Anyone who is actually genuinely interested to learn exactly how Nazis happened should absolutely read this article written by the National WWII Museum in New Orleans, which sums up exactly what I said on the post that anon is accusing me of 'defending Nazis' on.

After WWI, Germany's economy was in shambles and its people were desperate. Hitler was able to rise to power by promising a solution for their desperation, and leaned into pre-existing bigotries already held by a significant portion of the population. From there his policies became more and more extreme until effectively the entire country was radicalized [Nazis] or contained [in ghettos and camps] as were several surrounding countries.

Understanding how desperation due to social and structural problems within a country can quickly lead to radicalization, especially if pre-existing bias is present and especially especially if it's worsening, is key to understanding the progression of what happened in Europe during WWII but also of how we can recognize the signs of radicalization and how to stop it in its tracks. Point being if either the desperation or the bigotry was missing in this equation, likely it would not have happened to this extreme. Hitler was not initially popular as a politician and it was only as the country continued to fall apart that fascism started to look appealing. Hitler did not start with "mass-exterminate the Jews" because most people would have gone "okay that's a bit much".

I am not defending anyone. I am saying that you have to, you HAVE to understand how radicalization happens, because none of these people were born Nazis. They became radicalized through a very clear process that continues to radicalize people to this day. And the only way we can stop this process from happening is if we understand how and why it happens so that we can step in before it's too late again.

If you think that's "defending Nazis" I strongly urge you to go learn history from the actual accounts of what happened instead of whatever soundbites you've heard on social media.

(Nazi positive commie?? Anon is a bit confused XD) Recognizing the humanity in the nazi is important because it helps you stop seeing them as heartless monsters and start seeing how easily people can be swayed into atrocities. There are countless stories from deradicalized people saying how they were radicalized by giving a source for their despair in the form of a minority to attack. Moreover, when we think of these people as solely monsters, we are both creating a false moral purity that these people supposedly didn't have. AND we are ignoring the potential in ourselves to become radicalized.

Speaking of countless stories...

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

This NPR article talks a little bit about this too.

Davis uses a two-pronged approach: he dismantles their pre-existing bigotries and biases, and he addresses their complaints about society. In the example used, the Klansman said "black people are predisposed to violence"- there is bias and bigotry there, but he's talking about a real problem when it comes to violent crime. He's just blaming the wrong thing for it. He thinks it's racial, it's genetic, and that it's inevitable.

Davis turns it on its head- "white people are predisposed to being serial killers". He's also talking about a real problem when it comes to serial killers, but he's pointed to the wrong cause. And the Klansman goes "well that's stupid" and Davis goes "yeah?" And he lets that nugget sit and the guy starts the path to deradicalizing himself because, oh yeah, that is stupid to unfairly blame an entire population of mostly-innocent people, and that doesn't magically stop being true just because we're talking about black people.

When you understand that radicalized people usually have a problem that left them hurting for a solution, and pre-existing bias they're leaning into to make their logic make sense, you can also understand how to get them to stop doing that. It's not always possible with a conversation over dinner and drinks. But damn if that's not a good place to start.

We've seen that in real time with Trump and his stupid wall. The people who support these policies are afraid of real problems- drug cartels, sexual predators, and violent crime. They also have a lot of pre-existing racism and xenophobia they're leaning into to justify their logic and explain their fear as rational. I've personally watched people's rants putter out when challenged directly on why immigrants should be considered as uniquely dangerous when we have plenty of violent, sexual, and drug-related crime coming from our citizenry. It doesn't always deradicalize them and it certainly doesn't do it right away, but it often does stop them in their tracks and really make them consider what they're saying.

It's not enough to say "well these ideologies are evil and bad" because honestly? People are still falling for them so in order to prevent escalation it's important to understand why people are supporting ideologies that most as a collective *know* are evil and bad. How does someone get on this track, and is there a way to get them back off? Is it as simple as saying a single sentence that shakes their whole world, or is a more overt push necessary to nudge them into a better direction?

