#...and option two would be to actually reflect on WHY it is that bigotry - and specifically their - bigotry is wrong actually

[uncanny-tranny]

Honestly, I do think it's kind of funny when cis people talk about how Big Trans is forcing them to date, bed, or be friends with trans people because, truly, most of us wouldn't have wanted to be around them, anyway.

If you don't want to be seen as transphobic, there are ways to state your desires without being seen as transphobic. However, you can't have it both ways: treating trans people as second-class people while also not being seen as a bigot while doing so. You need to make your peace with that if you are going to go about this in a transphobic way.

[apinchofm]

*WARNING - Just want to rant lol*: Your latest two additions to your fic made me think of how Penelope is written versus the fan's reactions. When people say that Penelope cannot possibly be a racist because racism has magically "disappeared" in this universe, they're not wrong in that sense, it's just that Penelope as a character brings out the racism in certain fans. No, Penelope is not canonically a racist, and her actions against Marina, and how she writes about Simon or Kate, are not motivated by racism necessarily, but because Marina, Simon, and Kate are poc, people who are fans of Penelope are put at odds with these characters when defending her, so it tends to bring out their racist side. Like, I'm always a little shocked when I see people say that they'd totally throw Marina, a pregnant lower class teenager on the brink of ruin under the bus for purely petty reasons, that she had no one to blame but herself for what happened because she made the decision to have pre-martial sex (the slut-shaming is appalling), that she had plenty of other options than Colin (the 'plenty of options' being that she should just married that old man who was checking out her teeth and would have treated her like a beast and her child as an afterthought, rather than 'ruin' poor Colin), that she was ungrateful and didn't listen to Portia who was just trying to help her (the same Portia who had scorned her from the beginning, slapped her around, locked her in her room for a month, then manipulated/forced her to trap a man in marriage by forging that note and threatening her with homelessness), or that, in general, she was a cunning, manipulative snake that Colin was endangered by (she's a 17 year old Regency farmgirl!), so Penelope actually did a noble, selfless thing by 'sacrificing' her family's reputation to save him from raising Marina's "spawn" (bleck). I mean, even if we take race out of the question, it makes me sad that people willingly admit that in real life, they'd choose their male friend of privilege over a pregnant teenager in trouble, just because they'd known said friend longer. Like, where's your solidarity?? Why does length of friendship get priority over class/race/gender issues?

What's also interesting about Penelope as a character, in both the show and your fic, is that she uses society's bigotry and class segregation to her advantage, rather than push against it. Her work flourishes because she feeds and encourages the sort of behaviour that continues this oppressive society. True, she can use her work for good, as we saw with her actions against Lord Berbrooke, but she will also use it against women, sometimes lower class women, and the women's rights movement itself. Whatever will tickle the ton the most, she will write about. It doesn't matter if a maid who was involved in an affair with the married lord she's working for will face the most consequences from her writing. Penelope's business is neither feminist or progressive, nor is it an admirable feat of survival in a oppressive society (despite what her fans think, Penelope, like all the other aristocrat characters on this show, was not ever at risk of becoming homeless. Portia just liked her luxurious lifestyle too much to move to a more modest home or cut back on dresses). Penelope does this because she loves it, and because she needs an outlet. She is not on the same level as a social activist or lower class woman. She's also not interested in changing her work or reflecting on her behaviour. When Eloise criticizes the value of LD's articles in the show, or when Edwina calls out the racism of LD's posts in your fic, Penelope doesn't really do anything with that information, and just hammers down on continuing to do things the same way. Because why she should she radicalize her work when her work's success is because of bigotry and conservatism? Popularity over morals is what generally sells.

If it's actually true that the show favours Penelope, then it actually makes sense if you think about it. Bridgerton as a show makes the historically racist/sexist/classicist Regency society now look pretty and desirable. It lures you in. It makes gossip and scandal seem sexy and intriguing, rather than mean and invasive. It makes married life to a Regency man look like a dream, rather than probably the opposite lol. It has the same effect that Penelope has on the ton with her writing. It kind of makes me wonder what the show will look like after Season 3. Will Penelope quit Lady Whistledown? Will the show be more self-aware and realistic if there are now no scandal papers? Or will it continue?

You hit it right on the head!!

A lot of fans seem to think racism is calling people slurs. But particularly in a British context, a lot of it is very subtle and yet not subtle at all. Like, in my fic, I literally look at the same technique that a lot of British columnists describe high-profile women of colour in the UK.

She goes after Marina - an unwed young married black woman because she's jealous. If it was an altruistic action, she could have found a way to tell Colin privately. They treat Marina as some older woman taking advantage of a very willing Colin (who literally says if she had just told her, he still would have married her without a thought!!) but the ways fans react demonstrates the racism.

Adding the way she talks about the Sharmas, really brings out the racism in fans who like to claim this 'girlbossgossipgirl' is doing something special when all her character does is reveal how racist a lot of people are. Eloise and Edwina who are the same ages and do and say stupid things to. The difference is their characters show that they can grow from that. Idk how they are planning to redeem her but if they don't let one character of colour slap her then I don't want it

[qqueenofhades]

i love your medieval posts! i think you wrote a while back on how a first crusade film might go, and i have a question if you don’t mind me asking: I’m writing fiction around the third crusade and approaching the massacre of the acre garrison. do you have any advice on how to portray such incidents in a way which isn’t cheap/horror-porn, while not skating around the fact that this was a genuinely horrifying thing? (1/2)

(also on a lighter note: what moments from the third crusade would you absolutely love to be included in historical portrayals of the period? apart from richard x philip which is an obvious given) (2/2) 

Oooh. This is good.

I have written about the massacre at Acre three times that I can think of: twice in fiction (in my novel about Richard and then in chapter 3 of DVLA) and once in nonfiction, in my academic book about the crusades. It’s one of the events in the crusades which gets a lot of attention when somebody has a particular Point To Make, usually about the barbarity of the crusades/crusaders, attempts to portray them as simple excesses of religious zealotry, Ye Olde Bad Violent Medieval Times, parallels to modern-day Western invasions and occupations of the Middle East, well-meant attempts to critique the West’s treatment of Muslims, etc. (I seem to recall that the 2010 Robin Hood has a Bad Take on this, though the rest of it is fictional anyway, so hey.) So if you’re coming into it trying to make a Point for your reader, I advise you to think carefully about what that Point actually is, and how you’re conveying it. Because while it’s certainly a thing that happened and should be dealt with sensitively, it’s also important to think about the larger context of the crusade and how this was treated by both sides, both before and after its occurrence.

First, Saladin’s army had killed or taken prisoner the entire Christian army at the battle of Hattin in 1187, and while there are a few high-profile stories about him personally ransoming Christian captives, there was also an episode where Richard and company freed several thousand (supposedly 12,000, though medieval round figures often have problems) captives from where they were destined to be sold into the slave markets of the Islamic world. Saladin has a well-deserved reputation as a great commander and leader, so this isn’t to attempt some kind of hatchet job on him, but point out that this was a way he would have (logically) expected to make money for his army and to fund his ongoing battles against the Third Crusade. The slave trade was a major part of the medieval economy, often concentrated through the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, and the Silk Road (as I’ve mentioned before, the word “slave” comes from “Slav.”) On this note, despite their Tumblr-darling reputation as champions of conscience and liberal society and personal cleanliness, the Vikings were also big-time slave traders (which probably isn’t that surprising for people who made their living by jumping off boats and stealing other people’s shit; though the word wicing denotes a particular kind of sea raider within this society and not the entire society itself). Anyway: the point is that people were routinely used as human collateral, both as slaves and as hostages, in medieval society and warfare alike, and that included the crusades. The giving and taking of hostages was a very, very common feature of forcing trust and incentive to cooperate between warring sides; it happened in Europe, it happened on the crusades, it didn’t matter who the enemy was.

In fact, by the time the massacre took place, Richard had already taken a lot of flak (and would continue to take it throughout the crusade) for being so friendly in his diplomatic negotiations with Saladin, which was supposedly one of the reasons Philip decided to leave early. The fact that Richard kept entering into negotiations with the Saracens and trying to resolve Acre’s disputed status with diplomacy as well as warfare was a bit of a shock to the other crusade leaders, who figured that they were just there to kill the Muslims and have done with it. (They also had a grudge against Richard for swiftly dispossessing them and doing everything himself, which was just the way Richard rolled, my bros.) As also mentioned in DVLA, Richard was one of the Western leaders most sympathetically inclined to the Muslims (and especially Saladin and his brother Saif al-Din) during the entire crusades, not just the Third. We can’t know how serious he was, but he did offer to marry his sister Joanna to Saif al-Din, he and Saif al-Din hit it off during their in-person negotiations and referred to the other as their friend, he and Saladin wrote to each other fairly often even if they never met, they are both on record saying how much they admired each other, Richard was open about finding the Muslims more honorable than his Christian allies, and Hubert Walter (the bishop of Salisbury) had dinner with Saladin (when Saladin had invited the crusaders to Jerusalem after the Treaty of Jaffa in 1192, though Richard didn’t go) and told him that if he and Richard ever decided to join forces, nobody would be able to stop them. (I also had to write a novel based on that premise, for reasons.) So Richard and Saladin negotiated for the entire period of the crusades, they fought on the battlefield, they engaged in diplomacy, they respected the hell out of each other, they had a cordial-enemies relationship, and Richard became outright friends with Saif al-Din. And most of this happened AFTER the events at Acre.

That is to say: the Acre massacre, while it may appear particularly shocking to our eyes, did not end up being a major episode for either side during the crusade, at least in its ultimate course of events. Saladin and the Muslim high command had repeatedly dawdled and prevaricated and tried to avoid fulfilling the terms of the arrangement under which they had handed the hostages over, trying to delay Richard in Acre and prevent him from marching down the coast to Jaffa or Jerusalem, and thus, as utterly cold-blooded as it sounds: by the simple rules of medieval battlefield logic, the hostages were fair game. They were POWs and military combatants, and while hostages weren’t USUALLY killed, simply because it was the threat that they could be hurt that was the most effective at exerting compliance... they also could be killed, and both sides recognized that this was a possible option if the arrangement wasn’t fulfilled.

This again, as noted, wasn’t unique to the crusades. You gave up hostages precisely because they were supposed to impel you to keep your word, and if you didn’t, that reflected badly on your own honor, as much or as more than on your enemy’s. That’s why Yusuf is also pissed with Saladin in the aftermath of the massacre in DVLA; Saladin had a responsibility as a commander to free these men, he did not do that and deliberately used their safety as a pawn, so Richard called his bluff and had the prisoners executed. Which again: this was about what anyone in that situation had a right to expect, and Richard was often much more ruthless with rebellions against him by his European Christian subjects back in France; he had given Saladin over six weeks to cooperate, which was a lot more than he usually did. So this wasn’t a case where he was doing it specifically because of the religion of the captives or some mindless excess of religious bigotry, but because a military agreement had been broken. (Richard was many things, but not, so far as I can tell, really a religious bigot at all. This goes for his relations with the Jews as well as the Muslims.)

Obviously, it’s not a wonderful thing that this did happen, the Muslims were rightfully angry about it, and harassed the crusaders’ march repeatedly during the two weeks between the massacre (August 20, 1191) and the battle of Arsuf (September 7, 1191) where Richard defeated Saladin for the first time in the open field. Both of these events contributed to a dent in Saladin’s reputation, which heretofore had been about as glorious in the Islamic world as it was possible to get. There was a lull in hostilities after Arsuf as the fighting season ended, negotiations between Richard and Saladin were soon underway again, he met Saif al-Din not long after, and it doesn’t appear that the Acre massacre had a major impact on the resumption of that diplomatic relationship. This supports the interpretation that both sides recognized it as a valid if regrettable move in the circumstances, and Saladin had some awareness that he’d been outplayed twice in a row and this was, to some degree, his fault too. So while this should obviously be treated with care and not sensationalized, and given its due weight as an episode of warfare in the crusades, the broader context of this particular incident does not support it being some sort of terrible black-mark incident of mindless religious zealotry; the Muslims themselves did not view it that way and were once more negotiating with Richard a month later.

As far as lighter episodes: you DELIGHT me in giving me the opportunity to inform you about the Dueling Dirty Songs of the Third Crusade, featuring Hugh, duke of Burgundy (the commander of the French forces after Philip’s departure in July 1191) and Richard himself. This happened in July 1192, after the final failed advance on Jerusalem and before the battle of Jaffa, when relations between the French and English contingents had completely broken down. Take it away, Itinerarium Peregrinorum:

On top of all this, Henry [Hugh] duke of Burgundy, prompted by a spirit of worthless arrogance or perhaps led on by the most unbecoming malicious envy, composed the words of a song to be sung in public. Such shameful words should never have been made public if its composers had retained any sense of propriety, for they were revealed not so much as men but men beyond raping women [non tantum viris, sed et viros ultra rapientibus mulieribus]. Those who applied their efforts to such shocking and silly activities certainly made themselves conspicuous and revealed the hidden intentions of their hearts […] This invidious composition was sung all through the army. The king [Richard] was extremely annoyed about it, and thought that he should punish them by paying them back in their own coin. So he also sang something about them, and it was little trouble to compose because there was plenty of material at hand.

As I write about in my Queer Richard paper: The IP’s shocked tone in reporting this anecdote, the clear sense that Hugh’s song was too shameful to even be hinted at, and the curious comment that the ones responsible were men “beyond even raping women” gives the distinct impression that this was a musical slander on Richard’s sexual habits, especially given his public repentance in Messina prior to the crusade. It also fits in a tradition wherein which songs were used as one of the most versatile and popular methods of mass communication in crusading armies, praising crusaders’ successes and lambasting their failures. The IP author, for whom Richard was a figure of hero-worship, deflected the charges of sexual irregularity by the straightforward tactic of claiming that the French must be engaging in it instead, and thus by inference, homosexual sodomy was an even worse sin than heterosexual rape. It also shows that Richard’s own reaction was simply to sing a wittier and more scathing song about his accusers. And seriously, his nemesis (well, the henchman of his nemesis, since Philip was already gone) throws a shit fit and is all I’LL TELL EVERYONE THAT RICHARD LIKES DUDES NAH NAH NAH like it’s a middle school playground slap fight? And Richard just goes, “bring it on bro, I’m smarter than you, I’m a better singer than you, there’s TONS OF MATERIAL for me to write about how much you suck, and I will now proceed to destroy you in a diss track competition because I’m Queer N’ Awesome?”

I’m sorry. Legendary. We stan.

[thepropertylovers]

What Foreigners Really Think of The U.S. Right Now

The other night, after the kiddos went to bed, we decided to watch the second Borat movie that just came out (have you seen it?). It was insane and hilarious all at the same time, but it got me wondering: what do folks who don’t live in the U.S. think of The United States of America right now? What is their perception of us?

