Once again, redditors are the most braindead people there are.
Maybe I only say this because I actually visit reddit and there are people equally as dumb everywhere, or because I can read from the upvotes/downvotes how many people share their idiotic takes.
But seriously, so many people there seem to lack even the most basic ability to think abstractly.
Person 1: "Why did this criminal do this crime?"
Person 2: "Because he's a criminal"
You realise that "criminal" is just a label, right? People don't commit crimes because they're criminals, they're labelled criminals because they commit crimes. I swear, these people seem have such a simplistic view of the world, where if someone is a criminal that's like an inherent property of them. Like a video game NPC that belongs to the class "criminal" and therefore is programmed to attack the player character because that's what criminals do.
Sometimes people say things so utterly stupid I find myself struggling to explain why they're wrong because what I'm saying is so obvious and basic that it makes me look like a fool. Maybe that's the point. Oh well.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
There's a feeling I get that I can't really describe - it's more than annoyance but less than anger.
I get it when I see posts on social media that are tagged with trending tags but those tags aren't actually relevant to the post.
I understand why spambots do it, but actual people doing it is just sad. They're actively making it harder for people to find the things they're actually looking for because they think it'll give them greater visibility.
It's just so algorithm-brained of them. I wish these people felt shame for doing it.
So tired of how obviously botted/astroturfed mainstream social media is about politics.
For months and months and months now the overwhelming consensus was "Keir Starmer is the worst prime minister in British history (yes, worse than Liz Truss!), he has to go!"
And now he's going, suddenly there's no room for opinions other than "Look at how weak the Labour party is! Burnham or whoever replaces him will be exactly the same anyway!"
Even if these are all real people posting this, what's even the point in engaging with politics when your voice is just going to be drowned by contradictory goombas.
Gotta love the geniuses over at /r/KotakuInAction. They claim to care about video game censorship but at the moment there are two posts there
A new video game has some black people in it. The comments are all "This is censorship of the highest order. It is an outrage. This must be stopped."
A video game that already existed got pulled from steam because the dev took a shot at the president. "Valve is a private company, they can do what they want. All the legal and financial pressures which give them no choice but to be strongarmed into preventing people from purchasing art is good, actually."
What's most frustrating about them is that people like this have poisoned the well so that it's impossible to have discussions about actual censorship online any more, without people assuming you're one of these idiots.
I've said before that I absolutely hate it when people online react to people arguing with them against censorship "this person needs to have their hard drive searched"
The reason I usually give for my disdain is that it's basically saying "I want this person to have committed a real crime with real victims, so that I can win an internet argument and feel good about myself" which is a really fucked up attitude to have. My hope is that no crimes have been committed, since that's better for everyone involved.
But I've had recent thoughts about how saying this just goes to show how utterly normalised mass surveillence is. Someone is giving you the ick? Well that makes searching them justified! Only Good and Pure people deserve civil liberties!
We won't successfully push back against things like discord's age verification unless we can also force a culture change away from thinking it's normal to feel entitled to information on other people. There's so many aspects of this in modern culture. For example, I've seen people online say that when they start dating someone new they ask them to give them their phone so they can root around on it to get a feel of what kind of person they are, and I found it terrifying that most of the replies thought this was a normal/good idea and acted like anyone refusing to submit to this kind of background check was throwing red flags, and that not going out with them was dodging a bullet.
It's never going to happen, but we need to make being okay with invasions of privacy the shameful stance to have.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Steve Shives can be quite a dick in his videos sometimes and this one is no exception.
I really don't like how he talks about the kinds of fans he considers beneath him, as in the segment about people who don't consider post-Enterprise Trek to be "real" Star Trek. Long vent under the cut.
Imagine you're growing up, you know something is different about you compared to everyone else but you don't know exactly what. You have difficulty reading emotional cues, you can't word yourself properly, and people get frustrated and angry at you for reasons you don't comprehend. When you watch TV, the vast majority of the characters are like the people you know irl, whom you don't fully understand. On the rare occasion there is someone you identify with on TV, they're the butt of a joke, they get pushed into lockers by the "normal" characters. Then one day you watch a TV show that shows an optimistic view of the future. Spock thinks things through logically and suppresses his emotions, but he gets along fine with the rest of the crew. Data literally doesn't have emotions but he tries his best to understand them and wants to be "normal" like everyone else, and he gets along fine with the rest of the crew. Reg Barclay is awkward, paranoid, neurotic, and sometimes even creepy, but his character grows and his crew don't completely ostracise him before he has the opportunity to. Odo values order, and gets frustrated when other peoples' needs make things more chaotic, but he accepts that and has a relationship of mutual respect with the rest of the DS9 cast. Seven of Nine experienced severe trauma and is used to everything just working perfectly efficiently; she doesn't understand what it is to be a social being, she doesn't say please or thank you because what's the function? But for the most part she gets along just fine with the rest of the crew.
