Bologna Water

Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime Court records show that the narrative Flock and a Texas Sheriff's Office has told the public isn't the whole story, and that police were conducting a 'death investigation' into the abortion.

New from 404 Media: police used a nationwide network of Flock cameras to search for a woman who self-administered an abortion, said it was for her 'safety'. But new docs show they considered charging her with a crime as part of a 'death investigation' into the fetus
www.404media.co/police-said-...

Hard to choose just one Bible verse for this huh

John Roberts’ Constitution: The federal government protecting people’s right to vote or giving them health care violates the sacred principle of state sovereignty but if the deranged POTUS and his bloodthirsty advisers want to use the military to invade other states for being too liberal that’s fine

Yeah...watched it the other day trying to find something to the story thinking I missed some directional decision and ....nope.

Having to work with preset characters whose form and color theory you have no say over must be annoying. But sometimes that's what a studio needs to pay the bills so...

thoughts on the ova?

love the z, and x, keys being right next to each other when trying to type xenophon

"As a European I am very afraid watching what's going on in the US and hope you get your act together soon" is one of my least favorite genres of posting. This is like the *one* time in the last 100 years we've looked (operative word) worse than Europe, you don't get to play concerned onlooker!

Just checked and the library has it! Thank you for telling me about this!

Even with everything going on, this may be one of the most evil sentiments I have seen, and I cannot fathom how to fix it.

bullshit paradox aside, there is a rot that has taken hold of some souls and it's going to kill us all if we don't deal with it.

Ah, yeah, that'll do it.

That's fascinating, and I agree. Wonder when this idea gained traction? Was it the historians who fought in WW2 who thought this? Their children? Their grandchildren? Why would someone make such a cynical leap?

Ah yes, the notoriously white Grecian and Roman empires and their rampant unchecked racism.

The paint coming off those statues really fucked our understanding of who these people actually were.

Otherwise, the populous may heal, and those who wished to exploit, even in a misguided attempt to help, will be left behind.

That's all I'm saying I don't feel like writing any more.

Of course, those flaws have now, most likely, been exploited and made worse, their historical social context forgotten. But that is why we study, and can never deny, history. It's why fascists love to erase history, and rewrite it with lies.

Oppressing others is bad because it denies their agency. It does not matter if the oppressed have flaws. Those flaws never make them "deserving" of oppression. However, once the oppression has been lifted, those flaws will still exist. And no society can move forward until they address them.

A thing India (and other historically oppressed peoples) struggles with, in no small part, because people deny the human flaws of the oppressed, out of fear and insecurity that it justifies the oppressor, when that is never the case, no matter how it's presented.

That does not make them "good" or those others "less bad", it makes our species complicated. And dealing with those complexities is what is means to confront the human condition, and understand our place within it.

I'm not defending the British (look up blowing from a gun), I'm saying that untying the history of our blood from the history of our minds is a difficult task that requires difficult truths. Yes, the British were bad. But it is possible for bad people to deal with other bad people.

And yeah, going back to before 1980 to find (english) sources is fucking infuriating. I'm finding that issue in other fields too. Academia starting sucking its own dick in the late 70s and a LOT of speculative opinion has been misrepresented as fact, and this isn't just an American problem.

Also, heaven forbid we discuss where Britain enacted very real reforms that helped women in ways parts of India are still mad about today (look up Sati).

Conversely, they also destroyed temples to goddesses because the sculptures were considered lewd.

Like, the complicity of the Indian states / royal governments in allowing Britian to take over has never really been addressed. In the modern era that's because it fucks with Modi's mythos, but in the past it's because the wealthy benefited quite a bit from British control.

They were a negative, for what it's worth. But the combined lack of internal understanding and external condescension, has hindered India's progress more than anyone wants to admit.

Not sure what I started, but @annenotation.bsky.social is not only correct, but has hit the nail on the head about many of the difficulties of studying India in the modern era.

I'm not in the mood to have people explain my culture to me, but the record of the british in india is so...weird.

guess the dog whistle was the piper's flute after all

we always read them as an obvious stand in for the thugee cult. like, yeah they slaughtered your people your people were eating people you dont get to complain when its done to you look at all the skulls, thats past the point of a curious palate that is a hobby sir and you are clearly hoarding.

this is the 80s we should be nostalgic for not the Ready Player One bullshit the slop farms serve up

Last week, one of Trump's senior DOJ appointees strongly attacked a South Carolina's judge's voting rights decision. Today her house was burned to the ground by suspected arsonists.

My favorite part of this is "Jesus Christ" would be a mandatory name when naming people important in Islam.

They 10000% thought *we’d* be out in the streets while they livestreamed about it for clicks. The accelerationist bs they espouse never involves them doing more than what they’ve been doing: posting and getting their burritos delivered by Uber.

The very first statute authorizing domestic use of the military during domestic emergencies, enacted in 1792 by a Congress full of the same folks who wrote and ratified the Constitution, expressly provided for judicial review in certain circumstances *before* the President could even send troops.