ReadFanon

I don't appear to be able to view the alt-text of images in any way on my mobile device, outside of viewing the raw text of a post/comment, but it's okay because I don't need to view the alt-text so it's no big deal for me.

I just need to know what I'm supposed to do with alt-text in links—and now I do—so that's the important part.

Of course this doesn't actually display correctly in my phone browser either but that's okay, I know to add accessibility text into that part of the link so I'll do my best to remember to from here on.

Thanks for doing this!

With regards to the markdown alt text, are the square brackets where I should add the raw text of a screenshot to make it more accessible? I generally use an app to browse Hexbear and it's not fully featured so there's some stuff like this that I don't really understand and that doesn't get displayed for me. (You'd think I would have it all figured out by now but clearly that's not the case.)

Sure! I'm pretty inconsistent with how I'm able to engage with things so I can't make any promises to regular commitments but it sounds like a great idea.

It's going to be much more useful for the US if they don't overthrow Iraq because if there is a civil/proxy war within iraq then that has a much better chance of drawing out Iran to stabilize their border regions and it will allow ISIS to do exactly what it has done time and time again by weakening and destabilizing neighboring countries.

If it was about overthrowing Iraq they'd do it directly, just like last time.

They want a casus belli and if Iran is acting outside of its borders to strike at ISIS then the US can point to that as an excuse to deploy troops right on the Iranian border to stop their "expansionism" and "foreign interference." Then all they need is an attack on US soldiers or diplomatic staff, or at the least an event where a handful or more of Iraqi citizens are killed in an Iranian strike against ISIS operating in Iran, and they have their next Benghazi rallying cry to drum up support for "defensive" attacks on Iran.

They just dropped thousands of trained, blooded ISIS fighters into Iraq. The most important part of those numbers isn't the people who can pick up guns but the ones who can recruit and organize and especially the ones who are experienced commanders. We're talking about 1,500 cut loose in Syria (right on Iraq's border) and 7,500 being transferred to Iraq. That's a whole lot more than a dozen.

The following is from a strategic analysis document titled Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran, starting on page 64 (my emphasis):

In theory, the United States could mount an invasion [of Iran] at any time. The president could order an invasion tomorrow, which would seem to make this option very time efficient. But the reality, of course, is that it is highly unlikely that he would do so, and there are many hurdles to be cleared before the first troops would hit the beaches. Although an invasion might accomplish its objectives more quickly than Engagement or the various regime change options, it still would require months of military and logistical preparations, and might take even longer to lay the political and international foundations.
It seems highly unlikely that the United States would mount an invasion without any provocation or other buildup. Even in the case of the Bush Administration’s march to war with Iraq in 2003—which was about as fast as it is possible to imagine—there was almost a year of preparations, starting with ominous statements from the administration, new UN Security Council resolutions, a congressional vote, the buildup of forces, and an ultimatum to Saddam Husayn. Moreover, in the case of Iraq, there was a legal basis that the Bush Administration could rely upon (the same basis that Bush 41 and Clinton had used to justify various air and missile strikes against Iraq during the 1990s).
In the case of an invasion of Iran, there does not yet seem to be a legal predicate to justify the use of force—which is important more because it is required under domestic U.S. law than because of the need for international legal sanction. If a provocation or a UN Security Council resolution is needed to provide that legal basis, that also will take time. In fact, if the United States were to decide that to garner greater international support, galvanize U.S. domestic support, and/or provide a legal justification for an invasion, it would be best to wait for an Iranian provocation, then the time frame for an invasion might stretch out indefinitely. With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight. Thus it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation.
In fact, it might never come at all.As far as the time requirements for the military side of the option, it might take a few months to move the forces into the region, and then anywhere from one to six months to conduct the invasion, depending on a variety of circumstances—particularly how much U.S. forces had been built up in the region before the attack was launched. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that the rapid launch of the war against Iraq was a function of the inadequate number of troops and planning for postwar reconstruction. Since Washington would not want to repeat that tragic mistake in Iran, the buildup for an invasion of Iran would have to be bigger and thus take longer to complete than the buildup for the Iraq invasion. Finally, the preparations for Iraq were greatly aided by a superb network of American bases in the Persian Gulf. Absent some dramatic Iranian provocation, it seems very unlikely that those same countries (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Britain, in particular) would allow the United States to use those same facilities for an invasion of Iran, potentially further lengthening the time required for the invasion itself.

One thing that works well for my autistic brain is that when I notice I say something mildly ableist, I correct my language as I'm speaking and it really helps shift my monotropic brain that clings to habit like a baby monkey clings to its mother.

So I might say "That was a stupid thing for me to do... I mean foolish." or "...foolish, rather." because the more I associate saying foolish instead of stupid, the more likely I am to reach for the right word instead of the ableist one.

