asker

Anonymous asked:

what do you think is the deal with so many azov members getting in these photo ops that end up in western press? like in the sense they can’t actually be the majority and direct Russian interference with western press seems unlikely

afloweroutofstone:

They’re recruiting! It’s on purpose! The Azov Battalion benefits greatly from the idea that they’re the only real force fighting against the Russians right now, because it further strengthens their narrative that far-right nationalism is the only solution to foreign invasion. The neo-Nazis benefit from the idea that they’re in the majority.

niczka:

image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image

I didn’t see anyone post these Cleopatra tweets yet, I have to do everything my damn self.

These had me in stitches.

(via feral-flower-child)

mantis-blades:

image
image
image
image
image
image

Jameela Jamil on fat discrimination in our society. She’s my hero.

(via king-bran-stark-deactivated2019)

dustbeams:

thelady-gofuckyourself:

fleur-de-maladie:

dreaming-moreorless:

bustysaintclair:

exeggcute:

california anti-drought measures are always like “take shorter showers! consider brushing your teeth with the sink turned off” and never mention the fact that nestle is bottling all of our fucking water and selling it to people who live in areas with plenty of water

It’s like the Irish potato “famine” I stg

In California, residential use only accounts for 4% of total water use. Industrial use is 80%. Source:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/california-fast-running-out-water-blame-it-big-ag

This is true of any resource. Yes turning your lights off will save you a but of money. But industry wastes far more electricity than you. Yes recycling your garbage is good. But companies, like the retail chain i work at produce far more garbage than you ever could and do not recycle it at all.

Turning natural resource and environmental crises into individual responsibility is form of class warfare so fucking insidious

Honestly just burn every company to the ground or cut them off from electricity and water systems

Tax them heavily for their usage
Make recycling mandatory or theyre fined
Oh im sorry am i stepping all over your precious free market
I hope to choke it out

Word

“Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet?

Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans….People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.” - Derrick Jensen (author & environmentalist)

(via moniquill)

oldshowbiz:

Over the course of my research I have found many examples of Indigenous activists objecting to stereotyped and slanderous depictions of Native Americans in film and television.

The 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, all enjoyed waves of Native activism in which politicians and film producers were hounded by organized agitation that demanded they to do something about the images they were presenting. 

Without exception their concerns were dismissed by non-Natives, whether they be politician, film director, or newspaper journalist. If the protests got press coverage, the headlines usually mentioned something about the activists being “on the warpath,” “seeing red,” and other stereotype clichés. 

In each era, the complaint lodged by activists was the same. The stereotypes seen on the screen were defining what an American Indian was for non-Native viewers, distorting history, reality, and adversely influencing thought. In other words, it was malicious propaganda. Non-natives learned everything they thought there was to know about the Indigenous population from the movies. And for most of its existence, the movies presented every character as a stereotype in a historically dishonest situation. 

Television amplified the problem, rerunning the old stereotyped films constantly during its earliest years. TV soon created hundreds of hours worth of stereotypes of its own as the 1950s television western craze took hold.

It wasn’t until 1966-1967 that television networks responded to some of the concerns Native activists had about the way Native peoples were depicted. It took fifty-five years for someone to listen. The first major Native American protest objecting to slanderous screen depictions was in 1911(!)

The television series Custer with Wayne Mauder had a disclaimer added to it in 1967 after Native activists objected to the glorification of the notorious general. And in a television first, The Virginian (1968) hired all Native actors to play all the Native roles, but only after special guest star Buffy Sainte-Marie held up production and demanded it. Initially they told her it couldn’t be done because “there are no Indian actors.” Sainte-Marie called their bluff, responding, “I’ll find them for you.” 

(via moniquill)

Outsiders are not not saving a language by learning it.

linguist-breakaribecca:

amer-ainu:

While I’m personally grateful services like Tribalingual exist, creating some academic access to Indigenous languages, particularly for Indigenous diaspora (if they can afford it), I’m extremely dubious of the notion that a outsiders learning an Indigenous language is somehow “saving” it.

There was a testimonial from some white American girl learning Ainu itak, and she spoke of it as if she were collecting some rare Pokemon card before it went out of print or something, framing it in typical dying Native rhetoric. What is she going to do with Ainu itak, except as some obscure lingual trophy?

If you want to save a language, save the people.

Language means nothing without history and culture breathing life into it, and in turn we are disconnected from our history and ancestors without it. Support Indigenous quality of life, ACCESS to quality education, quality health services (mental and physical), land and subsistence rights, CLEAN DRINKING WATER, advocate against police brutality and state violence, DEMAND ACTION FOR MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS WOMEN.

Damn, if you really want to “save the language” pay for an Indigenous person’s classes for them to reconnect to their mother tongues. I’m not saying outsiders shouldn’t learn languages they’re invited to learn, but don’t pretend like you learning conversational Ainu itak is saving it from extinction.

I was lucky enough to take Linguistic Anthropology under Dr. Bernard Perley, a Maliseet Native who brought a very real sense of judgement and urgency to his lessons. One that stuck with me was his framing of Zombie Linguistics. Languages that are “saved” from “death” by people who aren’t of the culture can become ambling, empty shadows of their “living” selves.

Outsiders who record native speakers as disembodied audio spirits frozen in time, or (usually white) linguists who copy down the bones and organs of a language without respecting its body, are guilty of resurrecting something that is not the original language. Language is so much more than files and corpora, and this idea that we who have degrees are the most qualified to “save” a language is colonialist and foolhardy. Every linguist who takes National Geographic money to go to a remote village to analyze an endangered language is just a vulture circling to feed — to truly save a language would be to give the community resources to teach and learn it as they see fit.

But that doesn’t get us published.

Read more on Zombie Linguistics in Dr. Perley’s paper here.

(via nativenews)

toadprince:

hustlerose:

freud: EVERY dude wants to fuck his mom and and EVERY girl wants to fuck her dad and also wants to be a man secretly 

men: WOW!!!!!!!!!

“In the 1890s, when Freud was in the dawn of his career, he was struck by how many of his female patients were revealing childhood incest victimization to him. Freud concluded that child sexual abuse was one of the major causes of emotional disturbances in adult women and wrote a brilliant and humane paper called “The Aetiology of Hysteria.” However, rather than receiving acclaim from his colleagues for his ground-breaking insights, Freud met with scorn. He was ridiculed for believing that men of excellent reputation (most of his patients came from upstanding homes) could be perpetrators of incest. Within a few years, Freud buckled under this heavy pressure and recanted his conclusions. In their place he proposed the “Oedipus complex,” which became the foundation of modern psychology. According to this theory any young girl actually desires sexual contact with her father, because she wants to compete with her mother to be the most special person in his life. Freud used this construct to conclude that the episodes of incestuous abuse his clients had revealed to him had never taken place; they were simply fantasies of events the women had wished for when they were children and that the women had come to believe were real. This construct started a hundred-year history in the mental health field of blaming victims for the abuse perpetrated on them and outright discrediting of women’s and children’s reports of mistreatment by men.”

— Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

(via maura-labingi)

61below:

xenoqueer:

patrexes:

elaenathedefiant:

countries where prostitution is legal have higher rates of human trafficking. that’s like an actual fact. not an opinion or anything. so tbh it seems a bit ‘swerfy’ to completely ignore that

speaking, uh, as a formerly-trafficked sex worker, it’s extremely difficult to come forward as a trafficking victim in countries where sex work is criminalized; you just… get criminalized under those same anti-prostitution laws. of course reported trafficking would increase when the sole fact of coming forward as a sex worker at all no longer endangers you.

This line of argument is the same one that you see with conservatives who point to the increase in divorce rates as proof that making divorce safer is endangering marriage, while ignoring the massive drops in domestic abuse, murder, and suicide.

It’s a shot argument with them, and it’s a shot argument here.

In WWI, when they introduced helmets, they saw a sudden spike in head injuries.

What the casual observer may miss was that they were seeing the increase because of a dramatic decrease in deaths from head wounds.

(via moniquill)