The United States Disappeared Tracker is “tracking persons politically arrested, detained, or disappeared by the Trump regime since March 9, 2025”.
Reblogged
Gluten free dairy free chocolate cupcakes with a hazelnut praline center. Mmmmmmm!
Thank you loopy whisk.
Gluten free dairy free chocolate cupcakes with a hazelnut praline center. Mmmmmmm!
Thank you loopy whisk.
@inneskeeper this seems relevant to your interests
BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! SHE DOIBLES DOWN!
inneskeeper
It is actually rare that I get shown stuff that could ACTUALLY be the spawning point of a new and proper named heresy within Holy Roman Catholicism.
“Jesus actually survived the crucifixion” is legitimately one of the most terrifyingly viable heretical traditions you could start. It fulfills the exact ramifications for a popular and overwhelming heresy: It supports and glorifies Christ’s strength (so powerful he could not die in a meaningful way), encouraging different theological philosophies and understandings of the source material, and is COMPLETELY RUINOUS about the WHOLE POINT of Jesus as the Lamb of God. He is destined to die to take on the sins of all humanity forever so we can br forgiven. The death and the resurrection of Christ after his journey into Hell for three days is cosmologically as important as the Trinity. It is one of the pivotal foundations of the entirety of the religion.
If Jesus didn’t die, he didn’t die for us. That changes a LOT of things. But it is at its root a heresy which is not anti-Christian and is instead just a completely irreconcilable veneration.
I love this woman. I need to encourage her to be like this.
tOxIcItY iS a ChArAcTeR tYpE this is fucking amazing
Okay it’s been several hours and I’m still not even slightly over this.
Like, Jesus said “I am the resurrection and the life, except the resurrection bit is metaphorical, because I’m too swole to actually die.”
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, but not really, for he made his only begotten son super fucking butch. Like, obviously way too butch to actually succumb to a little crucifying.”
“Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. The centurion said to him, ‘Jesus is too shredded to kill, he’s like the Terminator, nothing can take him out.’ Pilate sent Joseph away with nothing, for Jesus was indestructible.”
“The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified but absolutely did not die. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he was just taking a little nap. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He never died, you all really jumped the gun this time.’”
“The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men, but it would take an atomic bomb to kill him, he’ll be fine.”
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, for he shall be positively jacked, and for his swollage will enable him to bung the biggest rock he could lay his turkey-sized hands upon those that displease him. Amen.
anyone want to start a new branch of christianity with me? i’m calling it Unkillable Jesus
turns out they very much did not kill jesus
Reblogged saltedweather
be sure to leave out milk and cookies for brutus tonight
You can leave as many cookies as you want but he’ll only et two
this remains the funniest addition anyone’s made to one of my posts
Reblogged asneakyfox
i got this book of sappho's poetry only to find out it has translations that paint sappho as straight. like this absolute classic that every dyke knows by heart
istg i hate cishet academics so much.
There's a lot of very interesting meta analysis around the translation of Fragment 102!
The Anne Carson translation also uses 'boy' (Fortunately she translates MANY poems as very Sapphic, still) The back of the book includes in-depth analysis of many of her translation choices. I don't personally prefer with this one, but the reasoning
When looking into it, the word Sappho used for the object of her longing is παῖδος, paîdos, which is most commonly translated as “youth” because it’s not gendered. It can mean either a boy or a girl. (There are reasons besides heteronormative assumptions for translating it as “boy”—though the word is not gendered, it’s cognate with a lot of words like puer that mean “son” so may have had a more masculine-as-default assumption (like a lot of European languages do), and when Sappho wrote about young women, the word she commonly used was παρθένος parthénos “young woman, maiden, virgin.” But paîs/paîdos it is not a gendered word and could be translated either way!)
Read more from @specialagentartemis
Ahh, thanks for the shout-out!
Yeah, this fragment is really intriguing in its ambiguity, and has been approached in different ways by different translators and classicists. It's something I'm increasingly interested in, Sappho's use of the word "pais" (and its genitive form "paidos") throughout her work. For example, in another poem, she uses "pais" to refer to her own daughter! So it's far from cut-and-dry. Someday I will either find an article about that or write it myself, but for now, I can say about fragment 102 in particular, that a lot of ink has been spilled about these two little lines by different analysts from different backgrounds. And I think the popularization of one particular translation, the one by Diane Rayor that goes "slender Aphrodite has overcome me with longing for a girl," does a disservice to the ambiguity of the lines as well as the statement Rayor is making with her translation choice!