So I decided to pose this question on Instagram and wow. Y’all did not hold back. I want to thank everyone who submitted for your candidness and honesty, even if some of these were hard to swallow. It’s important to note that just because these are their opinions of America, it doesn’t mean it is all necessarily true. Regardless, it was interesting to read everyone’s thoughts and get an outsider’s perspective.

We received hundreds of submissions and couldn’t post them all, but below, people from all over the world share what they really think of the United States at the moment.

Leadership is out of touch with reality and messing things up real bad, not just for the U.S. but also for the world. What’s worse is that half the country is being misled successfully. It just shows poorly on the country all over. -Annonymous

Your president is a disaster when it comes to foreign politics and corona. No class, no knowledge. A joke. Very scary to watch. But half of the voters are happy with it. And that is even more scary. Very difficult to understand the hate and ignorance in your society right now. -Mikkel

It’s just weird. Everything basically. I totally understand now why the U.S. is described as '“flawed democracy” in the democracy index. It’s just a crazy system which is not providing equality among people- regarding the vote especially. This system leads to the fact of the two big parties (similar in the UK basically). But democracy is about diversity in opinions and options. Not just two. -Max

The US is more divided than ever. The two parties cannot work together nor do they appear to want to. The government is no longer run by reason, facts, and policy aiming for the betterment of the entire country and or world in the long or medium run; rather it’s instant gratification for the few who benefit from nepotism. Lies and misinformation are used to build a dictatorship hiding in the form of “patriotism”. And those who could act as a check or balance focus on their own personal gain, putting their needs above those of the persons they should be representing. -Joel

I personally don’t think there is a very good atmosphere in the USA, especially right now, Trump’s administration does not protect the American people or the economy. He only cares about himself and his male-white supremacy. The worst of all is that lots of Americans think Trump is actually a good leader (idk why, honestly). But thank God that people are starting to wake up and fight about what they believe. We can see it through BLM protests, feminist movements, and so on, and the whole world is proud about those people fighting for their rights. America was once the land of dreams, but nowadays (with all that is happening) it is even scary to go there. Lots of things have to change and those changes have to start, voting and defending your rights and your beliefs are the first step. Greetings from Spain. -Antonio

The main reasons I can think of are vote suppression/gerrymandering, expensive health care wealth inequality, racism, lack of fun control… -Brian

Definitely find the hypocrisy of the Republicans so annoying, Trump still being in office, the fact that there has been no police reform or justice for Breonna Taylor, the gun laws, and the COVID numbers just to name a few. -Brian

Here in the UK it seems like CARNAGE over there..don’t get me wrong, it’s wild here too but Trump is insane and it’s really odd seeing so many Americans supporting him. -Dan

Really worried about the fact that you might go for 4 more years with Trump and the fact that he’ll for sure contest the results if he loses. Add to this, all the racial violence and in particular the way some policemen act without being condemned by any judge. And finally the pandemic which seems to be even more out of control than in other countries. This is coming from someone who lives in France where we’re going to be under lockdown for the second time since the beginning of the pandemic (2nd lockdown starting tomorrow evening and will last at least until December 1st 😢). -Estelle

To put a long story short, let’s just hope Cheeto doesn’t get reelected otherwise our UK trade deal will be a disaster and we don’t need any more negative influences in the UK around gender and sexual equality.-Christian

I think with this administration, the US has demonstrated how to shipwreck a whole nation economically, ideologically, socially, and politically within a really short period of time. After just 4 years, we’ve come to associate the US with widespread narrow-mindedness, a lack of respect and courtesy to other nations (and minorities in its own country for that matter), short sightedness when it comes to global phenomena like environmentalism or migration patterns, and a celebration (by some at least) of almost barbaric notions of violence, oppression, and backward thinking, all under the camouflage of its constitution and socio-historic heritage. We’ve really admired the Obama administration over here in Europe, which-despite its flaws and shortcomings- has opened up the US to international partnerships and has established an ongoing discourse shaped by mutual respect and politeness…the contrast couldn’t be more pronounced these day…-Sebastian

I look at our Prime Minister and government and then see Trump and think we really could have it so much worse! Vote!! -Ant

As an American living in London, I can tell you that the news coverage here makes the US look like an absolute joke. Mainly due to 45, his lies, his bigotry, and his insane desire to make covid seem as though it’s a falsehood “created by the left” while hundreds of thousands of Americans have ben victimized by this pandemic. What was once seen as a country of opportunity and freedom, is sadly no longer held to that level of greatness in comparison to its neighboring countries. It saddens me because I had plans to move back home within the next year or so, but if the US continues on its path, I can see myself in London for the unforeseeable future. I can’t live in a country where I am seen or believed to be lesser than another because of my sexual preference. I can only hope and pray that this election brings the change we need to be that country of greatness once again. -Rob

Very poor to be honest. And I’m not necessarily [talking about Trump]- I think the immediate reaction is to blame him. Though, he is pretty awful. There was obviously a huge level of social and other problems in the US, and the current administration has exploited them to the breaking point. Whereas more “skilled” past administrations had the ability to leverage those issues for their benefit, but not let it boil over. I actually thought Trump would be a positive for the US and world- in that his incompetence would force other world leaders to step up. Meaning more equity in how disputes etc. are assessed and the US wouldn’t bully smaller nations. I think the US has hit the point in its journey with capitalism that the USSR hit with socialism in the late 80’s that led to its collapse. Does that mean collapse for the US, I don’t know but the system isn’t providing equity and equality for all as it stands. -Paul

Worried but also hopeful for you guys because I don’t think all citizens in America reflect the current administration. It’s been really great to see people voting early and making their voice heard. No matter what happens just know you did what you could in this moment in time. Even though the current administration provides a scary outlook for the future. As long as the current and future generations lead with love, there will hopefully be a brighter future. Love from Canada. -Ajetha

I've been subscribing to all of the US News since the Black Lives Matter Movement commenced and honestly, it made me scared as a Filipino Asian to step foot in the States ever since. I have big dreams of flying over there and probably working there as an immigrant after I finished college. However, when I found out about the racial injustice that is currently ongoing in the country, I became hesistant of still wanting to live there. Although, I'm positive that there are still people like you two that will be open about working immigrants, I really hope that racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia will end for good among every human beings in the US and also around the world. I do wish and pray that the 2020 US election will make certain amends to the current situation y'all are experiencing because it's getting pretty scary out there. -Harvey I’m an American living overseas working for the US government. I’m trying my hardest to stay overseas so my family and I don’t have to come back to the mess that is the US right now. From politics to COVID, it’s not a good time. While the virus may be surging again in Europe, at least the people comply with the government rules. Sometimes I believe Americans take freedom and liberty a bit too far, especially when it comes to the greater good. -Anonymous

Allthough on social policy the US is no real example for us (I think there is more social ‘security’, more justice, high standards in education for all in most of the EU countries), they always have been a ‘safe haven’ in big international politics. It now feels like ‘they have our back’ doesn’t imply anymore. -Jasper

Well personally I think the country seems in total disarray, instead of focusing on the real issues in the streets both house of the capitol are focused on bashing each other during the election campaign which is a circus due to the sitting POTUS. The obsession with the right to bare arms and the gun culture bewilders most other countries, you have teenagers walking into schools with Assault weapons and yet people still want guns to be available, worst still you ban one type of assault rifle but another just as powerful is kept on sale, it’s plain weird. -Philip

Neither candidate represents their party well. As an outsider looking in, it just baffles me that either of these men could potentially be the leader of the free world...It genuinely feels like worrying times are ahead for the US. -Marc I'm from India and living in Germany at the moment. The race problem in the US is as bad as the class/caste problem in India. Even if I don't have money I can go to a government health center in India. I just had an operation and stayed at the hospital for 18 days here in Germany, I had to pay only 180 Euros, everything else ( the operation and the many tests and scans that followed) was covered by the insurance. When my friends at the US heard about it they were shocked about low the hospital bill. There are really great labs (I'm a researcher) that I would like to work but I have no intentions of working/living in the US for a longer period of time. -Maithy

I think the US has become a joke to the rest of the developed world. Neither candidates running for president are fit to run such a powerful country. I can't help but feel after the election if Trump wins the left will riot and if Biden wins the right will riot. The country might just rip itself apart. American politics has zero empathy and zero morals. Honestly its terrifying. -Andrew

The US has always been a bit confusing to me - the two party system, the focus on religion, the divide in income and possibilities- as well as being the beacon of light in the fight for human rights, the strong personal pride in creating caring societets, the blending of and openeses for ethnicities and cultures... But for a while politics have become not at all about politics, religious beliefs are taking charge in policy work, the wealthier part shows little companion towards the less wealthy, the public spending is way above budget year after year while health care seems to be crazy expensive and not for all. The intrusion of US interest in politics in other countries are blunt to say the least, creating conflict where human lives have no value if they’re not US lives... School shootings that seems to be acted upon as that is part of normal lives, and schools to expensive for even middle class kids to study at... This is a shift in trust and soft power that affects all of us. -Olof

To be honest, I couldn’t come to the US right now, it scares me. The leadership, the gun laws, the violence and the divide of the nation. It sucks, because I love America and have been there 7 times in the last two years from Australia for work... but not anymore. I’m not coming back now until peace wins. -Anonymous

The fact that such a hate filled government is presiding over what is one the greatest countries in the world is scary. And it is seriously mind blowing that out of such a powerful country filled with some of the greatest minds in the world it’s these two men are the best you can do to be your next president. Unbelievable. Seriously unbelievable. -Rachel

I think the orange dude in office is making you guys look bad. But also, good (?). Seeing the black lives matter movement and so many of you stand up to the problems your country faces has been inspiring. One thing our countries have in common is how we are divided into very distinctive opposites sides. I mean, where do all these racists, bigots, utterly, madly conservites people came from? I few like a few years ago things did not seem so much as a boiling pan about to explode. Or maybe they were all hiding and when a lunatic like them rose to power (how that happened still boggles my mind) they all showed their true colors. It’s scary. I hope Trump doesn’t get reelected. Brazilians loooove to imitate americans🙄, so if he gets reelected it makes that much probable that our lunatic will also be in office for four more years. P.S. have you guys watched the show Years and Years from HBO? A really good watch is this election times! ☺️ -Taty

Re. The US atm. Unfortunately your president has made your country a laughing stock around the world and he's destroyed relationships with allies. It's gonna take time to rebuild all of that. He's also moved an entire branch of your government to the far right, even though the majority of the country if left/centr of left. So you've a supreme court that doesn't represent you and it's looking like they're going to try and take away rights from people. You have a healthcare system that doesn't look out for its people and there's this bizarre fear of universal healthcare that seems insane to every other 1st world country. If if Biden wins (and I really hope he does for everyone's sake), there's going to be a lot of work in undoing the damage Trump has done before he can even get into what he wants to do. All the while you've an ultra conservative highest court. There's also the massive political division and the systemic racism. It's a lot. It's not impossible, but it's going to take so much time and people who want it to change. -Ciara

I’ve been sitting here for an hour thinking about your question and there are many different outlooks I could raise so I’ll keep it generic. I’ll start with the elephant in the room known as Covid. Each day, our morning news informs us of what your leaders are doing and daily case numbers in the US. We sit here completely shocked at how your government has let it reach this point. You may have heard that Melbourne has just come out of one of the strictest and longest lock downs in the world. I wouldn’t wish that upon anyone to have to do, but I will say, I feel much more comfortable to be able to go to the shops knowing the numbers are at about 2-3 a day instead of in the thousands. I do think that your government does need to address this now, could even be making it compulsory mask wearing. It’s hard for me to comment about your economy as we don’t here much about it, but I will say Trump ‘says’ make America great again, let’s get more jobs, they are pro life, yet how is someone who is prolife not doing anything to stop a virus that is killing people? Isn’t your unemployment rate worse (pre-covid) than what it was when Obama was president? I think as a generic outlook, if change isn’t made in the election, the outlook from a Australian does not look like it would be something you’d want to be apart of. I love America. Have visited a couple of times, even thought about moving there, but at the moment, I’ve never been more thankful to not be there. -Ben

[ailuronymy]

Hello, Grey. Hope you’re doing well.

First off, a note for your information. I’m autistic, and tend to come off as incredibly direct without meaning to. Do read straightforward bluntness in this ask as genuine, matter-of-fact forthrightness, please. No aggression or derision is intended by anything I write hereafter.

Recently you made a post responding to an Anonymous ask referring to a question about non-binary cats in Ailuronymy’s character generator that was asked by the same Ruddles five years ago. I couldn’t follow your argumentation in either post, nor understood what you found wrong about the original question of that Ruddles.

Grey’s notes: hello there. I’m putting all of this under a read-more since there’s already a lot of words here. I would like to settle this matter and so I hope this might give you some answers–but if not, I’m sorry but I’m not really looking to continue the conversation any further. I didn’t really volunteer to have to deal with this kind of thing when I started writing a blog about pretend cats, and while I am very happy to try to educate and do what I can with the knowledge and little platform I have, this particular kind of education not what I’m here for and I’d prefer not to spend my time on it more than is necessary.

I have absolutely nothing against nonbinary people. I also consider real-life commonality a possible valid argument for commonality in a character generator for a fictional world that is integrated into a version of real Earth.

This is where we disagree. In real life, non-binary people are (allegedly) less common than binary people. I’m willing to agree with you on that. However, that is also not actually the issue I have and to explain what I mean by that I want to raise two points:

1. why should a for-fun name or character generator be expected to reflect real-world statistics?

2. why is the non-binary entry the sticking point, and not the the statistical over-presence of albinistic cats, for example, or white cats with blue eyes that aren’t deaf, or tortoiseshell toms? 

If I made a character generator for a pseudo-medieval fantasy, would you expect me to carefully ensure that the ratio of kings to peasants was correct? Would I be expected to put several thousand peasant entries in, and only one monarch, so that it would “accurately” reflect the “real world” (note: pseudo-medieval fantasy is not a real place or time, just like the world of Warriors is not)–or would people recognise that a character generator is merely a prompt and not something that needs to be taken literally? A character generator is simply holding up an option to you, which you are free to take or leave or change as you desire. 

The fact that the non-binary entry is the issue and none of the others I’ve listed–all of which are “statistical errors” within the context of the generator–reveals that this is not actually a concern about accuracy. If it was simply a concern about accuracy, then the person would be considering all of the ways in which my generator does not deliver an accurate reflection of “the real world.” But it’s not about accuracy, it’s specifically about the non-binary entry. And that is why I have an issue with this stance. 

