Speaking of the Ocean to Frogs in a Pond

Name is Ithewin. Communist. Linguist & Polyglot. Sewist. Artist. ASOIAF fan. Free Palestine from the river to the sea.

[magicalastronomies]

"what makes you believe that the turn to the right in latin america is influenced by america and not their own fascism"

well, the united states' government is outright admitting it, for starters

[xxxvi-mobage-shiki]

[princess-futanari]

[writeswrongs]

Vietnam is literally shooting bankers to death 🤪

[writeswrongs]

[alysmond]

HELAENA TARGARYEN + foreshadowing her death

[captain-price-returns]

[daenerys-stormborn]

HOUSE OF THE DRAGON Season 3 Episode 8 — "The Treasons at Tumbleton"

[portalibis]

Astronomisch-astrologische Handschrift für König Wenzel IV. von Böhmen - BSB Clm 826, c. 1400

[daenerys-stormborn]

House of the Dragon + in memoriam: Queen Helaena Targaryen

[superchat]

there was a great study a few years that went into the whole "ppl online are bigger jerks than irl cuz theres a virtual wall and no repercussions" and the researchers were expecting to see that be the case but it turns out that people who were really angry or argumentative online were also found to just be assholes in person and people who were pretty patient and nice online were found to be patient and nice in real person as well

and it just debunked that whole cynical idea that people will naturally be mean if theres no punishment for it

[superchat]

source another source

the researchers found that being online didnt make people more hostile, but that being online allowed already hostile people to dominate forum conversations, and the less aggressive people were much less likely to reply or engage, ending in just the aggressive people bickering at eachother

[kayfabeoutcold]

It really is just exhausting watching the image of ukraine in the public imagination very slowly turn for the worse and knowing that in 2, 3, even 5 years time at worse those western artists and fandomites with 🇵🇸🇺🇦 in bio will be pretending to have always been against the genocide in donbass without a single moments acknowledgement of the utter incoherence of their ideology, the harm they cause now to legitimise this nazi regime, the people they allow to die while calling you "russian bot" for speaking out about it.

[donewithcapitalistfrayers]

Censored Reports from Donbass Make Clear Ukraine and Not Russia Started the War—Eight Years Ago - CovertAction Magazine

The U.S. media and Washington political establishment has been unified in condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and in lauding the […]

[komsomolka]

The U.S. media and Washington political establishment has been unified in condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and in lauding the Ukrainian resistance.

Censored reports from the Donbass in Eastern Ukraine, however, make clear that the war was started eight years ago by Ukraine–after its legitimate government was overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup (known as the Maidan revolution), and the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces voted to secede. [...]

Last Thursday, Ukrainian army shells struck a children’s playground, a football field and state building near the post office—prompting residents to flee as it was “scary to stay here now.” Earlier a residential neighborhood had been struck by a grad missile, while other Ukrainian army attacks destroyed schools.

According to Danya, a young man Lancaster interviewed, the Ukrainian army did not have exact targets but “just shoots and don’t care where it lands.”

Another woman said that the targets that were hit “were not new targets. In 2014, they shelled here too. Exactly in this place. The same coordinates. Torturing us all these eight years.” [...]

These comments contradict the official narrative in the U.S. about Russian aggression on February 24 and show that Ukraine is not the moral beacon that the media presents it to be. Ukraine not only instigated the war but has committed significant war crimes. The victims are considered unworthy of public sympathy because the U.S. is behind their suffering—having helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that precipitated the conflict while providing Ukraine with a continuous flow of military aid.

[radiofreederry]

Lol

[cavegirlpoems]

I cannot stop laughing at the idea that socialism ignores humanity’s highest spiritual ideal: owning yachts.

[sicknastyjr]

Your 20s are not about getting your life together they're about learning to escape the self imposed torture labyrinth you've built inside your own head

[read-marx-and-lenin]

i think that, as an american leftist, i simply do not understand the idea of actually liking the leaders of my country. so when i see citizens of ML countries actually liking their leaders (and even showing loyalty to them (like in the Cuban may day post, which inspired this ask), i get suspicious, and the american propoganda comes back to my mind. but obviously i should think more critically than that.

bcs this remains one of the biggest suspicions of these countries. especially the DPRK. why does Kim Jong-Il keep getting reelected? i feel like its easy to fall back into the american propoganda idea that their countries have unfair, unrepresentative elections, because how else could one guy remain in power for that long? the idea that he's just such a perfect leader feels wayyyy too good to be true.

but i'm hesitant to accept that given how it's a strong talking point of american propoganda. and bcs of my american leftist perspective, i've always thought that the idea of term limits is always a good idea to protect democracy. and that one should always be suspicious and critical of their government, especially its leaders.

thanks for reading, i would really appreciate your perspective on this.

Why does Kim Jong-il keep getting reelected?

Kim Jong-il is dead. But to answer your question more seriously, neither Kim Jong-il nor Kim Jong-un have been the head of government of the DPRK (the Premier of the Cabinet). Kim Il-sung was the first premier and held the position for 24 years, but he stepped down in favor of his vice premier in 1972, and since then no premier has held the position for longer than six years.

While the DPRK constitution has reorganized the government at various times throughout the history of the nation, and so comparing historical positions to current ones is not always a one-to-one comparison, neither Kim Jong-il nor Kim Jong-un have been elected to the executive or legislative branches of the DPRK government. Kim Jong-un currently occupies the position of President of the State Affairs Commission. While this grants him the honorific title of "Supreme Leader", the SAC is constitutionally subordinate to the Supreme People's Assembly, which is the DPRK legislature and the body responsible for electing the Premier and the SAC. In turn, the members of the SPA are directly elected by the citizens of the DPRK. Kim Jong-un is also General Secretary of the Worker's Party of Korea, and while this is an influential political position, it does not confer governmental authorities. I have a post here explaining the DPRK government in more detail.

TL;DR: DPRK government officials do not typically serve for life, replacement of leaders via election is an ordinary part of DPRK politics, and the positions of the Kims since 1972, while prominent and influential, have mainly been ceremonial and advisory. Kim Jong-un is not writing laws or passing bills.

i've always thought that the idea of term limits is always a good idea to protect democracy

The DPRK constitution permits for the recall at any time of elected officials by the electorate. There are many mechanisms that exist in the DPRK to ensure accountability from elected officials and to ensure that elected officials perform their duties adequately. If the electorate is satisfied by the performance of an official, why should that official be removed by virtue of having occupied their office for an arbitrary number of years? If the electorate is dissatisfied, why should they have to wait an arbitrary number of years before removing the official?

[ferristriangle]

This is my personal pet peeve, but it drives me crazy when people see elected leaders consistently going against the public interest and conclude that the solution to this problem should be term limits.

Term limits are simply undemocratic. It's an arbitrary limitation that restricts who you're allowed to pick to represent you in a representative government. If someone who holds office is consistently performing their duties in accordance with the public's interests, then it should be expected that the public will want to keep them in office.

Americans will look at politicians who have public approval ratings that are consistently abysmal somehow manage to hold office for decades and keep getting reelected despite very few people approving of their track record/history. This creates a growing sentiment that because voting has not worked to remove these people from office that any other mechanism that removes these people from office would be desirable.

But the core issue is American elections are a farce that don't hold politicians accountable to the interests of the public. The elephant in the room is that money raised/money spent during the campaign season is by far the most impactful variable determining whether any candidate has a viable campaign, and as a result typically only the candidates who represent the interests of those who are wealthy enough to fund political campaigns are the only candidates who have viable campaigns. Term limits wouldn't do anything to change this dynamic, it would just give you a new donor approved candidate every ~8-12 years.

[occidentalist]

Donetsk through the lens of Soviet photographers, via Donbass News

[read-marx-and-lenin]

i think that, as an american leftist, i simply do not understand the idea of actually liking the leaders of my country. so when i see citizens of ML countries actually liking their leaders (and even showing loyalty to them (like in the Cuban may day post, which inspired this ask), i get suspicious, and the american propoganda comes back to my mind. but obviously i should think more critically than that.

bcs this remains one of the biggest suspicions of these countries. especially the DPRK. why does Kim Jong-Il keep getting reelected? i feel like its easy to fall back into the american propoganda idea that their countries have unfair, unrepresentative elections, because how else could one guy remain in power for that long? the idea that he's just such a perfect leader feels wayyyy too good to be true.

but i'm hesitant to accept that given how it's a strong talking point of american propoganda. and bcs of my american leftist perspective, i've always thought that the idea of term limits is always a good idea to protect democracy. and that one should always be suspicious and critical of their government, especially its leaders.

thanks for reading, i would really appreciate your perspective on this.

Why does Kim Jong-il keep getting reelected?

Kim Jong-il is dead. But to answer your question more seriously, neither Kim Jong-il nor Kim Jong-un have been the head of government of the DPRK (the Premier of the Cabinet). Kim Il-sung was the first premier and held the position for 24 years, but he stepped down in favor of his vice premier in 1972, and since then no premier has held the position for longer than six years.

While the DPRK constitution has reorganized the government at various times throughout the history of the nation, and so comparing historical positions to current ones is not always a one-to-one comparison, neither Kim Jong-il nor Kim Jong-un have been elected to the executive or legislative branches of the DPRK government. Kim Jong-un currently occupies the position of President of the State Affairs Commission. While this grants him the honorific title of "Supreme Leader", the SAC is constitutionally subordinate to the Supreme People's Assembly, which is the DPRK legislature and the body responsible for electing the Premier and the SAC. In turn, the members of the SPA are directly elected by the citizens of the DPRK. Kim Jong-un is also General Secretary of the Worker's Party of Korea, and while this is an influential political position, it does not confer governmental authorities. I have a post here explaining the DPRK government in more detail.

TL;DR: DPRK government officials do not typically serve for life, replacement of leaders via election is an ordinary part of DPRK politics, and the positions of the Kims since 1972, while prominent and influential, have mainly been ceremonial and advisory. Kim Jong-un is not writing laws or passing bills.

i've always thought that the idea of term limits is always a good idea to protect democracy

The DPRK constitution permits for the recall at any time of elected officials by the electorate. There are many mechanisms that exist in the DPRK to ensure accountability from elected officials and to ensure that elected officials perform their duties adequately. If the electorate is satisfied by the performance of an official, why should that official be removed by virtue of having occupied their office for an arbitrary number of years? If the electorate is dissatisfied, why should they have to wait an arbitrary number of years before removing the official?

[ferristriangle]

This is my personal pet peeve, but it drives me crazy when people see elected leaders consistently going against the public interest and conclude that the solution to this problem should be term limits.

Term limits are simply undemocratic. It's an arbitrary limitation that restricts who you're allowed to pick to represent you in a representative government. If someone who holds office is consistently performing their duties in accordance with the public's interests, then it should be expected that the public will want to keep them in office.

Americans will look at politicians who have public approval ratings that are consistently abysmal somehow manage to hold office for decades and keep getting reelected despite very few people approving of their track record/history. This creates a growing sentiment that because voting has not worked to remove these people from office that any other mechanism that removes these people from office would be desirable.

But the core issue is American elections are a farce that don't hold politicians accountable to the interests of the public. The elephant in the room is that money raised/money spent during the campaign season is by far the most impactful variable determining whether any candidate has a viable campaign, and as a result typically only the candidates who represent the interests of those who are wealthy enough to fund political campaigns are the only candidates who have viable campaigns. Term limits wouldn't do anything to change this dynamic, it would just give you a new donor approved candidate every ~8-12 years.

[goldcrescent]

Wait actually Alicent angrily asking just who the fuck Alys is and looking visibly disgusted when Aemond won’t provide a family name…..my bastardphobic queen is still in there