dirtyriver
“Orbitsville, man !”
I’m sure most of you are familiar with that splash panel (or some edit), but you’ve got to read the whole story to fully appreciate Frank Doyle’s weird wit.
Betty and Veronica in “Take Me to your Leader”, written by Frank Doyle, art by Dan DeCarlo (pencils) and Rudy Lapick (inks)
Archie’s Girls Betty and Veronica #68, August 1961
aplacebothwonderfulandstrange
slimyswampghost
The factory is just metal and piles of brick now, but it’s still a real bad place. Cars break down on that lane. People have gone missing. It’s a desolate place, just the wind and the horizon. Some people say they’ve seen groups of people out there, standing among the brickwork.
audscratprophetlilith
abomination-of-gender
sat through a lecture on paleolithic and neolithic culture and society and all i can think abt is how from as early as there have been anatomically modern humans (and even before in some cases) there is archaelogical evidence of gender and sexual variance, caring for the elderly and disabled, a drive to make art and music, a powerful affection for animals and each other, and a desire to learn as much as possible about the world as we can and yet people will still insist these things are not human nature and therefore unnatural, that the things we consider to be essentially human in nature are very recent in the span of our history or felt by only a rare few and not something integral to our humanity and success as a collective whole.
the more we study and analyse history the more we learn what it means to be human, all the good and all the bad, the closer we come to understanding that many things people have considered to be weaknesses of character, illnesses of the person, or meaningless in the face of our mortality are functionally necessary to our humanity and cannot be erased or ignored
moralesja
The lasting impression of California that I had from living there is that most people there absolutely hate homeless ppl. You could go to almost any community meeting across the state & listen to how they would express they would call homeless ppl all sorts of dehumanizing names. These same residents would they go on to use homeless people as a prop to demonstrate their performative good will.
This is more than the population’s treatment of only homelessness. It more so demonstrates how the general population in California views the vulnerable and marginalized, as commodities and props. Things to use rather than people in need of long-term aid.
Social change and social justice are both performance in the end. No new business, non-profit, ideas, or processes conceptualized will address root issues in society. There is a massive shift in ethics that will be required of the population before any “change” happens. There is no justice when capital investments (including houses) are prioritized over human lives.
bethaliceart
Glitterkitty is finally finished!! She is so rainbowy :D Acrylic Paint on Stretched Canvas.
emptymanuscript
thereallieutenantcommanderdata
Maybe misusing the name of God isn’t so much about saying the shallow words, “Oh my God,” as it is about using the name of God to justify discrimination, oppression, injustice, racism, slavery, xenophobia, poverty, sexism, islamophobia, ableism, homophobia, war, & the list can go on.
Absolutely.
This actually matches really well with the definition of “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” that my father gave me when I was a kid.
He told me that the third commandment was violated by the claim that God agreed with you or thought the same way that you did. It must always be the other way around: you must seek to understand God’s will and seek to do God’s work. And the greatest violation of the commandment is when someone dares to get up in a pulpit or on a soapbox and declare that they speak with God’s intent.
When a random man on the street says, “God hates X,” he uses God’s name in vain because no man can speak for God. And he dares to blame God for the failings of his own heart.
Or when a man of influece, Bob Jones Sr., speaks against miscegenation and says, “You cannot run over God’s plan and God’s established order without having trouble. God never meant to have one race. It was not His purpose at all. God has a purpose for each race.” This is a great violation of the commandment because he pretends to know God’s plan and purpose which is infinite and beyond human comprehension. He, merely human, has claimed to know the ineffable mind of God. And, like the man who says hate clearly instead of burying it, he dares to give to God the cruel divisions he wants but cannot actually justify.
You can say “Goddamn it” all you want. But never speak for God. God has not appointed you that task. Never pretend you understand God. God is to be studied in the hopes for wisdom but to think any finite person can fully understand the infinite means you have failed to understand even the small pieces you have studied. And above all, never claim that God hates what you hate. That is not God speaking to you. That is you projecting the cruelty you can’t defend onto God.
moralesja
cyclideon
If we can’t break out of this idea that all our problems are due to Bad People™, we’re never going to succeed. That’s the same kind of logic that goes into anti-semitism, Islamophobia, and other prejudices.
