#NUANCE

[mareebrittenford]

I grew up drinking truly raw milk. A neighbor had a cow. Another had several goats. I don't think it ever occurred to anyone to boil fresh milk unless you wanted to make custard or hot chocolate or something.

It did taste different, probably because it was from a single animal or small herd pastured on very specific feed. Also it wasn't homogenized.

Honestly it was great, particularly because I personally got to interact with the animals and understood where the food was coming from.

But just like I'm happy to drink milk from a well cared for animal that's hand milked daily, I also would never drink milk from a commercial dairy that hasn't been pasteurized.

The raw milk people don’t even know what raw milk is

[shyjusticewarrior]

"Jason's not the angry one" not as in Jason isn't angry but as in Jason is the emotional one and anger happens to be an emotion.

[its-so-ouverture]

[nyancrimew]

how dare you say we should piss on the poor

actually we should consensually piss on the poor who do want to be pissed on

[marzipanandminutiae]

Woman wears a skirt in historical fiction/fantasy: oppressive! Impractical! She cannot do anything in this horrible garment, and either ditches it or wishes she could (but she’s not MASC, ew, unsexy)! this is unilaterally an impossible and bad garment that no woman who has anything worthwhile to say actually wants to wear!

Man wears a kilt/toga/robe/tunic/sarong/kurta/any other type of skirt-shaped garment in historical fiction/fantasy: [No comment except perhaps “well it’s not ACTUALLY a skirt and in fact it’s insulting that you would call it that. It being a skirt would be bad. For reasons we are not going to delve into any further than that”]

[unsolicited-opinions]

On recent far-left attacks on the Anti-Defamation League

Before we start:

- I think the ADL is wrong about Musk's salutes.

- I think the ADL's Israel advocacy sometimes comes into conflict with their mission in the diaspora. I think their methodologies for data collection and reporting need improvement.

- I think that the ADL is flawed, imperfect and does much more good than harm.

---

Christopher Hitchens put into words what academics used to live by:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

The burden of proof is on those making the claim, and the claims of droptheadl.org aren't supported with primary sources or evidence.

For example:

To support its claims about the ADL and SNCC, droptheadl.org offers a link, presenting it as a citation.

This is a link to a Google Books entry. There's no actual text, no citation, no chapter, no page, just the claim that somewhere in this 300-page book exists proof of the ADL denouncing SNCC as racist.

However, that's not in the book. Chapter two talks about this incident in detail, so I read it.

In reaponse to a SNCC newsletter (this is what a primary source looks like!) containing many factual errors about Israel,

...Morris Abram, president of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), summed up their outrage: “Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism whether it comes from the Ku Klux Klan or from extremist Negro groups

[For those who haven't studied the era: at this point, "Negro" was still the word which the black community preferred. The transition to widespread identification as 'black' got going in the 60s and finished in the 70s. The use of the word 'Negro' here is not a slur. I state this in advance because I know how the illiberal left weilds its willful ignorance]

...

Abram was also careful to echo what the ADL had said: that SNCC’s article put it in the same anti-Israeli trench as the Arab world and the Soviet Union.

That's verifiably, unquestionably true. That's the position SNCC took, because that's where they got their information.

Droptheadl.org lied. This book doesn't say what they claim it says, which is why they didn't quote it or offer a specific citation. Why let facts get in the way of the narrative which makes them feel good about themselves?

The book, which I recommend reading, isn't about the ADL. It's a scholarly examination of the relationships between the wars the Arab world launched on Israel and the US Civil Rights Movement. This requires much discussion of the impact on the complex relationships between black communities and Jewish communities in the US in the context of their views on Israel and Palestine.

It's fascinating. Here's another excerpt illustrating why many Jews saw SNCC as taking an antisemitic turn:

One day in May of 1967, [Stokely] Carmichael and [H. Rap] Brown were in Alabama chatting with Donald Jelinek, a lawyer who worked with SNCC.

Jelinek, who was Jewish, expressed his positive feelings about Israel and his concerns about the Jewish state’s situation in that tension-filled month as war clouds were on the horizon in the Middle East.

