But that’s not what was said

No one is any more qualified than anyone else to hold office based on social constructs. It flows so well, doesn’t it? This is what Killer Mike was probably trying to say, well this is probably the principle behind what he was trying to say. However, even saying this is kind of offensive because you’re reducing those not in support of your candidate as voting purely based on their gender, and Hillary Clinton is qualified for a lot of reason, some of which you might not agree with, but I don’t think you’d find any Hillary supporter saying she is only qualified because she’s a woman. No, she’s qualified as Secretary of State and a US Senator. After all, wasn’t someone just saying she’s establishment? Doesn’t that fly in the face of implying she isn’t qualified or that her supporters don’t think she is qualified and only voting for her because she’s a woman? But I digress.

Back to the point, right? Killer Mike said, a “uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president.” Let’s begin by the exclusionary and the obvious: no all women have a uterus. Also, given the rampant sexism in US history, do you really want to draw attention to the fact that having a uterus has traditionally disqualified you from being president? Look, I’m not even mad. I can’t be. I don’t have the time or energy. But this is the kind of stuff that gives me pause. Look Bernie isn’t responsible for what his supporters say (though, I’m not sure team Bernie would be so kind to high profile Clinton supporters stepping in it on gender last week, and I wasn’t). Also, let me stop you right there if you think citing a anti-racism and feminist scholar gives you free range to say stupid shit. After all, didn't I just write on Steinem a few days ago? 

See it gives me pause, turns my attention back to team Bernie, and what do I see? Well Bernie’s litmus test for the Supreme Court is a willingness to overturn Citizen’s United, and when pushed by the interviewer, only that. Now I hate Citizen’s United, but I’m looking for a Justice who supports civil rights. See how I said civil rights and not the right to choose? Because I recognize that the Supreme Court will rule on Roe, fair housing, and the constitutionality of state voting laws. For those not paying attention: women, LGBTQ, and people of color. They will be ruling on our right to determine our health choices, where people can live, and who gets to participate in the political process. But yeah, they should overturn Citizen’s United.

Well, we’ll see how this goes. I mean, I’m still feeling the Bern, despite and in spite of some of his supporters. But I’m really hesitant every time someone starts talking about how economic justice will deliver us all from systemic racism and sexism because it won’t. At best people who believe that are naive, and worst willfully ignorant. Want an example? Young people love free college education. Yes, yes. But those colleges are still going to have entrance exams right? This is when you think back to your education, kids coming from public schools in low-income black neighborhoods, often vocational schools, will not benefit from free college education because they never got the first free one. See there are neighborhoods where entire generations are under-educated, and they are mostly black, and free tuition doesn’t guarantee an education if you can’t pass the test or you’ve ridden the school to prison pipeline.

How about gender? Well, what does the government funded childcare program look like? Specifically, who will be employed and at what kind of wages? Because we know women, usually women of color, are disproportionately represented in high turnover, low-wage, emotionally exhausting care work. So are we still going to have a gendered workforce where women (largely women of color) make up a service industry for shitty wages? Cool, continue the gendered division of labor that keeps black women taking care of white children and prevent them from providing care to their own children. Because I haven’t heard Bernie endorse the CA House Rep who wanted to pay welfare recipients to stay at home with their kids or address the privilege paid childcare would be for some.  What about rape? What economic justice policy is going to fix that? What about police brutality? What is the economic policy that will stop the police from executing black people in the streets or worse in jail where no one can see?

I don’t think Bernie has the answers to these questions, and he shouldn’t have to. He’s one old dude dancing to the social justice jam. I’m in. But I’m not in for some bastardization of social justice that prioritizes class oppression over the others. I’m not here for that. But you can't reduce everything to class. Oppression isn't that simple. 

I sincerely see this woman as one of my greatest teachers. Thank U #JaneElliot pic.twitter.com/l6MbWFrOZk

— Killer Mike (@KillerMike) February 17, 2016

This bro thing

So I wrote this and then deleted it, but then again someone I respect on Twitter decided the people complaining about the Bernie Bro thing are a privileged class of people not used to having to deal with the huddled masses who disagree with them. To which I must ask, have you been a woman on the Internet? Seems like a privileged class doesn’t want to be called names. Of course, that is not to say that journalists aren’t a privileged class. In fact they are especially when you consider the means it takes to become a journalist. However, I feel like this person and I are oversimplifying it.

