unwantedplatypus posted:

Ur mom and I engaged in lovecraft discussion

A Bakers Cousin posted:

Lovecraft fart letter

Party Boat posted:

world of lovecraft

tokin opposition posted:

Trains are already sexy

War and Pieces posted:

YaketySass posted:

a bit
https://twitter.com/Brietannia/status/1569751282298277890

YaketySass posted:

a bit
https://twitter.com/Brietannia/status/1569751282298277890

Zvahl posted:

why is goddamn everything with these people about being yelled at by a man one time

projecthalaxy posted:

Because this is explicitly a parody/find and replace with "walkable cities" replacing "Bernie Sanders"

More generally, because it feels bad when men yell at you in my experience.

YaketySass posted:

a bit
https://twitter.com/Brietannia/status/1569751282298277890

War and Pieces posted:

projecthalaxy posted:

More generally, because it feels bad when men yell at you in my experience.

gradenko_2000 posted:

It's not unreasonable to feel bad at being yelled at

It's disingenuous to project one's trauma from being yelled at onto Bernie Sanders by comparing his not-even-yelling to being abused, when the real issue is disagreeing with his politics

tokin opposition posted:

Also the trivialization of trauma into "loud man make sad" is really lovely but that's libs for you.

quote:

Honestly, everytime I see the Philippines under the Marcos-Duterte joint administration, it honestly breaks my heart to see the country changed the way I see the world and politics falter and crumble.

Honestly, I genuinely want the Philippines to prosper like Ukraine & Taiwan even though I am a Vietnamese American. Unfortunately, 31 million bird-brains chose to be under two dictatorial families and they do deserve to be call themselves Filipinos.

It really made me think that the Philippines should not have been a democracy to even begin with & should have taken notes from Lew Kuan Yew of Singapore, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of Turkey, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea.

There is this quote where:

quote:

"Nations shouldn't adopt democracy as their first ideology if they are in tumultuous times. If the state is too corrupt for democracy, do not do democracy. If the country is too unstable for democracy, do not do democracy. If the people are too retarded for democracy, do not do democracy. It is natural for authoritative and smart leaders lead and develop the nation in its beginnings, in order to open a pathway to eventual democracy."

Ibn Al-Haytham, Book of My Opinions & Studies on the Nature of States

I think it is better for the Philippines to have someone like Lee Kuan Yew to provide Filipinos first shelter, security, education, food, & prosperity before giving them freedoms.

It's better use your wealth to build schools for the poor rather than literally giving the poor your money because if they are not smart enough to handle money properly, they will end up being poor again.

The thing is that VP Leni Robredo is incredibly intelligent, competent, passionate, & empathetic. Also she is not the kind of leader or person who will make morally repugnant sacrifices even if they truly benefit the Philippines in the long run. I do not want her to be like President Park Chung-Hee, who made South Korea an economic powerhouse at the expense of civil liberties & human rights.

Yes Lee Kuan Yew had his fair share of moral faults, but they were not not as egregious as the those of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Park Chung-Hee, or Paul Kagame.

End of sharing.

What do you personally think? Should the Philippines be better off with an authoritarian president like Lee Kuan Yew who must provide education, security, shelter, food, and wealth first before individual freedoms and democracy?

HashtagGirlboss posted:

It’s all part of trauma as a status symbol. What’s the point of having status if you can’t swing it around like a cudgel

quote:

Sarah Schulman is a playwright, an author, and a queer activist. She is also a professor of creative writing, and once, a number of years ago, she learned that a male graduate student maintained a blog where he wrote about his crush on her. He wrote that he was in love with her; he wrote that he wanted to gently caress her; he wrote about her appearance in a way that made her feel bad. She told her colleagues what was happening, and their response was unanimous: He was “stalking” her. They advised Schulman to report him to a supervisor.

She considered this. She was uncomfortable with what was happening, and she wanted it to stop. But she was also uncomfortable with her colleagues’ advice. “I realized that the more I saw myself as being victimized by this person, the more support I had from my colleagues,” Schulman told me. “They would wrap me in the comfort of their protection. And I found this very disturbing. Because no one said to me, ‘Why don’t you ask him what he thinks is going on?’ ”

In her mind, stalking meant something like “when your ex-husband is in front of your house with a gun.” She wasn’t frightened of her student; she was disconcerted. “Stalking is a real thing, and people lose their lives to stalking,” Schulman said. What she had on her hands was not that: It was a situation in which “somebody is feeling something and another person feels uncomfortable about it. That is often called stalking, but it’s not stalking.” She decided to call her student and talk to him about it.

She learned, first of all, what a blog was and what sorts of things people wrote there — this was the early aughts, and she hadn’t really known. So there was a generational divide at work. She also learned she was the first teacher who had taken his writing seriously; he’d probably gotten “over-involved” because of that. They had a few conversations, he said what he wanted to say, she transferred him to another adviser, and no further issues arose. Looking back, “the scary thing was how much reward was waiting for me if I presented myself as victimized,” she said — that promise of community embrace.

Schulman describes this episode in a book she wrote some years later, Conflict Is Not Abuse. The book’s central insight is that people experiencing the inevitable discomfort of human misunderstanding often overstate the harm that has been done to them — they describe themselves as victims rather than as participants in a shared situation. And overstating harm itself can cause harm, whether it leads to social shunning or physical violence.

