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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The "read a different book" advice isn't working for many people, because they are not readers, so may I instead suggest "get a damn hobby, literally anything, I beg you"
Adult HP fans need a new thing to base their whole personality on, so here's some ideas:
Animal of your choice, cats and dogs are a classic, but if you're daring you can go for something like cows or salamanders
Guitar. Not necessarily playing it
Video games. Not necessarily playing them
Physical media, especially vinyls
Drugs
Walking barefoot everywhere
Bouldering
Running or cycling. Or more specifically sharing your running & cycling stats on Strava
Booktok
Lgbtqia+
Join an online community for any of these, learn about their niche discourses, take a side in each of them, spend more time arguing about the hobby and buying things to signify that you are someone with that hobby/identity than you do engaging with it directly. Easy.
A perfect corporation would enslave the entire world in order to enrich the last free people on earth, its own shareholders.
If governments lose their ability to draw hard lines on the behavior of corporations—if corporations become so powerful that governments are no longer able to tell them what to do—then corporations become the supreme power on earth.
This is bad, obviously, but it is worth stating why it is bad. It is bad because governments, while imperfect and sometimes even malignant in many ways, ultimately derive their legitimacy from the will of the governed. Legitimate governments, good governments, democratic governments are obligated by some scrutable process to work for the public good, as they define it. We all know the many ways that this can go awry, but when governments are bad, we can tell that they are bad because they fail on their most basic task of empowering themselves with the will of the public to increase the public good.
That’s not what corporations do at all. Corporations care not for the public good, nor for the public’s very existence. Corporations are robots, algorithms—AI programs, if you like—that work for the lone goal of increasing profits. Their definition is the same as that of cancer. They grow without regard to the good of the larger body.
A failed Tesla strike in Sweden is a flashing warning light.
A three-year-long strike against Tesla in Sweden just ended. The strike was an attempt by organized labor in Sweden to get Elon Musk to acquiesce to the simple demand of collective bargaining with his employees. Setting wages and working conditions via collective bargaining, along with profit sharing and collective investment, are at the very heart of the Swedish postwar economic model that made the small nation into a haven of high living standards. The expectation that a company like Tesla would allow its workers to choose to collectively bargain a fair contract is much higher in Sweden than it would be in America. When multinational corporations go into, say, China to do business, and the governments demands that they, say, censor search engine results for “Tienanmen Square massacre,” the response from those corporations is generally to obey and then to turn around and shrug and tell their critics that they are obligated to follow the laws and customs of the nations in which they operate. But when it comes to something that might restrict their profits—allowing their workers to unionize—that attitude changes.
The strike in Sweden ran for three years, and pulled in support from organized labor throughout the country. It is done now, and it failed, because for all of those years, and despite the fact that collective bargaining is expected to be a central pillar of being a good corporate citizen in Sweden, Elon Musk (despite being the world’s richest man) simply refused. Tesla succeeded in buying out all of the striking workers until there was no one left to be on strike. This is sort of like buying a restaurant and closing it down rather than giving your waiter a tip. It is an abrasive and offensive act designed to prove a point about where the power lies in this relationship.
...
Yes, corporations are greedy and they always fight unions, but this is more than that. Global companies that are ruthlessly anti-union in America, where that is expected, often acquiesce to unions in nations where union busting is not so easy. Walmart now has a union in Canada. Amazon has had unions in Canada, Europe, and India for years. The existence of those unions is a data point indicating that societal expectations and labor-friendly laws and regulations and politicians can, when added to the power of organized labor itself, be a decisive weight against corporate power. The Tesla strike in Sweden is the sort of thing that, in the end, the company should have accepted. Yet it didn’t happen that way. Tesla, in a sense, has proven itself not just stronger than the union, and not just stronger than the Swedish labor movement, but stronger than the nation of Sweden itself. I am not paying Tesla a compliment here, nor am I saying anything bad about Sweden or its labor movement. I’m just trying to say that a warning light is blinking about the balance of power between governments and corporations on a global scale.