I think I know what is happening. I could be wrong, though. I don’t think this has anything to do with fact or fiction; I think this is an irrational respond to being called a name. I’ve been reading a lot on race right now. I just finished Between the World and Me, and I’ve been casually reading Being White Being Good. So, I think when men identifying supporters of Bernie Sanders hears the phrase Bernie Bros they think they are being called sexist and by extension their candidate. I think a lot of them have gone off the deep end thinking that this is somehow comparable to the massive amounts of sexism hurled at women, and they think the ladies are overreacting to supporters of Bernie being assertive. But let’s use race because it might be easier (the only time this may ever be true)…

I participate in racism by living in a racist society. I am not racist (though I’m willing to listen to that argument), but I am complicit in racism. My whiteness oppresses people of color. The benefits and privileges of whiteness bestowed on me creates, adds to, and reinforces the racism inflicted on people of color. Now, I didn’t get up this morning, and think to myself how am I going to oppress people of color, but my very being does. But no one wants to be called a racist, right? Because I’m complicit in this system of racism, I pay close attention to how my words and actions are perceived and do the work to prevent myself from actively participating in racism.

So, the patriarchy, we live in it. Because we live in it, all men oppress all women. Now we can discuss the ways different privileges interact with different oppressions (no hierarchy mind you, but interactions) and the intersectionality that goes along with it. But sorry dudes, you’re going to have to try as hard as I do or even at all and no you don’t get an ally cookie. You participate in sexism just by existing this society. You benefit from privileges and oppress others just by being you.

Now, here is where I offend everyone. White, straight guys are the worst. They are the Britta of every relationship. Of course, I’m referring to the group as a monolith which is reductionist. But, could you imagine people of color complaining like they do? I mean think back to the assertion that there should be reparations. And we already know no one gives a damn about the sentiments of the women folk—history taught us that. If it weren't for the straight up denial by some of Bernie’s supporters of any sexism in the Sanders’ camp, this might have gone away. But nope, the men in the Sanders’ camp are really upset someone might call them a bro (thereby point out their complicity in sexism). So they respond with an assertiveness which borders on aggression to continue denying their complicity or worse, to push some idea that this is all in the heads of women. There is a term for this: “gaslighting”. It refers to abusers convincing victims, and those victims seek help through that everything is in the victim’s head. Now, for those of you who know me in real life know I’m over the men we have to coddle. I’m not here for that. I give exactly zero fucks about your hurt feelings, which is about the same as this kind of man gives for my hurt feelings.

So everyone, repeat after me, “I am complicit in the oppression of others in some way.”

Now: “Oppressed peoples get to define what is offensive.”

Now: “There are sexists who support Bernie Sanders, but not everyone who supports Sanders is sexist.”

Now, we’ll all hold hands.

I follow a lot of black women on Twitter, and I have to say, man the crap they get from strangers. But moreover, there seems to be this aggression from progressives to “those who vote against their own interests”. This is a level of insidious paternalism that is really offensive. It assumes you know better, and people aren’t capable of determining their self-interests. Additionally, I’m probably voting for Bernie, but after the exposure I’ve had to self-identified socialists the past few months, I know my interests aren’t their interests. Are my interests more aligned with Clinton? No. Bernie is more my style, but he like many socialists before him reduces everything to class, and while I’m all about the class inequities train, I recognize the intersections of oppressions, and I know eliminating classism will not save us—well not all of us. My concern here with the alleged Bernie Bros and those who swear up and down they don’t exists, will they have my back after the class revolution? Or will they be settled and silent? What about Black Lives Matter? Are these guys going to take to the streets? But with every passing day, I become more skeptical. 

Fuck all the men on the left.

I don’t know how to put this as to not anger anyone, but then I remembered I don’t care. Over the weekend, I heard a socialist invoke intersectionality to dismiss the concerns of women and black people because CLASS! I’m not even going to highlight the irony there, just take a minute and bask in it and the total lack of self-awareness. Lean in everyone, capitalism sucks. Capitalism has been notoriously bad for workers, particularly workers who identify as women and people of color (you know the one’s excluded from the unions early on). Capitalism also came after gendered and racial divisions. This is why no one likes you. I swear to god every time I go to one of these things, it is an exercise in self-control. Then the group on to discuss gender as a binary, which explains the lack of gender queer and Trans individuals in that room, in a city with a radial Trans population. But is fine. White guys doing it for themselves. They’ll liberate all of us, and we can say thank you, politely with a smile. There was a very good point raised that women’s issues, issues important to people of color, etc. are optional for the left whereas the labor struggle is a given. That resonates, and the group quickly moved on.

