Jump to content

mkultraviolence

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,116

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mkultraviolence

  4. Posted

    26 minutes ago, Mer Boy said:

     

    ya sure, and writing in your dogs name on a ballot is gonna fix that lol. 

     

    writing a third party on your ballot is the definition of performative activism sorry. 

     

    that's fucked up tbh. because someone doesn't want to vote for a dem or republican they're doing performative activism? that's just such a fucked up way of looking at politics. i will never vote dem or gop for lots of reasons. seriously shaming third party voters? some of you are so backwards i swear

    0

  5. Posted

    17 hours ago, Mer Boy said:

     

    I respectfully disagree with many of your points. While I think our current political climate has lead to the formation of mob mentality, it is only evident on the internet. You mention that your friend will “unfriend/unfollow” people who don’t vote for Biden—this means nothing in the real world. To be a fully functioning member of society, she will still need to collaborate with Trump-voters in her everyday personal and professional life; she simply has no choice. The illusion of control over our social circles garnered by the internet is just that, an illusion. The cases of actual full-fledged “boycotting” (both personally and professionally) due to voting preferences is remarkably low, especially in as divisive times as these. 

     

    I’m curious what you define as “oppression”. The crime rate has steadily declined since 1990, the 3rd US has the highest quality of education in the world, lowest infant mortality rate, and 5th highest literacy rate (99% of people over the age of 15). More so, Biden’s plans will not depress these facts (he will not oppress the growth we have been seeing for the past 30 years). He plans on making community college debt-free—a crucial step towards equal access to education—the staggered introduction of medicare for all, and a 2 trillion dollar climate change proposal. I fail to see how any of these things are oppressive. 

     

    On the issue of criminal justice, Biden/Harris plan to ban for-profit-prison, and an independent Task Force on Prosecutorial Discretion, expanding the power of the Justice Department to investigate police behavior, decriminalizing marijuana, investing in the offices of public defenders, offering alternatives to detention, and more. He also supports the elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing. 

     

    I concede, their records may not be stellar, but, if we were to go by what politicians said and did in the past; Trump would be pro-choice, Graham would’ve voted against Barrett, and Clinton would be behind bars. I believe people can change, for both good and bad. I think we owe to an individual to trust in their personal growth. 

     

    As for Simone Weil’s, her writings almost exclusively apply to 1930s-40s France, as she concedes early in her essay that political parties work well (or, at least, better) in the UK. Also, parties provide something like a legitimate opposition. Without this “regulated rivalry” there can be no democratic accountability. Parties structure political choices for an electorate in a way that Weil’s intellectual magazines never could—and in a way that the internet cannot today. Weil’s died at 34, mainly because she failed to see what was going on in the real world: Despite being physically frail she toiled at a Renault assembly line in order to share the fate of the workers (although she was eventually fired, as she could not keep up); she lived in unheated flats and gave her money to the poor; and she volunteered on the side of the soldiers fighting Franco’s fascists in Spain (but had to be evacuated after stepping in a pot of boiling oil). During the second World War she worked for Gen de Gaulle’s Free French in London. But she also starved herself, refusing to eat more than what she (wrongly) thought to be the ration of her compatriots in Nazi-occupied France (per the Irish Times). 

     

    Political parties are not perfect, but without them, there would be no accountability within democracy. I won’t tell someone which way to vote—though, should the person be willing, I would love to hear why they chose to vote a certain way. Our civic duty is simply to vote. Our duty as citizens is not, and never has been, to “undermine” the systems that largely keep us safe, no matter wether you believe they do their job properly. Anarchy is not a civic duty. 

     

    haha no offense, but Biden/Harris promises and proposals are worthless at this point so I'm not even going to touch on that. If you think these systems are actually "largely keeping us safe", you are very privileged, my friend. why let a system that is killing and exploiting people just exist without consequences? it IS our civic duty to protest unjust treatment. if the system only works via regulated rivalry, then there's a problem. and sorry that you can't feel others oppression I guess, but oppression is rooted in American "democracy." 

    6

  6. Posted

    I am tired of the vote shaming. People shaming others for voting third party or not voting at all. Someone I considered an old friend saying on Twitter that she will be unfollowing and removing the followers who don't vote for Biden. 

     

    You are not choosing between two candidates, you are choosing who will oppress you for the next four years. Your civic duty is to undermine these systems, not reinforce and legitimize them. So many people on my timeline were putting out those cute little infographics in June about police abolition or just reform and now they're voting in JOE BIDEN and KAMALA HARRIS. The contrast between the two sentiments is comedic gold. 

