#The show isn’t Nazi propaganda but it’s not above criticism

[autistic-ben-tennyson]

Steven Universe: A Complicated Relationship

I’m starting to fall out of love with this show. I used to be obsessed with it and it was important to me as a way of figuring out my gender and sexuality. Yet, my relationship to it has become more complicated as of late. I’ve defended it myself and have been passionate about it, yet seeing the way a lot of stans have acted has kind of ruined it for me especially due to dismissing any criticism. This is not me saying I hate it or think it’s irredeemable Nazi propaganda but not everyone who dislikes it watches Lily Orchard and there are valid things to criticize about it.

There’s definitely bad faith criticism of the show such as flanderizing Steven into a crybaby with those Jack Horner/Hitler memes or claiming it was made to attack Christians but some people do have valid points. The episodes Bismuth and Gem Harvest may have not intended to come off as racist but one could interpret them as forcing people to forgive their abusers or bigoted relatives. As someone who’s Asian and knows about the way we’re represented, the way Priyanka and Doug were portrayed in the early seasons as tiger parents has not aged well.

One other criticism I’ve seen is that the show copies a lot of old sci fi or anime tropes without recognizing the issues with them or removing them from their original context. I and others have compared the show’s ending to the Highbreed arc from Ben 10 Alien Force. The difference is that the Highbreed were treated as supremacists who needed to be stopped, not as abusive family. People can debate over whether they should have gotten more consequences but they were not treated as dorky relatives. The only one Ben befriends was a low ranking officer who became the new leader and convinced the high council to accept having their DNA changed. There’s also the human zoo, another sci fi trope that’s aged badly with the racist implications.

The series is also compared to a lot of anime. There’s references to Ghibli, NGE, Sailor Moon and Dragon Ball and many have compared the show’s idealism to that of magical girl shows like Madoka Magica. The difference is that those shows didn’t use subjects like colonialism as a backdrop for family drama. SW suffers from that as well especially with the rebels only wanting to restore the old liberal system while taking imagery from the Viet Cong. People who wanted a revolution story weren’t necessarily wrong as that’s what the early seasons did set up.

Some will accuse me of fandomizing the war but I’ve noticed a lot of the hardcore stans are white queers who support Israel or demand complete support for democrats. Not saying every SU fan is a bad person btw. There are a lot of decent people who are anti Zionist and like the show but a lot of these pop progressive cartoons as well as SW, Disney and Marvel/DC are used by people with gross beliefs to infantilize themselves and dismiss any criticism from POC fans. If mainstream kids media is where you’re getting your all political takes from then maybe you do need to branch out and watch more mature stuff. Watching NGE helped me grow up a lot and learn nuance.

As a recap, I’m not saying SU is a bad show or that people are bad for liking it. It was important for my own development as well as a lot of lgbt youth and was a jumping point for a lot of my current interests such as classic anime or Lisa Hannigan, who’s an amazing musician and is pro Palestine btw. Future did help me a bit with mental health yet people are allowed to dislike it or find that even if it wasn’t intentional, there are some implications that should be addressed. I don’t hate it and there’s some stuff worth defending in it but it’s not the greatest show ever and people who get all their politics from it need to grow up. Between it, TOH, Dead End and She-Ra, I think a lot of the pop progressive media that we have today will not age well and that’s something we need to accept.

[folkloristico]

I agree with the general sentiment here, but it also needs to be said that art doesn’t function outside of the human spectrum and ‘fiction is just fiction, it doesn’t hurt anyone!’ is the wrong way to respond to pro-censorship advocates. Fiction is a product of the human mind, and as such is not above criticism. Its effects may not be strong as strict propaganda, but if you believe fiction has no effect whatsoever on reality then you shouldn’t be arguing in favor of representation in media either. Fiction does effect reality, both in a good and in a bad way. Young black girls were overjoyed when a black young woman was cast as Ariel because they could finally see themselves as one of their favorite Disney princess. Likewise, the same girls’ self-esteem could be damaged if they were to encounter racist rhetoric in media. I wouldn’t want my kid, or any kid really, to believe that they are less than others because a book or a tv show told them so.

Helping kids navigate what’s the appropriate content for them isn’t the problem—censorship is. Books with problematic content need to be contextualized, not removed. It’s perfectly fine for a 16-years-old to prefer Percy Jackson over Hard Times—what’s concerning is that more and more people nowadays lack the critical skills to analyze something beyond black and white. It’s a dangerous mindset that leads people to think in terms of either pure good or bad which is an oversimplification of the world we live in.

The Attack on Titan fandom comes to my mind. Isayama wrote a compelling story that makes you empathize with both sides; it showcases just how fucked up war is because, in the end, they’re all humans killing each other. Violence calls for more violence, in a never-ending cycle that you must stop in some way, otherwise things are never going to change. All of this, and yet some people are like, “So who’s the bad guy?” or, “Some characters are nazis. If you liked the story, that means you are a nazi as well.”

And that’s really concerning. Art for escapism purposes is nice and all but it’s not all there is. It’s important that people know how fucked up some political ideas are so that they don’t fall for them. You don’t take a white supremacist book and hand it in the hands of a white kid without providing them any context, but more mature people should absolutely know it exists and should be able to tell what’s wrong with it.

“Authors should not be ALLOWED to write about–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative

“This book should be taken off of shelves for featuring–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative

“Schools shouldn’t teach this book in class because–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative

“Nobody actually likes or wants to read classics because they’re–” you are an anti-intellectual and an idiot

“I only read YA fantasy books because every classic novel or work of literary fiction is problematic and features–” you are an anti-intellectual and you are robbing yourself of the full richness of the human experience.

[harostar]

I feel like bad AOT takes comes from the fact that... many leftists want to avoid accidentally stumbling into propaganda. Much as the Right-Winger co-opted the terms, WE took the red pill. WE learned the insidious truths behind how cop shows are written, how the military is written in movies. All to boister an image they can use to justify what they do behind the scenes or out in public. With AOT, anything about the military must condemn it with little ambiguity. (cont.)

(cont.) We're tired of giving The Powers That Be any benefit of the doubt. Reading the exposes about them, what are they if not the Saturday Morning Cartoon villains we grew up on? This is what leads to people taking others word for it when they describe AOT as "fascist propaganda." I would be willing to buy that if Hange Zoe didn't outright declare, "Genocide is wrong," without any real contradictions to her assertion.

Complete honesty here, Anon. While I think there are some valid points made in the overall discussion about Fandom and the handling of Nuance, there is something about this Ask that just.....bothers me. I had debated about whether or not to respond, and how I wanted to to do so.

I can’t quite put my finger on what bothers me about it. 

But putting that aside, I think Fandom Discourse struggles with Nuance on many levels. And you have varying degrees of critical engagement, from people who do not question or look beyond the surface AT ALL to the people that basically have a Critical Blog that does nothing but look for ways for things to be Bad and Wrong(tm). 

Somewhere between those extremes, is the need to balance “Turn my brain off and enjoy things” with recognizing how media can be flawed, whether intentional propaganda (ie: Military and Law Enforcement) or unintentional (ignorance of an issue). 

I think the online discourse around the Attack on Titan franchise is especially messy, because the source material itself is messy. I’ve spoken a little before about how choosing to parallel the Holocaust was a huge misstep, and one that is incredibly difficult to balance even when you ARE coming from a Western perspective. Using the historical atrocities and tragedies of other cultures also tends to be a hugely messy thing, because you are inherently filtering it through your own cultural lens and biases. 

