between this and the intra-day tariff chart, i don't know which is more ridiculous

between this and the intra-day tariff chart, i'm not sure which is more ridiculous.

ps: obviously the meme format itself is not OC, feel free to let me know if I need to change the title

Hey, so my friend wanted to sign up for Hexbear, but after failing the Captcha once they've been rate limited for a while now. They're using Chrome. Is there are any kind of solution you would recommend?

There are a LOT of young, white leftists who canonize John Brown without internalizing a shred of what he fought & died for

Some of them are atheists or agnostics, others may be religious

I don't think it particularly matters though

Just today I saw a "John Brown stan account" on Bluesky condemning nonviolent usamerican protestors for "supporting Hamas"

When all number of people attacked him for his display of deeply ironic hypocrisy, he invoked Brown's name as a shield in a way that reminded me of how neoliberals invoke MLK Jr to argue against black power (which is no less absurd)

It's not the first time I've seen Brown's name abused this way, and it likely won't be the last

I believe that for many, John Brown serves as their non-problematic white saviour, an idol to project themselves onto

We must oppose this juvenile power fantasy, but even that is not enough

We must also recognize that even as we discard the rubbish of Great Man theory, John Brown still has an important place in our historical memory

I'm at the point today where I tend to invoke his name alongside the names of Helen Keller, Naim Ateek, Des Wilson, Malcolm X etc, all notable figures in liberation theology

We must seek not to canonize him into some secular sainthood, but rather understand and analyze his place in the extensive, often overlooked history of liberation theology

There are a LOT of young, white leftists who canonize John Brown without internalizing a shred of what he fought & died for

Just today I saw a "John Brown stan account" on Bluesky condemning nonviolent usamerican protestors for "supporting Hamas"

When all number of people attacked him for his display of deeply ironic hypocrisy, he invoked Brown's name as a shield in a way that reminded me of how neoliberals invoke MLK Jr to argue against black power (which is no less absurd)

It's not the first time I've seen Brown's name abused this way, and it likely won't be the last

I believe that for many, John Brown serves as their non-problematic white saviour, an idol to project themselves onto

We must oppose this juvenile power fantasy, but even that is not enough

We must also recognize that even as we discard the rubbish of Great Man theory, John Brown still has an important place in our historical memory

I'm at the point today where I tend to invoke his name alongside the names of Helen Keller, Naim Ateek, Des Wilson, Malcolm X etc, all notable figures in liberation theology

We must seek not to canonize him into some secular sainthood, but rather understand and analyze his place in the extensive, often overlooked history of liberation theology

people talk about how media literacy being at an all time low, but this right here is just the death of regular literacy

To give a bit more detail, I've been attempting to bridge the gap (however wide or short it may be) between Queer Theory and Marxism. I feel as though the two most common views of contemporary Marxists on queer theory are incorrect.

1. Reactionaries who proclaim that Queer Theory is somehow monolithically idealist, usually having never read a shred of it, should be dismissed out of hand. No need to elaborate further on this.
2. We should be critical of those who simply combine Marxism and Queer Theory (whichever tendencies of both they most align with) like toppings on a sandwich. Queer Marxism is something that needs to be developed, yet it requires more than upholding both as distinct yet compatible entities. We must synthesize them, likely transforming both to some degree in the process.

I don't wish to fall into the trap of naïve originality, aka writing theory on a matter without studying that which has already been written. So, I'm looking for two things. Firstly, any freely accessible (I don't have the funds to buy/subscribe) theory on the question of Queer Marxism. Secondly, your personal thoughts (Brief or lengthy as they may be) on the subject.

Thanks in advance, –Zero

To give a bit more detail, I've been attempting to bridge the gap (however wide or short it may be) between Queer Theory and Marxism. I feel as though the two most common views of contemporary Marxists on queer theory are incorrect.

1. Reactionaries who proclaim that Queer Theory is somehow monolithically idealist, usually having never read a shred of it, should be dismissed out of hand. No need to elaborate further on this.
2. We should be critical of those who simply combine Marxism and Queer Theory (whichever tendencies of both they most align with) like toppings on a sandwich. Queer Marxism is something that needs to be developed, yet it requires more than upholding both as distinct yet compatible entities. We must synthesize them, likely transforming both to some degree in the process.

I don't wish to fall into the trap of naïve originality, aka writing theory on a matter without studying that which has already been written. So, I'm looking for two things. Firstly, any freely accessible (I don't have the funds to buy/subscribe) theory on the question of Queer Marxism. Secondly, your personal thoughts (Brief or lengthy as they may be) on the subject.

Thanks in advance, –Zero

I've recently taken a greater interest in Soviet history than ever before, and I was thinking of particular topics to focus in on. Being disabled & neurodivergent, my first thought was to look into the Soviet disability paradigm and how it evolved over the years. But then I remembered a song by The Decemberists, titled "When The War Came". It's about the Siege of Leningrad, in particular the 9 scientists at the Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry who had the strength of will to face fatal starvation before they would betray the solanum by eating of the seeds (which had gone through decades of genetic modification) contained within the vault. Now, having researched further into Vavilov's work, I find him often contrasted with Lysenko, framed as a sort of martyr standing up for the field of genetics, being imprisoned for a famine he did not cause only to die, ironically, of malnutrition. I know this isn't some whole and simple truth, and I don't take Lysenko to be some one-dimensional pseudoscientist villain hellbent on ruining the careers and lives of other scientists. So what I am left with, lacking the Soviet perspective on the internet of course, are questions. Mainly questions about what led to Lysenkoism, further context behind Vavilov's life & death, and maybe some resources I can use in future to cross-examine the mainstream historical consensus. Thanks in advance, –Zero