Artemis

I'm a bisexual anti-capitalist, artist, & aspiring propagandist. We're not free until we're *all* free.

Guillermo del Toro fan account. Anarchist pep-talks are provided free of charge. Solidarity forever!

Profile pic & banner are images of GI Robot from Creature Commandos

#nobot

Location: In your dreams
Pronouns: she/her, they/them

Public Key

npub1hpk989vztnk8wg536j7zyld778nf8jd96j6u95hw95xq98ah8dmsum88gd

NIP-05 Address

artemis_at_dice.camp@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqstsmznjkp9emrhy2gaf0pz0kl0re5nexjafdwz6thz6rqzn7mnkacpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsgn3wfd

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1hpk989vztnk8wg536j7zyld778nf8jd96j6u95hw95xq98ah8dmsum88gd

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-24 17:31:56 UTC

- reply

Most political candidates are NOT running to represent you.
They aren't even running to pretend to represent you while actually representing the interests of others.
They are running to represent the interests of donors & lobbyists while trying to avoid even having to HEAR from the people they are supposed to be representatives of.
They will not listen even to give you a blow-off response. They don't acknowledge any responsibility to you at all.

2026-08-24 17:31:55 UTC

- reply

Next person who tells me "vote blue no matter who" better explain to me why these "blue" candidates won't respond to even the simplest questions from their would-be constituents, because I cannot possibly believe they have any intention of fighting for us in *any way at all* if they can't even pretend to care what people want or trouble themselves to respond to basic questions.

2026-08-24 17:05:08 UTC

- reply

My theory is basically that if a major party candidate is running a campaign for high-level office, & they are NOT running a populist campaign based on meeting & talking to people, their campaigns will be unresponsive to any requests/questions from ordinary people.
This theory will probably end up getting refined. Maybe SOME people's campaigns will respond—at which point we could ask what the difference is.
Again, I don't consider this activism. This is data-collection.

2026-08-24 17:00:13 UTC

- reply

I'm going to find some more campaigns to reach out to, because this does look to be standard. Let me know if there is a candidate in your area you'd like me to try (only Democratic or Republican candidates for federal office or high-level state positions, please. I want to test major candidates for major parties).
I'm not doing this because I think I can make them change. I'm doing this to confirm that these campaigns are impenetrable to ordinary people expressing concerns/asking questions.

2026-08-24 17:00:13 UTC

- reply

I've wondered whether it's helpful to sound hostile, but I've decided to let them know when I attempt contact now that I am literally telling everyone I know that the David Crowley campaign responds to no one & encouraging other people to try it & see for themselves, & the only way to make me stop telling people this is to respond.

2026-08-24 17:00:12 UTC

- reply

I'm trying the "persistent widow" tactic on this, because at this point I want to know if it is even possible to drag a response out of Crowley's campaign to *anything*.
I sent an email to Wis Dems & got a response after sending a follow-up. They gave me the non-functioning contact info for the Crowley campaign, so I wrote back & said "thanks, but that doesn't work. Have you tried calling that number? The voicemail greeting isn't set up. Do you have the real contact info for the campaign?"

2026-08-24 17:00:12 UTC

- reply

At this point in the data-gathering process, I'm trying to find WHETHER there is a limit that can be reached that will earn a response.
My money is on "no." I do not think there will ever be a response, but I am trying to *prove* it.
Of course, there is a possibility that in October, they'll suddenly be interested in outreach, so I'll have to wait & see.

2026-08-24 17:00:12 UTC

- reply

(persistent widow being reference to a parable of Jesus that describes a woman getting justice from an unjust judge because she simply wouldn't fucking give up & leave him alone)
Left a voicemail & sent a letter to Wis Dems saying "I'm deeply concerned that the Democratic ticket's top candidate in this state is completely unresponsive to questions" & wrote a second letter to the Crowley campaign.

2026-08-24 15:47:38 UTC

You know, it doesn't seem like good news for the David Crowley campaign that he is using the same campaign manager the Wisconsin campaign manager for Harris/Walz used in 2024.

2026-08-21 12:49:24 UTC

Fuck it. Why not? Let's reach out to the state Democratic party & say that I have been trying to ask the campaign for their top-of-the-ticket candidate David Crowley why I should vote for him & I've been looking for open campaign events so I could hear his message in person, but I can't get responses or find events, so maybe they can help me.
I assume if I get any response at all it will be "you should ask the Crowley campaign" even though I said that I already did repeatedly.