Japan can be just as bad as Western media in terms of playing with something “foreign and exotic” without really understanding the deeper issues. There are numerous Japanese-produced works that have really unfortunate portrayals of things, because of a lack of familiarity or understanding of the deeper issues and history. Japanese media has long had trouble with racist portrayals of Black characters, not because of any malicious intention but because a lot of their exposure to Black people had been through (intentionally racist) American-produced materials. It’s gotten BETTER, so much better in recent years compared to the past. But it’s still a work in progress, because a lot of the historical context and deeper issues are simply not part of common knowledge for Japanese folks. 

Likewise, AoT stumbles into stereotypes involving Jewish people. Because these tend to clash with the messages in the series, I tend to lean towards Isayama simply being unaware of such implications. From what little we know about him as a person and his past mistakes (that he at least publicly seems to have acknowledged as mistakes), he seems very much like a typical 20/30-something Japanese dude that isn’t particularly worldly or informed about Politics on a deeper level. 

Over the years, I have definitely observed a tendency for people online to assume others have the same knowledge and understanding as them. But most people are really only going to have a surface/minimal understanding of history and issues, unless it happens to be something of deep personal importance to them. 

I’m a 30-something White Girl that has spent most of my life living in the suburbs in the South. For most of my life, there were A LOT of political and social issues I had very little understanding about. I am still learning and unlearning things, on a daily basis. I honestly cringe to think about my past self, and the things I didn’t understand or know about. Hell, I realized recently that an old photo of me taken before Homecoming in 11th grade has some interesting artwork in the background.

There were portraits of General Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in our family room, growing up. We thought nothing of having them, and definitely weren’t a bunch of racist rednecks. We were a middle-class suburban family with a diverse group of friends. My parents definitely thought of themselves as Allies, and tried to stand up for the right thing whenever possible. 

I don’t remember exactly when it was that those portraits came down and got thrown out. Looking back, it’s definitely the kind of thing that makes us cringe because YIKES we didn’t even realize at the time it was bad. 

I guess my point with that little personal detail is trying to remind people that most of the time, things are a result of ignorance. America and Japan share an issue of actively not teaching people about social issues, and whitewashing history to conceal all the ugliness. Especially when it comes to another Culture, there’s so much opportunity to stumble into negative stereotypes or implications without understanding what you’re doing. 

I am rambling, so I think at this point I’m going to conclude by suggesting everyone go read this fantastic post by  @fission-mailure

It nails one major issue of the “AoT is Nazi Propaganda” argument is that the framing is incredibly Eurocentric. Hajime Isayama’s politics and his understanding of issues are informed by the politics of Japan. The above link has some good insights concerning Japanese politics, in particular their homegrown variety of Far-Right groups and talking points. 

[sakotisssss]

Fear and cancel culture in the fandom about the continuation of Hetalia: why it isn’t worth your time, what you can do and how it’s going to be okay.

With the announcement of the new season - a lot of people have been understandably freaking out. Hetalia in itself can be quite problematic and as we saw in 2013 that can attract bad people. It’s also worrying how people are reacting and calling it “nazi propaganda” and a “holocaust anime”. This show is already controversial without cancel culture so how will it fair now? It’s understandable why it’s worrying.  

We try to prevent 2012 from happening again through cancelling anyone or anything that alludes to it. That doesn’t work and isn’t worth so much stress.

Let me explain my thoughts and alleviate your fears.

1. The fandom is indestructible 

The best and worst thing about this fandom is that it will never die. Think about the amount of controversies that have taken place. We’ve survived fucking nazi cosplayers and ship wars.  We survived on five years of little to no content. This fandom is literally indestructible. We’ve gone through so much and we still manage to survive. No matter what happens, we’ll be okay. We survived the worst and we’ll survive any BS that comes this way.

2. We will not go back to 2012.

Today, people are a lot less ignorant and know better.  The cringey fandom 2012 culture isn’t how people are anymore. There’s always gonna be a few outlines but they won’t be normalized like back then and we won’t allow it. Times have changed and a 2012 fandom is just not possible.

3. Hetalia is and has always been controversial.

People always have had mixed opinions about the show. A lot of people don’t like it. Dealing with that hate has always been a part of being in the Hetalia fandom.  We know that the show has a lot of shortcomings - we just choose to look past it personally. For us, the pros outweigh the cons. We take it as it is - a low budget anime about gay counties. It’s a stupid, silly show and that’s why we love it. But some people can’t see it that way. Now that cancel culture is so rampant, people are going to be even worse about this. Yes there will be threads and people hating on it. Don’t argue with them. Don’t listen to them. That is out of our control and seeing people like that just makes us sad. People are going to criticize us, but it is up to us to ignore them and be above it. We won’t let them control us.

4. Fear is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If we believe that we are descending towards the old fandom, we will consider small incidents that happen as evidence of that and thus actually get into that because we’ve convinced ourselves that’s how the fandom acts. I’ve seen a lot of posts about how we shouldn’t do x, y, z or else the fandom will be just as bad. If we are cancelling people for such small things, such as not abiding by the long list of rules I’ve seen floating around, this place will become more toxic instead.  Treating a small mistake or misinterpretation as proof that the “old fandom is back” will make us feel like that’s true and act that way. It also convinces outsiders that we actually are bad.

5. A lot is out of our control

We are scared of the future and so we’re trying to control it. Recognize that a lot of things are out of our control:. That’s not us failing as a fandom,  there’s always gonna be a few toxic people and there’s nothing we can do to stop them from being that way. We can’t control their actions, all we can do is make it clear that we don’t accept this.  And we will get through - as we always do.

So what do we do?

1. Why Cancelling is an Ineffective Strategy 

First things first: What I’m about to say doesn’t apply to actual racists, sexists, homophobes, intentional nazi glorifiers (and not misusing that word), Trumpies, etc who hold bigoted beliefs. That’s just being a shitty human being and “cancelling” is appropriate here to show that this fandom has no place for that. This is different than a person making one mistake out of ignorance.  There is a middle ground.

I’ve already seen long lists of what behaviors are okay and not okay since this new season has come out. I understand what we are trying to prevent but it doesn’t work because it’s not that black and white. Hetalia is great because it’s so open-ended.  We are all gonna have different views of what we find okay or not and take different things seriously. Most things aren’t just right or wrong. If we are enforcing certain rules and cancelling any people that break them ironically the fandom will end up being just as chaotic and toxic as we try to avoid.

 Cancel culture also fuels toxic people and behavior. If we’re like don’t do x there’s always gonna be those little shits who will do it because we say not to. Being so strict attracts people who want to start fights and start drama. It gives toxic fans the power to turn people against each other and start drama on purpose from an out of context comment or just flat out lies and we don’t wanna give that to them.  The hypocrisy of these people is half the time they’ve done the same thing they’ve cancelled someone else for.

 This fandom in particular has a bad habit of mass canceling and then realizing there was actually more to the story. Some people are young or just have never been taught certain things where they live. There’s always another side and most people don’t have bad intentions.

 I’ve cancelled people and been cancelled - I know both sides. Hetalia in itself is inherently problematic and we know that. We’re not above anything. Trying to monitor all the small things isn’t worth it. We know what it feels like to be canceled for watching a dumb anime show. It’s stupid and doesn’t teach people anything besides resentment. So why are we doing it to others and treating them we know we hate to be treated? To you, “x” might be offensive. But that’s the logic twitter people use to cancel us. We can’t claim to hate cancel culture then have it control us. It’ll makes us even more toxic than before. We don’t wanna become what we hate.

2. Communication

I think a good rule of thumb is if you were okay with your close friend doing something, let it be. It’s not worth cancelling.  And if you are not okay with it: treat them the same way. You don’t cancel your friend, you talk to them. If after you’ve talked to them it’s clear they had bad intentions, hold bigoted beliefs or refuse to see the other side that’s one thing.  But TALK to people first.  And not openly, but privately. We need to communicate better.

If someone makes an insensitive comment or an inappropriate joke - don’t send people after them and harass them.  DM them and be like “hey I really don’t appreciate how you did x, it’s very upsetting to me because y” and listen to them.

3. Being sensitive about charged words

This is a bit of a personal rant. I feel strongly that we need to stop overusing words like “Nazi” or “white supremacist.”   I’m trying to follow what I preach so I can’t force you guys to agree. But as someone who’s family has been  killed by nazis I  feel strongly that it delegitimizes the actual meaning. A Nazi is not someone who made an out of context comment. It’s so disrespectful to equivocate those two. It’s not woke, it’s harmful to so many people. So stop throwing around the world, please.

4. At the end of the day, all we can do is control ourselves.

We can’t let a few bad people ruin the fandom. Don’t give them that attention. There is and always gonna be those people. They don’t define us and we will make that clear once that issue pops up. Or just do what we do best - make fun of it. We don’t give them the attention they crave yet are showing why its bad.  

If we are more open-minded and kind, we will able to focus on the actual problematic people and make it clear that there’s no place for them. But if we let the negativity of other people and fear get to us, we will become exactly what we don’t want. Breathe in and out. This is a good thing. We will be okay.

Tell me your thoughts. Share this. If you disagree or find anything confusing let me know!

 I spent four hours writing this and posted this on Insta but thought I should here too so please share it if you think it’s interesting!

[gingermcl]

Weaponization of music

Did you know that the standard music frequency is 440 hz and this is an unnatural frequency? A 440 hertz frequency disrupts the mind and the body. 432 Hz resonates with 8 Hz, same as the Schumann resonance, the documented fundamental electromagnetic “beat” of Earth. 432 Hz simply feels better.

Research shows music tuned to a 432 hertz frequency is easier to listen to, is brighter, clearer, and contains more dynamic range. Music with this tuning does not need be played at high volumes, thus reducing the risk of hearing damage. However by the 1950s the worldwide music was tuned to 440 hertz instead of 432 hertz.

If musical performances were going to sound the same all over the world, standardization was required. Having a universally accepted tone is why a piano in Toronto sounds exactly the same as a piano in China. There is nothing wrong with standardization, it is the choice of 440 Hz that was strategically calculated to disrupt the psyche of humanity as a whole.

In 1885, the Music Commission of the Italian Government declared that all instruments and orchestras should use a tuning fork that vibrated at 440 Hz, which was different from the original standard of 435 Hz and the competing 432 Hz used in France.

In 1917, the American Federation of Musicians endorsed the Italians, followed by a further push for 440 Hz in the 1940s by Nazi Germans.

In 1953, a worldwide agreement was signed. Signatories declared that middle “A” on the piano be forevermore tuned to exactly 440 Hz. This frequency became the standard ISO-16 reference for tuning all musical instruments based on the chromatic scale, the one most often used for music in the West. All the other notes are tuned in standard mathematical ratios leading to and from 440 Hz.

432 Hz is said to be mathematically consistent with the patterns of the universe. Studies reveal that 432hz tuning unifies the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code, and consciousness. When atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiraling pattern of nature, our sense of connection with nature is magnified. The number 432 is reflected in ratios of the Sun, Earth, and the moon as well as in the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, and many other sacred sites.

So what’s the big deal? It’s just a difference of 8 Hz. It’s actually quite a nefarious plan. The recent discoveries of vibratory or oscillatory nature of the universe that happened recently show that this contemporary international pitch standard may actually generate an unhealthy effect or anti-social behavior in the consciousness of humans.

There is also a theory which says that the change from 432 Hz to 440 Hz was dictated by Nazi propaganda minister, named Joseph Goebbels. He used it in order to make people think and feel a certain manner, as well as to make them a prisoner of a certain consciousness. 440 Hz is an unnatural standard tuning frequency, is removed from the symmetry of sacred vibrations, and has declared war on the subconscious mind of Western Man.

The powers that be are successfully lowering the vibrations of not only the younger generations but of all of us. Such destructive frequencies turn thoughts towards disruption, disharmony, and disunity. 440 Hz also stimulates our brain – the controlling organ of our body - into a disharmonious resonance, which ultimately creates disease and war in the world. All disease is a disruption in frequency. Atoms are made of waves and vibrations. Therefore everything is sound. A disruptive or unhealthy frequency can cause big problems in a world made of sound waves!!

Both vibration and frequency hold a critically important yet hidden power to affect us, our lives, health, society; our whole world. The science of Cymatics, the study of visible sound and vibration, proves that frequency and vibration are the master keys and the organizational foundation for the creation of all matter and life on planet Earth.

When the sound waves move through a physical medium, such as sand, air, water, etc.; the frequency of the waves has a direct effect upon the structures that are created by the sound waves as they pass through that particular medium. The same will happen with cells in the human body.

Frequency isn’t the only way music affects our civilization. Music lyrics are known to cast spells on the masses. Modern society may not treat music as a magical thing now, but once music was considered to be one of the highest forms of magic. If we look back to ancient times, drums and other instruments were used to celebrate holy-days, invoke trance-like states, or announce the start of a battle. The people in ancient times who sang, danced, and made music were once thought of as spiritually-gifted individuals.

Music magick is still alive and well in modern times. We might not see it in the mainstream music industry, but it’s there if we dig a little deeper. First – think of the way music makes you feel. Music is known to rouse energy and stimulate emotions. Given that energy is what magic is all about, music is a fantastic tool for spellcasting!

A spell is defined as

1- A form of words used as a magical charm or incantation.

2- A state of enchantment caused by a magic spell.

3- An ability to control or influence people as the one had magical power over them.

The intention of any song could very easily be spell casting and the masses would have no idea. The term MC stands for Master of Ceremonies. Concerts are ceremonies. Ceremonies are where ritual magic is done. Are you seeing what is happening here? The masses are being placed under spells and casting negative spells on themselves via their favorite music all the time! They’re also generating energy for these celebrities satanic ritual abuse ceremonies! I’m not saying that you don’t need to listen to music but I am saying you must be very mindful of what you do consume in every way. That includes what material you let into your consciousness. There are apps in every App Store one can download that will switch your music to 432 Hz. I advise everyone to do this. Increase demand could mean more and better apps that convert music to the proper frequency.

One simple song can invoke feelings of joy, sorrow, laughter; essentially every emotion under the sun. One song can whisk us away to a past moment in our lives, good and bad. Music can be used in mental and physical therapy to aid in healing the body, mind, and soul. One can use the emotions felt through music and its unique, fluid energy in magic. Intention can and does make music witchcraft.

Witches can help improve or focus their magic by incorporating music into spells and rituals. Lyrics aren't the only consideration. Beats, measure, instruments, etc. can also be used in music magic.

Music is also used on the people as a form of mind control. Mind control techniques have been noted throughout history dating as far back as Ancient Egypt. Mind control did not enter the realm of modern science until the 1930’s when a physician by the name of Josef Mengele brought it into full practice within Nazi concentration camps. The majority of Mengele’s research within mind control remains classified to this day, however some has slowly come to the surface including the recognition of it being the basis for the covert CIA research program MK Ultra.

Joseph Mengele sounds like a psychopath by all accounts and his mind control programs are nothing short of inhumane. The number of crimes committed against humanity by those in power is too many to count. All celebrities are forced to undergo MK Ultra programming to some degree. This programming breaks down the human spirit and can create alter egos. It is done in order to brainwash these people into doing anything their masters and “fame” requires. Several celebrities have begun speaking out about the torture and programming they endured at the hands of the Hollywood and music industries.

