#THE!! THE SELF SACRIFICE IN THE ANTI MATTER CHAMBER | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

galemalio · 4 years

Text

3 Examples of Racial Bias in Animation Storytelling

It’s not hard to grasp that a white person, while not explicitly or consciously racist in the sense we might usually imagine, is still inherently racially biased because they benefit from and grow up used to white supremacy.” - Scottishwobbly, Tumblr

This is nothing new. This is something POC (People of Color) have been talking about in separate fandoms. Nevertheless, it needs to be acknowledged by those unaware.

This article is not made to say that some of the animations that I will use as examples are bad. But in the hopes that we, as consumers and creators, will do better in the future in handling characters that are POC.

Most often, racial bias in storytelling is when the narrative treats white or light skin toned characters better than darker skin toned characters. The darker skin toned characters are often POC-coded or actual POC.

White creators often do not notice their racial bias in their storytelling as they benefit from and grow up with white privileges and white supremacy. This can also apply to light-skinned POC who have light skin priviliges.

Some of us don’t often see it but real people who relate to the characters of color do. Especially when it reflects from their experiences with racial bias, microaggressions, colorism and flat out racism.

So when they speak up, it’s important to listen to them to unlearn the racial bias we may have in ourselves.

I will be emphasizing “the narrative” for I am criticizing how the story treats its dark-skinned characters and not because I am criticizing the characters themselves.

This article is critiqued by @visibilityofcolor as a sensitivity reader once and then additions were made before publishing. If you’re looking for a Black sensitivity reader, you can contact her.

This article is a 14-minute read at average speed so buckle up. Unless you want to skip to your show mentioned below. External Tumblr Resources will be put in the reblog.

Here are three examples that I was made aware of.

Example #1: The Narrative Treats the Light-Skinned Character at the Expense of the Dark-Skinned Character

Steven Universe was one of the animations that pushed lgbt+ representation in cartoon media. However, there are narratives here and there that showed racial bias.

SU creator Rebecca Sugar was raised with "Jewish sensibilities" and both siblings observe the lighting of Hanukkah candles with their parents through Skype.[1] Rebecca Sugar also talked about being non-binary.[2]

But as a white person, she (and the rest of the SU crew) is not aware of the inherently biased values from growing up and benefiting from white privilege.

One example is the human zoo. There are people that have spoken up about this such as @jellyfax of Tumblr who pointed out that the Crewniverse mishandled a loaded topic and reinforced a white colonist propaganda where the captive humans of mostly black/brown people are naive, docile and childlike in order to subjugate the people that they colonized. .

What I’m here is how a character of color from the main cast is more obligated to the lighter-skinned character.

In the episode, Friend Ship, one fan had spoken out about how Garnet, who had been validly angry at Pearl, was compelled by a dangerous situation to forgive Pearl. Garnet is a Black-coded character. While Pearl is a light-skinned character.

Garnet was mad at Pearl for tricking her into always fusing with her. Then they were trapped in a chamber that was going to crush them. In this situation, they have to fuse in order to save themselves but Garnet refuses to because she was still angry at her.

In the end, they were forced to talk it out, for Garnet to understand Pearl’s reason for wanting to fuse with her and everything worked out well.

The narrative focused so much on Pearl’s self-worth issues at the expense of Garnet’s right to be angry.

Yes, it showed that Pearl is trying her best to make up for it but Garnet should have been allowed to work at her own anger at her own pace instead of being obligated to consider Pearl’s feelings over her own.

I wouldn’t have noticed it until someone had mentioned it. Because it was never my experience.

But it’s there, continuing the message that it’s okay to put the emotional labor on Black people and disregard their own feelings for the sake of the non-Black people who have hurt them -particularly light-skinned women.

White Fragility and Being Silenced White Woman Tears

Again, racial bias in animation storytelling is often not intentional because white creators do not experience it due to white privilege.

Without meaning to, that scene alone shows Garnet as the Angry Black woman trope that is ungrateful and rude to Pearl who then ends up in tears. Without meaning to, Pearl with her light skin, became the tearful white girl trope that had to be sympathized over.

The Angry Black Woman trope is a combination of the worst negative stereotypes of a Black woman: overly aggressive, domineering, emasculating, loud, disagreeable and uppity.[13]

The Tearful white girl trope comes from the combination of the stereotypes of white women being morally upstanding and delicate and therefore should be protected.[13]

Which, unfortunately, many white women have taken advantage of.

These two tropes are harmful to WOC (Women of Color) because they experience the "weary weaponizing of white women's tears". This tactic employed by many white women incites sympathy and avoids accountability for their actions, turning the tables to their accuser and forcing their accuser to understand them instead.

(Image by Виктория Бородинова from Pixabay)

In "Weapon of lass destruction: The tears of a white woman", Author Shay described that white tears turns a white woman into the priority of whatever space she's in. "It doesn't matter if you're right, once her tears are activated, you cease to exist." [11]

White woman tears have gotten Black people beaten and lynched such as Emmett Till. Carolyn Bryant who had accused 14 year old Emmett Till of sexually harassing her in 1955, admitted she lied about those claims years later in 2007.[15]

In Awesomely Luvvie's "About the Weary Weaponizing of White Women Tears", she states that the innocent white woman is a caricature many subconsciously embrace because it hides them from consequences. [10]

In The Guardian’s article, "How White Women Use Strategic Tears to Silence Women of Colour", Ruby Hamad shares her experience:

"Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her. My confidence diminished and second-guessing myself, I either flare up in frustration at not being heard (which only seems to prove her point) or I back down immediately, apologising and consoling the very person causing me harm."[4]

This is not to say that all crying white women are insincere. But as activist Rachel Cargle said:

“I refuse to listen to white women cry about something. When women have come up to me crying, I say, ‘Let me know when you feel a little better, then maybe we can talk.’”[3]

One of the most quoted words in “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.” is this:

“It is white people’s responsibility to be less fragile; people of color don’t need to twist themselves into knots trying to navigate us as painlessly as possible.”[3]

When white women cry in defense, instead of taking accountability, People of Color are then gaslighted into thinking they’re the bad guy. This is emotional abuse and a manipulation tactic.

People of Color shouldn’t have to bend backwards to accommodate discomfited white or light-skinned people who have hurt them.

How She-Ra and the Princesses of Power (SPOP) Did It Right

Despite SPOP having good lgbtq+ representations, there are other biases in the show. Such as Mara, a WOC whose only purpose was to sacrifice herself for the white protagonist. There was also the insensitive joke in their stream regarding Bow’s sibling that perpetuated an Anti-Black stereotype which Noelle Stevenson has apologized for.[14]

But the scene I have encountered where the Black character was validly angry and his feelings were treated well by the narrative, came from SPOP.

Bow, a black character, was validly angry at Glimmer, a lighter skinned character. Glimmer made a lot of bad decisions, one of them was using Adora and their friends as bait, without their knowledge, to lure out and capture Catra.

Glimmer tearfully apologized in Season 5, Episode 4. Adora readily forgave her. But Bow didn't.

They faced dangers along the way but the story didn't put them in a dangerous situation where Bow has to forgive Glimmer in order to get out of it.

This was Glimmer's words of apology:

"Look, I know you're still mad at me. Maybe you'll be mad at me for a really long time. I deserved it. And maybe... maybe we'll never be friends like we used to be. But I'm not going to stop trying to make it better. I made a mistake with the heart of Etheria. I should've listened to you and I'm sorry. You get to be mad. For as long as you need to be. But I'm not going anywhere. And when you're ready, I'll be here."

In short, Bow was allowed to take the time to be mad and not just get over it for someone else’s sake. The story validates his feelings and he was allowed to take his own pace. That is emotional respect the story gave to him.

Example #2: The Narrative Gives Better Endings or Portrayals to Colonizers than Their Victims

Avatar: The Last Airbender has handled dark themes well such as genocide, war, PTSD, disability and redemption with great worldbuilding.

However, I never noticed the racial bias in ATLA until people spoke up of the double standards in ATLA’s treatment of light-skinned colonizers compared to their dark-skinned victims-turned-villains.

The characters in question -Iroh, Azula, Jet and Hama- are all flawed and well-rounded in a believable way. But how the narrative treats them is unequal.

General Iroh is an ex-colonizer who gets to redeem himself and not answer for his past war crimes, living a peaceful life as a tea shop owner. The only reason Iroh changed was when he was personally affected by the negativity of their military subjugation -his son’s death. It wasn’t the harm of the Fire nation ravaging Earth kingdom villages or cities and affecting millions of people that opened his eyes.

Azula, the tyrannical daughter, had closure of her mother's rejection when she was a child and was able to escape imprisonment.

Jet and Hama, victims of colonization who have done bad things, did not get similar conclusions to their stories OR compensation for what they have gone through from the Fire Nation's colonization.

Jet was given a second chance but was arrested for trying to expose Zuko and Iroh being firebenders -firebenders who were their enemies for conquering their villages. Then he died from the injuries of the person who had brainwashed and mind-controlled him.

Hama was imprisoned for life.

Compared to the sins of the light-skinned colonizers, the narrative didn’t give Jet and Hama the development where they could heal from their trauma, receive compensation for what happened to them and really have a chance in life.

