#I’m not surprised. ‘To oppressors equality feels like oppression.’

[undead-moth]

@synaryn

So I just found this blog and I have to say, if the "fat acceptance movement's" goal is to get rid of all the skinny girl clothes in stores, congrats. Only one of the major stores at my mall stocks clothes in my size, the majority of the sizes being L+. It took 2 days of shopping to find shapewear that was my size and fit me. I'm stuck shopping in the kid's section because the only clothes in the adult section are L-XXXL. Can't we have an equality of the sizes instead of fighting over dominance?

Oh my gosh there's a store in your mall that stocks your sizes in the adult section though you admittedly can shop in the kids section in pretty much all the stores? The only actual fucking plus size store in my mall doesn't carry sizes in-store bigger than what you can find at a JCPenney's where you are limited to a tiny selection of the frumpiest frumpy mumuus that every frumped. I get that you're SO MAD that more stores carry plus sizes now (over half the population is "plus sized" btw but far less than half the stores and nearly none of the cute boutiques carry plus sizes) but don't worry, most are "online only."

It must be so very hard indeed to have the option to buy a myriad clothes in person that fit over your body even if you would prefer to buy them in a different section of the store. It is indeed the same thing as fat people not being able to buy anything that fits over their body in physical stores. I'm glad you brought this very much equally oppressive issue of very thin adults unable to find less than a large in more than one store (I have by the way never in my life of going to malls all over the US and Europe ever had a problem finding a boatload of XS, S, and M, so you must be in a very special plus-size-friendly bubble-region of reality, indeed).

-ATL

[justcallmecappy]

If there's ever a remake of DA2 (and to some extent Awakening) and the developers were able to add the content they wished they could've added, do you think a writer who actually knows how to write mental illnesses would be able to improve Anders's arc? His bipolar disorder wasn't handled properly in the game and there are conflicting comments from both Hepler and Gaider about his mental disorder (former says he has one, the latter says he doesn't). I feel like he was written to be a "villain" on purpose but he became unintentionally sympathetic, that's why there are still players who like him.

That's a really good question, and if it were up to me, I would very much like for Anders to be written by someone who not only better understood how to write a character with bipolar disorder, but also written by someone who actually liked Anders and didn’t use him to throw shade on an ex-boyfriend, lol~😅

But if DA2 and Anders' character were to be revisited, I actually think an overhaul of the entire plot of the game is needed. I would have liked it better if the plot was approached with no pseudo moral greyness, and that it would be presented as the struggle of an oppressed and marginalized people fighting back against their oppressors, not some “morally grey” conflict where both sides are equally right/equally wrong.

Having said this though, I personally hope DA2 doesn’t get remade or rewritten at all, for two reasons (and please forgive me if I’m being a bit cynical here, I don’t have a lot of faith in BioWare handling a possible DA2 remake well, lol):

1) I suspect that if BioWare were given the opportunity to rewrite DA2, they would just double-down on the Anders slander and rewrite him to seem even more unsympathetic than before (just look at how they massacred my boy treated his character in DAI). I suspect they did not expect Anders to have a fanbase at all and the fact he has fans and supporters surprised them, so went hard on condemning his character in subsequent works.

There’s a chance they may write away all the things that made him sympathetic in the first place in a supposed DA2 remake just to drive the point home. No thanks, BioWare.

2) BioWare really dropped the ball by trying to push the mage-templar conflict as a ‘morally grey’ one. I lowkey doubt such a narrative – even presented in the context of the game – would fly very well in today’s media climate. The mage-templar conflict’s whole takeaway of, “Some people need to be segregated from society and controlled because they were born different are therefore dangerous” wouldn't be so well-received, I think. The core conflict did not age well, I feel, and re-releasing the game might draw attention to BioWare's mishandling of DA2's plot.

Thanks for the ask, anon! 😊

[fatliberation]

I’m Abandoning Body Positivity and Here’s Why

In short: it’s fatphobic.

“A rallying cry for a shift in societal norms has now become the skinny girl’s reassurance that she isn’t really fat. Fatness, through this lens of ‘body positivity’, remains the worst thing a person can be.” (Kayleigh Donaldson)

•  •  •

I have always had a lot of conflicting opinions about the body positivity movement, but it’s much more widely known (and accepted, go figure) than the fat liberation movement, so I often used the two terms interchangeably in conversation about anti-fatness. But the longer I’ve been following the body positivity movement, the more I’ve realized how much it has strayed from its fat lib origins. It has been hijacked; deluded to center thin, able, white, socially acceptable bodies.

Bopo’s origins are undoubtedly grounded in fat liberation. The fat activists of the 1960s paved the way for the shred of size acceptance we see in media today, initially protesting the discrimination and lack of access to equal opportunities for fat people specifically. This early movement highlighted the abuse, mental health struggles, malpractice in the medical field, and called for equal pay, equal access, equal respect, an end to fatphobic structures and ideas. It saddens me that it hasn’t made much progress in those regards. 

Today, the #bopo movement encapsulates more the idea of loving your own body versus ensuring that individuals regardless of their weight and appearance are given equal opportunities in the workplace, schools, fashion and media. Somehow those demands never made it outside of the ‘taboo’ category, and privileged people would much more readily accept the warm and fuzzy, sugar-coated message of “love yourself!” But as @yrfatfriend once said, this idea reduces fat people’s struggles to a problem of mindset, rather than a product of external oppressors that need to be abolished in order for fat people to live freely.

That generalized statement, “love yourself,” is how a movement started by fat people for the rights of fat people was diluted so much, it now serves a thin model on Instagram posting about how she has a tummy roll and cellulite on her thighs - then getting praised for loving her body despite *gasp!* its minor resemblance to a fat body. 

Look. Pretty much everyone has insecurities about their bodies, especially those of us who belong to marginalized groups. If you don’t have body issues, you’re a privileged miracle, but our beauty-obsessed society has conditioned us to want to look a certain way, and if we have any features that the western beauty standard considers as “flaws,” yeah! We feel bad about it! So it’s not surprising that people who feel bad about themselves would want to hop on a movement that says ‘hey, you’re beautiful as you are!’ That’s a message everyone would like to hear. Any person who has once thought of themselves as less than beautiful now feels that this movement is theirs. And everyone has insecurities, so everyone feels entitled to the safe space. And when a space made for a minority includes the majority, the cycle happens again and the majority oppresses the minority. What I’m trying to explain here is that thin people now feel a sense of ownership over body positive spaces. 

Regardless of how badly thin people feel about their bodies, they still experience thin privilege. They can sit down in a theater or an airplane without even thinking about it, they can eat in front of others without judgement, they can go the doctor with a problem and actually have it fixed right away, they can find cute clothes in their size with ease, they do not suffer from assumptions of laziness/failure based on stereotype, they see their body type represented everywhere in media, the list goes on and on. They do not face discrimination based off of the size of their body. 

Yet diet culture and fatphobia affects everyone, and of course thin people do still feel bad about the little fat they have on their bodies. But the failure to examine WHY they feel bad about it, is what perpetuates fatphobia within the bopo movement. They’re labeled “brave” for showing a pinch of chub, yet fail to address what makes it so acceptably daring, and how damaging it is to people who are shamed for living in fat bodies. Much like the rest of society, thin body positivity is still driven by the fear of fat, and does nothing to dismantle fatphobia within structures or within themselves.

Evette Dionne sums it up perfectly in her article, “The Fragility of Body Positivity: How a Radical Movement Lost Its Way.”

“The body-positive media economy centers these affirming, empowering, let-me-pinch-a-fat-roll-to-show-how-much-I-love-myself stories while failing to actually challenge institutions to stop discriminating against fat people. More importantly, most of those stories center thin, white, cisgender, heterosexual women who have co-opted the movement to build their brands. Rutter has labeled this erasure ‘Socially Acceptable Body Positivity.’

“On social media, it actually gets worse for fat bodies: We’re not just being erased from body positivity, fat women are being actively vilified. Health has become the stick with which to beat fat people with [sic], and the benchmark for whether body positivity should include someone” (Dionne).

Ah, yes. The medicalization of fat bodies, and the moralization of health. I’ve ranted about this before. Countless comments on posts of big women that say stuff like “I’m all for body positivity, but this is just unhealthy and it shouldn’t be celebrated.” I’ve heard writer/activist Aubrey Gordon once say that body positivity has become something like a shield for anti-fatness. It’s anti-fatness that has been repackaged as empowerment. It’s a striking double-standard. Fat people are told to be comfortable in their bodies (as if that’s what’s going to fix things) but in turn are punished when they’re okay with being fat. Make it make sense.

Since thin people feel a sense of ownership over body positive spaces, and they get to hide behind “health” when they are picking and choosing who can and cannot be body positive, they base it off of who looks the most socially acceptable. And I’m sure they aren’t consciously picking and choosing, it comes from implicit bias. But the socially acceptable bodies they center are small to medium fat, with an hourglass shape. They have shaped a new beauty standard specifically FOR FAT PEOPLE. (Have you ever seen a plus sized model with neck fat?? I’m genuinely asking because I have yet to find one!) The bopo movement works to exclude and silence people who are on the largest end of the weight spectrum. 

Speaking of exclusion, let’s talk about fashion for a minute.

For some reason, (COUGH COUGH CAPITALISM) body positivity is largely centered around fashion. And surprise surprise, it’s still not inclusive to fat people. Fashion companies get a pat on the back for expanding their sizing two sizes up from what they previously offered, when they are still leaving out larger fat people completely. In general, clothing companies charge more for clothes with more fabric, so people who need the largest sizes are left high and dry. It’s next to impossible to find affordable clothes that also look nice. Fashion piggybacks on the bopo movement as a marketing tactic, and exploits the very bodies it claims to be serving. (Need I mention the time Urban Outfitters used a "curvy” model to sell a size it doesn’t even carry?)

The movement also works to exclude and silence fat Black activists.

In her article, “The Body Positivity Movement Both Takes From and Erases Fat Black Women” Donyae Coles explains how both white people and thin celebrities such as Jameela Jamil profit from the movement that Black women built.

“Since long before blogging was a thing, fat Black women have been vocal about body acceptance, with women like Sharon Quinn and Marie Denee, or the work of Sonya Renee Taylor with The Body Is Not An Apology. We’ve been out here, and we’re still here, but the overwhelming face of the movement is white and thin because the mainstream still craves it, and white and thin people have no problem with profiting off the work of fat, non-white bodies.”

“There is a persistent belief that when thin and/or white people enter the body positive realm and begin to repeat the messages that Black women have been saying for years in some cases, when they imitate the labor that Black women have already put in that we should be thankful that they are “boosting” our message. This completely ignores the fact that in doing so they are profiting off of that labor. They are gaining the notoriety, the mark of an expert in something they learned from an ignored Black woman” (Coles).

My next essay will go into detail about this and illuminate key figures who paved the way for body acceptance in communities of color. 

The true purpose of this movement has gotten completely lost. So where the fuck do we go from here? 

We break up with it, and run back to the faithful ex our parents disapproved of. We go back to the roots of the fat liberation movement, carved out for us by the fat feminists, the queer fat activists, the fat Black community, and the allies it began with. Everything they have preached since the 1960s and 70s is one hundred percent applicable today. We get educated. We examine diet culture through a capitalist lens. We tackle thin, white-supremacist systems and weight based discrimination, as well as internalized bias. We challenge our healthcare workers to unlearn their bias, treat, and support fat patients accordingly. We make our homes and spaces accessible and welcoming to people of any size, or any (dis)ability. “We must first protect and uplift people in marginalized bodies, only then can we mandate self-love” (Gordon).

Think about it. In the face of discrimination, mistreatment, and emotional abuse, we as a society are telling fat people to love their bodies, when we should be putting our energy toward removing those fatphobic ideas and structures so that fat people can live in a world that doesn’t require them to feel bad about their bodies. It’s like hitting someone with a rock and telling them not to bruise!

While learning to love and care for the body that you’re in is important, I think that body positivity also fails in teaching that because it puts even more emphasis on beauty. Instead of saying, “you don’t have to be ‘beautiful’ to be loved and appreciated,” its main lesson is that “all bodies are beautiful.” We live in a society obsessed with appearance, and it is irresponsible to ignore the hierarchy of beauty standards that exist in every space. Although it should be relative, “beautiful” has been given a meaning. And that meaning is thin, abled, symmetric, and eurocentric. 

Beauty and ugliness are irrelevant, made-up constructs. People will always be drawn to you no matter what, so you deserve to exist in your body without struggling to conform to an impossible and bigoted standard. Love and accept your body for YOURSELF AND NO ONE ELSE, because you do not exist to please the eyes of other people. That’s what I wish we were teaching instead. Radical self acceptance!

