Victimatus virtus non est @siryouarebeingmocked - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
Victimatus virtus non est
@siryouarebeingmocked
Caribbean immigrant to UK / Long posts tagged #long or #long post / Officially mentally unwell // Please don't hostile ping me into any arguments, or hostile ping others to see my posts.
> “But the atrocities that person/group committed weren’t done in the name of communism/atheism/feminism!”
> “They did nothing wrong. The oppressed have every right to lash out against their oppressors.”
> Appeal to slavery/the Crusades/the Inquisition
> “That event never happened. You only think it did because conservatives/fundamentalists corrupted the historical facts and you believe their propaganda.”
A lot of people here in FL have done some cool houses out of them. They put them up 3 foot tall concrete pillars and a metal frame. Bolt them to the metal frame. One local guy did 7 containers together and advertises it as "storm proof" which they are.
There’s a lot of added fabrication involved with using them. They were designed to take a lot of weight straight down to specific points. As soon as you start cutting holes in them their integrity is out the window, literally. As a builder I am not a fan of these things at all.
That's exactly what it is. You're better off disassembling them and using the corrugated steel if you're hellbent on using them, or just buy the metal stock if you like the look.
The other reason I'm generally annoyed with the "Abolish X" crowd who actually DO mean "abolish X" and not a watered-down version is that ime they very rarely have fully thought out the implications of what they're demanding and then get angry when other people ask about it.
"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!
"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!
I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.
Like these aren't "gotcha" questions, they're legitimate problems you're going to have to contend with. And if you wave away all these questions with "you're just making up ridiculous scenarios" and "we'll think of something to fix that once we destroy the current system", then yeah actually, I DO think you care more about sounding radical than about making any kind of change.
It’s not reform. The rehabilitation system that prison abolitionists argue for does not look anything like our current punitive prison system. It’s not reform because it’s not slowly changing the current system, it’s removing it entirely and replacing it with something else.
Same goes for the police. I don’t know who you’re getting your information from that you think police abolition involves replacing them with roaming vigilantes (that’s basically what we have already) but even if we did replace the police with another organization, it would be a complete replacement, not a reform. You cannot reform the police. They won’t let you. You have to just tear it down and start over.
I think you should really do some actual research on justice system abolition before you start complaining about people “not understanding it” because it really makes it look like you’re the one who doesn’t understand.
Oh, it absolutely is reform, it doesn't look anything like the current system apart from keeping the core part of the systems. We all know how it works if you don't abolish prisons and police but that wasn't the goddamn question.
Alright, since people apparently can't do any research on the subject, let me actually explain.
What people mean when they say prison reform: Adding more checks and balances to ensure better conditions for prisoners. Eliminating prison labor or making it at least minimum wage. Retraining prison guards to be more humane.
What people mean when they say prison abolition: Current prison system is gone. What you may think of as "prisons" are mental health diversion centers where people are only placed if they're determined to be a danger to themselves or others. Reform is based on restorative justice and addressing root causes rather than punitive action.
What people mean when they say police reform: Replacing the current warrior mentality training system with one focused on deescalation. Removing or reforming police unions. Adding checks and balances to make sure police are accountable for their actions.
What people say when they mean police abolition: Most situations that would normally involve police now involve mental health professionals trained in deescalation and conflict resolution. If a situation is actually deemed too dangerous for an unarmed response, highly trained and regulated volunteers are sent, armed for that specific situation.
You may argue with the effectiveness of the abolitionist approach, but the point is that all those systems have in common with their original counterparts is that they solve the same problems. the mechanisms by which they do so are completely different.
I'm sorry, I still don't see how that's *completely* different - you are still keeping the core thing and the mechanics by which they do it aren't at all different...! YOU ARE STILL doing the involuntarny confinement thing - the exact mechansim used now!
No, I was told it was bad by the numerous historical accounts of mass murder and totalitarian autocracy. It failed, it lost the Cold War, and now Europe is free. Democracy and the will of the people triumphed over one-party dictatorships from Prague to Warsaw. Get over it.