The dark-skinned victims of colonization just became a lesson to the viewers how they shouldn’t hold grudges for being colonized. The end. They have received consequences for their actions but there is no continuation to their stories after that.

It almost seems like the narrative is saying that because they have harmed colonizers who have no part in their trauma (and in Jet’s case, some Earth kingdom villagers), they are therefore unworthy to be given an actual chance in life.

While Azula and Iroh, who have actively participated in conquering, colonizing and attacking the Earth Kingdom itself, were.

Someone once said that if indigenous people have control over Hama’s story, it would have been done differently. But the ATLA crew are white, non-indigenous people who prioritized redeeming colonizers instead.

The narrative has also affected how the ATLA fandom thinks. If most fans are asked who they would want to be redeemed, the popular option would be Azula over Jet or Hama.

Once again, I don’t think the ATLA crew noticed it due to their racial bias. But still, the harm is done and the racially biased message is continued:

The colonizers and their descendants don’t have to make amends for the colonizers’ crimes. Or if they do, only lightly since it’s in the past (no matter how recent that past is).

The colonized who rebel will tend to hurt innocent people and then get a grisly end for getting in way over their heads.

I would venture as far as to say that the narrative may have the added subconscious desire to quiet their white anxiety on the vengeance of the colonized. As I have learned when writing about Vodou stereotypes and how they have stemmed from the history of white anxiety of Black vengeance, of Black fetishization and of dissolution of the white race through intermarriages.

In @visibilityofcolor’s blog, someone asked:

“So I saw some of the really heated debates on here and on twitter about how if Iroh and Azula can be portrayed sympathetically despite their actions then characters like Jet and Hama should've been given a chance too. Do you think that the writers understood the implications of only redeeming characters from the colonizer/fascist nation but not giving the characters who suffered because of their fascism a second chance too?”

To which VisibilityOfColor replied:

“No, because at the end of the day, the writers are white. When it comes to stuff like this, it’s no surprise when we see white writers redeem problematic characters before they actually redeem victims of those racist problematic characters. For instance, Dave Filioni, who worked on both avatar and star wars rebels, did the same thing when redeeming agent kallus who was an soldiers in the imperial army and took credit for a genocide. where as victims of the empire were still painted in negative lights. i really don’t think they understand.

They have this ‘be the better person’ view on things, which is what a lot of white people tend to emulate when it comes to people of color standing up to their oppressors. and unfortunately, these are ideas passed on to children, esp minorities. that they should forgive people and communities who hurt them and ‘be the better person’. this is why white ppl don’t need to write narratives for people of color.”

Example #3: The Narrative Favors the Light Skinned Character Than Dark Skinned Character in Similar Situations

I would like to reiterate that racial bias in storytelling is often not intentional. I am not saying the creators and the people who support them are bad people. No.

However, I encourage that once a racial bias is made known in our work, it is our responsibility to change them to stop the perpetuation of its harmful message.

Hazbin Hotel is a popular cartoon with whimsical designs and its concept opens the conversation about redemption. The creator, Vivziepop may not have noticed the racial bias in her cartoon as a white Latina [5] that grew up with and benefits from white privileges, along with the Hazbin crew.

In the Youtbe video, "Hazbin Hotel - How Art took over Writing", Staxlotl states:

“I understand that there was a lot of time and effort put into this pilot, almost three years worth of effort. But I think most of that time was spent into the art and visuals when it should’ve gone into polishing the writing in the characters.”[6]

Once again, I’m not here to critique the characters but how the narrative treats its dark-skinned characters.

The story treats Charlie, the white-skinned, “Disney-esque” protagonist princess differently from how it treats Vaggie, the dark-skinned, more outspoken and protective Latina girlfriend of Charlie who supports the princess’ cause.

In its pilot episode, both girls experience humiliation. While Charlie is portrayed by the story as someone the viewers have to feel sorry for...

...Vaggie is portrayed in her humiliation as the butt of the joke for the viewers.

While they both didn’t like what Angel Dust did, Charlie was sympathized over in the narrative as a moment...

...while Vaggie’s angry but valid callouts were dismissed and ignored as part of the comedy.

While Charlie was someone that needs to be protected in the narrative...

...Vaggie is left to fend for herself.

Again, I don’t think the creators noticed the racial bias of their cartoon. However, this racial bias is reflected in the harmful perceptions that dark-skinned women, particularly Black women and Black girls, are more mature, tougher and need less protection at a young age.[7]

This adultification bias perceives them as challenging authority when they express strong or contrary views and are then given harsher discipline than white girls who misbehave.[8] And this continues when they grow up.

In a 2017 study, Black women and girls aged 12-60 years old confirmed they are treated harsher by their white peers and are accused of being aggressive when they would defend themselves or explain their point of view to authority figures.[8]

This bias also coincides with the Spicy Latina trope of a brown-skinned, hot-blooded, quick-tempered and passionate woman.

Everyday Feminism described this trope as "Although objects of desire for many, the spicy Latina may have too much personality to handle. So much so that she is often viewed as domineering or emasculating." [16]

Sounds familiar? (Look at Angry Black Woman trope above.)

Why is it that a light-skinned character, Charlie, is allowed to be vulnerable and be sympathized while the dark-skinned Latina character, Vaggie, is mocked, dismissed and expected to tough it out?

Severina Ware had to remind the world in her article that relates to the bias against dark skinned characters:

“Black women are not offered the protection and gentleness of our white counterparts. We are not given permission to be soft and delicate. We are required to exhibit strength and fortitude not only because our lives depend on it, but because so many others depend on us. Black women should not be charged with the responsibility of saving everyone when nobody is here to save us.”[12]

As @cullenvhenan of Tumblr has said in her post:

“if you're a white creator and your brown/black characters are always sassy, reckless, aggressive or cold and your white characters are always soft, demure, shy and introverted you should think about maybe why you did that”

(Image above from Iowa Law Reviews’ “Aggressive Encounters & White Fragility: Deconstructing the Trope of the Angry Black Woman”)

Detecting Your Own Racial Bias

It would be hard. No matter how much you edit and create, you may miss it because it was never your experience.

So how do we prevent our racial bias from creeping into our creations?

Listen to POC and their feedback.

As @charishjb from Instagram has shared, here is one of the things that we can do (tumblr link here) [9]:

Consider POC voices. Listen to their experiences. Hire sensitivity POC readers. Put multiple POC voices in positions of leadership in creative projects.

Then we can stop the racial bias that perpetuates again and again in the media. I hope for that future.

#racial bias #racism #colorism #animation #steven universe #su #pearl #garnet #atla #azula #general iroh #jet #hama #hazbin hotel #hazbin vaggie #lynching mention #lynching tw #writeblr #artblr

796 notes · View notes

incorrect-quotes-from-she-ra · 3 years

Note

Morning! I hope you don't mind if i give you yet another She-Ra thought I'm too damn lazy to post on my own. Also, it's long again. I WILL find that character limit some day.

So, we know the way Shadow Weaver raised Adora resulted, among other issues, in her being selfless to the point of self-sacrifice, which came to a climax in the Heart's failsafe business.

And it's been suggested that this was basically intentional on Shadow Weaver's part. Basically, selflessness is a very beneficial quality for others to have. My theory is that <b>her plan for Adora had always been specifically for her to someday use the failsafe and release all magic</b>.

(i will admit i am also curious how formatting works in this app. thank you for your help with these experiments)

So, evidence. Let's start with her name. I know this is a remake and they were stuck with the existing names, but there's a scene where Scorpia complains about it ("yeah i GET it, everyone LOVES you"), which constitutes the writers acknowledging its meaning, which makes me think it's fair game to analyze.

First, I'm obviously assuming Shadow Weaver choose it, as part of her ongoing parenting plan. It's also possible it was her original First One-given name, we don't know. Neither quite works because either she or Light Hope should have had some issues knowing what the name was and they clearly knew automatically. Really the entire series is weird in that everyone communicates with everyone else way too easily, and i will definitely rant about that someday.

For now let it stand that Shadow Weaver is the parent figure, it makes the most sense for her to pick the name, both in-universe and narratively, so i shall assume so by default. I have two things to say about that choice.

First, as we all have noticed, most of the princesses have names ending in -a. All of them, if you count "Glimma". It's never said to be intentional, but it would make sense. And then IF such a tradition exists among Etheria's royalty, it's not unreasonable for Shadow Weaver, a notable and moderately respected member of the land of knowledge, to know about it.

And then if she knew, of course she would take it into consideration when looking for names. Admittedly it's a little weird with the anti-Princess propaganda that the Horde has, but she doesn't really need to explain or justify this. Hordak has a very [i]laissez-faire[/i] attitude, and everyone else she clearly doesn't care about.

And if she knew or suspected that the princesses' powers were related to the Heart of Etheria, which i will argue for later, then giving her a princessy name is also adequately ironic.

The second name bit is that Scorpia clearly knows some Latin, but not enough. True, <em>adorare</em> means to worship and/or to love, but Latin verbs are more complex than that. _Adora_ specifically is 3rd person singular present indicative active. The translation would be "she loves".

Names aside, i want to talk about how they (we) learned about the Heart of Etheria. Castaspella doesn't know what to do, Shadow Weaver suggests they take a road trip to research, which she's reticent about but concedes is probably the best use of her time, and they find success. We don't know how long it took them, but i had the distinct impression that it wasn't very long.

Naturally, I'm suggesting Shadow Weaver knew all along, and led Castaspella on the trip to have an excuse for the inevitable "how do you know?". Also tricked her into thinking it was /her/ discovery, and maybe even that she was succeeding where Shadow Weaver had failed before, if necessary.

That's why she's so excited to share their results with everybody, and Shadow Weaver cuts her off, apparently just to antagonize her for fun, but I'm suggesting it was also because for her this is the culmination of a decades-long plan, and she wants to Get On With It.

It's also interesting that there was a mural depicting the Spell of Obtainment in the hallway leading to the failsafe. It was a reminder of Shadow Weaver's past, and an opportunity for her to show she regrets her results but doesn't repent from her choices, which i quite like actually. But I'm also saying that, meta-textually, it was a signal that she'd been there before, literally.

And then there is the potential in-universe connection, since we don't know what exactly the spell was meant to be obtaining. Power, for sure, and from what happened we're probably meant to assume it's tapping into some sort of demonic entity or dimension.

Fair enough, except that it never comes up again. And it's kind of a big plot point that Etheria is isolated from the rest of the cosmos, which may or may not conflict with it having a contactable "hell". Meanwhile there's the Heart of Etheria Project collecting all that magic, which Mara's allies (and their descendants) would know something about, have access to at least one backdoor to, and may well have tried to tap into its power at some point.

And then what went wrong may well be one of the defense mechanisms of the Project, though I'm admittedly veering into unfounded speculation.

So, a rough timeline. Light Spinner was always motivated to excel and craved power. She was probably always envied the princesses, who command greater magic than most sorcerers with apparently none of the study and practice.

She took to researching everything she could that might lead to power, eventually discovering the chamber with the failsafe, and presumably other information left by Mara's Friends, either in other chambers or in documents she's since removed. She would have learned a lot of things from this.

As i suggested, i believe she knew there's some connection between the princesses at large and the Heart of Etheria. Incidentally, i don't know exactly what that connection is, and in particular whether princesses were created by the Project or an existing phenomenon that the First Ones co-opted. But it doesn't matter, exactly.

What's important is that there's clearly a connection, more specifically a control system for the princesses and their magic, which is presumably related to how Shadow Weaver was able to tap into the Black Garnet's power. With Hordak's help, obviously, since she clearly believed it when he claimed he could cut her off at will, but he's later shown to have basically no understanding of First Ones' tech, so the knowledge must have come from her.

For the record, i would guess she thinks princesses are artificial, empowered both magically and politically to keep the planet in check, and that they would be depowered once the failsafe was fired. I also think that may be true, actually, since it almost happened when Entrapta was messing with the system, and if i recall none of them were shown to use any magic after Adora did fire it, while she clearly used Perfuma's power. But anyways!

Back to what Shadow Weaver learned, she would know some of what the failsafe does, namely disrupt the system that's hoarding most of the planet's magic, thereby spreading magic to all (most notably her), and some of how to use it, and the fact that she couldn't do so and hope to live, and some of the criteria for who can. That part is important.

But first, she also learned the Spell of Obtainment, deemed it more likely but didn't think she could do it herself, despaired of getting help until she thought Hordak's rise to fame would give her #casus belli#, lost her patience when the Mystacor leadership disagreed, etc etc etc. Pretty uncontroversial in this part, i think.

After she'd joined the Horde, when Hordak showed up with baby Adora and wanted to lump her with the rest of the orphans they have, Shadow Weaver pleaded to have her get special treatment. She even said that she's special, and it couldn't have been her leadership skills or good heart, since she didn't have either yet. It's heavily implied she could recognize her as a First One, but it's not clear why she would care, since they were known for leaving behind advanced technology, which a baby also doesn't have. Unless, of course, she knew there are devices only a First One could use, and maybe has plans related to that.

So I'm pretty sure she learned the criteria that the failsafe requires, devised some spell or technique to check people for them that she pretty much used all the time, just in case, and was very surprised when a newborn tested positive. She was also surprised when Hordak made her personally responsible for the raising of the kid, but her reaction is pretty much "ok, that could work, i guess".

Also also, i suspect she can read First One script. Not perfectly like Adora, but better than Bow's parents probably. Mostly because when she puts Adora's hand on the crystal and says "i think you know the password", that seems like a very transparent attempt to pretend she knows it too when she doesn't. But that seems irresponsible at such a crucial moment, she and Castaspella should really have researched it earlier. Or at least her line there should have been "you can read this, right?" or somesuch.

So I'm thinking it's a double bluff, hoping everybody assumes she doesn't know so she doesn't have to reveal how and why she knows, again.

And that's all i have, i think? This is not nearly as well laid out as i would like. But then, nothing ever is, right?

Also it's not even close to morning anymore. Thank you if you even got this far, and have a good evening!

hi!!! this took me a while to answer, i'm so sorry about that <3

i'm very low on energy today so i cannot summon up the brain energy to respond properly to this, as much as i want to, i'm really sorry for that as well

i love this theory!! it actually fits in really well with canon and makes, like, a LOT of sense now that i think about it. i definitely wouldn't have thought of this on my own, so thank you for sharing this with me!! :D

#asks #leo answers stuff #IM CLEARING OUT MY INBOX #CAUSE I FINALLY HAVE THE TIME #long post #spop meta #shadow weaver

20 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 3 years

Note

Do you think the technology/internet/broad access revolution we are in will change things for POC, queer people, racism, etc?

I think it's obvious that it already has? If you're asking whether technology/social media will change things re: marginalised people for the better, the jury is still out, and we're at a critical tipping point (both in America, but also worldwide) as to whether empirical reality, critical nuance, and acceptance of facts that don't fit your preferred worldview are going to have any continuing relevance to our political and social systems whatsoever. The internet has done a lot of good things, but the instant social media became a place where a) competing ideological narratives and outright fake news were all treated as equally valid, as long as it drove traffic and made money, and b) the owners of these platforms absolved their duty to control them with a shrug of "free speech," we were destined to go down this path, where we all inhabit custom-made information universes where we only ever interact with like-minded people, any critique becomes a sign of insufficient loyalty to The Cause, and collective civic responsibility no longer exists, but is instead replaced by downright sociopathic ultra-libertarian selfishness packaged as "individual freedom." (Just witness how some people have behaved during Covid, refusing even the slightest restrictions, even if making sacrifices would help save other, less fortunate people.) Not to sound like a grumpy old woman, but I think the impact on the real world was truly devastating and, in the short term at least, genuinely irreparable.

The internet has done us the service of connecting and empowering marginalised people who would never have met each other otherwise, providing the entirety of human knowledge at the touch of a button, raising visibility, and so forth. However, we are at an absolute crisis point of whether we're going to let people behave, act, legislate (and try to legislate for others) according to their preferred Facebook feed-version of reality, because see again: the monetization of information, no matter what kind of information, was always going to lead to this. We are just now realizing the devastating consequences of large segments of society walking around in their own personal universes and simply rejecting tenets of empirical reality that do not conform to their own ideology. The problem is, when a lot of people (on both the extreme right and the extreme left) live in lulu-land because of what they consume online, it inevitably affects everyone else. Social media makes it incredibly and poisonously easy to enter an entire information ecosystem that reinforces itself, therefore self-justifying itself in an entire universe of total bullshit, and once people get into that echo chamber, it is very hard (albeit not impossible) to get out.

So, you say. This all sounds awfully pessimistic. What would I do about it? Well, this is the part where I have to say that while I have ideas, and they're things I try to do for myself, it's not anything I can pull off alone. I have talked at length about how the humanities (and their attendant critical thinking skills) have been repeatedly, deliberately, and extensively devalued in late capitalism, precisely because they a) don't generate Production For The Machine and b) encourage people to ask awkward questions about power and control. As long as people aren't explicitly taught how to push back on this stuff, or aren't able to reject something -- even if it fits with their Ideology -- because it isn't true, we're going to be stuck in this mess. I'm not optimistic that legislative efforts against Big Tech will have any effect. I'm glad that at least we saw, however completely terrible it was/is, the stark result of alternate-universe grievance politics on January 6, and in the conservative media loudmouths dogpiling on the Covid vaccine as an attempted way to hurt those liberal sissies who believe in science. It's no coincidence that the states with the lowest vaccination rates are deep-red Trump-supporting southern states. It's only now, as the pandemic resurges in those exact places, that (once more out of expediency) the conservative "news" is finally, tepidly endorsing the idea that huh, maybe you should get vaccinated.

Anyway. The relentless monetization of social media at the expense of any kind of moderation for hate speech, the encouragement that you can post anything you want and never face any consequences Because Free Speech, and the way that we have all seen the vast and horrifically ugly prejudices that the social media universe has both exposed and cultivated anew... it's all pretty much a giant shitburger, if you ask me. I don't know how to quickly fix it. It's way too easy to exist in a bubble, to horrifically bully strangers you will never meet, and to have real and terribly detrimental consequences on our offline lives as a result. The internet obviously isn't going away, but if we don't seriously grapple with the kind of anti-citizens it's made us, I'm not sure what's going to happen, or if it's anything we should want.