As of today, the ultimate message of the body positivity movement is: Love your body “despite its imperfections.” Or people with “perfect and imperfect bodies both deserve love.” As long as we are upholding the notion that there IS a perfect body that looks a certain way, and every body that falls outside of that category is imperfect, we are upholding white supremacy, eugenics, anti-fatness, and ableism.

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

Pro-variation vs. pro-selection culture

Evolution requires three things: some form of information that’s inheritable, some way to create variation from that information, and some way to select what information will be passed on to future generations. In biological evolution, of, course, we all know what these three things are: genes (information) can mutate (variation) -- well, it’s more complicated than just mutation, but this isn’t a biology lesson -- and those that are worse at surviving and reproducing themselves are of course naturally weeded out through cause and effect (selection). But other things -- art, culture, language, science, technology -- evolve as well, and they all need the same three things.

When it comes to variation and selection in things like culture and politics, there’s a sliding scale of which one people think is most important -- whether they’re more pro-variation, or pro-selection.

People on the pro-variation end of the spectrum tend to view diversity as a positive thing and selection as something that will take care of itself, or even something to be actively suspicious of because of its tendency to cause harm -- a rainbow queer community, an education system available to people of all cultures and economic backgrounds, country borders that are as open as practical, and embracing a diverse array of art make a community stronger, and things like gatekeeping, means testing and heirarchies on ‘what counts as art’ should be abandoned unless there’s a really good reason for the selective process to exist, in which case it’s grudgingly tolerated. To pro-variation people, exclusion and oppression within a community are threatening. Pro-variation people recognise that yes, you’re going to get some freeloading drains on resources and obvious money laundering schemes masquerading as terrible art and a few people pretending to be gay for a few years to look more interesting to their straight friends, and this is largely a non-issue, a perfectly acceptable price to pay for a diverse and fair world.

People on the pro-selection end of the scale tend to view selection as the main means of advancing or healing a society, and see diversity as something that will take care of itself and as something to be deeply suspicious of. Gatekeeping, unequal opportunities and financial heirarchies are needed to sort the what from the chaff and make sure everyone does their best (”capitalism breeds innovation”); initiatives to redress inequality and give minorities or poor people an ‘unfair’ advantage or make it easier for outsiders to enter the country should be abandoned unless there’s a really good reason for their existence, as they’re dragging down the ‘deserving’ and polluting the culture. To pro-selection people, contamination or invasion from outsiders is threatening. Pro-selection people recognise that yes, you’re going to lose some talented geniuses in sweatshops and stop some deserving people from achieving success and bully some LGBT people out of the community to face abuse and oppression alone, but this is largely a non-issue, a perfectly acceptable price to pay for an advanced and fair world.

“Oh, Derin, you’re just talking about left-wing vs. right-wing philosophies.” Sort of, but not really. It fits the stereotypes and common arguments to a T, but one can’t assume that all righties are pro-selection or all lefties are pro-variation. I have met pro-variation righties, although I’m not really sure how. And there are leftie TERFs out there, despite TERFism being an undeniably pro-selection philosophy. I find determining where people sit on the variation-to-selection scale to be a lot more useful for communication than left-to-right.

I say this because often I’ll see pro-selection and pro-variation people talking to each other, and notice that they’re having fundamentally different conversations. For example, let’s look at the issue of meritocracy. Most modern people would say that meritocracy is a good thing, but ’meritocracy’ means a fundamentally different thing to pro-selectionists than pro-variationists.

A pro-selectionist, when conceiving of meritocracy, tends to think in terms of, well, selection; devising a system where the strongest (those that excel in whatever the thinker thinks is important; innovation or determination or whatever) rise to the top and gain special privileges and power over others, that they can use to determine the rules and make life better for themselves and their children, elevating society as a side effect. To the pro-variationist, this is absolutely not a meritocracy. “You’ve built a system whereby those who don’t start out with more, those who are born poor or disabled or underprivileged in some way, have to work way harder and be lucky in order to get anywhere than those born lucky. People don’t get ahead on merit in this system because the playing field becomes drastically uneven after a couple of generations. This is not a meritocracy.”

A pro-variationist, on the other hand, would concentrate on making sure that everyone has a fair chance at exercising their skills and getting ahead. They’d focus on making sure that people had the space and security to exercise their skills and that, when it came to supporting the society to make that happen, those with more contributed more. To a pro-selectionist, this is absurd. “So those who have pulled ahead and succeeded are being penalised by having to give more? That’s the opposite of a meritocracy! That’s a system designed to drag the best down!”

I find this framework useful in explaining a lot of weird political quirks of certain subcultures. TERFs and tradwives, for example, are theoretically political opposites, but in practice their logic sounds almost identical to outsiders, sounding rather a lot like standard right-wing talking points and Fascism Lite. This is because they’re all using pro-selection arguments. To a pro-selectionist, the arguments of these groups look very different -- “we’re saying that X kind of people are good/virtuous/victims, and Y kind of people are bad/oppressors/sinners, which is the exact opposite of what the other group is saying!” To a pro-variationist, the fact that they are making literally the same argument makes them identical -- “you’re still putting people in your little ‘keep or cull’ boxes for exactly the same reasons, you just wrote different names on the boxes to keep or cull according to your personal taste.”

I think a lot of the things associated with right-wingers could be more accurately associated with people on the pro-selection end of the spectrum in general. It’s known, for example, that right-wingers tend to have a more sensitive disgust reflex and, as a consequence, be generally more xenophobic. You can see this in the way xenophobes talk of making room for outsiders; they talk of invasion, contamination, infection, hygeine, purity. LGBT exclusionists, lefties and righties, talk in the same sort of language. So do antis.

It’s also notable in the sorts of innocuous-seeming things that such people get really angry about. Right-wingers and authoritarians are known for their trend of an almost comical hatred of modern art. The idea that anything can be art, or that art can be measured on any level that isn’t strict complexity and realism of paint and sculpture, causes a surprising level of dislike in such groups. (See also arguments like ‘what is a video game’, ‘does this even count as a game’, althoughpeople thankfully seem to be bored of that now). Exclusionists are equally renowned for campaigns against inclusive terms like ‘queer’, and TERFs get obsessively nitpicky about people’s genitals to a really creepy degree and get very uncomfortable when you mention the ‘grey area’ in biological sex. This is normally assumed to be just dislike at people challenging their arguments, but I think it’s deeper. I think it’s like the modern art thing. Any kind of radical inclusivity is threatening to pro-selection thinkers, not because it’s a challenge to their rules and definitions -- they can have those arguments perfectly comfortably -- but because it is an attack on the very concept of meaning. “Words mean things! Groups exist! You can’t just... just get rid of groups and open up categories to include more people without putting them through a serious, rigorous proving ground first! You can’t just call anything you want to ‘art’, you can’t just call anyone outside cisheteronormative expectations part of the LGBT community, you can’t just call people men or women based on how they feel! That’s chaos! How can any progress be made if we just decide words don’t mean anything??”

(I also think this is a much-overlooked aspect of the same-sex marriage debate. Yes, most of that was garden-variety homophobia, but I’ve known a lot of people who were perfectly fine with ‘the gays having equal rights’, they just didn’t want it called marriage. To a pro-variationist, having the same legal language for partnerships regardless of the sex or gender of the participants is really important -- it’s a shield against future discrimination as the laws relating to either marriages or civil partnerships change over time. To a pro-selectionist, changing the definition of words related to fundamental cultural activities is a huge deal. “They’re eroding the very meaning of marriage! Chaos! How much more will the word change? Can people marry animals or cars next?!”)

As I said, this is a spectrum. I’ve met very few people who are on either extreme end -- even the most pro-equality liberal anarchist acknowledges that some standards of behaviour, community responses to inappropriate action and definitions of different communities do have to exist, to protect people, and the most hardocre fascist admits that there needs to be some measure of generating diversity to avoid stagnation and extinction. And people’s default reaction isn’t necessarily their position on all issues -- somebody who’s generally pro-variation might feel specifically threatened by immigration and think a strict proving ground for immigrants is necessary, or someone who is generally pro-selectionist might think that a robust social system is necessary because one’s economic status at birth has no bearing on one’s merit or value. But I’ve always found it to be a very useful general model.

[the-light-of-my-lifee]

Yikes your reading comprehension needs work. Because you didn’t understand anything I said at all and are making all kinds of assumptions about what I said

So firstly don’t put words in my mouth that I never said and secondly this is why Adam stans are such a pain to have a conversation with. The d*ck riding for Adam is insane and the undermining of everyone else that isn’t him is wild

The WF plot line is not about

“fighting back against your oppressors makes you just as bad as them and that you have to prove to the racists that you’re a good minority by protecting them and fighting against the bad minorities, so that they can change their mind about you”

The WF plot line has always been about the faunus wanting equality and to be treated equally. And yes when the faunus were peaceful, they were still mistreated and it wasn’t until they became more violent that they were actually treated as equals, but it was out of fear. Now let me ask you this. Where would you draw the line at the violence then? Until everyone is either dead or petrified out of fear to the faunus? Would that really solve everything? Do you really think aiding in Beacon falling, sending people to kill Blake’s parents, killing one of their own people to take leadership, bombing Haven, and wanting to wipe out humanity going to help the faunus in the long run. Because these are all of the things Adam has done and wants to do. And you’re crazy if you think Blake isn’t going to fight against Adam when he wanted to kill her parents and destroy yet another school that had nothing to do with the discrimination the faunus faced and think Blake and the others are only doing this to “change the opinions of the oppressors mind about the faunus.”

So no the faunus plot is not all about appeasing their oppressors and attacking the bad faunus. Adam was simply wrong plain and simple. Doesn’t matter if Adam is oppressed and a minority, that doesn’t excuse him of all of the bad things he’s done. He killed one of his own members to become a leader, wanted to kill someone’s parents and basically wants to wipe out humanity and if you think this is all justifiable and good for all of the faunus because Adam’s an oppressed minority, then your blind because Adam is barely going after the people who actually discriminated against the faunus and half of the people he attacked were faunus themselves

And good lord it’s like you didn’t read anything I said about Ghira, Kali, Sienna, and Blake so I’m not even going to repeat myself and I could honestly care less with how little you view each of them. Blake is not timid or weak so don’t know where you’re getting that from, but then again you are an Adam stan so I’m not really surprised. If Blake isn’t trying to terrorize and kill everyone like Adam, of course you would think she’s weak and timid 😂

The solution to racism could be anything this is fiction not real life. The faunus can find another way of bringing about peace and equality and I know being peaceful hasn’t worked in the past, but there’s always another way of doing things that they might not have thought of in the past because violence and terrorizing people is not the way to bring about change even if it was worked in the past because that soon will go overboard and people who weren’t involved would get hurt and Adam himself wouldn’t stop until every human was dead and if you think that’s the answer to racism then that’s concerning

The WF plot line did help Blake and was a part of a lot of Blake’s story regardless with how you feel about her. She’s stronger and more confident now and hopefully in the future we can see how she turns the reformed WF into

Also you mentioned Adam saving Ghira’s life once, but this is also the same person who abused his daughter and tried to kill him and his wife in their own home in Menagerie, but apparently because he saved his life once he’s still a great guy to you lmao. This is why I can’t take Adam stans seriously because the blind admiration you have for this guy is insane

But hey go crazy putting words in my mouth again that I never said in your next post

The RWBY fandoms treatment of Adam makes me very uncomfortable

This is very long sorry I was rambling <3

There’s something really odd about the dedication RWBY fans have to hating Adam. So much so that they’ll admit the writing of the WF is racist but refuse to admit that Adam a member of the white fang also suffered from that racist writing.

There’s this weird dedication to pretending there are no problems with the choices made around Adams character and vilifying literally everyone who tries to talk about it, for the sake of continuing to blindly hate him. The fandom seems to struggle with understanding that the show is fictional and everything that happens in it is a direct choice of its writers. Y’all talk about Adam like he is a real person who has personally offended you irl. Just a huge lack of media literacy tbh.

A white man wrote a civil rights group, that he admittedly based off the black panthers, as the generic bad guys of his shitty anime knockoff and made a central theme of the show the idea that fighting against your oppression violently makes you just as bad if not worse than your oppressors. Then he mad the leader of that group a generic abusive meanie bad guy. Who essentially is what white supremacists think civil rights activist are all the way down to being the fictional equivalent of a black supremacist.

When there was backlash to this he made a knockoff Malcom X and then killed her in her only scene and made a character whose ideology is basically sit down and lick the feet of your oppressors and had the audacity to say he was based off of MLK. How the fuck do you base a character off of somebody without doing basic research on them because contrary to what people seem to believe MLK was not a doormat and this is a conversation for a different day but I’m sick and tired of his memory being weaponised against black people.

