![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
madimpossibledreamerSo, uh, as usual with something like this, I was browsing Reddit and since the election I've noticed a continued trend of posts: People worrying about the state of Ao3 and then a bunch of people coming in with the same tired refrains. You're being hyperbolic, you're over-exaggerating, you're fearmongering. One of the things that drove me the most insane about this to the point I was ranting about it to Beta-Senpai was that people were proving the old accusation that no one in the reading hobby knows how to read because in the very same post that there was a screenshot from the Organization of Transformative Works, aka the organization that runs Ao3, that the bill in question, HR 9495, would affect them ("All non-profit orgs are in danger.") there were people arguing that "oh no of course it wouldn't affect Ao3". If the organization itself says there is a danger then I would defer to their opinion rather than some random commenter on reddit. As far as I know, this particular bill wouldn't affect Dreamwidth, but I'm pretty sure they don't want to just stop with non-profits.
But, uh, okay, let's go through the points here.
HR 9495 allows "the Secretary of the Treasury would have the power to strip any non-profit group of it’s [sic] tax-exempt status with no due process." This is only supposed to be used against those who "help terrorists", but that's very vague in the bill itself.
According to a Cornell definition, there is a definition of terrorism in US law: "(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— Edit: It would be remiss of me not to mention that Ao3 has directly addressed this since I posted this and have said that while this particular bill is a non-profit killer, they are fairly confident that this specifically won't be the end of Ao3 even if it passes (they are, however, highly concerned about the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and others). I am required to point out using my close-reading skills that they specifically said this particular bill, so they are anticipating others and are still concerned (and, in general, weakening the non-profit ecosystem hurts non-profits in solidarity).
But, uh, okay, let's go through the points here.
HR 9495 allows "the Secretary of the Treasury would have the power to strip any non-profit group of it’s [sic] tax-exempt status with no due process." This is only supposed to be used against those who "help terrorists", but that's very vague in the bill itself.
According to a Cornell definition, there is a definition of terrorism in US law: "(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
However, we've already seen that the Supreme Court is fully willing to ignore precedent, given that they overturned Roe v Wade and the Chevron Defense. The only past law that they care about is when it suits them, such as when quoting an actual judge who was part of literal witch hunts (Sir Matthew Hale). The Secretary of the Treasury chosen by a certain ex-president (and hopefully not future dictator) could also decide to define terrorism however he wanted and actually standing up to him would require a lawsuit that may or may not be successful.
They wouldn't have to go that far to re-define things, though. It's part of their entire strategy. They could make "Don't Say Gay" the law of the land, and make it a criminal violation to introduce yourself using pronouns, kiss a partner of the same sex in public, or to write about it. Part of the Project 2025 playbook involves redefining anything that promotes "gender ideology" (i.e. even mentioning the fact that trans or nonbinary people exist, or allowing people to explore their sexuality) as "pornography". They want to imprison or label anyone involved as sex offenders, and to close down any communication or service that would have such works. And if they label this sort of thing as dangerous, then the very existence of lgbtq+ or pro-lgbtq+ resources could be labeled as dangerous, trying to coerce civilians to act as if lgbtq+ people existing is normal (spoiler alert: it is, and even the Romans and Greeks that they like had it as part of society), influence the government policies to not discriminate wildly or cruelly, and occurs within the US. There is no mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, but it wouldn't be too hard for them to manufacture stories if they even bothered. It's not like they haven't already started with accusations of pedophilia rings.
So if you're reassuring yourself with "ah, but they'd never ban porn, they like it"...the answer is yes, they do, but they aren't talking about what you're thinking of.
And for the people who are like "oh, you mentioned Project 2025, I'm going to ignore everything you said because a certain ex-president said he had nothing to do with it", I would like you to explain why you believe a proven liar that lies, or the fact that many if not all of the authors had ties with him before they wrote the document, or the fact that he is now naming a good number of these people to positions oddly relevant to the sections they wrote.
I would also like you to explain how, exactly, kids in cages was not enough for you to remember the stark horrors of how far this man is willing to go to cause suffering, or the eerie parallels to 1930's Germany that had a good number of historians warning us about fascism, parallels, and the same exact playbook: saying and doing outrageous things that had people gasping about how outrageous it is while not believing that it's happening as it's happening, the fact that the original intention for the Jews was to put them in "temporary camps" as they were carrying out "mass deportations" only the reality is that there are significant monetary and logistical issues there that made them consider a different solution. I would like you to explain how, if fascism can't happen in the modern day, Putin, Viktor Orban, and Javier Milei, who has been following some of the recommendations of Project 2025 closely and was personally given a copy.