2026-08-21 06:07:02 UTC

- reply

Rage is an important stage in revolution, isn't it? Sometimes for change to happen, people have to be boiling over, unable to tolerate anymore.
The pressure on us to just submit without complaint is so damn high. They have us all scared, clinging on for our lives. Meanwhile, they shut us out so they don't even have to listen to us rage.
But at some point, we're all going to be more mad than scared, & that's when life is going to get really interesting.

2026-08-21 05:54:17 UTC

- reply

It's not that I think there's some way that getting fucking mad as hell is going to magically fix something, but I do think being mad as hell is a rational state of mind at the moment. I can't think of any reasons not to be mad as hell.

2026-08-21 04:05:02 UTC

- reply

The least we can do is divest from THEIR interests.
We should not be fucking worrying ourselves about how the greedy bloodsuckers (that we think we MIGHT rather have win an election) will look if we say something bad about them.
Why would we fucking become their propagandists? They can PAY for those. Don't do it for goddamn free.

2026-08-21 03:57:15 UTC

- reply

Here's the difference between now & 10 years ago: we're dealing with 10 years worth of data on what happens when we sit down & shut up so that the "blue" candidate can get elected: nothing fucking good.
I'm not even talking about how you should VOTE here. I'm saying it's good & healthy to fucking screaming at these bastards instead of trying to shut down anything bad anyone has to say about them. Make THEM do the campaigning for once. Make THEM convince people they are worth supporting.

2026-08-21 03:54:01 UTC

- reply

We are supposed to fall in line after the primaries. Those are the RULES they have laid out for us: "you can have your fun in the primaries, but during general election season you better be working YOUR ass off to get US elected."
That's just how it works. They threaten people, then people shut up.
Or that's how it WORKED. I'm not sure it lands the same way right now.

2026-08-21 03:49:41 UTC

- reply

Dems are running on an old playbook this year too. They are still trying to play the "be scared of MAGA" card even though every goddamn time we handed them power to do anything about it, they refused to.
I kind of wonder if they are floundering & confused as to why we aren't playing Charlie Brown to their Lucy with a football.

2026-08-21 03:14:38 UTC

- reply

Because like I said, I would go yell at this guy for fun. Just because I want to. Because I'm mad. Not because I hold out hope I can make him become something good. Just because I'm fucking mad.
It would be like going to a concert, except I wouldn't have to pay for tickets.
If he would hold an event, that is.

2026-08-21 03:10:31 UTC

- reply

People are so fucking mad right now. Just in general. At everything. If politicians gave us opportunities to scream at them, we would take them.
These are ghost campaigns. They have no physical presence.
There were open Crowley events BEFORE the primary, mind you. BEFORE he became the candidate to demand change from. Now though, people have good reason to show up & scream, & he's not posting any open to the public events.

2026-08-21 03:03:05 UTC

- reply

But yeah, the more that I think about it, the more I think that the Crowley campaign has probably been slammed with people yelling at them ever since last Wednesday, so they aren't even trying to respond. They are just ignoring it.
I mean, it would fit. A lot of people are really fucking mad, & they have no intention of addressing it, because they do not want to open that door. So people are going to stay mad & uh... we'll see how that works out for them.

2026-08-21 02:48:33 UTC

- reply

It literally is just like how you can never get a fucking thing from "customer service" anymore, just applied to political campaigns. The whole thing is structured around avoiding people. They go out & do "events" hosted by friendly organizations so that they can post pictures on their Facebook & say they are "campaigning". They will send you a thousand texts asking for donations, but they won't fucking even answer a goddamn email.

2026-08-21 02:41:05 UTC

- reply

It's not the David Crowley campaign, is it? It's every goddamn campaign. They won't talk to people. They won't come out where people are
No one wants to be screamed at.

2026-08-21 00:09:19 UTC

Spouse has suggested an alternative to my "no one works for the David Crowley campaign" hypothesis.
He asked "what if they are just absolutely overwhelmed by angry Hong voters right now?"
That would explain the lack of campaign events. I HAVE been looking for them because I would soooo go to one, which means there are probably other Hong voters thinking the same thing.

2026-08-20 12:41:55 UTC

- reply

I decided I'm going to wait until Tuesday for responses from the County Executive & County Supervisor's offices, since I emailed them with a kind of gnarly question. I'll give them a moment to get back to me.
But if I don't hear back by Tuesday, I guess I'm calling their offices.
I'm so baffled by this. If journalists around here did any fucking work at all, this question would already have been raised.

2026-08-20 12:03:11 UTC

I'm still reeling from the realization that Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley appears to be using a guy who is employed by Milwaukee County as a "Communications Director" as the spokesperson for his campaign for governor.
I reached out by email last night to the County Executive's office & to my representative on the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, but now I have to wait for a response, & I'm bad at waiting.