What’s worse is that Adam is the only character portrayed as actually doing something to fight racism. Ghira’s faction is only ever seen fighting against other groups. I don’t know if y’all know this but that’s not how the civil rights movement worked. Most of the leaders didn’t agree on methods but they coexisted because the main goal was the liberation of black people and they knew they had to coexist. MLK did not go around calling the cops on revolutionaries he disagreed with.

The problems with Adam and the WF are not separate and cannot be. Most of what’s wrong with the Faunus plot line is the way the show handles Adam. The choices made with his writing cannot be separated from those they made with the WF overall. Adams choice to kill his attackers to keep himself and other Faunus safe, from people literally trying to kill them, is treated the way it is because of the stance they took with WFs writing. When Adam kills a human supremacist trying to kill Ghira you’re supposed to see it as an extreme and the beginning of his turn to evil. Adam isn’t a real person every describe he makes is informed by the white writers of the show. Why would the bias they displayed writing the WF apply to him?

Some of you have been abused and relate to Blake in that sense, a lot of you seem to be projecting your abusers onto Adam. I’m sorry you went through that but you are not excused from buying into racist rhetoric. It’s incredibly uncomfortable as a black person to watch people talk about how “healing” it was for them to watch a civil rights leader admittedly inspired by black people slapped around and killed by two white women. It is anger inducing to watch fans celebrate “queer representation” dancing on the corpse of a monumental disrespect to black people and our history.

RWBY doesn’t even handle abuse well tbh and most of the queer rep is not that great, there are many shows that do it so much better, there is actually no excuse for hanging on to the black people are bad for fighting against racism show.

[cautelous]

arcane bellyaching & whatnot feel free to look away it’s mostly rambling and the result of me being up early for other reasons. also talking about politics i guess if that isn’t your thing

damn they really did pull the “what side are you on? the oppressors or the oppressed? both sides are weighted as the same by this statement, and also here’s some animated police brutality!” thing huh

like yeah sure of course i’m not saying that piltover pre-the-present-day has to be perfect and whatnot (nor does present-day piltover have to be perfect either, but... idk, not a fan of this direction!) and of course that is me speaking about old, independent, single-city piltover - i guess this new one can be as corrupt as it wants for as long as it wants - but like, insanely uncomfortable to have just talked about the way that caitlyn’s outfits and abilities and general thing have become less “detective” and more “militarized cop” and how everyone is eating that up because it’s hot that she has more clothes and it’s hot that she has a SWAT outfit only for. ok here is our trailer with a scene of policemen physically breaking up protests! (of course people do seem to be cringing somewhat at that, which is good, and i am not saying that a work of art/piece of media can’t talk about such things, but like. do we trust riot to?)

like even if that scene is from the past (which considering that arcane seems to be both in the past and present, eh, 50/50) then the implication is just that current piltover hasn’t solved whatever issue caused said protest and also hasn’t stopped brutalizing, because current piltover lore has such delightful color stories as “caitlyn electrocutes someone with a bola net” and “vi lectures rich pilties and physically threatens them for breaking windows for the ~zaunite cause~”. the latter is literally just repeating the message that all property damage in protests is the work of outside forces and actually good real actual protesters are completely peaceful :), you see, and so any property damage during a protest immediately discounts its legitimacy. so like. (and secondarily, child of zaun portrays zaunites as easily swayed by a demagogue, unlike those Very Smart Piltovians and Vi, Who’s Not Really Accepted As Fully Zaunite Anymore You See And That’s Her Character Struggle.)

so either a) nothing has gotten better since however many years in the past that scene in arcane was or b) this is the present, and the present in this work of fiction is just. mirroring reality’s present, which is just... i dunno. i think that a fictional world so apart from our own (to the extent that there’s no homophobia, at least from word-of-god, but idk i also have thoughts on that declaration) can do better than 1:1 mirror our world’s police brutality and class struggles. but i’m always an idealist who’d like to see media do more than darkness for the sake of darkness, or repeat reality for the sake of repeating reality and nothing more.

anyways idk man hope they don’t impart absolutely horrid themes in their multi-million-dollar project (or however much this ended up costing) but considering this starting point i am not very sure of that!

anyways idk x2 there’s totally a way to do a piltover-zaun "cities at war” narrative in old lore framing that shows both the struggles of piltover and zaun and compares and contrasts them. piltover “wins” in that framework because zaun is a hypercapitalist hellhole and old piltover’s implications are closer to a steampunk utopia than anything else, but i think the point of that narrative wouldn’t be “see, both sides are bad! and good! equally! just a big old moral perfectly-balanced scale!” like this seems to be shaping up to be, but like. showing that there is goodness and good people even under the most soul-crushing of states (zaun. and also a narrative that i think is important, considering how often we confuse being a citizen of a country for being a follower of that country’s government’s ideology) and that a good nation* and good lives for its citizens has to be worked for with blood, sweat, and tears - and even then it is so easy to fall back into old patterns of behavior and fall upon old prejudices and backslide into a “more comfortable” (for some), but worse society (piltover. and, again, also a narrative that i think is important).

*i have many thoughts about if a nation can be “truly good”, but i would be mad if i thought league or most media would touch the idea of a stateless society with a ten-foot pole. so we’re just working within reason here.

i dunno. tl;dr not very excited at riot choosing to tackle police brutality in their fun animated series for fans when their track record with revolutionaries is what it is. (yes xayah and rakan are portrayed in a positive light yes that’s the gottem everyone uses for when people bring up how xerath and sylas are treated. there are multiple types of revolutionaries and the lovebirds are of a stripe (a feather?) that is easier to market.) not very excited (still, what a surprise) about zaun being squeezed into entirely being the poor underclass, because i feel like that nukes a lot of narratives you could have done with old zaun that would, you know, be directly critical of capitalism and whatnot. there are very interesting stories to tell with these two cities, and i’ve told some of them and my friends have told some of them, and i am just tired of this... bottom-of-the-barrel gritty-to-be-gritty low-hanging-fruit take that riot has chosen. i think that a company, even one making a mass-market game, who tries so hard to convince everyone that they have serious lore for serious people can and should do better than this.

what do i close this ramble with. go play disco elysium? yeah. let’s go with that. go play disco elysium. i like it and think it does a variety of complex themes that other works can only dream of.

[marlahey]

Hi it’s the person “making assumptions”. Not making assumptions, but when I see someone being praised for using a condescending tone in relation to something that I, as a black woman, care deeply about I take issue. Didn’t say people were right to send hate, but his response was poor and misjudged. Just making my judgment off the behaviour I see as we all do. I do expect better from a white guy with power who demeans the legitimate concerns of those who were asking for more politely. Be kinder.

Hi anon, while I appreciate an important discourse, I am surprised that you’ve come to my blog when I see that the same message you seem to have copied and pasted into multiple asks in the skam tag and have gotten support for your claims. just so there’s no confusion, I’ve copied you entire message to Chris below. I’m also kind of riled up today so this will probably be stupidly long.

_Not true, when people with approx 400 followers post links on social media for protests it usually generates 3 more signatures. Imagine if someone like Maxence, with 500k followers, posted a link to a petition. His silence is privilege, his silence is choosing the side of the oppressor. He stands for no one but the white man if he can’t do the bare minimum. Coming from a black girl who works in charity, and knows first hand the impact that social media can have on protesting. Don’t make excuses.

(2) I’m just real tired of white people excusing themselves with “I was learning” (axel) when the black community don’t have a CHOICE. This is our reality, and you’re either with us or against us. Silence means you’ve chosen the side of the oppressor, to paraphrase Desmond Tutu. Not aiming this just at you, but all Skam fans defending their behaviour. It is bad. Don’t excuse white men for being lazy and ignorant.

(3) Maxence wants to scold people for not going to a protest? His tone is condescending, and shows more of his privilege and ignorance. Oftentimes it’s unsafe for PoC and queer people to go to protests. His safety is guaranteed, he’s a straight white man. The whole point of BLM is to fight for the safety of the black community globally, including France which is racist as fuck (Burka ban?!), so for a white guy to not realise why some people don’t go to protests is just ignorance. Educate him.

(4) it’s not shifting responsibility btw. People are allowed, especially minorities, to ask for white people to do their bit. People with large influence should do better, especially if their career is made on a show that supposedly address social problems through TV (mental health, islamophobia, homophobia etc.) you really can’t sit there and scold people for asking for better. Sometimes the language and approach is poor, but the point is often correct. Please think before you defend them.

no one is excusing maxence, especially when he did exactly what you asked: posted a link to a petition for all of his followers to see. that’s not silence. I’m east-asian and I have a masters degree in media studies and communication. while I agree social media can be a great tool, I would argue that posting on it is more of a ‘bare minimum’ than anything else; without anything actionable (petition signing, donating, self-educating, voting) then it’s just virtual signalling. it’s not concrete. since maxence was literally at a protest tonight, he seems to be on the right track with his support. he’s not against you.

the systemic and historical roots of racism around the world are awful. no one denies that, including in france. canada in particular is no exception. I agree that the pasty men of the world have more work to do. but to deny them the time and opportunity to educate themselves seems counterproductive. I’m not sure what sort of timeline you have that everyone must meet, but it takes a long time to learn new things, and longer to unlearn everything you thought you understood about an issue or yourself. I literally have cerebral palsy and I knew so little about disability studies and activism prior to taking a class on it. am I a bad cripple? I didn’t start coming out as bi till last year and don’t do much activism there yet either. am I lazy and ignorant?

more precisely, how are you or I supposed to dismantle racism or oppression without their help? in my opinion, your tone here is equally if not more condescending towards them, and chris. quite frankly, if I were maxence I would’ve probably said something very similar. I don’t know how it feels to be inundated with strangers telling you what to do, and how to feel, and how much of an asshole you were being because of something as ridiculous as instagram posts. 

I’m a former teacher of junior high and high school. that’s not education. it’s being a dick because the internet protects you from real repercussion. the person axel replied to wasn’t asking, they were demanding and being rude as hell about it. you’re free to dislike his or maxence’s tone as you will, anon. but you are assuming that maxence doesn’t understand why people may not attend protests. he’s not an idiot; all of s5 of skam fr was dedicated to disability awareness and representation. he literally plays a queer, mentally ill character. pretty sure he has basic human decency and knows not everyone can go marching into physical danger. to call him ignorant because he’s not writing an academic essay in his stories about the struggles of every minority group is a bit of a reach and frankly just mean. you also seem to assume he’s not done anything else because...what? he didn’t post about it?

I also have to disagree with the idea that  “sometimes the language and approach is poor, but the point is often correct.” you’re not going to get anyone onside by belittling and insulting them. that’s just a fact. just as you didn’t draw chris onside, you’d never bring maxence if he wasn’t already here, protesting. if you allow all these people on his socials that grace of a poor approach, why do you not give it to maxence in his response? because he’s right. copy/pastes and hashtags are not enough. there is more work to do and everyone’s capable of it. I truly respect your position and I empathize deeply with the enormous struggles that you and your community face daily. you’re free to expect whatever of maxence, but it doesn’t mean you’ll get it. he does not have to document and prove his allyship to anyone. if you’re unhappy with it, then I’d suggest stop following him or blocking his name. venting your anger at other people doesn’t affect him. 

your anger at him in general doesn’t really affect me either, despite this essay. you ordering me to do or feel things doesn’t seem kind. but I’ll never have the same stake in this fight as you do, so it’s not up to me to tell you what to do or how to feel. you came into my inbox expecting a response, so here’s mine. I hope that this renewed rage and energy around the world is the turning point of all of this. I’m sorry you even had to send any of these asks in the first place. 

[crystalelemental]

Edelgard’s an emperor trying to expand her empire. Adrestia’s got that clear German influence. Flayn, Seteth and Serios can be killed in BE and they’re among the last members of their race, so that’s where “Edelgard commits genocide” comes from.

Damn, is that where it came from?  You know what, fuck it, I can appreciate a good asspull, 10/10.

But seriously, I feel like this must have started as a joke, and was taken seriously and became a real thing people now argue over.  There’s no way that started real.  Like...you took one data point out of context, and another you forced a convenient interpretation onto to make the claim.  That’s absurd.  Like...okay, first off, does Edelgard even know that Flayn and Seteth are dragonkin?  Because, like...I didn’t.  For a while.  They mention pretty early on that the saints and heroes could have ridiculously long lifespans, and it was pretty apparent that Seteth and Flayn were related to the saints, so for a while I just assumed that was all it was.  I can’t even remember when I started to connect they might be dragons too, and I think it was specifically when they start talking about how Rhea is like family.  Which happens in the Church route, an entirely separate reality.  Secondly, if we’re going to start counting “killed the last known dragon” as a form of genocide, then I’m pretty sure about every lord in Fire Emblem is guilty.  Killing dragons, especially corrupted or evil ones, is kind of a series staple.  Hell, apparently they’re not even the last, they’re “among the last.”  I’m really hoping that has to do with the Nabateans that Seiros mentions near the end of BE route.  God, please tie this in to some dragon society.