But the flip side to that is that when radicalization is left unchecked, it can turn even your previous allies against you. A friend of mine transitioned medically as a minor, surgeries and all. Obviously, that means his parents were supportive of his transition. Unfortunately with the rise of Trump and related politicians, his parents are now QAnon supporters regurgitating some frankly evil talking points. And he was talking to me the other day about his realization that if he was transitioning now, as an adult in his 30s, his parents would likely disown or even attack him instead. This has left him pretty hurt and confused, to watch these folks who once told him that he'd always be beloved and it was his choice to do what he would with his body and live how he wished, now talking about the transgender cult and rapid onset gender dysphoria and how trannies need to be pre-emptively jailed because they're all pedophiles and how sex offenders should get the chair.

His folks did not get this way overnight. Zombie mind viruses are not real, they were radicalized through a very similar process. Slowly but surely their concerns about the difficulties accompanying medical transition in the 90s, as well as sexual crime, were given a scapegoat to blame and then from their the logic became more and more extreme.

My friend is too close to the situation, so he has a hard time having any sort of conversation With them about it without feeling very hurt by it all. And that's fair too- I don't think everyone should go out and hug their local bigot. But I do think it is important to understand exactly how this happens, because it will keep happening if we continue to do nothing about addressing the cause. And radicalized people will continue to escalate until they cross whatever point of no return exists in their ideologies.

Remember, Jonestown did not happen in a bubble. Radicalized people will escalate and escalate and escalate until either their "enemy" or their whole population dies. The phrase "drinking the koolaid" is used when people are regurgitating dangerously radicalized talking points for a reason. Quite a few of the people attending- *most* of them- knew that koolaid was poisoned and voluntarily drank and fed it to their kids anyway. Those who resisted were too outnumbered by those who believed it was the right thing to do.

Jonestown's residents were primarily black [70%] with a significant portion being black women [43%]. Jim Jones claimed to hate the US due to its capitalist and imperialist structures, calling Jonestown a communal socialist paradise. The location of Jonestown was deliberately chosen so that its significant black population would have relative safety from racism. Legitimate complaints, pre-existing bias, and a tragedy that resulted in the mass murder and suicide of over 900 people including children and babies.

Understanding how people become radicalized like this is imperative because no one is immune to it. And recognizing that is the first step in preventing it from happening again.

It's important to recognize that anytime you dehumanize a group of people - when you literally turn them into not-humans, monsters, vermin - those are the same tactics that fascists use. Literally the exact same things Trump is saying now.

That doesn't excuse harmful ideology. It recognizes that those people are people, and by understanding that they are people who were radicalized, we can, if nothing else, inoculate ourselves against similar harmful radicalization. If you think that you, o random Tumblr person, can't be radicalized into thinking that there are entire classes of people who should simply be, let's say, dragged out into the street and shot without due process or charges, boy do I have a post full of notes for you to read!

Like, if nothing else, understanding how people are radicalized can help you spot those tactics when people try to use them on you.

so judging by how astonished people are by it every time we explain it to anybody, it seems like my wife and I might really be onto something here

during the pandemic, we invented something we call "astronaut time."

when it's astronaut time, it's like we are two astronauts wearing the big helmets, moving around the station on totally separate tasks. one of us is outside the space station and one of us is inside the space station. our radios do not work and we have no way of communicating with each other. we might see each other through the lil porthole windows, but we ignore each other because we both have different things to do.

"astronaut time" is how we get total privacy when we live in the same apartment. I will pretend you don't exist. You will pretend I don't exist. we have a nonverbal, zero-contact signal for when astronaut time is over (usually "I'll draw a smiley-face on the whiteboard in the kitchen when I'm done"). No talking, stay out of each other's line of sight, we are actively avoiding each other, unless you are currently experiencing a medical emergency goodbye.

it has been. a godsend. imagine living with your partner and being able to close every single tab in your brain related to social interaction. no fear of being interrupted by a "hey, quick question--" or "sorry to bother you, but do you know where the scissors are?" or "did you want something to eat, too?" Once or twice a month, we look at each other lovingly, hold hands, and say "baby I think I need some astronaut time tonight," and the other person goes "okay cool. bye! have a nice night!" and nobody's feelings are hurt and we both go and have a lovely evening completely by ourselves.

like idk it's a small thing but it's made our lives so much nicer, so if you and your partner/roommate are both people who sometimes need total privacy in order to recharge, maybe try it

I'm the wife in question and I cannot recommend this enough. When I told my therapist about astronaut time, she asked if she could share it with the couples she councils, so even the professionals give it two thumbs up.