Symbolism is used heavily in mind control programming. The all-seeing eye, demons, and baphomet are just a few of the reoccurring themes that love appearing in entertainment; often in completely unrelated ways to the content. These themes can be noted throughout music videos, movies, and TV shows. The existence of this symbology is one thing I feel can be stated as fact. The symbology is clearly there. Watch see any of the following music videos and then tell me the symbology and themes are a mere coincidence or are directly related to the songs content:

* Lil Wayne – Love Me (Explicit) ft. Drake, Future

* Ke$ha – Die Young

* Lady Gaga – Alejandro

* Katy Perry – Wide Awake

* Britney Spears – Hold It Against Me

If you truly feel that the symbols were fitting and not purposely placed, I will respect that opinion. However I encourage you to search for a breakdown of the above listed videos in order to make sure you are made aware of symbology and themes. There may be some you missed or may not be aware of. It’s also worth noting that these 5 videos are not the only videos out there, they are simply a handful of the hundreds (if not thousands) of music videos that feature these symbols to some degree.

Assuming that these symbols/themes do recur, the question becomes why? Is it a level of programming that they are attempting to inflict on us the viewers? Could it be to desensitize us to their existence and placement throughout society? Or could it simply be artistic coincidence? The answer to these questions lie within. Let this article be a starting point for your own research and findings on all of the aspects of 440 Hz, music magick, and Monarch mind control programming (MK Ultra.) There is a lot of information and well-formulated opinions out there, many worth considering.

Once you have done your research, see what resonates with you as true and don’t be afraid to stand by it even if it isn’t in-line with popular opinion. No matter which side of the spectrum you stand on having an awareness towards this subject is important, and that’s why I felt inspired to write this article.

[angelo-thoughts-and-stuff]

Yeah the whole superhero thing ain’t that good.

I recently just finished watchmen, not the movie but the HBO series and my first thought was that this a masterpiece. The social commentary of the current political climate in America was bold to do because many writers would not touch this subject. For good reason, it is very hard to write a story about that tackle these themes racial injustice, inequality and white supremacy without the story feeling based. And the showrunners did an okay job but their are many issue that I had the with story. I’m not a avid reader of the watchmen graphic novels but I have a very basic understanding of what the graphic novel was trying to portray. The idea of a superhero is hero weird, some would say problematic but I’m not that far of the deep end. First I think it is important to understand why superhero were created and at first what was the idea behind them. The golden age was when the comic book industry started it’s introduction into the American culture. This being around the second world war, and when one goes back to read these issues they were propaganda and hopefully to a small extent. Captain America punching Hitler, Superman punching Hitler these portrayed we the “good guys” America beating up the bad guys Nazis. And a lot of these issues played with stereotypes. And they played into the bogeyman trope a lot. These costume vigilantes always had a traumatic experience that led them to seek justice, Batman parents got killed in front of him , Spiderman he’s uncle died. And in the case of Batman his parent left him a fortune and yes I’m going to play into the whole Batman meme but as Bruce Wayne he could help Gotham in many more ways than he could as Batman.  But it is important to understand that these stories are meant to entertain the consumers but that does not mean they are above reproach. Batman has a choice, help Gotham the way many critics think he should, with he’s money but he does not, he does it by breaking criminals bones, and yes I know in some writer do make Bruce help the city in this way. My favorite Batman comic is the White Knight were it tackles these issues. He’s moral absolution is what drives his character but what happens when someones “good” it different from your “good”. And this is where watchmen comes in. A more grounded approach and some what nihilistic “superhero” story. Try to imagine superhero's in the real-world, it would be a lot reminiscent of the Boys universe or the Watchmen universe. And the power that comes with it, power can corrupt anyone, a teacher, a ceo, presidents the list goes on. And with being a superhero there comes a sense of supremacy with it, as Baron Zemo so eloquently said “the desire to become a superhuman cannot be separated from supremacist ideals”. And Alan Moore who I don’t always agree with spoke about this a lot when he critiques the superhero genre. He’s most damming critique came from calling D.W Griffiths movie Birth of a Nation the first superhero movie. Not a lot of people know what Birth of a Nation is about so here is quick summary, the Klan goes around saving white woman from being raped by the evil enemy the blacks. At face value this seems like a huge stretch to say this is the first superhero and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to entrain this idea but let’s just run with it. Black and White good and evil , hero vs villain, who is the hero in Birth of a Nation? who saves the woman form being raped? who wears masks and capes to hide their identities? who is the villain of story? Why do these hooded figures take up their mask and capes? in my opinion this a very distasteful comparison, we know what the Klan is, we know what they did. But all the tropes in Birth of a Nation are seen in all comic book stories just take the racisms out.

This is why Watchmen is a cult classic, as many superhero stories are nowadays aimed at a younger audience and paint their universes as black and white, people get tired with this formula. That doesn’t mean these stories don’t have value and can teach good lesson to kids, but that’s were it’s value ends. It’s for kids, some stories try to tackle more mature themes but their is an issue, the characters are meant to be seen as beacons of justice not as humans who are flawed. Watchmen has it’s story follow damaged individuals, Nite Owl is a mess in the graphic novel, he has a lot insecurities is scared for the pending nuclear doom. It’s implied that he took up crime fighting to help with his self-confidence not a heroic origin story. Many of the “hero's” in watchmen took up crime fighting  because of their insecurities and personally issues it isn’t some virtuous purist of justice. Some characters are lost without their masks Nite Owl being one. The HBO show has a lot different storylines that it wants to discuss. Towards the end of the show I found the whole white supremacist plot of brainwashing blacks to kill each other and having a Dr. Manhattan white supremacist's kind of goofey. It makes white supremacy this bogeyman forces in the show. By having people in the dark corners of society plotting against blacks is weird, their is no nuance to what racisms is and how our institutions are built around it. But I can't tell what the showrunners were trying to tell it’s audience, racisms is bad any decent human being knows that, when characters beat up racist's in a weird way they try to make it seems as they are doing bad things and I use that term very lightly. You can't expect an audience to feel sorry or try to connect with characters that are doing things most of use agree with, the beating up racist part. It’s not faithfully to the source material but is it still good? meh                  

[raven-m-3]

Hi nonny:

Thanks for reaching out! Yes, I’ve tackled this before on Twitter. Personally, I detest this take. I’ll briefly summarize my strong objections to it.

First of all: where did this (awful) take come from? Well, people certainly aren’t wrong to point out that JJ used visual inspiration from Nazi imagery when introducing the FO. The parallels are most striking during Hux’s speech.

In fact, many in the media have noted the similarities between Hux’s speech in TFA and Hitler’s speech in the 1935 Nazi propaganda film “Triumph of the Will.”

That said, arguing Ben and the FO are Nazis is wildly oversimplified / inaccurate (not to mention offensive to many Jewish fans). Why?

1.  In TFA, the visual “Hitler” isn’t Ben. It’s Hux.

Ben is absolutely separated here. Indeed, the TFA novel, script, and film all explicitly take care to show us that Ben doesn’t agree with the decision to destroy the Illeenium system.

TFA novel:

“I want the entire Illeenium system destroyed. Daring to disagree, Ren took a step forward. “No–Supreme Leader, I can get the map from the girl, and that will be the end of it. I just need your guidance.”

TFA script:

Snoke: Good. Then we will crush them once and for all. Prepare the weapon.

Kylo Ren is stunned by the moment -- that isn't what he meant at all --

Lastly, as you note, Ben’s absence during Hux’s speech is critical. Whereas we see other high-ranking members of the FO standing behind Hux, in a show of support, Ben is far removed.

There’s a solemnity to this shot that makes us wonder what’s running through his head in that moment. Shock? Despair? Guilt? Taken with the information above, I’d say all three.

