On the Whims of Change

[kineticpenguin]

At the risk of sounding anti-intellectual, I think that college should be free and also not a requirement for employment outside of highly specialized career fields

[kineticpenguin]

At the risk of sounding like an effete intellectual, I do actually think you should be allowed to just take college courses indefinitely

[yourunderwaterskies]

technically you can, if you don't care about degrees.

Free Harvard courses. Free Courses from Stanford. Free Courses from MIT. Free courses from Yale. Free courses from Princeton.

Free courses on Coursera.

Free Courses on EDx Free Courses on Alison

For paid, there's The Great Courses+/Wonderium. 20$ a month for unlimited courses.

When searching, the phrases you're looking for are Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), or you can do a general search of say, "free online college courses." Oh, and so you don't get surprised like I did, have an avoid: Hillsdale College is a conservative Christian site and not a valid MOOC place. Sign up with them and you will get things like THIS IS WHY THE LEFT IS TURNING YOUR KIDS TRANS AND GAY in your inbox.

[aloeverawrites]

@yourunderwaterskies I wanted to say thank you so much for adding these links, seriously, they've been life-changingly helpful to me-

And I also wanted to mention that humanitarian organisations have free courses too, like the Red Cross on international humanitarian law.

Humanity in War

Learn more about the Red Cross International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Program to train policy professionals, government officials, academics,

Kaya

Kaya is a free humanitarian learning platform which offers hundreds of training opportunities across a range of key topics, including the hu

[mugiwara-lucy]

Yeah I said something similar yesterday but we can NOT let what happened to Renee Good cloud what happened to everyone else at the hands of these SS Demons!!!

Because we can’t disregard one person if we’re for human rights!

[galacticcrash]

Hey just a quick check in- now that musk is like severely imploding on trump and their severed ties

Yall won't forget this part right?

Yall won't forget he's still a massive scumbag right? That he's still a nazi right? That won't get lost in translation right???

(I don't THINK it'll get forgotten but I really want to remind people that just because Musk is now bashing trump for all the shit we've known about him for awhile that we don't forget he was complicit. If anything his bashing and airing out trumps laundry makes it worse, because he KNEW all that and still worked with him.)

[thewhimsofchange]

The 14 Words - Musk has used a set of 14 flags repeatedly, making it doubtful that it's coincidental.

(I didn't want to post embedded links, but my phone doesn't allow screenshots of Twitter, so enjoy screenshots of embedded links in Tumblr's editor.)

[unsolicited-opinions]

Amplifying Palestinian Voices

5/9/25

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib

Please die, it's great for us! In a conversation with a “pro-Palestine” individual that I hope one day soon will be available for the whole world to see, the person said the quiet part out loud: dead & maimed Palestinians in Gaza are excellent content on social media to help delegitimize Israel and make this cause popular. When I pushed back and said that this is just what Sinwar & Hamas wanted and have long promoted, the individual said well, it’s tragic and sad, but they’re going to die anyway, so why not make their sacrifices count. I pleaded that we’re talking about my 12-year-old niece Farah, my dad’s youngest brother uncle Riyad, my aunts Zeinab, my khalo Abdullah, cousins Yahya and Heba, who didn’t want to be sacrificed for your protests and anti-Israel activism on college campuses, but to no avail. This individual is not alone; for many alleged “pro-Palestine” activists, this is a spectator sport that has little to no impact on their lives and is a means through which to vector far-left cultist ideology and beliefs about resistance, post-colonialism, anti-Westernism, and faux theories of intersectionality. I’ll say it again: the “pro-Palestine” movement outside of Gaza in general, and especially in the Western world, has devolved into one of the most anti-Palestinian groups of people I have ever encountered; their speech, actions, intentions, and views have consistently demonstrated this fact. Please stay away from our cause and stop sucking the oxygen out of the room – my family and 50,000+ dead Palestinians are not sexy content for your Instagram and social feeds to fuel your ineffective, harmful, divisive, and harmful activism.