Now, I would understand if you were more realistic, said "there's a danger, but I don't think it'll be as easy for them to implement because xyz". But "there's absolutely no danger and you're being hysterical for thinking there is"? When every non-profit I've seen (the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the OTW) are really worried about it? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
However, we've already seen that the Supreme Court is fully willing to ignore precedent, given that they overturned Roe v Wade and the Chevron Defense. The only past law that they care about is when it suits them, such as when quoting an actual judge who was part of literal witch hunts (Sir Matthew Hale). The Secretary of the Treasury chosen by a certain ex-president (and hopefully not future dictator) could also decide to define terrorism however he wanted and actually standing up to him would require a lawsuit that may or may not be successful.
They wouldn't have to go that far to re-define things, though. It's part of their entire strategy. They could make "Don't Say Gay" the law of the land, and make it a criminal violation to introduce yourself using pronouns, kiss a partner of the same sex in public, or to write about it. Part of the Project 2025 playbook involves redefining anything that promotes "gender ideology" (i.e. even mentioning the fact that trans or nonbinary people exist, or allowing people to explore their sexuality) as "pornography". They want to imprison or label anyone involved as sex offenders, and to close down any communication or service that would have such works. And if they label this sort of thing as dangerous, then the very existence of lgbtq+ or pro-lgbtq+ resources could be labeled as dangerous, trying to coerce civilians to act as if lgbtq+ people existing is normal (spoiler alert: it is, and even the Romans and Greeks that they like had it as part of society), influence the government policies to not discriminate wildly or cruelly, and occurs within the US. There is no mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, but it wouldn't be too hard for them to manufacture stories if they even bothered. It's not like they haven't already started with accusations of pedophilia rings.
So if you're reassuring yourself with "ah, but they'd never ban porn, they like it"...the answer is yes, they do, but they aren't talking about what you're thinking of.
And for the people who are like "oh, you mentioned Project 2025, I'm going to ignore everything you said because a certain ex-president said he had nothing to do with it", I would like you to explain why you believe a proven liar that lies, or the fact that many if not all of the authors had ties with him before they wrote the document, or the fact that he is now naming a good number of these people to positions oddly relevant to the sections they wrote.
I would also like you to explain how, exactly, kids in cages was not enough for you to remember the stark horrors of how far this man is willing to go to cause suffering, or the eerie parallels to 1930's Germany that had a good number of historians warning us about fascism, parallels, and the same exact playbook: saying and doing outrageous things that had people gasping about how outrageous it is while not believing that it's happening as it's happening, the fact that the original intention for the Jews was to put them in "temporary camps" as they were carrying out "mass deportations" only the reality is that there are significant monetary and logistical issues there that made them consider a different solution. I would like you to explain how, if fascism can't happen in the modern day, Putin, Viktor Orban, and Javier Milei, who has been following some of the recommendations of Project 2025 closely and was personally given a copy.
Now, I would understand if you were more realistic, said "there's a danger, but I don't think it'll be as easy for them to implement because xyz". But "there's absolutely no danger and you're being hysterical for thinking there is"? When every non-profit I've seen (the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the OTW) are really worried about it? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Well ...
Date: 2024-11-25 02:10 am (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2024-11-25 08:02 pm (UTC)It's nice to hear from someone who's actually seeing this, though; it makes me feel a little bit less like Cassandra. It is weird seeing people act as if everything's normal now.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2024-11-25 08:16 pm (UTC)But there's other stuff that isn't directly connected, just caused by politics. Yesterday I posted How to Make a Weed Bottle, in case folks are concerned about biosphere collapse. I still need to do an article on coping with 3C+ climate change.
Shortly after the election, someone posted a cartoon of a character sitting in a burning room and saying, "This is fine." Nailed it.
And the next time Florida gets hammered by hurricanes? I'll be busy elsewhere.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2024-11-25 08:17 pm (UTC)People have free will. That includes the right to make mistakes, and learn from them -- or not.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2024-11-25 08:28 pm (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2024-11-25 08:47 pm (UTC)* Redirecting more energy from helping humans to helping the environment, like making my yard as much of a mini-ecosystem as I can.
* Writing literature about worlds that are less fucked up than here, in case people want to see what that looks like. Ironically my postapocalyptic hopepunk setting is now in that category. 0_o
* Posting bits and pieces of actionable information that people can use without needing to flog a torpid and toxic government into action first. Like the weed bottles.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2024-11-26 05:01 am (UTC)On your second point...yeaaaaah I'm currently doing a Lovecraftian crossover and you might be on the verge of dying from monsters at any point but at least the government is vaguely functional, the world's not on the verge of another world war (or a nuclear war), etc. Plus you can fight back against monsters. Systems are a whole lot harder. These are weird and unfortunate times we live in.
I am thinking about some kind of volunteering, but I don't know. And I'll look out for some of the small things I can do. I'll look into doing the weed bottles like you said.