A reactionary is fixed on the past and wanting to return to it; a conservative wishes to adapt what is best in the past to the changing circumstances of the present.
YouGov poll shows what people assume vs reality. Most of what folks assume is the result of the relentless propaganda of the Left and media.
Ironically, this makes these groups look like less of a minority than they actually are, so they seem less “oppressed”.
Okay, if you have a brain that operates on any modicum of real world understanding, the above comments probably look like gibberish because you probably thought everyone knew “the left” as the side always famously emphasizing that minority groups are, you know, minorities, and that this is the very reason we expect anyone to care about the issues they face.
In fact, it’s pretty common even among “the right” to be angry at “the left” for implying a majority group has inherent privilege, so if ANYONE would want to trick people into over-estimating the population size of these groups, almost anyone would conclude it’s the hardcore conservatives.
So what the HELL are you witnessing here? It’s probably important to explain because not everybody realizes the prevalence of this particular cognitive difference:
Many people, such as @shaughan up there, tend to at least subconsciously base their concern for other people more on an evaluation of their “usefulness” rather than sympathy alone, so in their world, the struggles of a given group matter *less* the smaller that group is. and importantly, they assume by default that this is true of you, too, even if you don’t admit to it.
As a consequence, guys like him believe that “the left” would be the ones who want to artificially inflate the size of a given “interest group” in order to trick people INTO caring about them. Remember, small = unimportant in his world view and he presumes this is the same logic everyone else runs on.
So he sees evidence that minority groups are smaller than everyone thinks, and his reaction isn’t the normal human one. It isn’t “wow, maybe they really are oppressed.” Instead his reaction is “aha! There’s fewer of them than I thought! They don’t matter after all, just as I suspected, and just as dirty liberals were trying to HIDE from me!!!”
If this sounds bizarro world clownshit deranged, that’s because it is, and it’s the same reason they scoff at the idea of protecting people from a deadly virus if it’s “”“only”“” deadly to one in a hundred.
It’s such an unexplainably backwards and twisted way of viewing things, you can see how even siryouremocked, who considers himself merely libertarian rather than far right, understands that a smaller population would be a more vulnerable one people might have more reason to sympathize with, but just didn’t finish turning those cogs far enough to realize he’s replying to someone who was trying to make exactly the opposite point.
I think my favorite thing when people argue that I’m not a Liberal, is that they have no idea what Liberalism is, they just argue that I can’t be one because I don’t agree with them and they’ve been told by the American mainstream that they’re Liberals when their politics, beliefs, principles and ideals don’t align with Liberalism.
Liberalism isn’t what the American Right and Left think it is, it isn’t what Rush Limbaugh claimed it to be, that man was using the term Liberal as a pejorative because the Far Left hated Liberalism and to be called one was the same as calling a Conservative a fascist back in the day, now all it does is convince morons that the Far Left are actually Liberals and provide the Far Left with an ideological smokescreen.
Liberalism is a very basic political and moral philosophy, now you might be asking, what is Liberalism? Liberalism is based on four foundational rights, that of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.
Then there are secondary rights which are derived from the foundational rights, such as individual rights, including civil rights and human rights, liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, defense of self and property, private property and a market economy.
That’s it, that’s Liberalism, however Liberalism has spawned many other political and moral philosophies from its foundation, Conservatism and Libertarianism are two such examples, then there are others in which foreign enlightenment ideological frameworks were shoehorned into Liberalism, using it like a skinsuit, such as NeoLiberalism, Social Liberalism and so on.
The whole reason the Far Left on this platform have been shitting themselves over my use of the term Liberal is because they want to assert that Neo and Social Liberalism are the true forms of Liberalism when Conservatism and Libertarianism are closer to true Liberalism than those other two.
So yes, I am a Liberal, not a Conservative, not a Libertarian, or any other derivative of Liberalism, that’s it, and if you take issue with this, you can just die mad about it, now can’t you?
Campaigns that started with criticizing school board members and librarians have now turned their attention to tech companies such as OverDrive and Epic that have operated for years without drawing much controversy.
E-reader apps that became a lifeline for students during the pandemic are now in the crossfire of a culture war raging over books in schools and public libraries.
In several states, apps and the companies that run them have been targeted by conservative parents who have pushed schools and public libraries to shut down their digital programs, which let users download and read books on their smartphones, tablets or laptops.
Some parents want the apps banned for their children, or even for all students. And they’re getting results.