Now, of course Ben isn’t blameless. He’s killed people. He’s part of an evil fascist regime (he thinks he’s in the right, but that’s besides the point). However, when it comes to the FO’s mass murder, Disney / LF took pains to show us that Ben’s finger was far from the trigger. Not only did he disagree, he dared to object.

2. This is the far more important objection. The Nazi analogy fails. Full stop.

I totally agree with those who call the FO fascist. Fascism is terrible, and fascist regimes have been responsible for many atrocities throughout history. But Nazism / Neo-Nazism is a very specific kind of fascism based on a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, xenophobic, nationalistic, white supremacist ideology.

Nazis / Neo-Nazis argue for the inferiority of specific marginalized groups (Jews, black people, LGTBQ++, etc.), and seek to subjugate and annihilate them.

The FO has no such agenda. There are no analogs of Mein Kampf being circulated. There are no steps towards ethnic cleansing / genocide. There is no evidence that they kill or target people on the basis of race, religion, etc.

(One might argue that the Empire had seeds of Nazism, since Order 66 exterminated the Jedi-- but recall from the prequels that the Jedi also sought to eliminate the Sith. And in the original trilogy, it’s clear that the officers of the Empire are not united by an anti-Jedi ideology. Their unifying agenda is to seize control, like the FO.)

To put it simply: Ben and other members of the FO are garden-variety fascists. Not Nazis.

If you ask me, it’s wildly insensitive to bring up a movement that continues to be a very real threat and source of pain for many people when discussing a fictional political regime that lacks the defining feature of said movement.

Contrast this with a comparison between Nazis and the fictional Death Eaters. Although the Death Eaters lacked the numbers and military might of the Nazis, the analogy succeeds because they did in fact espouse a racist ideology and enact a racist agenda.

For instance: their propaganda.  

Also consider the Muggle-Born Registration Commission, which evokes actual pieces of anti-Jewish legislation in 1930′s Germany.

See also the “Magic is Might” slogan, complete with offensive caricatures of Muggles.

Another clear Nazi analog is the fictional government in V for Vendetta. Their fascist regime is explicitly homophobic, racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim.

The First Order doesn’t have an inkling of this. It’s simply not there.

We can of course debate about JJ’s decision to use visual analogs of Nazism in TFA. I have to admit that the imagery is iconic in the worst of ways, so if his goal was to create a strong visceral reaction, he 100% accomplished it.

But calling the FO, or Ben, the space equivalent of Nazis or Neo-Nazis, is flat-out wrong-- not to mention appallingly insensitive. There’s a perfectly appropriate word to describe what they are: fascists. Learn the difference, antis.

Thanks for the ask, nonny!

[the-working-class-guide-to-films]

Jojo Rabbit

Who knew a film about Nazi’s could be funny? Well it can be. Taika Waititi writes and directs this film, based upon the book by Christine Leunens called Caging Skies. In true Waititi style, this is a satirical film where he himself plays Hitler. He is an imagination in Jojo’s mind, a 10 year old Nazi. Jojo joins a Hitler Youth group where they ‘learn’ all about Jews and why Hitler is the best. Jojo gets injured and has to stay at home, here he finds a Jew hiding in his attic, under the protection of Jojo’s mother. Jojo wants to report her but learns that his mother will be in trouble for hiding her so instead Jojo writes a book to learn all about Jews and their ‘evil’ ways. The longer he spends with the girl, the closer and friendlier he gets.

Jojo Rabbit is a really interesting film, there has been a lot of criticism about this, mainly for it’s tone and about how light-hearted the film is despite the themes within it. Some critics have argued that the film didn’t actually show the horrors that the Nazi’s inflicted. I don’t think we needed a Schindler’s List style film to show us this. In fact, if this was based in a concentration camp with Waititi’s style then yeah, that would be in bad taste. But this isn’t. It’s a satire that focuses on a 10 year old boy who is naive to the horrors that are happening. It humours Hitler without taking away the evil and by the end of it, Jojo tells him to fuck off and kicks him out of the window, banishing his once held beliefs. He’s 10 years old. I actually think Jojo Rabbit is an important film. Through Jojo and Elsa’s (the Jew girl hiding in the attic) friendship Jojo’s realises how wrong he is and how stupid it was to believe all the things he’s been brought up to believe. It shows how important education is. Without talking to a Jew, being in the presence of one he would’ve continued believing all the stereotypes, believing that they are the enemy. Without learning about minorities or religion we only take in what we have been told to take in. If I hadn’t have learned about The Troubles or Native Americans, I wouldn’t know that The British or Americans were the bad guys. It’s only once you find out something bad about countries that you’ve been taught are good you see a whole history of evil e.g The British Empire. The film shows how dangerous propaganda can be. Even today the public still believe everything they read and they act upon it. The media would make you think Boris Johnson was a saint and that Meghan Markle was Satan’s daughter the way they report on them, it’s further from the truth. I think a key bit in the film and it was only on screen was about 5 seconds long. Hitler was saying how they’re all in it together and then it cuts to Jojo and Hitler eating dinner. Jojo, stuck in a town with poverty through war is eating bread. Hitler, cozying it up, away from the danger is eating a whole pig. The elite say what the public want to hear without dealing with any repercussions. Just like the joke goes:

‘A banker, a worker, and an immigrant are sitting at a table with 20 cookies. 

‘The banker takes 19 cookies and warns the worker: “Watch out, the immigrant is going to take your cookie away.”’

I understand why people might get offended by it, or feel uneasy because it’s a horrible time in history and it might seem like it isn’t taking it seriously. I think it does but just by looking at it in another perspective. Also, I think it makes a difference that Taika Waititi himself is a Jew. Now if Mel Gibson had directed it, then I think the criticism would have a stronger case. Again, just like I said about Green Book, if you do disagree, want to add something, drop us a message.

Back to the film! I think there were a lot of great performances. Mostly from the kids. All three were great but for me, Jojo’s friend Yorki, played by Archie Yates (above), stole the show. He was fantastic. His delivery and acting was fantastic. Helped that he was adorable too. However the adult actors were good too. Scarlett Johansson was wonderful as Jojo’s mother. Sam Rockwell is always good fun and even though, again, there were criticisms about his character because he was a good Nazi. I don’t necessarily think he was being nice to Elsa, but knowing that if he told the truth it meant that Jojo and his mother would have died. And Waititi was a laugh as Hitler, nailing both his movements and characteristics but also just adding that comedy element we are so familiar with in his films. 

4/5 I really enjoyed Jojo Rabbit. It was a different story which was interesting. And even though it tackled some really serious and difficult themes with comedy, I think it still showed the horrors without taking away the realism of what happened.

[thesnadger]

To anyone who doesn't already know this: leaving a comment/sending a message to an artist saying you don’t like their work? Is rude.

Yes, even if you sincerely mean it. Yes, even if your tone is polite. Yes, even if you’re giving “constructive criticism.” Yes, it’s always rude. And I’m saying ‘artist’ but this applies to all creators, writers, vloggers, etc.

“But artists need to learn to take constructive criticism!” 

Sure, constructive criticism is helpful and often necessary if someone wants to improve. And there is a right and wrong time to offer constructive criticism.

Correct times to offer constructive criticism include:

When an artist posts something publicly asking for input

When an artist shows something privately to you/a group of people including you and asks for input

When you are in an art class with them and their art is up for comment

When you are in a critique group with them and their art is up for comment

When you are writing a review of their work 

When you are a close, personal friend, colleague or collaborator with them and you are both used to offering criticism on each other’s work

When they ask you for input in any other context

Incorrect times to offer constructive criticism include:

Honestly if it’s not on the list above it’s probably not the right time. Keep it to yourself

(That’s assuming your criticism is even constructive to begin with, I’ve seen so many people call “I don’t like the way you draw faces” “constructive criticism.” If you don’t know what differentiates constructive criticism from unhelpful criticism you probably aren’t able to offer it.)