But why am I complaining about all this? Some of the attacks on Hillary Clinton from the left are sexist. To dismiss them is to dismiss the concerns of women on the left. Some of the critiques of Clinton would be sound if they didn’t devolve into gendered critiques. The language you use matters, and I’m offended that men think they can tell me what feminism is. Fuck you buddy. Fuck you. Was that not clear? F-u-c-k you.

You know what I think is an affront to feminism? Men deciding what it is without doing any work. Hillary Clinton is a feminist. She is a radical or a liberal feminist, and if any of you guys bothered reading a feminist theory book or even just googling it you’d know what that means. The liberal and radical feminists fought for legal rights and protections; they were less concerned with economic inequality and more concerned with being able to make medical decisions without their husbands. I’m not a radical or a liberal feminist. I’m a Marxist feminist, but I appreciate and respect their struggles while I disagree with them.

But let’s talk about some patriarchy and condescension. When you say women are defending Hillary because she is a woman that is offensive. It means women will back any woman regardless of politics. There is also a weird essentialism happening here too, and I’ve seen it written a few times about women supporting anyone with a vagina, which is weird since all women don’t have vaginas, but what can we expect? Nuance? Please, not these guys strong point. But you know what, men should totally tell me what I think and why I think it. That totally isn’t sexist and condescending.

Don’t get me wrong, the struggle is real, but you don’t get to decide if something is coming off as sexist. Sure it wasn’t your intention, but *shrug*. I might have cried in a room where everyone was chanting liar while Clinton was on screen. It is an emotion inducing word for me. See men call a lot of women liars usually survivors of sexual assault. It has at some point become gendered; women lie. We’re seen as less trustworthy than men. Now, Clinton has lied about things during her political, which makes it hard, but everything is hard, and if it is too hard to be specific and clear then you shouldn’t be talking about it. But every time I read someone’s take on all this as all in women’s minds, all I hear is gaslighting. I guess women are just too fucking stupid to know when something sexist is going on. Must be in their heads because the women folk are irrational. Forget the dude who said some pretty offensive things to me when I pointed out the false equivalency of the first Jewish President and first woman president. These things are not the same. Well, that isn’t evidence anyway, right? That is just me being hypersensitive (which as all of you know is totally a word to describe me), and it is anecdotal at best. 

Eric Garner

I'm not sure I can even be angry anymore. I'm just sad and tired. I'm not sure what we do now. The legal system is going to continue to fail the most vulnerable. So what then? What is the game plan because I'm out of ideas. Tonight my friends joked about being murdered by the police because that seems like an inevitable fate. One called himself a "thug" and put up his hood, and then said, better not wear this outside, police might shoot me.

I don't know what it is like to live in that kind of fear of the state. But it scares me. It scares me that this is what we've become. The people who believe it is ok to murder black people, because black women are being killed too, are not…I don't know how to finish this sentence. Maybe because I'm tired and can't sleep but maybe because there is no way for me to finish that sentence. The white men who are murdering black people are part of my race, and I can't distance myself from them. Not only are they part of my race, but they are probably working class, right? I mean the police have been a staple of Irish employment. I see the people running to defend Wilson on my Facebook feed, and some of them are distant cousins, but there it sits. They pull up these joke arguments about how white people have been killed by the police too, as if it is the same. It isn't, black men are disproportionately murdered by the police. But they are going to fight that it isn't just black people instead of seeing the militarization of the police as the problem, classism as the problem…I'm not holding out for miracles, my racist cousin is never going to recognize racial oppression and the connects to the before mentioned problems. But at least realize this isn't for the greater good, these sons didn't have to die, this is to preserve the status quo, to reinforce the inconsequence of blackness, to keep people in their place. This is terrorism. This is how genocide begins. As if we're not already seeing it with the systematic imprisonment of black men.

A good friend of mine told me a few months back, "You're not really white." Or something like that. I immediately corrected her. I am white. I didn't launch into it, but I am white, and I benefit from my whiteness. I have had opportunities because of luck, but without my whiteness I wouldn't be so lucky. I wrestle with class and gender performance everyday. My friend thought I meant it the way she means when someone tells her she's not really black because she is some kind of exception, which is intended to be a compliment, but totally racist.