I'm just going to repeat that last message Ahmed has for Western Hamasniks:

Please stay away from our cause and stop sucking the oxygen out of the room - my family and 50,000+ dead Palestinians are not sexy content for your Instagram and social feeds to fuel your ineffective, harmful, divisive, and harmful activism.

[unsolicited-opinions]

Amplifying Palestinian voices

Hamza Howidy

[unsolicited-opinions]

Amplifying Palestinian voices

5/1/25

Ihab Hassan

Massive anti-Hamas protests are erupting now across Gaza. People are flooding the streets, chanting, “We want to eat.”

[socialistexan]

Uhhhhhhhh that seems bad

RFK Jr.'s autism study to amass medical records of many Americans

The autism study is planning to link confidential data "with broad coverage in the U.S. population" in one place for the first time.

[socialistexan]

HELLO

[unsolicited-opinions]

The dehumanization is well underway, registration is being planned.

How long until we get to eugenics?

[unsolicited-opinions]

4/4/25

(Please amplify Hamza as much as you can.)

Hamza Howidy in USA Today

Not only were the protests ignored by "allies" in the West, but so were the lives of the protesters and all they represent.  Hamas wasted no time in going after the leaders of the protests, threatening, torturing and even killing them. The family of Oday Nasser Al Rabay, 22, says the protester was tortured to death by Hamas simply for demanding a free Gaza ‒ free from Hamas and free from war.

Where was the outrage from the "pro-Palestine movement" activists? Where were the protests in Western capitals for Oday? Nowhere. Because he did not fit into their ideological framework because his killing was not useful and too inconvenient to their narrative. Meanwhile, when a protester with a distinctly different profile - Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student - finds himself detained in the United States, the pro-Palestinian activists who claim to advocate for the oppressed wasted no time in flooding Western streets with protests calling for his release. His arrest became an emblem of resistance, sparking global campaigns to bring him home.

But what about the young Palestinian from Gaza who, without the protection of international institutions, was tortured to death for his dissent? Oday was left to rot in obscurity, his brutal murder by Hamas nothing more than an inconvenient fact for the same movement that fervently defended Mahmoud.

This stark contrast is not only a failure of solidarity ‒ it's also an indictment of the hollow, opportunistic nature of the so-called pro-Palestine movement. Mahmoud, a student in the West, was elevated to the status of martyr. Oday, a young man from Gaza, was left to die at the hands of the very regime that Western allies refuse to confront. The hypocrisy is staggering. 

Anti-Hamas protests erupt in Gaza. Where are our pro-Palestine 'allies' now? | Opinion

Thousands of Gazans risk their lives to protest against Hamas, yet they have been overlooked by the so-called pro-Palestine movement in the

[thewhimsofchange]

If you are an NC voter, you may want to verify that your vote won't be thrown out in a recount.

The Griffin List

A list of 60,273 North Carolina voters – these are registered voters who showed ID to early vote in the November 2024 election – who

Per the Alt National Park Service.

[carterslayer]

'Segregated facilities' are no longer explicitly banned in federal contracts

The Trump administration cut a clause from federal contracting rules that had been on the books since the 1960s: Companies are no longer exp

They’re actually trying to bring segregation back

Like holy fuck they’re actually trying to bring it back. Like the Civil Rights Act is still in effect so this kinda does nothing. But they’re removing the barriers.

[acronymking4tdp]

(US Citizens)

If Gay Valimont (FL-1) and Josh Weil (FL-6) can win their special elections on APRIL 1st, the US House will flip and take away an important part of Trump’s rubber stamp.

Donate @ secure.actblue.com

REBLOG TO AMPLIFY

[gift-from-the-bellow]

USERNAME LORE GIVE IT TO ME NOW YOU ALL

[libertyechelon]

Gender identity, at its core, is not something that can be empirically proven. It is deeply personal and is how an individual sees themselves and the feel that what they believe brings them happiness. In that sense, gender identity is a belief about oneself, a personal reality that is shaped by experience and conviction.

As a believer in Christ and the Holy Scriptures, my faith shapes my understanding of truth and reality. This too cannot be proven empirically. The Gospel brings me joy, and I hold it as the foundation of what I believe to be true. Just as my beliefs are deeply meaningful to me, these too are beliefs about myself, a personal reality that is shaped by experience and conviction.

Secular law is built upon objective principles, things that can be broadly agreed upon to create a fair and functional society. Laws have changed over time to reflect evolving understandings of equality, such as women’s suffrage and civil rights. These changes were made to protect individuals from discrimination based on race, sex, and other characteristics, ensuring a more just society.

While I may not personally agree with every aspect of how the LGBTQ+ choose to live, I do believe in treating all people with kindness and respect. Coexistence is not about agreement, but about maintaining boundaries that allow for both personal beliefs and social harmony. Our legal system, particularly the First Amendment, ensures that we can hold different beliefs while respecting each other’s freedoms.

However, concerns arise when workplaces, legal systems, and media enforce gender identity as an objective truth that all must publicly affirm. When individuals face professional or legal consequences for declining to endorse a belief they do not hold, it raises serious questions about freedom of thought and speech. If my faith were imposed on others in a way that demanded their verbal or behavioral conformity, it would be seen as coercion. The same principle applies in reverse.

Consider this: If an atheist were required, under legal threat, to use specific pronouns based on someone’s self-perception despite not sharing that belief, it would be a violation of their rights. The First Amendment exists to prevent such coercion.

History provides cautionary examples. In medieval Europe or parts of the Middle East, religious or ideological conformity was and is in some places still enforced under threat of severe punishment. When subjective beliefs are mandated by law, freedom is at risk.

Ultimately, everyone has the right to believe as they choose so long as those beliefs do not infringe on others rights. I can respect individuals for who they are without being compelled to affirm beliefs I do not share. This is not an issue of fear or intolerance, it is a matter of maintaining the freedoms that allow me to be happy and live free.

[thewhimsofchange]

While I generally agree with you as a Christian, they have a very solid reason for having put so much emphasis on gaining legal protection for themselves.

It's because their community has seen a political party platform on both the freedom of religion and the importance of Christian values before.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. 

It ended with them in concentration camps.

^ This is the symbol they were forced to wear, displayed Monday on the TruthSocial account of a man who platformed on the importance of protecting the religion you and I believe in.

This symbol isn't being is to condemn the use of Nazi imagery, it is being used to applaud that the army is no longer trying to recruit the people the symbol represents.

The vast, vast majority of articles mentioning LGTBQ+ people do not use symbols created by a group openly attempting to eradicate God's people. If the people claiming to "protect" our religion genuinely intended to do so, then God would not have influenced them to choose the one that did.

[libertyechelon]

While I appreciate the time you took in writing that, I don't see how this contributes to the main argument im trying to make about people weaponizing their made up pronouns against others and trying to have the "offenders" act upon their own subjective beliefs.

Addressing what you said about the article that Trump shared. Though that image of the pink triangle was truly a poor choice of imagery, the whole article starts with letting us know that it is an opinion editorial from someone else. That person controlled what imagery was posted on there, it was not a government or personal declaration of Trump's opinion or intention to execute or put LGBTQ+ in concentration camps.

I actually went ahead to check it out because you had me so intrigued and what the point the article was trying to express makes sense.

This person highlights that the U.S. military is undergoing a major shift under President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, refocusing on combat strength and readiness instead of social activism. They got rid of the recruitment ads centered on diversity and LGBTQ+ identity, and now, soldiers are shown lifting heavy weights, firing machine guns, and training for real combat. One ad declares, "Stronger people are harder to kill."

And to be honest it’s working. Recruitment is at its highest in over a decade, with daily enlistments surging. Even Biden-era officials admitted that shifting the message away from activism helped bring recruits back. Under Trump, the military’s mission is clear: deter, fight, and win wars. The days of DEI training and climate policies in the military are over.