Then over the years, the people who worked on the earlier Treks move on and new talent comes in. But because the most successful people in their careers are "normal" (i.e. are capable of socialising) they feel like these characters are too unrelatable. So when they reboot the original series they have Spock beat people up out of anger. When they make Picard they have Seven be some crazy cowboy who vapourises someone first and asks questions later. And of course we have to establish they both have girlfriends as soon as possible because only losers can't get girlfriends.
(and before you point out that Spock had emotional outbursts and a wife in TOS too, it was the exception rather than the rule. Having it happen all the time is just The Worf Effect. And he and T'Pring didn't have teenage angst stories, they settled their differences with a fight-to-the-death ceremony like civilised people)
So while New Trek does not have a character for you to imprint upon, it also actively changed ones you already did. It doesn't give you the same elated, hopeful feeling that previous instalments did.
But, you are not very good at communicating. You can't put into words what it is that you don't like about New Trek. So you settle on "it's not Star Trek". "Star Trek" here being more of an adjective than a noun. You're not stating the falsehood "this is not an officially sanctioned Star Trek(tm) production", you're saying "this is not giving me the vibes which I have named Star Trek, named after the thing that previously gave me the vibes". It's a reactionary way of speaking, like when right-wingers use "woke" to mean anything they don't like or when people on social media sites other than reddit use "reddit" as a synonym for "cringe". But that doesn't make your feelings invalid. It is true that you don't get the same vibes from Star Trek as you used to. And when someone asks you why it "isn't Star Trek" you're at a loss, because it's your feelings that you need to explain, the very thing that you have difficulty doing, the thing that alienated you from other people, the thing that made you like Classic Trek in the first place. So you look for anything that is different and say "the Klingons look different" because that's at least a tangible difference. That's something that can be pointed at and accurately described. And in your head, you have learned to associate the image of the new way Klingons look with the bad-vibes you get from New Trek so it has become something you dislike about it.
And one day you find a youtuber who talks about Star Trek a lot, he makes loads of interesting points! You enjoy some of his videos âŚand then he starts doing a mocking impression of the things you say and calls you a loser nerd. Just like all the people who used to bully you in school used to.
That's what puts me off Steve's videos. He doesn't really consider that some of his more mean-spirited takes actually hurt people other than those he considers acceptable targets. I am offended by the way he acts at these times (that's what's motivating me to write this whole post).
But to go further on this, he says that New Trek is still Star Trek because it has "Star Trek:" in the title. But is that the reason? Nobody who worked on TOS worked on Section 31, who's to say that the latter belongs to the same "canon" as the former? It isn't because the people working on the franchise over the years have changed so gradually that it's Ship of Theseus'd into being the same series. No, it's the same franchise because the piece of paper that says "I own the rights to Star Trek" like a fucking NFT was bought from one billion-dollar company by a different billion-dollar company and now the billion-dollar company that currently owns it wanted to make Section 31.
Steve regularly says in his videos (even in this very one) that canon should take a backseat to the storytelling. It doesn't matter what the established canon is, you can contradict it if you want if it makes for a good and interesting story. But good and interesting stories can be made without it being made by whoever the capitalist machine says is allowed to; is a fan fiction that has "Star Trek:" in its title any less Star Trek than the official shows and movies? What if it tells a better story than what is official?
And more importantly, what if official Star Trek deviates so drastically from what came before it that most people would consider it "not Star Trek"? What if a new series came out that had no outer space, no aliens, no tachyons, and just followed the everyday lives of Benny Russell (from "Far Beyond the Stars") or Shannon O'Donnel (from "11:59")? It might have good stories and have the same progressive philosophy as Star Trek, but would it be Star Trek? What if Elon Musk bought the rights to the franchise and commissioned a show where Chakotay went around telling people the fable of the scorpion and the frog as a justification for racism, why we need to finish what the Dominion started and kill off the remaining spoonheads? Would that be Star Trek?