Schulman argues that people rush to see themselves as victims for a variety of reasons: because they’re accustomed to being unopposed, because they’re accustomed to being oppressed, because it’s a quick escape from discomfort — from criticism, disagreement, confusion, and conflict. But when we avoid those uncomfortable feelings, we avoid the possibility of change. Instead, Schulman wants friends to hold each other accountable, ask questions, and intervene to help each other talk through disagreements — not treat “loyalty” as an excuse to bear grudges.

A wide-ranging exploration of human relationships and responsibility, Conflict Is Not Abuse was the rare book published in October 2016 to be more relevant instead of less by November’s end. It was a book for which Schulman could find no U.S. publisher; which was released by Arsenal Pulp, a queer Canadian press that paid her a $2,500 advance; and which — like Debt, by David Graeber, or All About Love, by bell hooks — was the kind of accessible work that wins a radical figure unexpected fans. The book offers readers a clarifying lens through which to consider the fraught encounters of our era of discontent: between police and protesters; between writers and their readers; between colleagues, neighbors, and friends. It is now in its seventh printing.

Clear, provocative and concise, “conflict is not abuse” is a perfectly aerodynamic unit of intellectual achievement. It has flown farther, faster, than Schulman ever thought it would. In part, this is because the mantle of victimhood she argues against has become more widely recognized and discussed even as it has remained exceedingly commonplace. Claudia Rankine, a friend of Schulman’s for nearly 30 years, said the Central Park encounter between Amy Cooper and Christian Cooper was emblematic of the pattern Schulman describes. Christian Cooper was birding in May when he asked Amy Cooper to follow park rules and leash her dog; she responded by calling the police and claiming she was in danger. “It’s a threat that is imagined but then weaponized in a society that is systemically racist,” Rankine said.

Schulman’s analysis scrambles familiar ideological lines. She looks askance at trigger warnings; she also looks askance at Zionism. She considers the way accusations of sexual threat have been used against Black and queer people and then uses that understanding to extend empathy to those accused of sexual harassment. She tries to dissect the internal logic of police brutality and domestic abuse. Her ideas’ appeal lies in offering a new way to consider seemingly intractable problems and in drawing lines between our political ideals and the way we behave in daily life. (“There are a lot of progressive people who are very petty,” Schulman told me. “So what kind of progressive world can they build?”) They’re complicated ideas, and the book takes them in directions sure to give every reader something to disagree with. But — at least within the realm of personal relationships — they also come down to an almost kindergartenishly simple dictum: Talk, listen, work things out.

As she makes clear, this directive is simple but hardly easy. One of the reasons so many people claim victimhood is that, in Schulman’s observation, having your pain taken seriously is a gift only victims seem to receive. “It’s about being eligible for compassion,” she told me. “But everybody deserves support, regardless of what position they’re in.”

Schulman began writing Conflict Is Not Abuse in 2014, during a summer shadowed by the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, by the death of Eric Garner on Staten Island, and by the deaths of some 2,000 Palestinians in Gaza. These events seemed to her to share a form. Soon, she was talking with her students about Garner; she was having long arguments on Facebook about Israel; she was angry about what she saw as terrible injustices, but she was also interested in how they came to be. How did a violent cop or a member of the Israeli army rationalize what he or she had done? Listening to the explanations on offer suggested that anxiety and fear had given rise to a “mortal overreaction by an oppressive force,” Schulman told me. The cops and Israeli soldiers had seen themselves as victims and lashed out.

The results, in those cases, were fatal. But Schulman began to recognize the same pattern playing out in her private life: a misplaced sense of danger, an overreaction, then a rift that came to seem impossible to repair. Two friends would have a fight, then one would persuade the rest of their clique to turn on the other. Someone would express a dissenting opinion, then face accusations of violence and calls for punishment. Schulman saw people turning away from the challenges of conflict and instead asking some larger body — a group of friends, a college bureaucracy, the state — to ratify their status as victims and intervene on their behalf.

Toph Bei Fong posted:

The results, in those cases, were fatal. But Schulman began to recognize the same pattern playing out in her private life: a misplaced sense of danger, an overreaction, then a rift that came to seem impossible to repair. Two friends would have a fight, then one would persuade the rest of their clique to turn on the other. Someone would express a dissenting opinion, then face accusations of violence and calls for punishment. Schulman saw people turning away from the challenges of conflict and instead asking some larger body — a group of friends, a college bureaucracy, the state — to ratify their status as victims and intervene on their behalf.

gradenko_2000 posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

DACK FAYDEN posted:

I feel bad for mocking this lady because really her fundamental issue is that she doesn't know what a revolution is, or how it can manifest

but also lmao

Toph Bei Fong posted:

lumpentroll posted:

lobster shirt posted:

this is accurate because if you know someones true name from their own lips you can do all kinds of nasty spells, thaumaturgy, curses etc. very irresponsible of mister bidet marxman to do that, and threatening.

lobster shirt posted:

this is accurate because if you know someones true name from their own lips you can do all kinds of nasty spells, thaumaturgy, curses etc. very irresponsible of mister bidet marxman to do that, and threatening.

HootTheOwl posted:

Yes, we should all just enter into one mutual aid pact with one another and end borders and nation-states immediately for our long term future, but thaat's not gonna happen kid.

lumpentroll posted: