"And how should I presume?"

The unsophisticated ramblings of an unenlightened twenty-something who hopes to, one day, change the world.

Cast of characters:

The Anna to my Elsa (and tag)
The Michael to my Wendy Darling (and tag)
The Wash to my Zoe (and tag)
The John to my Sherlock
The Keladry to my Alanna
The Mal to my Zoe

This Journal Is QUILTBAG Positive

This Journal Is Sex Work Positive

This Journal Is Body Positive

This Journal Is Positive

Posts I Like
Folks I Follow
Posts tagged "rant"








Be aware. Heterosexuals exist. They are hiding among us. You may already know a few without even realizing it. 

Be cautious friends, do not let your guard down. 


Heterosexuals are on the loose. 

I cannot believe this is an actual thing. xD

Wait, no. Tell me this is a joke. There’s not really a “heterosexual awareness month” is there?

There is. There is a logo and everything.

What the actual fuck?

We live in a society in which heterosexuality is assumed.  The whole world is designed for heterosexuals and the rest of us have a closet. We ‘come out’ of the ‘closet’ into the heterosexual world.

I can’t even cope with the ridiculous and insulting notion that there’s people so threatened by the fact that other sexualities exist that they had to come up with ‘heterosexual awareness.’


It’s funny that this is the first time hearing anything about this….. when did making fun of straight people become the “in” thing? Oh some idiot decided to do something stupid, let’s demonize all the fucking straight people in the world. what the fuck is wrong with you people. When will you realize hating straight people won’t end hate against gay/bi/trans people? How bout we stop making fun of people because they’re different? Hm?

This is not “making fun of people because they’re different.” This is “making fun of people who abuse us, deny us rights, deny us homes and healthcare and jobs, demand that we include them in the spaces that we had to fight for ourselves, and then have the absolute gall to complain that they’re being criticized for doing those things.”




The trope of lady warriors with loose, flowing hair bothers me so much. Completely fucking impractical and unrealistic.

You’re as likely to choke your own damn self when executing Matrix-style somersaults if those tresses are flying around…

because sex appeal can’t be used as a weapon….riiiiiiight. pretty sure female assassins use their sex appeal all the damn time to close in on targets.

its psychological warfare for christ sake.

also pretty sure no body even did matrix style somersaults in a real fight. back flips are cool to look at but leave you way to open.

plus in a sword fight long hair could be used to obscure your opponents vision. kind of like how a cap masks how large your body is to avoid being hit.

there are plenty of practical uses for long hair in a fight. and really, if your get your hair pulled on you weren’t doing a good enough job of dodging in the first place.

Oh, joy, the cleavage stun defense again.

Question: do you, or have you ever, had very long hair? Because I’m pretty sure if you did you would know that you can’t use it to “obscure your opponent’s vision” ffs


If Johnlock isn’t endgame, S3 makes literally, actually NO SENSE. 

Johnlock is the only thread pulling that insanity, that uneven garbage, that completely OOC behaviour, together. 

There’s no reason for the 7 minute mind palace sequence, all centered around Sherlock making himself live FOR JOHN. 

There’s no reason to show Mary IN HER WEDDING GOWN shooting Sherlock. 

There’s no reason to have lines like: “We weren’t the first, you know, Sherlock.”, and “The two people I love most in the world.”, and “I like my doctors clean shaven.”, and “All the nice girls like a soldier.” - I could go on. 

There’s no reason to have the elephant in the room case. 

No reason to have Mycroft make that OH HOLY SHIT face when Sherlock asks for a moment alone with John.

The hand holding/hand shake…

I MEAN, OH MY GOD. This entire series was really about them being in love with each other. The whole thing. We didn’t even have cases. There was barely a plot. We just spent 370 minutes watching two people desperately in love with each other try to sort their shit out and fail miserably. 

That was the whole series. I don’t even know what to say anymore. If Johnlock isn’t the endgame here, Mofftiss really fucked their shit up. 


See, this is the problem with queerbaiting. With any other plot device we’d expect to have it ultimately pay off in some way.

Like, let’s say a show had a character who constantly carried a briefcase and yet insisted that there was nothing in it. Every episode referenced the fact that he carries a briefcase, and multiple episodes had him almost sacrificing his life to save the briefcase from getting stepped on or stolen or what have you (which of course would make viewers wonder, why would he bother to do so if it was, as he insisted, an empty briefcase?). But then the writers came out and said, no, the briefcase was empty the whole time, and everyone who thought otherwise was just silly. That would be considered really shitty writing, wouldn’t it? People would ask why they bothered to have all that setup when there was zero resolution for it, and they would be right to ask.