I think there are a lot of things that could get people to draw a line under everything that came before it and say "I'm done, only this stuff is what I consider to be Star Trek. This is my canon." and ignore anything that comes later as being something else with the same label attached. For the people who already say that, well that line has just already been crossed. Ignoring post-Enterprise Trek isn't any more or less valid than ignoring post-TOS Trek, or post-Roddenberry Trek, or everything-except-Threshold Trek. And they're all valid.
You might say, well it's fine if someone wants to ignore certain parts of the franchise, the problem is that they don't just keep that to themselves. I'm sure some people can be insistent upon it and harass people over it, but also people should be able to, say, form a community that has a "no post-Enterprise Trek" rule, because if multiple people feel the same way, they should be allowed to talk about their shared (non-)acceptance of canon without being harassed for that, and they should be allowed to gatekeep post-Enterprise discussion if that is the whole point of their forum or discord server or fanzine or whatever.
/r/unitedkingdom commenter angry about disabled people getting payments to help them have a car, gave an anecdote about how easy it is to take the piss out of the system. They said their aunt used it to buy a big car which she uses to tow a caravan to a swingers club once in a while.
...why is the fact that she uses it to go to a swingers club remotely relevant? Would it be okay if she had bought a smaller car and still drove it to go to a swingers club? If so, it's not relevant information. If not, are disabled people not allowed to have sexual interests? It seems like that detail was only included so that people would be more icked by the story and thus more likely to side against the disabled person.
If the issue was that it was a big car, then what about disabled people who need big cars to store a wheelchair or other equipment they might need? You could say that the specific cars people are allowed to get should be determined on a case-by-case basis but at some point the bureaucracy around that would be more expensive than the current system of giving people money and they can decide how to spend it however they want.
Yet more proof that that subreddit is no better than the Daily Mail comments section.
One thing that annoys me sometimes is when someone commits a violent crime and there are comments speculating that they must have had a mental illness.
And then there are comments saying "umm that's really disrespectful to people who have mental illnesses. I have a mental illness and I never stabbed anyone"
...okay?
What is it that you understand "illness" to mean? It means different in a way that we as a society consider bad. If someone's brain works in a different way that it makes them prone to stab people, they have a mental illness. If someone's brain works in a different way that makes them unable to function and makes them stop eating for days they have a mental illness. They are different mental illnesses.
Imagine if there was a story about someone who was frothing at the mouth and tried to bite people and someone said "he must have a physical illness" and someone comes along who has a runny nose and can't stop sneezing and says "I have a physical illness and I never tried biting anyone"
No shit. You have a different physical illness. They have rabies while you have the flu.
Obviously an issue here is that we're more likely to have words for specific physical illnesses whereas people just generically use the term "mental illness".
But just because there are mental illnesses that don't make people murderers, doesn't mean that people who are murders don't have a mental illness.
I don't care if you think TotalBiscuit was a bad person or was pro- all of the harassment that happened during gamergate.
But literally making stuff up about him and then when someone says "just because you can't libel the dead, doesn't mean you should" replying with "we're allowed to call Epstein a pedo even though he's dead, why not this"
You're just a shitty person who is so terminally online you've lost perspective on what is a normal, decent way to conduct yourself.
sorry if i'm gonna be quiet for a while. my country recently introduced laws that make it so that in order to use social media to the fullest (not being able to view ns/fw content and in a few cases, not even having access to dms), i HAVE to give the sites my id/face scan.
it goes into effect july 25th. it'll probably effect here too, since this place allows mature content (tho not full on ns/fw)
i'm very distressed about it bc i might end up not even being able to talk to my internet friends. i don't really have any irl ones
if i have to disappear on most socials by then, you know why.
if you're in the uk like i am there IS a petition to sign on the official gov petitions website asking to consider repealing this law. it currently has almost 8k signatures and needs 10k in order for the government to even acknowledge it (and 100k for them to debate it)
idk if i can post it here but please... go sign it! and go write to your local mp if possible. they need to realize how dangerous this law is going to be for uk citizens online. it doesn't protect children, it's just privacy invading AND a huge security risk to boot
i should've said this before but the law is called the online safety act 2023. look it up, educate yourself about what it does, and learn about just how damaging it will be to the internet landscape as a whole for uk citizens everywhere, as well as, ironically, incredibly unsafe for everyone
it's like those internet laws that the us keeps trying to push in, but the uk somehow beat them. it got almost no coverage from the media bc the gov was super sneaky about passing it through, and there were very few people speaking out about it. they KNOW that if the public knows about this overall, many would be extremely unhappy. absolutely foul.