Moreover though, it’s just amazing to me that this is the direction we take with Edelgard’s character.  You know the first thing that happens when you join Edelgard against the Church?  She asks everyone if they’re sure they want to stay, and tells them they can leave if they’re not up for it.  What a vile, power-hungry fascist, allowing her friends and comrades to duck out of a conflict they may not be ready for.  When you take over major areas, her first declaration is for everyone to drop their weapons and cease fighting.  Again, so vicious.  Or hell, how about Hubert and Ferdinand’s B-support, where we’re told point-blank that Edelgard intended to allow their enemies to go free?  It’s Hubert who sends the order to kill; Edelgard had every intention of allowing her enemies to live.  What an unbelievable showing of cruelty.  Hell, even her motivations don’t line up.  Yes, her goal is to unify the continent within her empire.  I haven’t finished the game yet, but one of her proclamations is that the Church was explicitly responsible for creating the divisions between nations, and that this division held people back.  I dunno, maybe that’s right.  Even if it’s not, the Church is responsible for keeping a lot of secrets about relics, crests, and crest stones from everyone, and has shaped history to the current form where Crests are all-important, to a degree where many go to disgusting lengths to obtain them.  Edelgard’s entire MO is basically “Eat the rich.”  She hates the nobility that stole power from the emperor, and immediately used that power to torture children to essentially create weapons bearing two crests, and called it “research.”  She was one such kid experimented on.  If we seriously want to talk about who’s the oppressed and who are the oppressors, it doesn’t take both brain cells to figure out Edelgard was on the worse end of this.

Hers is the story of a child abused by society at large, recognizing those responsible for setting the conditions that allow or even celebrate these atrocities, and rising up to dismantle the systems that protect them.  At every step of the way, she’s resolute, but she’s clearly not happy that things have to go this way.  She cries when she has to kill Dimitri.  Someone out to kill her who would stop at nothing, and she cries over the fact that nothing would have been able to stay his hand.  I’m not saying she’s a perfect cinnamon roll who did nothing wrong.  She fucks up quite a bit.  She never once talks with Dimitri about the truth of what happened before the timeskip, which could’ve saved everyone a lot of trouble.  She could have been more detailed about the problems the Church is responsible for, because believe me, having played it, I’m still not entirely clear on their role, which made it harder to understand why they’re her target.  Her ambitions being largely for the greater good don’t excuse the fact that she’s willing to jump to subjugation through force in a case like with the Alliance.  Hell, you could argue that Dimitri, even consumed entirely by his lust for revenge, didn’t need to die, and that she’s simply justifying the solution that’s most convenient for her.  All of those criticisms I’m fine with.  But my god, it’s like you don’t know how to tell someone with complex motives and questionable actions from a sociopath.

Personally, I blame Fates.  I feel like a lot of Fire Emblem does pretty well with moral gray, and characters who can seem purely evil having a complex history or motivation.  Those qualities are what drew me in so much when I first played through Blazing Blade.  But Fates...did a terrible job of this.  Garon and his goons were so transparently evil as to be cartoons, and Hoshido was left to be the pure “did nothing wrong” victim good guys despite showing the more overt levels of racism and hatred toward their enemies.  They created this concept of picking a side as if they were equal and just butchered it so hard.  Awakening was...actually really not much better about this at all.  So I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised that many newer fans to the series are seeing this game play out and trying to fit it into a neat little pure good and pure evil box, but that’s not the way the series has traditionally played out.  I hate to be this much of a snob, but god Three Houses feels like a proper return to form.  It legitimately feels the same as when I played the Radiant games the first time through, only without the frustration of the fucking bridge.  This moral complexity is how the series is meant to run, and by god it feels good to be back in a game that has this kind of depth.

[monstersofsilence]

Choices... they are difficult to make, aren’t they?

The same nightmare. The same internal struggle of wanting to escape the past. It eats away into the skin until it eventually devours one whole and their life is forever changed. Screams echoed in the distance as the girl kept running, panting with each step she takes as her foot makes contact to the ground. Where she’s running to? She doesn’t know. An escape is all she wants. Eventually, something bright shined in front of her vision, getting closer and closer as it appears to be a doorway. Not making any thoughts on whether it’s safe or not, she’ll take it over anything and ran towards it, entering it.

As she made it through, she noticed her surroundings to be a white room. Looking around, it doesn’t seem to be a room she recognized. Looking at herself, she noticed that her body has changed to her normal look instead of her past self. Seeing a mirror, she walked up to it to seeing her reflection. No face paint.

“Ah! You’re finally here.” A voice said out loud as the troll turned to look at a woman next to a piano that was not there before. “Please, Orelia, is it? Come sit down on that chair and have a chat.”

The girl wore a white suit that matched the whole setting of the room. Even the color of the piano was white. “How... h-how did you know my name?” the indigo blood questioned.

“I’ve been keeping a close eye on you for quite a while. You intrigued me.”

“Where... are we?”

“You are dreaming. I have an ability that allows me to look into people’s dreams. Why I have that ability is beyond me but I have been using it to try and help those that are troubled.” Soon, the woman began to play the piano, a simple symphony and continued to speak. “You... are going down a dark path, dear.”

“What the hell do you mean? Who are you?” Orelia snapped back.

“No need to be hostile, my dear. I am here only wanting to help.” She smiles. “My name is Varani Xolphi. I am half-troll, half-ghost.”

“What are you? Like some kind of... thing in dreams?”

“Oh no, no, no! I am indeed in the real world. As I said, I have the special ability that allows me to see into people’s dreams. In the real world, I am blind but I am able to utilize my telekinesis to see people’s forms by their aura. Does that answer your question, dear?”

“Um... I guess... but that doesn’t answer as to why you think I’m going down a dark path or whatever?” Orelia says, crossing her arms in front of her chest.

“Orelia, my dear, do you know what vengeance is?”

“Of course I do.”

“And do you know that often times seeking vengeance can have dire consequences? You may succeed but what will it cost to finally get to that goal?”

Slowly, hearing this more and more caused a burning fire to build up inside Orelia and already she was fed up with it and grabbed Varani by the collar, lifting her up. “You have no idea what shit I went through! You don’t know! You don’t know what that bastard clown did to me!”

“Even so... is it all worth it?” Varani questioned back, unfazed by the other picking her up against her will. “Orelia... I do not know what may have happened to you, I do not know what you look like, but you building up your rebellion, an indigo blood, no less, making others believe in a cause against their oppressors... it’s inspiring.” She merely gives a small smile which only left Orelia a bit shocked with how this girl is handling this. “You’ve done so much... but letting your past eat you up inside... it’s not healthy for you... vengeance is a one-way street, dear.”

“Shut up!” Orelia lets the troll go, taking a few steps and turns away from them. “I’ve suffered... so long by his hand... to the point that I wasn’t the same person anymore when I finally broke free... and ran... still... he haunts me... even though I escaped... I feel like I’m in an endless corridor... stuck with him behind me chasing after me...”

“Orelia... I’m only warning you, it’s not too late to stop this. You’re trying to become a vigilante, luring out your abuser, while at the same time being the rebel leader that people look up to you to be. You can’t become both.” Varani sat back down on the piano chair as Orelia teared up, not wanting to hear anymore of this but can’t help only to accept it. “You said... that you became someone that even you couldn’t recognize. What about now?”

From those words, it caught Orelia by surprise and turned to look at them, wiping away the tears going down her face. “Wh-what do you mean?”

“Who are you? Are you Orelia? The rebel leader that many look up to and eventually will bring freedom to those oppressed by a dictator? You... being one of the beacons of hope, strength, and courage to bring down the evil and have Alternia be equal? Or... are you The Silenced? The Clown Killer... The Carnival’s Reaper... taking out every subjug until you finally get to find your abuser? Can you answer that question, Orelia? Do you... know who you think you are?” Varani finished.

Orelia was speechless, trying to come up with an argument but felt... scared to. If anything, she’s now thinking about that question to herself.

The blind troll merely lets out a sigh. “Very well then.” Standing up from the piano chair, Varani lets the down the cover to protect the keys of the piano, ‘looking’ back at Orelia. “I want you to keep my words in mind. You’re a good person, dear. I can feel it. Not just as a person but also as a respectable leader. There’s not many rebel leaders that are high bloods... many low bloods are often times skeptical. Again... I do not know what happened to you in the past, but I can sense immense hate for the person that put you through the pain and suffering you’re still going through. Even if it’s not physical but psychological. That I can understand... still... just... remember what I said. Don’t throw your life away, dear. I will say this, people on the side of evil... don’t get to live for very long. Eventually, karma will come. Death is very persistent on that notion.”

The indigo blood became quiet. Something that she hasn’t been for so long and she’s usually very chatty. Now though... Orelia is at a lost for words.

“Well, I should let you wake up.” The red blood says with a bright smile. “It’s a pleasure speaking with you, Orelia. I do hope I come across you one day in the real world. For now though, just remember my words.”

As Orelia closed her eyes and opens them, she was staring up at the ceiling of her room. Blinking a couple of times, being sure it was real, the indigo blood shot her body upwards, sitting herself up and looked around, reassuring her first confirmation but even noticed that her hand is trembling. The words that was told to her has been on repeat in her head since then and it still is as she just sat there. Alone. Causing her to rethink what she has been doing all this time.

[robert-c]

The “Right” to Bear Arms

Typical of how these “debates” get off on the wrong foot from the very beginning is the gun “rights” lobby’s complete ignoring of the first 13 words of that famous second amendment to the Constitution. Those words? “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”. EVERYTHING that follows in that amendment, especially and including the “magic phrase” – “shall not be infringed” are prefaced, modified and in the context of those first thirteen words. So, from the very beginning of the republic the idea was that there should be some regulation of this right to bear arms and that it was connected with a defense of the state and the peace, NOT necessarily with personal protection, ideology or even personal sportsmanship.

Therefore, restrictions on types of weapons and background checks and any other regulation of gun ownership is in no way an infringement or violation of this amendment. Frankly, given the language of the amendment, making clear that it was for the purposes of having a readily available pool of citizens ready to take up arms for the defense of the country, I am surprised that more training isn’t required (or at least a proficiency test) before a gun can be owned. Let’s face it, a militia where someone doesn’t even know how to hold their weapon is of little value, and is of considerable danger to others.

Let’s get honest about the support for this amendment. A significant portion comes from a group of people who believe that somehow, the second amendment was meant to ensure that the populace (or at least some segment of it) could rise up and resist the government. While there is no support for this idea in the actual language of the Constitution, it is easy to see why some people came to that idea. It was personally armed patriots that led the Revolution leading to American independence. Yet, in the absence of more comprehensive regulation of this right, this has done little more than make possible the placement of weapons in the hands of mentally unstable individuals all for the sake of making it possible for an armed minority to promote a revolution against the government.

As further proof that this interpretation of the second amendment is inconsistent with its history is the fact that one of the earliest statutes the Congress enacted made it a crime to take up arms against the government of the United States of America or to promote its violent overthrow. Why? Because as a republic with the checks and balances of the separation of powers and the opportunity to elect representatives, there should be no need to violently overthrow the government as the Constitution prohibited tyranny. Whether or not you believe the Constitution has failed or has been circumvented, there is absolutely no legal or historical support for an argument that the second amendment is there to allow armed overthrow of the government.

I am amazed at the level of confusion and hypocrisy that some “gun rights” people will go to in order to oppose reasonable restrictions on the purchase of weapons. For example, I’ve often heard about how loosely organized and controlled those 18th century militias were. Fine, if you want the amendment to apply only to weapons available in the 1700’s then I’m on board with that. Everything else in the Constitution anticipated that there would be changes in the future and sought only to provide the foundation, the guiding principles. The Founding Fathers could not have possibly imagined the sort of weapons there are today and I would hope that even the most ardent gun rights supporters would agree that my neighbor shouldn’t be allowed to own a fully armed and operational tank, or a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon.

I am disturbed by the “we are the victim” attitudes of so many of these people who are ardent supporters of no restrictions whatsoever on the acquisition of military level weapons. People who feel like they are the victims of oppression easily justify the use of any level of force to resist their real (or imagined) oppressors. That some of these people are only feeling oppressed because their dominance is being eliminated doesn’t change their perception of their justification in the use of force. It should change our view of what is right and ethical about their arguments around control of who gets to purchase and possess a weapon.

