garden in the void

I know I've been posting more about politics lately, and it's caused me to lose a chunk of followers.

But I'm a queer person with a degree in political science and its an election year. I'm old friends with several of my city council members. I've been to trainings on how to run elections. I spent my college years working for nonprofits (and being the world's worst canvasser). I'm close with more than one person who works for unions, and I have family members who work for government agencies.

I think about politics in a very pragmatic "I know how the sausage is made" kind of way. We're in a vice press, and there's only one way to release the pressure.

The revolution ain't coming. There is no one to save us but us.

So yeah, I'm going to be pissed if your answer is "let them tighten the vice -- there's no way out of the vice, it doesn't matter if they loosen or tighten it."

There's a difference, and anyone telling you otherwise is likely a psyop or someone who fell for a psyop. This literally happened before, and it's happening again.

Stop falling for it.

I really don't know who to vote for

You have two choices. And they aren't even close to each other.

(and Line 12 is misleading -- because Trump has literally stated he would like to help Israel "finish the job," while Biden is the only President of my lifetime to threaten withholding aid to Israel)

There is no third choice in American politics. You vote for the candidate who will do the least harm/most good, and you remember that it's not the end of your activism.

it's ALWAYS "think of the children." also, i'm not in the loop on how american laws work, did it pass?

I think everyone needs to start posting about how many people have been coming out in solidarity with trans people everywhere in the US especially in vulnerable states, because I’m really touched by what happened at the University of Iowa. These kids shut it down because it’s not just a youtube bigot on their campus it’s so much bigger than that! This is huge

People ARE coming out and packing courthouses and protesting on campuses and in the middle of your town and city in defense of trans people in great numbers. Very few people attended this loser’s speech and were publicly shamed for it. There are literally more of us than there are of them and I think we need to keep saying that

Platforming good things is crucial right now.

Bombarding people will every possible variation of horrible that's going on right now reaches a threshold where it's no longer useful and only fosters despair. It makes people think there's no point, no hope for anything.

But there is! The hateful minority IS that, hateful and a minority. And every time people come in and show support, it's important to put it out. It's important to let ourselves be validated. We're not alone, we're not ignored, we're not facing this fight isolated and without hope.

Be informed, absolutely, but make sure you're not poisoning yourself, letting those who hate you paint a world where you're alone and no one cares. Solidarity matters, and it's out there, if you look for it. Platform it.

Anyway with anti-sodomy laws back on the discussion table I'm going to repeat that you can personally be squicked out by the consensual sex someone else has, but saying that their consensual sex between willing, active, adult participants should be illegal and is indicative of some sort of moral failing is L I T E R A L L Y a major facet in extreme homophobia and absolutely has gotten people killed.

You don't have to like their business but as long as everyone involved in the encounter is saying yes, it's also really not your business.

This is the precident you are helping further by digging your heels in and saying 'but I think it's gross and makes them bad people'. This is what happened last time that was the reasoning for law, and what is being threatened to happen again.

"but Jaz, how would they enforce it"

Easily.

People would report you to the police for any hint of it. Whether real or imagined. You held hands with someone of the same sex. Someone started a rumor that they saw you kissing. You bought a sex toy and the vendor automatically reported you. You clicked a web page or picked up a magazine that had a different suspected deviant on it and the shop owner or internet service provider automatically reported you. You had certain mannerisms. You hung out to much with a specific friend. You seemed too close to a family member. Literally anything.

In some cases people would literally peep through windows, listen at the door, even wait across the street for your guest to come over and then call the police to kick the door down and catch the two of you in the act.

Never forget that the Stonewall riot was started by one such raid where police stormed a gay bar looking to arrest as many "sodomy" and "public indecency" suspects as possible.

That's how. By encouraging people to barge into other people's private, consensual sex lives and make reports to the authorities. By encouraging people to lay traps so unsuspecting gay people could stumble into them. By encouraging people to stalk and harass anyone who showed any sign of 'being a pervert' in the name of 'protecting neighborhoods from predators'. By weaponizing the real concern for predatory behavior against people who were engaging in consensual intimacy in a way they happened to not like.