I happen to have two books about Sappho on hand, and this is what they say about it:
Introduction by Pamela Gordon to Sappho: Poems and Fragments, translated by Stephen Lombardo and edited by Susan Warden, 2002, p. xix. (This book uses a different numbering system for the fragments for reasons I'm not fully clear on, ignore that.)
from Sappho’s Sweetbitter Songs: Configurations of Female and Male in Ancient Greek Lyric by Lyn Hatherly Wilson, 1996, pp. 118-119.
Two very different approaches to the fragment, but both use the assumption that "paidos" here should be translated as "boy." Gordon problematizes Lombardo's choice to do so; Wilson takes a different interpretation entirely. Simple heteronormative assumptions on the part of the translators almost certainly play a part, but it's neither deliberate erasure nor complete obliviousness. However, many translations translate this word as "boy" in this fragment.
So Diane Rayor's choice to translate "paidos" in the fragment as "girl" is extremely deliberate and pointed! She's saying, you all are choosing to interpret the object of the speaker's affections as a boy, but it is also equally correct to translate this word as 'girl.' It's pointed, it's intentional, it's a deliberate pushback against common translation practice to point out that the choice to say "boy" is making just as much of an assumption as the choice to say "girl." And that point gets lost when the fragment is presented as an uncomplicatedly straightforward or objective reflection of what's in Sappho's original text - in either direction!
Reblogged
I only recently found your Tumblr and have been enjoying it. I wondered if you'd seen the new article in The Atlantic yet? It's everything I was afraid of and more.
https://www.tumblr.com/meret118/776013260973539328/faa-employees-say-trump-and-musks-purge-is-a?source=share
I have not, because I am very, very careful about my news and social media consumption these days. Not least because I have been here since at least 2016 talking about how bad Trump et al are and what they can do, will do, and are doing, so I don't see the need to expose myself to even more distressing information that confirms what I already know and which I can do nothing to control. So, like... I know that Trump and Musk are evil rapacious shitbirds who are doing their level best to turn the US into a tinpot theocratic oligarchy for their own personal benefit, and are completely uncaring of any consequences or impact on the American people. As far as they're concerned, breaking things and causing pain and suffering is the point, just like the cruelty.
As well, the American media played such a large part in getting us into this mess that I am especially wary of giving them more Panic Clicks (TM) in the Trump 2.0 era, considering everything they did to bring it about. They destroyed Biden and forced him out of the race in six short weeks after the first debate debacle; they could have chosen to do this to Trump at literally any time, and they did not. The billionaires who own the news media are already bending their knee and eagerly lapping Trump's bloated orange backside with its PROPERTY OF VLADIMIR V. PUTIN tattoo. The more "liberal" outlets, i.e. the Atlantic, are getting back into their Principled Defender of Truth mode, where they can once more whip up Democrats and liberals into a panic (hardly as if that needs much help) to do... what?
Obviously, accurate reporting about the current Shitshow Moment is an important public service, but we had four years of Trump loudly stating his intentions at every possible moment while only continuing to get worse. As I said before, nothing he's doing now, heinous as it might be, is a surprise, because he said it all many times beforehand. But because half the country nonetheless just shrugged and voted for him again, the problem of informing them goes much deeper than just reading another Atlantic article about how it's exactly bad as we thought. This isn't pointed at you by any means; you're doing the work to keep yourself informed and to think about what you're going to do about it. Right now, however, I myself really don't need any more information and everything I learn about politics in the present moment is often against my will. (See: ferocious blacklisting, avoiding national news sites, trying to comment only on constructive aspects of the situation, etc.) So at this point, I'm keeping strictly away from the kinds of alarmist reports that tell me stuff I already know: it's really bad, it's gonna get worse, and we are the ones who are going to pay for it. But because half the country is locked in the Trump bubble, how do we deal with that? They're not reading highbrow Atlantic articles about how bad it is. They're reading AI gobbledygook on social media websites owned by fascists, that comfort them in their belief that however bad it is, it's a justified punishment for those Bad People over there and it doesn't matter if they suffer too, as long as the Bad People do. So we've gotta deal with that first.