We target systems, relations, and institutions – not individuals.
emptymanuscript
the-cardboard-constructionist
follow @the-movemnt
don’t be poor 😔 buy a house! 😜 live in it 🔥👌🏻❤️
Ben I’m going to need to see you test that theory out extensively.
OKAY THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS. I AM NOT SAYING HE IS RIGHT, BECAUSE HE ISN’T, BUT HE IS NOT THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY THIS AND HE WILL NOT BE THE LAST.
In the 1960s, sociologist Oscar Lewis proposed the culture of poverty thesis (1), which states that IN THE PRESENCE OF SYSTEMIC SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BARRIERS TO SUCCESS, people who live in poverty develop a mentality and lifestyle in REACTION TO THOSE SYSTEMIC CONDITIONS.
This mentality includes instant gratification (spend money on what you need now because you don’t know when you’ll get money again), dejection (because generations’ worth of hard work have not been enough to get you out of poverty), anger (because how fucking hard should it be to get out of poverty in the goddamned ‘land of opportunity’), and rebellion (if I play by the rules and I’m STILL fucked, then fuck you, I’m throwing out the rules and doing what I want with my life).
THIS HAS BEEN OBSERVED. People who are faced with intergenerational barriers react to those barriers, because IT IS VERY HARD NOT TO REACT TO THINGS. Obviously, not everyone who experiences poverty reacts the same way, but intergenerational poverty tends to result in similar mentalities. Please note that in the US, a significant portion of intergenerational poverty is experienced by Black people, because as a nation we are still very much experiencing the effects of slavery, particularly in the form of residential segregation (2).
The thesis THEN goes on to say that EVENTUALLY, THIS MENTALITY CAN BECOME AN INDEPENDENT FACTOR OF POVERTY.
This is true, but THIS IS ALSO WHERE LITERALLY EVERYONE GETS IT WRONG.
Since the publication of this thesis, people have routinely ignored the first tenet and only focused on the second, and use it as a way to blame poor people for their poverty. So let’s compare:
What the thesis actually says: long-term structural barriers prevent certain groups of people from rising out of poverty. In response to long-term poverty, these people adopt certain habits, attitudes, and beliefs that affect how they interact with the economy. If the structural barriers remain in place, these adjusted mindsets can themselves become a barrier.
What people THINK the thesis says: poor people are poor because they have bad values.
THIS IS INCREDIBLY RACIALIZED. A very common term you hear thrown about is “defective culture.” Poor people are poor because they have a “defective culture.” Black people are often poor, therefore they have a “defective culture.” “Black culture is a defective culture.”
And then suddenly you have a bunch of white assholes running around, blaming Black ppl for their own poverty while simultaneous justifying their own fucked up beliefs about white superiority, and backing it up with “”“sociological evidence.”“”
THIS IS WRONG.
If you want to quote the culture of poverty thesis, you NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF STRUCTURAL BARRIERS. These include residential segregation (especially redlining, and the historical practice of concentrating Black communities in areas of deteriorating industry and unhealthy environments), hiring discrimination (a white man with a felony record is more likely to get hired than an otherwise identical Black man WITHOUT criminal record) (3), and the paradox of educational requirements (you need a good job to get out of poverty, but to get a good job you need a college education, but to get a college education you need to be able to pay for college, but you’re literally living paycheck to paycheck and can’t save any money because you need every goddamn cent because you’re living in POVERTY).
Who imposed (and maintain) these barriers?
🎊WHITE PEOPLE!!!🎊
But not just any white people!
🎉🎊WHITE PEOPLE WITH POLITICAL POWER!!!🎊🎉
But wait - which white people have political power?
👏🏻🎉🎊THE ONES WHO CAN AFFORD THE EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE AND EXPENSES REQUIRED TO RUN FOR POLITICAL OFFICE!!!!!🎊🎉👏🏻
So who’s to blame for the poverty of Black people?
🙌🏻👏🏻🎉🎊RICH WHITE PEOPLE (who are often but not exclusively men)!!!🎊🎉👏🏻🙌🏻
and that is how you do sociology thank you and good night
(1) “Culture of Poverty Thesis” by Oscar Lewis
(2) “American Apartheid” by Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton
(3) “Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment” by Devah Pager, Bruce Western, and Bart Bonikowski
DAMN YOU JUST SLAMAJAMMED THAT TALKING POINT.
danismm
gypsyastronaut