The gun manufacturers are well aware that the total output of their production lines exceeds the registered weapons legitimately sold. But, hey, it’s a “free economy isn’t it?” And isn’t the pursuit of profit one of the Ten Commandments? (Hint: no it’s not!) Once again we have an “unholy” alliance between the people happy to make a profit from anything and those who would love the opportunity to enforce their view of the world on others.

Once we quit imagining that the second amendment guarantees anyone a gun who wants one, perhaps then we can discuss reasonable restrictions. In the meantime, let’s at least call “bull shit” on the argument that any waiting period, background check, or restriction on type of weapon is somehow in violation of the second amendment.

There are, no doubt, some people who (naively) would like to ban all weapons from everyone; however, characterizing anyone who would like to restrict some gun ownership with these people is both unfair and inaccurate. Likewise, it is equally unfair to equate all “gun rights” supporters with extremist militias. Yet it is these extremes, or more correctly, their clichés, that seem to define the discussion. Instead of reacting as if we are on a slippery slope, we could address the need for some sensible regulation and  agree that anyone who wants more (in either unnecessary restriction or unlimited loopholes) will get voted down by a sensible middle of voters.

But that is the heart of all of our issues, isn’t it? That the sensible middle ground is drowned out by the posturing extremes. And that middle is increasingly encouraged to worry that one extreme or the other is going to win.

If you are still a person of reason and get involved in passing this around and spreading the ideas that neither of the extremes are correct. And most of all don’t let the extremes make you feel as if all guns will be removed from all people if there are restrictions or that no restrictions whatsoever is the only way to remain free.

[merpuccino]

Megan Rapinoe: Unapologetically Confident, Comfortable, and Opinionated

In this essay, I will... I notice a not all together surprising amount of Megan Rapinoe's detractors are white men. On Twitter, at least, I see that often the negative comments about her come from white men.

This morning the first thing I notice is an article about her, featuring a video where she gives a fan an autograph on a soccer ball. It also showed some of the most hateful tweets I've seen about her. Why is she a piece of garbage, according to these people? Because she's not making eye contact with the fan.

She's clearly just distracted. She's at a public event, there's at least one camera on her, people are talking to her while she signs the autograph. It's like, have these men never been distracted before? I feel like male celebrities probably do this all the time and it gets zero notice. I certainly don't or wouldn't expect Chris Evans to make eye contact with every single kid in a crowd at an event. Yes, this is just one boy standing in front of her. But she's clearly preoccupied.

Of course, I notice the Tweets featured in the article are from white men, who all attest that Rapinoe's is a piece of absolute shit for not giving her fan sufficient attention. Granted, celebrities are often lambasted for this type of thing. But to call a woman a piece of shit over it?

This just makes me think of all the things I heard growing up about any woman who showed any kind of sexual confidence or self confidence. I still remember hearing a man talking about Rihanna being beaten by Chris Brown say "Well I'd want to hit her too. She's probably annoying." Then the same man immediately turned around five seconds later and was like "I'm sorry. I shouldn't say that."

No, you shouldn't. But where does this impulse to say shit like this come from anyway?

And I think I've pinpointed it, after all these years.

Insecurity.

Men despise women like Megan Rapinoe because she has shown that she has zero need for them.

Fist of all, she stirred up the hornet's nest by insulting Trump. She became noticed online for a video of her saying "We're not going to the fucking white house." She was then accused of being 'unpatriotic,' of 'insulting the troops,' of disrespect ing essentially an entire country of some 300 million people by criticizing a man many of us don't feel represented by.

But that wasn't enough. Her team then won. They won the women's cup. So she, being an athlete who won, is in the limelight - confident, secure, even gloating in her victory. She became the focal point of her team. But she also became the object of so much hate.

And I suspect it really has little to do in the end with what she said about Trump. That was just the catalyst.

See even if she never said anything about the White house, she would still get the due amount of hate any butch woman gets. Butch women are notoriously targets for unhappy, hetero white men, both in everyday life and on the internet. They are the peak example of women who are unapologetically themselves and who don't need men or at least no use for them.

For men, for heterosexual white men who are used to women who apologize when somebody else drops something, this is an unforgivable sin. It's an unspoken societal rule that a woman who is never sorry, who takes up space without asking permission, who is uncompromising in being herself is dangerous, a threat. And somehow, she deserves to be at least verbally abused until she returns to 'her place' or the 'proper' place for women - modest (but you know, still sexy to straight dudes) and silent.

These men despise her, I think, because she is not only conventionally unattractive to them but she is comfortable and unapologetic in her own body. I find her very attractive personally but what I mean is that her looks, her aesthetic, her physique even, is not built for the male gaze. She is a lean, muscular woman, with short, unnaturally dyed hair, and a strong athletic build. But she is also confident, even a little cocky. And that is what infuriates these men more than anything.

She is not only a butch woman who offers no interest for men, but she also openly takes no interest in them either. She's an out lesbian. What use does she have for men? She also committed the "grave sin" of having an opinion that doesn't pander to the beliefs of the white hetero men who voted for Donald Trump. She didn't disrespect America. She revealed a disrespect for the current administration. She reminded these men that his detractors exist. Not only that - she reminded these men that women like her exist. Confident, comfortable in their own skin, with no need to pander to the American male - these women exist.

And they are good at what they do.

And they are admired by others.

That makes her a triple threat to these sorry bastards. She's a respected, competent, opinionated woman. And she's not sorry.

These men, these insecure adult children, don't know how to deal with that. They don't. They take her disinterest as disrespect. They are the classic example of the quote "Equality feels like oppression to the oppressors." When you are a white, heterosexual man and women, whom you have ignored and belittled for years, are being given attention by the media, by the internet, by thousands of adoring fans, you are forced to accept that your opinion is just that - an opinion. You are not the arbiter of absolute truth that you thought you were. 

So they whine about the ‘death of America’ but it’s really just the death of the America they knew. They whine about ‘liberals.’ They whine and blame everyone else when in reality they are doing exactly what they accused Barack Obama of doing, when they voted for Donald Trump. They said ‘You brought this on yourself. You ignored us for eight years.’ Well, now it’s coming around again. They ignored lesbians and butch women for decades. They bullied LGBT people in school and talked down to us and relegated our rights to some ‘side discussion’ every time an election came around.  Well, now they’re having to hear about it. They’re having to hear about it not just at Thanksgiving dinner. They’re having to hear about it at sporting events. They’re having to hear about it in places they thought were ‘sacred’ and ‘safe’ from ‘politics.’ And that, right there, is the ultimate example of privilege. When you think that LGBT rights are just ‘politics’ and they shouldn’t be mixed with your sports arenas. You have forgotten that this is not just ‘politics’ for us. This is our lives, our freedoms that are at stake. So you can sit there and whine all you want about ‘the troops’ being disrespected and the country being disrespected.  But you are, in reality, the one giving this woman the power to hurt you. Because according to the way you’re acting, this woman is dangerous. This woman, this solitary woman, has managed to disrespect an entire nation according to you. She’s really gotten under your skin!  By, how exactly? By not going to the fucking white house. 

[nicoolios]

The Power of the Dystopia

What do nanotechnology, young adult dystopias, and zombies learning to love again have in common? As the old meme says, the answer may surprise you. By nanotechnology I mean Michael Grant’s BZRK trilogy, by young adult dystopias I will focus mostly on The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, and by zombies learning to love again I am referencing Isaac Marion’s Warm Bodies. Each of these books will be discussed in great depth in how they relate to the common theme of power in the following collection of literary criticisms. Power surfaces in BZRK through the obsessive lengths the characters go to to maintain it with superior technology and firepower. The Hunger Games refrains from the subject of actively maintaining power, but its story accurately depicts a society where power is exploited to keep its poorer citizens in line. The zombies in Warm Bodies regain power in a world that exists to destroy them by relearning language. Again, each of those topics will be explained at the introduction’s conclusion in their individual essays, but I will add a bit more clarity later on in these opening remarks.

This issue, which puts power front and center in the spotlight, tackles problems pertinent to the world we live in today by using a wide variety of popular books to reach the widest reader base possible. All of them can be considered young adult fiction, but each series pushes the boundaries of the genre. The Hunger Games specifically doubles as political commentary, BZRK is hardcore science fiction written for the eyes of teenagers, and Warm Bodies is technically a zombie romance.

As previously stated, The Hunger Games is political commentary, which only gets all the sweeter the more the political scene in the United States and around the world goes south. The main character Katniss lives in District 12, the poorest of the twelve districts, and is forced to hunt illegally to keep her mother and sister fed. District 1, the wealthiest district home to people so rich they take medicine to force themselves to throw up at parties so they can continue eating the fanciest, most expensive food, holds the Hunger Games every year to keep all the other districts in line. All three books in the series have the same background: the rich exist to stay rich, and the rich have all the power, so when District 13 starts the rebellion it sends them into a panic. The entirety of Mockingjay, the third book of the trilogy, is about that very topic. Money plus power equals bad guy, especially in this series. In regards to the essay on The Hunger Games, not only is there a common theme of power in all three books and all four movies, there are also real-life connotations for both the people spending money on the series and the young adult genre in general. While the essay specifically talks about the genre and what political books do for readers of young adult fiction, The Hunger Games just so happens to be the most popular representation.  

BZRK also deals with money and power and rich people trying to control the universe, but this time it is set in contemporary New York, rather than the fictional Panem. In this universe nanotechnology, which was originally developed to cure cancer, is instead weaponized and is used by both the good and the bad guys. The bad guys, the Armstrong twins and their lackeys Nexus Humanus, want to use nanotech to brainwash the planet into their cult through “sustainable happiness.” The good guys, BZRK, want to protect free will by using their own nanotechnology, biots individually linked to one user, to manipulate others. The whole concept is built on shady deals and backwards justification on both ends of the stick. Both sides think they are in the right, think they are the ones with access to the most power, both already have access to the money and resources that will get them that power. The Armstrong twins spend the series doing everything they possibly can to become rulers of the world, while their second in command Bernofsky goes mad with power and wants to destroy the world with nanobots that feed on carbon. Most of BZRK New York’s plotlines are about playing catch up to Nexus Humanus and holding on to what little power they have. By the trilogy’s conclusion the proper balance that everyone was fighting over has been restored, eliminating the need for technology-based power.

A book about zombies learning to love again seems like a stretch. How could power possibly be involved? Half the main characters are dead. And judging by the movie, there is no possible way for the former dead to regain the power they lost upon getting into their current predicament by reteaching themselves how to speak and act human again. But there it is. The movie is a better illustration of it, but the novel still details R, an incredibly articulate zombie, struggling through a language barrier to communicate with his human captive turned friend turned girlfriend Julie. At the beginning the most R can get out are a few grunts to the zombie he deems his best friend, M. When Julie finds herself the survivor of a zombie attack but the only member of her group still alive and unable to make it back home, she ends up at the airport R lives in. The two of them form a relationship different from the usual zombie eats human, even though R ate Julie’s boyfriend during the attack where they met. Julie teaches R English, pop culture, and how to be human again. The zombies must fight to prove they can become what they once were again, first and foremost by Julie demonstrating R is physically able to love her. As they become living again they go through their own revolution.

These essay’s order in this collection is due to their subject matter and relativity to the real world. The Hunger Games takes place in a fictional country similar enough to our own to make accurate political commentary. BZRK takes place in real life New York, and its plot is one that might happen with how quickly nanotechnology is developing. Warm Bodies’ setting is never specified, but the aftermath of the apocalypse is clear, and for all we know it could be right next door to where we grew up. They move from the clearly fake to the it might just be real, from this could never happen to me to holy crap, this might be happening right now. Please see the meanings these novels preach, what lurks between the lines. Right now this kind of commentary is more important than ever. With people being censored and completely silenced right and left, these books are clearly about power and its consequences, both by exploiting it and by regaining it.

"If Peeta and I were both to die, or they thought we were....My fingers fumble with the pouch on my belt, freeing it. Peeta sees it and his hand clamps on my wrist. ‘No, I won't let you.’ ‘Trust me,’ I whisper. He holds my gaze for a long moment then lets go. I loosen the top of the pouch and pour a few spoonfuls of berries into his palm. Then I fill my own. ‘On the count of three?’ Peeta leans down and kisses me once, very gently. ‘The count of three,’ he says. We stand, our backs pressed together, our empty hands locked tight. ‘Hold them out. I want everyone to see,’ he says. I spread out my fingers, and the dark berries glisten in the sun. I give Peeta's hand one last squeeze as a signal, as a good-bye, and we begin counting. ‘One.’ Maybe I'm wrong. ‘Two.’ Maybe they don't care if we both die. ‘Three!’ It's too late to change my mind. I lift my hand to my mouth taking one last look at the world. The berries have just passed my lips when the trumpets begin to blare. The frantic voice of Claudius Templesmith shouts above them. ‘Stop! Stop! Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to present the victors of the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark! I give you - the tributes of District 12!’” (The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins).