“But they might see my criticism and improve their art because of it!”

Possibly. Probably not. You’re a random person on the internet and they have literally no reason to consider your opinion. 

Besides, if they’re interested in taking criticism it’s likely they’re already seeking it out. Either through a formal group, an informal group or just asking advice from their friends or colleagues. If that’s the case, there’s a good chance they’ll hear the same criticism you’re trying to offer from someone they trust. And if they’re not open to taking criticism, they’re definitely not going to listen to you.

The first rule of putting content on the internet is “don’t read the comments,” and while some people follow that rule more than others, it exists for a reason. 

“But I’m right! Their art is bad!”

Maybe it is. Guess what? If their art is bad, you’re still rude. Shouting “HEY UGLY” at someone on the street doesn’t become less rude if they aren’t aesthetically pleasing. 

“They’re the one who put their art out in public! If they can’t take a comment telling them their art is flawed they need to grow a thicker skin!”

Maybe. This isn’t about them, though. Whether your comment upsets them and spoils their whole day, or just causes them to roll their eyes and delete it doesn’t really affect whether it’s rude or not. You’re rude either way.

“So I can’t criticize people’s art!?? That’s not fair!!!"

You can criticize anyone’s art. You can tell your friends what you like and don’t like about it. You can write reviews and post them publicly. You can criticize it to the artist’s face if they ask for criticism. These are all non-rude ways to criticize art.

And you can still send an artist a message saying “hey your anatomy sucks and your linework is sloppy.” Just like you can send someone a message saying “hey you’re ugly and you smell bad.” It’s just rude to do these things so, you know. Only do them if you want to be a rude jerk.

"What if they’re drawing racist caricatures or swastikas!?? Can’t I tell them they should stop that!?”

This is really a different issue, isn’t it? Now we’re not talking about disliking someone’s art as a subjective opinion, but objecting to the actual material involved. This isn’t about art critique, it’s about objecting to hate speech.

I don’t especially think leaving a comment saying “stop drawing nazi propaganda” will make someone change their ways, but I’m certainly not bothered if you do.

On a more nuanced level: if you suspect an artist is unintentionally drawing people in a caricatured way, sending them a private message about it might actually be helpful. In this scenario, it would be useful to point out specific things they should change, or offer links to tutorials/references for drawing POC. (Here are a few I’ve personally collected: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

But again, that scenario isn’t really about art critique so much as pointing out when someone is being unintentionally racist. It’s not what I’m talking about here.

“Well I don’t care, I don’t care if it’s constructive criticism or not and I don’t care if it helps their art, I just want them to know what I think of their art even if all I’m doing is being rude to them!”

Okay. I can’t stop you from being rude on purpose. Just know that’s what you’re doing, being rude to someone for no particular reason.

[renardtrickster]

ThePedanticRomantic Rebuttal: If You Like Goblin Slayer, You’re Probably A Hypocrite Edgelord

OH BOY I SURE DO LOVE ME SOME goblin slayer discourse cute people ALL OF THOSE THINGS. And you’re only going to get two of those.

First of all, ThePedanticRomantic, in a super-brave move that nobody could have possibly predicted, accuses Goblin Slayer of being an allegory for racism/muh borders/antisemitism/buzzword halfway through the video. Congratulations, nobody has even spewed up that hairball. In a previous draft, I went over how it’s very unlikely that a Japanese work would use largely european imagery when nine times out of ten, “vaguely european” is all that settings like this get. But let’s go over how that innately doesn’t make sense for propaganda.

Let’s say the Redhats make a propaganda piece against the Bluejackets. The piece would most likely, despite being for Redhats, focus entirely on Bluejackets. How depraved they are, how they’re evil, what they do, what they believe in, with the Redhats being relegated to “wow we killed them and are heroic”. Or at least that’s what I would do if I made propaganda that’s a phrase I shouldn’t say. Either way, Goblin Slayer does not operate like this. The depravity of goblins is either stated in passing dialogue, or shown for a few minutes, making up 10% of the anime. The other 30% focuses on killing them, and the other 60% focuses on Goblin Slayer as a character and his relationships. That seems rather odd for a propaganda piece, to focus on interpersonal matters.

Furthermore, why it’s focusing on Goblin Slayer. This isn’t just “Wow, Kill The Rapists: the Anime”. It’s focusing on Goblin Slayer and his dynamic with his party. What a lifestyle of encountering brutal sadists on a daily basis does to a person. What treating them with the same hatred they show to everyone does to a person. How he’s so socially stunted and probably mentally unwell from this career, how all his friends are vaguely scared of him, scared for him, and how this is shaping his whole life and how it will end probably poorly. A propaganda piece does not do something like that, they would focus on how noble and rewarding it is, not show how grim, dirty, and devoid of reward of even a promise of accomplishment it is. The Goblins are not a plot element to show how “imagine this is a race and we should kill them”, they’re a Necessary Weasel for a character like Goblin Slayer to come into being, and how it develops him.

Additionally, the thought-provocation was NEVER “is it okay to genocide the Goblins?”, it was “is it okay for one man to try undertaking that quest?”. Priestess wasn’t shell-shocked over “wow he killed babies that could have been good”, she was horrified by the fact that, after watching her friends be slaughtered, violated, or BOTH by the Goblins, Goblin Slayer waltzed in and did something equally horrific, even though it was necessary. Think of it this way, the concept of killing babies is horrific, but it was entirely justified in this situation. Doesn’t stop it from being horrifying. That’s like a kid learning that superheroes should capture bad guys and put them in jail, being put into a hostage situation, and being saved by shooting the criminal. That was morally justified because the criminal put a child in danger, but fucked up because the child witnessed death, and learned that nonlethality isn’t always the go-to option.

The bigger issue I have with this video is the point Pedantic is making largely. That Goblin Slayer is JUST AS BAD as Sword Art Online when it comes to handling rape. The problem isn’t just “oh they both use rape to show Bad Guy, they’re exactly the same”, it’s HOW they use it. Let’s construct an example using everyone’s favourite punching bag: Nazis.

Film A is about Nazis in Nazi Germany. It is grim, it shows the evils of the Nazis in full colour, even though you already hated Nazis, you get re-affirmed because the film uses itself to convince you that these are the bad guys instead of “audience, you know what to feel”, and the evil of Nazism is treated for all it’s worth.

Film B is entirely suburban. It’s mostly lighthearted, focusing on the protagonist’s journey and their clashes with Dickhead. Dickhead is a dickhead, and is mostly a jerk, petty, or has motivations kind of like the protagonist, but for some negative end or one that clashes with the protagonist’s. Halfway through, or near the end of the film, Dickhead is revealed to be a full-on Nazis, with armbands, regalia, and all that implies. This wasn either foreshadowed very poorly, or not at all. The reveal that Dickhead is a Nazi is treated as more of “wow, that’s another thing I dislike about you” than anything very serious. The protagonist beats them up and goes on to finish their journey. In case you weren’t fully intimidated by Dickhead, there’s one scene of him saying or doing very generic Nazi stuff that gets the point across without actually doing anything. Heavy metal plays over this scene.

DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?!?!?! Goblin Slayer treats goblins with fear and loathing. Anytime a Goblin enters someone’s life, they are fucked up irreparably. Shield Maiden still has PTSD, Fighter quit adventuring outright. People die gruesomely and slowly! In Sword Art Online, it’s almost a joke! Death Gun reveals that he has a rape penchant for no reason other than to raise the stakes. Sugou tied Asuna up and fondled her and she not only barely reacted to it, but didn’t show any signs of that as soon as he stopped touching her! It’s superflous, provides nothing to the characterization, and is incredibly lazy. The author of Sword Art even admitted that it was unnecessary and he did it because he read light novels that had those exact plot elements tacked on. They are not comparable in this respect. That’s edgy.