#democratic socialism is more what we should adopt
There's no such thing. Socialism by its nature is autocratic, either you do what you're told or you're brutally reminded why you should've complied. "Democratic socialism" only ever refers to the impossibility of squaring the circle of what socialism says it wants vs what always happens, political movements that are genuinely socialistic but lie about what they want and claim to support democracy, or political movements that are genuinely democratic but are confused as to what words mean and claim to support socialism. The latter are social democrats who're just further to the left than normal 99% of the time, Bernie Sanders is a pretty good example.
I wonder how many anti-communist people were also anti-slavery or even pro-black civil rights activists?
Google says Fredrick Douglass was strongly opposed to early socialism. And "(pro-civil rights) Politicians like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, were free-market capitalists".
Also, the early NAACP rejected communists (PDF).
By the time SNCC came into existence, “Red-baiting," shorthand for this extremely vicious form of anti-Communism, had devastated many Black
idk much about jojos bizarre adventure but what i DO know is that there’s a character named r.e.o. speedwagon like the fucking 70s rock band and everyone just thinks that’s fine
Capitalism this, fascist that, no wonder your brain is mush, no wonder you think all art is political, you don't seek out delight, you seek out justification for your misery
So a right-wing conservative extremist was convinced to blow up a government building to destroy documents?
I'm pretty sure murdering hundreds of people would do even more damage to Hilary if that ever got out, and it would leave a much wider paper and witness trail than a real estate scandal.
And also like 9/11 theories, the attack could've always just gone wrong in a way that didn't achieve the goals. Explosves are not known for being surgical and precise.
Many things to point out about the either wilful or dumb incomprehension of this reply, but I'm primarily just impressed at the brazen labeling of the paralyzed big brained dude in the wheelchair - a man who could move no part of his body except for twitching one of his cheek muscles - as a pedophile rapist.
*EDIT* And I just now realized "darknesswindupdoll" set up their account only yesterday, just to post this. I really should have checked first before engaging with a crazy person's sock puppet account.
*FURTHER EDIT* And now they've made another: "darkstalkingshadowdoll". I really should be keeping track of all these fake stalker accounts with no other posts on them, but it's probably better to just block them, move along and forget them.
I asked Grok to gender swap the pic to illustrate how different it hits when it's attacking the other half of the human race:
It's crazy how the second version feels deeply uncomfortable and unacceptable in polite society, whereas the original version feels so common to be unremarkable - the water we swim in, something we see every day, on TV and films and all corporate media.
The French author explains why a ‘general, negative feeling’ towards men can be healthy and even helpful.
>That query and the succeeding answer was initially intended for a small audience. Harmange got an unexpected publicity boost, however, when an adviser to the French minister of gender equality tried to have the book banned for inciting sex-based hatred. As a result, its initial 400-copy press has now ballooned into the tens of thousands and the slim volume has been sold internationally, including here in Canada in a recently released English translation.
...Ah.
What’s the problem with thinking of misandry as the flip side of misogyny?
It’s a show of bad faith, because everyone knows there’s no system that empowers women when they hate men.
...Said the woman who has a best-selling book about hating men, in her media interview about hating men.
Also, notice the classic bigot (classic) tactic of assuming everyone secretly agrees with them, and anyone who apparently disagrees is lying.
>. I would say that misogyny is the tool of the oppressor and misandry is the response of the oppressed, so there’s no parallel that can be made.
Which would work a lot better if "misandry" was considered only something women can do, and people who talked about it didn't complain about sexist men as well.
Very often government officials.
>, but men are [an] oppressive [force] and the world is built to please the men;
This is a French WW2 graveyard.
France conscripted men. In fact, it was apparently the first modern nation to have universal conscription, and only stopped less than three decades ago.
Which was also when they finally included women in national service registration.
>Men seem incapable of imagining a world where there would be no patriarchy but where there would also be no matriarchy.
Another common feminist bit of projection.
For reasons previously discussed.
I did find a bunch of news articles defending the book, including one which implied it's okay to hate men as long as it's not personal.
The exact same sort of "as a class" fig leaf I saw on /r/Askfeminists, and in loads of feminist defenses of misandry.
Imagine someone said they only hated women or any minority group "as a class".