The thing is, plot-relevant things need a PURPOSE. They need a reason to be there. It’s all well and good to have funny little references here and there for color - that’s why Shout Outs exist - but if your entire plot revolves around something that you insist isn’t there, that’s not funny anymore, that’s creating a black hole for your writing when you could have a star.

This is the problem with queerbaiting. Even if you’re the sort of person who thinks that queerbaiting is valid media representation (it isn’t), it’s BAD WRITING. And if you think bad writing is preferable to actually writing queer main characters, then you are a coward.

(via johix)

Asker Anonymous Asks:
talking about monosexism isn't a way to cover up hate for gay/lesbian ppl but like thanks for using an important talking point as a way to cover up your hate for bisexuals lol
bemusedlybespectacled bemusedlybespectacled Said:



like, here is the thing. the suffix “-ism” implies and unequal power balance, and that gay and lesbian people are the oppressors of bi/pan/poly/sexual people. like in heterosexism, straight people have power over people who are not straight. by calling it “monosexism” you are saying that there is systemic power and privilege that results from being lesbian or gay. that’s pretty fucked up and wrong.

and yeah, you probably hate gay people lol

I wasn’t aware that Justin hated me, this is news.

Except there is privilege given to gay people that isn’t given to bisexual/etc. people. Bisexual people are less likely to be out, suffer the same things that gay people do but at greater rates (homelessness and thoughts of suicide being just two), are carefully erased from history (including by gay activists claiming them for their own), and are denied the same resources as gay people. (source)

Bisexual people are being left behind by the movement, and that’s not just the fault of straight people, that’s the fault of gay people who also exclude, also deny the existence of, also marginalize and silence bisexual people. And yes, that’s oppression! And if you have the power to oppress, I don’t know what the fuck you want to call it, but it sounds a lot like privilege to me.










note the fedora


This is so awful. But at the same time if a man never says anything even remotely sexually suggestive to a woman he’s interested in, she’ll assume he’s not interested in her at all.

If you seriously think that this message is even remotely in the same ballpark as an appropriate expression of sexual interest, then I don’t even know what to say to you.

(Also, no: surprisingly, there are other ways of expressing interest that do not include making sexually suggestive comments.)

I’m so sorry, I’m that stupid bugger who knows nothing of human sexuality and hates themselves for it. So my opinion has no basis in fact. 

But you stated your opinion as a fact. Dude, seriously, if you don’t understand it, that’s your job to learn it, and until then you should probably not enter discussions about things you don’t understand, because what you said is majorly not okay.

I apologize for stating it as fact, it comes from observations and talking to my friends about my lack of sexual desire towards them. But why should I remain ignorant rather than ask questions and learn something new like what you’re teaching me right now?

"Entering a discussion about things you do not understand and touting your ill-informed opinion as fact" is not the same thing as "asking questions about things you don’t understand in order to learn." Are you deliberately being obtuse here?

I could have worded my opinion better I do admit that but its not like I expressly stated it as a fact and then proceed to cite the Wikipedia article or anything like that.

No, you just made a statement without any qualifiers which just so happened to defend an obvious creep. At this point I don’t care why you said it, because the fact that you are apologizing for the wrong things and arguing schematics with me is rather telling.



Fucking kinksters and this “aftercare” mess. No, really, not EVERYONE engages in “aftercare” because not EVERYONE has to beat their partner or traumatize them in order to get off, and if you do, you’re fucking sick.

Like stop insisting that your violent lifestyle is normal by trying to make it ~relateable~ to healthy relationships. No, actually, cuddling and talking after sex ISN’T AFTERCARE. I fucking KNOW what aftercare is, I’m experienced, and it’s not even remotely the same.

So, no, not “everyone” does it. People in unhealthy relationships do. Stop trying to fucking normalize violence.

People who are too fucking dense to tell the difference between aftercare and emotional bonding after sex are the worst.. #smh 

Cuddling and talking after sex isn’t aftercare? Guess I’m doing this whole masochist thing wrong, then, because that’s what I do for my aftercare. Occasionally I might get a glass of water, because I get thirsty after sex.

