Is it all right to hit a Nazi unprovoked?
also, not to detract from the point
but nazi rhetoric is in itself violence
it is not unprovoked, it is defensive
because nazi rhetoric is inherently violent.
punch a nazi. they’re telling people to do worse to you.
also deplatforming works
“oh they’re not taking away chronological dashboard, well everything’s okay then” they also said in the post they’re making reblogs collapsed (like comments on twitter) so you won’t see the full conversation in a post. they also won’t get rid of tumblr live despite it being an annoying and cancerous data-miner that isn’t legal in much of the world. they won’t even let you opt out of tumblr live for more than seven days. they implemented a terrible photo viewer that mimics tiktok and makes it so you can’t zoom in on images. they took away the ability to view prev tags. they’re making it so you have to sign in with your email to view almost any thing on tumblr. they’ve already made it so you have to sign in to send asks, even on anon. they’re slowly phasing out custom blog themes.
the things that make tumblr at all usable and favored by us– the older web blog features, the anonymity– that is still being taken away. it HAS been being taken away for some time now. i am urging you people to reveiwbomb the tumblr app. force them to acknowledge that users do not like these changes.
Let me stress: Collapsing reblogs would turn tumblr into a completely different site.
A massive chunk of our site culture - arguably our entire site culture itself - is based on the collaborative nature of posts. The fact that many posts are chains of relevant additions or Bits done by multiple people is the appeal. This is not an “outdated format” or an inconvenience, it is a core function.
Also I can’t help but suspect that this partial walkback is misleading. Okay, so we still get to have a chronological dashboard, but are we going to be allowed to keep it as our default tab? Because new accounts sure fucking can’t set as such.
Reblog chains are literally what makes tumblr posts tumblr posts
ALT
ALTKeke Palmer's boyfriend and the father of her baby publicly shamed her for her outfit and it's the audacity of someone we only know as "Keke Palmer's boyfriend" to target his hardworking significant other, the mother to his baby like this
ALT
The comments on his Instagram are cracking me up
skskskskskjafsdkh kh hsdkcj he deactivated
ALT
ALT
ALTWallace, Fiona and Pumpkin. One of them is guilty of bringing a dead frog into my house!
The votes are in. Fiona is a frog murderer. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
ALT
catalog of unabashed gratitude, ross gay // ? // trista mateer // ? // a little life, hanya yanagihara // herakles, euripides // ? // langston hughes // these violent delights, micah nemerever // lunch poems, frank o'hara
Good morning to the trans man loudly slamming his girlfriend in the bunk above convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, and ONLY the trans man loudly slamming his girlfriend in the bunk above convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell
it’s not just about replacing big authors, it’s about replacing ghost writers completely. which will make publishing and writing for a living even more inaccessible. it’s bad all the way down.
Funny how a mass arrest goes completely under the radar when it's mostly teens, right?
San Francisco police arrested over a hundred people in the city’s Mission District Saturday night at an annual “hill bomb” event, where skaters and bikers ride down Dolores Street.
Most of the individuals arrested were under 18 years old, and had been surrounded by police at the event and prevented from leaving — a law enforcement tactic known as “kettling.” This police action has prompted severe criticism from residents and officials alike — plus a possible lawsuit by nonprofit legal organization Partnership for Civil Justice.
Rachel Lederman, an attorney with Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and with the Center for Protest Law and Litigation, says she’s hoping to talk to more of the youth who were arrested — or their parents — “to explore what to do to challenge this outrageous conduct” by SFPD.
holy shit, the absolute king at the end
As a transit worker anyone who whines about fare evaders can lick, suck on, gargle, lightly tickle, and then carefully blow dry my balls, it’s a non issue. We need to eliminate a fares and fully fund public transit with some of the money we’re wasting on dressing cops up like master chief, and on collecting them in the first place which is expensive and dumb.
lol Ron Perlman is so cool
this is the single coolest thing any celebrity has ever said
daily reminder to distrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong
i notice ppl who are left wing say this type of thing a lot and honestly i dont really understand it. i cant seem to put my finger on what ppl who say this are actually meaning. i feel like im missing smth
ofc ppl who say this type of thing arent a monolith. ppl who say similar things dont always intend for those things to have the same meaning as each other. but tributary, if youre willing, could you explain what this sentiment means to you?
heres where im hung up, if it helps you explain what you mean better: arent ‘punishment’ and ‘fair negative consequences for your actions’ pretty much the same thing? a domestic abuser no longer being allowed to see the kids he beats is being punished but hes also facing fair consequences for his actions. someone white getting fired for calling his black coworker the n-word is, by the dictionary definition of punishment, being punished. so is a child rapist getting sent to prison. should we not give ppl negative consequences if they hurt someone?
im sorry if i sound really stupid. english isnt my first language. i just want to understand this belief since i see and hear it all the time and it really confuses me
when i say this, at least, i am making a distinction between (1) "we should take steps to stop people who are hurting others from being able to hurt others" and (2) "people who do bad things should have bad things done to them".
examples of (1): i hit my children, and am no longer allowed to see them. i use a racial slur at work to a coworker, and am fired. <- these things might feel like punishments to me, because i want to see my children / i want to work so i have money, but the focus in doing them is not to punish me, but to keep the other people safe - i can no longer abuse my children or my coworker.
examples of (2): i hit my children, and so i get publicly beaten in return. i use a racial slur at work to a coworker, and am put in solitary confinement for five days. <- these are punishments. they do not materially make anyone i have hurt safer (i can still see my children; i can still go to work with my coworker), because the assumption that people won't do something if they know they'll get hurt for it is simply not true (we have a lot of good evidence that hurting people doesn't make them change their behaviour, other than trying harder not to get caught).
of course, there's the option to do (1) and (2). i could be banned from seeing my kids, and also publicly beaten, but... why? why do we need (2), if we are already doing (1)? what does (2) do to materially make my children (or other children, for that matter, or anyone) safer?
and that's what "don't trust people who want to punish" is getting at, because the urge to punish is often really strong - especially in christian, especially evangelical christian, spaces, where there's this internalised "if you sin you go to hell" logic. people get hurt, and then they often turn around and say "well the person who hurt me should be hurt too", rather than "i don't want this person to be able to hurt me or others any more".
the problem with that is that like... well then we just end up in a cycle of hurting people for hurting others, which has negative consequences for everyone involved. as opposed to consequences happening that make everyone safer, and then rehabilitation efforts to stop people being hurt/doing hurting again. and it's also the same problem as the eternal "well it's okay to do X to Y group" (e.g. it's okay to remove voting rights from felons) - you are then motivated to turn anyone you want to do X to into a member of Y group (e.g. mass criminalisation (felonisation?) of black people via racially-selective policing and lawmaking). you start being led by "i want to do X to Y" as a knee-jerk response, rather than "what do we need to do to keep people safe?". violence becomes acceptable as long as it's for the Right Reasons.
tl;dr "punishment" and "your actions having consequences that you do not enjoy" do not mean the same thing here; there's a difference in the motivation of the person doing the punishing/consequences, and this quote-thing is arguing that that's important.
footnotes to this below the cut (bc they got longer than the actual post):
@hoodienanami they beat me to the punch here, but this is a really good explanation that i’m going to keep as a reference. thank you @sparxflame.
inthefallofasparrow