By doing exactly what I've been continuously saying is bad behavior that has gotten countless LGBT people jailed and killed.

We're not turning this against our own community. Homophobes and transphobes have already made it plenty clear they don't care how good or respectable we are, they just want us all dead.

"how would they enforce it"

well in 2012 a guy named snowden let us know they're basically wiretapping us at all times and have gigantic collections of all our metadata and we have been living in a nice little surveillance state since 2001's patriot act

My uncle used to hang out in those public parks after dark where gay men would solicit sex - from each other, from sex workers, and (when they were particularly unlucky) from undercover cops.

Having sex with a partner in your home was dangerous because it was too identifiable. Your neighbors, your landlord, your family, your friends, any one of them could happen to notice if you brought a boyfriend or a one night stand home, and this was before we had any right to privacy in our homes.

So anonymous sex in the park was SAFER for gay men. As long as you didn't draw the short stick and snag a cop. A cop who would, just as they often do today with sex workers, happily have sex with you before cuffing you, walking you into the station through every reporter in town, and splashing your name and face across the morning paper with a sodomy charge. Then your life was effectively over. And they would leverage that to make you tell them names, give up others to have their lives ruined in the hopes of salvaging what was left of your own.

My uncle came a little too close one day, nearly got caught up in a raid at the park he was at with some friends. He illustrated children's books for a living. If he was caught he would never work again. So he fled. Borrowed some money from my mother and *fled the country*. He only came back once a year, long enough to fulfill visa requirements. He only came back with his boyfriend in 2005 when my mother assured him that things were safer.

If the enforcement of these laws could ruin lives like that back then, how badly do you think it could go for us in the era of unprecedented near total surveillance? Our memories need to be long enough to remember that these laws and the methods used to enforce them are not hypothetical. They have already happened and ARE already happening. There is precedent, there are known mechanisms, and there are known ways to gum up the works too.

Btw you can be intensely critical of the Democratic party and recognize that it is full of aged out of touch moderates who are refusing to meet the urgency of the moment,

and also recognize that voting for Democrats is extremely important because it allows things like the confirmation of Justices and prevents the literal fascist party from gaining more power and that harm reduction is an important end in itself

These things can coexist

Politics is a long game. Being disappointed and angry today does not obviate your responsibility to participate

Americans have American privilege. Even if you don’t want it! Even if thinking about that fact makes you feel uncomfortable! Even if you’re in an oppressed group (or more than one) in America!

If you’re an American citizen that comes with a mind-blowingly large amount of privilege with respect to most other countries on Earth.

Just because American SJ activists don’t talk about this (because it makes them uncomfortable) doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

well said, @kerasines

I hate the suburbs so much it’s unreal bro

stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life

Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life

Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life. 

But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”  

The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical. 

But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right?

People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you. 

P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon. 

also, there is an extreme difference between what things or principles *i* personally am willing to die for, and what i would hazard others to die for. and this is a distinction i don’t think the conservative hard-right likes to face.

an example: so, as the nazis began war against france, the staff of the louvre began crating up and shipping out the artworks. it was vital to them (for many reasons) that the nazis not get their hands on the collections, and hitler’s desire for them was known, so they dispersed the objects to the four winds; one of the curators personally traveled with la gioconda, mona lisa herself, in an unmarked crate, moving at least five times from location to location to avoid detection.

they even removed and hid the nike of samothrace, “winged victory,” which is both delicate, having been pieced back together from fragments, and incredibly heavy, weighing over three metric tons.

the curators who hid these artworks risked death to ensure that they wouldn’t fall into nazi hands. and yes, they are just paintings, just statues. but when i think about the idea of hitler capturing and standing smugly beside the nike of samothrace, a statue widely beloved as a symbol of liberty, i completely understand why someone would risk their life to prevent that. if my life was all that stood between a fascist dictator and a masterpiece that inspired millions, i would be willing to risk it. my belief in the power and necessity of art would demand i do so.

if, however, a nazi held a gun to some kid’s head (any kid!) and asked me which crate the mona lisa was in, they could have it in a heartbeat. no problem! i wouldn’t even have to think about it. being willing to risk my own life on principle doesn’t mean i’m willing to see others endangered for those same principles.

