Eliza, I’ve taken in all the info on your reblogs and, as I said before, I’m taking all of this info seriously and making sure to keep looking into it waaaaay after tonight so, again, thanks for all the links and info because they are helpful (no sarcasm or anything here; I think this is all genuinely important information)
but, I’m not doing anymore reblogging of that post right now mainly because I keep saying "I don’t approve of police brutality/that level of action and force over something so insignificant" and you have told me that apparently I do two or three times now so it seems kind of pointless saying it again.
okay i feel you on this and i understand what you’re saying but here’s the thing: approving of the police at all, any form of surveillance, and any actions taken by the government to “fight the war on terror” IS approving of that level of force, and of brutality, and of war crimes. because the two are not separate issues. there is no war on terror without police brutality, there is no surveillance without misuse of data to put innocent people in prison, there is no panopticon without abuse. ok? we cant just cherrypick the parts of the police state that happen to not inconvenience you at this particular moment and stamp them “approved”. it doesn’t affect me in the slightest that homelessness and transgenderism is pathologized and criminalized, right, because im cis-passing and privileged to have somewhere to live. but the oppression of these stated groups is PART OF and a key component/result of the larger problems. i can’t and won’t say “well just stop lynching transwomen and clubbing the homeless and we’ll have a perfectly acceptable government.” it’s symptomatic and supportive of the larger issue. we dont get to pick and choose!
@5 months ago with 34 notes
@5 months ago with 245 notes
i mean GOD FORBID your fucking government should criminalize something you do or just “are” (anyone here a sodomite? […]
Didn’t know anything about what you brought up i[…]
you are literally telling me that you want the police to knock on your door an interrogate you for making a joke. […]
I said it would be a reason to investigate it - e.g. keep a record of the chat maybe or see if they had said it multiple times elsewhere - take the time to assess the person to see if they are a real threat or not (and if not, leave them alone), not take that kind of ludicrous action straight off the bat. Even if they do seem to be a threat, there’s plenty of other ways to go about dealing with that kind of issue and I am in no way supporting the decisions made in that case because, like I already said, they’re terrible.
And of course I don’t support peoples’ arrest based on their ethnicity, beliefs or sexuality - at what point did I agree with that kind of behaviour? All I said regarding those things was that I had never personally witnessed them and, as a result, I don’t consider them a high threat where I currently live.
I’m not saying that those things never happen elsewhere in the world or even in areas near/close to me - all I said was that I’ve never seen it happen in front of me/to me. I am treating what you are saying seriously and I’m taking in information I wasn’t previously aware of because I think it is important- I’m thankful for that, but I’d rather you not insinuate that I am showing support for bigoted mistreatment.
busting down someone’s door and dragging them off to be interrogated or putting them under unjust surveillance because they said “fuck the police” in a chatroom is not reasonable in any way, shape or form. because “safety”. that’s your argument. it is totally indefensible, and you are still asserting bizarrely that the government surveillance and punishment body is CAPABLE of making a judgment call about whether or not someone posting in the #kill cops tag is a threat to national security. here’s the first guy who was
convicted(sorry typing too fast) indicted under the Patriot Act btw:
Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Saudi graduate student in Idaho, was reportedly the first person to be indicted under the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the notion of “material support” for terrorism to include those who render “expert advice or assistance” to the terrorists and their cause. The feds alleged that al-Hussayen, in his role as Webmaster for a Muslim charity website, was providing such assistance. The charity sites focused on normal religious training, but the indictment asserted that if a user followed enough links off his site, he would find violent, anti-American comments on other sites. Such was the elasticity provided by Patriot Act provisions. A properly instructed jury acquitted, but the set of anti-terrorism laws leave little reason to believe that prosecutors will not infringe on important civil liberties in their pursuit of terrorist suspects, as indeed they have in various parts of the nation. In fact, an upcoming Supreme Court case—Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project –challenges the vagueness of this federal statute.
every single member of the governing body involved in prosecuting this webmaster from the lawyers to the judge to the arresting officers thought it was reasonable and that they were using their best judgment. just fyi. these are the people you believe are capable of making decisions about who is and is not “a threat to the wellbeing of others”.
is that law saying that illustrated images of bestiality*/loli/shota = illegal still real because that is soooooo fucking absurd, like to the degree where its literally just angry confused people clasping at straws
*never saw that one officially covered anywhere but I heard it talked about quite a bit
Sections 63 to 67 of the Act make it an offence to possess pornographic images that depict acts which threaten a person’s life; acts which result in or are likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals; bestiality; or necrophilia. They also provide for the exclusion of classified films etc. and set out defences and the penalties for the offence.