This is INFINITE chickens, Neil. Chickens have taken over every space. Unending chickens. And they're angry at you, Neil. We ask again! How many chickens could you fight off before those descendants of the dinosaur defeat you and rule the Earth once again?

Infinite chickens? Nothing but chickens? No cars, no roads no houses? And the sea has obviously gone too because I'd otherwise suggest just heading out in a boat, as chickens can't swim. But without the seas I land or water I'm going to die of starvation and thirst pretty soon anyway.

Where are the infinite chickens coming from? The earth can only hold a finite number chickens after all.

THEY ARE INFINITE CHICKENS. ITS FANTASY.

Okay. How deep is the earth covered in the infinite chickens then? How many miles up does the chickening of the Earth gog? I would be killed immediately under the weight of infinite Chickens or even under the weight of millions of chickens, obviously. Do they reach the sun? Have they put out the sun? Is the universe, then nothing but infinite chickens, able to function in the airless cold and vacuum of outer space because this is a fantasy?

Let's say instead of infinite chickens it is a number of chickens which is practically indistinguishable from an infinitely self-renewing supply of chickens. Existing infrastructure does not get replaced by chickens. However, no one except you exists any longer, as they have all become chickens. What is your strategy, and how long can you survive the chickpocalypse? Also these chickens are capable of swimming, so as to maintain the initial conceit of the question, that being that the chickens are not meaningfully escapable.

I'm not seeing the word "barehanded" anywhere in the original question or in any of the follow-up questions, so I assume I am allowed a weapon.

And that I need to view these chickens as a self-sustaining poultry apocalypse.

Assuming that the chickens have replaced humans, then my weapon of choice were a 100 megaton Atomic Bomb, and that I could explode it over a city populated entirely by Chickens, I firmly believe I could immediately kill about 13 million chickens, and that radiation sickness would account for the death of a few million more chickens.

So about 16 million if the birds have replaced us.

Wow what an interesting way to say "countries with strong employee protection laws aren't at the mercy of tech billionairs in late stage capitalism" but with a real boot licker angle.

same, Phyllis. same.

despite staff's recent changes, we're... winning??????

more mundane antics of  the cat woman you all crave

That last one is MEEEEEE

which one of u was going to tell me that tea tastes different if u put it in hot water?

y- you were putting it in cold water?????

Radish. Answer the question radish.

yeah??? i thought for like. 5 years that ppl just put it in hot water 2 speed up the tea-ification process didn’t realize there was an actual reason

You dont have the patience to microwave water for 3 minutes???

[ID: Tags reading “u think i have the patience to boil water wtf ?????” /End ID]

why are you. putting it in the microwave to boil it

Do you think I have the patience to boil water on the stove

Its takes less than a minute

Bestie is ur stovetop powered by the fucking sun

How long does it take you to boil a cup of water on the stove

Like seven minutes

Just stick the mug on top of the stove on medium heat n it boils in like two minutes… less than that is u use a saucepan…

Crying you’re putting the whole mug on the stove ???? On medium heat???? Ur stove is enchanted

Every single person in this post is a fucking lunatic

Yet another post that reads like four shakespeare characters who come out in the middle of the play to talk about something completely unrelated for comic relief

(Enter RADISHN’T, MOTHMAN MISATO, BOIMG FROG and CATS'N RAINCOATS, stage left. They are having a HEATED DISCUSSION.)

RADISHN’T: Prithee, which one of you had planned to tell

Of diff'rent flavours gained by simple act

Of brewing tea with water hot, not cold?

MOTHMAN: Egad! you poured the water cold? Wherefore?!

FROG: An answer from you, Radish, I must beg.

RADISHN’T: Indeed I did, dear friends - why does this shock?

Without the guide of others I assumed

That heat was merely added for the sake

Of expediting this solution’s brewing!

Half a decade I have spent, or more,

Not questioning this worldview I had made.

In fact, I am myself a bit surprised

That you might think that I, your dearest friend,

Might have a patience of sufficient stock

To wait until a pot of water boils.

FROG: Three minutes overtaxes patience so?

The microwave will beep when it is done!

CATS'N: My friend, this answer vexes me the more!

Can it be true that thou dost boil by nuke?!

FROG: Are you in turn, my friend, so shocked to know

That I have not the patience, like our Root,

To boil upon the stove our favour’d drink?

CATS'N: It takes less than a minute!

FROG: On what plate?

Perhaps your dinner cooks atop the sun?

CATS'N: How long can take your stove to fill the task

Of boiling but a single cup alone?

FROG: In minutes?

CATS'N: Yes!

FROG: I counted seven, once.

CATS'N: Perhaps you ought to have your timepiece checked!

If on a middle heat you place the cup

You soon will have the scalding drink you crave.

Two minutes, in a mug upon the plate

Or even less, if you should have a pot.

FROG: You cause me tears - is this how thou dost live?

You place upon the iron stove a mug?

A mug, ceramic, filled with water cold?

How do these flames, though medium in height,

Not shatter like a glass this fragile thing?

Surely, then, your kitchen is bewitched

With magicks far beyond the mortal ken!

(The FOUR realise they have wandered into the THRONE ROOM. The ROYAL COURT watches with fascination.)

KING: Ev'ry single person in this group must be a fucking lunatic, it seems.

I’m sorry but the THOUGHT that has been put into this, I actually CAN’T—

The fact that nearly every line is so metrically considered- near perfect iambic pentameter witb the occasional trochee for emphasis, but usually retaining a strong sense of rhythm nonetheless. And then the king comes in at the end, so wound in his disbelief that his response is reduced to prose.

And the even better thing about this is how easy it would have been to structure the king’s line into iambic pentameter: it is effectively already said as such because of the way wizardlyghost has phrased it, yet they haven’t!! They did not break the line, rendering what, by all typically of both Shakespearean canon and other periods context should be the character with the most command and authority in the whole play. If there was ever a more effective way to convey a genuine “what the fuck??”, I know of it not.

But it gets better!! Shakespeare regularly uses meter in order to represent class divide; the nobility usually speak in iambic pentameter, save for a few particularly chosen moments (e.g. Lady Macbeth’s descent into madness, Othello’s realisation of Desdemona’s “betrayal”) or just lines where Shakespeare needs to suggest high emotion or when a character is lost in thought. Supernatural characters like the fairies in A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Witches in Macbeth usually speak in trochaic tetrameter, an inversion of iambic pentameter. Lower class characters, particularly those used for comic relief (usually under the influence of alcohol), speak with no structure at all: their language is plain prose. Therefore, if this is a conversation between these types of characters, as the prompt from silvergirachi suggests, why the hell are the characters speaking so eloquently???

Now, this is Tumblr. It is subsequently logical to assume that this may have merely been a humorous recreation (and a very good one at that) of the Shakespearean style in a way that is widely recognisable to an audience that may or may not have read a great deal of Shakespeare, which is understandable. However, logic is boring so I’m going to probe further into this to the point where future historians will look to this as an example of overanalysing.

The inherent eloquence of the characters here suggests an unusual subversion of the roles typically assumed in Shakespearean comedy. This could be interpreted along two major avenues: firstly, that the rhetoric displayed by the speakers is fundamentally representative of how truth can be expected even from the most seemingly pointless or ludicrous discussions. Furthermore, it could suggest that it matters not how well constructed your speeches are: if you talk bullshit, it’s going to sound that way despite your attempts to hide it.

This is similar but not identical to the second avenue of interpretation: there is the implication that the noblemen in the play are in fact the comic relief characters, therefore implying that the “common people” of the play are the ones whose influence, though not expressed in such a highly spoken manner, makes a lot more sense than whatever the hell this is. If this was a real Shakespeare play, I would call it a subtle exploration into the innate corruption of the rich and powerful. Well done, op.