2026-08-18 19:37:00 UTC

- reply

The Crowley campaign does have an active social media presence though that doesn't mean that a staffer works on it every day. They could be using a post scheduler & setting up a bunch at once.
In any case, I'll be damned if I sign into Facebook just to message a political campaign, but based on other contact attempts: I'm not convinced anyone is monitoring & responding to their email inboxes or voicemail currently.
I'm so fucking curious about this now.

2026-08-18 16:56:18 UTC

RE: https://dice.camp/@artemis/117117502903469131
This is jaw dropping. This guy is the Democratic nominee for Governor of Wisconsin who just barely squeaked out a victory against a Democratic Socialist candidate last week.
The phone number on his campaign website is a Google Voice number where the voicemail hasn't even been set up with a customized message or even a name.
He was running on the idea that he's the only one who can beat the Republican, but his campaign hasn't even set up their phone properly.
#note1eh7…nq6y

2026-08-18 16:41:12 UTC

- reply

If you call the phone number on David Crowley's campaign site it just says that the "Google subscriber" for the phone number is unavailable & to leave a message. No one is running this campaign.
He is going to fucking lose. He is going to fucking lose & blame it on everyone but himself & his mismanaged campaign.

2026-08-18 16:25:45 UTC

- reply

Out of fucking curiosity as to what would happen, I have reached out to the campaign by email a couple times to ask "when & how do you intend to convince me that I should vote for you?" with no response.

2026-08-18 16:19:05 UTC

- reply

Mainline Dems are basically openly acknowledging it's a hostage situation at this point.
"No, we don't intend to represent you. Now support us & deliver us a victory."

2026-08-18 16:16:50 UTC

- reply

All he's running on is "'we' must beat the Republican," & that word 'we' is doing a lot of work when he's made it abundantly clear he has no desire to represent the further left & more "populist" sides of the electorate.
I don't know why I keep getting fundraising messages that say "we" when his victory speech after the primary made it clear that he doesn't think the voices of the people who didn't vote for him count for anything.
The fucking audacity to say "we" after excluding us.

2026-08-18 16:07:53 UTC

Spouse & I have been receiving daily fundraising messages from the David Crowley campaign (Democratic candidate for Wisconsin Governor) since the primary last week.
They told everyone to vote for the useless candidate instead of the one with actual plans to do good shit for the state because supposedly the useless candidate can win.
Now they are contacting people who voted for something better & they aren't even asking for our votes. They ASSUME they have our votes & are demanding our cash.

2026-08-18 13:24:24 UTC

- reply

I have always wondered what it would be like if Star Wars ACTUALLY focused on the practicalities & realities of rebellion, & Andor finally answered those questions.
It resulted in something with a great deal more depth & insight than George Lucas's original space opera romp.
I highly recommend this show. The story has power. You can learn some new ways of looking at things that seem familiar.

2026-08-18 13:03:15 UTC

I feel like Andor is an example of a show where the politics of the show are perhaps better & more radical than the politics of the people making it thanks to the artistic dedication that went into giving it a sense of realism (although I think Diego Luna shows a high level of awareness & intentionality in how he talks about the show).

2026-08-12 17:00:01 UTC

- reply

Is it compromise if you're ALWAYS the one not getting what you want?
Isn't that surrender?
"It's a tough choice, but I had to vote for the person the news told me could win."
So where was the choice? At what point in the process did you feel you had power over the outcome? You didn't, did you?
You felt fucking trapped the whole time, which is really fucking confusing because your vote is supposed to be your choice, your power, your ability to influence things in the direction they should go.

2026-08-12 17:00:00 UTC

- reply

During the general election they say that primaries are the right time to vote for what you want, but then when primaries actually roll around they tell you that you can't vote for what you want because they are so, so sure that what you want will lose (& they are so, so very trustworthy).
The purpose of a system is what it does, & the purpose of this system is to withhold choice from you while making you feel like you did something.

2026-08-12 16:52:52 UTC

Seriously, at what point in the election process do Democrats believe people get to have THEIR say & make THEIR choice?
According to the messaging I've been hearing here for the last month or 2: primaries are for making sure the safest bet—the most "electable" person—gets the party nomination. And the general election is for beating "the other side."
So where is the choice? When are we allowed to choose? They keep telling us that we never do.

2026-08-12 12:45:39 UTC

- reply

In capitalism, the only real way to challenge power is to SHUT DOWN PROFIT.