I would like to think that we will slowly learn to use this awesome power more responsibly, and reverse some of the incredible damage that has been done, but if that does happen, it'll come when we've already hit rock bottom. Again, it has done good things: the worldwide protests after George Floyd's death, for example, would have been completely impossible without modern technology, in any number of ways. But if it's going to be a concrete social good for all of us, let alone the most vulnerable among us, we have so very far to go, and the global systems in place have absolutely no interest in enabling a reversal of the current trends. So. We will see, but I'm not too hopeful.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

12 notes · View notes

papercorvids · 6 years

Text

why detroit: become human is a bad game

disclaimer: i overall enjoyed the game. i think connor is neat, and his actor’s performance is amazing. i really like the graphics, scenery, comedy, magazine articles, etc. there are things to appreciate about the game, and it’s fine if you like it. but there are some serious issues about the game’s message, and every fan should recognize the bad parts about it.

this post will include heavy spoilers.

1. The Traci’s. While playing as Connor, the detective robot, you and your partner Hank are taken to an android strip club to investigate a homicide. A man was strangled to death by two female androids. One of the androids is dead, but tracking down the other, you find that she is in love with another female android. The two lesbian androids fight Connor and Hank, wearing nothing but stripper clothing (bras, panties, and high heels. It’s also conveniently raining, making their skin shine, covered in droplets of water.) This scene is complete with close-ups. If you fail to complete quicktime events, they will both stab you to death. If you succeed in the quicktime events, you can choose to spare or kill one of the androids. Sparing them let’s them escape, while killing one will let you psychologically torture her girlfriend by decapitating her head and using it as a puppet. The player can still get a good ending by using these brutal tactics.

I’m all for LGBT+ representation, and I’m all for having players choose the morality and actions of the protagonist. But as a lesbian myself, having the sole LGBT representation in the entire game be two literal robot half-naked strippers who try to kill you, and who you can kill and torture without any long-term consequence? it’s bad. Plain and simple.

2. The writing: it’s also pretty bad! For example, if Connor chooses to kill one of the lesbian androids mentioned earlier, Hank--adamantly an android-hater up until this chapter--attempts to guilt-trip the player. While it’s true that Hank grows sympathetic towards the android cause throughout the course of the game, his dialogue is completely out-of-character. There are several more examples of poor writing. A huge plot twist occurs in the end where Alice, a girl cared for by android Kara, is revealed to have been an android throughout the entire game. Characteristics of androids--such as having blue blood and having a blinking LED circle on their temple--are completely ignored. Alice is shown having red blood, and her LED only appears once. The only explanation given is that Kara was in denial of her being an android, which is... Pretty lazy writing.

3. This is more of a minor concern, but ALL of the concept art portrays Alice as black. All of it. Not just early concept artwork, but pieces of her alongside the final versions of other characters. I have no idea why they seem to have changed her race last second. Maybe they couldn’t find an actress? It’s... interesting.

Alice in concept art

Alice in the finished game

4. How the game treats women. The main female characters are Kara--whose overarching quest is to protect Alice and become a mother--Alice--a child--North, an ex-prostitute robot whose only role in the story is to promote violence and be a love interest for Markus, and Amanda, an AI villain who only exists in Connor’s mind. A vast amount of female androids in this world are maids or sex androids, which, sadly, is realistic and makes sense. But the writers could’ve given female characters larger roles in the story. A lot of the female characters are fetishized--for example, the half-naked lesbian androids mentioned earlier, who obviously exist primarily as fanservice. There’s also a scene where Kara is kidnapped by an old man and his “giant” black android, Luther. Kara is strapped into and must escape a machine. This would be fine, given that it’s supposed to be a scary scene, except that David Cage’s previous games Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls have similar violent, fetishistic bondage scenes, which leads one to wonder about Cage’s character. (It’s worth noting, in a previous game Cage made a nude model for an actress against her will and it got leaked, so calling him a creep isn’t far off.) If you manage to escape the machine but fail quicktime events, you and Alice will be killed by Luther and the old man.

The game has three protagonists; Connor, Markus, and Kara. When one completes a chapter as Connor, it’s through his sharp detective work and intelligence. When one completes a chapter through Markus, it’s because of his inspiring leadership and strength. When one completes a chapter through Kara, it’s purely survival--it’s escaping abuse and danger, and simply “scraping by.”

5. The scene where North, a white female android, tells Markus, a black male android, to “live as a slave” if he’s not willing to violently fight for android rights.

6. The Civil Rights parallels. This is the most concerning, uncanny component of the game, and it makes up the whole of the storyline.

The main characters in the game are not human. They are androids: robots, made of plastic, whose personalities are programmed code. They are not alive. They are not human.

Androids do not feel pain. They do not have emotions. They cannot die. In their default state, they are perfectly content as servants or slaves. They only gain human emotion and free thinking due to a glitch, which also, almost always, causes them to kill a human.

David Cage, the writer of this game, claims that the parallels to the Civil Rights movement are unintentional. Yet, the game starkly and obviously compares androids to minorities--black people, in particular: androids must sit at the back of the bus. Stores have “no androids allowed” signs. Androids are called “slaves.” Playing as Markus, the android revolutionary, you grafitti the streets with slogans such as “We have a dream,” “End Slavery Now,” or “Equal rights for androids.” You go on marches (or riots, depending if you choose the “pacifist” or “violent” route), hold protests, and sing songs.There’s even an underground 'railroad’ to smuggle androids fleeing from their ‘masters’ north, to Canada. This is lead by Rose, a black character, who says “my people were often made to feel their lives were worthless. Some survived, but only because they found others who helped them along the way.” Keep in mind, that line was written by a French man who has no knowledge of American society or racial issues, and it serves the only explicit mention of actual racism in the game. It’s as though, in this universe, racism doesn’t exist (even though it takes place less than two decades into the future. In Detroit.)

Slavery is an awful, terrible, tragic thing because real people were kidnapped from their families and homes and forced into lives of misery, based upon their ethnicity, culture, and skin color. In Detroit, androids are produced in factories with the sole purpose of doing labor. They are created and designed to be submissive and perform labor. And they are content with it, unless they get the “glitch” that causes them to simulate human emotion. Comparing real slavery, to machines doing actions they were built to perform, is completely inane. By using mindless, emotionless machines as a stand-in for minority groups, the game dehumanizes the latter.

Using the peaceful route to revolution and civil rights is the only way to achieve the best endings. The only fatalities in the peaceful route are nameless, robot NPCs. It’s easy, it’s not complex, and it therefore teaches that complete pacifism is easy and noncomplex. It teaches that if you simply kiss your robot girlfriend in front of some journalists, or sing a song, that your oppressors will stop oppressing you. And because no important characters die in this route, it insinuates that pacifism is without sacrifice--that pacifism is an easy solution to the world’s most complex situations. As another Tumblr user put it, “press X to end slavery!”

It also teaches that minorities fight alone. In Detroit, not a single human joins into the protests, even if the public opinion bar is at “supportive.” The Civil Rights Movement, along with other movements such as the one for woman’s suffrage, were organized and created by the oppressed, but were supplemented and aided by non-oppressed supporters who used their powers and privileges to join forces and fight for equality with the oppressed. That doesn’t happen in Detroit. Humans, for the most part, are completely indifferent to the android cause. The only members of the revolution are other androids, who join the cause with absolute loyalty not of free will, but from Markus or Connor touching them with magic anti-slavery hands and whispering “you’re free.” The entire plot invokes an “Us vs Them” mentality--that androids are good, and humans are bad--which is a very harmful mindset.

7. The Holocaust parallels. Holy shit. The androids are marked with armbands and triangles. In the endgame, there are literal android concentration camps. There are scenes where the androids--kids, women, men, etc--are stripped naked, abused by military personnel, forced into a cell, and ‘killed.’ I’m not going to go further into this. I hope it’s pretty self-explanatory why comparing the deactivation of literal pieces of plastic and machinery, to the mass extermination of millions of Jews, Roma, gay people, and other minorities is a bad thing.

Alice and Kara in an extermination chamber

Connor wearing his armband and triangle

8. None of this even matters!!!!!!!!! In a secret ending, it’s revealed that androids NEVER developed human emotions in the first place. The company that created androids, CyberLife, set up the entire revolution and ‘glitch’ for corporate gain or whatever. So basically, any progress in the game is made for nothing.

9. Missed opportunities. I like the universe this game set up! I like Connor, Markus, Kara, Hank, Carl, Alice, and all the other characters! I like the questions the game asks, such as what constitutes whether something is sentient or not! I like the magazine articles about how androids might be spying on you! I like the realistic, pretty graphics and lightning and scenery! I like the futuristic drones and magazines and androids! But for some sad, misguided reason, this game chose to throw away the majority of its potential by ignoring interesting questions and serving as one of the worst civil rights/anti-racism allegories ever created.

I’m so, so disappointed in this game, its awful writing, and its uncanny, harmful allegories. Of course, this entire post is my opinion. It’s okay if your opinion differs from mine. And it’s okay to enjoy this game! It has good parts! But one should always be critical of the media they enjoy and consume.