A school superintendent in a suburb of Nashville, Tennessee, pulled his system’s e-reader offline for a week last month, cutting access for 40,000 students, after a parent searched the Epic library available on her kindergartener’s laptop and found books supporting gay pride.
In a rural county northwest of Austin, Texas, county officials cut off access to the OverDrive digital library that local residents had used for a decade to find books to read for pleasure, prompting a federal lawsuit against the county.
No longer is this about the rights of students to access books. It’s now about the rights of private businesses to sell books. Anderson suggests this is a new avenue for parents to fight.
“We are in a major fight. Suits like this can be filed all over Virginia. There are dozens of books. Hundreds of schools,” he said.
Holy shit this is a BIG FUCKING WARNING SIGN. Challenges to school and public libraries aren’t cool obviously, but they’re not unusual and we have a framework for handling them. This is something new and alarming in a whole new way
Republican “free speech” y'all and don’t you forget it.
This is a direct challenge to the freedom of the press and if it isn’t struck down at the first hurdle we need to make sure it never sees the second one.
On the miniscule off-chance that anyone who sees my reblog might be thinking “oh, it’s just queer books that they’re trying to ban” - A Court of Mist and Fury is a het romance. It is a het romance containing het sex scenes, written by a straight white woman.
People have been warning all along that the right-wing thought police were never going to stop with queer lit or ‘woke’ lit, and that every time they got an inch they were going to take a mile until they’d banned absolutely everything that didn’t conform to their strict right wing fundamentalist Christian views. If you were waiting for proof of that, here it is.
The GOP establishment hasn’t been so much pro-Trump as anti-anti-Trump since his nomination. They drooled at the stolen Supreme Court pick and decided to go all-in, hoping Trump wasn’t everything that they said he was during the primaries and what everyone else said he was since he started campaigning. The man holds positions that, until last year, were anathema to many of the party’s traditional platforms.
(Note: this is not an endorsement of their traditional platforms, nor is is saying Trump isn’t right-wing.)
Part of the reason for their hitching their horses so firmly to a wagon that should otherwise have ended up on the Island of Misfit Toys is the stark polarization of politics that happened when some black dude slaughtered them on the way to two terms in the White House. The Tea Party took over the GOP with the position that the best defense was a good offense and that truth was irrelevant in politics. Ever since, any defense of conservative issues as being the better answer was all but abandoned in favor of the demonization the left by any means necessary. When some of those means were morally repugnant, rather than the honest defense that it was a minority of bigots who were being repugnant, they decided to attack the accusation and thus normalized bigotry.
(One can argue over the warp and weft of GOP bigotry but that’s a collateral issue.)
Bigotry is ugly, as we see with the ass-clown on that Texas beach and his crying mugshot, and it is powerful. When people in fiction warn against meddling with powerful forces you don’t understand, this is the kind of thing they are talking about. Bigotry has a way of wresting control away from those who would seek to harness it. The GOP decided bigotry was a useful tool against the Obama administration and it led DIRECTLY to Trump and the preposterous distortion of conservatism we’re seeing in power now.
(This isn’t to say they weren’t bigoted before, but that their bigotry was less overt.)
The GOP is engaged in political bull-riding and it’s praying to God it manages 8 seconds because THIS bull is known to gore those it throws.
There it is. We discussed this on “Shock Jocks.” One of the Tweet replies says, “I prefer the term ‘Tory Anarchism’”—a label self-applied, strangely, by George Orwell, a writer claimed by democrats, liberals, and conservatives everywhere. I’ve always liked it myself. Edward Said used it on Swift; I once transferred it to Yeats:
It is easy enough to say with Orwell that Yeats was a reactionary and a fascist. Edward Said, who did so much to redeem Yeats for the PC era by praising him in Culture and Imperialism as an anti-colonial poet meditating on Fanonian themes (in another mood, I might enter this into evidence for the fascist tendencies of identity politics), once wrote of “Swift’s Tory Anarchy.” The label might be applied to Yeats, who admired Swift: to his Tory elegy for a shattered culture of wholeness and authority, to his anarchic drive toward the shaping of a soul out of the chaos of experience.
Orwell, Said, Swift, Yeats. What connects the politics of these disparate men of disparate eras who between them cover almost the whole political compass? Consider the etymology of “Tory”:
mid 17th century: probably from Irish toraidhe ‘outlaw, highwayman’, from tóir ‘pursue’. The word was used of Irish peasants dispossessed by English settlers and living as robbers, and extended to other marauders especially in the Scottish Highlands. It was then adopted c.1679 as an abusive nickname for supporters of the Catholic James II.