“So it was a shock to me,” Jelinek later recounted, “when my SNCC friends mildly indicated support for the Arabs.” Mildly stated or not, their sentiments prompted Jelinek to reply, “But they may wipe out and destroy Israel.”

Carmichael adroitly changed the subject with some humor, and the men began laughing.

Jelinek thereafter overheard Brown quietly singing to himself, “arms for the Arabs, sneakers for the Jews.” When Jelinek asked him what that song meant, an embarrassed Brown explained that he had learned the song as a student in Louisiana. It implied that the Israelis would need sneakers (tennis shoes) to run from the Arabs, who were armed with weapons from abroad.

My qualms with this, my disappointment in and disagreement with both Carmichael and Brown doesn't make me a racist. It doesn't make the AJC or the ADL racist and it doesn't make Jelinek, the Jewish lawyer working with SNCC, a racist or a poor ally.

Zionism is the belief that Jews should have self-determination in their homeland.

Nazism was the belief that racially superior Aryans own the world, should be organized through fascist methods, and that the genocide of the Jewish people was explicitly required because they were the source of all evil and the obstacle to progress.

These are not the same. Suggesting they are the same, as Carmichael did, is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Pointing this out doesn't make me a racist. It makes me literate.

I still own a copy of Carmichael's book, Black Power. Carmichael (who later changed his name to Kwame Ture) was a complex person. Like every other historical figure, he was neither a saint nor a demon.

I can admire a lot about the Black Panthers without falsely claiming that nothing they ever did or said was troubling, poorly reasoned, or bigoted. The world is more complex than that.

There are no saints. Learn this important truth and use it to guide your understanding of the world around you. There are no saints.

Gandhi, for instance, was a great leader for Indian self-rule and a visionary of nonviolent protest. He was also a racist as a young man who said black people "...are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals." Read about his work in South Africa. He was also really weird about sex and slept naked with his grand niece, which we rightly recognize today as sexual abuse. He wasn't a saint or a demon, he was a person.

People are complex and flawed. If you want to understand people, history, and movements, wrap your head around this as keep it with you: People and their movements are complex and flawed.

But the depth of reasoning I see from the illiberal left is "ADL criticized SNCC, so they're Nazis."

No, child. The world is much, much more complex than that. Why did you go to college if you weren't going to learn anything there?

My 14yo is right. US leftists (not liberals, leftists) are allergic to nuance and discard the facts contradicting any narrative which makes them feel good about themselves.

Selah

Deep breath in, slow breath out.

The book is really delves into some of the factors contributing to the deteriorating relationship at the time between Jewish Americans and Black Americans. It points to this essay by James Baldwin, titled "Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They're Anti-White." I urge you to read it, it is a fascinating artifact of its time and place.

And this:

Jews had long advocated for black liberation by, for example, playing a role in the foundation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. Jewish support for blacks was well known; as early as February of 1942, the American Jewish Committee published a study titled “Jewish Contribution to Negro Welfare.” Having experienced the sting of anti-Semitism, many Jews believed they were fighting in the same trench against discrimination alongside African Americans. When the civil rights struggle grew to become a mass movement in the 1950s and early 1960s, Jewish moral and financial support was crucial, and Jews were disproportionately well-represented among those whites who lent their support to the cause. Jewish financial contributions to civil rights groups were also significant. Jews even were the subject of criticism from some southern whites for the high-profile role they played in helping blacks win their freedom. All this compounded a sense of betrayal by SNCC that was felt by many Jewish Americans.

It should not be surprising or taken as racist that Jews objected to SNCC's advocacy against Israel's existence and I maintain that any call for Israel to be destroyed is innately, inarguably antisemitic. No other nation endures calls for its destruction. Just the Jewish one.

There was unquestionably tension between SNCC and the entire spectrum of non-black Americans who supported SNCC when SNCC ejected non-black members. From our perspective, decades removed, I can understand both why SNCC members narrowly voted for this AND why non-black members of SNCC were hurt and disillusioned. All of those perspectives were (and are) valid.

When I was an undergrad studying African American Political Thought, we discussed these tensions head-on, using primary sources, and evaluated them dispassionately.

We concluded that there are no villains in this story. SNCC got a bunch of facts wrong about Israel, their staunch Jewish allies were profoundly disappointed, saw hypocrisy in SNCC's position, and said so.