These were Eric Garner's last words. Recorded by a man being indicted while the murderer is not.

Torn here

So I wasn’t going to write anything because well, I’m white and there are other voices we should all be listening to and reading. But then I’m getting angrier and angrier as time passes. I went to bed last night reading my progressive white friends trying to ignore races impact on all of this, and then I woke up to Mike Brown’s father delivering food in Ferguson for Thanksgiving. I’m having some trouble reconciling those two things. But we will come back to the first. Then the National Bar Association is calling on the Department of Justice to do something because they do not understand how the Grand Jury could reach this conclusion given the evidence. I’m not holding my breath on this one.

Let me come back to this removal of race. You can’t do it. The end. See yes, the militarization of the police is a problem. It was a problem at Occupy. It was a problem before that too, and the images of the police in Ferguson are ridiculous. But Mike Brown was murdered by Darren Wilson for being a black man (boy really), and Tamir Rice was murdered for being a black boy by the Cleveland police. Claiming it doesn’t matter because the real problem is the militarization of the police is willful ignorance and the discounting of the black lived experience. It is unacceptable. I expect this from conservatives claiming Wilson was right, but if you’re on our side, then get with it friends. The US condones and defends the right of the police (and anyone else) to kill black men. This is the underlying problem. Racial oppression was one of the ideas on which our justice system was built. The militarization of the police is one consequence of that idea. The criminal justice system doesn’t work for the oppressed it works to keep the status quo. Keep those with power safe from those without it. I mean come on; most of our laws are rooted in property law, even our rape laws. The system isn’t broken; this is how it was designed to work.

Now for the protesting, I’m not opposed to taking to the streets, but I’m tired. I’m tired of the marches in support of rape survivors and murdered children and against war and capitalism run amok. Our society is built on the patriarchy and patriarchy reinforces classism, sexism, and racism. We’re not going to fix this by protesting for a few days or hours. I think we need a full scale revolt. I know that sounds extreme, and I’m not one for advocating violence, but I don’t know what other options are left. But we will get nowhere by reforming one aspect of the justice system. We will get nowhere is the police turn their tanks back over to the military and continue to shoot children. We won’t get very far if the police agree to stop shooting children, but continue the mass incarceration of the same population.  

Honestly, I don’t feel like writing anymore or trying to continue this thought exercise to the conclusion. I’m going to go back to listening to Tracy Chapman.

My problems with the Duggars, children, and lifestyle decisions

So here’s the thing, I support your right to live however you want. I mean I don’t care as long as what you’re doing doesn’t harm anyone else. See and there is the rub. I have friends who are deeply concerned that I’m judging them, particularly friends with babies. This is always news to me, because while I like playing with your babies, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about them. I mean occasionally, I’ll think, “Jesus, if I had a girl and had to bring her up in this rape culture like C does” or “L’s baby boy is going to have to navigate these unreasonable gender standards and perform to them.” I don’t care if you want to stay home, if you can afford it more power to you. Hell, if I could I would do nothing but read, craft, and bitch about politics FOREVER. So you want to spend time with your shiny baby, that’s cool.

But back to that rub, I take issue with people who harm others, and that includes the advocating of bigoted legislation. I can’t tell you you’re lifestyle is ok if it advocates for limiting the rights of others so like reproductive choice, medical access, welfare, housing, SNAP, marriage equality, employment equality, and on and on and on.

I say all of this because the Duggars. I can’t with these people. For real. I almost made it through one whole episode! My sister M loves the show. I don’t know how or why. But outside of that one episode where the family got whacky and the boys and girls did each others' chores because what could be zanier than girls doing boy work and boys in the kitchen. *head desk* The show seemed harmless, well it pushed some seriously conservative propaganda, but I wouldn’t want my nephew to have the Kardashians or the Duggars as role models. The Kardashians are uber-capitalists (which reinforces racism, classism, and sexism), and the Duggars are misogynists and zealots. Let’s call it a draw. My real exposure to this family like most celebrities is through politics. See the Duggars stump for anti-choice, antigay, anti-the American way candidates, just kidding on that last one. What else do I know? I know the women in this family spend more time talking to tabloids about their sex lives than the Kardashians. I know they are part of a conservative Christian movement that teaches women have no right to refuse sex to their husbands, and their goal is to out populate liberals and atheists (and probably all other groups that aren’t them).