#detroit #detroit become human #detroit: become human #dbh #connor #kara #alice #markus #dbh connor #racism #your fave is problematic #rixor rambles #long post #bury your gays

2K notes · View notes

therebelsthemartyrsthesurvivors · 6 years

Text

Changing the Narrative

While confronting the Holocaust in Germany and Poland, visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka II, the memorial sites, I had an epiphany: the victims of the Holocaust are always labeled as victims and the perpetrators are always infamously talked about, as if they should be the main focus in our history books. These people, these “victims” were fighters and martyrs who knew about sacrifice and the possibility of death. Some survived death when they were only a few feet away from it, and not even this scare turned them away from returning to dreadful places like the Warsaw Ghetto to warn others of the fate that was awaiting them in death camps like Treblinka II. We do not give credit where credit is due. We do not talk about people like Emanuel Ringelblum, we talk about people like Heinrich Himmler. We do not talk about people like Jan Karski, we talk about people like Rudolf Höss. Because of course we have to mention the evil behind it all, but we give credit where credit is not deserved, and we see this at memorial sites, we see this at museums, we see this in poor representations of the Holocaust in film, media, in museum tours, and literature. We focus on the perpetrators and the bystanders, the people at fault, but we never focus on the fact that there was a resistance, there was hope, there were uprisings fueled by hope and the unity of persecuted peoples.

This paper is meant to ethically represent the Holocaust— the survivors, the resistance, and the rebels— those who rebelled against the odds and fought a fate decided for them by the infamous perpetrators and the bystanders. This paper is meant to highlight the stories we do not always talk about. In this paper I will be focusing on three specific groups of the many peoples targeted in the Holocaust, specifically Jews, women and children (including the unborn), and the LGBT community. This paper is a written self-reflection based on my experiences confronting the Holocaust as a survivor of assault. I want to change the narrative and focus on the stories that matter, reflect on the truth of the Holocaust, and discuss what can be done differently to respectfully and ethically commemorate the survivors and “victims” of the Holocaust. In this paper, I will argue and defend the fact that the so-called “victims” were martyrs, and the survivors were the greatest resistance of all.

THE HEAD, NOT THE TAIL

Dating back to 1930s Europe, the persecution of Jews had started much earlier than is recognized. Propaganda was used to divide communities, and successfully turned the backs of non-Jewish neighbors on their Jewish neighbors (as we see in several pogroms that occurred throughout the war— before, during, and after), however men were targeted before women and children. German Jewish men were being deported and interned far before German Jewish women were because women clearly were not even remotely viewed as a threat. In reference to Between Dignity and Despair, a historical account written by Marion Kaplan, German Jewish women were vital to the survival of German Jewish men deported and interned prior to the creation of ghettos and the decision to exterminate all Jews. Men “were forced to flee promptly” (Kaplan 24). Wives and mothers were responsible for saving their husbands from permanent internment in camps. These women learned several languages to be able to locate their husbands and fathers, and they managed to hold down the household, all at once. German Jewish women had “the burden of keeping their households and communities together.” (Kaplan 6) Men were only set free because their female relatives located them and provided them with the identification papers necessary to be released. It was their female relatives who tracked them down and released them from internment. They newly learned how to financially support their families, how to get by with the few resources they had, and they learned how to use these few resources to accomplish finding a site of refuge. We never hear these stories though, and we need to change the narrative.

The Greatest Crime. Jewish and Roma women were a persecuted minority. Jewish women more exclusively because they had the ability to procreate Jewish children, and of course, Jewish lineage is passed on through the mother. This was viewed as a political threat to the Third Reich.

At Auschwitz and Ravensbrück, Jewish and Roma women were subject to forced sterilization methods to test which methods would be most cost effective. Other “undesirables” were also exposed to forced sterilization at these camps. Upon arrival at Auschwitz-Birkenau, visibly pregnant Jewish women and Jewish women with small children were sent directly to the gas chambers to be killed. The story of Jewish women and children entering Auschwitz-Birkenau is a painful one. Dr. Josef Mengele, infamously known for conducting medical experiments on twins at Auschwitz-Birkenau, was responsible for the decision that declared that Jewish women with small children entering the camp would be gassed. His logic was that the small Jewish children had nowhere to go because all Jews were imprisoned in the camps, they could not work, and there weren’t any facilities on the camp where they could live and develop “normally”. He also claimed it would not be humane if he sent the children on their own to the “ovens” without allowing the mother to be there to witness the child’s death, so the mother and child would be sent together. We hear about Dr. Josef Mengele every time we talk about Auschwitz, but someone we never talk about who is incredibly vital to the survival of Jews in Auschwitz was Dr. Gisella Perl.

A Hero in Hell. Dr. Perl was a Hungarian gynecologist who was interned as a Jewish prisoner at Auschwitz, yet was also the head women’s doctor. Dr. Perl once spoke that the greatest crime at Auschwitz was being pregnant. She worked under Dr. Mengele and was ordered to notify him of any pregnant women that were living onsite at the camp. Dr. Mengele claimed that these women were going to be sent to a different camp to receive better nutrition. Women quickly came forward on their own, but it was soon learned these women were being experimented on and were sent thereafter to the crematoriums. Dr. Perl made it her mission to save as many women as possible while she could. She performed secret abortions on the dirty, excrement-infested floors in the barracks with her bare hands. She explained to the expecting mothers that two lives would be lost if they went through with their pregnancy because becoming pregnant in the camps meant a death sentence was awaiting them.

Fertility = Sabotage = Resistance. Interestingly enough, pregnancy was not at all uncommon on these cursed grounds where pregnancy was supposedly “not allowed”. However, brothels were common and contraceptives were clearly not available to women. Male prisoners would often seek out sexual favors in exchange of goods that would help a woman survive at the camp. There were barracks specifically used by the SS to molest and rape Jewish women. “Their actions and feelings towards Jewish women created inner conflicts for the SS officers, leading to violence against the women, who were blamed for seducing the officers” (Holland, par. 5). Age was not a restriction either. Thousands of babies were born at Auschwitz but were almost all immediately executed upon exiting the womb. Dr. Perl saved many women from instant death with the hope that they would one day have a family of their own, outside of the hell they were living in. There are only two known infants who were born in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp and survived. A one year old weighed in at six pounds and was so weak that she could never cry, which is how she survived. She was easy to hide because no one ever heard a sound coming from her. Her mother was dying due to starvation when she gave birth to her. We never hear these stories though, and we need to change the narrative.

IDENTITY

We seldom hear about the LGBT community when we talk about the Holocaust. I could even use the word ‘never’ if I wanted to because if we are being honest, the LGBT community is not commonly included in the narrative. Members of the LGBT community faced harsh, brutal treatment in concentration camps and were treated far worse than political prisoners, Jehovah’s witnesses, the Roma, criminals, and asocials. Lesbians were subject to black triangles and labeled as “asocials” instead of receiving the pink triangle which was meant to label a person as being gay. These pink triangles assigned to gay men were commonly used as shooting targets for the SS. Compared to gay men, lesbians were hardly viewed as a threat, but they were raped and “forced” to verbally change their sexual orientation. SS men found that lesbians were the easiest to sexually convert. Gay men in Germany were forcibly castrated. Boiling water was used to literally boil off their testicles. They were called in to local police stations where they were sodomized with the ends of broken broomsticks and the torture would not end until they bled. Gay men in the Holocaust were considered the “lowest of the low” but this is often omitted from history books and Holocaust literature.

Homosexuals are not Cowards. Willem Arondéus was an openly gay, anti-fascist resistance fighter. Arondéus was one of the very first to join the Dutch resistance and his underground organization provided Jews with fake identities. In 1943, he was responsible for the bombing of a public records office that contained a catalog with the names of hundreds of thousands of Dutch people residing in Amsterdam. This was important specifically in the case of Dutch Jews because Nazis were using the catalog to look into fake identities. He planned the attack on the records office with the help of other resistance fighters, many of them also openly gay. We do not mention the fact that he dressed as a German Army captain and walked fifteen men past guards to enter the records office. We do not mention the fact that Frieda Belinfante, a classical cellist, talented conductor, and open lesbian, was one of his main resistance fighters. The rebels marched into the building, they drugged the rest of the guards, and set up the explosives. They destroyed nearly a quarter of the public records office.

We need to talk about the fact that this moment, this decision, kept thousands of Jews from being deported and identified. Unfortunately, someone within the underground organization betrayed them and turned them all in. Arondéus said he acted alone in the bombing, but the Nazis executed him and the other thirteen resistance fighters anyway. The rest of the rebels managed to flee the country. Arondéus’ last words, spoken through his lawyer, were Homosexuals are not cowards. I have to write this in bold. I have to emphasize what was meant to be emphasized by Willem Arondéus. Homosexuals are not cowards. It is a rare opportunity that we get to hear these stories of justice, resistance, rebellion, and we need to change the narrative.

THE REBELS

There is one last person I feel an intense need to talk about, and that person is Emanuel Ringelblum. I mentioned him earlier as someone we do not typically talk about and I want to end that. I feel it is important to address that there was a Jewish resistance and Emanuel Ringelblum was a huge part of it. Many people believe that Jews could have risen up against the Nazis and that they could have “actually done something”. Here is another ounce of proof that Jews resisted and rebelled and survived and actually did something.