I think that far left Americans overlaid their feelings about a domestic struggle on a foreign one where they don't fit...and then discarded the facts and the complexity which got in the way of a satisfying narrative which made them feel like the good guys instead of forcing them to grapple with an uncomfortably complex reality.

I think that's what the illiberal left still does. It doesn't like complexity, it doesn't like academic rigor, it likes stories it can tell itself about its moral purity and discards facts, complexity, or rigor which threaten their view of themselves as saviors.

The world is complex. People are complex. Movements are complex. Organizations are complex. History is complex. Justice is complex.

The ADL isn't perfect, its leaders haven't been and are not saints or tzadikim, but the good they do for all Americans radically outweighs their failings and I'm going to keep supporting them while yelling at them to do better.

If you're an ADL hater and have any actual evidence and primary sources on racism from the ADL, I really want to see it, because this weak sauce from droptheadl.org doesn't make the case the illiberal left thinks it makes. And they'd know that if they had learned anything in college about how scholarship works and how arguments are constructed.

The illiberal left perhaps forgets how the ADL responded when Trump called for requiring American Muslims to register.

“If one day Muslim Americans will be forced to register their identities, then that is the day that this proud Jew will register as a Muslim. ”

- ADL chief executive Jonathan Greenblatt

[notaplaceofhonour]

I feel like there are two truths, that we rightly celebrated when Pharaoh’s army were drowned, and that at the same time G-d was heartbroken that their creation was drowning—and neither response is wrong.

Both are entirely valid and normal responses to have to the death of evil men (who nevertheless were still people), and you just kinda gotta live with that complexity. like, you can’t expect people not to grieve the death of any part of G-d’s creation, but you also can’t expect people not to sing when their persecutors are gone.

I think G-d made us to feel both, and they made some of us to feel one more than the other, and that’s okay.

[thereallyreallylatebird]

From some of the discourse I've seen, I've gotten the impression that some people think intersectionality is like math. Let me explain.

Some people think of certain identities as universally giving privilege (we'll say these have a value of +1) and some as universally taking privileged/causing discrimination/bigotry/etc. (we'll say these have a value of -1).

And what I've seen is that people will add these values and decide how hard someone has it based on the value of the product.

For example: A white (+1) Christian (+1) gay (-1) man (+1) would have a score of 2, since 1+1-1+1 is 2. (Keep in mind I'm not saying people literally do this sort of math, though I have actually seen charts that do, it's more of a way of illustrating a way of thinking I've seen.)

The problem with this, of course, is that this isn't how the world works at all. Depending on where he lived and his situation in general, that white Christian gay man could be bullied severely, called slurs, or even beaten and killed--all things you wouldn't expect going off a score of 2--because intersectionality is not like math. And because, in some places, this man's gayness would overshadow all his other identities.

Also, this mathy way of looking at things fails to consider how identities interact with each other. For instance, (and this is something several of my mutuals, but especially @dysphoria-things, have discussed in the past) a trans man's identity as a man does *not* serve to "cancel out" his being trans in the eyes of society. First, many won't even view him as a man. Second, even if he is viewed as a man by a certain group, he still may be subject to less explicit forms of transphobia. Not to mention the expectation many hold that he perform his man-ness in order for them to keep seeing him as a man. There's a lot more to unpack here specifically, but the previously mentioned mutual has already done many many posts on this, and is more qualified to speak on this than I am as a cis person, so I suggest you go check that blog out if you want to hear more on this topic.

Another example would be one of *my* identity intersections. That of being aromantic and allosexual. Now, being allosexual (not asexual) is not a minority identity. However, it by no means "cancels-out" my aromanticism. In fact, the specific combination of this majority identity (allosexuality) with my aromanticism actually leads to some seriously nasty assumptions and stereotypes. Because what do you think goes through the majority of people's (especially conservative's) heads when they hear "Oh I'm attracted to people sexually, but not romantically." Nothing flattering.

Point is, intersectionality is not like math. Having a majority identity does not necessarily mean that identity will always be rewarded (especially depending on the combination with a minority identity), and also this way of thinking is one thing that can start people down the "oppression-olympics/who has it worst" route, which is helpful and productive to exactly no one. The world is complicated, society is complicated, and people are complicated. And anything boiled down this much is usually inaccurate enough to be useless or actively harmful. Thank you for coming to my TED-talk.

[polutrope]

To be clear. This blog is pro-Elves. All Elves. Fëanorians, yes, but Nolofinwëans, Arafinweans, even Un-finweans. Teleri, Sindar (but how can you be pro-Feanorian and-- *bites you*), Nandor, Avari. Half-elves and Elf-man, too. All Elves are great, and all Elves did *something* wrong.

Love them for that.

[hold-me-witcher]

I can't believe Jaskier's character and sexuality has so much incredible nuance to it.

Like yes, he's a slut, he gets chased out of bedrooms by husbands, he sleeps casually with men, he has a few usual fuck buddies around the world who are as equally as interested in just sex and no romance. He was in love with Geralt for years

The second there was someone with no actual hangups about wanting a relationship with him he fell ass over teakettle in love back and was SO CONFUSED but also a slut about it.

[moncuries]

you know how “partner” was implemented to create a gender neutral term used by both straight and queer people to provide privacy and not out queer people who talk about their significant other?

ally, is often like that. In the early days of gay straight alliances, and other lgbtqia+ spaces, ally was a way of allowing people into queer spaces without outing them, and providing room for exploration and questioning. it has a meaningful history outside of its explicit definition as an ally to queer people. the “a” absolutely stands for aro, ace, etc. don’t get me wrong.

:] i don’t really care to define every letter in our acronym, or argue over ally being included in it, but i think a lot of people forget what it is to be closeted, questioning. and the history of “ally” as included in queer spaces. happy pride!

[tangents-within-tangents]

Yellow = yellow

Bananas are yellow, does this mean that yellow = banana?

No, yellow = yellow

Yellow =/= banana, does this mean bananas aren't yellow?

Lemons are yellow, does this mean lemon = banana?

Lemon =/= banana, does this mean lemons aren't yellow?

Some apples are yellow, does this mean yellow = apple?

Some apples are red or green, does this mean apples can't be yellow?

Some apples are red, some apples are yellow, does this mean red = yellow?

Lemons and apples are round but bananas aren't, does this mean bananas aren't yellow?

Apples and bananas are sweet, does this mean lemon's aren't sour? Or that sourness is bad?

Bananas, lemons, and apples are fruit, does this mean mustard isn't yellow?

No, yellow = yellow

A category groups things that share a commonality despite their differences. The differences coexist within that commonality without redefining the category.

Other similarities coexist within, and without, the commonality without redefining the category either. The fact that it doesn't redefine the category does not mean those similarities don't hold significance of their own.

If not for the commonality, it wouldn't be a category. If not for the differences, it wouldn't be a category either.

Okay? Cool

Asexuality = experiencing little to no sexual attraction

[transparentdreamruins]

Sam Heughan brings so much to Jamie Fraser

[wisegirl25]

Just reminding everyone that the statements “Silco loved Jinx” and “Silco was not a good father for Jinx” and “Silco understood Jinx” and “Silco was making Jinx’s mental health worse” can all exist because of nuance!!

Please remember none of these statements exist in a void and can be true at the same time

[girlactionfigure]

grouchomaccabee

Nuance is the hardest place to stand, especially when every part of the situation feels like a losing hand. Yes, the return of hostages is a reason to rejoice, every life rescued is a victory for humanity. But let’s not mistake a moment of relief for a victory in the larger war. This deal isn’t justice. It’s not fairness. It’s not even necessity, it’s desperation, born from the unbearable cruelty of enemies who weaponize human life against us. It’s a forced hand, where morality is twisted, and the price is paid in ways we’ll continue to feel long after the celebrations fade. Let’s be clear: recognizing the flaws of this deal doesn’t make you cold or unfeeling. It makes you aware. Aware that every hostage returned is a joy, but every concession is a wound. Aware that this cycle will keep repeating until we refuse to play by rules set by those who have none. Nuance doesn’t make you weak, it makes you human. Cry for the hostages. Cheer their freedom. But don’t stop asking why these impossible choices exist at all, or how we can ensure they never have to be made again.