The Tory is a reactionary because he is an outlaw of the progressive regime, the regime expropriating his country and trampling his culture with its forward march of progress. “Tory Anarchism,” then, is redundant. There is no real conflict between serving the exiled or prostrated old regime and wishing to bring down the new one, whether you are Irish or Palestinian or one of the British Empire’s inner critics.
But there is no going back—“retvrn” is the idlest of fantasies—so in theory the Tory’s anarchism should at length become less tactical or circumstantial and more of a substantive commitment to individual freedom in a new world, newer than the new regime which displaced the old one. He might still construe these freedoms as better defended by a unitary sovereign than by an oligarchy or bureaucracy, which is what, for this kind of sensibility, most regimes calling themselves democracies pragmatically are. But if the freedoms are the point—and the writings of Orwell and Said may bear this out in the end—then the distance between anarcho-monarchism and liberalism isn’t as far as their feuding partisans imagine.
Swift has sailed into his rest; Savage indignation there Cannot lacerate his breast. Imitate him if you dare, World-besotted traveller; he Served human liberty.
Why aren’t there more people like this? And like the opposite number her existence implies? Think about it for two seconds and you’ll see that it makes more sense than the customary way the positions are arrayed. I made this point elaborately here, but I want to make it with concision now.
The pro-choice position: a swaggering and somewhat brutal amoralism (“It’s just a clump of cells!”), this amoralism’s sotto voce corollary that the poor should not reproduce very much, the absolute license the individual demands from the state’s ethical policing, the incredulous rejection of a new protected political class’s very existence—all very aristocratic, libertarian, Nietzschean, right-wing to the core.
The pro-life position: a sentimental defense of the weak, an assertion of the state’s right to protect the minority, an attempt to enfranchise a new political subject, persnickety language policing and ugly neologisms (“pro-life” itself is a kind of PC coinage, and now they call the fetus “preborn,” even though the vernacular word “baby” would be more to their point), the activists’ widely-held conviction that they descend from the abolitionist movement—what could be more left-wing than this?
Even the institutional history up until the 1980s supports the way I’ve laid it out above, with the postwar Republican Party—the party of the WASP establishment—supporting “family planning” and the Democratic Party—with its New Deal workers’ alliance of northern urban Catholics and rural white southerners—being much more skeptical.
A memory, a parable. The year is 1990; I am eight years old; my mother is driving me to or from Catholic school, where I am learning that abortion is wrong. We pass a billboard, a political ad for the Pennsylvania governor’s race. The candidates are a female pro-choice Republican and a male pro-life Democrat (not just any pro-life Democrat either, but Bob Casey himself, of Planned Parenthood v. Casey fame). I ask my mother who she’s voting for. The Republican woman, she tells me. Abortion being among the most salient issues in the race, and my education having emphasized to me already that abortion was wrong, I gently propose that this may not quite be the moral choice. My mother counters that, while abortion may be wrong, or it may not, it is also inevitable, so better it remain safe and legal.
Now this, however it may have lacked the moral sublimity of my religious education, seemed sensible, sober, realistic, conservative, all those things that “Republican” once connoted—and the very opposite of the radical moral sublime suggested in our own time, if you see what I mean, by “vegan activist she/her ACAB.”
Havingvisited the left yesterday, let’s check in on the right today. It’s not doing too well either. Town is reacting against the $400 right-wing Passage Prize anthology, particularly these two racist poems (don’t click that link unless you’re prepared to read racist poems). The poems are shit, which is to say willfully excremental and lamentably unflushed. What a society makes taboo will be violated. The maintenance of the taboo as taboo even requires its regular violation to fortify the boundary between what may and may not be said, just in case we forget. But bad artists mistake taboo-violation for good art, since violating the taboo is a cheap and easy way to generate a bit of energy in a text. You see this in 20th-century sex writing, all that flaunting of the genitalia in the stern (if imagined) face of the gray-bearded Victorian patriarch and his purse-lipped domestic angel; this was my impression, for instance, of what little I ever managed to read of Henry Miller and Anaïs Nin. And so just as Lawrence got a charge out of writing cock and cunt in Lady Chatterley, so today’s fascoid poetasters giggle as they scribble the N-word. (You can tell where the taboo falls: which words am I willing to type out and which not.) Personally, I find it contemptible; I join Mark Alastor’s double anathema “Against the Sowers of Discord.”