and that is exactly where the conservative hard-right falls right the fuck down. they are, typically, entirely willing to watch others suffer for their own principles. they are perfectly okay with seeing children in cages because of their supposed belief in law and order. they are perfectly willing to let women die from pregnancy complications because of their anti-abortion beliefs. they are alright with poverty and disease on general principle because they hold the free-market sacrosanct. and i guess from their own example they would save the statue of liberty and let human beings burn instead.

but speaking as a leftist (i’m more comfortable with socialist tbh), my principles are not abstract things that i hold aside from life, apart or above my place as a human being in a society. my beliefs arise from being a person amidst people. i don’t love art for art’s sake alone, actually! i don’t love objects because they are objects: i love them because they are artifacts of our humanity, because they communicate and connect us, because they embody love and curiosity and fear and feeling. i love art because i love people. i want universal health care because i want to see people universally cared for. i want universal basic income because people’s safety and dignity should not be determined by their economic productivity to an employer. i am anti-war and pro-choice for the same reason: i value people’s lives but also their autonomy and right to self-determination. my beliefs are not abstractions. i could never value a type of economic system that i saw hurting people, no matter how much “growth” it produced. i could never love “law and order” more than i love a child, any child, i saw trapped in a cage.

would i be willing to risk death, trying to save the statue of liberty? probably, yes. but there is no culture without people, and therefore i also believe there are no cultural treasures worth more than other people’s lives. and as far as i’m concerned the same goes for laws, or markets, or borders.

Well said!

This is an excellent ethical discussion.

The first time I came across this post, randomslasher’s addition was life changing for me. I suddenly understood where the right was coming from, and I had never been angrier.

This is also why so many people on the right fail to see the hypocrisy of trying to make abortion illegal when they themselves have had abortions. They can tally up their own life circumstances and conclude that it would be difficult or impossible to continue a pregnancy, but they’re completely mystified by the idea that women they don’t know are also human beings with complicated lives and limited spoon allocation.

This is also why they think “get a job” is useful advice. In their heads they honestly do not understand why the NPCs who make up the majority of the human race can’t just flip a switch from “no job” to “job.” When they say “get a job” they’re filing a glitch report with God and they honestly think that’s all it takes.

This is also why they tend to view demographics as individuals. They think that every single Muslim is just a different avatar for the same bit of programming.

Borrowed observation from @innuendostudios​ here, but: there’s also a fundamental difference in how progressives view social problems versus how conservatives view them. That is, progressives view them as problems to be solved, whereas conservatives do not believe you can solve anything.

Conservatives view social issues as universal constants that fundamentally are unable to be changed, like the weather. You can try to alter your own behavior to protect yourself (you can carry an umbrella), and you can commiserate about how bad the weather is, but you can’t stop it from raining. This is why conservatives blame victims of rape for dressing immodestly or for drinking or for going out at night: to them, those things are like going out without an umbrella when you know it’s going to rain. 

“But then why do conservatives try to stop things they dislike by making them illegal, like drug use or immigration or abortion?” And the answer is: they’re not. They know perfectly well that those things will continue. No amount of studies showing that their methods are ineffective will matter to them because effectiveness is not the point. The point is to punish people for doing bad things, because punishing people is how you show your disapproval of their actions; if you don’t punish them, then you’re condoning their behavior. 

This is why they will never support rehabilitative prisons, even though they reduce crime. This is why they will never support free birth control for everyone, even though that would reduce abortions. This is why they will never support just giving homeless people houses, even though it’s proven to be cheaper and more effective at stopping homelessness than halfway houses and shelters. It’s not about stopping evil, because you can’t; it’s about saying definitively what is Bad and what is Good, and we as a society do that by punishing the people we’ve decided are bad. 

This is why the conservative response to “holy fuck, they’re putting children in cages!” is typically something along the lines of “it’s their parents’ fault for trying to come here illegally; if they didn’t want to have their kids taken away, they shouldn’t have committed a crime.” It doesn’t matter that entering the US unlawfully is a misdemeanor and child kidnapping isn’t typically a criminal sentence. It does not matter that this has absolutely zero effect on people unlawfully entering the US. The point is that conservatives have decided that entering unlawfully is Bad, anything that is not punishing undocumented immigrants – due process of asylum and removal defense claims, for example – is supporting Badness, and kidnapping children is an appropriate punishment for being Bad.