so yes if you think a 60 year old white heterosexual man wearing a mop on his head could possibly decide that the FurAffinity vore tag is “obscene” (hint: he can and probably would decide that) then guess what you will go to prison for it if it is convenient for them to send you there. these dipshit subjective tests like “is it obscene” or “is it realistic” are tools that the legal system uses to decide, independent of actual objective reality, who goes to prison, when, for how long, and why.
for example let’s say you get arrested at a peaceful protest against austerity. you have your ipad with you. even though you closed your safari tab before coming, a safari tab that was open to a vore/gore image on FurAffinity, wiretapping laws allow them to check the data records of your 3gs account, to see everything you’ve done and everything you’ve downloaded, uploaded, etc. you did not encrypt this data with tor or route it through a VPN because, hey, you weren’t doing anything wrong.
you are wearing all black clothes at the time of your arrest, because you are stylish as shit. but they think you’re “black bloc”. they decide you’re an anarchist, want to make an example of you, and use obscenity laws and their surveillance of your internet activity to fine or imprison you because “anarchism” isn’t technically criminalized yet but you sure as shit are doing SOMETHING wrong, so they’ll use it against you to get what they want: you in prison, you fined, you traumatized by arrest, all of which will discourage you from protesting ever again, and will discourage others because now you’re an example.
if the judge feels like putting you in prison, he will use every tool he has at hand to do so. and if that means deciding subjectively that the furry shota gore illustration on your ipad is a “realistic” portrayal of “bestiality” that “causes injury to the anus” of a “minor”, he can and will.
@5 months ago with 21 notes
i’m re-reading Women In Love and every single person in the novel is just a giant fuckshit in the most strongly identifiable and self-dunking way imaginable, like, there’s this one scene near the beginning of the book where Hermione the awful socialite tells her assembled dinner party that really all people are the same continual spirit, that we are one, and that if only everyone would acknowledge the oneness of the world humanity and that we were all the same, everywhere, colorless and classless and genderless, yes, that there would be no tedious war or deadly struggle anymore.
and her boyfriend, Rupert, who hates her, waits until almost everyone is gone and then he delivers a scorching four-paragraph monologue about how incredibly fucking wrong she is and how everything she just said is a bunch of whitewashing garbage that states and accomplishes literally nothing, and how what he wants more than anything in the fucking world is for every single person on earth to have enough food, water, shelter and warmth to need nothing for survival ever again, but that the reason he wants these things is so that everyone will leave him alone forever, for all time, like, he opens his mouth and live centipedes churn forth and scuttle over his feet like living chittering vomit, exactly as every angry anarchoteen has done at at least one family dinner since the beginning of time, or nowadays on your liberal aunt’s Facebook posts.
and on the one hand its incredible to be reading an angry anarchist screed from a dude in his mid-twenties in a book written in 1915, but it’s also incredibly fucking depressing that the god damned gilded age is functionally identical to 2013, literally one century later, in a lot of ways that matter, like the wage gap, and dynastic plutocracy, and crushing poverty, and people like Hermione who think being trite at dinner parties is doing enough.
@5 months ago with 44 notes
#blog #politics #anarchism #d.h. lawrence #women in love
To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined 'militant' to mean 'all military-age males in strike zone'
@1 year ago with 181 notes
#obama is a bad president #politics #war #human rights
By Glenn Greenwald
This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” I’m writing separately about the numerous revelations contained in that article, but want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:
Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
i haven’t reminded you that Obama is a bad president and also a literal war criminal in a while, so here you go.
"but 3," you reply, "he was our last, best hope! we voted him in fair and square! even you voted for him!* are you saying we should vote for ROMNEY instead?!"
nope. just need to point out that voting for any of these hateful nightmare men is a vote for war and destruction and crimes against humanity, no matter what their platform or promises. in the present state of the country there is no way out of this problem. get your signs and your helmets and get into the streets and maybe, maybe it’ll help a little.
*i didn’t, technically, but it doesn’t matter because i certainly WOULD have voted for obama if i had been in the country at the time
jinn0uchi asked: that's pretty unfortunate... OH WELL WE STILL HAVE OUR ABORTION, RIGHT? you should move to scotland. there are some dumb shits here too but at least healthcare is free
i’m going to go crash on your couch and use up ALL the free healthcare like the big fat welfare queen i am
@1 year ago with 4 notes