HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » La Lioness Priyanka » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

La Lioness Priyanka

Profile Information

Name: Priyanka
Gender: Female
Hometown: NYC
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 8, 2003, 01:35 PM
Number of posts: 48,284

Journal Archives

Just to be clear, Garner was not killed due to taxation, he was killed because he was black

i am not sure what all these anti tax memes are, but taxes is not how and why he died. conflating the two is appropriate for worldnetdaily but not for DU.


Also just to clarify, i believe conflation occurs when you raise an unrelated issue into the middle of another issue. So for instance, talking about black on black crime in the middle of a conversation on racism, raising the issue of OJ when Warren was not indicted, and taxes when talking about Garner.

Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Thu Dec 4, 2014, 10:39 AM (49 replies)

You're not going to like me for saying this, but I am going to say it anyway

Words like rethuglican, floriduh, repukes, rapeublicans, utards etc. lower the quality of the debate we have, and make you sounds less than intelligent.

Also, using several of these 'words' makes the writing itself less clear.

Not sure why intelligent adults do it, but I really wish they would stop.





Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Mon Sep 15, 2014, 03:20 PM (231 replies)

A short rant about the need for victims to be perfect & react perfectly to violence and oppression

I am sick of hearing about how victims and victimized communities should react to violence and oppression. The reality is when faced with violence and oppression and constant discrimination, most of us break social mores. However, i really hate how much the media focuses on these 'riots' or 'looting' rather than what instigated these transgressions. Also, in my experience the media grossly exaggerates about how bad things are (remember, Katrina) when covering the transgressions of the victimized community.

I literally can't stand it.

Victims and victimized communities do not need to be perfect to have certain inalienable civil rights.


Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Wed Aug 13, 2014, 02:33 PM (74 replies)

I am the American left and I do not support fundamentalism in any religion.

Nor do I support the meaningless killing of people because of their religion/ethnicity.

It is not a love that dares not speak its name. It is mere consistency in my beliefs.

I also am not a fool and don't get taken in by pink-washing an issue.

I bet I am not the only one.
Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Fri Aug 8, 2014, 03:30 PM (74 replies)

Yes, acknowledging privilege is hard work.

It's difficult to admit that through no fault of our own necessarily, our race/gender/sexual orientation/sexual identity/religion/caste/ level of education gives us a certain access that we would necessarily not have had if we were members of that particular privileged category.

However, without knowing how your particular social group membership privileges you, it becomes impossible for you to see how others are equivalently oppressed by their group memberships.

For instance, I am queer but gender conforming, which means that on a daily basis I don't get harassed for being queer. However, my wife does.

To understand oppression, one needs to understand the opposite of oppression (privilege).

No one is seeking to make you 'confess' your privilege, but being aware of your privilege makes you more likely to understand how the lack of it effects other people.

It's really your choice whether or not you want to be defensive about this privilege, or understand how your privilege works in a society. However, I really doubt that you know better than the oppressed group how they should go about talking about their oppression.
Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Thu Feb 27, 2014, 04:25 PM (114 replies)

When a hate crime occurs against gays, we talk about homophobia immediately afterwards

When a hate crimes occurs against a transperson we talk about transphobia immediately afterwards.

When a gang rape happens in Delhi, we talk about endemic misogyny in India immediately afterwards.


So why is it that when a massacre with a gun occurs, if we discuss gun politics suddenly we are politicizing a tragedy or expressing glee about a tragedy?

Isn't the best way to deal with a tragedy, to deal with root causes of said tragedy? Why is this considered some evil form of gloating?


I think it's extremely convenient to label people callous and insensitive to shutdown a debate you don't want to have at any given time. Before, during and after a massacre with a gun.

Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Tue Sep 17, 2013, 04:54 PM (154 replies)

reposting in gd

Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Tue Jul 16, 2013, 10:48 AM (1 replies)

If you don't want people to call you a sociopath when you are dead

Then don't fucking be a sociopath when you are alive.

you dont want people to say you caused death, destruction and despair in your obituaries, then don't fucking cause these things when you are alive.

(and yes, this was bothering me enough to make another thread about it)

Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:38 PM (88 replies)

Is there a feminist reason to go to war?

I was reading some articles about Syria and the use of rape as a weapon of war in Syria, and wondering this.

I am usually quite opposed to war, but can we all just ignore this humanitarian crisis in Syria? Can we ignore what is clearly a crisis that is disproportionately affecting women?

Is allowing this to happen without any international interference ethical?

"With every war and major conflict, as an international community we say 'never again' to mass rape," said Nobel Laureate Jody Williams, who is co-chair of the International Campaign to Stop Rape & Gender Violence in Conflict. "Yet, in Syria, as countless women are again finding the war waged on their bodies--we are again standing by and wringing our hands."


http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/syria-has-a-massive-rape-crisis/274583/

Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Wed Apr 3, 2013, 01:07 PM (17 replies)

Why be afraid of an opinion you dislike?

It's an opinion. And worth arguing. Age of consent for girls varies like mad. Why be afraid of an opinion you dislike?


This logic is the dumbest on DU and here are the many reasons why

1. It is not brave to say things on the internet. Protected by anonymity with no threat of persecution or prosecution, there is nothing brave about saying anything. It would maybe be brave if you signed something with your real name, but unless you do, you're not being brave.

2. DU is a community. Communities monitor what they find is acceptable & not acceptable within that community.

3. DU by its raison d'Ítre blocks opinions that we disagree with. This is neither brave nor cowardly, it's just this sites mission. This website was formed to promote democrats and liberal-ish policies.

4. To dislike an opinion or find it morally reprehensible does not mean i fear it.

I really wish DU'ers who do not plan on abiding my this websites TOS or by upholding its standards in juries, stopped agreeing to being on a jury. If you cannot and will not delete posts that clearly violate the standards of this website, it is unethical to participate in its juries.

ON EDIT: i am not talking about just this juror but a group of people who essentially make this statement on various juries
Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:53 PM (35 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »