wilwheaton:

“It turns out the 2018 midterm elections were pretty much a rout. Counting all the votes makes all the difference in the world. In the House, as of this writing, the Democratic gains are up to 30 with about five more races still to be called — in which Democrats are leading. A gain of 35 seats would be the largest House pickup for Democrats since the first post-Watergate midterm election in 1974. The Democrats picked up seven governorships, with Stacey Abrams, as of now, still fighting to make it to a runoff in Georgia, and Andrew Gillum trailing by 0.4 percentage points, enough to trigger a recount in Florida. In the Senate, Democrats may not quite have pulled off an inside straight, but they had two aces — in Nevada and Arizona. With 26 seats to defend, many in red states, it now looks as if their losses will be small. Democrats won in Nevada and are now poised to pick up a seat in Arizona.”

Three days later: Hey, Republicans really did get clobbered

Early on Election night, idiot relic James Carville told progressives that there was no Blue Wave. This set a narrative that idiot right wing dickheads were happy to run with, because it demoralizes progressives and our allies.

When this is all done, it looks like the “not a blue wave” will result in Democrats controlling the House after winning around THIRTY seats, and Republicans will continue to control the Senate after picking up a single seat.

It’s clear and undeniable that America is fed up with Trump and people like him, and it’s clear and undeniable that Americans are overwhelmingly good and decent people who reject Fascism and Authoritarianism.

Don’t let Trump and his lying allies trick you into thinking that America is the country they want it to be, because it’s very clear that it isn’t. To be sure, there are pockets of regressive, racist, revanchist trash in our country, but they are outnumbered by those of us who reject everything they stand for.

It’s heartbreaking to lose close races, but we must remember that the forces of evil have rigged the game against the forces of good, and they are still either losing or barely winning. 

Have faith in your fellow humans. We’re going to prevail, together.

I’ve seen a very large amount of “the only way to save the world is to BRING ABOUT REVOLUTION” takes lately, and I just…. they never have any way to go about it suggested (and even often say “voting isn’t enough”), and like… these are coming from what I usually think of as reasonable people, assuming that a possibly-violent otherwise-unspecified Revolution is somehow going to save us. It’s kind of worrying.

the-real-seebs:

lizardlicks:

lines-and-edges:

I mean, I absolutely share the concern that the structure of our society has become totally untenable. But.

Leaving aside the hazards of doing anything that damages our already flagging infrastructure, having a feasible revolution that leaves you with a place to live afterwards has to follow the same principles as electing a feasible third-party candidate.

Your neighbors have to already know and agree with you, or it won’t work.

I would like these people to go out of their front door and look around and talk to these neighbors. See those American flags on porches? Those are people who are often conservative or “politically moderate”, whatever that means any more. They are invested in going about their daily lives and raising their children.

They will likely oppose revolution and support martial law (under the extant regime) over revolution unless and until they are absolutely assured that this new regime these people are talking about will bring them stability and not harm their kids.

Which means that in order to organize a revolution, an actual revolution and not just a bloody and brief conflict in which a bunch of leftist activists are slaughtered to send a message to anyone else who might want to try it:

(a) it has to actually be stable for people’s kids! Keeping everyday people’s lives running has to be a central strategic focus!

(b) talking to your neighbors and bringing them into the loop has to be a central tactical focus for getting started! A majority of people have to agree with or be willing to go along with what you’re doing!

One of the primary objectives of alt-right astroturfing on fake leftist blogs is to keep leftists from thinking realistically or doing any of the things necessary to succeed.

Y’all wanna start a revolution, get involved with your community. We keep saying it. Go talk to people. Go to the town hall meetings, go to your co-ops and your churches, talk to the people who you don’t think matter. Talk to the moms and dads, the grandparents, aunts, uncles, the 9-5s, the graveyard and swing shifts. Find out what they need. Figure out how to get it for them.

When you have the everyday folk behind your back, you have an army.

Yeah. Violent revolution is almost always an insanely bad idea. We’re a long way from the circumstances where it would be better than “not”.

jumpingjacktrash:

howlfromthecore:

socalledunitedstates:

saint-aries:

socalledunitedstates:

I want other young people to understand that if the extent of your radical action is posting “eat the rich!” on social media and waiting for somebody to tell you a revolution has started, nothing will change and you’ll get arrested in the Third Red Scare and that’ll be it

What’s the plan?