If you can look at an otherwise error-filled generator and express concern only about the fact you have to see the word “non-binary” more frequently than you think is correct, that is a bigoted mindset. The non-binary entry in the generator is exactly as common as “tom” and “molly”: a one-in-three chance. You have two-out-of-three chances to see a binary gender, which is still a majority. 

I understand if you don’t want to spend your time on this, and respect your decision to do so if you so choose. However, I would like to understand why the above argument I mentioned isn’t valid in your eyes, and what makes inquiring about the generator ratio’s incongruence with real life ratios in humans instantly bigoted, since I wasn’t able to follow the reasoning there. How can asking a mere question that, to my eyes, seemed innocent, qualify as being bigoted? Isn’t the definition of bigotry more in the direction of an actively damaging, enduring prejudice?

It is not a good faith question, even if the person asking isn’t intentionally trying to be prejudiced or is asking the question in genuine curiosity. The question itself is not innocent. I think it is a mistake to refer to any question as “mere” because many questions can in fact be insidious, hurtful, inappropriate, malicious, or intentionally derailing. 

I would also like to point out that “sealioning” is a technique that certain people use to exhaust people by asking questions. That’s not what the anon who asked me was doing (I believe this was entirely an isolated incident and not actively malicious), but it’s not uncommon for marginalised people to be asked seemingly innocuous questions with the intent to exhaust, derail, infuriate, or belittle them. I can recommend watching carefully for this kind of behaviour, because it often takes the form of “polite” or “innocent” questioning--and then getting performatively upset when the person eventually refuses to engage anymore. 

Answering questions takes time and effort and energy, especially when the question is “explain why you should have rights” or “I don’t see why [thing that hurts you is bad], please explain in detail,” so sometimes people get fed up and lash out after being needled at length with similar. (This is kind of a detour, but I felt it’s worth acknowledging the way in which question-asking can actually be weaponised against marginalised people).

Anyway, as I said above, to isolate the frequency of the non-binary as an issue in a context where statistical accuracy is not assumed or required and would not be expected of other traits reveals that the person asking has an issue with non-binary being as present as it is. What does the person asking this question seek to achieve? If the non-binary entry in the generator is reduced in frequency to a “normal” or “accurate” level, what does that actually accomplish? 

One could certainly make the argument that it’s fallacious to relate real-life commonality to generator commonality, bringing forth whichever reasons one might choose; but instead in your response back then you chose to instead personally criticize the commenter while skipping over their actual question. How come? What made it invalid to address?

Sometimes I am tired and people make me cross with the things they say, so I be short with them and say exactly what I think of their behaviour, rather than hold their hand like a kindergarten teacher. If I was asked the same thing today, I would probably have been gentler and attempted to be more informative, because I have become gentler as a person in the five years since I answered that ask. I’m sure you can understand. Sometimes I’m not playing 4d chess and don’t have the wisdom and forethought of the sages. Sometimes I’m just a cranky old guy writing about cats who gets interrupted and has to tell someone to get over their nonsense. 

The Ruddles from back then didn’t imply viewing non-binary people negatively in any way, did they? (Genuine question; due to being autistic I’m not good at reading peoples’ intentions, and even worse at it over text.)

The implication is the question. Perhaps this person really did believe they “don’t have a problem with non-binary people”–but they clearly had enough of a problem with the word showing up 1/3 times on a generator to come and request for me, the creator, to make the word less common so they did not have to see it as much. That is not something a person does when they legitimately don’t have a problem with non-binary existence. 

How did what they asked have the potential to hurt anyone?

The question is hurtful implicitly because it calls into question the validity of the non-binary entry taking up space in the generator, and I suspect that could possibly hurt people’s feelings to read. 

But the big issue is actually what that person might also do. The question itself can do very little, but the unchallenged prejudice that caused the question to be asked at all can be very hurtful if left unchecked. That’s why I go to the effort to answer questions here. 

Why did you consider their train of thought about relating commonality in the generator to commonality IRL unkind or self-centred? It seems an obvious and innocuous connection to make, to me. Where does kindness or the lack of it come into the matter? How I understood, the argument appears focused only on factual observations of our reality, rather than making any statement disliking the inclusion of non-binary as an option in the generator, or equivalent.

There’s a phrase some people like to use that says “facts don’t care about your feelings.” But we are not facts and we can choose how we interpret and deliver facts to one another. Unkindness features in this question in the absence of considering how non-binary people might feel seeing themselves represented in the generator, and how it might feel to have someone quibbling over “commonality,” like they are a hypothetical to be debated, instead of real people who will read the question on my blog.  

Many people have thanked me over the years for including the entry and I care about how they feel. I felt that the person asking that question cared only about comforting their own worldview, instead of ceding some space in it for others–at no personal cost.

As far as I can tell, there ought to be some layer of personal prejudice that seems invisible to me in the original Ruddles’ question, else your response wouldn’t make sense - and I doubt that’s the case, based on what I’ve read from you the last few years.

I understand that you may not want to respond to this for whatever reason. Maybe it would take too long, maybe you don’t want to open this can of beans, or consider me a lost cause for my confusion.

That is fine. I accept your choice.

But if you do want to help me understand, I’d be thankful for a short explanation about your reasoning, so I can gain the contextual information to evaluate whether my own viewpoints, that wouldn’t have considered the initial Anonymous question from 2015 to be anything but an innocuous inquiry phrased a bit unfortunately, have the potential to cause hurt in the future.

I’m afraid I can’t really give a short explanation, given how much you’ve asked for me to clarify in this message, but I hope this reply clarifies what you’re struggling with. 

For what it’s worth, I think caring about the impact you have on others is the best possible place to come from as a person, so I don’t think you’re a lost cause. Best of luck to you in the future. 

I don’t want to unintentionally (or intentionally, for that matter) make anyone’s life worse, especially not that of people belonging to a group that already faces so many undeserved struggles in this world. That’s why I chose to write this, even if it may seem overly lengthy or not worth the effort to some.

Take care, and thanks for reading

Anony Mouse

[sepublic]

LGBTQIA+ in Bionicle: RaE

To celebrate the beginning of Pride Month, I figured I may as well briefly delve into the subject of LGBTQIA+ in Bionicle: RaE! And before anyone gets riled up over me ‘changing’ things from the previous lore, don’t worry! I have a permit;

(Also this is Bionicle: Redone and Expanded, it’s a fan-work so chill)

With that out of the way...

On Okoto, queer identity is a completely normal facet of everyday life. There has been no known, recorded instance of bigotry, because why would there be? People are people, and they freely explore their sexualities as they choose.

Being Trans and exploring one’s pronouns is frequent on Okoto. I’ve talked before about how Okoto’s Mask Culture favors the idea of making one’s own identity, creating a new ‘face’ for oneself, one you can actually choose and decide. To Okotans, one’s personal Mask that they make for themselves is more reflective of their personhood and identity than their actual physical face, because it’s something you craft for yourself and decide. Similarly, I imagine Naming Day -which I haven’t figured out the full details for- goes hand-in-hand with this idea of recreating one’s identity, of undergoing a rebirth of sorts.

Now obviously, a culture that prizes discovering yourself, reforging your own identity, sometimes even completing reinventing one’s identity; That’s a very trans-friendly narrative! A lot of people figure themselves out when crafting their personal masks, which tend to go through multiple revisions and versions. Naming Day is a way to come out and solidify and explore one’s new identity, at least for now; Nothing is set in stone! Of course, by that logic, genderfluid identities are also welcomed and appreciated!

On another note, I suppose the subject of one’s physical face and how an individual treats it varies, the way Trans individuals may feel about their own dead names and personalities. Some want to leave it behind and forget entirely, while others are pretty casual about referencing it as a past, outdated thing. Any option is totally valid! Nobody judges in Okoto. By the end of the day, Okotans value the concept of Identity, especially a self-chosen one, very much. Consequently, it’s seen as the epitome of disrespect to disregard someone’s chosen identity and bring up a past name or face of theirs in the process; It’s an incredibly petty, lowly, and grave insult, akin to spitting on someone’s personal mask or destroying it, or insulting a person’s family bloodline. Not even Makuta would stoop so low, so... To anyone who misgenders...

Don’t be worse than the narcissist who literally experimented on people.

During the Creation Age, if one wanted to have sex-reassignment surgery, it was pretty easy thanks to Masks of Power and other Life Automatons. Masks of Healing combined with surgical work can do the job. In particular, the Mask of Control was very efficient at helping trans individuals change their bodies if desired; Keep in mind that contrary to the legends, Ekimu and Makuta actually wore the Masks of Creation and Control interchangeably. Later towards the Creation Age, the two began to become more familiar one of the two, but generally speaking, there was no restriction. If you wanted a quick change, just pop over to Ekimu or Makuta, whoever had the Mask of Control, and ask!

On Xia, the general attitudes towards queer identities is essentially the exact same; It may be a horrific, industrial landscape... But there’s no reason to be bigoted. There’s no basis to it, there’s nothing to gain.

Unfortunately for Trans individuals on Xia, sex-reassignment surgery is far more difficult to have access to. Again, this is not out of any stigma towards trans people, but rather because Xian healthcare in general is so ridiculously expensive that everyone is screwed over. The Trans experience on Xia isn’t fun, because... Any experience on that cursed island isn’t fun.

Now, onto fun facts about the cast; Specifically, several characters’ sexuality and/or identities! I’d call them headcanons, but technically I’m the writer who decides what comes and goes in RaE, so really they’re just... canons.

Tahu- Is one of the most pansexual people out there. He’s a social butterfly that loves and grooves with just about anyone, and he’ll flirt readily- Provided those he’s flirting with are comfortable. He’ll back off if he can sense discomfort, and he makes sure to only do this when the situation is appropriate. As a person with basic morals, personal autonomy and consent is much-respected by Tahu.

Gali- Questioning, both in-universe and from a writer’s perspective. RaE Gali is a character who’s busy figuring a LOT of stuff out regarding her identity and role as a Toa.

Pohatu- He’s Gay, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Onua- Aromantic ace! She doesn’t quite get the idea of sexual attraction or romance, but it’s intriguing to quietly observe from an outsider’s perspective nonetheless!

Kopaka- Pan, but with a particular disposition towards big, buff people. 

Lewa- Also Pan, he’s pretty open to a lot of people and loves very freely and compassionately. (Of course, that isn’t to say that non-Pan people, such as aces or aros, don’t have compassion; Onua is a just person after all! It’s just that with Lewa’s very friendly and outreaching nature, it makes a lot of sense to me for him to be open to just about any possible relationship.)

On another note, the Protectors of Jungle and Water, Vizuna and Kivoda, are both non-binary and go by They/Them pronouns! Initially I grappled with deciding which one to make NB, but then it occurred to me that the more there is, the merrier! Likewise, Takua is a trans woman!

Generally speaking, assume most characters are pansexual. There are the occasional exceptions I know for certain, such as Harvali and Vira- They’re lesbians. On another fun note, if a character’s gender in RaE doesn’t match the one they had in the source material, there’s at least a 75% chance that they’re Trans! I haven’t decided on all of them exactly, but for now, it’s safe to assume that they’re probably Trans!

Any Trans Individuals or others of queer identity are free to give input on how I can contribute to, change, or update this kind of worldbuilding! I may be queer, but I’m still no expert in queer identities, and I welcome the feedback, corrections, and experiences of others- Diversity IS the spice of life! LGBTQIA+ asks about RaE are also welcome as well, as are suggestions on representation that I can include!

[bustedbernie]

Oh hai. Lately there have been a slew of think pieces about Bernie Sanders being the front-runner, discussing how his movement has threatened to withhold their votes from Democrats if Bernie isn’t the nominee. Hidden between the lines is the idea that Democrats, in general, owe their votes to Sanders if he is the nominee, regardless of the fact that his voters do NOT owe Dems their votes if he is not. So, rather than call them out for using the same tactics that lost the 2016 election, there is a faction in the media that is growing more and more permissive to the idea that Bernie and his Revolution are somehow the victims in all this, and that mainstream Dems have done them wrong time and time again when picking a candidate that appeals to the Dems masses.

Let me let you in on a little secret.

I don’t owe Bernie Sanders or his fucked off revolution of stanerific emo-marxist cyber-terrorists a goddamn bit of shit the fuck all. When these utter fucking geniuses in the media reflect on how energized and dedicated his enthusiastic fans are when engaging in their harassment of the average Dem, they seem to think the people who have been abused don’t fucking matter. These Dems are people who have never done anything whatsoever to deserve the constant bullying, cyber-stalking, targeting, threats, or in my case, being falsely reported to the FBI by fans of Bernie who seek to silence dissent. What these media personalities don’t understand is that the abuse by Bernie fans, in his name, actually causes the gap between MAGA and Berners to shrink to the point where it is non-existent. There is no real difference between the abuse from either side, and since Sanders isn’t the warm and fuzzy type that reaches out to the people who have been abused, often there appears to be no real difference between Sanders and Trump.

Slate:

Still, the Bernie-or-Busters, small as they may be, have spun their position into an argument for why others should vote for Bernie Sanders too, regardless of the platform they prefer. As efforts in political persuasion go, this contingent puts forward an openly hostile argument. Sanders is the only electable candidate, they suggest, not just because of his policies, but because of the single-mindedness of his followers. The reason you should vote for Sanders is that we won’t vote for anyone else. You don’t want Trump to win again, do you?

No. But I also don’t want Bernie Sanders to win. In a case of one not liking either candidate, people look to see which movement they feel most comfortable with, Bernie’s or Trump’s. If it turns out that both movements engage in racist behavior, sexism, and homophobia, it really doesn’t matter what they profess to be in favor of as far as policy is concerned, what matters is how they treat their fellow citizens by and large. We all know that unless we take back the Senate with a large majority that can defeat Republican attempts to stop legislation from hitting Sanders’ desk, nothing will pass anyway. So, if you’re not in favor of Bernie’s policies in the first place, and do not like him or his movement, why would you be enthusiastic about showing up for the guy who leads the movement that engages in attacks on you?

Yes, it sounds like ugly hostage taking—not a brilliant persuasive strategy but a crude ego-boosting exercise for a group of leftists who can’t resist the impulse to lord some power over an electorate that doesn’t normally consider them relevant. But that’s exactly what makes it so normal, even understandable, in a depressing “we’re all human” sort of way. [NO.] Because the truth is this: Every threat these Sanders stans are explicitly making is one the venerated Centrist Swing Voter makes implicitly—and isn’t judged for. The centrist never even has to articulate his threat.

Excuse me, it IS ugly hostage taking, it is NOT normal, and no, it doesn’t make me see them as more human.