2026-08-12 10:58:50 UTC

Woke up this morning feeling glad that I don't believe that elections are the most important thing.
But Jesus, the narratives they are spinning about a race that was decided by about 3,000 votes (0.4% of total votes) are ridiculous. Ah yes, this means progressivism isn't viable.
Apparently it's all about respectability, & a "progressive Democratic activist" tells Politico that Sanders & AOC are glad they stayed away & didn't endorse because who would want to have endorsed someone who lost?

2026-08-11 16:58:02 UTC

- reply

It took me a long time to understand that the term "virtue signaling" has some value (although I still think it's too tainted for use), because I had mostly seen accusations of "virtue signaling" lobbed by alt right assholes at anyone who has principles.
But I have come to realize that a lot of liberal folks are very, very into virtue signaling. It's all they do. They don't think of the opinions they espouse as morally important. They are COSTUMES for some people.

2026-08-11 15:48:05 UTC

- reply

This is an existential struggle for establishment Democrats.
They are lying to you when they tell you that their rightward bent is to win voters.
It is to win donors & to continue to enjoy the personal perks of corruption.
They don't want left-wing Democrats because actually leftist candidates won't cozy up to corporations & billionaires, which is where the money comes from.
Establishment Democrats are fighting for themselves, not you. They are using you to obtain power & money.

2026-08-11 15:42:43 UTC

- reply

So that's how I know those "centrists" aren't serious about needing Republican votes to win.
Their strategy completely ignores the people who actually are feeling disaffected, angry, & betrayed by the Republican party. Despite saying that they need to win Republican voters, they won't actually try to appeal to the ones who MIGHT actually be movable.
Those are the voters who are extremely distrustful of "politics as usual", yet all the Democratic establishment wants is politics as usual.

2026-08-11 15:38:35 UTC

- reply

If you actually wanted to shave off voters from Republicans, you would target the people who feel disenfranchised & betrayed by politicians who *promised* that they were on their side & then went & made a fortune in stocks & crypto while destroying their own voters' quality of life.
This whole "leaning rightward" thing is not calculated to win those people over, even though that is OBVIOUSLY the weak spot in the Republican voting base. Offering more of the status quo isn't fucking appealing.

2026-08-11 15:29:29 UTC

- reply

According to the "we have to win over Republicans" people, Chuck Schumer "should" be waaaaay less threatening to those voters than Bernie is.
The theory is that people who vote Republican will feel more comfortable with the Chuck Schumers of the world. But they clearly aren't.
They see Schumer & (correctly) clock him as a self-interested fraud. But some of them see Sanders or Mamdani & actually find them likable & believable.

2026-08-11 15:14:39 UTC

- reply

Someone replied to this with the fictional idea that Democrats must win over Republican voters, & um... One of my questions is HOW?
How does a Democrat win over Republican voters? What can they offer that would not only get that person to decide NOT to vote Republican but ALSO get them to come out & vote Democrat?
What is there to offer that would make that happen? Being "not as scary" as actually left-wing Democrats won't get someone to cross party lines & vote for you.

2026-08-11 12:54:52 UTC

- reply

It's bad logic. The one thing doesn't follow from the other.
The mere presence of Republican voters doesn't tell you *anything* about what Democratic voters want.
You can't just say "it's a 'purple' state so left-wing candidates can't win," because that is conflating separate things.
I don't know what will happen in the general election. Literally nobody does. I can tell you though: Democrats need Democratic voters to like the candidate. Republicans won't be voting for them.

2026-08-11 12:01:44 UTC

Wisconsin residents, one last time: today is Primary day. Take a moment out of your day & cast a vote for Francesca Hong for the Democratic nominee for governor.
It's worth a shot.
#Wisconsin #WisconsinPolitics

2026-08-10 16:04:26 UTC

Sometimes the same people who are telling you to "vote blue no matter who" are the ones who make it pretty clear that if a Democratic Socialist wins the Democratic primary, they do NOT intend to come out & vote for them.
"I don't think they are electable."
This is because you won't vote for them, huh?
"They're too extreme!"
Ah. So you feel entitled to everyone's vote when the candidate is a right-wing Democrat, but when the candidate actually leans left, you want nothing to do with them?

2026-08-05 16:52:44 UTC

- reply

The Who song "My Generation" is fucking hilarious to me, because it is perennial. Any young person can listen to that song & fucking relate despite the fact it was released 60 years ago. 😂

2026-08-05 16:49:30 UTC

- reply

I do think it is important how we interact with each other in this area:
It can be very discouraging to young people to feel like they are being told they are ignorant & useless by people showing up to say "well, *I've* known this for decades," as if a 20 year old should be ashamed that they are learning something for the 1st time.
But you will also see "shut up, older person. What do you know? That was then, this is now." This is now, sure, but you can learn some shit from what happened THEN.