Semi-Finally, PedanticRomantic has OBVIOUSLY only seen the first episode, maybe watched some reviews who also only saw the first episode, and wrote this entire dissertation. The Goblins don’t need to be deep, they’re a necessary weasel for Goblin Slayer as a character to exist. There aren’t moral quandaries, just notations that even though Goblin Slayer is doing an okay thing, it’s self-destructive. And while the premise is “guy kills goblins”, it actually focuses more on the characters and interpersonal relationships more! Of course it sounds edgy and hollow when you say that, you’re cutting out an entire 60% of the show! Berserk sounds edgy as fuck when you just relay “man with big sword fights demons and his rapist demon-king ex-friend” and completely omit that focus on Guts’ character, strong development, entire party of friends, and themes of inevitability, fate, and perseverance.

Also thank you for smugly ending off with “i thought it was cool but but then i STOPPED BEING AN IDIOT, if you still think it’s good, then okay”. I covered this in a different post, but it’s a humongous reflection on yourself.

I said “semi-final” up above, because Pedantic made an “apology video”.

Don’t bother clicking on that video. She doesn’t actually listen to any criticism or comments on her video which she disabled lmao, but blames it on the fact that the video was poorly scheduled, rushed, fans didn’t get the point she intended to make, and something something youtube algorithm. Where I come from, we call this clickbait. Get fucked.

Another video like this I would recommend is the one made by NECRO XIII. It takes a more MST3K take on the video, but gets across a lot of the points I made/liked.

[ghostmartyr]

Historia’s Position as a Queer Character

This is... not a post I thought I was going to write. This is also not the introduction it had when I first started typing, adding to my hesitance.

There’s a lot of bitterness to it I couldn’t remove while keeping the honesty I felt I needed. Also personal Feelings that, obviously, no one has time for (politeness really was attempted).

However, I wanted to talk about how Historia Reiss’ queerness should have an impact on how her portion of the story is being received. In doing that, I walk through a lot of personal frustrations that I do understand are personal, not universal, to get to some concerns with the story that I feel should be more widespread than they are.

...Y-yay?

On a strictly personal level, the progression of the Attack on Titan fandom has sucked for me. Which is entirely my problem, don’t get me wrong. Sometimes the way you like a thing is not the popular way to like a thing, and you’re just out of luck.

I got into it because two girls were in love.

...Yeah, that’s already a tell that it’s not going to be a pleasure cruise.

The girl I cared about wasn’t the more popular half of the ship, but they were acknowledged and loved (except for the every other week commentary about how the relationship was abusive or one-sided or [insert invalid complaint here]), and even recognized as an essential part of the story.

Several years later, everyone in that fandom is too angry to really be invested in the series at large. Everyone so pissed that half the gay ship is said to have been killed off-screen that if they are still involved in the fandom, it’s a bitter edge that keeps coming back.

While the half of the ship I love that I care about, the pretty blonde one, is in the center of pregnancy drama.

Again, this is a personal relationship with a fandom I have said, repeatedly, that I hate. Because I am a dramatic brat about some things. But I’ve come to notice, over and over again, how when someone nowadays shows interest in Historia, I immediately want to run away. I avoid everyone, of course, but there’s a special urgency when I see people expressing perfectly normal, honest interest in her character.

Because at this point, my association with the fandom’s image of Historia is that if you still care, you don’t care that her only canon love interest is female.

Is that fair? Proooobably not. Do I care? I probably should, and should probably do better, but my relationship with fandom at this point is destroyed beyond recovery for personal reasons of being emotionally irresponsible. This is just about me and my sad feelings. Followed by things that actually matter.

The thing that began my love for this character is a thing that I haven’t felt defines her fandom in years. Even when Ymir fans weren’t furious and gone, Historia was the tagalong member of the ship (every ship has this problem; one is always getting top billing over the other, and Ymir’s a butchy bad girl, so... you know).

What continues to frustrate me is that Historia is queer.

Canonically.

Her love interest is a girl.

Ship what you want.

I will continue to say that, and I will continue to mean that.

But certain things canon has done, and fandom’s reaction to those things, have been somewhat alienating for someone who really wants to enjoy her queerness.

Let me put, as plainly as I can, my complete frustration with this.

A canonically queer female character

in the aftermath of her female love interest being fed to Nazi analogues off-screen

is convinced to procreate with a man for the good of her people’s future.

Now I’ll take a breath for a second.

Because of how flagrantly offensive and infuriating I find all of the above, and because the author of this work in general has treated his characters’ internal characterization well, I do not often bring up how fucking fucked it is for this story to perhaps be going this route. I bring up how that numbered list doesn’t have to go through steps 2 and 3. I choose to have trust, and optimism, and not spend every single day I write about this manga on fury.

What that has come to mean is that I’m not spending a lot of time discussing how completely fucked up this is.

I will talk about how I think the writing going this route is badly set up. I will talk about how the perspectives of this route are in the wrong place. I will talk about how that suggests to me that things aren’t as bad as they seem.

Here’s the thing, though.

Here’s the thing that made me retreat to my cave.

As presented, it is bad.

I personally believe it’s a red herring in many respects. I believe the story is lying to us, because I believe there are holes in the writing the support it being intentionally misleading. I believe that the story has more going on than it’s willing to tell us at the moment.

That isn’t a popular fandom theory.

One popular theory is that the male protagonist impregnated our breathing, canonically queer character.

This will get sighs and eye-rolls from some people, impassioned theorizing from others, shrugs and we’ll sees from further others--but as someone who has done everything I possibly can to steer clear of anyone talking about this series besides myself, it’s still one I’ve seen.

So here. Let’s redo the list.

A canonically queer female character

after her female love interest is fed to Nazi analogues off-screen

pursues a sexual relationship with the male main character off-screen.

Writing, writing, writing. Hell, it feels like all I’ve done for the past year has involved shouting over my mental screams about writing.

That’s not the part of this series that gets me, though. And I don’t think that’s the part that turned a fandom space I used to love into one that’s at its most vocal when it’s dissing another ship instead of throwing praise on ours.

I can be a relatively neutral audience member. I can be someone who wants to be told a good story. I can be that, and only that, and let the repressed emotions of everything else eat away at me. I don’t want to let the emotional side show on the internet, because that’s only going to be used to eat me alive. I don’t want to get into the heart of what really pisses everyone who cares about this off.

I don’t want to talk about this stuff.

This stuff I keep putting numbers in front of like it will protect me from all the angry messages this is going to get.

I have not, and still don’t, have the nerve required to look at the vast space this fandom still covers, point to Historia’s arc, and say that any critical discussion of what’s happening to her that doesn’t bring up her queerness is fundamentally failing to appreciate the magnitude of wrongness in her arc.

I am not a person who knows how to stand my ground on that.

I believe too much in people taking from fiction different things, and absorbing it different ways. I’m too insecure to ever strongly believe that my way of looking at things could ever be the Right way.

So I outside of a few barbed posts, I’ve kept my mouth shut on the social ramifications of this arc. What’s the point? What’s the point in getting a bunch of angry posts and people yelling at me? What’s the point in inviting that into my life?

What is the point of getting into this?

Everyone in this fandom is familiar with the many popular posts from outside the fandom that paint our series as Nazi propaganda. They are familiar with the concern the Korean fandom has about certain language. They are familiar with the concern the Jewish members of the fandom have about how certain things are being handled.

They are familiar with the concept that certain things touch the real world, and they should be handled with care.

Unless it has to do with queer people.

We can understand wars between countries leaving certain topics taboo. We can understand using the shorthand of an atrocity everyone recognizes might step on people’s toes.