Another thing is this: not everyone opposed to Bernie Sanders is a Centrist, Moderate, or a Swing voter. Many of us are as far left or to the left of Sanders, I for one am definately to his left, and had supported him in 2015. That was until his racist abusive Bern Mafia targeted me for expressing concern about his lack of outreach to black voters. I noticed his lack of history in hiring black people (D.C. is Chocolate City, we could not find one black staffer in 2015; I am open to correction on this point; if he had black staffers prior to 2015, please send me receipts because I have been looking for them.), lamented and mocked his poor showing at Netroots, fumed over his constant MLK appropriation, jeered at his white ass crowds, and felt humiliated by his inability to discuss black people in ways that were not centered on Poverty or Prisons. It is HIS FAULT that his voters have no clue how to engage Black people without resorting to stereotypes and outright bigotry, because he does the same thing.

Buzzfeed:

Sanders, seated across the table, a yellow legal pad at hand, responded with a question of his own, according to two people present: “Aren’t most of the people who sell the drugs African American?” The candidate, whose aides froze in the moment, was quickly rebuffed: The answer, the activists told him, was no. Even confronted with figures and data to the contrary, Sanders appeared to have still struggled to grasp that he had made an error, the two people present said.

No. He did not apologize for spreading this stereotype, and yes, it shows how he views black people in general.

Slate:

One of many disorienting factors in this election cycle is the fact that the left is more popular and more viable than it has been in a long, long time. They have not one but two exciting candidates, and both are offering policies closer to what leftists actually want than most presidential contenders in U.S. history have.

I wanted the party to move to the Left towards the direction of where I stood too. I can’t really name my ideology because it’s so far left I am almost hitting the wall. Additionally, I am more Libertarian than Sanders, who trends more authoritarian. Yet, I instinctively know that playing a game of “my way or the highway” won’t lead to a place where poverty programs are expanded up and out, ensuring all necessities of life are provided. It will lead to gridlock and we will make zero progress.

Because folks at the center tend to be wooed by multiple candidates, they’re used to having options, and they’re used to the experience of their vote determining who ends up with the nomination. This means that they usually like the candidate they vote for, in the primary and in the general. Not so for leftists, who get to merely tolerate the candidates they end up having to vote for in order to mitigate the damage from a worse result.

Here’s the rub… I’m Black. None of this shit applies to me, because as a Black person, I rarely even LIKE or TRUST any of the candidates I have been voting for over the years. I also usually, especially in State and Locally, don’t have any say so in determining the nominee of any race. I am always stuck voting for whoever White People choose as the candidate, and as such, am merely tolerating whoever is chosen to prevent a worse outcome, which usually means preventing a racist shitmonger from winning a race.

Speaking of race… Progressives refuse to address race as a factor in anything; they like to ignore race in everything they do and allow Prison Policy to stand in for Racial Policy, so it’s impossible to get them to see my reality. They get this shit from Bernie.

From Buzzfeed:

“The real issue is not whether you’re black or white, whether you’re a woman or a man,” he said in a 1988 interview. “The real issue is whose side are you on? Are you on the side of workers and poor people or are you on the side of big money and the corporations?”

Not much has changed with Bernie, as you know, Bernie never changes, because he was born as a 72 year old yelly man, just like Benjamin Button, but louder and not as cute.

“It’s not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry,” the Vermont independent senator and former Democratic presidential candidate said in a not-so-subtle rebuke to Hillary Clinton”

Bernie’s attacks on Identity Politics filtered down to his base, causing them to feel confident in their attacks on Blacks, LGBTQ, and Women who brought up issues of race, sexuality, and gender over the past few years. They love to say shit to black people online that they would never say to an actual Black person IN PERSON, because they are scared as fuck of Black people. Kinda like Bernie. The refrain of “that’s identity politics, not real policy’ rang out constantly on social media the past few years to the point where pointing out racism, homophobia, and sexism was met with swarms of white men attacking Black people, All Women Who Dared To Be THAT Bitch, LGBTQ, and really, anyone worried about social justice issues that focused on identity. The attacks were and ARE bigoted in the extreme.

This is racist as fuck and is one of the ways the Bernie Titty-Babies managed to marginalize Kamala Harris and drive a wedge between her and Black Voters. Somehow they thought keeping it going would make us like dusty ass Bernie more, but they’re stupid, because we don’t even like that geriatric Bernadook now.

This is homophobic.

Bernie’s supporters are engaging in a hate campaign against Mayor Pete and are trying to convince the world that they are not being homophobic, they are just saying Pete is suppressing his dangerous serial killer nature by being so straight laced. This is fucked up because they are attacking a gay man for being “straight appearing” in spite of the fact that his seeming straightness is how he interacts with a world that hates gay people, and has at times (and Still Does) MURDERED men and women who are gay for not assimilating or conforming to hetero-normative stereotypes. Bernie ignores this behavior from his fans like he ignores all of their nasty hate campaigns. I blame him.

This is misogynistic. No explanation needed.

Racist and fat shaming. Black hair is not your fucking business, bitch. Back the fuck up.

This is just blatantly false and caused people to harass Kamala Harris supporters until they stopped using the Yellow Circles she asked supporters to wear, it stems from the misogynoir his fans engaged in towards Kamala. Bernie has never said shit, so I blame him.

Bigotry. Also erasure of Biden’s Black support in a effort to make it seem as if Bernie is the candidate of diversity. Bernie is at fault, he also erases minorities.

Sexist. Also, damn near all of his fans seem to hate Obama on the same level and with as much heat as MAGA. Why the fuck would we want to join in unity with this man when his fans HATE the first black President. Oh, you think Bernie has nothing to do with setting the tone?

“The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure,” Sanders started, responding to a question about the young voters who supported his campaign. “People sometimes don’t see that because there was a charismatic individual named Barack Obama, who won the presidency in 2008 and 2012.

“He was obviously an extraordinary candidate, brilliant guy. But behind that reality, over the last 10 years, Democrats have lost about 1,000 seats in state legislatures all across this country.”

Bernie doesn’t fucking like Obama either.

Sexism. Racism. Bernie does the worst with Black Women, and is often dismissive when asked a question by one of us. So, his fans see nothing to lose by targeting us in particular, and we in turn are likely the largest group of people willing to sit this one out if Bernie manages to come out on top. The media is no help whatsoever to marginalized people, because they ultimately weave a narrative where Bernie comes out the victim.

We can already see it happening amongst the Children of the Bern, where they have taken to labeling K-Hive, a movement started by a Black Woman (Me) for a Black Woman (Kamala Harris), “Liberal ISIS” for our resistance to Bernie and willingness to defend the other candidates from the attacks levied by the Berner Swarm.

Oh, cry me a fucking river! We don’t dox, cyberstalk, harass, abuse, try to get people fired, engage in bigotry, we learn from our mistakes, and we never make it our mission to ruin someone’s life.

We simply turn the tables on the bros and ask tough questions, like Kamala Harris. If that breaks you down, you were already broken before you found us. Oh, yeah. That’s another thing. We don’t go looking for Berners to abuse; we wait until they come to abuse US and refuse to play along.

Regardless of what poor Peter Daou says, there is no “Unadulterated Hatred” in asking if someone has checked on him.

So, yes, I can blame Bernie for the nastiness of his movement and choose not to ever join it no matter what. Progressives love to play forever victims, even while they engage in their vile abuse, but I do not have to empower their movement or help them elect Bernie. Maybe if enough people sound the alarm and let him know we will not be helping him in November while suffering constantly at the hands of his Branch Bernidians, then he will have no choice but to be a leader and fucking lead these assholes into being decent people. I don’t expect the abuse to magically end if Bernie becomes President or loses to Trump, and I also don’t expect him to do shit about it, so I guess I’m just Never Bernie. What I am now stuck with is the same as always; White States get to vote first and create the narrative that Dem voters are in favor of whoever these powerful white voters choose, and I am sick of it and sick of Sanders. I didn’t become a Democrat to not only be marginalized by the White Moderate, but to also suffer abuse from the punk ass White leftist bitchmade humdinger of a Revolution. I’m not here to empower shitfucks that search me out no matter where I am just to heap abuse on me, threaten me, or report me to the FBI as a possible MASS SHOOTER, all because I think Bernie is an old bigot who minimizes Black oppression to appease the white voters he thinks he’ll need to win the General.

I’m just Never Bernie, deal with it or die mad about it. I don’t care which.

[kihyunswrath]

An essay on why I fight for Wonho

I think there has been too much of this “why do you even care that much?” bullshit lately and I’d like to make things clear, at least for my part. And I am assuming many other Monbebes can relate.

Indeed, why do I care? Wonho was never my bias, I have always liked other groups too, I have seen hundreds of groups come and go, it’s just one member in that group and although I want him to return, I actually want this entire industry to burn down to ashes even more and yes, that would mean death sentence to all idol groups. 

But first of all, let me ask this question in return: Why does it bother you that we care? Who gets to define what’s a useless endeavor? What makes you think I can’t simultaneously care for “more important” issues? Why the hell are you judging us for wasting time on this, when we all already know you wasted days watching that useless Youtube vine compilation, binge-watched that one Netflix series you didn’t seriously even care about, played that one stupid mobile phone game when you should have been sleeping, ate those two boxes of cookies that could’ve lasted you two whole weeks? Who are you to say things are useless just because it’s not your favorite idol group or whoever the fuck you care about, who’s under attack? Why do you think we have explaining to do, when literally none of this has anything to do with you personally and it’s literally you who fail to see the implications this incident had?

I don’t need to explain why I found a person inspiring as an idol and human being, why I found his background story motivating and moving and why I found his presence in Monsta X very important for the entire group’s mental health, group dynamics, success and happiness. I don’t need to explain why I find it upsetting that the people I cared about are torn apart because of no fucking reason, and that I can see that pain from their faces as they’re forced to pretend Wonho does no longer fucking exist?

I don’t fucking think I need to explain why I have empathy for a person who is under a police investigation just because. I don’t think I need to explain why I don’t find it fair that someone is under an attack for doing something that is not deemed as illegal in the most civilized, democratic countries. I don’t need to explain why I want to defend someone who’s kicked out of his group because of conservative internet trolls and a couple whose own background is about ten times more shady than Wonho’s. I don’t think I need to justify myself protesting for him, when he is fired from a job that has absolutely nothing to do with the things he’s being accused of. I don’t think I need to explain that unlike many others, I am indeed capable of reflecting this incident against the bigger context and see how flawed the entire Korean legislative system is. 

But let me do your homework for you asshats and explain what this bigger context is. It’s the context where simply having an allegation of whatever kind placed against you is enough to ruin your entire career. The context where people are literally lying about a person’s background and have been caught doing that, but can still continue with the investigation. The context where people can be punished again and again for things they did ages ago, apologized for, moved on and learned from. The context where literal rich drug dealers, convicted criminals sitting in prison, their minions and ENTIRE companies (cough pdx101 cough) might be able to escape from justice, but this one unfortunate person whose existence is only justified by the Korean population if he is superhumanly perfect and flawless, is brought down for allegedly committing a crime that was not harming anybody and was committed six fucking years ago. The context where you can be punished for something so meaningless that it feels like there is indeed space for a conspiracy theory or two. The context that paints idols as literal gods and goddesses who are not allowed to have pasts, backgrounds, redemption arcs or flaws to their character. The context that is taking idols from their hard-earned positions just because someone influential enough had a personal grudge against them. This context where Koreans are not protected by their own companies or labor unions but can be treated like non-human playthings, chess pieces and pawns just for having human traits.  

I don’t think I need to explain why I have empathy. I don’t think I need to explain why this bigger picture I see doesn’t only clash with my morals, but also potentially hurts hundreds of thousands of other people, because something like this could easily happen to them, too, especially if we now use this incident as an example of how things should be handled in similar situations. And if you as a person fail to connect the dots, if you personally fail to see why this is giving an ugly view into a ruthless society many of my friends and loved ones have no other options but to live in, I think that’s on you. That’s literally your personal problem, not mine.

Wonho was not inspiring because he was flawless, he was inspiring because he demonstrated character growth. He was not inspiring because he never did any mistakes, he was inspiring because he kept improving and kept sharing his love and gratitude toward his fans. He was not inspiring because he had wealth, connections and endless virtuosity, he was inspiring because he built his career from nothing and still remembered to explicitly thank his family, his friends, his loved ones and his fans every single day. That alone is something we can’t say from many other people.  

And if you think my argument is flawed because I was biased? Yes. I am biased. It’s not suspicious that people care about stuff more when it turns out to be personally relatable. Stop fucking pretending you are so virtuous, wise and pure that you already fought against bigotry, oppression, discrimination and bullshit in its all forms, way before you were even fucking born. That does not give you more social justice woke points, it just makes you annoying. Just because some Monbebes woke up to notice how flawed, ugly, embarrassing and pathetic the kpop industry can be now that their own favorite idol is attacked, is not a bad thing if it leads to them protesting against similar incidents in the future. Just because people cannot fully grasp issues before it has something to do with themselves doesn’t mean they can’t now use that realization as a boost to change the entire society. 

Yes, we intend to not bring only Wonho back, but also bring down the entire industry that made it possible for things like these to happen. Yes, we as human beings are capable of empathizing with people who we don’t have much to do with, but it’s not wrong if we fight even more fiercely when we try to protect our own. When was the last time you have done something similar? 

If our movement brings light to the fact how little protections workers have in Korea, if our movement makes people see how devastating consequences bullying and baseless accusations can have on people, if our movement continues talking about the same problem that caused a person to commit literal suicide a month earlier? If our movement makes it transparent to everybody how much power all these companies have over their idols and how they can not only treat them like shit after trusting and rooting for them for several years, but also silence all the remaining members and force them to continue even if they’re at a breaking point? If our movement brings light to the fact that maybe, just maybe it’s not fair to punish people for things that they might not only NOT have done, but also are literally meaningless even if he did them ALL, especially because they happened before he ever even was an idol? 

Well, I’ll call it a movement that exists for a good fucking reason.

One of my Korean friends, after being told about this, said that well, the only thing I now need to do is to change my favorite group and move on with my life, because I am literally just a customer and I can’t change things. And you know what? That is exactly the problem here. Without knowing it, she summarized the entire problem up perfectly with that one sentence. 