So let me be clear, almost if not everything this family stands for I am against:

• Antigay, no thanks
• Anti-choice, you can have my rights when you pry them from my cold dead hands
• A woman’s worth is purity, *laughing/gasping for air* Um, no
• Women should be submissive, only if they want to be and preferably with a working contract, and tell me what to do, see what happens
• Men have to perform to rigid masculinity standards, nope, nope, nope.
• Waiting for marriage, not my thing, but I have poor impulse control, whatever works for you and your partner, but see there has to be some kind of discussion with your partner so no one is doing anything they are uncomfortable with and expectations are laid out
• Women should be constantly pregnant to populate God’s Army, I’m an atheist, but when I believed in God it was the turn the other cheek and love your neighbor one, God doesn’t need an Army he had all the superpowers
• I won’t even go near the exclusionary practices of these sorts of Christian cults, I can’t imagine there are many men of color being vetted to marry (all boyfriends/potential husbands are vetted by dad) a Duggars’ girl and absolutely no one outside their own faith.

These are values I would want children I care about far away from. I wouldn’t let them watch this show; I’d read them Harry Potter, which is scientifically proven to increase empathy among readers. I would talk about boundaries and how they don’t have to do anything they are uncomfortable with regardless of what adults may think. And from a young age I would try to explain what social constructs are and how they only have meaning because we give them meaning just like scary monsters. The Duggars are so dangerous because they seem harmless, right? They look like a large happy family with values about faith and love, as long as you conform to the molds they believe are worthy. It is the subtext; those things not actually said, but implied that are dangerous. I’m kind of against anything that teaches children there is an us and a them.

About money and relationships

I prefer to keep my finances separate. I get that sometimes it comes up like if one of you make a lot more than the other, well partner B might not be able to afford everything partner A wants thus compromise and a direct conversation about it. This comes up with partners and friends, and somehow we all navigate this just fine. Of course, when it is an intimate partner relationship, things get unnecessarily complicated. But my father taught me never to give or loan people more than you’re willing to lose so if you need something ask for it and let’s move on. There is a lot we could say about relationships and money. As a woman I’ve dealt with partners obsessing over how much I make in comparison to them (one fight ending when I lied just to put an end to it—might have contributed to the disaster that was that relationship) or how some people feel they can purchase your time and attention through implicit contract when they send you drinks you didn’t ask for (I have all the feelings on this). However, I want to talk about a blog post, “If you don’t make money, I won’t date you,” I read earlier in the week when I was laid up sick. It was written by Elle for YourTango.com, but I read it on blogher.com. And I guess all of this was in response to someone else’s post about not wanting to date men who make under s certain amount.

Immediately I went through the oh hell no emotions, then I figured I knew where this is going, and I was right because of course I was this is my blog. All that said, the blog is about how this woman writing is very successful, and that success has put strain on any relationship she has with men outside her economic social class. She is looking for her financial equivalent. I don’t know about her data, but anecdotally, her view is that she has had more successful relationships with men in the same economic zone; meaning “Similar socioeconomic class=better match.” She argues that less affluent men are intimidated by her because she is successful. She continues to argue that when the man she is with has similar means then he has to show her who he is without his possessions and status interfering. She makes some large assumptions about men in her economic status—and by extension herself, which we’ll come back to. She concludes by arguing that she isn’t shallow.

So here is my dilemma (and insecurity), I come from a working poor family in a low-income neighborhood. There is nothing super shocking there. That said, I have academically surpassed most (if not all) the kids I grew up with, and without taking into account cost of living (much cheaper in Ohio) I probably out earn all of them too. On one hand that doesn’t matter at all right? Except, I can’t have conversations with a lot of them anymore. Our conversations circle gossip and the superficial because we don’t care about the same things. The flip side of this is that sometimes I date men who have no idea what they say with their PhDs and “important jobs” like the chemist who thinks poor people bring poverty on themselves. Sometimes I find myself sitting there thinking “this is not my life” “what am I doing here? This dude is making such unintentionally aggressive and boarding bigoted statements.” Any woman reading this knows what I am talking about because you’ve probably been out with a man (friend, partner, whatever) and he has said something really sexist. You can just tell he has no idea what he has said, and now do you start an argument over it or not. I also imagine most people of color have had this experience with white friends or strangers or all white people. These are called microaggressions, the often unintentionally verbal and nonverbal slights that lead to negative feelings, perceptions, etc. to persons of a specific marginalized group. A good example for women, a man saying, “You’re not like other girls.” Is there something wrong with being like women? For a person of color, “Wow, you’re articulate!” Anyone else having flashbacks to the 2008 Presidential campaign? Because obviously black men aren’t articulate so you must be the exception. In these examples these statements are intended as compliments, which to me always makes them worse.

