Anonymous asked:
And thus, our dear local anon suggests the establishment of Anarcho-Mafiaism.
Reactionary, or avant-garde Progressive?
We leave it to our readers to decide.
Anonymous asked:
And thus, our dear local anon suggests the establishment of Anarcho-Mafiaism.
Reactionary, or avant-garde Progressive?
We leave it to our readers to decide.
rocketverliden asked:
Nah, actually I was thinking that there are lots of other southerners we could choose from for replacement statues, specifically ones that weren’t all “rah rah slavery” and so on. Some of them could be a lot more modern, others from before the war, and so on. U.S. founding fathers from those states would be the ideal option for many of them - it reaffirms membership in the US, still has lots of historical weight, and so on.
They shouldn’t be more black than the proportional share of the population, though.
The goal here is to provide an alternative, positive regional identity for the white southerners that is not rooted in the racism inherent to the Confederacy. (And the racism was inherent - at least one governor or whatever went on about how yeah, this was about slavery, and yeah, this was about “the inferiority of the negro race” and so on.)
History is big. There is a lot that can be chosen from when we decide what to emphasize. There are many people, with many stories. With this, we could step sideways.
(The exception is generic confederate soldier statues, which should stay. After all, the side that wins the war usually thinks it’s the ethical side, since most factions fighting a war think they’re the ethical side, so removing them just means legitimizing the idea of removing monuments to soldiers of losing sides in general.)
However, I don’t think the capital-L Left, in broad strokes, wants the southern whites to have a positive southern identity. I think it wants to crush them in order to celebrate itself and its righteousness.
It doesn’t like the founding fathers, either. It doesn’t like the United States of America.
It could celebrate the power of the very ideals this nation’s founders espoused as the source of some of the very power that overturned the cruelty they allowed at this nation’s founding. But most of those people were white men, so they won’t.
Anonymous asked:
First, we’re going to need a lot of money…
Anonymous asked:
There is no guarantee, and if you look like a sufficiently valuable target, you may be attacked regardless, however…
Being attractive and high-status is a major defense against many forms of social attack. People will like you and make excuses for you, when they won’t for equally-deserving others that are less handsome and less popular.
It can help even in environments that say they are against lookism and unfair benefits from popularity.
The best defense against this particular accusation, of course, is to be born cis female. (Of course, that’s still only a partial defense.)
Anonymous asked:

“My Opinion” (Pixels on Tumblr)
- Anonymous (2017)
Anonymous asked:
But if you aren’t attractive enough, then people won’t want to approach you.
Ah, the horseshoe theory of attractiveness.
Anonymous asked:
You didn’t receive approval from your department manager.
Go put that back in the produce section where you found it.
Anonymous asked:
You know, I got that on [other platform], too. In fact, someone once approached my girlfriend at the time because they were too cripplingly socially anxious to approach me.
…and also my other ex described my dating profile as a bit that way, once…
A-am I not moe enough? * hides pile of guns under strawberry plush pillow *
(Other fruits may also be accepted on a case-by-case basis. See your department manager for details.)
Anonymous asked:
In practical terms, sure.