every day i walk into work and my manager says “here is the rule you must enforce” and i go “got it bossman” and i spend a couple days enforcing the rule and then my manager comes up to me and says “why are you enforcing the rule? we changed the rule yesterday and didn’t tell you” and i go “ok bossman new rule it is” and then a customer comes in asking to break the new rule and i say “sorry you can’t it’s the rule” and they say “but you don’t understand the rule doesn’t apply to me” and then my manager comes out and says “they’re right the rule doesn’t apply to them” and i ask why and my manager says “it just doesn’t.” and then the next day we get rid of the rule entirely and no one remembered it existed in the first place.
anyway this sounds like a metaphor for neurodivergence or something but it’s not this is just my fucking life
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
It is truly bizarre how there's a really big group of people who call themselves feminists that have utterly convinced themselves that people seen as "confused girls who need their autononomy taken away" are like, treated too nicely. Like the problem with people seen as women with reduced capability is that they're treated with an overbearing amount of care and it's a little condescending. Isn't that a completely batshit insane thing to think, as a self-proclaimed feminist?
A perfect corporation would enslave the entire world in order to enrich the last free people on earth, its own shareholders.
If governments lose their ability to draw hard lines on the behavior of corporations—if corporations become so powerful that governments are no longer able to tell them what to do—then corporations become the supreme power on earth.
This is bad, obviously, but it is worth stating why it is bad. It is bad because governments, while imperfect and sometimes even malignant in many ways, ultimately derive their legitimacy from the will of the governed. Legitimate governments, good governments, democratic governments are obligated by some scrutable process to work for the public good, as they define it. We all know the many ways that this can go awry, but when governments are bad, we can tell that they are bad because they fail on their most basic task of empowering themselves with the will of the public to increase the public good.
That’s not what corporations do at all. Corporations care not for the public good, nor for the public’s very existence. Corporations are robots, algorithms—AI programs, if you like—that work for the lone goal of increasing profits. Their definition is the same as that of cancer. They grow without regard to the good of the larger body.
A failed Tesla strike in Sweden is a flashing warning light.
A three-year-long strike against Tesla in Sweden just ended. The strike was an attempt by organized labor in Sweden to get Elon Musk to acquiesce to the simple demand of collective bargaining with his employees. Setting wages and working conditions via collective bargaining, along with profit sharing and collective investment, are at the very heart of the Swedish postwar economic model that made the small nation into a haven of high living standards. The expectation that a company like Tesla would allow its workers to choose to collectively bargain a fair contract is much higher in Sweden than it would be in America. When multinational corporations go into, say, China to do business, and the governments demands that they, say, censor search engine results for “Tienanmen Square massacre,” the response from those corporations is generally to obey and then to turn around and shrug and tell their critics that they are obligated to follow the laws and customs of the nations in which they operate. But when it comes to something that might restrict their profits—allowing their workers to unionize—that attitude changes.
The strike in Sweden ran for three years, and pulled in support from organized labor throughout the country. It is done now, and it failed, because for all of those years, and despite the fact that collective bargaining is expected to be a central pillar of being a good corporate citizen in Sweden, Elon Musk (despite being the world’s richest man) simply refused. Tesla succeeded in buying out all of the striking workers until there was no one left to be on strike. This is sort of like buying a restaurant and closing it down rather than giving your waiter a tip. It is an abrasive and offensive act designed to prove a point about where the power lies in this relationship.
...
Yes, corporations are greedy and they always fight unions, but this is more than that. Global companies that are ruthlessly anti-union in America, where that is expected, often acquiesce to unions in nations where union busting is not so easy. Walmart now has a union in Canada. Amazon has had unions in Canada, Europe, and India for years. The existence of those unions is a data point indicating that societal expectations and labor-friendly laws and regulations and politicians can, when added to the power of organized labor itself, be a decisive weight against corporate power. The Tesla strike in Sweden is the sort of thing that, in the end, the company should have accepted. Yet it didn’t happen that way. Tesla, in a sense, has proven itself not just stronger than the union, and not just stronger than the Swedish labor movement, but stronger than the nation of Sweden itself. I am not paying Tesla a compliment here, nor am I saying anything bad about Sweden or its labor movement. I’m just trying to say that a warning light is blinking about the balance of power between governments and corporations on a global scale.
The realization that a lot of these people who claim to be super informed on feminism and feminist theory probably don't even actually know what white feminism is and think that it's just identifying someone as a feminist who is white is kinda rocking me a bit.