Young Adult dystopias have been an important part of American culture for so long it feels like they have always been there. As children we had The Hunger Games, which later spawned Divergent, The Maze Runner, Uglies, and countless others. In school we read 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, A Clockwork Orange, and the list goes on and on. Their movie and television show adaptations are everywhere. Everyone has a favorite example. So when Moretti's data suggests the genre bubble will burst in the coming years, it is kind of hard to believe. The genre is still going strong, and for good reason. Young Adult dystopias have something the classics neglect: diversity. Katniss Everdeen is a physically and mentally disabled woman of color surrounded by other females, people of color, people with disabilities, people from every walk of life. When The Hunger Games shot up the best sellers list Katniss inspired Tris Pryor in Divergent, Teresa in The Maze Runner, and Tally Youngblood in Uglies. The sheer volume of books and characters guarantees there is something for everyone. Everyone turned out to be mostly adult women and teenage girls. It is the reading power of the latter that presents my point: so long as we live in the world we do, with the current political climate active, and with a steady stream of strong female characters willing to stand up to oppressors, there will be a need for the genre. Multiple people see that need and write books based upon what they think needs to be said. This bubble, much like the superhero movie one, will stay untouched until the world proves it has no need for that kind of fiction anymore. Therefore, I think the genre is here to stay for years to come.

Seeing yourself in a character on the big screen or on the page is so incredibly important. Some little girl with hearing issues read about Katniss' ear trauma and saw herself; if for whatever reason she was unable to get it fixed, related to Katniss refusing surgery to restore her hearing. Or someone living under an oppressive government learning first that they should fight back and then it is okay to do so. Or that people bullying you for something outside your control deserve to be called out on their behavior. Or any number of things prevalent in what makes it big in the genre these days. The books that make it big pave the way for even greater diversity to truly reach the entire reader base. Those might carry on as something no one has ever heard of, but reach the right audience and lives can be changed. I feel like the genre will be around for quite a while. Not just because it is one of my favorites to both read and write for, but also because it is important. We are faced with the possibility of the complete destruction of life as we know it. Someone must recognize what is going on and do something about it. At this point they might as well be fictional, but that is the only way to get the ball rolling.  

“Tell me something, Noah. Which is more important: freedom or happiness?' What was this, a game? But Nijinsky wasn't smiling. 'You can't be happy unless you’re free,' Noah said" (BZRK, Michael Grant).  

Michael Grant's BZRK trilogy depends upon nanotechnology to further its plot, give motivation for characters and their development, provide multiple bad guys, and generally make BZRK what they are. One of the main character's father invented biots, part human machines smaller than the head of a needle, capable of acting on the controller's behalf within a body. The good guys, BZRK, use biots reluctantly to fight the bad guys, Armstrong Fancy Gifts Corporation. AFGC is a cover for the cult Nexus Humanus which wants to take away free will to guarantee eternal happiness. This war is mostly fought at the nano level. Even during "macro" fights, with guns and fists, the focus is always on protecting the nano. Emphases placed on the nano and neglecting the macro, which is only protected by BZRK's enforcer Caligula, exists because of only looking at the available technology and how to improve it. When the original tech, designed to cure cancer, fails and is proven archaic, BZRK only wants to move forward with more advanced biots. Benjamin argues for only looking to the future, for using tech to get and maintain power. The Armstrong twins (founders of AFGC) only maintain their power through superior firepower and lots of unethical manipulation. Under the guise of innocent gift shops across the globe they plot to control world leaders and, therefore, everyone on the planet. That is an extension of Benjamin's philosophy. AFGC has money and manpower, giving them the ability to accomplish their goals. BZRK only has the money, but its members are determined to prevent doomsday. Their conflict over who's in control spans three novels.

There is a connection here with how the world is going today. We even touched upon it in class. For the longest time everyone was obsessed with the technology of tomorrow made today. Classic standbys like books or physical music or playing outside fell by the wayside as electronics fell in the hands of the youth. Why use what cavemen did when you can use what Marty McFly did? For the longest time my younger sister and I were the only kids on our street playing outside. We made fun of our neighbors three doors down for having a pool and never going in it. My parents still can't drag me out of ours. At restaurants we read books, my sister drew and I wrote or, heaven forbid, actually talked to each other. Then, out of nowhere, that changed. The many, many little kids living in the cul-de-sac behind us were outside screaming at all hours of the day. One time we saw our neighbors in their pool. Tables around us when we went out to eat started implementing a no phones rule. The shift was real and, according to the Internet, commonplace. Retro was becoming hip again. We aren't the only people who feel that way, but we're the ones making it happen.  

"In my mind I am eloquent; I can climb intricate scaffolds of words to reach the highest cathedral ceilings and paint my thoughts. But when I open my mouth, everything collapses” (Warm Bodies, Isaac Marion).  

Whoever controls language controls culture. Whoever controls the culture has all the power. Whoever has all the power writes all the rules, determines humanity's fate, and generally determines the ongoing nature of life. While a lot of stories tackle that concept, Warm Bodies by Isaac Marion handles it without beating around the bush. It's about the aftermath of the zombie apocalypse, sure, but it is told through the point of view of a very articulate zombie. The narrative hints rather heavily at the main character, R, being the only zombie outside of the Boneys capable of higher thought. It is only with the help of a human that he learns basic speech. The surviving humans are the only ones capable of speech, of making sure human culture does not die out. Them being able to talk makes them superior to zombies, even after zombies become human again at the novel's conclusion. The settlement the novel focuses on is run based on that fact. It is only poetic that the leader, Colonel Grigio, is the father of the woman R is in love with and the one who sparks the change from zombie to human. Colonel Grigio controls the whole narrative, both the book's and the city he runs. Zombies are to be shot on sight, anything dead must stay out of the walled city, and the language he uses to spread that information reflects how deeply rooted his control extends. On the other hand, R is the first zombie capable of replicating full human speech. By the end the other zombies learn speech as well. Them relearning speech perfectly coincides with them wrenching power from the Boneys in their twisted society and, a bit later, wrenching power from the humans when they rejoin the society they used to know. Language lets them write their own culture again, this time as rediscovered human beings.

I feel like not a lot of zombie books take advantage of exploring the concept of retaking a culture through language. It is a topic that is easily applicable to the genre. World War Z comes close, but that is the best example I can think of. What is happening right now with millennials and gen z is the closest real-life example. I tried tackling the concept in my own zombie novel Flowers Die specifically because I am unable to find anything quite like Warm Bodies or even World War Z on bookshelves. The main character comes back from the dead, but because she reanimated through the original radiation and not a classic bite, she is still fully mentally articulate and, later, verbally as well. As the apocalypse spreads zombies like her become increasingly rarer. She joins the military and fights to take back the culture she once knew by force. Her and her friends are superior by nature. Her husband, who eventually dies to prove the point, used to be a lawyer, defending traditional culture with evolving language. Later on, she meets a young woman trapped by isolation in the woods bound by her lack of language and loss of the culture that raised her. Reintroduction to what she used to know helps bring her back. This is all a work in progress, but as the old saying goes, if you want something specific you have to write it yourself.

[theliterateape]

No One is Teaching Critical Race Theory in Public Schools

by Don Hall

The dogma being taught is as ill-defined and openly religious as Scientology.

According to the Rage Profiteers "CRT is an academic theory taught at the college level that promotes and explores the idea that systemic racism infects every aspect of US society."

According to the Fearmongers CRT "explicitly endorses principles of segregationism, group-based guilt, and race essentialism—ugly concepts that should have been left behind a century ago."

Ibram X. Kendi (the author of ‌How to Be an Antiracist as well as earlier writings that posited that “white people were fending off racial extinction, using ‘psychological brainwashing’ and ‘the aids virus.’”) promotes the idea that "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination."

A major criticism of Ibram X. Kendi’s quasi-religious antiracist agenda is the disconnect between the lack of specific mechanisms he recommends and the focus of his goals. 

One of the reasons Kendi does not set out the legal and policy proposals required to actuate true equality is that they are unlikely to be embraced, even by the poor blacks and browns they are supposed to assist. 

Pulling down a statue of a Civil War general or changing the name of an elementary school is easy. Examining privilege and tweeting about it feels like progress but changes very little in terms of economic growth, the transfer of generational wealth, or pruning the inequity of incarceration numbers to more fairly reflect the demographics.

A secondary flaw in Kendi's work is a decisive lack of scientific evidence to back up his claims. For him (and his followers) racism is like the SCOTUS version of obscenity—he can't define it but he knows it when he sees it. For Kendi, any disparity of outcomes in racial progress is due strictly to white supremacy. Given our history, it's not a bad take on things except that the facts do not support the claim.

In simple terms, Kendi's version of CRT posits a belief that any disparities between racial groups are evidence of structural racism; that the norms of free speech, individualism and universalism which pretend to be progressive are really camouflage for this discrimination; and that injustice will persist until systems of language and privilege are dismantled.

Myside Bias

Myside bias occurs when people evaluate evidence, generate evidence, and test hypotheses in a manner biased toward their own prior opinions and attitudes. Research across a wide variety of myside bias paradigms has revealed a somewhat surprising finding regarding individual differences. The magnitude of the myside bias shows very little relation to intelligence.

The entire cultural battle concerning CRT and specifically CRT as taught in schools is seeped to the pores in Myside Bias.

Bill Maher said he was "for it" if authors such as Toni Morrison were taught but not if it meant changing how teachers treated children.

"If that's what critical race theory means," Maher said. "If it means separating 5-year-olds by race and telling some, 'You're oppressors,' and the others, 'You're the oppressed,' and giving up on a colorblind society and resegregation and racism is the essence of America — then I'm out."

Isn't that the divide? Are public school teachers teaching children the complexities of systemic racism to children unable to critically parse things out or more thoroughly teaching about our country's racist past?

A Reverse Scopes Trial

July 1925, the mixture of religion, science and the public schools was ablaze in Dayton, Tennessee. The Scopes trial—or "Monkey Trial," as it was called—dominated headlines across the country. It began as a publicity stunt. John Scopes wasn't even a biology teacher and couldn't actually attest to any evolutionary theory he had presented in the classroom but the ACLU game was strong at the time. It didn't matter whether evolutionary theory was being taught only that it was reported to have been taught in order to gin up the religious types and go to trial.

Much the same could be said about the many instances of supposed CRT in the Classroom moments peppering the twitter trails of both the Critical Justice Belligerents and the Status Quo Warriors. No one is teaching the legal theories of Derrick Bell to fifth graders but the tendency to redefine terms on the fly has become a hallmark of those seeking to reframe the national narrative on either side of the ideological playground is set.

The essence of the Scopes Trial was about teaching a scientific theory versus the tried and true religious traditions of Tennessee. The presence of superstition and blind faith in God the Creator was threatened by a theory that man evolved from simians—a theory supported but not proven by scientific inquiry and study.

In a bizarre but foreseeable reversal, Critical Race Theory (and the subsequent pop redefining that theorizes about how anti-black racism is baked into the foundations of institutional America) is a sociological theory, one as yet completely unproven by anything except by legal reasoning and 'lived experience.' The argument to continue teaching children one hundred years ago about the faith-based religious tenets of the Bible are now replaced and flipped with a movement to teach children that the unsubstantiated belief in systemic racism is fact, not faith.

"There is no CRT"

The gaslighting of the Progressive Media is becoming as ridiculous as that of the Conservative Bobbleheads.

The cry that CRT doesn't exist (as said by an MSNBC pundit on the night of the most recent Virginia Gubernatorial race) or that CRT isn't being taught in grade schools is a pedantic dodge. Like a Texas anti-abortion soldier declaring that abortions are still legal. Sure, Jeb. 

CRT is most definitely not being taught in schools. No shit. What is being taught is more like a KendiDiAngeloesque mixture of CRT-inspired propaganda.

"My school, like so many others, induces students via shame and sophistry to identify primarily with their race before their individual identities are fully formed. Students are pressured to conform their opinions to those broadly associated with their race and gender and to minimize or dismiss individual experiences that don’t match those assumptions. The morally compromised status of 'oppressor' is assigned to one group of students based on their immutable characteristics. In the meantime, dependency, resentment and moral superiority are cultivated in students considered 'oppressed.'"

SOURCE

"An elementary school in Cupertino, California—a Silicon Valley community with a median home price of $2.3 million—recently forced a class of third-graders to deconstruct their racial identities, then rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.”

Based on whistleblower documents and parents familiar with the session, a third-grade teacher at R.I. Meyerholz Elementary School began the lesson on “social identities” during a math class. The teacher asked all students to create an “identity map,” listing their race, class, gender, religion, family structure, and other characteristics. The teacher explained that the students live in a “dominant culture” of “white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied, Christian, English speaker[s],” who, according to the lesson, “created and maintained” this culture in order “to hold power and stay in power.”