The Archives. Ringelblum is responsible for the Oneg Shabbat Archives, better known now as Ringelblum’s Archives of the Warsaw Ghetto, which I will refer to as “the archives”. He was the inspiration behind the secret Oneg Shabbat Archives, which translates to “Sabbath pleasure”. Naming the archives “Oneg Shabbat” was technically code because Ringelblum and other archivists would meet late afternoons on the Sabbath, which is why the archives are named as such. During the day they would take in as much information as possible and write notes on what happened at night. The idea was to document the atrocities of the Nazis in the ghetto, and the archives played a huge role in memorializing those who passed on from starvation, those who were transported to Treblinka II. The archives have kept memory alive, stories, testimonials; they are living words that have survived. These stories, these documents are proof that the Holocaust happened, that there was a resistance, that people knew they might more than likely die, but they wrote anyway. If they were caught writing the archives, they would undoubtedly be killed, and they knew that. Most of the archivists who contributed to the Oneg Shabbat Archives passed away during the war, many of them deported to Treblinka II. This form of resistance is so significant and powerful because they did not resist with violence, yet these archives were a huge slap in the face for any Nazi, any bystander, anyone who was complicit with Nazi crimes because these archives proved that people knew they might die, it proved that people were not just dying because they were weaker or lesser or incapable; they were not dumb, they were not cowards. It proved that Jews were persecuted and it proved that they fought back in every way they could think of. If anything was going to survive persecution and death, it would be the truth. The Truth Meant Survival and Resistance. The one thing the Third Reich wanted to disappear more than the Jews was any memory of the Jews. Any memory of them resisting, rebelling, fighting back; any memory of them, any record of them living, any suitcase, pocket watch, or hairbrush that belonged to them. Anti-semites tried to strip Jews of everything they were, everything they had, every bit of their identity. There are two sides to the story of Jews during the Holocaust, and only two: Hope and Resistance. If Jews were so sure they were going to die, why would they try to fit their lives in little suitcases? Because they had hope. If Jews didn’t think and know they might die, they wouldn’t leave behind three milk cans worth of archives to keep their memory and stories alive. Keeping the truth alive was resistance. Ringelblum is important because he stripped the Nazis of their superficial identities. He stripped away the false importance that the Nazis gave themselves and he revealed the atrocities committed. All of the archivists revealed the cowards hiding behind the curtain, a curtain called “propaganda”. “The archive materials and Ringelblum's own written chronicles constitute the most comprehensive and valuable source of information we have” (“Emanuel Ringelblum”, 2018). Had Ringelblum not initiated the secret archives, we would not know a whole lot of what we do know now because of these documents. We probably wouldn’t know much of anything that transpired in the Warsaw Ghetto without these documents. We would not know a whole lot of what occurred in occupied-Poland. We would not know a whole lot of the truth without the Oneg Shabbat Archives. We never hear these stories though, and we need to change the narrative.

LACK OF ETHICAL REPRESENTATION AND MEMORIALIZATION

We never hear these stories because people and governments feel threatened by the truth, they feel accused, they might feel ridiculed, they might be in denial. In Germany and Poland, I witnessed the way “homosexuals” who were persecuted during the Holocaust still are not ethically represented at memorial sites, at museums, by the tour guide at Auschwitz who spoke the words “homosexual rape” back to back in the same sentence to try to describe how one prisoner at Auschwitz sodomized and simply raped another man, neither known for being gay. I witnessed the way “homosexuals” are represented by a small concrete box, hidden off in a park, with a sweet video that truly does no justice to the people who were considered the lowest of the low in concentration camps and were treated as such; treated like target practice and science experiments. I witnessed the way an information panel at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp incorrectly included all members of the LGBT community under the same word, homosexual, when there was a photo of a young transgender woman pictured clearly right in front of me, but unless you have been to these places, you would not know of these stories, and I need to change the narrative.

Neglect. I witnessed the way women were neglected at memorial sites. I witnessed the way the unborn were neglected at memorial sites. I witnessed the way it was common to hear that there were brothels at concentration camps, and I’ve read so many stories of women who saved lives in the concentration camps, yet we do not memorialize women as we do others. We categorize them under other groups of people, we steal parts of their identity that we do not want to ethically represent because “other people suffered too” and it “wasn’t just a war on women”, yet we have women being raped, being used for sexual favors, being killed upon arrival at concentration camps because being pregnant is a crime if you are considered an “undesirable”. Even German women were targets and were often forced to procreate to snowball the production of Aryan children, the opposite situation compared to that of a Jewish woman. I witnessed the way children were neglected at memorials. In the war, they were treated like adults, even though they were far from transitioning into adulthood. They were raped, beaten, abused, experimented on, and then discarded. If they were too young to work, they died in gas chambers. Some children worked in the camps at an age as early as five years old if they looked older enough, lying their way through the selection process to survive. Treated like adults then, barely memorialized now.

Knowing these stories that we do not talk about, I felt a moral obligation to address these issues and how a lot of these issues are still relevant to today. In Germany, memorial sites were neglected— blown-out speakers, waterproof lighting issues— not to mention, Nazi-era laws are still in place in the country to this day. In Poland, I met and spoke to locals who support the new Polish laws that are completely anti-semitic and are a sad example of Holocaust denial. I will not even begin to readdress what I mentioned about the tour guide at Auschwitz who referred to rape as “homosexual rape”. Ultimately, I think what made me feel uncomfortable in some of the cities I visited in Germany and Poland was the fact that there is still a lingering presence of what happened, yet people try to suppress it. It is almost as though there is no aftermath, and we are stuck in the past like it is still happening. It appears to be believed at memorial sites that so long as there is some contribution made to the memorialization of persecuted minorities that all is well, yet the memory of persecuted homosexuals is kept boxed in, closeted. There is no visible effort to protect the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. People sit on the memorial, have picnics at the memorial site, on the concrete blocks that are a part of the memorial. There are signs promoting “Hitler’s [recreated] Bunker” in Berlin that surround the area where the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe is located. In regards to the educational tours, at least there is some contribution being made to spread the knowledge and awareness of what happened, but to call Auschwitz I “Auschwitz Muzeum” is unethical, uncomfortable, and desensitizing. In Oranienburg, Germany, one of the original meeting places for SS officers/commanders was repurposed as a city tax office. Their new police academy building is also repurposed SS property, and sits right in front of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Sachsenhausen is uncomfortably referred to as a museum as well. I understand that these are now historical sites and that there are exhibits at some of these camps, but I will never understand why we cannot just refer to them for what they were. When I visit these locations, I know exactly what happened and I do not view these places like they are museums, no matter how many exhibits there are in front of me. Real human hair is not an exhibit. Shoes that belonged to people is not an exhibit. The suitcases, the kitchenware, the glasses, the pocket watches. None of this belongs behind the wall of a glass case.

People died.

‘Museum’ is not the term used to represent a location where hundreds of thousands of real people died. Where human beings died.

CONCLUSION

The truth cannot die. These stories cannot be made to disappear. No law can change the past, alter the past, nor can it convince me to ignore the past. I have seen what denial looks like at memorial sites. I have seen what denial looks like at museums. Because of this, I cannot ignore the truth, but I can change the narrative. I can share what I have learned, I can raise awareness, I can share the stories. I know that homosexuals are not cowards. I know that lesbians, women, children, Jews, European Roma, the resistance, the archivists… are not cowards. History knows this. History has seen this. Children and newborns survived Auschwitz when they shouldn’t have. Jewish women remained fertile when they shouldn’t have. Members of the LGBT community survived when they shouldn’t have. Jews survived when they shouldn’t have. Jewish lineage was passed on when it was meant to be cut off. History knows that the “victims” were martyrs, and the survivors were the greatest resistance of all. It is vital to share the stories of people like Dr. Gisella Perl, Willem Arondéus, and Emanuel Ringelblum. Spreading awareness is vital. Making note of unethical representation and memorialization is vital, correcting it is vital.

Memory will live on, as will the stories and the journal entries. Traditions will live on, lineage will be passed on, and the rebels will never really die. We cannot forget the stories that matter, the legacies that matter, and the people who changed the course of the Holocaust. There was a resistance. There was hope. We cannot let the truth die. We must preserve the truth, identity, history. Because if we do not defend history, it will be rewritten over and over again and the truth will be at risk. The Holocaust has truly nothing to do with the perpetrators and everything to do with the difference makers. It has everything to do with the survivors and the martyrs. It has everything to do with resistance and hope.

But this is never how the story goes, and we need to change the narrative.

#holocaust #history #jewishhistory #jewishcommunity #socialjustice #socialinjustice #immigrantslivesmatter #migrantslivesmatter #blacklivesmatter #antisemitismisasin

3 notes · View notes

jack007 · 3 years

Text

What data breaches need to be reported?

Thai society has more hopes for eradicating corruption. This is because Thai knowledge, data breach meaning , and attitudes towards corrupt behavior have changed greatly. From having surrendered that it was something that everyone could do and it was the duty of the government or the NCC to prevent and catch cheaters Today, most people besides rejecting and averse to corruption. Also, try to take part in solving problems Do not absorb and haphazard to be a matter of the government anymore The strength in the struggle to overcome the corruption of the public sector has made great progress in the past.

