking twerf?
not every radical feminist is a terf. early radical feminism was actually extremely trans inclusive. andrea dworkin for example said that trans surgeries should be paid for by the state and acknowledged the oppression of trans people under patriarchy. also, being feminocentric does not mean you are trans exclusionary. i am not a trans woman myself, but i would include them as i would any other woman. i dont have that experience so i donât centre them in my feminism. generalizing every radical feminist as a terf is harmful to the movement, and it genuinely sets us back.
A few points. Calling yourself a radical feminist already places you into an entire movement whose main goal is idealist, bourgeois, and essentialist. Feel free to browse the radfem tag and let me know how long until you come across some nonsense moralism or reactionary thought on trans people if you don't believe me.
This is like calling yourself a fascist, and when people accuse you of being racist you say "well, early fascists were not racist" (which is true if you are familiar with the programme of the Fascist Party of Italy).
"I don't experience it, therefore I don't center transfeminism in my theory of feminism" is a weird argument. We both live in the imperial core, but I would imagine we would place a high level of importance on anti-imperialism, right? Despite the fact that we are both not subjects of imperialism. You being "AFAB" (your words, from a different post) is not relevant to an objective understanding of society.
I would also like to see you reconcile Marxism with radical feminism, with its absurd moralisms surrounding sex work and pornography and that centers the patriarchy and sexism as the primary contradiction of society. Radfems consistently define sex work as particularly "exploitative" using a liberal, moralist understanding of exploitation, and not one oriented around the extraction of surplus value. Marxism centers class as the primary contradiction and the proletariat as the primary vehicle of society (of which proletarian women will certainly play a disproportionate role) and rejects all kinds of moralism.
Recession indicator: the creator behind the Three Arrows YT channel is speaking negatively of the SPD's approach to anti-fascism and is considering re-naming the channel to "Two Arrows".
You can safely replace "Europe" when used without qualifiers in a political context - with "Germany"
I must admit I have a morbid fascination with solarpunk content on Tumblr. It has this self-righteous hippie adventurist vibe that is sort of(?) anarchist and it is obsessed with aesthetics as a political vehicle. It is the petit bourgeois ideology of choice for people who would love to live secluded on a farm somewhere or at least somewhere that is Green. Solarpunk praxis is, of course, making art and activism.
itâs literally just the aestheticism of eco activism. 90% of solarpunks fail to see that capitalism is the problem and that nature isnât an âuwu aestheticâ
in fact a lot of it is greenwashing and barely even activism
Sort of, but: most solarpunk content I've seen is anti-capitalist in that it borrows from a lot of the autonomism and "making a better world here and now" of certain anarchist currents. Society in its solarpunk end-state is usually depicted as this decentralized network of self-sufficient communes. I think it is necessary to acknowledge the many currents of "anti-capitalism" as being "anti-capitalist" while maintaining that only the authentic Marxist path can definitively put an end to capitalism - in the same way that liberals are "anti-fascist". Naturally, the iron law of equivalent exchange cannot be circumvented in societies built around autonomy in all its components, necessitating exchange values, and therefore, money and the commodity form.
In this system of egalitarian communes, it is certain that the cost of the daily food supply, calculated in terms of the hours of labour of all the adult members of the community (leaving aside the niggling question of those who didn't want to work, and who would compel them to do so!) would be more than if production was organised at the level of the nation, take modern France for instance, where there is a continuous and regular economic traffic between the different communes, and a given manufactured article is obtained from the places where it is produced with least difficulty; even if the âhundred familiesâ still gobble everything up for free.
In fact, these various communes would have no option but to trade amongst each other on the basis of free exchange. And even if we admitted that a âuniversal consciousnessâ would suffice to peacefully regulate these relations between the different locally based economic nuclei, there would still be nothing to prevent one commune extracting surplus value from another due to a fluctuating equivalence between one commodity and another. This imaginary system of little economic communes is nothing more than a philosophical caricature of that age-old petty-bourgeois dream self-government.
Amadeo Bordiga, "The Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism"
Additionally, I should mention that activism, even when performed by communists, is detrimental in all its forms, stemming from a total impatience and a total fixation on the subjective conditions of class struggle - the idea that the sheer force of will of a group of activists (of any ideology or class character) can itself change society. The chasing of immediate results and concessions itself produces reformist opportunism and gears any political organization toward democratic means of power. I need every communist to read or at least understand the key principles laid out in Amadeo Bordiga's article, "Activism".
anon is back on be nice
I must admit I have a morbid fascination with solarpunk content on Tumblr. It has this self-righteous hippie adventurist vibe that is sort of(?) anarchist and it is obsessed with aesthetics as a political vehicle. It is the petit bourgeois ideology of choice for people who would love to live secluded on a farm somewhere or at least somewhere that is Green. Solarpunk praxis is, of course, making art and activism.