Now on to to Town’s main point. As far as books go, he’s right. Individual self-publishing is probably better than small presses as long as you are willing and able to generate your own publicity. (Small presses go out of business and take your books with them, or cancel your books at the behest of Twitter mobs, or refuse to use Amazon, or any number of other annoying things—so, the technological affordances for self-publishing being what they are, why bother with them?) But it’s naive to think there’s not going to be some re-bundling of writers into schools and journals. Books are one thing, because they’re always purchased individually whether they were self-published or not, but how many paid newsletters can you really subscribe to a month? This is why the minute I heard about the Mars Review of Books I knew something was happening, for good or ill. And the writing is good; it’s just that I still don’t know what to think about Urbit. And Urbit et al. is the only reason “Dimes Square”matters,if it does, and it’s too soon to tell. These people who think they’re in Slaves of New York might be in “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” instead, which is worth a couple of articles.
As for right/left: art, in a functioning modern civilization, is apolitical, a terrain of inquiry, not exhortation, and so solidly considered in this light that even art meant as hortatory comes out inquisitive. As I think I’ve said before—but nobody ever listens, so I’ll say it again—the answer to bad left-wing art is not bad right-wing art, but art tout court and without qualification.
As a follow-up to my last post, I must note here that “ontological evil” is not traditionally a leftist or liberal category—to the credit of leftism and liberalism. It’s not even a Christian category: even sinners are made in God’s image. On the other hand, “ontological evil” probably is entailed, if not through logic then through affective association, by the identity politics the left has so recklessly indulged over the last decade. (Affective association beats logic every time, as the imaginative authority of our dreams proves nightly.) “If we could just exterminate those people over there, the rain would fall and the crops would grow”—setting aside the ethics ever so briefly, it won’t work. Your ontological quarrel is with God or the gods or the universe; whereas “conservative” is not even an ontological condition, since you can be talked into and out of it. (I will politely pass over the irony of this kind of rhetoric coming from a trans person, whom I would have expected to be less judgmental about ontology in general.) Arendt borrowed from Kant the term “radical evil” to name “a system in which all men have become equally superfluous,” in other words, the very politics of extermination in which a term like “ontological evil” is intelligible.
Last week we were anticipating the Mars Review of Books, and now it has arrived over on Urbit. “What is Urbit?” some ask. I don’t know, but stay tuned for the next episode of Grand Podcast Abyss, dropping tomorrow: we will talk to a MarsReview author and general online oracle and hope she can explain. For now, I’d like to consider three other pieces in the publication and what they might mean for our culture.
Above is Christian Lorentzenpraising Selfie, Suicide by Logo Daedalus. Our critic isn’t naturally effusive, so it’s not quite a blurb, but the force of the judgment—which consigns corporate publishing to the artistic irrelevance of the Paris Salon circa 1863—is only strengthened by the understatement. (Now if you want more fiction that hasn’t been choked to death by the five fingers of MFA stultification, generic constraint, Netflix-brained agents, profit-fixated publishers, and Maoist sensitivity readers, you know where you can find it…) Lorentzen also considers Bronze Age Mindset, and I’m glad to see he came to the same judgment I did about BAP’s silly playpen politics even though I didn’t bother to read the book.
Another piece relevant to our concerns here is Anika Jade Levy on the mysterious Angelicism01, whom we’ve discussed on the blog and the pod a few times. Levy’s concise summary of what I’ve called “The New Conservatism” that forms the backdrop to Angelicism’s literary performances:
Within legacy institutions, the intellectual elite have dug their heels in, doubled down on identity politics, Roe vs. Wade hysteria, and neoliberal consensus. But elsewhere, in New York art world circles and in underground online communities, the vibe has shifted into a post-ironic deep right politics, watered-down Catholicism, and acceptance of socially conservative values.
More startlingly, Levy breaks a taboo that still stands even on much of the post-left: in practical political discussions you must finally disown and disparage the right. The praise of Trump as a singular figure we do hear on the post-left doesn’t violate the taboo because it remains on the aesthetic level as a quasi-ironic appreciation for his carnivalesque persona and crude wit without reference (or without non-ironic reference) to politics per se. Whereas Levy just tears the Band-Aid off and wonders aloud if he weren’t a better president than Obama and Biden, even venturing that his “xenophobia might have proven useful.”