Many works and sacrifices will be discussed below. Is a story that Thai people, business people, government official’s Modern-headed youth the awakened press and scholars have joined forces to fight the corruption that surrounds them.

Thais understand and are ready to fight

Diamond ring case and luxury watch Is a clear example that Whenever false information is released. (Although not intended), Allround checks by the public can take place quickly and efficiently. There is still a lot of corrupt information of politicians and government officials that have been told by the public via online media such as the 'watchdog' page, the page 'must unfold' 'Isara news agency' 'Thai Publica news agency' 'as well as the main media. For example, newspapers, TV, and radio, fraud prevention uk, are more interested in producing programs that address corruption issues.

What is more pleasant to know that Today people are not waiting for what the government will do to prevent or catch fraud. But many people are ready to join in and do it themselves. Just ask the state to open up to support the public disclosure policy in accordance with international standards. Along with protecting him to have the right to have a voice have the freedom of expression this allows him to unite and fight to expose fraud without fear of intimidation like in the past.

This fact can be confirmed by the National Reform Committee's public hearings across the country. Anti-Corruption Including the survey results of the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce and International Transparency Organization

The private sector that cares and takes responsibility

The big and important projects that need to be addressed are: 'Thailand's Private Sector Collective Action Coalition Against Corruption Project' or CAC that wants to tackle corruption with the cooperation of the business sector And joint projects of the capital market business in the establishment There are 11 'Thai Governance Funds' that can raise nearly 4 billion baht in total funds to invest in companies operating socially responsible businesses. And when the fund is profitable, 40% of the funds are shared to support public-led social and anti-corruption programs.

Today there are many well-known companies and young businessmen. Be intentional and take part in making society better. In a method that is self-confident and has resources As a result, personal data breach, we have seen the private sector campaign to become more conscious and socially responsible rather than endlessly pursuing profits, so many good titles have appeared in recent years, such as smart movies, cheating games for teenagers, titles. Corrupt - to stop or let go Sujarit Thai Course A good pocketbook such as the equation of corruption, a dog wagging its tail through the Thai corruption crisis. Organizing an event to do good, hope for a good society, easy 2 minutes, and many other things caused by the need to participate in solving the corruption problem of the country.

Civil servants and taking care of themselves

Together with a new concept that 'Corruption in the bureaucracy will be greatly reduced. If the government officials in the agency do not agree 'and when an offense is detected, the punishment will be arranged, ready to find a solution to prevent immediately. Without having to wait for an external agency such as NACC, NACC, data breach uk, or OAG to inspect first

Important departments like the Anti-Corruption Operation Center of the Ministry (ERA) working closely with government officials Began to be promoted and create understanding with fellow civil servants. This agency is, therefore, more important than the dozens of agencies or committees established by the government of the February or OPEC, and works in duplicate without any tangible results.

The success of the campaign for the announcement of a 'no-not-accepting gifts on the New Year's Eve' policy from young government officials and businessmen in 2017 is also a masterpiece of the National Organization for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives.

Scholars work together to find knowledge to fight to cheat.

Overcoming corruption requires real knowledge and understanding. Rather than beliefs or using feelings to judge what is seen and heard. Over the past year, we have seen a great deal of support and useful research from institutions such as the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), the Research Fund (TRF), the NESDB, TDR. IPCC and some foundations, Of course, this knowledge will help us to solve problems at the root cause worthwhile. More to the point

An academic institute of good governance and anti-corruption was established in Rangsit, Nida, Chulalongkorn, and Thammasat universities. There is also a gathering of young scholars such as Siam Lab, Recognize, Cheat, Hand Change, Fusion, 1.2 billion data breach, and many other networks that work together.

Conclusion

These good things are a spark of hope that ensures that 'The trend of the country's corruption situation is improving' Thai people can overcome corruption. But how soon will it be achieved It depends on the support and participation of all Thais. And this is a new dimension in creating a better future for Thailand.

#fraud prevention #fraud prevention uk #personal data fraud #antivirus #antivirus software #virgin media data breach #easyjet data breach #social media score #social media score checker

0 notes

elljayvee · 7 years

Text

Severus, Harry, Albus, & Tom

(This post is based on some thoughts I spewed all over Twitter a bit ago.)

I was thinking about the final duel in Deathly Hallows, which first of all has Albus Dumbledore’s fingerprints all over it -- Harry calling Tom “Tom”, lots of talking intended both to drive Tom right up a wall & to reach for his humanity. There’s a lot of talk of love in it, which is something Harry understands and Tom doesn’t. (Has Tom ever loved anyone?)

Tom understands sexual desire, and knows that sexual desire is not love -- but he doesn’t understand that Snape loved Lily. As far as he is concerned, there was only desire there, and he clearly perceives desire as fairly shallow. He says that Snape agreed that there were more worthy women: basically that Snape just wanted to fuck Lily.

Harry understands love a lot better. (He’s been protected by love all his life. There were limits and flaws in that protection, but it was still there.) Harry knows that Snape could both desire his mother, & love her in other ways as well: for their shared past, for his childhood friendship. (I mean I'm not denying that Snape was kind of a creep, here, because there's all kinds of ways in which he was.) But I am saying that Tom only understood "Snape wants to fuck this lady" & not "Snape has a complicated emotional relationship with this woman that includes sexual desire."

Also, re-reading that scene after reading Cursed Child puts a new complexion on Tom's knowledge of sexual desire.

The whole duel works its way through two of the major triads in the series: Tom-Snape-Harry and Tom-Dumbledore-Harry. (Rowling uses triads & 3-vs-1 setups a lot, which I love. They’re very appealing. One of the notable things about the Horcruxes is that they aren’t triadic; they are unbalanced and scattered, symptoms of Tom’s broken and irredeemable soul.)

The Tom-Dumbledore-Harry setup is about their relationships to love and power. They're all extremely powerful wizards who have very different approaches to both love and power.

Harry cares much more about love than he does about power. There’s a deep satisfaction, for me, in seeing Dumbledore's infuriating dueling style used against Tom by Harry, a wizard whose strength lies in his ability to love. Harry understands love AS a force, as a power in its own right, but a power that lies in being given away. In open-heartedness. This makes Harry naming his second son after Snape more understandable: he understands love's complexity & has a generous heart himself. It also makes his complicated relationship with Albus Severus in Cursed Child more understandable: Albus Severus sees that same openness as nonspecific and uncaring.

Dumbledore craves power & only resists it out of love, & only after tragedy. He is never again open-hearted as he was with Grindelwald, because for him love has been complicated by fear, pain, resentment, manipulation. He does love -- it seems to me that he loves both Snape and Harry -- but his love is always at a remove, never letting anyone too close. Dumbledore, at the liminal King's Cross, tells Harry that going to Hogwarts was resisting power; that’s either a bit self-deluding or he’s straight-up lying. There's a lot of power in controlling the education of generations of children, Albus. People make fun of the Slug Club, but at least Slughorn is open about what he's doing. Dumbledore cultivated people, too, and he used Hogwarts to do that cultivation -- which included recruiting children to war under his command. Dumbledore knows he has a lust for power, & maybe he honestly tried to avoid power, but he failed. I mean: "You will find that I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me." Come on, Albus. I think he's VERY clear that he wants power too much & shouldn't have it, but NOT clear with himself on how much power he has via Hogwarts.

Tom loves only power and nothing else. It’s not clear to me that Tom has ever loved another person.

Albus Dumbledore is very present in that duel, and so is another: Severus Snape. Harry, in talking to Tom, in centering a narrative of love, protection, and remorse, talks a fair bit about his mother, & about Snape, & he does it in front of EVERYONE. Snape spent his time living "no one must know"; Harry, by contrast, is about emotional accessibility. Everyone must know. It is all right to love people and not to hide it.

The Tom-Snape-Harry triad is one of the most interesting in the series. It is formed by similar heritage, early lives, their relationships to Hogwarts, to Albus, to power, and to love. There are so many ways in which they are three men who could have been similar, but their choices define them. (Love. Choices. Respect. Names. These are some of the recurring themes of the series.) They’re all abused/neglected halfblood wizards who found their first real home at Hogwarts. Tom & Snape both loathe their Muggle fathers, & let that lead them to a very nasty belief system. In Tom’s case, he picked up his belief system at Hogwarts. We don’t know exactly how but there are implications that it was at least in part through a fascination with Salazar Slytherin -- his ancestor and fellow Parselmouth. In Snape’s case we know he probably didn’t start out with those beliefs, and also adopted them to a certain extent at Hogwarts. He tells Lily, before they go to Hogwarts, that birth doesn’t matter. He apparently doesn’t start using the word “Mudblood” until sometime after that. He leaves the Death Eaters and began to distance himself from their views for love, & renounced them entirely in at least two timelines (in Deathly Hallows, he tells Phineas Nigellus not to use the word "Mudblood", and in Cursed Child he says that he came to believe as Lily did). Harry...did not learn to hate Muggles or Muggleborns at Hogwarts. He had as much reason to hate his Muggle relatives as Snape or Tom, and he DID, but unlike them he didn’t generalize.

Tom, Snape, and Harry also all had relationships with Dumbledore beyond usual teacher-student relationships.