From the NY times;
> For Harmange, who volunteers with an association supporting rape victims, misandry had come to feel like the best concept to express her frustration with structural gender violence. “It was an insult you would get as a feminist,” she said. “Whatever you say, as soon as you criticize men, you’re accused of being a misandrist. That’s when I realized: Actually, that’s exactly it.”
Except people who are not feminist and even opposed to feminism criticize men all the time.
And few people call them sexist or misandric. Even feminist prefer to blame "toxic masculinity".
Also, that account looks suspiciously like the standard troll format.
Hilariously, they recently defended this following post. I say 'defended' but it was really more 'insult people who disagree without actually addressing the original'.
So when rich people spend money on luxuries, it's evidence they don't care. But when a rich person makes lots of other people rich, including working-class people, conservatives are still wrong for celebrating it?
It's almost like this person is just saying whatever comes to mind to hate on conservatives and rich people!
Which is a lot more pathetic than anything they've said about conservatives.
PS: it's kind of hilarious to see a red - you know, people who are often driven by envy and (stereotypically) their own career failures - get mad at "conservatives" for celebrating the good fortune of working-class people, just because a billionaire capitalist is responsible.
Look. I am very supportive of the goals of the prison abolition movement, and am not worried about what a post-prison society will look like.
But "let's name our project a very deceptive name that sounds extreme and simple, and then condescend to people when they ask what is up with that" is the very definition of a political own goal.
Like no, there is no praxis that benefits from "refuse to explain what your movement is about and patronize people who even ask." It's just emotional self-indulgence and in-group politics.
A non-cartoon version of this happened recently, which may be of interest to some people curious about the long-form non-answer.
The New York Editorial Board: Darializa Avila Chevalier on Housing, Immigration, & Her Run for Congress in New York's 13th District (Substack)
Nicole Gelinas
Just speaking of human rights and human dignity, you’ve been a prison abolitionist, a decarceralist. What should happen to somebody who has killed somebody else? I mean, I went to a sentencing last week, a man killed another man, didn’t know the person, just sitting on a stoop, got a 18-year prison sentence. Should that person not go to prison? And what should happen instead?
Darializa Avila Chevalier
So, you know, for prison abolitionists, I think a lot of folks misunderstand what that vision of the world actually is. And it is one that actually centers this question of harm. At the heart of what we’re asking is: What, why is it that there is so much harm in our society?
She dodges the question at length. One of the journalists presses "But what do you do to the murderer though?" and Chevalier dodges it again, and a third time, and a fourth time, and her closing remark on murder is "I have always focused my attention on how do we create systems where that’s not even the possibility."
In my experience most self-proclaimed prison abolitionists really just want to reform the prison system to be more humane and focused on rehabilitation(goals I can generally get behind btw)Those who actually DO want to abolish prisons fall into one of two categories:
-The incredibly naive who think people will just stop committing crimes if we just implement their preferred social policies
-Sociopaths who want to be able to curb stomp people they dont like 'nazis' without repercussions.
People in the first(and largest) group have developed a complex set of mental gymnastics to gaslight themselves into believing that 'abolish prisons' doesnt actually mean 'abolish prisons' and so anybody acting like it does just causes them to blue-screen out.
People in the second category think questions like 'what about murderers?' are self-evidently stupid because 'there wont be murderers in my perfect prison-free utopia'(They are, as I said, incredibly naive)
People in the third group know that nobody would support them if they gave an honest answer, so they just dont.
One of the problems with the second category is the problem common to all Utopians: when reality fails to live up to their expectations, what will they do? Will they attempt to adjust their ideas to match reality? Or will they punish people for not being able to achieve The Impossible? Unfortunately, historical patterns suggest that the second is more likely.
I think I can get behind prison abolition, if punishment was mapped from what the standard sentence was to a number of lashes or execution for sentences above 5 years.
And we would need to ensure that the right to a speedy trial meant 1 day court cases. Murder on Monday, trial on Tuesday, firing squad on Wednesday.
How much money do you give? And do you hold everyone else to that same standard? Bernie Sanders? Obama? Your favorite stars and musicians in Hollywood? Because I only see people calling out Elon for this. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Bearded out here ballin like a madman. But he's also right. Most of that money isn't even real. Putting aside the fact laws prevent him from liquidating. Because it would tank several stocks, likely tanking the market, and killing thousands of jobs.