I know everyone can’t be aware all the time. I was talking with a friend of mine about microaggressions against black people at work. She sees them when I sometimes don’t because I’m white and my privilege can blind me to things. Once she mentioned them, I knew she was totally right, and I couldn’t believe I didn’t see it. Then others were way more obvious. All that said, microaggressions are often reflections of institutional and systematic oppression.

All of this brings me back to some of the assumptions about class the author of this post holds:

Wealthier people are more invested in the future

Wealthier people are stable

Similar education is related to similar intellectual capacity

Hard work and economic yield are related. For example, if I work hard I make more so if my partner works hard he will make more.

When you pull these out you see immediately why they are problematic and classist. There are also boarder implications for example, the standard being used here is the white privilege standard. We know the pay gap exists between races as well as genders, and obviously social economic access. I believe Hispanic women make the least compared to white men. When you put it in those terms if financial gain or expectation of that gain then isn’t the author dating down? I mean she would have to control for pay discrimination in her calculations on whether a partner would be a good match. Really this argument could be made for dating outside of any socially constructed group. I reject it. Let me be clear, I’m a dating disaster, and I have a type (tall, skinny, thinks he is the smartest person in the room—that’s the guy I’m into every time), but I don’t intentionally rule people out because of social constructs. There is of course room to discussion gender presentation v. sex here, but maybe another time.

So we’re going to talk about Ferguson again or a refresher on solidarity

Lean close, Amnesty International has sent a team into the US for the first time as the National Guard has been deployed to protect the police. All the while, repressive regimes around the world are rejoicing.

Things got violent again over the weekend, which honestly is expected given the determination of the police to incite violence. Natasha Culzac wrote for the Independent about Amnesty’s role in Ferguson. Amnesty has said it will be observing police and protester activity while gathering testimonies and training local activists “in methods of non-violent protest.” The executive director of Amnesty International USA, Steven W. Hawkins said the “people of Ferguson have the right to protest peacefully the lack of accountability for Michael Brown’s shooting.” The Amnesty team consists of 13 people including Jasmine Heiss who says the organization has limited access to post-curfew areas, which says something about the lack of transparency and the cover-up in Ferguson.

After declaring a state of emergency, Missouri Governor, Jay Nixon has ordered the deployment of the National Guard to “protect life and property.” But not the lives of black men. I just thought I’d fill in the subtext here. According to Nixon, the military will “maintain peace and order.” See the relationship disintegrated again after the curfew was issued, which by the way is patronizing shit all while perpetuating the myth that black people are violent. Way to go Gov. Nixon in what I’m pretty sure will be your last term in office, someone isn’t getting reelected.

Media outlets are claiming that hours before the curfew, the police opened fire into the crowds with tear gas and rubber bullets, which hit children and members of the media. Seriously, who are these people? Pro-tip, don’t fire on journalists unless your Egypt or Russia. Additionally, black journalists are alleging they have been racially profiled and refused re-entry to the press area while no white press had been.

Of course, there have been protests and vigils all over in support of Michael Brown’s family, but another unarmed black man was shot in LA on August 11, and people were gathering outside of police headquarters to protest there too.

There is only one more thing I want to talk about before I put this down for a bit. Class and race are not the same. And yes, I know we all make white people feel better by talking about this as a class issue or the racists cast Black people as dangerous, but while class plays a factor, Brown was executed because he was black. The National Guard was called because most protesters are Black. Now, do I think a governor would call up the National Guard to suppress the protesting of poor people, abso-fukcing-lutely. Do I think after justice for Michael Brown is achieved we should expand this conversation, maybe find out if police forced in affluent, white neighborhoods have tanks? Yes. We should, but right now I want the police officer who murdered an unarmed Black man to stand trial. That is the priority, and yeah, we might not get to the point where we can have a large conversation about classism and how it is linked to racism. Right now, the conversation needs to stay on the intersectionality of racism, structural racism, and the murder of Black children. We can’t change the narrative to be about class and risk throwing Black concerns overboard. Solidarity bitches, look it up. This is one of those time you have to wait your turn, and I know some of my white men readers have never been told that, but you get used to it.

John Oliver continuing to kick-ass.