     

    If you need some old, wise person telling you this stuff, read Simone Weil's "On the Abolition of All Political Parties" or http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/298.html by W.E.B. Dubois. 

     

    Lastly, I know it's hard in this digital age where you are constantly on display and expected to be perfect. We spend hours crafting our image to look a certain way. But try to recognize that this virtue signaling of black squares and buzzword tweets is coming from a place of mass insecurity. 

    4

  9. Posted

    36 minutes ago, Deadly Cruel Girl said:

    That's because it's a fact that female artists DO slow down once one of those little brats come into the picture. lol

    It's the woman who's doing all the carrying around, pain, weight gain and all the other suffering that comes when having babies. Not the man. This is why many female's in music who have babies take a few years to come back on stage (Kelly, Gwen and Adele are a few examples) and the males in the music biz (Jack White, Neil Young and Eddie Vedder are examples ) can jump on stage any time they want. Men are not the one carrying 50 extra pounds with 10 pounds worth of milk in each tit. Stevie Nicks has spoken about this for 40 plus years in her interviews. She chose her career over having children. She knew once she had a child, her career would be over for her. She has no regrets choosing music over having kids. This is coming straight from Nicks' mouth.

    Another one - Joni Mitchell. She had a kid and gave it up for adoption in order to stay in the music business. She never had any other kids. Joni and the kid she gave up for adoption later reunited very well into the kid's adulthood. By all accounts they are "friends" but that's all.

    Then there's Beyonce with 3 kids and her career is intact. It also helps that Beyonce has that 'fire', ambition and drive. She worked her ass off to get on that historical Coachella stage. The same with Jlo and Gwen.

    It really depends on each woman.

    Seeing how Lana's effort for her music career has drastically waned (zero effort on stage, doesn't sing live, dresses like a slob, doesn't care...etc) I think the moment she has a kid, she'll be done with her music career. I can picture her releasing albums and that's about it. Maybe even write songs for other singers and releasing more poetry books etc. Lana is lazy as fuck and doesn't have the same drive Jlo and Beyonce has. No fire. No fucks given. Add a kid in the picture, she'll never leave the house. Someone would need to physically force her out to buy groceries. lol

     

     

    this is so well-written, thank you. absolutely right

    3

  13. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Barry said:

    It is now, I always quite liked Nicki also although never really listened to her own stuff but she always rapped well my favourites were Coca Coca by Gucci Mane ft her (and about 10 other people) and Sweet Dreams the Lil Wayne Remix of the Beyonce song.

     

    I honestly prefer Cardi B. I'm kinda turned off by the vocal exaggerations she makes. but she definitely is a role model for me when it comes to "getting my money"

    1

  21. Posted

    There are violets in your eyes
    There are guns that blaze around you
    There are roses in between my thighs
    And a fire that surrounds you

     

    vs 

     

    I'm a wild child, sky-high lying on your floor

    I know I had a lot, but baby wants a little more

     

    0

  25. Posted

    3 minutes ago, IanadeIrey said:

    I didn’t find Question for the Culture to be controversial at all, I had read it as I would read any other announcement she has made and didn’t think too much about it. It wasn’t until I went online the next day and saw everybody attacking her that I was more aware of the culture she was referring to and I think the public’s reaction and them turning it into a race war just proved the point she was making.
     

    Her listing those women in the admiring way she did was to say “look at these women who sing about the same stuff that I do, but are seen as empowering figures in the feminist community, whereas I am seen as archaic in my beliefs that allegedly set women back hundreds of years.”  I get that fans say they’re “traumatized” by her posting that because it’s never fun to watch someone you care about be berated by the masses, but I think that kind of indirectly trivializes the things that Lana was saying and contributes to the erasure of inclusivity of women in feminism and perpetuates the narrative that women need to adopt traditionally-masculine characteristics in order to be empowering (and by the way, I’m not saying women who adopt those characteristics are doing so on purpose just to fit a standard of feminism, there are so many more factors besides gender that play into why someone is the way they are). Why can’t women just be the way they are, even if that’s more “fragile” as Lana has identified herself to be, and still be empowering?  I admire her ability to come out and say something like this - something that people may not be able to metabolize in times like these. 

     

    second paragraph hits the nail right on the head. you said it perfectly

    2
×
×
  • Create New...