She and so many other Koreans (and non-Koreans) consider idols mere products. They think idols are here to sell us a certain image of a perfect, successful person who does not really exist as a human being. Idols just represent something the Korean society aspires to be, but if enough people get fed up with them for whatever reason, just to bolster their own feelings of revenge and jealousy like in this case, idols can be dumped and forgotten in a matter of minutes. That hurting one idol does not really matter, because there are people lining up behind him to do his job even better. That being an idol is an endless cycle of improving oneself, requiring less and less time for resting, recovery, privacy and human rights and asking less and less forgiveness from the audience. That if you get an important position in the society, it’s on you if you cannot handle the negative publicity that might follow. That if you have done one mistake once, it prevents you from ever moving on in your life, because it can come and bite you in the ass whenever, arbitrarily, just because, even if technically you had already been forgiven long time ago. That people who have gotten money and fame do not earn those positions because of hard work, but because they are supposed to be superhuman. And because there is no such thing as a superhuman, every and any idol can be brought down whenever they show the smallest sign of humanity. Even if that sign of humanity is just them showing open solidarity and empathy for a friend and colleague that was wrenched from them for no reason.

She and so many other Koreans think the only thing they can do as normal citizens is to pretend this one “flawed, miserable” individual never existed, because they are powerless against the decisions of the companies, press and rich conservative trolls?

And for some reason, somehow, these same Koreans fail to see how that reflects the state of their entire society and how it affects their own rights as workers, as human beings. They fail to see this very, very crucial factor: that idols are more similar to everyday Koreans than they are to the entertainment companies, wealthy chaebol CEOs and a couple of filthy rich drug dealers who escape their own punishment because of their even richer dad.

Idols are NOT extremely wealthy celebrities who have a freedom to choose their own paths, influential politicians who can escape from scandals after scandals or sons and daughters of the company leaders and estate owners of Korea. 

They are workers who have inhumane working conditions. They are faces to faceless, cruel companies who are intentionally hiding behind them to cover their own tracks. 

Idols have no real rights, freedom or future, and thus, they represent us normal people. What you do to one of these idols, you essentially do to every single one of his/her fans. You take our dreams away, you punish us unfairly for things we tried to learn from, you take away our voices that we used to express our own oppression and challenge the status quo.

Idols are not us, but they represent us more than any of these companies, leaders, rich heirs and heiresses and CEO’s could ever do. 

And that’s why I’m fighting for Wonho.

__

And please miss me with that cultural relativism bullshit. I know injustice when I see it. I can distinguish suffering and pain even in cultural contexts I am not born into. Also? Maybe if Koreans don’t want us to meddle with how they handle their own problems, maybe they should have really been thinking twice before trying to buy the entire world with the help of their idol industry. We can hold companies accountable. We can demand change. Companies and wealthy shitheads are not representatives of a culture. We know there are Koreans with us in this fight. 

And if this doesn’t change with us, right now, today... it will sit down with us until something like this happens again, and then the change will come in the shape of a fucking tsunami. 

And what are you going to do at that point, stand in the fucking way, or pretend your past mistakes can no longer hold you accountable?  

[giorgiastastes]

Cidade De Deus (2002)

“Why return to the City of God, where God forgets about you?”

 Let’s start from the title, which is certainly enigmatic. Calling city of God, a suburb that is the scenario of a reality abandoned by God is not a mistake, nor is the frequent recourse to religious faith seen as the only motivation, the last hope of these young men for a better life, that does not lead them in a coffin before the age of twenty. I am in favor of full religious freedom and belief, but I cannot fail to notice how, if faith can lead to extremism, bigotry and fanaticism, very often it is also the only light of those who have already touched the bottom or are about to do it.

Speaking of the plot, the film begins in medias res, in the Cidade de Deus, one of the most dangerous favelas in all of Brazil.

The initial scene, so frenetic and almost surreal, is part of the history of cinema, with the chicken running away through the alleys of the neighborhood, while at least twenty boys chase her, trying to catch her with guns and rifles, as if it were Pablo Escobar reincarnated.

The chicken finally ends up clashing with our narrator, aspiring photographer, now stuck between the street gang and the police.

 Masterfully we see the camera rotating around this boy, over and over again soon becoming an hypnotic rhythm, while at the end of the last turn we find ourselves in another time space, in the 60s, accompanied by the phrase A PHOTO COULD HAVE CHANGED MY LIFE, BUT IN THE CITY OF GOD IF YOU ESCAPE YOU ARE DONE, AND IF YOU STAY YOU ARE DONE, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO, SINCE I WAS A CHILD.

The protagonist, faced with such a difficult choice, returns to the past with his mind and begins to tell us about a naive gang of thieves in order to narrate with their story, also the reality of the favela, which, using the the film’s wording, is too far from the idea of a Rio’s postcard that the government wanted to portrait at the time.

After a series of episodes that I don't want to spoil, we will move on to the next decade. This initially will seem like a positive turn and then will turn out to be only a patination of the neighborhood, which in the end is even more socially structured and cruel than how it used to be.

 Finally, let’s move to the strongest part of the film, the children. They are the ones who make the choices that will most mark them.

In the city of God you cannot live your childhood with carefree, you must immediately decide which side to stand on, and this childish decision, you will take to your grave.

Among the children there are those who immediately think of themselves as an outsider in that climate of crime and violence, but according to them, not because of a sense of morality,but simply because they’re afraid of getting a bullet.

Then we find those who were born for it, and even plan for new robberies, who feels strong and great showing off a gun often bigger than their head.

To say that the film offers us several times the philosophical doubt of WHO ARE GOOD ONE AND WHO’S THE BAD would be redundant and perhaps too direct even to be discussed, with the police who often behave worse than the bandits, and the only “non silent” citizen is the one acting the most violent crime, so I want to focus on other points.

 

Can you choose which side to fight for or are you facing a one-way street? And then, badness, evil and violence are innate or you learn them, you discover them with living?

Answering the first question, the most objective and direct of the two, there is certainly no doubt that in such ill-famed neighborhoods, it is the crime that pursues us and not the other way around. When you are so abandoned by institutions and authorities, often even with a lack of reference figures from which to take example, Crime is not a choice, simply because there are no choices, it is the only option, even if unjustly glorified.

About the second question, on the other hand, in my opinion, the evil is innate, but not because it is to be considered hereditary, more because but it is part of the human nature, of the animal part in each of us, which, unfortunately, is not held back by human intelligence, but brought to extreme sadism from this intellectual capacity which other animal species lack.

It is morality that then represses these instincts, but if we left the world to anarchy, only a few would stop, and as Plautus says, Homo homini lupus.

To better explain my thoughts, I must refer to another masterful work.

I'm talking about Dogville by the controversial but brilliant Lars Von Trier. I won't talk about this film, but just to summarize the idea, we are faced with a town where cruelty is so eradicated in the population that it is a same child who starts the cycle of violence and abuse. This episode perfectly reflects how human’s evilness is, in my opinion as much as that of the director, genetic, and that can also be seen in City of God.

The undisputed head of the city, Ze Pequeno, begins his rise to power at the age of eighteen, as soon as he realizes that he wants to become the absolute king of the favela.

But if we were to talk about his desire for blood, that was born much earlier, when he was still a child and, as the narrator tells us, "he wanted to act out his whim of killing" and then took advantage of the robbery at the motel to make a massacre.

Certainly the number of its victims grows with its age and so its desire for power but, however questionable this choice is, it was not homicide for futile reasons. In fact, he decides to exterminate all the main drug dealers in the area with the intention of becoming the only owner, when he begins to understand that it was necessary to switch to the drugs field.

What makes me reflects is that, although the character will always be easily triggered, and it is not uncommon for them to put a hole in someone’s head, the reason why he killed as a child was not even money, it was just an innate desire to kill, to take the life of another human being and watch him take his last breath.

 

His disturbing laugh proves it.

Even the punishment, albeit excessive, that will lead him to death, inflicted on children who had robbed a rotisserie, is still part of his plan to be the owner of a favelas that respects him because in good or bad it is he who protects the city.

And it is precisely in that scene that we see how the cycle begins again, when Ze Pequeno forces a child to kill another child, or when those same children make up any type of story just to receive a weapon or the same one who will then take control of the city at the end of the film, probably taking the man they killed as an example.

They are always the victims and executioners, as well as the heart of the story. Of course, in the seventies we see the protagonists grown up, but of adult men they only have the appearance.

Their character is still that of the decade before, as well as their choices and behaviors. One of them was marked by the sight of a camera as a child and this became his greatest passion as a teenager and then an adult. The same one, despite knowing who his brother's killer is, decides not to take revenge in order to respect the choices he made years before, that is, to abstain from evil.

I don't even need to dwell on the exceptional and impeccable shots because, although there are unforgettable scenes such as the death of Benny between the screams and the intermittent lights of the disco, each shot would have to be studied and likely more than that, the transitions between one and the other.

The plot remains a rhythmical crescendo, we never get bored and the story remains in evolution: we don't have a real incipit, a problem that upsets the balance, a resolution of the problem and then a conclusion, it is a story that it follows changes without actually being a real beginning and end, just like a cycle.

Another and final theme is the power of art, the only means of escape from such a difficult reality, but art itself can often be used improperly to advertise and almost glorify this underworld. In this case we are talking about photography, but it could be any type of art from poetry, cinema to music.

The film must be said that it has no clear defects, but if I could have put my own I would have made the symbol of the camera even more important, since mainly we see it in the very first scene and in the change of decade, and then obviously for the whole last half an hour, while I would have made each photograph part of a chapter of the story, which did not happen.

All in all, I went too far and if you still didn't get the message, run to discover this masterpiece of cinema.

[likefromtheoffice]

What I Had To Do - TLoUII SPOILERS

I started feeling compelled to write a deep reflection on The Last of Us Part II when it became clear I was going to be playing as Abby for quite some time. Like everyone else, I imagine, I had made up my mind about Abby almost immediately. She would die, and I would be the one to do it. I didn’t want to play as Abby, I wanted to not move the controller and just have her die. But the game makes the choices here. 

Of course, knowing Naughty Dog and expecting the level of quality I did from this game, there was certainly a reason we were slated to spend so much time with her. While I ultimately came to respect this choice, it was plain to see that the game was going to attempt to change our minds about Abby, to show us how she came to be the person she is and how she was driven to do the things she had done. For this reason, I was not engaged in Abby’s story. Because, like I said, I’d already made up my mind. 

The brilliantly-handled revelation of her father being the surgeon the player is forced to kill in the first game was enough to fully humanize this woman who, in the space after she kills Joel up until she is hoisted in the Seraphite noose is surely the most viciously despised character on Playstation. Even though I kept the difficulty low in order to breeze through her portion of the story, I admittedly did eat my words: “If they can change my mind about Abby, I’ll be shocked.” My mind was changed just about as much as Abby’s heart changed throughout her ~10 hours of game time. She ends up doing almost exactly what Joel does for Ellie for a very similar reason, although Lev’s brain can’t save the world.

When I found Abby at the Pillars, I had already decided that if the game were to give me the option to press Square to kill Abby or circle to let her live, I’d smash the circle button. When Ellie says “I can’t let you leave,” I thought to myself, “yes, let’s actually do let her leave, but we probably should fuck her up a little bit, right?” Fuck her up we did, but of course the game isn’t base enough to trivialize the story it’s told over 20+ hours by letting you funnel out all your rage with a button press, completely destroying Ellie’s and Lev’s lives with a single click.

So ultimately, Abby’s segment shows us a lot about the world we’re living in inside this game, and the metaphor of warring clans with their own agendas and perspectives very directly reflects the distilled personal motivations behind Abby’s and Ellie’s actions. I said a hundred times that Abby’s section was too long, and I think I’d drastically shorten the first act. I don’t think we needed to stroll through the base and see kids taking classes in an attempt to humanize and raise the stakes for her. When we’re forced to play as her, we are not interested in what is happening. You could start with information about Owen and the coming attack on the Island. A lot of Abby’s section felt like Druckmann knowing that we need more hours for $60. But this may have been because until Lev’s mother dies in her cabin, I still wanted to watch her die.

This is where it all changed for me, except for the feeling that her segment was still too long. One thing this segment does perfectly and to hopefully great and continued effect, is to show us--more than the game already has--that LGBTQI+ stories are now a part of our human experience, and these people will be in the stories we tell. And it won’t be a fucking big deal. “Do you want me to ask about it?” “No.” 

I was able to stay almost entirely blind to the promotional materials for Part II. When I started the game at 11pm CST, I knew only that there was a guitar, there was a fight in a shopping area, and there was a real bad person cutting a hanging guy’s stomach open. I was also able to avoid anyone’s conjecture about the game, but in seeking the opinions of others after I’d completed it, I’ve discovered the bizarre criticisms about the narrative. Namely, being forced to play as Abby for so long and having “social issues” shoved in their face when they’re “just trying to play the game.” I had a problem with the Abby segment even after I began to see its purpose, but eventually it cracked me open in the way it intended. In making me do the things she’d done, I was of course forced to fully realize her perspective from the moment we’re put over her shoulder instead. But the latter issue is what bothers me to no end, and it’s upsetting that we’re still here as gamers.

If someone has a problem with Ellie’s sexuality or coming of age, Dina’s sexuality, Lev’s gender identity, or the fact that all our main characters are women, then the only hope I have for that player is that they might see themselves in Seth. Seth is the physically oldest character we see in the game, and he is the only character who has any problem with what he’s seeing. He’s alone in his bigotry and he is weak. He will die very soon and he will do nothing meaningful before then, aside from being forced to make free steak sandwiches for those he has hurt by those who are in power and do not take his side. If this hypothetical--although very real--player fails to make this revelation and turn this corner, if that person still disapproves of the story being told, my question to them would be: “did you accidentally buy this when you meant to download Call of Duty: Warzone?” If you’re not playing the game for the story, you should just play a game where you’re always shooting things. If you are playing the game for the story and you have a problem with the story, also fuck off to Call of Duty. I use Call of Duty here because it’s mainstream and not objectionable and you are holding the trigger through most of the game where the story doesn’t matter if you don’t want it to, not because I have a problem with its playerbase or the games themselves.

The dissent I still cling to is that it’s difficult to ratchet intensity upward and keep motivation high when you know the character has to survive because you’ve seen a future piece of the story--especially when you don’t want them to survive. This was most sharply upsetting when I was still playing as Abby after she shoots Jesse and Tommy in their heads. I felt like tossing the controller and quitting. The only reason I can think of for this choice is that the trope of unwinnable fights in games exposes the guts therein. For me, though, this exposed them even more. I would rather have tried very hard to kill Abby and then have her overpower me with those cannon arms and watch the devastating Dina scene play out. It’s what I wanted just then, and was undoubtedly what Ellie wanted. This would have aligned me more with her, the character who I would still side with instantly and unquestionably. It was so strange to fight Ellie’s AI, particularly because the computer does not play her like I do, and for the only portion in the entire game, she was not human. I understand what this rigid perspective attempts to illustrate, but the choice still puzzles me greatly. 