2026-08-05 16:49:30 UTC

- reply

As a Millennial, I got a front row seat to a feverish performance of "young people today suck at everything". Being angry about "kids today" is a tale as old as time, but it still isn't fucking helpful.
I try really fucking hard not to reflexively pass judgement on people younger than me for behavior or attitudes I simply don't understand. I don't think it does anything good to get mad at younger people for being shaped by & responding to a world so different from what you yourself experienced.

2026-08-05 16:34:21 UTC

- reply

I've got no patience for anyone who despises people either for their youth or their advanced age.
Sure, you should decide if a person is worthy of your respect or not. But if you're an old hand at resistance, you've got to put some trust in youthful people & fucking hear them. They are the future.
If you're young, you've got to learn from people & expand your knowledge-base & perspective: you haven't had TIME yet to collect a wealth of knowledge. Other people can shorten the process for you.

2026-08-05 16:28:30 UTC

- reply

Likewise, you shouldn't be required to "respect your elders" for easily-abused bullshit social hierarchy reasons, but you should respect what they have learned & the perspective they can share.
Knowledge is a collective endeavor. We need each other. The average human lifespan is well under a century, so if we don't learn from each other, we won't be able to move forward. It's too short a timeframe. We have to carry forward knowledge from the past AND continue innovating & learning.

2026-08-05 16:00:04 UTC

- reply

That's what I'm finding amazing about my 30s: I don't feel like additional perspective invalidates my past. Saying "I can see it better now" doesn't mean I was just fucking around & didn't know shit.
The only reason I can see it better now is that I went through all that time of learning & growth. It's nothing to be arrogant about. It's literally just a stage of life & development that depends on everything that came before.
Given the organic nature of humans, we need to embrace this process.

2026-08-05 15:55:03 UTC

- reply

Humans are born, age, & then die. Endless cycle. Same thing again & again.
The best thing we can do with that is share our knowledge & experience with each other.
You're going to die some day, so you better HOPE that the youth do have some knowledge & understanding. The world doesn't die with you. It goes on. We go on. We keep reaching for better futures. It takes all of us all of our lives.
Getting arrogant like you know it all doesn't move us forward. There is always something new to learn.

2026-08-05 15:52:02 UTC

- reply

There is power in the fact that we ARE shaped by our specific experiences & circumstances.
Generational infighting misses the point: there is value in the memory of how things were. There is value in having experience with tactics of resistance. There is also value in the intimate knowledge of the present moment which younger people seem to have. The immediacy of it. There is value in those at my point in life: enough perspective & education to start to build bigger mental pictures than before.

2026-08-05 15:52:02 UTC

- reply

I have mutuals on here who are old hands at resistance to authoritarianism & capitalistic power structures.
While Trump/MAGA & the global popularization of open fascism taught me as a young adult that all this shit is very real & present, I wasn't exactly learning anything "new", but we ARE in a new stage of it.
Something can be both very old & familiar AND brand-spanking-new at the same time. The oppression isn't new, but the world keeps changing.

2026-08-05 15:40:50 UTC

- reply

I did not expect the world to look like this.
I no longer long for the "simpler times" I once imagined I might enjoy if the rise of Trump & his cronies had not destroyed my chance.
The "simpler times" got us here. The violence, the bigotry, the exploitation, & the control... They all contribute to the current authoritarian crisis. I don't want to ignore it all & pass the problem to a future generation. I want it to fucking stop already.
I don't want decency & decorum. I want liberation.

2026-08-05 15:34:11 UTC

- reply

The thing I didn't understand as a child was that all the mechanism for abuse, injustice, & fucking genocide were already built into the power structures of our society. I didn't yet know that the fascism was already here: quiet, bureaucratic, & largely hidden from the eyes of the middle class whites.
I certainly didn't have context for previous times, such as the Civil Rights movement, when much of the country WAS engulfed in turmoil.
Some things have gotten clearer in recent years.

2026-08-05 15:28:44 UTC

- reply

It's sort of weird, taking a look at myself as a person existing at a specific time facing this global crisis.
As a child, I had a habitual thought experiment asking myself whether I would actually hide someone from the Gestapo if I were in Nazi Germany. I thought it was a self-indulgent thought because some part of me didn't believe that I still lived in that same world, where that kind of shit really happens. It felt self-aggrandizing, but it turns out it was actually an important question.

2026-08-05 15:28:44 UTC

I reached adulthood at the Dawn of MAGA (graduated college in 2014), so it's interesting being in my mid 30s now realizing that my life has become defined by the necessity of resisting authoritarianism.
When Trump first got elected, we all talked about how much it sucks to live in "interesting times" (& it does), but I had no idea how watching this particular authoritarian takeover take place over this past decade would determine who I am & what I believe in.

2026-08-05 15:28:44 UTC

- reply

The scenario is very cliche, but the mental practice of hoping & praying that I would have moral courage in the face of authoritarian injustice turns out to have been more important than I had any idea.
I wasn't expecting my adulthood to be defined by the need to resist fascism, but I was raised to be patriotic, so it's safe to say I didn't "get it" yet.

2026-08-05 13:50:49 UTC

- reply

You need to get comfortable with breaking the rules.
Obviously you should make good choices & consider what the consequences of your actions will be.
But there are a surprising number of forms of disobedience for which there won't necessarily be any major direct consequences. We live in authoritarian bureaucracies: not everything you disobey will be a law. A lot of it is rules & procedures that nobody really knows why they are there in the first place & there is no enforcement mechanism).

2026-08-05 13:43:56 UTC

- reply

God. I just love it when someone displaces their discomfort with a thing onto the people they consider "less privileged".
"No, really, it's my concern for THEM that makes me a rule follower."
Nah.

2026-08-05 13:41:34 UTC

- reply

You disagree? You don't believe that marginalized communities regularly practice disobedience towards the oppressive systems they are being persecuted by?

2026-08-05 13:39:59 UTC

- reply

That's the point: obedience is what they need. So we're just going to obey? We're just going to say "well, they have the power to hurt us, so we'll do whatever they want."
If we make obedience our general practice, they will walk us to the gas chambers & politely ask us to get in.

2026-08-05 13:39:59 UTC

- reply

Middle class folks: let's not transpose OUR discomfort with disobedience onto the "less privileged". Let's not use the plight of the oppressed as an excuse for being rule followers.
It doesn't even make any fucking sense. "Don't tell people to disobey. The oppressor doesn't like it when you disobey."

2026-08-05 13:34:08 UTC

- reply

So let's be clear: when I tell you to disobey authority on the regular, it is not my own galaxy-brained idea, fresh out of my own head.
It is not a concept born from my privilege. It's something I'm learning from people who live it.
I mean...think about it. Ask Palestinians if they disobey. Ask poor Black folks. Ask unhoused people. Under oppression, disobedience is necessary.

2026-08-05 13:26:10 UTC

- reply

It's funny to be told "easy for you to say. Less privileged people might get in trouble," when my real concern with saying this shit is that someone might think that *I* am taking credit for the strategies of resistance that are just normal, everyday life for communities experienced with extreme oppression.

2026-08-05 13:19:48 UTC

- reply

If you live in a society that is trying to exterminate you, you disobey for survival. Constantly.
I'm the fucking middle class white lady telling you shit that communities of oppressed people already fucking know & live. I'm the one who isn't native to this type of disobedience. I'm the one who is still learning.
Boots Riley titled his recent film "I Love Boosters" to celebrate how "Boosters" (shoplifters) lift up their poor communities by giving them access to things denied to them.

2026-08-05 13:15:23 UTC

- reply

Jesus. That IS what they meant. They think disobedience is a privilege.
Watch a Boots Riley movie, please. Fucking do something that will make you understand that poor, marginalized communities are fucking *experts* at disobedience.

2026-08-05 13:12:30 UTC

- reply

But you also seem to be making huuuge fucking assumptions about what I'm telling people they should do. You're inserting an instruction that people should do things that will materially harm them. I didn't say that. You added that.

2026-08-05 13:11:18 UTC

- reply

Disobedience is a common way that marginalized people resist their oppression on the daily. Disobedience is an essential part of survival in a world where the "authorities" would rather you didn't exist. Privileged folks are usually by far the most uncomfortable with casual, habitual disobedience.

2026-08-05 13:10:51 UTC

- reply

And I certainly won't be letting anyone make the claim that disobedience is a luxury for the privileged.
It is not. Disobedience is a common way that marginalized people resist their oppression on the daily. Disobedience is an essential part of survival in a world where the "authorities" would rather you didn't exist. Privileged folks are usually by far the most uncomfortable with casual, habitual disobedience.

2026-08-05 13:06:08 UTC

- reply

I just love when people get mad at something I wrote for things I didn't say.

2026-08-05 13:05:27 UTC

- reply

I think I already got my first reply from someone assuming that I'm telling people to go out & do shit that will get them thrown in jail.
I didn't fucking say that, now did I?
Y'all, if you're a grown adult, it's your own goddamn responsibility to make choices for yourself. I don't think I need to include the caveat that disobeying "authorities" often comes with consequences. That's literally WHY people are afraid to disobey.
I just said that you should practice the discipline of disobeying.

