Paris Decomposing

women who say no to sex with any kind of male for any reason or no reason commit an injustice. to the right, our injustice is against civilization itself, because our failure to comply means they will find it harder to propagate the next generation of slaves and slave masters at our expense. to the left, our injustice is against the oppressed, the marginalized males who want to reap this particular spoil of patriarchy but cannot due to their diminished value in the patriarchal pecking order.

the right will be honest. they will tell you that their solution is to simply erode and eliminate your ability to enforce your boundaries. that your ability to say no is a glitch in the system that has been left unpatched for far too long. the left will lie. they too agree with the right’s solution, and they too agree that your boundaries are an inconvenient glitch in the system. but the left will use progressive language to obfuscate this belief. to the left, the erosion of your boundaries is necessary for the marginalized males of this world to achieve some semblance of their denied birthright.

come to think of it, both the left and right believe your ability to say no can be an act of oppression; some of the most high status, western white men, are losing their minds over birth rates, saying women are oppressing the human race itself by saying no. they both believe that your ability to say no is an ethical and moral failing. to the left, to say yes is justice, to say no is bigotry. to the right, to say yes is justice, to say no is catastrophe—on par with human extinction.

all males are politically incentivized to view your ability to say no as an injustice, and they are socially and culturally compelled to correct and overcome this injustice. they correct or overcome this injustice with rape. the more sophisticated male supremacists will push for a psychological strengthening of patriarchy. a world where you’ll never say no at all, because you are a good comrade, or a good wife, and there will be no rape to speak of and no boundaries to think of because you will always say yes. that is true liberation for both the marginalized males, and for the higher status males who have marginalized them. you were never really supposed to say no in the first place. it’s inconvenient. they want to claw back this power.

And as you can see it is not like instant death, they too are just animals and they are often just gently curious about the presence of humans! But people who study and dive with sharks will tell you you're safe as long as you stay calm and know what you're doing. The world's leading professional night divers and experts on these squids, specifically??? Stress in every interview and article and paper they write in that you simply do not fuck around with these squids. They know what they're doing and they still all have at least one story of being attacked, in some cases having to be hospitalized. Considering just how rarely anybody puts themselves in the pitch dark nighttime ocean on purpose, let alone during a squid feeding frenzy, it sounds like they're quite a bit more likely to consider you potential food than other marine predators. We also don't know how many fatal attacks might have ever happened, because what humboldt squid like to do with large prey is just drag it away into the darkness forever. The two worst attacks ever proven involved two or three squid at a time latching on to a diver (in BOTH cases they were professionals and knew the risk!) and jetting straight downward with enough force that both divers suffered injury from the sudden pressure change alone, including burst eardrums, nearly passed out and they probably would have died if they hadn't broken free. In general, people who die drowning in the dark open ocean are either never found, or they're found in pieces picked over by enough scavengers that the precise cause of death can only be narrowed down to "the sea." But now you know ONE of "the sea's" possible murder weapons :)

There's a short section on Humboldt squid in Wikipedia's entry for Cephalopod attacks on humans:

And if you can get past some of Animal Planet's hokey presentation style, this video includes a bit of interview with one of those professional experts who still got nearly squidded from existence:

There is of course some debate about all this, with some arguing that all proven documented attacks occurred on people with reflective diving equipment, which they say the squid must have mistaken for the shine of fish. However, there are lots and lots of people who have to fish around these squids to survive, who do not have access to that kind of equipment, and also have a consensus that if you fall in the water when big squids are out hunting you might disappear without a trace or perhaps just get your head bitten open. With many modern science guys agreeing with this sentiment, this is one case where the "they're just misunderstood sea friends" crowd is kind of outnumbered. The sea at night is theirs and not ours is all. It's not ours during the day either but since we are neither marine nor nocturnal animals we are double fools in the eyes of the squids, which by the way are these eyes:

No for real:

Also because I can't reblog every addition together:

It's not about being tough on crime, because the absolute toughest most brutal measure you could take against "crime" as a social problem is to alleviate poverty, and increase access to education, healthcare and social mobility.

It's about performing "tough on crime" as an aesthetic by enacting violence against a prop, i.e. minorities and the impoverished, who are fetishized and objectified to represent "crime." They are brutalized as punishment for crime, but never with the purpose of alleviating the problem of crime.