While I am still able to see why the game did it and why it was necessary, there was no way I was ever going to care about the Jackson Crew. This made playing with Manny and Mel very frustrating. Owen’s meta-perspective philosophizing about how none of the clans are actually any different from each other was interesting, but it was not touched on for very long, and now seems to only have been there to benefit Abby’s journey toward her own perspective-altering events. I see this as the only other true failing of the game, although I don’t have any idea how it could’ve been done differently. Aside from being shorter.

            The reason everyone hates playing as Abby is because very few narratives have ever fully explored the other side of a conflict, and for us to be forced to see that, to play as The Bad Guy for so long, is something we’re absolutely going to hate for a long time. It does, or it should if you’re paying attention, eventually do exactly what it’s supposed to do. When Abby becomes human, we can then say that we’ve experienced the story up to that point. We are almost never shown this, much less forced to do it. 

Another thing I’m stuck on but can’t suss out is the theme of pregnancy and innocence. Of course, an unborn baby is completely innocent even in an overgrown hellscape. Where this is most effectively employed is when the knife is at Dina’s throat. “Good.” Maybe the most terrifying line in the whole pair of games. It shows us the depth of hatred these women have fallen to, and how, like the player controlling Joel or Ellie or Abby in parts I and II, when we have to survive, it doesn’t matter what’s going on in anyone else’s life. If we feel someone has wronged us, we take everything from them and don’t consider the consequences. This game does show us our own actions very plainly, and the ultimate consequence could not have been more beautifully shown than in the final chronological scene in Part II. In following her own anger--combined with Tommy’s--she has damaged her connection to the very reason she followed it. She cannot play the song she shared with Joel without wounds appearing in the music itself. 

Ultimately, the story told here is about violence. Why, how, and when it is employed, the unexpected casualties thereof, and how it changes the world for everyone connected to it. Love, hate, survival, revenge, and so many more. Joel protecting Ellie ended a lot of lives--starting as duty and perverting into misguided redemption and love. Abby avenging her father ended a lot of lives--starting as revenge and ending as duty and love. The cyclical implication is very clear as we come to blows between the two rowboats, although it is--like many other gigantic story moments--masterfully left un-hinted-at. If Ellie were to have held Abby under the water for a minute more and Lev were to survive somehow, we’d have ourselves a Part III for almost the same reason which started us down the troubling path of Part II. Can you imagine Ellie looking into the boat at a broken and unconscious Lev? Would she have felt something similar to looking over the bars of JJ’s crib?

What a lot of games don’t bother to explore is what violence takes away from those who employ it, no matter the reason for their doing so. When Ellie walks away from the farmhouse where her family used to live, leaving the last object connecting her to Joel there at the window, I was devastated, as I’m sure we all were and as I’m sure the storytellers intended. Through the deeply troubled feeling Naughty Dog left me with, I was searching for meaning, like Ellie was after seeing those giraffes: “After all we’ve been through. Everything that I’ve done. It can’t be for nothing.” What was it for? It seemed like it was going to be difficult to determine when the credits started to roll, but when it appeared to me, I was embarrassed it had taken me so long to figure out. Everyone was led to their devastating conclusion by the same driving force: love.

There’s also been a fair bit of talk about how bleak the outcome is, and how hopeless everything seems. This observation comes down to how deeply we’re hit by Abby’s boat disappearing into the fog as we sit entirely alone, physically and emotionally less than we’ve been so far, and how the ending and outlook of the whole game isn’t really what we want right now because our world doesn’t need a lot of help in the bleak category. Of course we want everything to work out, and we are so used to video games giving us what we want. Tragedy doesn’t cater to the wants of the audience, and the weight of this tragedy is gargantuan. What a knee jerk dismissal of the story would rob you of is the incredible contrast. I finished the game eight days ago and I’ve probably watched the dance scene at least once per day since. How gorgeous. “Oh, Ellie…” says Dina. To feel this moment fully, knowing its the beginning of a beautiful thing that can’t last, is a gift rarely given to any audience or player. It does so much so deeply in 3.5 minutes. That scene in itself shows us that this isn’t what we’re used to, and the bit of Joel and Ellie’s interaction we get in that scene also demonstrates that the things we care most about are not okay right now. We were Joel more than Ellie in the first game and we protected her. We saved her. We want to continue to protect her.

But the decisions Joel made in the hospital guaranteed things would never be okay. What is it that these folks want from the ending? “You killed Abby! Congratulations! Ellie went on to found Joel Miller Memorial Research Center, where a cure was eventually reverse-engineered from a culture of bacteria extracted from Ellie’s intestine. Dina eventually forgave Ellie, and invited her to live with her and JJ inside the walls of Jackson where they dance, free from hatred and despair, every Thursday night.”

It’s hyperbolic, sure, but what a fucking waste that would be. What we have instead is a seemingly insurmountable sorrow which wraps around a glowing core of warmth and beauty which we’ve seen firsthand throughout both games, begging us to discuss and reflect and analyze and feel. Is the ending really entirely hopeless if Ellie puts down and leaves behind the guitar which attached her to Joel? I don’t know if she’s wearing or still has the watch, I’d have to see the cutscenes again. But she’s walking away from it, finally. What could she be walking toward?

Finally, there is one piece of storytelling after the credits, not a cutscene or a piece of text. The iconic title screen rowboat which we assume Ellie rides away in is replaced with its twin, dragged up onto the shore near Abby & Lev’s beached fishing boat. I’m having trouble putting what I believe this means into words that don’t sound too disgustingly sunny, but if Abby and Ellie, these two veritable destroyers are now free from the searing chains of revenge, and we’ve seen their allegiances shift and their hearts fundamentally changed, imagining the good they’re capable of isn’t too terribly difficult a task. That’s disgustingly sunny to even type out, but I believe it’s supported. It’s very clear that at this point, both parties deserve and have earned peace, inside and out.

[moviepower]

Why do people criticize Jojo Rabbit?

We'd say that this is uncharted territory for distributor Disney, but the company did previously give us their futures face. Hmm. I saw Jojo Rabbit in the best place I could for movies, in my opinion.

For this list, we're looking at why Tyco ITTS 2019 black comedy has proven. So polarizing for critics just to clarify the critical reception thus far has been mostly positive and even watch mojo gave the film a rave review following its TIFF premiere.

Nevertheless, we can definitely see why a movie like this. Wouldn't win audiences over everywhere. Hey Joe, Joe, my old friend. Hi adults. Number 10, the controversial premise. I don't think I can do this last. Of course you can simply by reading it synopsis, you can tell why Jojo rabbit has stirred up so much controversy.

In the midst of world war II, a young German boy named Joe Joe dreams of becoming a Nazi upon learning that his mother has been harboring a Jewish girl in the attic though, Jo Jo begins to reevaluate his outlook on life. I tell them you will be in big trouble throughout this coming of age journey. Our titular character is guided by his imaginary friend.

Is it worth to watch Jojo Rabbit full movie

Who just so happens to be a flamboyantly incompetent, Adolf Hitler, as inventive as the premises, it was guaranteed to ignite passionate feelings. Critics are unsurprisingly split as to whether the film's premise is inspired or irresponsible. I wish more of our young boys had your blind fanaticism. Okay.

Number nine, how it stacks up to other satires and this world is ruined for everyone and the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way Jojo rabbit. Isn't the first film to satirize Hitler or Nazis 1940 twos to be, or not to be was criticized upon release for its farcical, spin of Nazi occupied Poland.

But today is viewed as a comedy classic. I know you're quite famous in London kernel. They call you concentration camp Earhart. Yes. Yes, we do the concentrating and the poles do the camping Hitler. Technically isn't the protagonist and the great dictator. It's obvious who Charlie Chaplin was parodying. We can learn more about actress playing mother Jojo on Wikipedia.

Arguably the most famous sendup of Nazi Germany is Mel Brooks. The producers. In which two con men put on an intentionally horrible musical entitled springtime for Hitler. Practically a love letter to this own run a week week. Are you kidding display? It's got the close on page four. Some critics are ready to place Jojo rabbit alongside these revolutionary respected comedy.

What do critics write in reviews about Jojo Rabbit?

Others, however, would claim that the film has more in common with the bridge sit-com Hile, honey I'm home, which was so misguided and tasteless that it only lasted one episode. Oh 10 night. You will make an schnitzel. What a joke. You must be real mad at me, honey. I'm a very, very bad Hitler. Number eight, what's going on in the real world right now?

Fuck man. The house, although world war II is in the past. The same, unfortunately can not be said about bigotry. Nowhere was this more apparent than at the 2017 unite the right rally in Charlottesville, which attracted several hate groups, including neo-Nazis. Since prejudice and discrimination remain prevalent in today's world.

It's obvious why various critics would object to a film that makes light of Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, satire can reflect modern times as well as history in ways that straightforward drama can't. Some might argue that now isn't the right time for a Nazi satire, but others would debate that society needs a movie like Jojo rabbit. A great story about the Irishman is here.

Now more than ever, you're not to nuts. Jojo, tenue kids likes dressing up in front of you. If somebody wants to be part of a club. Number seven, the humor, the best weekend ever.

Soundtrack in the highest level of production

Wow. Your enjoyment of Jojo rabbit will hinder on how hard you laugh. Or of course, if you laugh, the film didn't tickle. Roger Freedman. Funnybone who wrote in his showbiz four one, one review Jojo rabbit is actually borderline antisemitic offensive on many levels and not even funny. Sam Adams of slate couldn't have disagreed more proclaiming for Jojo rabbit comedy.

Isn't a means to minimize, but to analyze wise, to pry at the way, hateful ideologies can be embraced as a comfort and how beneath their promise to. Blame how the world really works is an understanding no more sophisticated than a child's it's time to buy some books. Since humor is subjective, we guess there isn't always going to be a clear line between what's offensively funny and what's just plain offensive.

Oh God. Number six. Jewish jokes. Did you know, Jews can Z to each other's mind. So tell us, you know, who saw one? They could look just like us of Tyco. ITT satire is clearly the Nazis. However, the director who's of Jewish and Maori heritage also pokes fun at Judaism. Hi, well, the real Jordan Rumi was horrified by the audience's reception at the screening he attended.

Writing, you have no idea how it is to be surrounded by thousands of people laughing at jokes, specifically directed at Jews. That being said, Rumi seemed to be in the minority of a group that found the film. Hilarious. As with Borat and South park, many would argue that the humor and Jojo rabbit isn't intended to mock the Jewish faith, but to criticize how ignorant and Semites are a cute number five, the life is beautiful comparison, right?

Jojo Rabbit's reaction to mom's death

Yeah. Critics have stocked a Jojo rabbit up against numerous other films. But life is beautiful. Seems to be the one that's invited the most comparisons this 1997, Italian dromedy also presented world war II through a lighthearted lens, centering on a Jewish man who uses humor and imagination to shield his son from the horrors of the Holocaust. It's interesting what they write about this movie on Amazon.

Well, the film won an Academy award for best foreign language film, and even got nominated for best picture. There were those who found the movies comedic tone, inappropriate. Over two decades later, we will continue to debate if the movie is a life affirming fable or a dated misfire. It's actually eerie how much these two films have in common, especially since both one TIFs peoples choice award.

That is the strongest thing in the world. Number four, is it shocking enough? I was your age. I had an imaginary friend come in so much stuff even before the first trailer dropped Jojo rabbit was being built up as one of 20 nineteens most controversial movies. Weirdly enough though, some critics have expressed disappointment that the film isn't more shocking.

Well, audiences have arguably gotten more sensitive with time. There are still patrons who crave comedy that pushes the envelope to its limits. It's time to burn some books. Brian Talarico of the Chicago sun times felt Jojo rabbit played it too safe. Writing the final scenes of Jojo rabbit are too easy for a film that needs to be dangerous and daring. 

Are the best scenes already included in the trailer?

Even if the film doesn't go all out with its edgy concept. Seeing Tyco, ITT dresses, Adolf Hitler will be more than enough to make a few jobs drop. What am I going to do? No idea. Going down the house in Glen Winston church one, negotiate number three. It's depiction of Nazis. The playlist Charles romesco took issue with the films, humanization of antisemites writing.

YTT concedes that a good percentage of Nazis really do hold hate in their heart. But maintains that at least some of them aren't you two seem to be getting on. Well, it doesn't seem like a bad cost. How much pain and suffering the Nazis caused many audiences will understandably struggle with this message.

However, if Ron Jones proved anything with his third wave social experiment in 1967, it's that even ordinary people can get swept up in the dangerous ideals of fascism. Likewise, Jojo rabbit poses, a challenging question. If we're not willing to acknowledge the bad and the good in people, how can we ever rid ourselves of prejudice?

Nothing makes sense anymore. Yeah, I know. It's definitely not a good time to be a Nazi. Number two it's message. And mother took me. She's kind me like a person, whatever your thoughts on Jojo rabbit, Tyco ITT clearly wanted to spread an anti hate message. YTT also claims that he started writing the screenplay before Nazis regained relevance in the media.

There's little doubt that why TTS intent was noble, whether or not the final product successfully gets his message across is where critics are split. A doubt of the a V club felt that making fun of Nazi Germany had been done before. Thus taking away from the movies, broader anti hate theme. Peter Howell begged to differ in his Toronto star review writing Taika YTT knocks it out of deer park with the meaningful lunacy of his anti hate satire, which is equal parts.

Adolf Hitler's thread in the movie

Mel Brooks, West Henderson, and  own whimsical brilliance growing up too fast. Ten-year-olds and the celebrating war and talking politics. Before we continue, be sure to subscribe to our channel and ring the bell to get notified a better latest videos. You'll have the option to be notified for occasional videos or all of them.

If you're on your phone, make sure you go into your settings and switch on notifications. Number one it's depiction of Hitler. Well, they call me a scared rabbits. Okay. Let's address the giant rabbit in the room. Tyco YTT spends most of his screen time prancing around in a Nazi uniform and toothbrush mustache. If you want, you can read here about preparations for making a movie and other curiosities.

Without a doubt, YTT, didn't set out to deliver a serious or dignified portrayal of Hitler. Rather YTT aspired to make the fewer look as goofy and idiotic as possible. Oh, . Just painting Hitler as a wacky, even likable buffoon desensitized us to the atrocities. He committed though. Some may say yes while others may argue that it leaves audiences more informed and open-minded.

At the end of the day, everyone is going to have a different opinion of Jojo. Let them say whatever they want. People used to say a lot of nasty things about me. Oh, this guy's a lunatic. Oh, look at that psycho. He's going to get us all killed. Do you agree with our picks, check out this other recent clip from watch mojo and be sure to subscribe and ring the bell to be notified about our latest videos.

[daffronc-blog]

Final Project Part Two-Orange Skin: A Modern Retelling Of Bluebeard

Reflective Essay:

I’ll try and keep it brief since I think the story will speak for itself. I decided after looking at the options for part two of the final project that I wanted to retell one of the fairy tales we read in class. I decided to choose Bluebeard because there were a lot of ways I could retell that story and present a wide variety of outcomes and morals.