Don’t fucking try to save me if I didn’t ask to be saved.

(via 20863)

To be perfectly honest, I prefer calling male feminists… male feminists.

I mean, I understand why some feminists think they should be called feminist allies or whatever, but:

  1. Straight allies are called “allies” because they themselves are not queer. Saying that male feminists should call themselves allies makes it sound a) like all feminists are female and b) all females are feminists, which is patently false.
  2. That’s a problem, because unlike straight allies (or white allies or neurotypical allies or other things I’m not qualified to talk about), issues of feminism affect all genders. It doesn’t affect men to the same degree (hence “feminism”), but it still affects them. My not being murdered because of my orientation does not affect straight people. Femininity not being considered lesser doesn’t just affect women, but everyone, including people who don’t ID as women, including cis men.

I agree that men shouldn’t enter women’s safe spaces, nor should they dominate discussions of feminism (as I said before, it affects them, but not nearly to the same degree). In many ways men should behave like allies, in that they shouldn’t speak over more experienced voices and use their privilege when they can to call out other men.

But I hesitate to call them allies. It just rubs me the wrong way.


More USA politics rant under the cut.

Read More

No, not only the French have revolutions, but they do get a lot more political clout for their protests than we do.

Over all, there won’t be any change if you don’t work for it. And the people who hold the power in your country will never listen to you if you don’t make them listen.

We vote. We have petitions. We have marches and protests. What more do you want us to do?

The government in my country learned decades ago, that it you don’t mess with the people you reign over.

Brilliant. Not every country is your country.

Illigalizing the crossed out swastika? The people put stickers with a tripple crossed out swastika everywhere until the law was revoked (I personally was part of this, btw.)

Here is a map of Germany superimposed over a map of Arizona. Here is a map of the United States with Arizona highlighted, for reference. Your “everywhere” is not our “everywhere.”

Trying to illigalize so called “killer-games” (usually first person shooter). The gamers all over the country set up petitions and demonstrated in front of the government buildings till we got what we wanted. Today, many many games that where doubed illigal here are now ligalized again (such as the first Doom).

Again, “all over the country” for you is the size of one state for us. Could you get the entirety of Europe to agree on one subject? No? Then why do you expect all of America to do something?

Setting up college fees? Students blocked all paths around the universities and refused to study till the fee was revoked.

Students at UC Davis had a protest a couple years ago to protest rising school fees (that’s right, rising: in America, we don’t have free or reduced-priced college fees. Higher education has always been the realm of the rich and privileged). They were pepper-sprayed while sitting down.

Splitting the country in half? The people tore down the wall.

After… thirty years or so, wasn’t it? It’s not like it was torn down immediately.

True, the USA is not germany, there are many cultural differences, but in the end, all people are the same. The USA are not North Korea or China, where the people are not allowed to speak up without the fear of being executed.

One does not need to live in a dictatorship to experience a systemic loss in power.

The people in the USA are free and have a voice. The leaders just need to hear it.

And they shut their ears and refuse to listen. They say things like “the louder they scream, the more we know we are getting something done.” They willfully ignore statistics, facts, and the will of the people. They deliberately manipulate laws to prevent people from voting. What more do you expect us to do when the people in power actively prevent us from making any effective change?







"A patriarchy is where men control 100% of positions of power. A matriarchy is where men control anything less than that."

- MRA logic

So then how are countries where women can vote patriarchies?

Because the point was that both those definitions were wrong, and that giving women some modicum of power doesn’t immediately make a society matriarchal, or even non-patriarchal.

some medium of power? What power do men have that women don’t?

Would you like the list alphabetically or categorically?

Categorically please.


  • Women’s contributions to science are repeatedly ignored or plagiarized.
  • Women only represent 4.4% of both Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies.
  • Women still, on average, make 77 cents to men’s dollar, and that’s not factoring in women of color, who make substantially less than that.
  • Women are expected to either give up their careers to become mothers, or do both work and family raising. Men do not have this expectation and their masculinity is not called into question if they do not put in an equal effort in raising the kids. There are few if any articles discussing “can men have it all?” the way there are for women.


  • In some states, a woman may be kept on life support against her wishes for the sake of a fetus.
  • In some states, a woman may be jailed if she suffers a miscarriage.
  • A man’s health decisions are not subject to religious or moral criticisms.
  • There is no masculine equivalent for slut shaming.
  • If a man is disagreed with for his values or politics, it is unlikely that he will be criticized based on his physical appearance or his supposed number of sexual partners.