And finally, as if to give a world-historical explanation for what could motivate such heresy, is Matthew Gasda on the professional-managerial class. Gasda makes short work of socialist anti-PMC discourse since socialism itself will by its nature be a technocracy run by expert bureaucrats and is therefore, no less than PMC rule under our nominal capitalism (really statist corporatism), anti-art, anti-religion, anti-nature, and above all anti-culture. And this, for the playwright Gasda, is the real stake of the argument, which naturally leads him to sympathize with what he calls the 19th century’s “romantic conservatism” and its resistance to the totalitarian society heralded by the French Revolution:
Prior to the 20th century, life was not standardized; agriculture, education, medicine, commerce, and language were more varied, localized, and historically determined. Daily life had more risks and fewer guarantees—but the state had less power, and less will, to mold individuals and small communities. Romantic conservatism—a constellation of thought which valued the rural, the quasi-feudal, and the traditional—was politically tenable; the resistance to modernization and homogenization was a mainstream position. The French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, for example, faced considerable headwinds in the 19th: a century in which many major writers, thinkers, and statesmen expressed considerable skepticism towards the notion that the complex dynamics of society could be mastered by rational, top-down political schemes.
[…]
The aristocratic spirit of the 19th century—not just of Metternich and Bismarck, but of Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche—lost its vote on the direction of society; the civilization of the 20th century borrowed little from War and PeaceorOn the Genealogy of Morals.
Conversely, in the 20th century, Kafka’s horror at systems of control and punishment, or simply the boredom of office life, or Zweig’s deep disgust at having to carry a passport after 1918, were symptoms of the gradual death of the old world, and the ascendency of the new. The mechanized, scientized 20th century was decidedly grim. “The tragedy of today,” D.H. Lawrence wrote, “is that men are only materially and socially conscious. They are unconscious of their own manhood, and so they watch it be destroyed. Out of free men we produce social beings by the thousand every week.” Lawrence, in his own inimical way, spoke literally of what Kafka expressed allegorically: Human beings were caught in the net of systems that they had built; something had gone badly wrong.
Too romantic? Too conservative? Maybe if you come at these questions politics-first and therefore think it’s reasonable to drub artists over the head with the tomes of Gramsci and Bourdieu and castigate them as a proto-fascist lumpenproletariat rabble. But if you’re expecting such artists—serious artists, I mean, not actual or would-be academic experts—to see the light and cite sociologists, trust experts, and praise bureaucrats forever rather than quoting Nietzsche, Tolstoy, Kafka, and Lawrence in defiance of all “rational, top-down political schemes”—well, you obviously have another thing coming.
Now whether or not “the heresiarchs of Uqbar,” or rather Urbit, can satisfy this romantic longing remains to be seen.
I cannot stress enough how much I love The Good Place.
The best part is that Marc Evan Jackson (who plays Shawn) doesn’t know a damn thing about Pewdiepie. The writing staff gave him that and he delivered it perfectly regardless.
Can we talk about how fucking absurd it is to actually believe that PewDiePie holds a candle to the atrocities committed by war criminals..
really? the man who is consciously introducing MILLIONS of children world wide to fascism isn’t as bad as a war criminal? he’s creating future war criminals you fucking idiot
Cite your sources, pewdiepie engages in satire. Maybe if people paid attention in school, you would know the different between being a neo-nazi and making satirical content.
We live in a world where a guy paying poor people to hold up a sign saying “death to all jews” while jews face hate crimes around the world and a person can UNIRONICALLY call that satire and say that OTHER people need to go back to school for not knowing what satire is.
Just let that sink in.
the good place has a morality system which is based on impact, not intent. by citing pewdiepie, the show isn’t commenting on if he’s “actually” racist or not; the show is pointing out that his actions put more harm into the world than good. regardless of his “true intentions,” by paying someone to hold a “death to all Jews” sign and promoting channels that support white supremacy, he has done more harm than good.
and before anyone complains about how “he raised money for charities” or whatever, that doesn’t negate the harm he’s done elsewhere (especially given the whole fiasco with his recent “attempt” to donate to adl. regardless of your opinion on whether it was right or wrong to cancel the donation, there’s no denying that white supremacists felt, once again, emboldened by his actions).
this “impact vs. intent” morality actually goes pretty well with the claims his fans make that these acts are satire. anyone who studies literature could tell you that true satire, effective satire, mocks oppressors/the powerful by mimicking them to such an absurd degree that no one can mistake what they say for agreement. people generally cite jonathan swift’s “a modest proposal” for a reason — he calls attention to starvation in ireland by suggesting they eat babies. it’s absurd and appalling, exposing how poorly the english treated the irish.
