bloodrose

bloodrose wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in citations by black_fox

I hadn't considered this but if I think back to a favorite book of mine, one of the things that convinced me their arguments were good were them citing sources I had read before and had agreed with before. So, really, the citation was just an invitation to confirmation-bias on my part. Now I feel the need to go re-read the book and see if I agree with the premise if I ignore their sources...

3

bloodrose wrote

And it's especially important that owls adopt a healthy lifestyle, get enough sleep and work hours that suit their chronotype, they add.

Uhm, yeah, bosses don't let you pick your work hours. I have been told I had to be up for a 6am meeting because I had to talk to people on the East Coast and that's just what I have to do. I don't get to say "No, I'm a night owl." They'll just hire someone who isn't. :(

3

bloodrose wrote

Reply to comment by d4rk in somehow by ziq

Why is there a need to call out "no matter what identity"? Is there an identity that is getting a pass? I don't understand.

9

bloodrose wrote

Reply to comment by d4rk in somehow by ziq

Are you referencing something specific I missed? Or are you dog-whistling some kinda bigotry? I'm super confused.

10

bloodrose wrote

This is an interesting take. My mother really enjoys board and card games. She becomes hyper competitive. I have for years avoided playing with her because the hyper-competitiveness sucks and I don't enjoy it. (My brothers and I would play for 2nd place growing up because she always won)

With Covid, all of our visits are outdoor and she has started to push us to play board games. She's getting meaner and meaner now. Our last visit, she was meanly competitive with my 6 year old, making her cry when she lost. It was disgusting. (I promised my kid next time we play, I'll be banker and will secretly cheat so her grandma loses.) I think this gaming competition is making my mom a worse person.

7

bloodrose wrote (edited )

I'm not "blaming" feminism into a character either

This you, fam?

Phyllis Schlafly, she is often portrayed in current popular media within the air of feminism

Citation fucking needed. I haven't seen a single bit of media claiming her as anything but anti-feminist.

New York Fucking Times, agrees the last major media depiction of her was "‘Mrs. America’ Depicts a Different Kind of Feminist: The Anti- Kind"

6

bloodrose wrote

I wasn't defending Cruella Deville. She is obviously a villainous character. I was saying feminism isn't to blame for the character. The character was given feminism because patriarchy villainizes feminism. Blaming feminism for the character is buying into patriarchy's assertion that feminism is inherently villainous.

8

bloodrose wrote

  1. Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you what to do.
  2. Just leave me alone.
  3. Pretty much the same.

Shit, I'm old and ornery. Is Ornery a good definition for anarchism? ahahaha

5

bloodrose wrote

You have it ass-backwards. Cruella Deville was a feminist because she was the villain. In the last live-action movie, she had this very feminist take on marriage (anti-marriage). She had it precisely because she was the villain. Literally, the message given to women is that the rejection of the family unit and egoist self-determination is villainous. Obviously, anyone who would want those things is so evil, they'd also probably murder puppies.

10

bloodrose wrote

https://web.archive.org/web/20030414010209/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/16/iraq/main540782.shtml

New York police wouldn't provide a crowd estimate, but the protesters stretched for 20 blocks along First Avenue and spilled west to Second Avenue, where police in riot gear and on horseback patrolled.

Wikipedia lists an estimate for New York of 300-400k people. San Francisco was estimated at 65k.

I remember vividly the massive, massive crowds. I had never seen so many people protesting before. And what was neat is I had never heard of multi-city protests before. Not saying that didn't happen before but I'd never heard of it and so was really in awe that the whole world, and so much of the country absolutely did not want that war.

I have no idea why the politicians voted for it. I mean, I have theories but I don't know.

I remember when they voted for it, when Bush ordered soldiers out, I remember thinking "does the rest of the world know we don't want this? Was our protesting enough for them to know this is done without the will of the people?" Based on what people around the world think of us, I think they think we wanted the war. That makes me so sad and so fucked up. :( I'm sorry. We didn't want it.

4

bloodrose wrote

So, I was in my 20s then. I remember every single media outlet was banging the war drum. I had a subscription to the Economist. The same week I received a mailing to renew my subscription, this was the cover of the magazine. I was tempted to rip the cover off, paint it yellow, and send it in the pre-paid envelope they had sent me.

NPR was shilling for the war. I started to call it National Pentagon Radio. Every news outlet was banging the war drum. I don't remember a single mainstream paper or magazine or news source that was anti-war. Even the "liberal" news was pro-war.

I don't know a single person who was persuaded by the pro-war media blitz. Not one. But it was everywhere.

In fact, the incredible uniting of both sides to support what was clearly an unjust war based on pure lies, the backing of every paper...this is what turned a lot of us older folks harder left. Those who didn't already think the rich were completely against them started to see it. When I was a kid, 40 year olds voted for Reagan and bitched about high taxes. Now that I'm 40, 40-year olds I know are all posting eat-the-rich memes.

Actually, a good way to explain it might be this: remember when gamestop stock hit $300 the weekend before last? Did you get a million target ads and "news" stories about how gamestop was a terrible stock and you should invest in silver? (lordy, I did). That was what the pro-war media blitz was like. It was so obviously fake and so obviously targeted with a specific goal that would benefit a small handful of people. It was all at once. Like every news outlet all of a sudden had a news story to say they supported it. And we were flooded with it. It was the only news story all of a sudden. We saw through it and hated it. There was the largest world-wide protest ever held in response. No one wanted the fucking war.

8

bloodrose OP wrote

This is a fair assessment of Browse. I nearly shot myself in the head for siding with them on this one. I have previously banned them from /f/feminism for class reductionist crap. I appreciate you taking the time to respond because the tone of the comment felt very different than your response to the meta post. I appreciate that dealing with disagreements on site maintenance sucks so thanks for being open to my thoughts on it. <3

7

bloodrose OP wrote

I did read your comment and it broke down into these areas:

  1. Swerfy stuff - but I honestly didn't see anti sex-worker sentiment. I saw that Browse should've engaged better than they did but not someone who was anti worker.

  2. Tank adjacency If we're banning them for going pro-China tankie, I retract my indignation. I'm kinda sick of "China is doing it right" comments, too. They send my yikes-meter off. But what it felt like, because we haven't outright banned some other pro-China folks, is that Browse's take on sex work was the bannable offense. Maybe that is a lack of consistency on our part and we're only human...but that is how I our humanness led me to read the ban.

  3. Class-reductionism I missed that one. But they've done it in the past so I believe it.

I guess since we inconsistently ban for #2 and I didn't see #3, I assumed the real ban was over #1. If it was more complex than that, should we lock this thread? Or leave it open to discuss defining swerfy for future reference?

5

bloodrose wrote

The argument is kinda flawed because porn of people without their consent is already illegal and nobody supports it.

Agreed. It would've been nice if someone had a "hey, analytics have been done on uploaders of content and found that x% are self-uploaders" to counter the suspicion that the illegal content is being ignored to support the legal content.

6

bloodrose wrote

I'm extremely familiar with the subject matter.

Off the topic of Browse, can I ask you a question about it since you are familiar with it?

One of the arguments I have seen in the anti-porn movement is that when we discuss sex-workers, we are prioritizing the voice of the volunteer over the voice of the conscript. So, we are prioritizing the rights of the person who uploads their own video over the rights of the person who has their abuse or their private videos uploaded without their consent. I think the assumption is that there are fewer volunteers than there are conscripts and thus the "prioritization" of said voice is unfair. Do you know of any data/info that would counter that argument?

2