Join a local trade union and the IWW. Join or start a local tenant’s union. Volunteer with Food Not Bombs and do other mutual aid in your community. Support your local solidarity economy and maker community. Build, fix, and grow stuff. Use free, open-source software and stop letting companies sell your data. Pirate stuff. Break unjust laws. Attend local actions

And most importantly, join radical groups in your area. Strength is found in numbers and none of us can change the world alone. If you need help finding your local movement, DM me and I’ll look around for you so you can start getting stuff done

Feed the people. People can’t–won’t– strike, protest, go against the bosses, sit in, down, or out, show up for community actions, marches or any other damn thing, and they won’t put thier jobs or homes or freedom or ability to feed and house thier kids in jepoardy unless you can answer the question “How are we going to eat?”

You’ve got to have an alternative. People need to eat and live and meet thier needs and the needs of the people they are responsible for. People have to come together and get each other taken care of and fed. Otherwise the only people who show up are the ones who can afford to. And since the group of people who both have resources-time, emotional, financial, transportation, etc and want to show up and change the system–is fairly small, and not growing fast…. That’s not enough people for a revolution.

Learn consensus. Build community with people. Talk to the humans around you and figure out what they need and how to organize people to meet that need. People aren’t going to show up and be told what they need. If you–if we–want a different system, we have to show up and show–not tell-people how they can meet each other’s needs.

and if your sole contribution is gatekeeping and infighting, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. turn outward. look for opportunities to help. DO SOME WORK.

zenosanalytic:

captainsnoop:

captainsnoop:

the idea that people nowadays are more sensitive and easy to offend than they were in the past is such horseshit. people used to throw hands if you stepped on their shadow and calling a person a coward was legally justifiable grounds for them to challenge you to a duel with pistols.

since some people are having trouble understanding what i meant here, i would like to clarify that i am 100% mocking the hypocrisy of people who idolize the “good old days when people weren’t offended by everything” and then turn around and whine about how sjws are ruining their lives

if you’re whining about sjws in the comments of this post please know that i am making fun of you and that the old white relative you idolize for “giving no fucks” probably cried himself to sleep last night when he saw an interracial couple in a target commercial 

And the thing is most of those complaints about “sensitivity” are, themselves, examples of offense-taking. Every article ever written about leftist campus protest was written to complain about some millionaire not “being allowed” to speak, unchallenged, at a university and get paid(with those students’ fees) for the pleasure. Every article ever written about “PC Campus Culture” or “Leftist Academia” was written to complain about right-wing views not being accepted and propagated uncritically as university policy. Hell: Republican state govs, like that of Missouri, are going so far as to cut funding for their state schools in an attempt to force them to cover subjects in a particular way(and suppress student speech the pols in the lege don’t agree with).

The point of this offense-taking over “sensitivity” has always been shutting up people the offense-taker doesn’t want to listen to, rather than a genuine concern for how thin-skinned contemporary society is. What these folks complaining about “sensitivity” and “pc culture” are really longing for is a past where women who talked about rape and harassment were shamed; where non-whites who complained about racism were ignored; where gays and transfolks and queers were not only silenced, but erased. What they’re praising isn’t really some non-existent past when their ancestors “gave no fucks”, but the very real and deadly past when the only voice that mattered in our culture was male and white.

Beware of charisma mirrors

realsocialskills:

There are people who look much better than they actually are. They trick other people into admiring them for virtues that they do not actually possess. Sometimes they do this by using their charisma like a mirror. 

It works along these lines (I’m using ‘he’ here both for ease of reading and because this is *often* male-coded behavior, but there are also people who do this who aren’t men):

  • Charisma Man is a bad leader. He talks a lot about important causes, but doesn’t do any effective work on them. 
  • Mostly, Charisma Man insults all the leaders who are doing serious work on those causes for not having fixed it yet.
  • Idealistic people see that the problem hasn’t been solved yet, and assume that it’s because the other leaders don’t care as much as Charisma Man does.
  • They are sincere, and they think Charisma Man is too. 
  • They will tell everyone that Charisma Man is kind and wise and good.
  • None of this is actually true. There is wisdom and kindness and sincerity and goodness in the room, but it’s not coming from Charisma Man, it’s coming from his followers. 
  • When they look at Charisma Man, they see their own good qualities reflected back, and then give him credit for them.
  • Charisma Man is wielding his charisma like a mirror in order to stop people from noticing what he is actually like. 
  • People don’t notice all the ways that Charisma Man is failing at leadership because they’re seeing their own reflected goodness instead.
  • They also don’t notice all the ways that they are good and competent and valuable because they are attributing everything good they notice to Charisma Man.