Maybe I'm xkcd 2501, but I feel like if you're gonna claim to know feminist theory, ideology, or practice in any robust sense you kind of have know what white feminism is. It just feels like such a foundational building block to understanding and engaging with modern feminist critique.
Like, when I say Julia Serano is a white feminist, what I mean is that she is a feminist who thinks about and talks about womanhood in a way that assumes white experiences as a default and has never responded to the criticism of the whiteness of her works well. I would even go so far as to say her work assumes a very white American feminist position.
In contrast, when faced with the criticism that their work did not sufficiently account for race, Butler spent several years working on a book very explicitly accounts for not only race in a broader sense, but also global politics and the ways both impact gender marginalized people - from cis women to all trans people - to differing severities.
That's why even though Butler is otherwise white, I wouldn't call them a white feminist. Their modern work takes a lot of care to be very conscious of race and global relations where Serano's has never beyond an afterthought.
The realization that a lot of these people who claim to be super informed on feminism and feminist theory probably don't even actually know what white feminism is and think that it's just identifying someone as a feminist who is white is kinda rocking me a bit.
Maybe I'm xkcd 2501, but I feel like if you're gonna claim to know feminist theory, ideology, or practice in any robust sense you kind of have know what white feminism is. It just feels like such a foundational building block to understanding and engaging with modern feminist critique.
I've been thinking about the whole "people who claim to be informed despite clearly displaying that they're nowhere near as informed as they say they are" thing a lot lately (on a variety of topics tbh. it's kinda everywhere). I think it's a few different groups with subtly different mindsets (+ overlap) who do this, some of whom are flat out lying and some of whom genuinely think they're well-informed (when they're not).
ramble alert uhhh it got long whoops. I guess I had more to say than I thought I did
we live in a very dominance-based world that values hierarchy, and arguments are one of the socially accepted avenues to do that through. having the "right"/correct opinions is a form of social capital and status for people. they feel like it gives them authority, hence why online arguments seem to cling to other forms of hierarchy in order to try to establish a sense of authority for themselves (and thereby assert dominance above the other person they're arguing with). I don't think it's fair to say that they're completely disinterested in intellectual debate or education or learning (you can still have multiple motivations lol), but that's certainly not the main focus in a lot of these online discourses (or so it seems).
so I think people will engage with subject matters in a way that makes them feel self-important, or equips them with some sorta authority. academics are still somewhat respected, if for no other reason than accepting that a person who has done a shit ton of reading and learning about a subject probably knows it pretty well (though sometimes people will fight you on this, too). so there's an incentive to kinda....... cosplay doing that work, in order to bolster your own perceived credibility in your arguments. sometimes because people find it boosts their ego to think of themselves as an Intellectual™ (or at least feel like they are one) by engaging with more advanced topics and theories, and sometimes because they just want to exert control over people and that's an "easy" way to do so.
anyone can lie on the internet. the main people who can really tell if somebody's bullshitting tend to be actual academics themselves, and there are proportionally few in comparison to the amount of people online. and even then, we can still be dead wrong about it. a lot of people can lie very convincingly. the only thing I've found that seems to be more common amongst academics (at least around these here parts of the wild wild internet) is a type of general humility and tolerance for ambiguity/uncertainty (I think there is a humbling that happens in higher ed that not many people are subjected to otherwise lol, and I'm not even trying to romanticize that because it is incredibly lonely and isolating and you rarely have any true support for it or warning beforehand). and ofc that's not a guarantee. there are academics who are reactionary, insecure assholes, too. but yknow. broad overall trends. being forced to advocate for the good aspects of something you disagree with and admit what somebody gets right even if they're wrong in other regards.
so I think there are a lot of people online who do outright lie and claim to have read things that they haven't read (and there's a whole other discussion to be had about how reading it isn't enough by itself, you also need to be able to comprehend what you're reading, and even though they may have read it...). I had that kinda jolted into my awareness a while back when a bunch of people on twitter got mad at me for using the word "privilege" in a way that they disliked, and there were all of these thinkpieces people wrote in my mentions that made it very clear to me that they hadn't read much (if anything) on the concept of privilege, but especially not any of the major baby's first introduction to white privilege 101 type stuff. I don't think any of them had heard of Peggy McIntosh. because the way I used "privilege" was...a very established definition that's used pretty commonly in academic literature, but not necessarily common colloquial discussions. there's been a lot of literature on white privilege especially that talks about how a ton of white privilege isn't solely the additive benefits white people tend to be consciously aware of, but that it's upheld through a vast network of unearned advantages and entitlements that white people are largely unaware they benefit from at all. a ton of white privilege is not simply being given extra stuff, but instead some of it is being exempted from certain types of harm. it's the privilege of being unaware of the struggles other people deal with. there is a blindspot formed there where you are ignorant/blind to what you don't have to deal with.
but, a lot of people who don't engage with that type of literature, get a very different understanding of what the word "privilege" means. in popular culture, you call people privileged for the additive benefits. things you'd have flaunted in your face. things people feel superior about. things like wealth and material possessions and white supremacist rallies. flagrant displays of one's privilege. and you very rarely get exposed to the more nuanced ways privilege is used in basically any academic sphere (which is kinda ironic because that more subtle, unconscious bias etc. aspect seems to be the focal point of a lot of the ways academia discusses privilege; you really can't engage with... nearly any academic lit talking about privilege without at some point learning this definition, it's kinda inescapable honestly).
however, the eye-opening part for me was that a lot of these people who were yelling at me... were those who claimed to be very well-read people. especially when it came to feminism and social justice. especially when it came to the struggles of Black women and intersectionality.
but... they didn't know one of the most common definitions of privilege, as discussed by nearly any piece of literature written about white privilege ever. a definition so commonplace in academic literature that it's realistically only possible for you to somehow be ignorant of this definition... if you didn't actually read any academic literature on privilege at all. so it immediately exposed that these people are liars who likely haven't read any of the theory they claim to have read. that or their reading comprehension is so piss poor that they didn't absorb any of it despite it being spelled out for them. because it was never about intellectual honesty or education or learning or any of these things, it was that they wanted to prop up their supposed knowledge of all of these theories and discussions... as a way to bolster their credibility and shut down anyone who disagreed with them.
a caveat is that I think many of these people have engaged with social media posts about these topics, maybe even for years. and they seem to unironically believe that this is just as educationally productive as reading the texts those posts were based off of. even pre-AI-geddon, people seemed to think this way. I think there are some people who truthfully do believe that they are well-versed on these discourses because they have read a lot of online amateur discussions about it and watched videos about it for a couple of months to years. so not all of them are knowingly lying about having read xyz book or learned xyz theory (even though I think some of them still are knowingly lying and just think they can bullshit well enough that nobody can tell lol... which is why they tend to have an audience + friends filled with people who similarly haven't read any of it and know very little about it, so they can't sniff out that they're full of shit because they too are fairly ignorant on the topic at hand), it's just that they think they don't need to read it because they already know plenty about it from online debates and summaries. and tbh those are probably the most frustrating to deal with because they just do not grasp how big the gap in knowledge actually is.
I've also noticed that a lot of people coming into different topics from a non-academia place seem to really struggle with finding resources for adequate background knowledge, and don't really seem to know how to acquire those for themselves anyhow. so they'll end up finding something interesting and then getting a very one-sided study plan of several articles (typically of varying popularity in the field, some of which are widely refuted and known to be kinda bullshit... but that have a really sensationalized point of interest that plays on the reader's desire to feel like they've uncovered hidden knowledge) that don't actually introduce them to the field in any real way. they just kinda. go down one rabbit hole. and all they know is the rabbit hole. there's no foundation about basic concepts of the field of interest. they can't actually engage in the discourses properly because they don't know anything except for a shit ton about some very narrow focus point. and they become convinced that this means they know all about the field of interest.
