HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Soph0571 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

Soph0571

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: UK
Home country: UK
Current location: UK
Member since: Fri Oct 13, 2017, 06:59 PM
Number of posts: 8,929

About Me

I am a Brit. I am a working class child of the troubles in Belfast who now lives a life of privilege. I am an anti-racist, progressive monster for truth. If I fail in being that monster, call me out....

Journal Archives

Hehe - there is a certain logic attached



Nice

The Trump Organization Planned To Give Vladimir Putin The $50 Million Penthouse In Trump Tower...

....Moscow

President Donald Trump’s company planned to give a $50 million penthouse at Trump Tower Moscow to Russian President Vladimir Putin as the company negotiated the luxury real estate development during the 2016 campaign, according to four people, one of them the originator of the plan.

Two US law enforcement officials told BuzzFeed News that Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer at the time, discussed the idea with a representative of Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary.


[link:https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/anthonycormier/the-trump-organization-planned-to-give-vladimir-putin-the?bftwnews=&utm_term=4ldqpgc&ref=hpsplash|

Oh My

EPIC Rant re Brexit



[link:https://www.facebook.com/mike.harding.10/posts/10156911807128383|

THIS X 1000

Trump just offered a revolting defense of the claim that Rod Rosenstein 'belongs behind bars' --

demonstrating his authoritarian instincts

But when the New York Post interviewed Trump Wednesday, he didn’t distance himself from supporting the image and the idea that Rosenstein should be locked up.

“He should have never picked a special counsel,” Trump told the Post when asked why Rosenstein should be behind bars.

This was, of course, a preposterous explanation. There’s nothing illegal about appointing a special counsel — Rosenstein has the authority under the law. There’s certainly nothing treasonous about it. Importantly, when Mueller was first appointed, even many Republicans and allies of the president praised the pick, viewing the former FBI director as a reliable and upstanding public servant. These allies of the president only started criticizing Mueller when it became clear that Trump was at serious risk of being caught in a crime.

But aside from the specifics of the tweet, everyone should object to the fact that the president has become completely comfortable with demanding that people he disagrees with politically should be locked in prison under the thinnest of pretenses. It’s a disturbing and dangerous habit that he has acclimated his followers to and encouraged them to embrace. Even once Trump is gone, they may demand it of future GOP leaders, and the country could slouch toward authoritarianism.


[link:https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/trump-just-offered-revolting-defense-claim-rod-rosenstein-belongs-behind-bars-demonstrating-authoritarian-instincts/|

Has democracy ever been at bigger risk that at this moment in time?

Margaret Atwood reveals a sequel to 'The Handmaid's Tale' will be released next year, inspired by...

....modern America and women's disdain for Donald Trump

Praise be - Margaret Atwood is writing a sequel to her best-selling novel 'The Handmaid's Tale'.

'The Testaments', which was inspired by modern America and a certain president, is slated to be published September 10, 2019.

In a statement released Wednesday, the Canadian author wrote: 'Dear Readers, everything you've ever asked me about Gilead and its inner workings is the inspiration for this book.

'Well, almost everything! The other inspiration is the world we've been living in.'
----
'The Testaments' will be set 15 years after original narrator Offred's final scene in 'The Handmaid's Tale' and will rely on three narrators.

Atwood said the new book will not be connected to the Emmy-winning Hulu adaptation of Handmaid's, which continued beyond where the book left off in its second season.

While the press release didn't specifically mention the president, it noted how 'The Handmaid's Tale' had become 'a symbol of the movement against him, standing for female empowerment and resistance in the face of misogyny and the rolling back of women's rights around the world'.


Praise be - I reckon Sarah Saunders will be an Aunt Lydia!!!

White Privilege is a thing. Reverse racism is not a thing. Not even a little bit.

Inspired by an article that I wrote today about reparations:

If anyone tries to challenge any racist behaviour by anyone anywhere they just have to jump in and wail about the injustice of it all. Any challenge to their racism has to be met with a group of generally white, generally male, generally middle aged or older calling out the caller out as racist. Just look at the entire republican field - they understand that by accusing people of playing the race card it will stop them challenging their own racist behaviours, their own dog whistles and their own pathetic attempts to appeal to a far right racist base of true nutters – those who actually want a race war. Every time they call out an anti-racist as playing a race card for not accepting their racist bullshit remember that this is what they are doing. They are pandering to a far right fascist racist co-hort – a vote that no normal person would seek to win.