AND the gov is thinking about adding even more social media 'safety' rules on top of that, such as like... curfews and limiting amount of time spent on social media for 'kids' (so basically anyone who doesn't id verify, which will be a lot of people bc it's a huge security hazard and invasive to boot). insane.
kids won't be protected by this. they'll be encouraged to do more risky behaviours as a result (such as stealing ids, or going to shadier, less monitored parts of the web). parents shouldn't be letting the internet baby their children - they should be actively making sure they're okay and safe, rather than blaming the internet every time something has happened. sometimes it IS the parents' fault for not being more attentive, yknow? you wanted kids, now raise them properly!
One thing I disagree with on this post is "it got almost no coverage from the media bc the gov was super sneaky about passing it through"
I actively follow internet-related news so maybe my social media experience is biased, but I absolutely saw plenty of coverage of it on the BBC, it was just entirely positive coverage.
Newsnight segments about how awful tech companies are... but good thing the government is passing this new law that will solve everything!
Even The fucking One Show had a segment about how the government is passing this new law to protect vulnerable people online.
Absolutely no analysis of if the law would actually do what they claimed (or even if it would make the problems worse). Just bluntly stating that this law will solve the problems that definitely exist and you should be scared of.
It's just ugh, I'm so tired of constantly pushing back against these kinds of laws and getting at best a shrug and being accused of being a conspiracy theorist, and at worst accused of being pro-abuse or pro-terrorism, because of course why would any *good* person oppose this law which is meant to *protect* us from <bogeyman>.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
/r/unitedkingdom mods are beyond hope. They allow comments from people who are very very very obviously not engaging in good faith to remain, but remove and warn/ban people who call them out on it.
/r/unitedkingdom mods are beyond hope. They allow comments from people who are very very very obviously not engaging in good faith to remain, but remove and warn/ban people who call them out on it.
Woke. DEI. Virtue Signalling. SJWs. I've never watched it btw. I'm not racist but, you can't criticise anything these days without being called a bigot for it. [[like a bajillion upvotes]]
How do you know it's bad if you don't watch it? [[-100 downvotes]]
I don't need to. [[200 upvotes]]
---
I stopped watching Doctor Who a while ago. And I've posted online many times about how rubbish I think it has become. Gatwa's episodes have definitely been better than Whittaker's but they're still not great. Not once have I been accused of being racist or sexist or another form of bigotry for these opinions. I wonder why that is.
Maybe it's because I'm not a massive sexist or racist about it? Or maybe, just maybe, nobody is actually doing the "accuses anyone who criticises the show of being a bigot" thing, it's just a thing that bigots made up amongst themselves and legitimately believe is happening because they all told each other it is. They've got to feed their persecution complex somehow.
Article: Lovable Japanese Ambassador to the UK makes origami daffodils and goes the the pub đ
Most upvoted comment on /r/unitedkingdom for some reason: That's all well and good but does anyone else hate muslims??? đĄ
?????????????
Okay as always I'm exaggerating what exactly they said but I'm going to have to start including links to the threads in question so people can at least see what it is I'm referencing. Link. The way the comment is written is obviously less confrontational about it than how I phrased it (otherwise they'd be banned), but a quick skim through that user's comment history reveals that they post an awful amount how much they dislike muslims.
Why do these people feel the need to shoehorn Immigration or Muslims or Great Replacement Theory or The Transgendereds into every single thread on that godforsaken subreddit. It's interminable.
I thought it was fairly normal to feel empathy for bad people.
I thought it was common, even.
But after my Elon/Grimes post... now I'm wondering if I was mistaken about that.
I wrote a post about Trump being traumatized after his assassination attempt and a post about his poor adaptation to aging. I expressed sympathy for him in both cases. But I still maintain my white hot hatred of him and wish for him to face consequences.