2026-08-05 12:57:01 UTC

- reply

Huh?

2026-08-05 12:56:40 UTC

- reply

Authoritarian followers are so fearful of everything that they desperately cling to authority figures who will "create order" by punishing disobedience & difference.
You don't want any part of that. You don't want to become a fearful rule-follower who abdicates their own moral responsibility & agency. Disobedience is a discipline. It's something you can practice & get good at.

2026-08-05 12:49:14 UTC

- reply

I highly recommend some disobedience today.
Authoritarianism is one of the most destructive forces I have ever seen, so it's important to practice disobedience & not be fearful. Make sure that you disobey at least a little today just to exercise the muscle.

2026-08-05 12:39:54 UTC

Something I love about the "good people disobey bad laws" pin I have on my purse is that if someone sees it & gets offended by what they believe I'm trying to say, they can't argue with me about it.
It would be very hard to get far in a conversation trying to make the case that "good people should obey bad laws".
I think it's a good mental seed to plant. It's not telling anyone what to do. It's just gently pointing out that disobedience is a virtue sometimes.

2026-07-29 12:10:41 UTC

- reply

The problem is not necessarily inherent to people but comes from attitudes about driving that are competitive, which is the real problem, imo.
I don't think driving has to be competitive. I think car culture needlessly encourages that competitiveness, but changing that culture is a much bigger problem than just the zipper merge.

2026-07-29 11:36:42 UTC

I kind of want to start a national advertising campaign to teach people why they should zipper merge where the lane ends, not get over a mile beforehand.
A lot of people think it's "rude" to go all the way up to the end & merge when traffic is backed up, but not using all lanes is *why* traffic gets so backed up in those scenarios.
Use all lanes until the lane ends. Then cars in the lane being merged with should take turns. This creates a better traffic flow.

2026-07-28 21:02:03 UTC

- reply

You know, I've found with talking about my own life, mental health, & emotional struggles that the more specific I am to my experience, the more likely someone is to tell me that something I wrote was significant or meaningful in a very personal way to them.
I do not think avoiding specificity makes something universally accessible. It frequently means that you're creating something that can't really speak to anyone. There's a paradox here: it's the specificity that speaks clearly to people.

2026-07-28 20:55:10 UTC

- reply

I don't just interact with art for pleasure, though I certainly take a lot of pleasure in things like excellent films.
I depend on art to help me with the difficult process of expanding my understanding of the world which surrounds me & the way in which people experience it.
That requires specificity & authenticity, more so even than artistic skill (as important as that can be).

2026-07-28 20:47:21 UTC

- reply

Give me something to gnaw on! I'm not watching a 3 hour movie because I wanted something that will go down easy!
If I'm giving you 3 hours of my time, the least you could do is show me something specific which you have noticed about the world.

2026-07-28 20:43:54 UTC

- reply

That gets at part of why I am so critical of Nolan. Art is one of the best methods available to us to encounter & integrate new or more detailed perspectives. We can see the world through other people's eyes for a moment & they can show us what *they* noticed.
So when I'm watching a film by a supposed auteur, & I can't find anything that is genuinely new or surprising to me, it just makes me feel like something is missing. There's supposed to be input here. There's supposed to be a viewpoint.

2026-07-28 20:35:44 UTC

- reply

It is absolutely imperative that you don't get caught in an internal mental loop. It is vital that you receive new inputs that aren't just your own thoughts/intuitions repeated back to you.
We can never really get outside of our own heads, but we can expand our understanding so that we become *less* reductive in our thinking. You desperately need the insights of other people. I desperately need the insights of other people. Broadening our perspective is part of our path to a better world

2026-07-28 20:35:43 UTC

- reply

If you really want to think deeply, one of the most important things to do is to open yourself up to the perspectives, knowledge, & experiences of others.
Input is essential. Our brains are very powerful tools, but too often we get lost within our own thinking. Our thinking becomes reductive. We begin to mistake the boundaries of our own minds for the boundaries of knowledge & experience.

2026-07-28 20:19:40 UTC

- reply

I think I may still have my notebook I used to take to church conferences floating around somewhere. It would probably be kind of horrifying to look at all the "wisdom" & "insights" I wrote down from the various sermons & lectures.
I filled lots of notebooks with religious gobbledygook as told to me by Very Serious Men & wrote a lot of essays in highschool & college rife with the same. It's "truthiness" at its finest, but it certainly occupied my brain while keeping me right where I was.