  • In 2013, women only made up 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors.
  • When women have representation, it is primarily in the form of a skinny white woman who functions as the love interest.


  • Men face significantly less sexual harassment than women, whether in the workplace, online, or on the street.
  • Women are taught that their chance of being raped depends largely on their own actions, as if rapists were rain and the chances of getting wet depended on whether or not you brought the right umbrella. Men do not experience this culture.
  • A man need not worry if dressing appropriately for the weather will somehow indicate that he is sexually available, nor will he be told that the amount of skin he is showing is distracting.

This is the short list, by the way. I could go on. My point is this: women having the right to vote is not the end-all, be-all for women’s rights. And women still have significantly less power than men. Going “but having the right to vote means it isn’t a patriarchy!” is ludicrous.

Asker Anonymous Asks:
The stupid thing about that candy quote is that it a) assumes all men owe all women some kind of invisible debt and b) assumes feminism isn't actually trying to make female privilege more of a reality than it already is
bemusedlybespectacled bemusedlybespectacled Said:



Women receive 60% percent of jail time compared to men that do the exact same crimes.

Male circumcision is still legal even though the “health benefits” have been disproved.

98% of work related death are of men.

Domestic violence is around equal to men and women but there aren’t ANY shelters or support groups specifically designed for men

There are no legal penalties for falsely accusing a man of rape. Even if the man goes to jail or was harmed due to people hearing about the rape and taking action for themselves.

Alimony, child support, and custody

Deaths by prostate cancer and breast cancer are almost equal but breast cancer research and treatment gets twice as much money.

Men have higher suicide rates


Can you please tell me how women are oppressed by the law and government structure?

Why yes, I can.

Women receive 60% percent of jail time compared to men that do the exact same crimes.

There is a misogynistic notion that women are weak little flowers who could never do anything wrong because they are women, whereas men are violent and can’t control themselves. That’s not female privilege.

Male circumcision is still legal even though the “health benefits” have been disproved.

As much as I disapprove of male circumcision and would not allow it to be practiced on my children, I’ll believe that it’s a crime equal to that of FGM when male circumcision involves cutting most of the penis off and leaving on a stump for sexual intercourse.

98% of work related death are of men.

Actually, it’s 92%. And if you look at that link, you’ll see something interesting: women are more likely to die on the job as a result of a road accident or being murdered, and men are more likely to die of falling or contact with dangerous equipment or substances. That a gender thing only in that men are given different jobs than women (again, because of the idea that women are delicate flowers and men must do heavy labor).

Domestic violence is around equal to men and women but there aren’t ANY shelters or support groups specifically designed for men

Excuse me? It’s true that men face fewer resources (as well as patriarchal ideals of masculinity that make it harder for them to seek help because they’re supposed to be strong), but that there are zero resources is not true. Oh, look. Another one

There are no legal penalties for falsely accusing a man of rape. Even if the man goes to jail or was harmed due to people hearing about the rape and taking action for themselves.

This is bullshit. Falsely accusing someone of a crime is a serious legal offense and can fall under (among other things) perjury and filing a false report.

Alimony, child support, and custody

Women are more likely to be awarded alimony and child support due to the outdated, misogynistic family model that says that women are best suited to raise children and men are best suited to support children financially. Custody tends to be awarded to women because women are more likely to ask for custody in the first place. It’s not “men and women both ask for custody and the woman is awarded it more often,” it’s “women ask for it more often, so they get it more often.”

Deaths by prostate cancer and breast cancer are almost equal but breast cancer research and treatment gets twice as much money.

And diarrheal diseases kill more frequently than either. Perhaps it’s because breast cancer research is funded with misogynistic campaigns like “save the ta-tas”?


Men have higher suicide rates

No, men have higher successful suicide rates. Women actually attempt suicide more often than men, but men tend to be more successful at killing themselves than women, probably because the methods they use differ (i.e. a man uses a gun and dies immediately, a woman tries to swallow Tylenol and gets her stomach pumped and is fine).




adoption should be the ONLY allowed alternative for unwanted pregnancy/parenthood. your undesired to raise a child YOU created does not give you the right to kill them at your will. 

If its in my body, that does give me the right bye.