It's also a process. If you try changing everything at once it's overwhelming. My advice would be to start with the most over ableist language that you find yourself using, get comfortable with using better terms, then move on to the more subtle words over time. I deal with verbal shutdowns and communication issues already and if I had to ovethink my words even more than I already do I'd probably stop talking entirely. So, give yourself the space to change and be patient with the process.

in the very first chapter of The Wretched of the Earth, Franz Fanon talks about how language is also a form of violence

Frantz Fanon? Never heard of the guy! /s

Wanted to emphasize this point and elaborate on it.

The point of empathy, at least to me in the context you're describing, is that you should just let it pass. It's such a prominent part of modern day communication that most people don't even know how their statements are or can be ableist.

It's always best practice to assume good faith or, at worst, ignorance in person who says something ableist (except in cases where it's patently obvious what they're doing.)

There are people who use outdated terms or even deprecated, bigoted words who have their heart in the right place and they have good values. You've seen it, I've seen it. Jumping down someone's throat over minor indiscretions just alienates people who are well-meaning. On the other hand, I'm sure you've experienced people who use pitch-perfect 100% woke language to communicate bigoted ideas as well.

Words matter but intent matters more in this case imo. It's easy enough to correct well meaning sentiment that is worded in an ableist way but it's much harder to work on someone's values, especially if you're the marginalized group they're targeting.

The empathetic point is to try and educate them in an understanding manner without being condescending or overbearing.

Personally, I try to refer to my own experience rather than labelling the other person. "You are ableist and you are a bad person because of that fact" doesn't win people over and it doesn't open up opportunities for dialogue and introspection and learning so it's counterproductive.

On the other hand, if you focus on your experience then I think it works a lot better. For example: "When I hear people say the word 'neurodivergent' as a placeholder for the term 'autistic' it sits uncomfortably with me because it feels like my diagnosis of autism is a taboo that must be avoided and that it's a shameful thing to be autistic or to even speak the name of the condition. I completely understand why people do this and I know that it's not your intent to make me feel this way but it's okay to say that I'm autistic and, just like with the topic of mental health, if we make room for discussions on it and we are comfortable with speaking its name then it makes a big difference in tackling stigma. We don't say 'those who are insulin-challenged' because that's silly and we can just say 'diabetic' which is totally fine. In the same way, I don't want be spoken about in hushed words and euphemism while people tiptoe around it. I'm okay with being autistic and I would like others to be okay with it too."

It's an useful but difficult to learn skill, and it isn't one I have mastered myself either.

Let me know when you do because I could use mentoring in this.

If anyone reads this and it resonates with their experience, start looking into POTS and other related dysautonomic conditions.

POTS can have weird and transient symptoms, including primarily ones that present as mental health-related symptoms, and it can be tricky to diagnose for regular doctors. Cardiologists can figure it out really quickly with a good degree of certainty but it's seriously overlooked and its existence is even denied by some doctors, despite all evidence to the contrary because dysautonomia gets the ME/CFS treatment despite plenty of evidence that indicates its existence. (I guess the biomarkers are just patients imagining them into existence).

Dysautonomic conditions like POTS involve the vascular system and COVID can have serious effects on it so post-COVID dysautonomia is quite common due to that fact.

Not a doctor, not a diagnosis. Just a tip for where to start looking.

No worries.

The other joke in that comment was where I said "revolting (the bad kind)" because revolting can mean disgusting or it can mean when the people are rising up. My hope was that it would make that boring list a bit more fun by putting in a little political humor.

Ansarallah is like "BDS stands for Boycott, Divest, Sanction??

Nah. It stands for Bomb Dem Ships. Now watch this drone!"

They're doing incredible work and as a small and embattled nation they're punching way above their weight. It's truly inspiring.

That's very kind of you to say. I could talk all day about language and I have all the time in the world for comrades, especially if I can assist with their learning, so ask as many follow up questions as you want.

Can the same be said for the word ‘class’ in this case, where it replaces the word decent and thus associates people of ‘a class’ (usually upper class) with decency?

Yes, absolutely. I think there's a good argument for this being correct.

My take on this is based on this concept of the reclamation of language. I get the impression that you've read quite a bit by other comments of yours that I have read so please excuse me if I'm explaining things that you already know but the idea of reclamation is when a term which was used to insult a group gets repurposed by that group and the meaning gets changed.

The biggest example of this in English is the word "queer" which used to be a slur against LGBTQ+ people. Over time that label started getting used positively by the community and it became a label of pride and celebration rather than being one used to insult and shame people.

It gets tricky because the new meaning of the term queer is still directly connected to the old way that it was used and it's always going to carry that history with it. Often older queer people still don't like the term queer because they remember the older meaning of the word and it's hurtful to them when they hear people use it.

I think this captures something really important for this discussion because language is always changing and it can have completely different meanings for different people. This makes it really hard to make any absolute claim about a word.