Some critics argue this excludes LGBTQ+ troops, but the reality is that America’s military must have the goal of being strong, and lethal. War isn’t about identity politics. It’s about winning. This does not mention religion or even religious beliefs, just objective stats of how the military is being strengthened with a better focus on its strength. This strength allows us to help other countries in the world and protect our own families in the U.S.

[thewhimsofchange]

The President's willingness to have the symbol associated with both his image and his actions is what is alarming.

He could have chosen any number of articles to showcase his actions, but he chose to give attention (and through it support!) to the tongues of Nazi-idolizers. To God, Nazis and their supporters are the Egyptians who enslaved Israel, LGTBQ+ people are the tax collectors Jesus sought to dine with. God guided the President to choose the article he did so that His people would know that Trump stands with His enemies.

My point, at its heart is that God has promised to protect his people or to reward them for what they suffer in His name. No amount of overreach from the LGTBQ+ community can change that, but if the Christians of our nation choose to throw our faith aside for the security offered by those willing to ally with his enemies, God will punish us harshly.

[libertyechelon]

Gender identity, at its core, is not something that can be empirically proven. It is deeply personal and is how an individual sees themselves and the feel that what they believe brings them happiness. In that sense, gender identity is a belief about oneself, a personal reality that is shaped by experience and conviction.

As a believer in Christ and the Holy Scriptures, my faith shapes my understanding of truth and reality. This too cannot be proven empirically. The Gospel brings me joy, and I hold it as the foundation of what I believe to be true. Just as my beliefs are deeply meaningful to me, these too are beliefs about myself, a personal reality that is shaped by experience and conviction.

Secular law is built upon objective principles, things that can be broadly agreed upon to create a fair and functional society. Laws have changed over time to reflect evolving understandings of equality, such as women’s suffrage and civil rights. These changes were made to protect individuals from discrimination based on race, sex, and other characteristics, ensuring a more just society.

While I may not personally agree with every aspect of how the LGBTQ+ choose to live, I do believe in treating all people with kindness and respect. Coexistence is not about agreement, but about maintaining boundaries that allow for both personal beliefs and social harmony. Our legal system, particularly the First Amendment, ensures that we can hold different beliefs while respecting each other’s freedoms.

However, concerns arise when workplaces, legal systems, and media enforce gender identity as an objective truth that all must publicly affirm. When individuals face professional or legal consequences for declining to endorse a belief they do not hold, it raises serious questions about freedom of thought and speech. If my faith were imposed on others in a way that demanded their verbal or behavioral conformity, it would be seen as coercion. The same principle applies in reverse.

Consider this: If an atheist were required, under legal threat, to use specific pronouns based on someone’s self-perception despite not sharing that belief, it would be a violation of their rights. The First Amendment exists to prevent such coercion.

History provides cautionary examples. In medieval Europe or parts of the Middle East, religious or ideological conformity was and is in some places still enforced under threat of severe punishment. When subjective beliefs are mandated by law, freedom is at risk.

Ultimately, everyone has the right to believe as they choose so long as those beliefs do not infringe on others rights. I can respect individuals for who they are without being compelled to affirm beliefs I do not share. This is not an issue of fear or intolerance, it is a matter of maintaining the freedoms that allow me to be happy and live free.

[thewhimsofchange]

While I generally agree with you as a Christian, they have a very solid reason for having put so much emphasis on gaining legal protection for themselves.

It's because their community has seen a political party platform on both the freedom of religion and the importance of Christian values before.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. 

It ended with them in concentration camps.

^ This is the symbol they were forced to wear, displayed Monday on the TruthSocial account of a man who platformed on the importance of protecting the religion you and I believe in.

This symbol isn't being is to condemn the use of Nazi imagery, it is being used to applaud that the army is no longer trying to recruit the people the symbol represents.

The vast, vast majority of articles mentioning LGTBQ+ people do not use symbols created by a group openly attempting to eradicate God's people. If the people claiming to "protect" our religion genuinely intended to do so, then God would not have influenced them to choose the one that did.

[pettytiredandjewish]

Hot take: but these so-called peaceful pro Palestine protesters FAFO. These protesters were not peaceful. Following and harassing Jews on the streets is not peaceful protesting. Yelling slurs and genocidal slogans at Jews is not peaceful protesting. Beating the shit out of Jews is not peaceful protesting. Keeping Jews from entering campus buildings (and breaking into campus buildings to beat Jews up) is not peaceful protesting. Destroying Jewish shops/businesses is not peaceful protesting. Sadly the list goes on and on… these people fucked up and are hopefully facing the consequences of their actions.

Hey guys I shouldn’t be afraid to walk to work, or to my apartment, or to the store but I am. I don’t wear my kippah out on the streets (the last time I did- I was almost purposely ran over by an SUV. ) Every time I’m in the kosher section of the store I have to watch my back and make sure the food packaging hasn’t been contaminated or damaged. I dread going to certain parts of the city where the antisemitism is bad. I live and work right next to IU Indy. I have to keep a close eye on any protests that happens there or in other parts of the city- cuz these protesters will harass you and yell slurs and genocidal slogans at you. I literally had a group chant out INTIFADA at me while I was at work…The shit that I’ve dealt with (may not be as extreme as what’s happening up in NYC area) is still fucked up and no one should be dealing with it. Hell I have to be super careful at work cause some of my coworkers are openly pro Palestine (to the point where a few openly blamed Israel and Zionist Jews for all of this). And what’s sad- I can only rant and vent out my frustrations on here…

[changetheprophecy81]

Seeing lyk half of the americans being opposed to social security and cheering on those in power tampering with it or trying to get rid of it is honestly so surreal. I come from a country that doesn't really have a comprehensive social security system (for reasons that would need its own post), I can absolutely guarantee you that u don't want to live like that.

It's unbelievably privileged and out of touch to believe that this is a good thing, and i honestly find it so odd. Because when did those in poverty become the problem? When did billionaires become ur saviors from *checks notes*, an economic system that's quite literally designed to benefit them the most? When did the solution to a broken economy become attacking the poorest, laying off federal employees, and providing tax cuts for the richest, while simultaneously imposing tariffs and crashing the stock market? The mentality is so weird because it's not lyk regular ppl r going to benefit from it either, so why do they insist on supporting it?

Explain it to me like I'm a child

[thewhimsofchange]

(This is mostly conjecture, but it is based on things I have seen people saying for years.)

People cheering for the end of Social Security believe that they could invest the money taken from their wages into a more profitable means of retirement income or to secure a more stable life for themselves at the moment. Many of them are in poverty or close to it and they feel cheated out of opportunities.

They don't want tax cuts for the rich, they want tax cuts for everyone. They believe that the fewer taxes the individual pays, the more the economy prospers. They aren't thinking of tariffs as a tax they pay on goods that can't be economically sourced in the US, they think of tariffs as "the way the government made money before income taxes were established". They want to cut out transport fees and directly benefit their fellow Americans by forcing the middle man to buy local, better-made products.

Many likely see the layoffs as necessary inconveniences. They are expecting more jobs to open up as the US sees a boom in local businesses, so the people will not be hurt in the long term and the government will waste less money on unnecessary roles. Without the extra expenditures, taxes will go down which benefits the laid off workers and themselves alike.

They don't want to "punish the poor". They believe that they are going to allow them to keep more of their hard-earned money, and the only ones who will be hurt are the people who are irresponsible with their money, and the people who are capable of earning money but choose to game the system instead.

(To be blunt, the idea that conservatives want to "hurt the the poor" is propaganda. That might be the end result of their party's policies, but the majority think of themselves as "the poor" who are forced to fund the lifestyles of people who don't want to put the effort in themselves.)

The issue with Trump-supporters is that they are clinging to hope. They have faith that the experts will hammer out the logistics of the economy and trim the federal government down until it is the bare minimum needed to keep the country going, rather than a bloated mess full of corrupt officials finding excuse after excuse to take their money and control their lives. To give up on Trump is to give up on hope.

[changetheprophecy81]

Ok first of all, thank you for this. I've never heard anyone break it down like this. I've seen plenty of conservative media to try and understand the logistics behind some of the economic choices but I never got a proper explanation, ppl either cheered on it without elaborating further or just outright ignored it and I was just left with more questions.

Its all so odd tbh...what's with the inherent assumption that the money taken from stuff lyk social security and layoffs is going to be used to benefit their lives? It's not a trump thing, its just that I've really never seen anyone (both in my country and other countries) genuinely believe that politicians are working to make our lives better lol, generally ppl just elect the guy they think is most eligible but no one operates under the assumption tht he's their lord and savior.

(also, the tariff logic is just...wrong. With regards to economics, not as some partisan issue. It will certainly not help lower grocery prices, which was such a major part of trump's campaign, its just making things worse and its resulting in trade wars no one asked for. plus its real convenient that the tax cuts just so happen to benefit u more as u go up the income ladder while it should be the other way round)

But lyk, these were just some of my own thoughts and questions, i get what ur getting at here, lyk some of their ideas r right and trump is just using that to get away with his bs, or if he wants the same stuff he's going about it in the worst way possible and that'll only exacerbate existing problems

I'm curious, what's the justification for stuff like not believing in climate change and cutting medicare?

(but also, thank you again, this helps me understand why they believe in this stuff, even if the assumptions r so flawed. On an unrelated note, I checked out ur blog and now I've downloaded They Thought They Were Free too, so thanks for the unintentional rec lol)

[thewhimsofchange]

I'm happy to give some insight!

I'm going to preface this with a note: The underlying perceptions that left- and right-wing voters have about each other are fundamentally the same. Almost every insult I have heard the left say about the right, I have heard the right say about the left.

Trump's staunch supporters like him because they don't believe politicians can be relied on. They see his brash manner and they see a man who isn't afraid to break the norms, a man who isn't afraid to upset the status quo. They don't think he is a "politician", they think he is a man of the people who will fight the politicians to make things better.

Since they are convinced that he has their best interests at heart, it is easy to assume that the money saved will go towards paying off the national debt and maybe even be sent back to their pockets. They don't want less income taxes, they want no federal income taxes and believe that will be the end goal of the tax reforms. Until things are set in stone, they will believe that he will choose a plan that lessens their taxes too.

The tariffs are a replacement for income tax, in their mind. They believe it will work because the U.S. managed to function from 1776 to 1914 without income taxes and relied predominantly on tariffs.

They believe that the state governments should assume the responsibility of taking care of the people. The federal government should represent us globally and set a few key laws (like 'no committing murder') but otherwise it is the people living among them that should be voting for how they live their lives. As a result, there will be a lot less money the federal government actually needs to run itself.

They believe that either climate change is overblown, or it isn't something that can be stopped. The basis for a lot of their beliefs is that the government can't be trusted. They believe that the data being used to predict global warming is coming from unreliable sources that are motivated by the government's money.

The perception of anti-climate change laws is that the average person is being expected to make-do with more expensive or inferior products either because the government is making a big deal out of nothing or because the government is trying to get people into the habit of complying.

It's not that they don't believe the science, it's that they believe the "science" coming from people who they perceive to not be in the pocket of a government that has done shady things before.

With things like Medicare, those in favor of the cuts believe that it is a nice idea that is being abused by those who don't really need it, believe it would be better left to the state/local governments, or believe that the taxes aren't worth the benefits so the vast majority would be better off just having the money.

Even if they don't think of themselves as having this belief, it is my perception that conservatives believe in a level of innate goodness in humanity. They believe that when left unrestricted the bad actors will be a minority. As a result, society will carry on better if everyone is allowed to decide for themselves how to spend their money and people who leach off of the current systems will be forced to become productive members of society without the things the left considers vital safety nets.

(Obligatory reminder that a lot of this is conjecture and may lack nuance.)

[ladyelainehilfur]

is a large part of your identity shaped by the political party you belong to?

Yes

No

Voting ended onMar 19, 2025