It’s not a child until it has a brain, also I am not required to donate a kidney to a family member who would die without one, I have the right to keep my kidney and allow that person to die, similarly I can have a fetus removed from my body and allow it to die

I’d hate to put any child of mine into a system that is essentially a lottery, where if they win they get to join a loving family, and if they lose they are abandoned, abused, or simply fall victim to the dozens of tiny issues that come with adoption like wondering why their parents gave them up or not having a fully informed medical history. And this is coming from a middle-class white person: things get even more complicated when you factor in race, disability, and class, among other things.

And adoption still doesn’t deal with: babies that are the product of rape, stillborn babies, babies with deadly and incurable medical conditions such as anencephaly…

Basically what I’m saying is, adoption is not a magical solution for unwanted pregnancy, and if you think it is, you don’t know shit about adoption or unwanted pregnancy.

Asker Anonymous Asks:
You really stepped in it this morning. I have been marginalized, harassed, and lost great opportunities because I identify with the power exchange dynamic. Yet I couldn't possibly understand what it's like to not be able to be out for fear of my physical safety and employability or what it's like to lose people I care about because they can't be supportive. I couldn't possibly understand because it doesn't fit neatly in your acronym. Thank you for telling me my experiences don't matter.
bemusedlybespectacled bemusedlybespectacled Said:




That’s not what I was trying to do, and I’m sorry for hurting anyone. My point more than anything is that we don’t fit in an acronym. LGBT doesn’t work because it leaves people out, QUILTBAG even though it’s my personal favorite leaves people out, and many people don’t feel like GSM does it justice. I think all of our experiences matter, just that all of our experiences are different. Like I pointed out earlier: The thing about specific spaces is it’s supposed to be a safe space where you can be with people who share your struggle and your experiences. That can definitely be a grey area, but it’s important that we ask ourselves “do I share this struggle? What am I contributing by being in this group? Am I taking focus away from certain oppressed groups?”

Like as a DFAB trans* person I stick to safe spaces for trans* people in general or DFAB trans* people in particular. I’m not going to insert myself into DMAB trans* people’s spaces because that takes focus away from a group of trans people that are ignored and marginalized by our society. I’m also not going to talk over intersex people or put myself into intersex communities. There are communities for everyone, that’s a great tool that many people haven’t been able to use before.


lol, cishet thinks that having a fetish is comparable to being queer

I’m a trans lesbian with a heck of a lot of fetishes weirder than “switch,” (does that even count? y’all so vanilla) and i can tell you that none of them have been a stumbling block at any point in my life.

BOO HOO I’M OPPRESSED BECAUSE OF MY FETISHES I DESERVE A SPACE TOO yeah make your own goddamn space and PLEASE leave me out of it entirely?

as a kinky, pan, genderqueer trans dude i literally want 0 to do with the cishet kink community WHO SEEM TO THINK THAT THEY ARE WIDELY OPPRESSED because a) you aren’t oppressed for being kinky i know this because i and basically everyone i know are kinky and b) y’all have this idea that you know more about queerness than we do and deign to solve all of our problems with your kumbaya biological determinism bullshit. i have had it up to HERE (note that my hand is currently in space) with “you shouldn’t mark your gender as m if you’re bio female gender doesn’t matter in the kink community” and “i’m not homophobic for not wanting to have sex with you cause you’re queer” and “so you say you’re bi (i did not say i was bi btw) but i know you’re straight because i have a good gaydar now let me ram you up the ass faggot”

SERIOUSLY i’m done with cishet kinky people y’all DO NOT need a place in queer spaces because you’re literally the worst. you’re even worse than vanilla cishet people and that’s saying something because you know who’s in the “vanilla-ass chishet” category? rick perry. mitt romney.

stop it please i’m SO SO tired just stop i’m literally going to cry just stop stay away from the queer community forever and ever and go fuck yourselves you do not deserve to be included in queerness just fucking stop.

I’ve written on why I don’t support acronyms like GSM or GSD before, but let me reiterate the most important thing about this:


By which I mean: the Venn Diagram for queerness looks like this:

Not this:



is this person seriously suggesting that heterosexuality is not real

is this person honestly saying that all straight women (and, I would presume, bisexual women) are actually something else (I would presume this person thinks all women really should be lesbians, given a cursory reading of what I could find on Google Books)

I agree with her assertion that the patriarchy asserts that heterosexuality is the only acceptable and good orientation for women

and it is true that some women are pressured into behaving heterosexually because of homophobia (aka being in the closet)

but that doesn’t mean that all heterosexuality is because women are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome jesus christ

I actually think this is a really powerful quote that deserves a lot more reflection than you are giving it. I mean there are there are parts of it that aren’t true (for example I don’t like the universal condemnation of femininity, though ill admit it is a complex and multilayered issue), but I actually agree with the idea overall.

