The outrage at Palestine is outraging ME.

so-treu:

theinebriatedfangirl:

How in the WORLD can anyone, with a straight face, say that Palestine has single-handedly derailed the peace process by asking the UN for recognition as a self-governing, independent nation state?

First of all, what peace process

Negotiations have entirely broken down, as Israel has made no real move to shut down settlements or prevent settlers from moving in on Palestinian land. Today, Israel went ahead and announced the construction of 3,000 settler homes on Palestinian land — retaliation, it seems. But its not like this is anything new — Israel has been violating agreements it has signed on to, and has so far banked on the fact that it can do whatever it wants, thanks to the fact that America is backing them. 

So if Israel can violate peace agreements, why can’t Palestine? 

And like, not to be Captain Obvious here, but just look at the discrepancy here: when Israel derails the peace process, they impose an illegal police state and create an artificial state of economic crisis by way of embargo on a population that is entirely dependent on Israel for everything, but doesn’t have the rights of Israeli citizenship. They allow Israeli citizens to steal Palestinian land. Instead of simply turning a blind eye to crimes perpetuated by the settlers, they throw the full weight of the Israeli military behind the colonizers. They enforce an illegal, ethnocratic, apartheid state — simply because they CAN.  When the Palestinian Authority derails the peace process, they go to the UN to ask for recognition, in the hopes that they will be able to take Israel to court for war crimes.

Dear “moderate, “mainstream” Americans and Israelis: In what world are these two responses commensurate, or even comparable? Why in the WORLD are we showing more outrage when Palestine acts in self-defense (in a form of self-defense that is 100% peaceful, even!) and none at all when Israel acts the part of a violent colonizer?

This is what a two-state solution is going to look like, folks. Palestine will have to be treated as an independent nation state and will have the same rights accorded to any self-governing, independent nation, and Israel is going to have to answer for its illegal actions.

If you want a just outcome to this horrible, horrible conflict — this is what needs to happen.

Of course, if you want the Palestinians to leave Palestine and the Israelis to have everything from the sea to the Jordan River, then by all means, protest what the Palestinians have done yesterday at the UN. 

Just be honest about what you’d really like to see happen in the Middle East. 

^^^^

via Tumblr http://knittingandsljivovica.tumblr.com/post/36898629433

Appropriation, Buddhism, etc.

bankuei:

There’s a single, and simple red flag I look at when it comes to Western Buddhism (or really, Western versions of any other cultural religion…):

Is your community integrated with the people where the lineage/branch comes from?

If it’s mostly white people, then the interesting question comes up about what it says when people can take the “truths” of a religion or practice but refuses to interact with the actual people who have been practicing it for generations.

If it’s mostly NOT white people, and you’re the only person not of the home ethnicities, do you act and dress like the other people in your practice, or do you wear “cultural costume”? (Did everyone else show up in jeans and sweaters, but you’re showing up in religious garb or clothing befitting those folks in the 1800s?)

The former is straight up appropriation, the latter is fetishization. In one they couldn’t swallow the “truths” of the practice without a good coating of white supremacy, and the latter they’re so narcissistic they want to make themselves the “chosen” white person…

It’s really interesting to me how many white folks will take up a religion or cultural practice, then turn around and act like they’ve been persecuted their whole lives. It’s a form of white narcissism in which the fact that a narrative exists in which people are valued, who are not them, bothers them so MUCH, they co-opt the narrative in order to make it about themselves. “How DARE you spend any time, empathy, or compassion towards OTHER people?!?”

They like to tell their “story”, dress up in costumes, and make sure everyone hears about it, because it’s an attention seeking device. (and this is true for a lot more than Buddhism – just look at Ifa/Santeria/Lukumi white folks for some examples, too…)

All I know is that in any path where you’re supposed to learn something, if your primary motivation is being the center of attention, you’re not going to be able to see/listen/hear/absorb what is actually being taught.

But then again, as I pointed out above, these people are never really trying to learn anything at all.

via Tumblr http://knittingandsljivovica.tumblr.com/post/36895016379

don’t kill me SJ bloggers, I just don’t understand

equalseleventhirds:

greenchestnuts:

firefly-in-the-dark:

I don’t understand the concept of demisexuality = attraction only once emotional closeness happens.

Don’t many sexual people only feel attraction after they’re close to someone?

I sort of have always thought of it as more than that.

It’s like a trip to canada. I have no interest in ever going to canada. There’s nothing there I want to see. I hate the sensation of cold. But if my best friend wanted to go, I would, because I know I’d enjoy spending the time / doing something with her even if I wouldn’t enjoy canada on my own. Going to canada wouldn’t be the appeal, doing something with her and making her happy would be.

That’s also kinda how I see sex- it’s not something I get anything from but if someone I’m close to wants it, I’d do it, because it could be fun even if it isn’t arousing or whatever. Just like a hug from someone close feels good, but not in a sexual way, if that makes sense. It’d be like a game to figure out what they want from me, and to learn to get good at it, even if I don’t think it’s something I’d enjoy in the same way they would.

I suppose I sort of use demisexual as asexual (as in no desires for sex) but not repulsed by sex like most asexuals are. Just indifferent.

Am I just making up my own definition here? Is it a term just to define people who prefer to be emotionally attached to people they’re sexually attracted to instead of having a desire to hook up with strangers? Wouldn’t that cover the vast majority of the population?

(I know technically I can’t really class myself as any sort of asexual since eating disorders / low weight = loss of libido is a main and early symptom, but since I’ve been this way as long as I can remember… at least until/if I get better, that’s my outlook on sex.)

No one’s ever done a survey of demisexuals. Maybe they’re very common! The thing is, though, people don’t find the label demisexuality and decide “oh, I want to add a new label to my identity.” Usually, they notice that they are having a hard time relating to other people’s experiences andthenfind a label to describe what’s going on.

You talk about demisexuality as “attraction only once emotional closeness happens,” which sounds accurate, but you also talk about it as “prefer[ring] to be emotionally attached to people they’re sexually attracted to instead of having a desire to hook up with strangers,” which isn’t very accurate. It’s not a preference, it’s a necessary condition; demisexuals just don’t experience sexual attraction to anyone they don’t have a strong bond with. They don’t find strangers or celebrities or passing acquaintances hot or sexy or any of that. It’s not a choice for them, it’s just how it happens. It’s a description, not a prescription.

The definition of demisexuality that you’re going on is the simplified one. There’s actually a scientific thing about primary and secondary sexual attraction. Primary is sexual attraction based on outside things: appearance, voice, basic personality, etc. Secondary sexual attraction is based on emotional connections; you have to form an emotional bond with someone before experiencing this. Many people experience both, but demisexuals only experience secondary sexual attraction.

There’s also a difference you’re failing to understand: the difference between sexual attraction and having sex. You can have sex without being sexually attracted to your partner, and you can be sexually attracted to someone without having sex with them (see crushes, abstinent relationships, etc).

I suppose I sort of use demisexual as asexual (as in no desires for sex) but not repulsed by sex like most asexuals are. Just indifferent.

Actually, most asexuals are not repulsed by sex! That’s a very common misconception. Asexuals just don’t feel sexual attraction. They’re unable to look at anyone and go, “Oh, they’re hot.” Many asexuals are indifferent to sex or even enjoy sex, while others are, in fact, repulsed. This is true of every sexuality, actually; there are, for example, people who experience sexual attraction, but are disgusted by sex itself

That’s also kinda how I see sex- it’s not something I get anything from but if someone I’m close to wants it, I’d do it, because it could be fun even if it isn’t arousing or whatever.

That’s actually the viewpoint of a lot of asexuals who are not repulsed by sex. Some are aroused by being sexually stimulated, others are not, but many of both kinds are willing to have sex with someone they’re close to (often a romantic partner, but not always).

To use your Canada metaphor, someone not on the ace spectrum is interested in Canada. Maybe not all of it; maybe just British Columbia, or the bit up by Alaska. Maybe their interest ebbs and flows, depending on all sorts of factors. Maybe sometimes their interest is entirely gone, because nothing in Canada seems all that cool anymore. Maybe they go to visit it; maybe they don’t. But they’ve felt the interest, they know what it’s like, and it’s a normal part of life for them.

Conversely, an asexual is someone who is not particularly interested in going to Canada. They might do it at some point, might even enjoy it, but they do not feel any interest in it at all.

Now, a demisexual has been uninterested in Canada for their whole life. Everyone else seems to be interested just by looking at it or hearing about it, but they don’t experience that. One day, they learn about Quebec. They hear about life there, the language, the people, the cafe on a particular corner that serves the best almond coffee cake you’ll ever taste. They might even visit Quebec and experience this for themselves. At some point, they have learned something—maybe a lot of information, maybe just one salient fact—about Quebec that makes it special to them. It’s different from the rest of Canada, somehow. Maybe they’ve fallen in love with Quebec, or maybe they just feel close to it emotionally in a non-love way.

Now they are interested in Quebec. It’s not something they decided to do; it just happened, as they formed a connection with Quebec.

(Incidentally, the non-asexual person might experience the same thing as the demisexual at times. The difference is, however, that the former can also become interested by seeing part of Canada even without forming the connection first.)

…so that metaphor got long. Does it make sense, though?

via Tumblr http://knittingandsljivovica.tumblr.com/post/36890595934