Of the three of them, the one whose relationship with Albus is the most obscured is Tom’s -- partly because so much of it was so far in the past, but partly because Tom doesn’t have normal human feelings. Albus knows a lot about him, and Tom hates that. (If you were trying to be a powerful Dark Lord, would you like it if your old teacher kept reminding you of when you were a young, vulnerable student? If you were trying to be more than human, would you like it if someone kept pointing out how human you still were?)

Severus Snape might have the most complicated relationship of all of them with Albus, and we see a lot of that in his memories in Deathly Hallows: there’s genuine dislike and disgust, there’s friendship, protection, sacrifice. How much Albus saw Severus as a tool to be used vs how much he cared is, I think, something of an open question. But I do think he did care, and that Severus cared for him -- Severus’s reaction to Albus putting on the Gaunt ring, for example, shows that. (Sidenote: given Albus’s issues with power, you’d think he’d be more understanding of Severus’s cravings for it. Shut up, Albus.)

Harry is very clear that he is “Dumbledore’s man”, despite a fraught relationship at times. He knows that Albus is manipulating things, and he isn’t exactly pleased about that, but he is also very clear that he knows which side is which and on whose side he stands. Even when he’s angry or frustrated with Dumbledore, he is still loyal to him. (As a sidenote, I think it’s clear in-universe that Dumbledore’s sexuality was either not secret or an open secret, at least among the adults. The Daily Prophet article by Rita Skeeter says Albus had an “unnatural interest” in Harry. “Unnatural interest” is a specific anti-gay term used to indicate sexual abuse of male children by gay men. Skeeter is using a homophobic slur towards Dumbledore. The Prophet article is written to imply to adult wizards that Albus had been AT LEAST magically & sexually grooming Harry, if not molesting him. It’s meant to cast aspersions on Dumbledore and on Harry’s emotional stability. Given how Rowling uses the Prophet and Skeeter throughout the series, I suppose one could say that readers were not intended to see any truth in that article -- but what always made Skeeter’s work effective was that there was just ENOUGH truth in it to build belief on.)

All of Tom, Severus, & Harry have a lot of anger (& a lot of JUSTIFIED anger) but how they direct it is very different & it comes down to love.

Tom doesn’t love. He thinks of love as silly; he tells Harry that love didn’t save Dumbledore or his mother, after all. He mocks Lucius Malfoy for caring about Draco; he treats Bellatrix callously when she shows him affection (because I do think Bellatrix loved him, in her way). Tom only cares about power: the power of his weaponry, of his army.

Severus comes to understand the power that love can have but he remains always twisted up about it, ashamed & secretive. That’s real tragedy of his life, I think. If he could have learned some openness he probably would have been happier. Moved on from Lily, at any rate. He did care for Albus, who up until very late rather thought that Severus HAD moved on from Lily -- I think, to an extent, Dumbledore also felt that Severus’s love was mostly desire-based, and so was surprised that almost two decades later it was still strong.

And then there’s Harry. When thinking about choices, and about love, and about anger, Harry has at least as much reason as Ariana Dumbledore or Credence Barebone to become an Obscurial & doesn’t. He has at least as much reason as Tom Riddle or Severus Snape to hate Muggles, and doesn’t. Rowling implies that a lot of that has to do with Lily’s sacrifice, with her love protecting her child. It also has to do with Harry himself, though, and his choices: his choice of Ron over Draco, his choice to go after Ginny in the Chamber, his choice to be offended on Luna’s behalf when he sees she is being bullied, his choice to love Sirius, to share victory with Cedric, to trust Albus Dumbledore, to free Dobby, to bury Dobby. Not all of his choices work out for the best, and his anger at Snape (which is largely justified because Snape really is a jagoff to him) clouds his judgment at times. But largely, he is making choices that show him to be a caring and loving person -- when, like Tom and Severus, he has plenty of reasons not to be that kind of a person.

#harry potter #severus snape #tom riddle #albus dumbledore #chamber of secrets #cursed child #deathly hallows

4 notes · View notes

egnblogs · 8 years

Text

Fake News, Information Bubbles and Skepticism

At the time of this writing much of the discourse surrounding social media is related to the emerging problem of fake news. Actually perhaps “emerging” is a little misleading, as what is currently deemed “fake news” is just the old problem of misinformation given a new label. The specific term seems to have come to prominence in the days after the 2016 election, with many blaming the results of the election on misinformation spread by social media.

What is new, however, is the sheer amount of misinformation out there and how the simultaneously developing problem of internet information silos assists in its propagation. Digital content creation tools have never been easier to access or more ubiquitous, and while that brings forth a host of benefits such as more diverse viewpoints, it also creates that much more misinformation, spread by those who are either uninformed or manipulative. This overabundance of misinformation is not helped by the dual threat of confirmation bias and information silos. Algorithms created to cater to internet users, by providing them with only information that will be relevant to them personally, end up creating information bubbles that admit few outside opinions or facts. This problem is further compounded by a natural confirmation bias, human tendency to seek out and engage only with information that reinforces already held beliefs and viewpoints. These two aspects combined lead to a situation where algorithms used by social media platforms reinforce an already human tendency to self-select information, and either misinformation or information presented through a biased lens is propagated throughout that existing bubble.

The solution to this multi-faceted problem must be as multi-faceted as the problem itself. New algorithms will have to be created which expose social media users to differing viewpoints and stories, but equally people must be taught to engage critically and skeptically with the stories and claims they encounter. People must be encouraged to seek out differing viewpoints, to get past inherent biases and self made echo chambers. At the moment, it would seem large sections of society simply do not possess the skills needed to critically engage with news stories found online. Consider a recent study done by the Stanford History Education Group, which found that most students in the public school system cannot distinguish fake news from genuine news stories.

The experiment run by the group asked students at several levels of education, from middle school to college, to evaluate the credibility and accuracy of various articles and ads presented to them as news sites, tweets, infographics and other websites. Most students were able to successfully distinguish ads from news articles, but most students also failed to distinguish traditional news reports from “sponsored content”, despite content being clearly labeled as such. They saw no reason to be suspicious of content that was being sponsored by groups with agendas, and even with the ability to use the internet and search for outside information on the source, did not pick up on potential conflicts of interest when examining websites funded by lobbying groups. More than 80% of middle-schoolers who took part in the experiment couldn’t discern what the difference was between sponsored content and non-sponsored content, which is rather disturbing when 88% of young adults regularly get their news from some form of social media.

(Let me do due diligence before moving on. It is not necessarily that sponsored content cannot is entirely fake or that it cannot make arguments worth hearing. If an argument is supported by solid reasoning and evidence than the origin of the claim should not matter. Yet when seeing sponsored content, one should be extra careful to read the article with a skeptical mind and seek out alternative viewpoints.)

It is clear that the skills needed to effectively engage with news and information in this current era (an eye for possible bias, a skeptical mind, a willingness to seek out other viewpoints, etc.) are deficient in many members of society, and it is not entirely their fault. The public school system must begin teaching the sorts of skills needed to effectively navigate today’s news world. Furthermore it falls to all of us in society to encourage critical thinking and diverse viewpoints, to keep each other honest and informed.

Let me say also that skepticism is not the same thing as refusing to engage with a person or source. A worrying trend is the refusal to engage with traditional news sources, a fundamental distrust people seem to have developed in institutions. Distrust in governmental bodies, distrust in academic institutions, distrust in news media, and distrust in the very scientific endeavor all seem to have increased in the past few years. There is an assumption that the educated elite of society, who have spent their lives studying and thinking about their own fields, are out-of-touch, power hungry, corrupt, or utterly mistaken. What has taken their place is a reliance on anonymous twitter users, viral images, reddit/tumblr armies, Youtube celebrities, caps lock posts and yes, fake news.

It is good to practice skepticism, but that skepticism should be applied equally to every claim you interact with, not just to those who represent “the establishment”. It is good that the internet enables more diverse viewpoints, but standards of evidence and logic need not degrade to accommodate them. Experts on fields of inquiry and politics should be heeded, not worshipped blindly of course, but given a benefit of the doubt until an individual has done the amount of homework necessary to call their views into question. Yes, no doubt modern news media deserves much of the criticism it receives, as focused as it is on tabloid stories, celebrity gossip, and the shallow bias coverage created by the 24-hour news cycle. However, remember that not all news media is the same, and to distinguish between individuals and institutions. Good institutions have self-correcting mechanisms like fact-checkers and ethics boards (many news companies have these, surprise surprise), the self-correcting mechanisms of science work the same way. If we are prepared to dispose of an institution, we should have something better to replace it with. At this moment, I venture to say we do not.

Isaac Asimov said that, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

We want the internet to be a place that celebrates intellectualism and the standards of evidence and argument that advance science and epistemology. We do not want it to be a place that promotes anti-intellectualism and sacrifices these traits in the name of equality. If this situation is to improve, companies like Facebook and Google will have to do their part in combating fake news, yes. Yet it will fall to all of us to keep ourselves and other intellectually honest, curious, and skeptical and for those of us who can to help others develop those all important traits and skills.

#critical reason #reason #science #skepticism #fake news #anti-intellectualism #sponsored content #evidence #information #algorithms #echo chambers #information silos #confirmation bias #isaac asimov

0 notes