The thing is, I can accept that certain behaviors are normalized and held up as the only way someone can be. But someone behaving in that manner doesn’t mean that they have been forced to do it because of a threat of violence (which is what the book suggests).

The book says that things like heterosexuality are women duping themselves into thinking that what they want is to be straight, when really they are forced into being straight in order to please men. Women seek out “kind” men (and yes, the original has the sneer quotes) who they think will not be violent towards them and will protect them from other men’s violence. Graham is basically saying that heterosexuality is a subconscious “choice” (in that decisions under duress are not choices) between experiencing violence and pleasing men, and some end up experiencing violence anyway.

And while I can accept, as I said, some aspects of that argument. Yes, femininity (in women) and heterosexuality are considered “good,” and it’s no accident that typical femininity implies submissiveness. That is indeed a result of a patriarchal culture, and I am not disputing that.

However, this is straight-out saying that women have no agency, that their only choices are between violence and less violence (because remember, “kind” is in sneer quotes and “elements of rape can be found in sex occurring between even the most trusting and loving partners”).

I cannot abide by any feminist who says that she and she alone knows what’s best for women, what’s really happening to them, that she has broken out of the patriarchal miasma and sees how they’re oppressing themselves by doing such self-harming things like loving men. It really, really frustrates me. Being reduced to a victim who doesn’t know how awesome sex with ladies is and really would do much better to get my relationship needs from other women is really, really frustrating.

And I’m not even going into how this is a simplistic view of sexuality and gender relations, ignores atypical relationships and relationship structures, and ignores the many sexualities and orientations that are not part of the gender or sexuality binary.

is this person seriously suggesting that heterosexuality is not real

is this person honestly saying that all straight women (and, I would presume, bisexual women) are actually something else (I would presume this person thinks all women really should be lesbians, given a cursory reading of what I could find on Google Books)

I agree with her assertion that the patriarchy asserts that heterosexuality is the only acceptable and good orientation for women

and it is true that some women are pressured into behaving heterosexually because of homophobia (aka being in the closet)

but that doesn’t mean that all heterosexuality is because women are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome jesus christ

(via haleyth)

Because so few serving in politics have worn their country’s uniform, they have collectively forgotten how to put country before party and self-interest. They have forgotten a ‘cause greater than self,’ and they have lost the knowledge of how to make compromises for the good of the country. Without a history of sacrifice and service, they’ve turned politics into war.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, suggesting that we need to re-instate the draft because, as a country, we’ve lost our sense of self and sacrifice. “The costs would be huge,” he says. “But so would the benefits: overcoming growing social inequality without redistributing wealth; making future leaders, unlike today’s ‘chicken hawks,’ disinclined to send troops into combat without good reason; putting young Americans to work and giving them job and technology skills; and, above all, giving these young Americans a shared sense of patriotism and service to the country.”


(via shortformblog)

Yeah, this is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard yet. It’s almost up there with the nonsense neo-reactionaries spew(for my followers, look them up. They’re worse then libertarians and ancaps and that’s saying something) The lack of a draft didn’t cause the toxic strain of self-interest in the world, neoliberalism and capitalism did.

(via stoicmeditations)

What I find in situations that involve violence, people who have experienced it, when given the option of subjecting other people to it or not, tend to actually want people to experience it. You find this in people who continue hazing traditions because “it happened to me, now it’s my turn,” or in people who were bullied who think bullying “toughened” them, or in people who served in war who think everyone should.

Also, his premise that unjust or unnecessary wars would end if the draft was reinstated ignores who’s in politics (rich people), who tended to be given cushy assignments rather than serving on the front lines (drafted rich people), and how unnecessary and unjust wars still occurred even though the draft was a thing (see: Korea, Vietnam).

Also, anyone who proposes ending economic inequality without redistribution of wealth has zero idea of how wealth works.

Yeah, this guy’s a dick.

(via midgardmarxist)