Now, I doubt any of this is actually grounded analysis in any way, shape or form, but if someone else can take this to the extremes of writing a Shakespearean scene, why can I not analyse it as such? And where else to do so than Tumblr?

im in tears i didnt think anyone would put this much analysis into this‚ thank you so much

do not talk to me i am angy

This is a jar full of major characters 

Actually it is a jar full of chocolate covered raisins on top of a dirty TV tray. But pretend the raisins are interesting and well rounded fictional characters with significant roles in their stories. 

We’re sharing these raisins at a party for Western Storytelling, so we get out two bowls. 

Then we start filling the bowls. And at first we only fill the one on the left. 

This doesn’t last forever though. Eventually we do start putting raisins in the bowl on the right. But for every raisin we put in the bowl on the right, we just keep adding to the bowl on the left. 

And the thing about these bowls is, they don’t ever reset. We don’t get to empty them and start over. While we might lose some raisins to lost records or the stories becoming unpopular, but we never get to just restart. So even when we start putting raisins in the bowl on the right, we’re still way behind from the bowl on the left. 

And time goes on and the bowl on the left gets raisins much faster than the bowl on the right. 

Until these are the bowls. 

Now you get to move and distribute more raisins. You can add raisins or take away raisins entirely, or you can move them from one bowl to the other. 

This is the bowl on the left. I might have changed the number of raisins from one picture to the next. Can you tell me, did I add or remove raisins? How many? Did I leave the number the same?

You can’t tell for certain, can you? Adding or removing a raisin over here doesn’t seem to make much of a change to this bowl. 

This is the bowl on the right. I might have changed the number of raisins from one picture to the next. Can you tell me, did I add or remove raisins? How many? Did I leave the number the same?

When there are so few raisins to start, any change made is really easy to spot, and makes a really significant difference. 

This is why it is bad, even despicable, to take a character who was originally a character of color and make them white. But why it can be positive to take a character who was originally white and make them a character of color.

The white characters bowl is already so full that any change in number is almost meaningless (and is bound to be undone in mere minutes anyway, with the amount of new story creation going on), while the characters of color bowl changes hugely with each addition or subtraction, and any subtraction is a major loss. 

This is also something to take in consideration when creating new characters. When you create a white character you have already, by the context of the larger culture, created a character with at least one feature that is not going to make a difference to the narratives at large. But every time you create a new character of color, you are changing something in our world. 

I mean, imagine your party guests arrive

Oh my god they are adorable!

And they see their bowls

But before you hand them out you look right into the little black girls’s eyes and take two of her seven raisins and put them in the little white girl’s bowl.

I think she’d be totally justified in crying or leaving and yelling at you. Because how could you do that to a little girl? You were already giving the white girl so much more, and her so little, why would you do that? How could you justify yourself?

But on the other hand if you took two raisins from the white girl’s bowl and moved them over to the black girl’s bowl and the white girl looked at her bowl still full to the brim and decided your moving those raisins was unfair and she stomped and cried and yelled, well then she is a spoiled and entitled brat. 

And if you are adding new raisins, it seems more important to add them to the bowl on the right. I mean, even if we added the both bowls at the same speed from now on (and we don’t) it would still take a long time before the numbers got big enough to make the difference we’ve already established insignificant. 

And that’s the difference between whitewashing POC characters and making previously white characters POC. And that’s why every time a character’s race is ambiguous and we make them white, we’ve lost an opportunity.

*goes off to eat her chocolate covered raisins, which are no longer metaphors just snacks*

Sometimes people are just soooo close to getting it.

Check out accidentally left wing on twitter it’s gold

same energy

also check out r/SelfAwareWolves

the loveliest meowing of them all

A BABY

[a wonderful milkmaiden]: Mrrmeow? [the milkmaiden]: Mrrpmeow? [an entity of the shadow]: (emerges from the shade) [the delightful maiden]:Mrrp? [the entity] ]: (bravely breaks the boundary of the shadow, bravely impeaches it and passes the border of the realm of light in order to be joined with the brave milkmaiden.) [the entity]: (A high-pitched “mmrp!” of delight) [the wonderful milkmaiden]: (She decides that this footage is sufficient. The camera man is instantly murdered upon impact.)

I still recommend turning your sound on for this, but the transcription above is really accurate.