For me, I've seen people use the word "class" or "classy" as a compliment for things that an upper class person would be horrified by and I've seen terms like "no class" being used to insult the things that upper class people do. That tells me that lower class people don't care what upper class people think about what's good and bad, instead they make their own judgement and they use the same term but in a way that has no regard for what the upper class thinks. In one sense, there is a battle being fought in culture over the meaning of this term and the lower class people are saying "You don't own this word and you don't get to define its meaning for us. We can do that ourselves and we have the numbers on our side."

In the same way that "queer" can still be used as a slur if it's said in a hateful way and it can be understood as an insult, especially by older people, using a word like "classy" or "classless" can definitely be used in a classist way. But on the other hand, the term "queer" is often used without any concern for it once being used as a slur because the word has been taken back and a new meaning has been written over the old one. Similarly, terms like "class" often get used with a new meaning that surpasses the old one.

Ultimately, I lean towards this position but your position is still valid and it's correct in plenty of examples that I can think of. I wish we could fast forward 20 years into the future to find out exactly how this develops.

I think the same argument could be used to claim that the overwhelming majority of the use of the R-slur today isn't used against people with intellectual disability directly nor is it used to refer to intellectual disability itself and, if that's accurate, then would it also follow that the R-slur is not ableist by virtue of that fact?

(I get that this is reply gonna come off as a strawman because it's the most extreme example and I'm not trying to paint you as defending the use of the R-slur or anything but imo this is a really good test case for your argument because personally I am unable to come up with any objection to/defence of one without it applying to the other.)

Yeah, it can definitely be used in a classist way. I was putting little in-jokes in the list to make it a little bit less boring because classless can sometimes mean impolite or distasteful in some contexts as class can refer to things being respectable and refined and decent etc., but it's more of a secondary meaning than the primary one that you are already familiar with. (There's a term for a word that has multiple meanings that have overlap like this and it's "polysemy" but you're never gonna need to know this.)

So in some dialects of English, telling a person "that's not classy behavior" means that what they did was really rude or socially unacceptable and that there is strong disapprove for it.

There's an argument that classy refers to "upper class" behavior and aesthetics and so on but it's not that simple because the way that it's used by proles doesn't actually align to bourgeois decorum and aesthetics, and often it's used without any regard for it either. You could get into a heated debate over this and there's good arguments on both sides but I am of the opinion that it's a term that is in the process of being reclaimed.

Be still my beating heart

Yeah, but what I'm saying here is that functional capacity that either exceeds or falls short of the norm is considered a disability because the concept of disability is based on normativity, so by saying "I can't see the part of the visual spectrum which is normal to not be able perceive, therefore I could be considered blind in that respect" misses how the concept of disability exists in society.

Canada does not have the number of military personnel or the sophisticated equipment needed to fend off a conventional American attack, they said. So, the military envisions unconventional warfare in which small groups of irregular military or armed civilians would resort to ambushes, sabotage, drone warfare or hit-and-run tactics.

And where does that bring you?

You can't just wish Trump into becoming the god-emperor by constantly repeating that he is the god-emperor and depicting him as such over and over again until enough people believe in it that eventually it brings it about in reality. That only works in the 40k universe. Unless...

Oh shit

I try to be as comradely as possible but I struggle with conveying tone sometimes and honestly I get it, hearing critical feedback is hard so this can create a perfect storm and I try to avoid this where I can. So I try to couch critical feedback in those terms to be like "I really don't want to start a fight, I promise!"

I'm glad my reply was helpful. I wouldn't ever jump down someone's throat over this choice of wording but these discussions are really valuable for developing a deeper understanding of how ableism circulates and functions in society.

I really appreciate you being open and approaching this from a place of genuine curiosity. I need to follow the example you've set here.

This is a bit of a hot take but as monstrous as Hitler was, he was also really foolish in a lot of ways especially strategically.

The problem with assassinating Hitler is that a more calculating, strategic, less unhinged figure could have easily used that opportunity to step into the void he left. And that could have made things much worse.

This is especially relevant for how erratic and destabilizing Trump is today. Yes, it's really fucking bad right now but imagine how much worse it would be if there was a suave, competent figure who was less of an egomaniac that replaced Trump. Sort of like an Obama for the further right. If you're scared right now, and you should be, then this prospect should terrify you.

I don't understand the progressive lib glee at the idea of Trump's physical and mental decline. He is often so counterproductive and he causes a lot of infighting amongst the conservatives. A unifying figure would be catastrophic now. Having him where he is, taking up space and being messy, is the best realistic situation we can hope for in the present moment.

(This statement will horrify the libs because they have no practical plan for achieving change and they are too scared of internalizing the case that Rosa Luxemburg put forward in Reform or Revolution a century ago when Germany faced their own situation that has a ton of parallels to the US today. But we have a plan and it's not "go vote about it" and it's not praying for Trump's heart to beat its final beat because those aren't plans, they are coping strategies for people unwilling to grasp the reality of the present situation. Thoughts and prayers!)