2026-07-28 19:19:07 UTC

- reply

That's why I think it matters whether a "serious" film supports its own premise or whether it relies on appealing to the pre-existing feelings of its audience: getting caught up in how good it feels to have your own thoughts "confirmed" is a fucking dangerous mental habit.
Sometimes it's "harmless" or even "a good message", but it can teach you to be satisfied & comfortable with whatever it is that you "know" & believe. You can come to feel that you don't need external input or reality-checks.

2026-07-28 19:11:35 UTC

- reply

Sometimes the pseudo-intellectual idea is something like "war bad" which I think most of us could agree with in some way, but sometimes it's entirely garbage to begin with, which will still be accepted as insight if it confirms what someone feels.

2026-07-28 19:11:35 UTC

- reply

In my religious circles growing up, people passed around "wisdom" about how important it was for men to be in charge, & since this conformed to what everyone was already conditioned to believe, it passed for a topic worthy of deep exploration, even though it's a bigoted idea based on nothing but the "logic" of patriarchy. It felt true, so it was true.
No one needed convincing. It was obviously a Deep, Important Truth.

2026-07-28 18:58:26 UTC

- reply

Some people convince you that they are a genius by making you feel like one.

2026-07-28 18:57:15 UTC

- reply

It feels smart precisely because of how comfortable & obvious it is. It confirms things you already feel, thoughts you've already had. We tend to feel ideas that agree with us are very, very deep indeed, so all Nolan has to do is go to the very basics of stuff that pretty much fucking everyone at least theoretically believes like War = Bad. Ironically if he were to go deeper with it fewer people would find it deep, because the film wouldn't function nearly so well as a mirror for the viewer.

2026-07-28 18:51:12 UTC

- reply

He doesn't have anything to *say* about guilt or regret. He doesn't have an insight on it. He doesn't have a new way of making you feel something about it either.
It's on you to take what you already know & make meaning out of that.
I complained about how bloodless & frictionless the movie is: Nolan isn't making you look at *anything* that you would rather not think about. No, he's keeping you right in your comfort zone, thinking thoughts you've already thought.

2026-07-28 18:47:26 UTC

- reply

So when Nolan supposedly makes a film about guilt & regret & how brutality destroys civilization, it may feel deep, but you already know that war is terrible. You already know that violence destroys the bonds that make it possible for us to cooperate as human beings.
You're not learning something from that nor are you forced to confront it through a visceral experience. You're having things you already know repeated to you, so that you can sort of inject *your own thoughts* back into the movie.

2026-07-28 18:33:49 UTC

- reply

Pseudo-intellectualism is perhaps not "thought-terminating." It does something more subtle. It is "thought-repeating" or "thought-containing." It turns your brain power in on itself, looping endlessly, wasting your time & energy in pointless sophism.
It feels stimulating because the wheels in your brain are turning, but you never arrive anywhere. You stay right where you are.

2026-07-28 18:29:36 UTC

- reply

Pseudo-intellectualism feels real. It feels deep. But it feels that way because it appeals to what you already think.
It says that all you need to do to be a deep thinker is to go round & round in your own head. You don't need data. You don't need to understand other people's lived realities. "Really it's all inside you," it promises, "Aren't you so clever?"

2026-07-28 18:26:47 UTC

- reply

Shallow intellectualism is like a fly trap. You get stuck to it & then you're just there, trapped in inanity, always "thinking" but never learning.
Usually this pseudo-intellectualism makes you feel smart by quietly suggesting things you probably already think or feel. It's not the newness of ideas that draw you in, it's not the complexity of thought. It's that it "feels right". You contemplate things you already know & have already felt. You get stuck in loops of confirmation bias.

2026-07-28 18:06:06 UTC

- reply

I have a very strong reaction to that. I feel the need to expose what I believe to be the emptiness within because truly, I hate it.
To me, it represents repression & control disguised as deep thinking. Making people believe your paper-thin ideas have real substance doesn't feel harmless to me.
I've seen people's whose *entire lives* (70+ years) were consumed by trying to plumb the depths of extremely silly notions that are based on nothing & have no real applications.

2026-07-28 17:59:19 UTC

Part of the reason that pseudo-intellectuals like Chris Nolan bother me so much is that I was raised in a subculture absolutely brimming with them.
I didn't grow up in "don't think, just feel evangelicalism". I grew up on the "intellectual" side of Christian conservatism, & that involves a whole lot of men constantly posturing, speaking profound-sounding inanities that I was taught to think were terribly deep & insightful. That left me very sour on shallow people being hailed as deep.