I feel mean writing it out in this way, because some of this really isn't these people's fault. it also feels like I'm infantilizing people somewhat or seeing myself as above them somehow. but I don't think I'm better than anyone else; if anything, I recognize this stuff in part because I, too, was once a dumb teenager who thought they knew everything lmao. but on the other hand, there are a lot of reading guides and lists out there that these people have had plenty of access to, and you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. and some of them seem very very obstinate in their desire to remain ignorant (I think some of them are legitimately afraid of being proven wrong, so they avoid reading the actual literature because they don't want to risk the cognitive dissonance that might make them feel a need to change their beliefs).
and even still, they don't need to lie. they don't need to pretend that they've read a bunch of theory when they haven't. but that does mean being able to admit that maybe they don't know everything, and maybe they should listen to people who know more than them, and these types who seem to lie about it are doing it for the status punch of being able to use theory as some sort of thought termination machine to exert their opinions onto everyone else. it's just annoying because like. anyone who knows their shit, knows these people are full of shit and don't actually know what they're talking about. and not all of them have bad thoughts or ideas!! sometimes they bring up good points!! as is natural for any kind of theory based on people's lives and experiences!! you can still observe stuff!!! and write about that!! but oh my god they don't need to larp as an academic when they're not one. they've gotta have some humility, though, and they don't wanna do that. and, probably most obnoxious of all: they outnumber the real ones lol. so they can very easily crowd out actual discussions that are rooted in people who know the actual topic at hand. they can use mob mentality to tell themselves that they're correct, actually. which becomes a self-reinforcing cycle where they are never challenged to wonder if they should read the things they claim to read, because hey everyone is fooled into thinking they have, so clearly they're just that great of an Intellectual™ that they don't even need to read the real books in order to meaningfully contribute anything. and they get the extra brownie points of being a Good Ally to whatever groups they claim to have read all about! and since everyone else is lying, nobody will call anyone else out on their bullshit, because that could risk revealing their own bullshit.
TLDR; dunning kruger + lying = a lot of the online feminist (and political/social justice oriented) discourse nowadays. a self-made panopticon of incompetent people nodding their heads in agreement to things said by fellow duplicitous incompetent liars, always a little bit anxious.
I just wish they'd stop pretending and we could all move on from it tbh. I'm fine with having discussions with people who aren't academics! just like. have an ounce of humility!! aaaa
we live in a very dominance-based world that values hierarchy, and arguments are one of the socially accepted avenues to do that through. having the "right"/correct opinions is a form of social capital and status for people.
You may be interested in the human needs research of Marshall Rosenberg.
(Playlist of his conflict resolution theory, workshop recording)
I find his rhetoric a little new-agey, but if you can focus on what he actually says, it's extremely philosophically rigorous and makes use of precise technical language that's a far cry from the wishy-washy referents that mark the new-age speak.
One idea he puts forward is that in life, we can play one of two games: being right, or making life more wonderful. These efforts are not compatible. In fact, I consider his whole philosophy to be an anti-moral realist position—he believes there is no such thing as 'morality' in the sense that moral goodness and badness have no disticnt refrents in the real world. Instead, he proposes judging actions and behaviors by what needs they meet and do not meet—and has a very precise definition of what is and is not a need.
I find his ideas simple, yet unfamiliar enough that they are weirdly difficult to parse. Happy to discuss and clarify if you watch some of these videos and finds yourself dealing with confusion and apparent contradictions.
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Birthdate and name matches are causing US Citizens to get arrested in error by ICE as they board airplanes.
This is the same level of rigor they're bringing to claims of fraudulent voting, and is obvious as an error-prone method to anyone who has taken an introductory stats class.
I've worked every day of my life for at least the last two decades. And have gotten paid for almost none of it. Because that's what it means to be a mom.
Imagine what the economy would look like if we had to pay for housework.
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I've worked every day of my life for at least the last two decades. And have gotten paid for almost none of it. Because that's what it means to be a mom.
Imagine what the economy would look like if we had to pay for housework.
this website is always on some stupid insular drama where some idiot blogger named poobster-498 has said something controversial and stupid and then the most mediocre critical thinkers of the website get together and decide that everybody in the world can be categorized into pro-poobster or anti-poobster camps. and they invent fake slurs for each other like the pro-poobsters are called poobshits and the anti-poobsters are called pooblerites. and people will send you asks demanding that you clarify where you stand on poobster and "I've never heard of this person and I don't care about this at all" is an unacceptable answer to either side of this inane drama and automatically fashions you into a member of whichever opposing camp. when in reality you just truly have no idea who the fuck poobster-498 even is.
Trashpool's Dumpster Fire @thatstormygeek - Tumblr Blog | Tumlook
gamechangershow
gummygunk
2087
areudirty
yousharknotpass
stormborns
izzy806