Next, reading from This Book Is Antiracist, the students learned that “those with privilege have power over others” and that “folx who do not benefit from their social identities, who are in the subordinate culture, have little to no privilege and power.” As an example, the reading states that “a white, cisgender man, who is able-bodied, heterosexual, considered handsome and speaks English has more privilege than a Black transgender woman.” In some cases, because of the principle of intersectionality, “there are parts of us that hold some power and other parts that are oppressed,” even within a single individual."

SOURCE

Third fucking grade?

Let's stop playing games here and at least acknowledge that there is a dogma at play. As dismissive one must think of the majority of Americans as being stupid and partisan, some of this stuff is beyond the pale. Third grade?

Is it rampant? Of course not. Are school systems bowing down to it? Yes. Too many school districts are codifying the DEI (Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion) mantras without rigorous study or research as a knee-jerk reaction to the fear of being picketed or having their schools burned down by activists.

No one—NO ONE SERIOUS—objects to teachers teaching students about slavery or Jim Crow laws or the obvious history of racism in America's DNA. Those who do are on the Red end of the color spectrum and should be taken no more seriously than the rabid secular zealots attempting a cultural coup toward this KendiDiAngeloesque dystopia. The 1619 Project is fine to teach high school students as one alternative view but far from the defining history of the country.

Ironically, none of this does a damn thing about addressing income inequality, the abysmal funding of black and brown populated schools, the need for increased health benefits to those in poverty, the privatization of prisons, the pernicious use of the War on Drugs to permanently imprison a third of black men, or the fact that the most anti-black killers in this country are not white.

If Black Lives Do Matter (and they most certainly do) this orthodoxy is not in service of them.

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

turning the other cheek and handing over your cloak -- Jesus’s message of defiance, not passivity  

There’s an excellent old post that makes the rounds every now and then on the topic of how Jesus’s instructions in Matthew 5 to “turn the other cheek,” to give your shirt as well to the one who demands your cloak, to go two miles when conscripted to carry a Roman’s baggage one mile, are actually forms of nonviolent resistance. It’s a great post that I recommend you check out! 

I just found an article called “Jesus’ Third Way” by Walter Wink that goes into this topic in even more detail, with some more historical background. So for those who want more information, or who are never sure whether to trust resources on tumblr, this is a good off-tumblr resource worth checking out too.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

Jesus is not telling us to submit to evil, but to refuse to oppose it on its own terms. We are not to let the opponent dictate the methods of our opposition. He is urging us to transcend both passivity and violence by finding a third way. (p. 1)

Jesus' teaching on nonviolence provides a hint of how to take on the entire system by unmasking its essential cruelty and burlesquing its pretensions to justice. (p. 3)

To those whose lifelong pattern has been to cringe before their masters, Jesus offers a way to liberate themselves from servile actions and a servile mentality. And he asserts that they can do this before there is a revolution. There is no need to wait until Rome is defeated, peasants have land, or slaves are freed. They can begin to behave with dignity and recovered humanity now, even under the unchanged conditions of the old order. Jesus' sense of divine immediacy has social implications. The reign of God is already breaking into the world... Here was indeed a way to resist the Powers That Be without being made over into their likeness (p. 4)

Jesus is not advocating nonviolence merely as a technique for outwitting the enemy, but as a just means of opposing the enemy in a way that holds open the possibility of the enemy's becoming just also. Both sides must win. We are summoned to pray for our enemies' transformation ...The logic of Jesus' examples in Matthew 5:3 9b-41 goes beyond both inaction and overreaction to a new response, fired in the crucible of love, that promises to liberate the oppressed from evil even as it frees the oppressor from sin. (p. 5)

On “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also”

To hit the right cheek with a fist would require the left hand. But the left hand could be used only for unclean tasks; at Qumran, a Jewish religious community of Jesus' day, to gesture with the left hand meant exclusion from the meeting and penance for ten days. To grasp this you must physically try it: how would you hit the other's right cheek with your right hand? If you have tried it, you will know: the only feasible blow is a backhand. The backhand was not a blow to injure, but to insult, humiliate, degrade. It was not administered to an equal, but to an inferior. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; Romans, Jews. The whole point of the blow was to force someone who was out of line back into place. Notice Jesus' audience: "If anyone strikes you." These are people used to being thus degraded. He is saying to them, "Re-fuse to accept this kind of treatment anymore. If they backhand you, turn the other cheek." (Now you really need to physically enact this to see the problem.) By turning the cheek, the servant makes it impossible for the master to use the backhand again: his nose is in the way. And anyway, it's like telling a joke twice; if it didn't work the first time, it simply won't work. The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists, as we know from Jewish sources, and the last thing the master wishes to do is to establish this underling's equality. ...By turning the cheek, then, the "inferior" is saying: "I'm a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated any longer. I am your equal. I am a child of God. I won't take it anymore.” Such defiance is no way to avoid trouble. Meek acquiescence is what the master wants. Such "cheeky" behavior may call down a flogging, or worse. But the point has been made. The Powers That Be have lost their power to make people submit. And when large numbers begin behaving thus...you have a social revolution on your hands (p. 2)

On “If anyone wants to sue you and take your [outer] coat, give your [inner] cloak as well”

“Jesus' parables are full of debtors struggling to salvage their lives. Heavy debt was not, however, a natural calamity that had overtaken the incompetent. It was the direct consequence of Roman imperial policy. .... It is to this situation that Jesus speaks. His hearers are the poor ("if any one would sue you"). They share a rankling hatred for a system that subjects them to humiliation by stripping them of their lands, their goods, and finally even their outer garments. Why, then, does Jesus counsel them to give over their undergarments as well? This would mean stripping off all their clothing and marching out of court stark naked! Nakedness was taboo in Judaism, and shame fell less on the naked party than on the person viewing or causing the nakedness (Gen. 9:20-27). By stripping, the debtor has brought shame on the creditor. Imagine the guffaws this saying must have evoked. There stands the creditor, covered with shame, the poor debtor's outer garment in the one hand, his undergarment in the other. The tables have suddenly been turned on the creditor. (pp. 2-3)

On “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile”

Going the second mile, Jesus' third example, is drawn from the relatively enlightened practice of limiting to a single mile the amount of forced or impressed labor that Roman soldiers could levy on subject peoples...

Carrying the pack a second mile is an infraction of military code. [The centurion] might fine the offending soldier, flog him, put him on a ration of barley instead of wheat, make him camp outside the fortifications...

But why carry the soldier's pack a second mile? Does this not go to the opposite extreme by aiding and abetting the enemy? Not at all. The question here, as in the two previous instances, is how the oppressed can recover the initiative and assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the time being be changed. The rules are Caesar's, but how one responds to the rules is God's, and Caesar has no power over that. Imagine, then, the soldier's surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack, and the civilian says, "Oh, no, let me carry it another mile." Why would he want to do that? What is he up to? Normally, soldiers have to coerce people to carry their packs, but this Jew does so cheerfully, and will not stop. Is this a provocation? Is he insulting the legionnaire's strength? Being kind? Trying to get him disciplined for seeming to violate the rules of impressment? Will this civilian file a complaint? Create trouble? From a situation of servile impressment, the oppressed have once more seized the initiative. They have taken back the power of choice. They have thrown the soldier off balance by depriving him of the predictability of his victim's response. ...If he has enjoyed feeling superior to the vanquished, he will not enjoy it today. Imagine a Roman infantryman pleading with a Jew to give back his pack! (pp. 3-4)

[briangroth27]

Black Panther Review

I absolutely loved Black Panther! The film felt like it belonged in the MCU while successfully carving out its own corner of the universe, making it feel like a world unto itself. Even with its fantastical technological wonders, Wakanda felt real and the incorporation of various African cultures gave the fictional nation a history and texture that made it feel fully-formed and granted a powerful sense of depth to the proceedings. The cast was excellent across the board, supported by writing (from Ryan Coogler and Joe Robert Cole) that gave everyone moments to shine and stellar direction from Coogler to match.  

Full Spoilers...

I didn’t know much about Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) going in, having only seen him in Civil War, Fantastic Four and Avengers cartoons, and an appearance here and there in the comics. Civil War got me interested in the character and Black Panther cemented me as a fan; he’s hands down one of the most engaging characters in the Marvel Universe! Chadwick Boseman is effortlessly cool as T’Challa, a down-to-Earth king, badass superhero, and charming romantic lead. In an unexpected and very welcome twist, none of T’Challa’s inner circle are afraid to call him out or have a bit of fun at his expense (depending on the character), which made them feel like a family and gave him a much more grounded sensibility than I was expecting. I liked seeing T’Challa as a more measured and mature man here, growing nicely from the vengeance-obsessed version we saw previously; his first steps toward ruling Wakanda and deciding what kind of king he wanted to be—and what sort of country he’d like to rule—were great to see. That T’Challa was willing to listen to wisdom from all sides—including his enemies—made him an even more compelling and unique hero. T’Challa is bar none the most likable and relatable royal the MCU has given us, with none of the pompous, somewhat bloodthirsty bravado of Thor or the labor camp-minded royal family on Inhumans. That went a long way to making me sympathize with a monarchy instead of yearning to see it overthrown; T’Challa actually does care about the people under his rule. I do wish we’d gotten to see how T’Challa interacted with and was seen by the common people of Wakanda instead of just his inner circle and the other tribal leaders, but this was a very small nitpick that can easily be remedied in the inevitable Black Panther 2 or even Infinity War.

It was awesome to see such a diverse cast in this film and I’m equally pleased we got to see so many strong women showcased here (I can’t imagine how much more important this film must be for African American and female audiences who are finally getting representation like this onscreen). Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o) was awesome from the get-go as a Wakandan spy living in the outside world, working to help those in need. I loved her insistence that she couldn’t settle down as a queen knowing there were people outside Wakanda who could benefit from her skills and Wakanda’s influence. It was refreshing to see a hero’s love interest not only have an important life of her own completely separate from the lead’s arc, but to see her unwilling to sacrifice that life to please her guy. Nyong’O brought an engaging, likable, and determined energy to Nakia and I hope we get to see much more of her as the MCU evolves in a post-Infinity Wars universe. Letitia Wright’s Shuri was another standout, stealing every scene she’s in with an infectious, upbeat energy, and I loved her sister/brother relationship with T’Challa. They felt totally natural as siblings, with her needling him from time to time but still clearly sharing a relaxed, loving bond with him. Shuri is very likely the smartest person we’ve met in the MCU so far, and that’s awesome! Like others have suggested online, I cannot wait to see her become best friends with Peter Parker and outsmart Tony Stark at every turn. I loved that she loved showing off and trying out all the gadgets she made, and it was so cool that this princess got to be the Q to T’Challa’s James Bond. At first I thought it would’ve been better had Shuri remote-piloted the aircraft to shoot down Killmonger’s (Michael B. Jordan) forces instead of Ross (Martin Freeman)—she had the experience with the tech to do it, after all—but my friend pointed out that putting her on the front lines instead was a chance for her to directly stand up and fight for what she believed in instead of repeating what she’d done earlier in the movie, which gave her a bit more range. Plus, her panther blaster gauntlets were cool! I’m really interested to see how running the outreach center in Oakland with Nakia changes Shuri.

Danai Gurira gave an excellent performance as Okoye, leader of Wakanda’s elite Dora Milaje, who became torn between duty to Wakanda—and whatever king ruled it—and loyalty to T’Challa. I went in expecting a stoic warrior, but while Okoye was definitely effortlessly badass, I loved that she was able to have a sense of humor about T’Challa freezing when he saw Nakia (and able to jovially inform Shuri of this fact); it was clear they were more than just king and royal guard, they felt like old friends. Okoye and her Dora Milaje were an awesome facet of Wakandan society and I can’t wait to learn more about them in the future. I think Okoye’s relationship with W’Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) was perhaps a little too vague—amounting to the two of them referring to each other as “my love” without an explanation of what exactly that entailed—but it didn’t hurt the movie or either character for me. Instead, it added a bit more drama to W’Kabi’s decision to follow Killmonger while Okoye ultimately sided with T’Challa. I still would’ve liked to know more about the details of that relationship, though. Also regarding her relationships, it’s a shame a scene hinting at her being attracted to women was cut, but hopefully that will be fixed in a sequel.