If you are admiring a leader in an unbounded way and losing sight of your own worth, you might be looking at a charisma mirror rather than reality. It’s worth asking yourself: 

  • What does this leader do that I think is admirable? 
  • Do they actually do those things?
  • Is it unusual to do those things? Who else does them?
  • How is this leader helping others to be effective?
  • How is this leader valuing other people’s work?
  • When there is kindness and wisdom and sincerity in the room, where is it coming from? Is it from the leader, the followers, or both?

If a leader is making you feel like the only valuable thing you can do is follow them, sometimes is seriously wrong. Everyone, including you, has their own good qualities and their own contributions to make. Good leaders don’t want you to depend on them for your own sense of self worth, and they don’t want you to see them as the only person with something to offer. Good leaders don’t want unbounded admiration from their followers; good leaders collaborate and show respect for other people’s strengths. 

Male Supremacy

tariqah:

closet-keys:

The Southern Poverty Law Center formally recognizes “Male Supremacy” movements as hate groups, including specific mentions of 

  • MRAs (men’s rights activists)
  • Red Pillers
  • PUAs (pick-up artists)
  • Incels (involuntary celibates) 
  • MGTOWs (men going their own way)

as well as connections to and overlap with “alt-right” white supremacist and neo-fascist groups

I been saying for YEARS!

Male Supremacy

I voted to release millions of hornets, and I already regret it

quasi-normalcy:

And I know in the days following the vote I was a pretty sore winner, I know I tweeted and facebooked a lot of you like “they’re out now, deal with it” and “ha ha cry some more, now there are hornets.” I know I started an online business selling coffee mugs that said “The Hornets Will Sting You”.

But now that the hornets have pretty much blackened the entire sky – and are surrounding MY house as well, for reasons that are beyond me – I’m wondering if I really acted in my own best interests after all, re: the hornets.

I voted to release millions of hornets, and I already regret it

OK But let’s talk about Brett Kavanaugh (from the POV of a Chinese American lawyer).

lightspeedsound:

OK guys heres the deal.

Brett Kavanaugh’s constant hemming and hawing is just flat out offensive at this point.  Like I get it, there’s a tradition of not publicly saying your stances on certain things that are CURRENT EVENTS that you could be asked to weigh in on the future.  It’s actually a standard used by the Notorious RBG–This Time article sums it up quite well. 

Here’s the thing tho–RBG was ABSOLUTELY WILLING to comment on PREVIOUSLY DECIDED SCOTUS CASES.  She only demurred her answers about 10% of the time (when asked how she WOULD DECIDE on future/potential issues).  

Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, is using THIS RULE GOVERNING FUTURE DECISIONS to hem and haw his way into a confirmation.  He’s not just refusing to comment on CURRENT EVENTS, he’s flat out refusing to comment on CASES MORE THAN 200 YEARS OLD. 

Yesterday, he was literally asked about the Chae Chan Ping case from 1889, which basically upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act .  This ruling held that the federal government had the right to exclude immigrants (and deny immigrants the right to naturalize) based on their ethnicity.  The reasoning is delightfully indicative of just how racist America was against Chinese people.  But essentially:

 the US legislature signed a treaty with China that was designed to supersede an old treaty.  The new treaty gave the US rights to regulate immigration coming from China.  Chae Chan Ping arrived in the US and then left the US to visit his family back home.*  Unfortunately for Ping, he tried to return AFTER the new treaty was in place, and thus was barred from entry.

SCOTUS held that the US legislature has a right to draft new treaties and new terms on immigration (which is true, immigration is a federal issue THANK GOD because otherwise think of just how hard it would be to be an immigrant with different rights of entry per state). But also the court said that in the interest of national security, the US Legislature can decide what basis to regulate immigration on, INCLUDING race because hey, that’s their decision (and remember: this is 1889, LESS THAN THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR). Since this was more about INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC TREATIES than LEGISLATURE, SCOTUS was like “not our job to rule on the validity of this, sorry.”  (ironically, this reasoning has also been used to PROTECT migratory birds….but not migratory humans.)

ANYWAYS. 

As I said, this case is ancient. It’s from 1889.  It’s never been overturned.  Much like the infamous Korematsu case (Japanese internment), it’s often cited as an example of just how terribly racist America’s past is, but also as a way to justify really terrible things in the interest of national security. Not to mention, we STILL have a quota system in place, guys. Although USCIS would like to point out not all countries are entitled to the maximum, just that there is a maximum and “most countries don’t even reach” that max.  Suuuuuuure. 