#ivan karamazov#enters the chat (@the-world-lit-or-unlit)

This is really long but please read it

@emilyisliving on Instagram

To add on here for some UK flavoured context- in the UK Margaret Thatcher introduced the infamous Section 28- a law that forbade the ‘promotion of homosexuality’ - which basically means schools couldn’t mention LGBTQ+ topics and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups were threatened with prosecution. Thatcher was *famously* very buddy buddy with Reagan and both in the UK and US at least, the pair did their best to ignore the AIDS crisis. 

“ So we end up with a bunch of young queer folks teaching each other queer history based on what random scraps they could find from the Internet.” - also this is really succinct and exactly what we’re all depending on rn because there’s basically no alternative except rebuilding and becoming those elders for queer people in the future. 

And may I recommend onearchives.org as a reputable source for queer history education? Their mission is preserving the stories of queer people so while it’s not the same as talking directly to queer elders, it is the stories.

Also the comment on the trans inclusive branch is explicitly why equating ALL radfems to TERFs is not accurate. Most visible ones are TERFs, but including trans people (aka TIRFs) does not stop it from being radical feminism either. Also just because you are accepting and actively supportive of trans people, or are even trans yourself, Does Not mean you are not a radical feminist and it Does Not mean your brand of (potentially unpacked/unnoticed) radfem rhetoric is suddenly the Good kind. All of radical feminism hurts the queer community enmasse. There is no one who gets by it unscathed. And the trans inclusive radical feminist point of view is still very harmful to trans people enmasse.

You don't have to consider yourself a radfem, letalone a TERF, to still be mimicking and outright scripting from radfem talking points. Please learn what it is, and do your part in unlearning whatever pieces of it you have picked up unknowingly or purposefully. It is never too late.

Simple bits to start with questioning and asking others about are:

- The idea that All Men are Evil (this hurts literally everyone, even cis women who hear this and can end up too afraid to enjoy life for long periods of time, and this is actually a notion that has been used to pull people into cults. Letalone anyone who is not a perisex cis woman that gets targeted for this and the violence is then 'rationalized' with this notion)

- Testosterone is the evil/violent/overly sexual horomone (even when you personally claim that trans women on HRT are exempt from this view, it still hurts them, non-HRT women, cis men, trans men, trans folks on T that aren't men, all intersex people w hormonal imbalances, and yes even cis women bc this is a misogynistic point used as to why Women On Period Are Insane Bc Higher Testosterone. Testosterone is neutral and so is estrogen)

- Women's love for other women is Better or More Special than any other loving dynamic (even when this includes mspec and trans women. Not to be confused with celebrating the special specifics of WLW dynamics. It's the emphasis on inherent Betterness or More Healthy than any other dynamics that is the one to look out for. WLW dynamics are beautiful and special, but there is no one dynamic inherently better than any other one)

- Certain queer orientations have privilege over others (it's all lateral)

- Anyone with a beard is safer in the world (... Please think about anyone who isn't a cis man who has a beard and why that may actually put them in more danger, especially dependant on any of their other features)

- Some trans genders have more privilege than others because of how cis genders work in society (being trans is a different playing field, it is again all lateral)

- Only women can ever really be healers and teachers

- Anything that equates all positive human traits to femininity only and equates all negative human traits to masculinity only

- Only addressing toxic masculinity and never naming nor addressing toxic femininity

- Anything trying harder to seperate men's and women's gay communities rather than help understand and respect each other

- Anything that pits mono orientations (hetero/homo) against mspec orientations (bi/pan/omni/etc)

- Anything that claims monogomy OR polyamory are inherently abusive in dynamic

And there is many other radfem bulletpoints but I am working off the top of my head and after a long day here. So use this to stoke your intrigue and please learn more about how to love your queer community rather than resent or hate it. Learn what radical feminism is, and how to get it out of your life.