W’Kabi’s insistence that the Wakandans take action to capture Klaue (Andy Serkis) and forcibly help the oppressed around the world was a great contrast to both Nakia’s stealthy attempts at helping outsiders and T’Challa’s initial belief that they should keep Wakanda separate. I loved that he was able to convince T’Challa to hunt down Klaue instead of leaving him to the CIA and that he spoke for a contingent of Wakandans who wanted to take action but not go totally public (at least at first). The fact that someone had to argue for capturing a criminal who’d attacked Wakanda was a great display of how intensely isolated the nation was and W’Kabi’s opinions added to the complexity of Wakandan views on the outside world. It was brilliant (and much more realistic) of the writers not to limit Wakandans to two clearly defined viewpoints. Queen Ramonda (Angela Bassett) was perfect as T’Challa’s regal mother and I loved what we saw of her relationship with him and Shuri. I also liked that she was genuinely willing to make peace with M’Baku (Winston Duke) to stop Killmonger despite him having earlier challenged T’Challa for leadership of Wakanda. It would’ve been easy to make her stuck in her ways and refuse to go to someone like M’Baku, but while it was a concern that he could become a problem, I liked that she had the faith to offer him the heart-shaped herb to give him the power of the Black Panther. I’m definitely interested in how Ramonda will react to the new era T’Challa is ushering in.

M’Baku was another great character I’m excited to know more about in future sequels. Like I’ve seen pointed out elsewhere, the idea that he and the Jabari tribe could peacefully exist separately from the rest of Wakanda—despite worshipping a different god and speaking a different language—was a refreshing surprise. I was definitely fooled into thinking that M’Baku would want power if Ramonda gave him the heart-shaped herb, so giving her the injured T’Challa instead was a great twist. M’Baku screwing with Ross’ expectations of what “tribal” behaviors were was funny and I’m glad the film smartly didn’t refer to M’Baku by his comics alter-ego, “Man-Ape.” How M’Baku and King T’Challa interact going forward is absolutely something I’m eager to see. Will M’Baku’s help in taking Wakanda back from Killmonger bring them closer together or show him that even with supernatural powers, T’Challa needs help holding his country and is potentially weaker than he seems? Forrest Whitaker’s Zuri was a perfect connection to the history of Wakanda, its treasured ceremonies, and its supernatural aspects, balancing Shuri’s high-tech modernity excellently. It’s impressive how easily the film weaved together supernatural and sci-fi aspects, and the extrapolation of those things into the characters was masterful.  

N’Jobu was only in the movie briefly, but I enjoyed his reaction to the world outside Wakanda. Sterling K. Brown’s performance absolutely sold me on his passion and the impact he’d have on his son, despite his short screentime. John Kani’s T’Chaka was very welcome and it was cool that he got to converse with T’Challa in the afterlife, another supernatural flourish that served to broaden the Black Panther mythos rather than muddle them with too many different sources of weirdness. I liked that T’Chaka’s past sins not only made T’Challa realize he was not perfect, but tied into T’Challa’s decision about whether to reveal Wakanda or not and gave Killmonger another reason to hate Wakanda. I was especially surprised and pleased that this hatred complimented Killmonger’s bigger goal of helping people rise up against their oppressors: his argument with Wakanda was that it stood by while people were enslaved, not solely that T’Challa’s dad killed his. That gave him so much more dimension than just being a revenge-minded villain.

As pointed out elsewhere, the film expertly weaves the mystical, science fiction, space, and superhero aspects of the Marvel Universe together. It also includes an added layer of social relevance in Killmonger’s concern about the state of African-Americans and others whose ancestors were sold as slaves around the world and are still oppressed today. All of this is tied into the film’s MacGuffin, vibranium, but Coogler wisely doesn’t frame the plot around some cliché MCU villain like an evil businessman or government agent seeking to plunder Wakanda’s vibranium (which probably would’ve been the most obvious place to go). Instead, Erik “Killmonger” Stevens has a legitimate point and that makes him the best MCU villain yet. Enemies who are out to burn everything down for no reason can be threatening—at least in terms of power—and corrupt businessmen and governments often make for obvious real-world villain parallels, but I would definitely like the MCU to start putting more effort into giving their villains honorable impulses taken to horrible, destructive extremes. That’s far more interesting and complex: it gives the heroes something to fight beyond a set of cool powers (and gives the audience something to reckon with in the real world and within ourselves). Killmonger being suspiciously watched while viewing a display of his own stolen culture is a perfect example of the simultaneous scrutiny and dismissal of African-American youth in present-day America, instantly giving him a relatable, realistic connection to the audience. Not only does that scene touch on this problem with our society, but it also masterfully ties into the plot. That Erik was able to so thoroughly affect T’Challa, essentially pushing him toward revealing Wakanda to the world so that it could do the most good, was a great twist. While the film does play into the MCU’s formula of a hero and villain with identical powers facing off, Erik’s position as king of Wakanda (a development I didn’t see coming at all; I was sure T’Challa would beat him in the challenge and he’d start an uprising) made the “mirror image” plot point feel much more natural. Their opposing views on how to best run Wakanda also gave them a great argument to fuel their physical battle, and that’s something every superhero movie needs to aim for (I’m more than a little wary about Thanos’ goal of killing half of everything resonating with the Avengers anywhere near as closely as Killmonger and Vulture related to their heroes). Killmonger’s final lines, about wanting to die a free man instead of going back into a cage, were absolutely powerful and affecting.  

Ulysses S. Klaue was fun as an entirely different sort of villain. Serkis was clearly having a blast playing the cartoonish supervillain archetype and I loved it. I’m always up for some classic villainy and this script gave us just the right amount. I didn’t expect Klaue to die, given his status as one of Black Panther’s greatest villains, but I don’t think they were going to do much more with him than what we got. A solid chase/fight with T’Challa with an argument about the Wakandans being hypocritical, an introduction for Killmonger, and a connection to Ross were all we needed from him, and we got just that. I definitely don’t want Everett K. Ross to become the new Agent Coulson, uniting the next generation of Avengers or something; I think the heroes should unite themselves (as a king, T’Challa could certainly lead that charge if Steve Rogers is no longer around). That said, I liked what the movie gave us of Ross and he was played with just the right amount of wonder at Wakandan technology. While I’ve seen criticisms online about him playing such a big role in the climax, like a claim that they still needed a middle-aged white guy to stop the bad guy, I disagree. He had piloting skills and needed Shuri’s tech to get the job done (she even configured the holographic projection to mimic a plane he was familiar with), so it’s not like he was successful just because he was a white guy. This also isn’t a Batman Begins situation, where Batman’s actions on the train with Ras Al Ghul were irrelevant to the finale because Gordon blew up the train tracks. Had T’Challa not defeated Killmonger, Eric still could’ve rallied his supporters and Wakanda would likely be in a civil war. I think Ross helped as much as was needed to be useful, but I don’t think he overshadowed anyone.

The complexities that must arise from five tribes living in such close proximity to each other, coupled with fun aspects like war rhinos, the mystical veldt afterlife, Shuri’s technological wonders, made this a world I want to visit many, many more times! Wakandan society seems like it’s brimming with interesting social structures, so I hope the sequel really digs into how T’Challa and his people relate to one another. I doubt everyone will be happy he revealed their paradise to the world and I wonder how quickly the needs of the international community will start to weigh on the Wakandans. How they balance their own needs with those of the world will be very interesting to see. I also absolutely love that African society here is portrayed as advanced, rather than what we often see in Hollywood films, and I was impressed by how easily a place as fantastical as Wakanda was rendered as a real, breathing community. I think it’s cool how much of Africa was represented here without Wakanda feeling like a generic and homogenous “Africa” (at least to my eyes; someone with African heritage might see that aspect very differently). While pulling aspects of several different African cultures to create the fictional Wakandan culture may be problematic for some (as I’ve seen online), I think the script has enough leeway to say people from those cultures were the ones who founded Wakanda in the first place.

Bucky’s (Sebastian Stan) brief cameo was cool and I would much rather see him find peace and purpose as a figure with the Wakandan War Dogs—if the White Wolf title is a hint he’s supposed to be the MCU version of Hunter, comics’ T’Challa’s adopted brother—than see him take over the Captain America mantle. If he took over as Cap, I have a hard time seeing how he’d be different from Rogers in the role besides being less upstanding and more angsty, neither of which I want to see (if the mantle must be passed, Sam Wilson seems like a chance to explore what today’s Captain needs to be/represent and adding flight to the shield would make for entirely new fight dynamics). In Wakanda, it feels like Bucky can forge an identity for himself.

At this point, I’m far more excited for Black Panther 2 than I am for Infinity War. I want much more of this world and these characters, and I’m excited to see how they interact with the rest of the world now that Wakanda’s no longer a secret. It would be a huge misstep if Wakanda is destroyed in Infinity War, so I hope that film doesn’t go that direction, since it feels like it would derail everything that’s been set up here. Instead, I’m hoping Wakanda is at the forefront of rebuilding the world after Thanos is dealt with.

Black Panther is still in theaters, commanding the box office for an astonishing fifth weekend in a row and it certainly deserves it. If you haven’t seen it yet, what are you waiting for? A trip to Wakanda is definitely worth a trip to the theater!

Check out more of my reviews, opinions, and original short stories here!

[echodrops]

Feel free to not answer if you don't want to drag up this discussion again, but I was reading through your galra keith tag, and I have to say, I kind of thought most people had interpreted Keith finding out that he was part galra as analogous to finding out that he was part white, rather than nonwhite. Because there are a lot of things that have been said about keith and the galra that become REALLY racist if that's not the case, and it stops being even slightly justifiable if it ever was. idgi.

Hi! This is a really interesting message so thanks for sending it to me. And… it may just be that I’m under-read in terms of other people’s analyses of the reveal, but I don’t feel like I personally ever saw anyone comparing Keith learning he was part Galra to someone learning they are part white (rather than nonwhite)? At least not in any explicit way?

From what I have seen, it appears to be pretty uniformly people treating the reveal as “Keith finding out he is mixed race” and people describing the negative (racist) experiences he went through afterward as comparable to the negative, racist experiences real mixed people go through for being nonwhite.

In essence, because people love Keith so much, the story changes from “Keith found out he’s part of the villain species” to “Allura and Hunk and others are being racist against Keith just because he’s different.” This is part of the reason so many people were attacking Allura after season 2, if I recall correctly, because they interpreted her actions as explicitly racist, and wanted to defend Keith in the same way that any decent person would want to defend a real mixed race person who was being discriminated against for their ethnic background.

Which yes, is what bothered me so much in the first place, because it shifts the entire dichotomy from “Keith is part nonhuman” to “Keith is part racial minority”–which puts the Galra in the role of an Earth racial minority. The implications of that are really, really unsavory, not the least of which because it plays perfectly into the super disgusting “racial minorities are violent and invasive and will bring their horrible lifestyle with them everywhere they go” stereotypes pervasive in Western media. I mean, Shiro’s line: “These creatures spread across the galaxy like a plague” sounds really, really, really bad if you’re reframing the Galra as a racial minority…

But even if people put the Galra in the role of “white people” and interpret the show as a political commentary on imperialism, it’s still pretty gross, because the act of pitting aliens against humans automatically implies that the two are not equal, and shifts the immediate evils of racial oppression onto a fictional group, completely eradicating the truest evil of colonization, which is that it is a crime human beings perpetrate against other human beings. Colonizers aren’t surprise(!!) aliens who magically descended from the sky to invade Earth only to eventually be beaten back by the obvious “good guys” who will save the day. Colonizers are human beings who were perfectly content perpetrating their crimes against other human beings–colonizers might view those they colonize as inferior or Other, but people who are colonized fully recognize that there are nothing more than marginal external differences between them and their oppressors.

Regardless of what tropes people want to reduce the sci-fi genre to, using aliens as a one-for-one stand-in for either white people or a racial minority just does not work well.

This is why I feel Avatar the Last Airbender did a (fairly) fantastic job being a cartoon that could comment on imperialism and the dangers thereof. Because the Fire Nation were still human beings, despite how deeply flawed their ideology was. Voltron, on the other hand, does not make a good political commentary analog to real Earth. It’s about evil aliens and good guy humans, not about one group of humans oppressing another. It’s not even a solid critique of imperialism, given how Altea’s past as a empire itself has never been condemned! If Voltron is trying to make political commentary it’s doing a really, really shitty job.

Which is what, ultimately, leads to my argument that Voltron is absolutely not meant to be a critique of racial interactions and colonization in the same way Avatar was, and that people trying to reframe it as such are reading way, way, more into the show than the show-writers intended, leading to, as you mention, instances where things look “REALLY racist” and unjustifiable in retrospect in ways that I am absolutely certain the show-writers did not mean.

tl;dr: Keith discovering he’s part alien is Keith discovering he’s part alien and it isn’t and shouldn’t be read as Keith discovering he’s part real-world racial minority (and definitely not “discovering he’s part white”), even if the negative, racist experiences he goes through for it feel representative to real mixed race people.