So here we are.  Kamala Harris point blank asked Kavanaugh what he thought about a case that is MORE THAN 200 YEARS OLD. It’s NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED, but it’s literally that old.  Did she ask about how it affects current immigration laws? No. Did she ask him to interpret what the implications are for CURRENT IMMIGRATION ISSUES? No. She asked him, “Do you think it was wrong?”

And his answer is “I would have to study the case again.” 

DUDE YOU’RE A JUDGE. YOU’RE BEING PROPOSED AS A SCOTUS JUSTICE. I can’t even. This is a case you learn literally in YOUR FIRST SEMESTER OF LAW SCHOOL. You should ALREADY BE AT LEAST TOPICALLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE.  

So fine, you need to read the opinion, but the holding of “it excluded Chinese people from immigrating to the US on the basis of race” is pretty cut and dried. and that’s WHAT YOU ARE ASKED TO COMMENT ON–whether or not it was right to rule that immigrants can be excluded on the basis of race.  It’s a yes or no, but definitely a yes or no that can be qualified (ex: something to be looked at critically, especially in light of national security which has been ruled to be a compelling state interest. And of course we can talk about aliens vs. citizens etc.)

But he didn’t even do that.  He didn’t even have the decency to make any sort of nod to “HEY RACISM IS BAD, RIGHT?” Like NOTHING. 

Here’s the main difference between a Judge and a Lawyer: 

A Lawyer’s personal code of ethics isn’t really ever at play, unless it’s SO AGAINST your client’s personal opinions/position/beliefs that you can’t in good faith represent them. Then you recuse yourself and let another person take over. Your job is to lay out your client’s position to the court, support it with some good law and arguments and analysis, and call it a day.  

But a Judge? A Judge’s PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE ALWAYS IN PLAY. Because here’s the thing: there’s always a loophole in interpretation.  Whether or not you’re willing to listen to each side’ argument is a consideration, sure, but even beyond that, your personal biases are always going to inform your decision making.  Whether or not you find certain things persuasive or not is VITALLY IMPORTANT, especially, ESPECIALLY as a SCOTUS justice.  Because guess what–SCOTUS can toss out laws.  They can say “no, this is wrong. This is not how it should be.” Brown v. Board. Roe v. Wade. Loving v. Virginia. All of these cases involved situations where THE SHIT BEING QUESTIONED WAS LEGALLY ON THE BOOKS, BUT THE LAW WAS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL on the grounds of things like civil rights and equal protection. 

Now the Constitution can be changed. They’re called Amendments. And SCOTUS, as the highest court in the land, has the power to look at the Constitution and ANY OTHER LAWS and find internal inconsistencies or just flat out “wrongness” and alter that. 

And Kavanaugh can’t even give a straight answer as to whether or not he thinks CHinese people should be allowed in this country? REALLY? 

I wish they had asked him about Dred Scott.  I wish they had asked him about Prigg v. Pennsylvania.  I wish they had asked him about Wong Kim Ark. Because these are all cases that happened HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO but speak to just how racist America was (and honestly, is). But they certainly aren’t current. And honestly, at this point, I would really like to know how racist Brett Kavanaugh actually is. 

I am a Chinese American lawyer. I am the daughter of immigrants. But I was born here, in the US of A.  Thanks to the ruling of Wong Kim Ark, my citizenship has never been questioned. But now we are entering a new era, where rulings that are considered FUNDAMENTAL to the history of the US, fundamental rights that as US citizens, we take for granted are BEING QUESTIONED. 

Two hundred years ago, my existence would have been impossible. I am an American Born Chinese Woman with a law degree. I work as an employee of the state. I wouldn’t have been allowed to be born. And even if I was, I would have had to fight for the right to be educated. I would have had to fight for basic human rights like THE RIGHT TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS. I would have been forced into sex slavery or forced to conceal my existence from the world.  A lot has changed since then, but a lot hasn’t.  Racism is still around, and even those changes that have allowed my existence are being questioned.

So yes, Brett Kavanaugh, even if you can’t talk about your position re: current events, you can at least tell me if you agree with a 200 year old case ruling that was 100% racist to its core. You can tell me if you think that it was racist, or if you think that the ruling could be narrowly tailored. You can opine on things like slavery and racism and women’s rights.

But here’s the thing:  The fact that you think professing ignorance on this case is better and safer than actually opining on it tells me what I need to know already. 

——-

*

a regular practice at a time when Chinese women were banned from immigration to the US, because the US didn’t want American-born Chinese to be a thing because OH NO WE DON’T WANT CHINESE AMERICAN CITIZENS! …..which, incidentally, the US government later tried to make a thing they could decide based on race as well.