Elon was abused by his father. Some of the stories are incredibly tragic. Hearing those stories triggers an involuntary response in my emotional systems that I can't stop no matter how much I despise present-day Elon. I also wonder if that abuse never occurred maybe we wouldn't be dealing with this current clusterfuck.
I have never held so much anger towards a single person as I do my brother. But I also see him as a victim of abuse. I know he was once a really good person and he was slowly corrupted. I feel sorry for him. I mourn the amazing person he used to be. And I still love him.
I honestly think it's incredibly important for us to understand the people who are bastards who seek to ruin lives. Hitler as a kid wanted to care for his mom who was dying of cancer. Understanding that pain and even relating to it is important for us to not lose the value that they are human. Making them into monsters puts to much space between reality. And he deserved what he got, if not more.
They can be an enemy you want to see destroyed. That you do not want any positivity towards. I think what happens here is that sometimes understanding the tragedies an absolutely right bastard has experienced; threatens their "righteousness of anger." I, personally, do not think because I have context around another person's life it invalidates my own hatred of them. For some though that flexibility is difficult to come to terms with so they lash out.
if you have any empathy for these people ur literally compliant in what theyâre doing. i donât care that they had a âshitty home lifeâ and they just need a hug from their dad to feel all better. theyâre sick horrible people who are willing to DESTROY AND END the lives of thousands to add another dollar to their billions
I want to start by saying this was incredibly hurtful.
I really think you need to read what I wrote again because you grossly misunderstood it. Especially the "hatred" and "consequences" part. I can tell you for certain I am still wishing that bullet didn't just graze Trump's ear.
The absolute gall to tell people they aren't allowed to have emotional responses. How do I stop an involuntary emotion? What magic technique do you have because I'd love to end my depression and anxiety right now.
Errol Musk raised a stepdaughter, then impregnated her, and then married her. He literally drove his current wife to preschool and she called him "Dad".
Here is a recent quote from him.
Imagine being raised by that.
This awful person created another awful person. It's tragic. It's sad. And it makes me feel bad.
Understanding the reason someone turned into a monster is useful. This tells me we need to do a better job of protecting children or else we are going to keep making new Elons.
itâs useful, and itâs good to understand, but itâs also important not to humanize these people when they wonât hesitate a single moment to destroy thousands of lives
I think most of us can agree that evil is born from trauma and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But the reason we call it evil is that at no moment and in no way it should be justified by our society and collective conscious as
And as cruel as that sounds, there are important reasons for this. It because evil wonât hesitate to dismantle said society, conscious and itâs values from within
This is also called the tolerance paradox. Itâs an important observation that was born from the aftermath of WW2
Some things should be dehumanized and given no tolerance, to keep them from spreading
It's possible we are working off different definitions of "humanize" but I think there is nothing more human than stupidity, ignorance, and hurting others. Elon is just a human. He is fueled by trauma and ketamine abuse and is lashing out at the world. He desperately wanted people to like him but wasn't willing to put in the work to be remotely likable. Plenty of people overcome their trauma and make the effort to defy their poor upbringing. Elon made a different choice. And he is responsible for that choice. No awful childhood can justify his actions.
I see the lack of humanization as a much larger problem for conservatives. They have taken away Elon and Trump's status as human beings and elevated them to gods. Elon is an infallible Tech Jesus capable of bending all machines to his will. And Trump is the Grand Business Genius who thinks 90 steps ahead and is playing 8D chess to save our country from immigrants and people with pronouns.
I wish people from that side would humanize them more and see they are flawed, pathetic, and despicable. They are squishy sacks of meat like the rest of us.
I will never excuse their actions or decisions. I consider them well beyond redemption. And I wish every day they never existed.
This is probably a semantic debate. I think we are all on the same page that these people suck and need to go right fucking now.
I actually don't think this is a semantic debate, I think that Frogman is right and "it's important not to humanize people who won't hesitate to (effectively) kill people" is, no shit, protofascist ideology.
No matter how awful, how violent, how genocidal, how "evil" someone is, you have to remember that people are human. You have to treat them as humans, as rational actors who are doing things that they believe will achieve their goals, that their goals are founded in a desire to see *their* version of a better world and not out of some abstract demonic drive to be evil.
The second to last poster is fundamentally understanding the paradox of tolerance in a way that would almost be funny if it wasn't so fucking dangerous. One of the attitudes that you absolutely cannot tolerate if you want the world to be a better place is the dehumanizing of you enemies.
You can't do this because it's saying "there is a version of the world in which it is correct to treat some people as other-than-human, and the rules that apply to humans (the right to a fair trial, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc.) do not apply to those people."
And that means you're saying there are conditions in which people *can* lose those rights and that's where the whole thing starts. "People who hurt children don't deserve rights/kill all pedophiles > the LGBTQIAs are trying to recruit your kids > queers are all pedophiles because they want to recruit and destroy your kids > trans people don't deserve rights." "Terrorists don't deserve rights > all Arabs are terrorists > you can't do war crimes against a population with no civilians > gazans as young as 4 are hamas > it's not a war crime to bomb a hospital it's a legitimate attack against a terrorist stronghold." "Criminals have violated the law and don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us > crossing the border without permission from our government is a crime > all undocumented migrants are criminals > it's okay to separate criminals from their families and put them in cages and offshore prisons"
Elon Musk is a shitty, shitty person but by dehumanizing him, by refusing to recognize that he is just as human (with dreams, hopes, trauma, longing, love, fear, and family) as you are, you are trying to differentiate him from you. You are trying to say "that's not human. That's not like me, I'm not like that, that's a monster and monsters don't deserve to be treated like people."
And people who think that way are very good at finding monsters. Maybe the monsters who don't deserve rights are all the Republicans in congress. Maybe the monsters are all the pardoned J6ers. Maybe the monsters are all republicans generally. Maybe it's everyone who *tolerates* republicans so it's everyone in red states. And that's how you get people saying "they fucking deserved it" after the Texas freeze the same way people are saying "they fucking deserved it" after the LA fires. "Suck it up, that's what happens when you vote for [my political opponents], you deserve what's coming to you because you're all monsters."
The worst person you can think of, the most genocidal dictator, the most vile racist supporter of apartheid, the most prolific murderer - these are all humans, they are not special, they are not unique, and you would do well to remember it because you're not special either. It's imperishable to recognize the humanity of those people because to do so is to recognize that NOT being like that is a choice. YOU could become like them. YOU could do some great harm in the name of your best vision of the future.
Look around at the world right now. Look at the online crackdowns on queer expression, on trans joy. Do you know how we got to a place where it's easy to ban and hide and silence trans women in the name of "content violations"? It's because of a bill meant to protect children from being sexually abused. "Of course I support SESTA/FOSTA, I'm not a monster like those pervert freaks, nobody has to tolerate sex on their platforms" - one of the major, major tools that is being used to silence, isolate, and harass queer people online was voted in by Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris.
We have to recognize the humanity of the people who do awful things because it is a vital reminder that we, humans, maybe even good people, can easily do awful things ourselves.
Anyway. Absolutely bugfuck insane that "it's important not to humanize bad people" is a take that people will say out loud in 2025.
Yeah I took a class on the Holocaust taught by a European while I was studying in Europe. The number one thing that he wanted us to understand was that Nazis were real human people who made choices. Not because he wanted us to make the same choices, but because he wanted us to understand that the choices that make Nazis are available to all of us, all the time, and itâs up to us to recognize them and choose not to make them.
Thatâs the kernel of fighting fascism: Understanding the twists of mind that make a category of people acceptable to torture and kill, and choosing something else. You need to defend those who are being persecuted by fascists not because the fascists are inhuman and acceptable receptacles of violence but because their VICTIMS ARE HUMAN. It is more important to defend humanity than to kill monsters. Iâm not a pacifist, but violenceâboth physical and rhetoricalâneeds to be a single tool thatâs taken up with consideration, and not the thing youâre constantly searching for an excuse to deploy.
Ever since taking that class Iâve been extremely against the sort of pulpy entertainment that portrays Nazis as mindless monsters that itâs morally correct to mow down. It feels righteous. Theyâre not even human! Theyâre zombie ghost chittering gremlin things! But thatâs exactly what keeps us from seeing and responding to real-world fascism. Nazis are very human monsters. Thatâs part of the horror of it. If we donât acknowledge that, itâs harder to remain grounded in the principles that fight fascism.
And Iâll say this: Love for the oppressed will carry you much further than hate for the oppressors. I wonât tell you not to hate, because I think thatâs a complicated thing to ask of someone, and means very different things to different people. But donât let the hate swallow the love.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