this is why pewdiepie’s actions are not satire. he doesn’t seem to be mocking antisemites; he’s simply behaving the same way. that’s not satire. that’s just being a white supremacist. paying people to hold a sign and promoting a channel are not big, ridiculous actions that obviously point to satire. using the n-word when you’re mad at a game is not satire. those aren’t big, ridiculous actions that clearly mock those who hold those views.
that’s just supporting those views, plain and simple.
and that’s the point the good place is making. even if his fans are correct and he’s being satirical, he’s still harming people. he’s still exposing people to antisemitism, using the n-word, and exposing kids to channels that promote white supremacy. he’s creating a place for white supremacists to find each other and feel emboldened to share their views with children.
so that’s what this means. he has put a lot of bad into the world, and no defense of “it’s a joke!” negates that.
PERIOD!! you articulated your point so well
Also:none of these people are considered unambiguously evil in the world right now
Elizabeth Holmes was the youngest female “self-made billionaire” ever who started a medical technology company.
Henry Kissinger was head of the National Security Council and secretary of state under Nixon and Ford and was awarded a freaking Nobel Peace Prize.
And PewDiePie is the most subscribed-to Youtuber in the world.
These aren’t traditional villains who are universally despised, and regardless, the fact that PewDiePie isn’t widely considered to be particularly evil is what makes this a joke. A pointed one.
Holmes committed massive medical fraud, Kissinger perpetuated war and crimes against humanity, and PewDiePie is an unabashed antisemite and white nationalist - who literally shared a video of protestors being murdered in the car attack at Charlottesville - for his audience of young kids. These are all people who are pretty difficult to defend, and yet plenty of people, particularly powerful people, are happy to bend over backwards in order to do so.
And this show doesn’t pull its punches. That’s a big reason people love it.
Much as the blasting of PewDiePie is important, here’s the Wikipedia page on Elizabeth Holmes if, like me, you had never once heard of her or her crimes (and subsequent conviction) until this post.
tl;dr:In January 2022 she was convicted on multiple counts of wire fraud for lying about the effectiveness of a blood testing method owned by her company – a company whose investors included, I kid you not, the Walton family, the Cox family, the DeVos family, Rupert Murdoch, fucking Carlos Slim of all people, and, yes, Henry Kissinger.
The worst people in the world tend to fly in a very small orbit around each other and attract people they deserve.
Republicans say ‘fcuk your feelings’ then whine that they are unlikable.
[Image description: three tweets from “Friendly Neighborhood Musicologist” (@rhiaufdeutsch), dated 04 June 22. 8:02 AM “I don’t understand why there’s so much confusion over why the arts and humanities skew left. They are, by definition, about understanding someoen else’s perspective. Conservatives will and do tell you that someone else’s perspective is not their problem.”
8:02 AM “If you dedicate your life to understanding the perspectives of other people in your work, it’s going to carry over into your life. If your worldview is built on not caring about the perspective of others, then you probably don’t think the arts and humanities are important.”
2:30 PM “it’s not my job try to imagine the perspective of that person who is hungry/poor/immigrating/sick/afraid of covid/drowning in debt/offended…” I’m not even trying to dunk on conservatives, that’s literally what they’ll tell you is their worldview.“ Description ends]
We need to stop calling terfs “feminists” and start calling them for what they are, “transphobes.” TERFs are not feminists. They don’t care about women’s rights. They only care about hating men and trans people taking a shit in public bathrooms. A non existent issue that nobody except transphobes care about. It is important feminists understand this.
radfems contributed more to women’s rights before you were born than you have in your entire life
If they started talking about transphobic people might think they meant conservative men instead of feminists
TERF’s aren’t feminists. They might call themselves feminists but they’re not. They are literally just considered transphobic. Also there is literally no difference between conservative men and women besides the gender of course.
This is a piece for Poster Posse 2018 Women’s History Month. They invited several artist to portray women that embody the characteristics of strong, inspirational, fun, powerful women. Whether it’s through their character, actions or words, women that have made a difference and/or continue to make a difference.
It’s titled “Living Legacy” in reference to the gorillas whose survival Dian struggled to ensure. It’s not exactly a portrait of the primatologist, but a tribute to her work, her courage and her life as something that goes beyond her temporal physical presence in this world. Because her legacy still beats and it’s our responsibility to make sure it stays that way.