Anyway: I hope this didn't come off as too dismissive, and I'm glad you're enjoying my blog! It's just that I really, really try to keep these kinds of pieces at arms' length right now, for various reasons, and put my energy into thinking what we can do about this situation instead. We know (god, do we ever) the basic fact that Shit Real Bad. But we can't stop there. Etc etc., Gandalf, What We Choose To Do With The Time That's Given To Us, so that is what I try to do.
I have been finding NPR really good at informing listeners what trump can and cannot, has or has not done. It’s the only news source I use these days bc it’s reliable and it’s not trying to send my blood pressure soaring with every update.
Reblogged cheersmequeers
Literally sobbing. A judge, a US judge defended us. A judge brought up intersex people, uaing the term intersex, to *defend* us by not allowing our erasure. I'm having a lot of feelings right now
[ID: post on Blue sky by @aridrennen.bsky.social that says:
Trump's lawyers are absolutely flailing in the courts right now.
The image below is a transcript saying:
Judge Reyes: EO 14183 adopts the definitions of a separate executive order called Defending Women from Gender Ideology, Extremism and Restoring biological Truth to the federal government. And that EO states, "sex shall refer to an individual's immutable biological classification as either male or female." And it states that, "It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female." Do you see that or do you remember that?
Jason C. Lynch: l will take the court's word for it.
Judge Reyes: You understand, as a matter of biology, it's just incorrect that there are only two sexes, right?
Jason C. Lynch: Do I understand that to be incorrect as a biological matter?
Judge Reyes: Yes. It is incorrect as a biological matter. You understand that, right?
Jason C. Lynch: I don't understand that to be incorrect.
Judge Reyes: You understand that not everyone has an xx or an xy chromosome, right?
Jason C. Lynch: Honestly, no, I don't.
Judge Reyes: It's actually kind of a really important point because this executive order is premised on an assertion that's not biologicaly correct. There are anywhere near about 30 different intersex examples. So someone who does not have just xx or xy chromosome is not just male or female. They're intersex. And there are over 30 potential different intersex examples. We've got genetic differences. We have people with xxx chromosomes. We have androgen insensitivity, xy genetically, that may have female external sex characteristics and internally have testes. There's a five alpha reductase deficiency that causes changes in testosterone metabolism, xy that may have female external genitalia or ambiguous genitalia,. The point being, and I'm happy to have you guys brief this more if you want, but I'm telling you right now that there are people who are neither male or female. And so the premise of the executive order is just incorrect.
End ID]
Reblogged forpiratereasons
I love this.
Reblogged asneakyfox
metamatar-deactivated20250401
The plain fact is that whatever Homer or Aeschylus might have had to say about the Persians or Asia, it simply is not a reflection of a ‘West’ or of ‘Europe’ as a civilizational entity, in a recognizably modern sense, and no modern discourse can be traced back to that origin, because the civilizational map and geographical imagination of Antiquity were fundamentally different from those that came to be fabricated in post-Renaissance Europe.
[...] It is also simply the case that the kind of essentializing procedure which Said associates exclusively with ‘the West’ is by no means a trait of the European alone; any number of Muslims routinely draw epistemological and ontological distinctions between East and West, the Islamicate and Christendom, and when Ayatollah Khomeini did it he hardly did so from an Orientalist position. And of course, it is common practice among many circles in India to posit Hindu spirituality against Western materialism, not to speak of Muslim barbarity. Nor is it possible to read the Mahabharata or the dharmshastras without being struck by the severity with which the dasyus and the shudras and the women are constantly being made into the dangerous, inferiorized Others. This is no mere polemical matter, either. What I am suggesting is that there have historically been all sorts of processes – connected with class and gender, ethnicity and religion, xenophobia and bigotry – which have unfortunately been at work in all human societies, both European and non-European. What gave European forms of these prejudices their special force in history, with devastating consequences for the actual lives of countless millions and expressed ideologically in full-blown Eurocentric racisms, was not some transhistorical process of ontological obsession and falsity – some gathering of unique force in domains of discourse – but, quite specifically, the power of colonial capitalism, which then gave rise to other sorts of powers. Within the realm of discourse over the past two hundred years, though, the relationship between the Brahminical and the Islamic high textualities, the Orientalist knowledges of these textualities, and their modern reproductions in Western as well as non-Western countries have produced such a wilderness of mirrors that we need the most incisive of operations, the most delicate of dialectics, to disaggregate these densities.
Aijaz Ahmed, In Theory: Nations, Literatures, Classes