I decided to try and channel my frustration with the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants into the story. It made perfect sense. Set the story in the present day, substitute a blue beard for orange skin, and the dead wives for immigrant children and you’ve got an effectively chilling and gut-wrenching reimagining with a startling amount of relevance.

For this story, you could say the devil is in the details. I tried to heighten the story’s impact with visuals like American flags covered in the blood of innocent immigrant children and the eventual and ironic demise of Trump with one of these flags, since he loves to wave them around and brag about how much of a patriot he is while instituting policies that are straight out of dystopian fiction.

Also, most of the things that Trump says in the story to justify his actions are based on actual things I’ve heard or seen family members and people I went to high school with say in defense of his administration's current actions and policy on immigrants in general. When you think about it, that adds a much more frightening edge to the story.

The heroine of the story is Senator Susan Collins, a real Republican Senator from Maine. Originally, I was going to make up a fictional female senator, but then an idea struck me: Why not find a real, Republican Senator that opposes the Trump Administration’s policy of family separation. After a bit of searching, I found exactly what I was looking for.

There’s plenty more I could say about the story, but I don’t want to spoil more than I already have. So, I’ll leave you with some wise lyrics from a song my Australian friends The Decline wrote called “Refujesus”: 

“Everyone’s an immigrant and I’m tired of all your racist shit/There’s a fine line between national pride and racist bigotry/You’re ignorant if you deny we grew from the same seeds/Convicts, immigrants, Asylum seekers, refugees – We’re all the same”

I hope you enjoy the story, or it at least makes you think,

Charlie

Orange Skin: A Modern Retelling of Bluebeard

 Once upon a time, there was a nasty, orange-skinned United States President named Donald Trump. He was disliked by many people across the country because he was a belligerent, racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic human slug who was as ugly on the outside as he was on the inside.

He was very difficult to work with because he was either constantly firing his staff or they were resigning.

On this particular June day, Trump’s White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly, had just resigned after spending less than a year in his position. Republican Senator Susan Collins had been chosen to replace Kelly.

On her first day, Collins was called into the Oval Office, where she met with the president to discuss her duties and his schedule. While she was there she was given her key card which would allow her access to all areas of the White House.

“Now this key card will open any door in the White House,” Trump said, “But there is one room that you must never enter under any circumstances. That’s the last room on the bottom floor of the West Wing. The only one who’s allowed in that room is me. If I ever catch you in that room you will be severely punished.”

Collins nodded, signaling that she understood. She did think it was a little strange that there was a secret room in the White House, but she supposed every president probably had a room like that. Trump’s was just in the West Wing where there was always a lot of activity. Still, she couldn’t help but wonder what was behind that door that was so secret that Trump wouldn’t allow anyone else to see it.

***

Collins’ first week went by fast. There was a lot to do. She completed all of her work carefully, making sure that she did everything well, otherwise Trump might throw a tantrum.

That weekend, Trump did what he did on many other weekends. He flew to Mar-a-Lago, Florida to play golf.

Meanwhile, Collins and the rest of the White House staff went about their duties as they normally would.  

Collins spent her Saturday night organizing the president’s calendar and setting his meetings for the upcoming week. He was scheduled to give speeches on the construction of his beloved wall and his proposal for the United States Space Force.

When Collins had finished her work for the night it was late, but she was still wide awake.

She decided to go for a walk in the West Wing.

Since it was late the halls were empty. Eventually, she reached that forbidden door at the end of the hall. She stared at it inquisitively. It didn’t look any different than any other door in the West Wing. So, what made it so special?

After deliberating for a few moments, she pulled out her keycard and approached the door. The president was gone for the weekend and she was all alone, who would find out if she opened the door? All she would do was peek in and that was it, no one would be the wiser.

Collins swiped her keycard and the door unlocked with a click. She pushed it open and was immediately hit with a strong, horrible stench. It smelled vaguely familiar, but it was so overbearing that she couldn’t place it.

The room was dark and the light from the hallway wasn’t doing much to illuminate it.

Collins took a step inside the room and felt along the wall for a light switch. She finally found one and flicked it on. Then she turned around to finally see what was in the room.

What she saw was a sight so horrible she could barely process it.

The room was strewn with the corpses of dozens of dead immigrant children, the looks of sheer terror still frozen on their innocent faces. The floor of the room was covered with blood stains, some of them fresh. The walls were adorned with posters of Trump’s sneering face and the slogan, “Make America Great Again”.

In each corner of the room, there was an American flag, splattered with the blood of the children. The bloody flags were mounted on tall wooden flagpoles tipped with a bronze point. They stood there as if silently they were watching over the carnage.

Collins sank to her knees with tears in her eyes.

“They were so young, what kind of monster could do this to an innocent child?” she thought.

Just then she heard a voice behind her.

“This country will never be great if it’s full of filthy illegals exploiting the system, stealing jobs from real, hardworking Americans, and flooding our streets with crime,” Trump said, “If they won’t leave I’ll teach them a lesson, even if it means kidnapping, imprisoning, and murdering every immigrant child I can get my hands on.”

Collins struggled to her feet, slowly backing away from Trump in terror.

“You shouldn’t have opened the door,” he said, “Now I have to kill you too. I tried to warn you. It’s sad how no one wants to listen to me.”

He clamped one of his sweaty hands around her arm and started dragging her towards the door.

She struggled against his tight grip and finally broke free, running towards the back corner of the room.

“You shouldn’t have done that,” he said, licking his lips, and looking at her with a predatory grin.

He lunged toward her but tripped over one of the bodies in his path.

Collins reached for anything she could use to defend herself, her hand closed around one of the wooden flagpoles. She seized it, pulling it from its pedestal and holding it in front of her like a spear.

Trump had regained his footing and lunged toward her again with his arms out. She thrust the flagpole at him with all her strength, burying the tip of it deep in his chest.

He looked up at her in shock, then down at the bloodstain spreading rapidly across his white button-up shirt.

“Fuck you,” she said, twisting the flagpole, pushing it in deeper before letting go of it.

Trump sank to his knees, the tip of the flagpole now protruding from his back, his blood soaking the flag.

He gripped the flagpole, trying to pull it out, but his efforts were futile.

“I was only doing what was best for the country,” he sputtered, before finally slumping over, lifeless.

***

A lot happened in the weeks following Trump’s death. Vice President Mike Pence and several of the other members of Trump’s cabinet, including Jeff Sessions and Betsy DeVos were arrested for aiding Trump in the murders of hundreds of immigrant children during his presidency.

The nation was left reeling from the truth about what the President had been doing in that room. It wasn’t long before Congress appointed a new president, someone new who hadn’t been involved in the Trump Administration in any way.

Collins resigned. For years after the events in the West Wing, the faces of those dead children and their crying parents when White House officials informed them that their kids would never be coming home still haunted her dreams. But, she was glad that she had been able to help stop Trump before he was able to spread his evil any further.

 The End

 Moral: Any government policy that allows children (regardless of their citizenship status) to be ripped from the arms of their parents and imprisoned is wrong. There is no religious or moral justification for something that twisted. It doesn’t matter what your political party is, you can stand up for the people who don’t have a voice. If we don’t protect immigrants, legal or illegal, today who knows who the government will come for tomorrow. This injustice cannot be allowed to continue.

[ramrodd]

Hallie Jackson To Gaetz: ‘Why Do You Think The Rules Do Not Apply To You...

COMMENTARY:

Here's the thing. I'm a League of Nations Wilson from the Emancipation Proclamation side of the family. I went to Vietnam on the basis of the League of Natons and to sustain the effects of LBJ's Civil Rights Bill and MLK's "I have a dream" speach.

I actually went to Vietnam on the spiritual values shared by "Blowing in the Wind", "We Shall Overcome" and "The Ballad of the Green Berets", but that's another story. Growing up as an Army brat embedded in the southern neo-Jim Crow massive resistance culture of Hampton Virginia from 1958 until I escaped to the cultural revolution of the American campuses from 1965 to 1969, I largely avoided hanging out with white boys like Matt Gaetz, most of whom were the white civilian kids in Junior High and High School when southern integretion amounted to maybe 8 black students in my graduating class in 1965 and I was in the most liberal public high school in the state. Of Virginia. It was dominated by Army and Air Force brats and had a community culture distinct from the tribal culture of the two other vival high schools, the Hampton Crabbers and the Newport News Ship Builders and we were the Kecougthan Warriors, a conscious tribute to the Kecoughtan Nation on the Penisula.

The thing is, white civilian kids like Matt Gaetz dominated white southern society everywhere in the Dixie states and their attitude towards the Emancipation Proclamation, as a legacy of the late rebellion, is outrage. Robert E. Lee was absolutely outraged by the proclamation as a born and bred Virginian. If there is any stain on his personal honor, it is this visceral embrace of the original sin of American white supremacy. All us white folks are guilty of this, the difference being that someone like Matt Gaetz believes his rancid bigotry is a reflection of his moral righteousness and gloat at their god-given superiority while I am ashamed of my knee jerk bigotry and do what I can to mitigate the effects of a political philosophy designed to reward the natural born Matt Gaetzs of the world.

And, as a white boy raised in a culture determined to carry out Eisenhower's integration of the services seriously and personally offended by everything associated with the massive resistance of white people in Virginia, I dealt with assholes like Matt Gaetz by avoiding them on several principles, the first that, as a Christian, I could forgive them for being loathsome creatures, like Roy Cohn, but, as a Christian, I had no compunction against regarding them as loathsome creatures in spite of being charming, personally.

And, when a white southern boy like Matt Gaetz wants a guaranteed method for starting a fight with another white boy for whatever reason, calling him a "nigger lover" could end up in a fatal knife fight. And being from the Emancipation Proclamation side of the family, by nature and conscious choice, is grounds for being a "nigger lover" by definition.

See, the thing is with white assholes like Matt Gaetz (or any House Freedom Caucus member and alumni), refusing a challenge like "nigger lover" is to be catagorized as "coward" for refusing a challenge of honor.

But I never bought into West Point's Duty, Honor, Country construct  because of this weasle word, "honor".  And I avoided a lot of fights because there was no honor in his challenge because being a "nigger lover" is a pleasant frame of mine. I mean, it was "niggers" and "nigger lovers" who gave Hillary the victory in the popular vote and that was before anyone knew that the same corrupt Russian Oligarchs who had been business partners with Donny Duckass for the Moscow Miss Universe Pageant would steal the intellectual property of the Clinton campaign he needed to game the Electoral College and would end up in bed with Rudy Giuliani in Vienna with Ukraine corruption all over his face.

Anyway, it's satisfying to be able to connect the dots between white southern assholes like Matt Gaetz and members of the GOP Shadow Agenda like Giuliani and Steve Bannon so that white folks who may not know they are "nigger lovers" in a "pro-immigration" kind of way, image Hillary Clinton calling you a Russian asset morphing into Matt Gaetz saying he is offended that Jackie Spier referring to him as a loathsome creature typical of southern white boys with Confederate Flags and Brett Kavanaugh attitude of white male privilege for the lynch mob he formed to conduct violent insurrection in the name of "No Quid pro Quo".

Newt Gingrich's entire political career has been devoted to creating exactly the social conflict Matt Gaetz adopted to violate the rules he and his colleagues had imposed on the Democrats in 2015 and, thereby, to usurp the US Constitution.

Newt Gingrich's political strategy is based on the inversion of Clauswitz's "warfare is the continuation of political intercourse by the intermixing of means" to "politics is the continuation of warfare". Gingrich's doctrine is a Fascist construct, that is, half a model.  Like the US Constitution, paradox is a core dynamical structure of Clauswitz. Gingrich's politics assumes that Clauswitz is static and fails to make the connection between Clauswitz and the Marshall Plan. It's exactly like comparing a submarine to a whale. Clauswitz is based on the core technology of the whale and Gingrich's version of Clauswitz is based on the hand-cranked CSA Hunley. All of Reaganomics is based on the Hunley. Matt Gaetz was recruited by Newt Gingrich to protect Reaganomics from AOC and the Green New Deal, which is based on the social mechanisms of Clauswitz as the whale.

The difference between Gingrich's version of Clauswitz and AOC's version of Clauswitz is the difference between the Yellow Submarine as a prison ship and the Yellow Submarine as the Starship Enterprise on the way to a Jimmy Buffet Bathing Suit Optional Island Party.

Just for the record, Pocahontas's banking and securities reform will pay for her healthcare model if her healthcare model is designed to work according to Gingrich's version of Clauswitz, but if it is based on AOC's version of Clausewitz, the dynamical aspects of a single payer system will generate sufficient synergies to sustain itself eternally. .

When Matt Gaetz finds himself offended by being identified as a white crypto-Nazi bigot, he needs to ponder the "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired" reaction of niggers and nigger lovers  like me when he just walks in the room. Ask yourself: how do you feel when you are cruising along in your ride, all mellow and on a natural high from the mix of your sounds when blue lights show up in your mirror? That's how the "Repulso-meter" of my Pucker Factor kicks in when he walks in the room. There is an emotional continuum that my imagination can establish between my experience and a Jewish worker in Auswitz when a Nazi struts into my barracks.

I mean, Hillary was being charitable when she labled white American male crypto-Nazis like Matt Gaetz "Deplorable".  If she had the same value system as Matt Gaetz, she would have put a bounty on all "Deplorables".

[wionews]

Opinion: Does singing the national anthem mean wearing patriotism on your sleeves?

The Supreme Court today has reversed its order of November, 2016 where it had made mandatory for all cinema owners to play the national anthem and for all viewers to sing it before commencement of a movie all across the country. The court came out with this modification following the changed stance of the Centre, which suggested the court to make the singing of national anthem optional at the place of mandatory. However, a detailed guideline may come up on the matter once a 12-member inter-ministerial group constituted by the government formulates its recommendation on the Insult to National Honour Act, 1971. However, before you rejoice on the end of the so-called ‘vigilante nationalism’, let me mention that the court made it clear that although playing the national anthem is optional for cinema halls if the same is chosen to be played then standing and singing the same shall remain mandatory. 

  To begin with, let’s be straight. If patriotism brews within your heart, it will gush out. It will show up in your looks, body language, gestures and mannerism; no matter whether it’s a school or a cinema, a place doesn’t change the equation. However, if you haven’t got what it takes, you’ll look out for curious excuses. It’s oxymoronic to have patriotism in your heart and not to rise for the national anthem.

  At present, the intellectual landscape in India is rife with many such excuses over why one shouldn’t rise and sing the national anthem. But, before we come to this, let’s look into the controversy. The basis of the controversy is the recent observation of the Supreme Court indicating its willingness to change it’s November 2016 order that directed all cinema halls to play the national anthem before the start of the show. It brings forth two opposite viewpoints around the question, ‘whether getting up and singing the national anthem should be mandatory in cinema halls or wherever it’s played?’ You listen to a loud ‘Yes’ and at the same time a loud ‘No’. People are sharply divided along the line, with arguments in favour and against locking horns with each other fiercely.

  While listening to a petition of Cinema Association against the 2016 order Justice Chandrachud had earlier wondered – “Why do people have to wear their patriotism on their sleeves…People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment…Society needs that entertainment?” He took the matter a bit farther – “In a movie theatre, people may be in shorts etc. So someone may say people are wearing shorts and showing disrespect to the national anthem. Where do we then draw the line on moral policing?”

  Of course, India is not a totalitarian state where all the activities of individual’s life would be directed towards the glorification of the state, yet one must appreciate that in a land of staggering diversity like India, certain threads are required to keep us bonded. It’s important to protect, preserve and promote such threads.

  The question of singing the national anthem is enveloped in the larger debate of freedom of individual versus the intrusive nature of the state. Let me phrase the debate precisely – can a modern, progressive state intrude upon an individual’s right to choice through coercive powers? Or more precisely, can the state force a particular notion of patriotism on its subjects and direct them to respect the national symbols as per its whims?

  Actually, too many of them, the argument is existential. It’s a part of the larger debate that runs in the society through the broader divide of liberalism versus conservatism. Whether India would promote the progressive values of liberty, freedom and choice or would she eventually drift to totalitarianism? A decisive resolution of this question would settle many subsequent debates.

  No nation can survive if it couldn’t enforce certain basic minimum obligations on its citizens. We call it ‘Fundamental Duties’ in our constitution. Respect for one’s national symbols and expecting all citizens to commit to it, is one such fundamental duty, which no citizen can escape. It’s necessary for instilling in the psyche of the society a sense of unity, camaraderie and belongingness.

  Now, let’s come to those curious excuses. It was bemusing to see people celebrating the order. Celebrating that they no longer needed to sing Jan Gana Mana. ‘Is standing up and singing the national anthem is the only way to prove one’s patriotism?’ – many growled on social media. Well, not the only way, but it’s the most emphatic way. To show your patriotism, you need to commit yourself to many other cherished values of the nation such as, cleaning and ensuring cleanliness of the surroundings, integrity and honesty in public life, respecting public properties, following traffic rules, standing for weaker and disadvantaged sections, respecting and protecting the honour of women in society, desisting from sectarian feelings of cast, sect, regions and many more. Now, count within, how many of these do you carry with you to compensate for seeking exemption from singing the national anthem. Hmmm…maybe, hardly any! You see, singing the national anthem is easiest among the above list to learn patriotism. Proceeding to other values becomes easier.

  Being a patriot is not easy. You’ve to commit a lot, sacrifice a lot. It’s not like being a consumerist-hedonist-metrosexual egoist whom nobody cares. But, the society cares for the patriot in the same way the patriot cares for society.

Moreover, respecting the national symbols is a constitutional act. The fundamental duty under Article 51A(a) mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizens of India to abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, national flag and the National Anthem.

  The next man asks  – ‘WTF this unity? Aren’t we already united?’ No sir. You aren’t. Your unity is shaky and hollow and stands tattered over years of cumulative suspicion and distrust fostered by competing ideologies of identities. But, these national symbols cut through the identities and bring us closer.

Many people viewed that forcing something down somebody’s throat even if he or she didn’t like it is unjust. They believe one must act as per one’s feelings and if someone doesn’t feel to sing the anthem from within, the state shouldn’t force.

  Why! The state must force it! Patriotism is not born with us. It’s learned. If you failed to cultivate respect for national symbols in your formative days doesn’t mean you’ll go around disrespecting it. You need to learn it now.

  Now, come to the argument - “People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment. Society needs that entertainment.”

Of course, Society needs it. Go and have your undiluted entertainment. But, before that, spare a fleeting 52 seconds to foster a sense of unity with those who are slogging it out in the glaciers, ravines and deserts away from their homes and families to keep India together and to give you the moments of your ‘undiluted entertainment’. Just 52 seconds, even before that entertainment actually begins. After you pass the test of this 52 seconds torture, your entertainment will begin and remain undiluted till the end. Shake your buttocks or roll over the floor laughing without dilution. After all, you’re blessed with 2 legs and a shoulder to carry the burden of uniting with the pride of India. What is missing is a little spirit. Kindle it.

  As far wearing the patriotism on our sleeves is concerned, I wonder where people take pride in wearing its arrogance, prejudices, bigotry, egoism and hubris on their sleeves, what harm is there in wearing the lesser evil, patriotism?

  Moreover, We shouldn’t miss the larger symbolism of the act. Standing up and singing the song inspires, motivates and teaches others to respect it. Those who detest the idea of standing up for singing the national anthem must have been in the company of someone doing the same, in their childhood days. Orientations are shaped; negatives orientations are shaped more easily. That’s why we must watch our behavior because we’re influencing someone watching us, especially those credulous children. Set a positive example for them. Don’t play a spoiler in their lives.

  Yes, when it comes to playing the anthem in cinema halls, it’s prone to misuse. At times, zealots jump to do moral policing by harassing those who carry reservations on it. In a horrible show of ‘patriotism’ in Goa this year, a couple assaulted a writer and an award-winning disability rights activist, Salil Chaturvedi, from behind who didn’t stand up for the national anthem. The couple didn’t realize that he was disabled. There have been few other cases of such violence in cinema halls. 

  Now, it’s up to the state how to take proper safeguards against misuse of such provisions. Education and sensitization play the key role in making people behave as citizens. There is no point in respecting the national symbols when you’re jumping to take law in your hands. A rowdy can’t be a patriot because he’s dangerous for the society. Such instances lend credence to the fact that the nation is heading towards fascism. Hence, the government must criminalise any act of intimidation or physical violence or any form of vigilantism to enforce patriotic behaviour or else we’ll be losing credibility of being a liberal democracy and society.

  In the balance sheet of arguments, it’s good that the Supreme Court has made the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls an optional act. However, whosoever chooses to play the same, there’s no harm in getting up, tucking away your drink under the seat and holding those half-munched popcorns in your mouth, for 52 seconds and singing aloud – “Jan Gana Mana…” before a ruffling tricolor on the screen. Mind, the child beside you is watching!

  (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

]]>

[subdigit]

So, about this Googler’s manifesto. – Yonatan Zunger – Medium

I can completely see how the some parts of the public might really misinterpret both the reasons for the initial manifesto being allowed to exist, and the various responses and actions to it from executives.

I've worked at large and small companies (one each) and thankfully I don't feel any overbearing pressure as corporate dictum to have to hold my tongue if I feel like decisions are not being made correctly or if I see something going on that needs to be addressed, whether from an executive or not.

So it's certainly an eye opening implication that there are companies that actively decide to quash any type of dissension, whether positive or negative, and solely make everyone follow the party line blindly.

That in it of itself it a reason to think really hard about why you would want to be at that company.

So that being said, think about what it takes for a company culture to exist that would make an employee feel empowered enough to write and publicly circulate this type of well intentioned but ultimately frighteningly blind manifesto. That takes an enormous amount of tolerance and culture to seep into the employee mindset. But as with all companies, it is understandable that lines will have to be drawn as to what is and isn't appropriate, and how your own actions can create an environment for others that is inappropriate.

The key is though, Google was (and hopefully still is) open enough to have a culture where the employees can decide for themselves to take that risk to try to do what they feel is right instead of being categorically shut down.

Personally, I would rather have the option to be allowed to take risks than to know that I'm in a culture that shuts down anything and everything that dissents from the party line.

As an employee, that is a privilege of empowerment given to me, and consequently, it is also my sole responsibility to figure out how this may affect others and to accept both the benefits and the consequences of such. Sometimes it can lead to revolutionary new concepts that can benefit the company, and other times, it can lead to termination for severe disruption.

But it gets to be my choice, and not some sort of rigid thing handed down from above. That, for a company, takes a lot of guts to do to trust their employees and to also trust that they will both do the right thing and to accept the consequences and benefits of their own actions.

Liz Fong-Jones and I co-chaired an officially-sanctioned group working on such a "minority" opinion, at the behest of Larry, when the executives in charge of the project in question had already declared the matter closed to discussion. (The opinion itself was first promulgated widely by an individual employee writing on his or her own behest; the officially-sanctioned committee we co-chaired was followup to that opinion.)

That minority opinion eventually largely won out, after our team worked to flesh out the particulars of the consequences of the decision, gather data, and open lines of communication. We did this partly by going out and meeting with Googlers to find out how the decision affected the company's values, and what kind of company Googlers wanted to work for (for instance, I held several "town halls" in the NYC office, where we exceeded fire-code capacity of our largest multipurpose room).

We had to try to answer these questions of company values. Was the dissenting opinion actually held by just a "minority"—specifically, of those who had informed feelings or an actual personal investment one way or another? (Decisions by default or from ignorance, chance, or due to extrinsic cultural norms were not considered valid arguments.)

If the opinion was not, in fact, that of a small "minority"—and the opinion represented a majority, or at least, demonstrable plurality of those to whom it mattered—how alienated would those who agreed with the dissent feel if the company continued down the course? Was there a stake held by the informed members of the (non-dissenting) opposing side, and if the decision were overturned, how alienated would that make them feel? These were the sort of questions we were tasked to answer.

"Minority/majority" are really the wrong words here—it was just what we got stuck with given the "minority report" terminology. In our case, it was only "minority" because there's a presumption in any business that when executives make decisions, they do so in a way that reflects company values, and company values are held by the entirety of the company, ipso facto.

Yet—to make up two hypotheticals—there's an enormous difference between a cosmetic product redesign that was well and truly hated by 90% of Googlers, and a decision about benefits affecting LGBT employees that only 40% of Googlers overall disagreed with—but that 30% had no informed opinion on, and that almost all LGBT employees disagreed with.¹ In case it's not obvious: at Google, the latter "minority" argument will win, because it's a matter of company values. The former "majority but dissenting" opinion may or may not win, because it's not about values. (Actually, it probably won't win, because Googlers are not in the business of making products for Googlers, and their opinion of aesthetic design isn't necessarily an informed one.)

At other large companies I've worked for, this entire scenario would be unthinkable—once an executive makes a decision, the only thing that will change it is that executive changing his or her mind, being replaced, or getting overridden from the top—at most companies, general employee organizing and dissent is not a valid use of company time, and will get you fired.

All that's to put into context why I hate the damage this manifesto and its leak caused. Inside Google, it will add entirely unneeded and unwanted toxicity to the work environment, especially for women, because its content is so execrable. For that reason—dissent tolerance or no—this person deserved to be terminated immediately, as Yonatan described in his final paragraphs. "Public" (inside the company) dissent was acceptable, and even, when successful or when its tough questions improved the final product, was lauded; bigotry was not.

Outside Google, because most people will be unaware of the "tolerated dissent" culture, they won't recognize this missive for what it is—the uninformed and bigoted whining of a single engineer whose support among other employees is proportionally minuscule.

I said, "proportionally minuscule." Critiques of the sexism and other "casual bigotry" of the industry by looking at the FOSS community—where things that at companies would be internal issues are done out in public—strongly suggests that there's an embarrassingly large portion of straight white cis engineers who might be sympathetic, but I very firmly believe that at Google this was less prevalent. (Not less prevalent enough to even be held up as an example—and of course its prevalence should be zero—but substantially less than other large companies I'm familiar with.)

Outside readers won't understand that this engineer had undoubtedly seen other cases of minority opinions being promulgated, thoughtfully (and sometimes passionately) discussed, and management taking action in response, and—in his own, entirely misguided way—thought he was following this notorious yet proud tradition by doing the same. That process is so bizarre, so outside the experience of employees of most large companies, that outsiders will reasonably conclude that this had to have been a semi-official document of some kind—at the very least, a message from some important dissenting executive. (And, from much of the press coverage, they seem to have assumed exactly that.)

As a direct result of this leak combined with this misunderstanding of internal Google culture, Google is going to find it even harder to recruit good talent who find these views repugnant, and will lose talent who find the increased toxicity intolerable. And that's even just limiting consideration to disproportionately overrepresented men. Diversity hiring and retention has just become a newly even worse nightmare.

More pernicious and harder to detect: it's going to attract applicants with the entirely incorrect notion that Google is a place that respects their bigotry as "just another opinion". And unfortunately, Google's hiring process—as exhaustive, selective, and byzantine as it is—doesn't screen for quietly-held bigotry. (At least, it didn't when I was privy to how it worked.)

The leak of new chief diversity exec Danielle Brown's message in response won't help matters much.² It states for the record that Google finds the views of the manifesto to be against company values, but it also restates Google's support for its culture of dissent. I think the motivation of this came from a good place, that this was meant, internally, to reassure nervous Googlers that this manifesto's leak's horrible external optics aren't going to suddenly result in a crackdown on even the good dissent, like other companies have.

Unfortunately, people without understanding of the internal Google dissent culture will read this part of Brown's message as condoning bigotry as just another argument, as appropriate as any other.

I have no easy answers here. As Yonatan wrote about his having to do cleanup—even as an ex-Googler!—this manifesto, and its decontextualized leak, has done enormous damage to the company and its diversity efforts. The manifesto-writer's being fired or not is almost irrelevant at this point except as signal—and there are important legal and ethical reasons why Google can't easily use his firing for PR purposes.

If the writer wanted a less-tolerant and less-diverse Google, he may have succeeded simply through the publicity. Undermining years of progress, as glacial as that progress may have seemed. He's managed to make Google in particular, and tech workplaces in general, more hostile unilaterally, just by clicking "share". And he probably has put a chilling effect on the dissent culture that was part of what made Google such a special place to work—which could ultimately lead to Google adopting an official policy banning internal promulgation of dissent, like other companies have.

All of that absolutely infuriates me.

You wanted answers at the end of this post? Sorry, I'm fresh out. This was despicable asymmetric behavior on the part of the writer (and possibly leaker), whose fallout at this point is still unknown and probably can only be mitigated somewhat, at best.

—

¹ For the record, I'm making this up—again, NDA.

² And to be clear, it won't help matters much because of its decontextualization by being leaked; I'm not criticizing her for the message's content to current Googlers. (I could wish she were more explicit that bigotry is not tolerated in the same way that other dissent is—the "paradox of tolerance" Yonatan's written about so brilliantly—but I suspect that someone else, perhaps Sundar or Larry himself, did that in a message that hasn't (yet) leaked.)

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788