Let us all remember that the vast majority of sentinel human beings understand that reverse racism is not real. The white privilege crowd choose not to understand that racism at its heart is about supremacy and power. Without power you cannot have racism within any real definition of the term. Couple that with the "if you call me racist that makes you the real bigot" shtick and the right wing racists really has an effective power play in trying to shut down the conversation. You have to hand it to them. It is a white privilege pincer movement to shut down any challenge to their world view. Their contradictory and hypocritical position relies on an almost impressive level of arrogance combined with ignorance: it demands that not only you not be offended by the racist comment or deed perpetuated against you, in addition, even though they hate when you challenge their behaviours or take offence at their narrative, they are allowed to be offended that you have the nerve to take offence. Challenging a person who is shrouded in white privilege causes division, apparently.

In the real world, however, it is pretty simple. White Privilege is a thing. Reverse racism is not a thing. Not even a little bit.

Why should God need HELL?



For people of faith God is omnipotent, right? Well, if you believe that God is omnipotent then why would he need to create the fiery inferno of internal damnation, commonly referred to as hell?

The definition of omnipotent, courtesy of Oxford Dictionaries on line is as follows:
(Of a deity) having unlimited power:God is described as omnipotent and benevolent

Surely it is not unreasonable to make the logical leap that an omnipotent God, ergo one with unlimited power, would excel at persuading a soul to accept and atone and see the error of their ways, get the thumbs up to enter the pearly gates.

God is all powerful, yes? Surely if he only wanted believers, he could easily have only created believers. Therefore, why did he take the time and energy to create non-believers? Just to send them to hell? That does not make sense. On the other hand if he chose to make both believers and non-believers as part of humanities rich tapestry of delights, it is surely, therefore, all part of the all-powerful all seeing plan of an omnipotent God, and there would no need for a God made Hell?

If we look at it from a different perspective, if God’s omnipotence has limits placed upon it, which is an oxymoron I know, and cannot influence philosophies or perceptions of the soul, then surely any logic to banishment of the soul to eternal damnation would serve no purpose. By definition such a punishment would logically be considered immoral and as God is a moral God, by all definitions of faith, that is something he would not do.

So, if God has the power to make us all believers to save us from hell, surely he should do so. If he chooses not to exercise that power then punishing us for something he has the power to change, must be construed as an unjust punishment. If God is a just God then he would never mete out an unjust punishment, therefore there is no need for a God made Hell. Yes?


Library with plaque honoring Michelle Obama attacked by Trump-loving vandals

[div class="excerpt"According to a report in the Washington Post, a “Little Free Library” bearing a plaque honoring former First Lady Michelle Obama has been continuously under attack by Trump-loving vandals.

The reports states that the library, set up outside at home at 16th and Q streets in Northwest Washington, D.C. since early 2017, has had its glass broken and the name “Trump” scrawled upon it.
------
According to Maureen Dolan-Galaviz, who erected the library, she can’t understand why anyone would vandalize the library which bears the plaque stating, “In Honor of Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama. Lawyer, writer, and First Lady of the United States.”

“Who would do that?” Dolan-Galaviz said in an interview. “If there is one thing that should be off limits it’s the idea that we all deserve access to books.”

[link:https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/library-plaque-honoring-michelle-obama-attacked-trump-loving-vandals/|

Books?!?! we don't need no stinking books!
Racist illiterate fuckers

Karma is a beautiful thing.... hehe



Ouch!!!!!

*Chortle*

When will they realise that loss of advantage is not the same as a loss of equality?

Evaluating how tolerant a liberal society must be of the intolerant is one of the thorny issues of our age. Many on the religious right are extremely excised about our failure to tolerate their intolerance. They warn of a future where religion will be a dirty little secret, hidden away from the intolerant liberal utopia of freedom and equality for all but them! They feel victimised, persecuted and beaten up (figuratively) because of their ‘Christian’ beliefs.

Why all the angst? What is so horrible about the future that has the religious right foaming at the mouth? The Gay, of course. Reproductive Justice, of course. Equality for all, under the law, of course. Within the never-ending hyperbole there has yet to be any recognition that of course no-one will be forcing anyone to enter into a same sex marriage. No-one will be forcing anyone to undergo an abortion against their will. However, within the liberal construct of the 21st century, people are demanding a fair playing field. To the religious right this is perceived as an oppression of their belief system, rather than what it is, the loss of a systemic and sustained, century’s long, advantage. As they fight to retain their right to dominate, as we will no longer tolerate their intolerance, the shock waves shuddering through the religious right are being felt by all of us. The last gasp?

What the religious right has failed to grasp is that loss of advantage does not mean loss of equality. A community does not become MORE intolerant when we ensure that people cannot be discriminated against based on colour, race, religion, sexuality or gender. The religious right, of course still have the right to practice their beliefs in any way they see fit, they, however, should not have the power to impose their belief systems on the wider legal framework anymore. Even as they fight to stay in power, they are losing the advantage…. at least one can only hope…
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »