Egghead

Through our very existence we demonstrate that not only do things not need to be this way, but that if you bring abolition into your own life it can be better, sexier, freer. Of course they want to destroy us. Im not apologizing or pretending what I want isn't the transing of everything

Attacking trans children is about attacking all children in the same way attacking trans autonomy is about attacking all bodily autonomy. Our actions are particularly powerful, autonomous and brave, and that means even well meaning ppl find us ideologically disturbing

In classic "good guy bad guy" form, the very idea of Public Health is a "bad guy" forever because elites weren't allowed to do anything they wanted for a few weeks

They'll never forgive you for wanting to be alive; they'll systematically destroy anything that benefits the health of the public

My "male socialization" mostly meant rejecting the terms of cis masculinity and being rejected for it, while desperately and enviously listening to & studying & supporting my friends through their "female socialization"... She can't imagine other perspectives and it's got her causality all backwards

What the fuck is a screening then? Insurance companies are pro-disease

my jaw is on the floor and yet im completely unsurprised. trump’s only political conviction is that he loves a handsome winner

"greed is human nature" sounds a lot better than "greed is my nature"

A quote by Greta Thunberg stating that, "The one thing we need more than hope is actoin. Once we start to act, hope is everywhere." It's in white font on a blue sky background with puffy white clouds.

Nearly every panel I spoke on this year ended with the same question: "What gives you hope?"

My friends, that question expired years ago. (If you need receipts, my book Saving Us is literally a 300-page answer.)

The real question is: How are you PRACTICING hope?

Because Greta is right ..

Remember when the head of the Russia investigation was all "here's the evidence, I don't think it is in my purview to prosecute it but you probably should" and then everyone decided that meant there wasn't evidence and it had all been a hoax and/or hallucination

They're already muddy - we can't fit entire experiences into individual words or else we risk cutting off important factors, like the way they interact with each other

The point isn't to collapse them into a single thing, but to articulate the ways they relate so we can make sense of the muddiness

Mayor Mamdani *must* be a reformer because that is what we need right now, but the reforms should be judged on their ability to prepare us for change in the next several decades, to build present institutions that bridge the gap between the past and the future, so we can safely bring everyone along

Of course reform is often used as a counter-revolutionary measure, so we need to be intentional and future-oriented

It should empower us to do better organizing and better living, not just technically adjust a metric

And it should develop a revolutionary character of comradery within the community

I agree but I think, as a dialectic, reform and revolution are distinct moments in a greater Whole

Reform will not accomplish the revolutionary societal change we need, but revolutionary societal change can't happen in a political landscape that holds us down - reform is a prerequisite preparation

Racism itself has many aspects and histories that don't always apply to every instance, just like xenophobia, but seeing the ways these aspects do overlap can give us a lot of insight into the character of the situation, and see what makes it similar to other racist & xenophobic situations

So, when I think about xenophobia & racism, I think about fear of foreigners & enacting racial hierarchies as distinct aspects of bigotry

Applying both, we see how both aspects contribute to the same bigotry, like layers

The rigidity isn't in the distinction, it's in limiting it to one aspect

Sure, but racism has many specific purposes, it's used differently by different people in different situations in different times, for different racial hierarchies. Looking at only a specific form of racism can be important in some contexts, but rigidity in language causes rigidity in thought

Maybe what I'm getting at is that it's both - there are intersecting elements of racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, colonialism, anything you care to analyze - so I'm wondering what you add to the conversation by specifying xenophobia here... And particularly by taking race *out* of the conversation?

Oh she was in the post up top, but it's generalizable. I don't even disagree with you, I just think you're getting caught up in constructs ~ Palestinian isn't "a race" but it is a racialized identity,

Maybe I'm missing the point? why do you think this is a distinction worth making? or rather, when?

I can't speak to Kamala's beliefs but I can recognize that she treats Palestinians, as a racialized class of people, like they are subhuman, and supported the genocide actively subjugating them. That's racism. We're not trying to find a perfect label, we're trying to convey her racism.

Frankly it doesn't matter, because you're using it to obfuscate a point rather than clarify one - an individual that believes in racial hierarchy and acts to perpetuate it is publicly and academically understood to be racist, even if you can construct a racial logic where they aren't

We use different definitions and simplifications for different conversations, but it's not helpful to use them as definitive restrictions

The point of "black people can't be racist" rhetoric wasn't rule-making or fact-finding, it was simplifying the complexities of standpoint theory & positionality

This is definitely scoffing, not at internalized racism, but at the idea that internalized racism doesn't count at racism, because of course it does

You're right that definitions can't capture all meaning, but then you're using a narrow definition to say you can't be racist against your own race

The idea that just because you can make it make sense means it's a valid interpretation of a series of facts, utterances, data points, is exactly why we have methods. Because cognition is powerful enough to spin any story, without constraints, one can infer anything from anything if they want to.

to be clear, i also do not think it is necessarily true that adopting a laundry list of progressive positions is an instant win either. i think you have to do the work of discovering what it is that voters want in a direct and engaged way. and i think that voters want moral leadership.

Holidays are coming up, a perfect time to remind your MAGA family members that Epstein is only part of the story, Trump has been importing foreign sex traffickers and giving them special protection.

Then ask, "so did Trump bring the Tate brothers here as a replacement for Epstein's services?"

But that is not exclusive territory: you too can reinvent yourself. You can reject what has been pushed on you and claim womanhood on your own terms, on your own definitions. If you envy the joy you see us having as trans women, ask yourself how you too can enjoy it.

part of a Woman's Role in Patriarchy is to be the property of a Patriarch. When you stop centering men, you've already ejected yourself out of that structure. Now you're left in a place a lot of transfems find ourselves in early on: what does it mean to be a woman?

Literally the political divide in this country is "should we make things better or should we make them worse?" and the answer might surprise you

Buy less, spend less, have less is certainly a motto for republicans heading into the holidays. Not sure an entire nation whose identity is wrapped in consumption will like it!