Salah [ey/em]

There’s no need to sacrifice yourself, such actions rarely lead to good results. Everyone has their own way to contribute, but historically some sort of organizing effort has always been necessary for regular people to wield power over their rulers. Organizing takes different shapes depending on your goal. But suppose your goal is to disrupt the US war machine.

Look for small ways in which you might be part of or adjacent to this machine. Does your workplace work with arms manufacturers or other infrastructure used in warfare? Is there a heavily complicit company in or near your neighbourhood? Does your city/municipality have contracts with complicit companies? These are all things you can organise against. A campaign starts with awareness. Stand with a sign next to a company building and talk to workers about how their employer is contributing to mass murder. Or organize a protest. Or do something else that better fits your qualities.

Maybe set up a petition and build your campaign around that. Talk to people in your environment to agitate them. Educate yourself so you can educate others. After and during the awareness stage you start to recruit other people who want to take action. Together you can build a plan to achieve your goals. This plan should create the pressure necessary to change policy or supply chains either through a worker strike, direct action, mass mobilisation or maybe something else.

Read about organizing tactics from the book secrets of a successful organizer (or another book about the topic)

There are so many ways in which you can organize it’s impossible for me to tell you what’s best for you to do. It all depends on your qualities and your surroundings. But you can at least try, and learn from your experience. No one person can change the current course of the US. The threat of mass organization is the only thing that scares the people in power into moving at least a little bit towards the demands of the people they rule over.

This answer is not super coherent since it’s such a broad topic but I just want to impress upon you that being a citizen of the world means to engage with the world and how it impacts you and how you impact it. With enough people you can topple governments, but with less you can still significantly impact supply chains and/or policy. If you do nothing we are guaranteed to lose. If we all do something and coordinate, we can collectively wield more power than the people in charge.

Do you actually care, that your labour and tax are used to commit the gravest horrors onto other people, or do you just pretend to care for virtue signaling? If it’s the former then there is much more you can do than vote every few years.

The same discussion with long covid where I live. There’s ‘no proof’ that it can be chronic so government denies most requests for disability assistance. They even tried to change the name to ‘post covid’ to try to obscure the chronic aspect that’s implied from the word ‘long’.

It’s about knowing that any phone can have a backdoor and being careful on how you use it. Don’t bring your phone to a protest.

It seems like Russia has actually gained from its invasion of Ukraine while the US stands to lose (some of) its military bases and influence in gulf states. So I don’t see the necessity for irony.

What we refer to as ‘races’ are racialised groups of people.

Racialization is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been used to describe the process by which certain groups are categorized and treated as inferior or superior based on their perceived racial or ethnic identity. This process is deeply rooted in historical and contemporary power dynamics, shaping societal norms and cultural identities.

source

So it’s the society you live in that defines what groups of people get racialised and who belongs to that group. In the US and Europe, racialised groups include Arabs, African descended black and brown people, Eastern Asian people, Southern Asian people, latinx people, Native Americans, Roma/Sinti people, etc.

Since racialisation is purely a social construct, the people who get racialised change over time. Italians used to be a racialised group in the US but are now considered ‘white’.

With white, people usually refer to the ‘in-group’ of a society (from a US and European perspective). Being white means that you are not racialised. The answer to the question if someone would be considered ‘mixed’ if they descend from both England and Swedish is usually no, because English and Swedish people are considered white and don’t face characterisation or discrimination based on how they look.

Racialisation is unscientific and a form of discrimination. It’s a fact in society and it’s important to be aware that some people get racialised and thus treated differently based on their appearance, but trying to characterise people in a set of ‘races’ is not scientific because it is purely based on something as subjective as appearance.

The point is that gender is not binary and that there will always be people who will get excluded for no reason when you try to define a boundary for exclusion.

You sound like a terf.

I’m speaking of my experience of being trans nonbinary and having been discriminated against under the guise of gender exclusive spaces. Cis women have a long history of excluding trans and nonbinary people from ‘women only’ spaces so excuse me for being sceptical of the concept.

Not all women will be at feminist spaces for women’s protection either so it’s important to remove people from a safe space whenever they make the space unsafe. I’m open to the idea of women only spaces if they serve a function but in practice the most common function I have seen them be used as is for enforcing gender norms and excluding trans and nonbinary people.

Most queer spaces make a point to not police on queerness because queer people get excluded so often from gender exclusive spaces. Policing on ideology prevents that issue entirely and doesn’t make the space less safe. It actually makes the space safer of it.

I’d also say that there wasn’t an issue with men only space to discuss testicular cancer, say.

Why wouldn’t trans women be welcome at such spaces?

Can you give an example for when those safe spaces add more value than for example making it a feminist only space where feminist men are welcome as well? In my experience feminists spaces attract very few men anyways.

Only the cybertruck has the hidden handle right? Those were already not legal to drive in China due to safety regulations.

Why? Benelux and Scandinavia are completely dependent software from technofascist pedophiles and some even let these technofascists store the sensitive data of their own citizens in the US.

Doesn’t have to be transphobic. It’s only suspicious within a pattern of behaviour in which your bf seemingly doesn’t see you as for who you are.

They could’ve just mentioned the nazi propaganda and pedophile problem but chose to throw queer people under the bus.

The elephant is so cute though

I have no idea about the context

The source is the Gazan health ministry. They are so careful on what information they publish that they have been massively underreporting the death count of Israel’s atrocities. Very weird to put their data into question like this.