We might not agree with the intensity of the feelings the manga’s content generates, but in general, we get it. The world is a big place, and these are big topics, and big topics are going to have in them a lot of hurt that is more personal than perhaps the story intends.

War and genocide are not easy things to bring up in any medium.

Stories do them, though. This story is doing that. Not delicately, in some regards, but it is endeavoring to have a discussion of all this horror in its plot.

Now here’s the one piece that I, personally, have needed to be acknowledged.

Historia Reiss is of royal blood.

As a story figure, many people took it for granted that she would one day be forced to bear an heir. That’s just what royals do, personal taste aside.

That’s a whole... separate thing I don’t want to get into, but that was always the casually accepted idea. The kinkmeme probably had multiple prompts for just that floating around. We’re fandom. It’s what we do.

But here we go.

Historia is queer.

A queer female character is coerced into having a child for the future of her people.

I don’t care where under the queer umbrella you headcanon her. It doesn’t much matter. Queer is queer is fucking queer.

In every gayngsty story you’ve ever read, probably, the idea of children has come up. The idea of being normal, having a normal family, procreating. Gay men marrying women and having children isn’t a strange story even a little. It’s even encouraged; if you can hide who you are well enough, you can still fit into society.

Societal obligation forcing you into a relationship you do not personally want is a story that resonates very deeply with queer experiences.

A canonically queer character is being put through this storyline.

It is a queer storyline.

Maybe the narrative won’t be woke enough to notice that. I don’t know. Many things are up in the air surrounding this particular piece of the plot.

Historia is a queer character, and given the larger view of her plot by the general fandom, she is a queer character who has been coerced into pregnancy. That is the story most of the fandom is interacting with.

Being critical of problematic material means something different than it used to. Tumblr has made everyone rather twitchy about how harsh to be about media. You don’t want to agree with the people losing their temper at every little thing, so you chill out and maybe let things slide and maybe just focus on the things you can speak good words about.

I’ve personally done a lot of twitchy, ranty posts about the topic that mostly end with me saying that I’m done with the manga emotionally if it’s doing this, and etc.

But here is a plot thread that I think it’s very worthy to be critical of.

If Eren being the father is considered a legitimate theory, the writer creating a story where the only breathing female queer character fucks the main male character after her female love interest dies off-screen is a legitimate thing to criticize.

Being less specifically mean about that, let’s just roll back to the initial thing.

Queer female character’s love interest commits suicide and gives the Nazi analogues a new weapon. In the aftermath, breathing queer female character is coerced into bearing a child.

Forget what I think about writing quality.

As a queer member of the audience, I get to be pissed.

It is an enraging storyline as it’s provided.

Even if you drop the coercion, we get to talk about how of two queer female characters, it’s the one who makes good breeding stock that gets to survive and prove it. Which is another queer tale as old as time: you only get to live if you can go back to fucking guys.

I always talk about the writing.

Most posts I’ve accidentally seen talking about this in the past year have been about the writing. The story. How different the many shades of tragic shine. Everyone wants to talk about the story. This is escapism, not reality.

Then shreds of reality make their way through to decorate the background.

The big ones get mentioned.

The one where a queer girl is made to get pregnant for the good of society continuing the way it always has been?

As far as I know, the only people angry about that have been too angry to say it.

And it’s frustrating.

I don’t care if you want Historia to be bi or pan or some queer identity that leaves room for her to enjoy a relationship with a man. She is still queer, and being personally amenable to multiple sexes of partners doesn’t change the fact that society is constantly pushing for the straight option. That loss of choice because society doesn’t want to hear about the parts of you that don’t fit its idea of normal is a universal queer experience.

This part of the story has writing problems.

It is also a queer story, worth being considered through a queer lens.

I would like the manga to realize that. I hope it does.

What killed me after 107 came out was that the parts of fandom I saw didn’t.

So then, you know. I stopped talking to everyone and locked myself as deep within my corner as I could, never to step out and even try to explain myself. Because that would make it all better.

Okay. One last thing before I go.

The last time I brushed close to this, I got some responses I couldn’t deal with. I’m fragile. I can’t deal with most things. I’m aware that people hated me before I made this post, and more will hate me after. Because internet.

There’s a decent chance I might ignore responses to this. Too much of it has been boiling away in my head to have a graceful release valve, and there’s honestly a limit to how much I trust myself with things I believe should be handled with care. This was my best attempt at making myself heard on this point. I’m sure it falls short. In the future, I might be able to do better.

But even though, yes, internet, I still want to say that this isn’t written with the intent of winning any arguments. Just with the intent of making a pain I don’t think has been well represented in this fandom a little more heard.

Though I’m sure it’s not perfect (and likely unfairly bitter and paranoid in places), I hope it managed a piece of that.

[happymetalgirl]

Neckbeard Deathcamp - So Much for the Tolerant Left

After making waves last year with their wonderfully disrespectful parody of NSBM on White Nationalism Is for Basement Dwelling Losers, Neckbeard Deathcamp have quickly returned with another offering of neo-Nazi mockery. Since making waves online with the relative explosion of their debut album, Neckbeard Deathcamp have become much more well-known for their loud online presence than anything else relating to their music, which is fine.

When I talked about their breakout album last year, I mentioned how its valid artistic and comedic value stemmed from its very shittiness, an intentional characteristic of its mockery of the pathetic lo-fi production and terrible writing within the NSBM scene. Naturally, it's not the kind of album you return to after enjoying the context-based (and indeed valid) comedy of it all. So it's no wonder really that they're back already, and while there have definitely been improvements on the musical front to show that this band can actually make a cohesive modern black metal album, the band kind of ends up repeating their original joke in a much less fitting package. I don't know if the band have printed lyrics at all for this album, but being that it's certainly not musically enjoyable enough for me to buy a physical copy in the hopes of finding more hilarious narrations and being that they haven't included lyrics on their Bandcamp page, the main source of their debut album's hilarity is lost on this one, which is left only with titles in the same vein as those on the debut.

The album's cover donning the debut's recognized Nazi eagle emblem made out of dicks above Richard Spencer getting a wedgie implies the same confident jeering at the alt-right that the debut had, but this album is not any more confrontational in context (and probably less so in content) than the band's debut. And while snickering song titles and cheeky album art seem to suggest the band are content to continue making fun of the stupidity of white nationalism, the comedic fun really stops right there both in content and context.

The improved listenability of this album has me conflicted. On one hand, I actually wouldn't mind replaying this thing in the future; it actually has some of the harsh, satisfying qualities in the forms that make black metal appealing. Songs like "Shitpostnacht" and "Operation Neet" actually carry some decent, down-tuned, lo-fi blackened sludge riffage, while the closing track and the 10-minute "Horseshoe Theory" seem to take cues from Primitive Man's approach to harsh industrial noise, and the result is actually not too bad, nothing special, but certainly not as shitty as the purposely muffled and grainy debut. On the other hand, the NSBM spoofing aspect of the album is reduced to the occasional samples of neo-Nazi propaganda that pop up, effectively removing the purpose of the musical aspect of this whole project.

But Neckbeard Deathcamp wasn't really even about the listening to the intentionally horrendous music in the first place. It's been more about the surrounding discussion and the thrill of triggering sensitive neo-Nazis online and participating in the most vivacious expression of contempt for that group.Being that this is a music blog and I'm by no means any kind of expert on the best way to combat fascist ideology within metal or in the grander scheme of things, I didn't want to talk about the cesspool of political discourse on Twitter, but being that this band's identity and aesthetic is tied so closely to it (even if their music is not), I feel I have to at least briefly address that.

Conservatives and progressive activists alike have long lambasted, rolled their eyes at, and become frustrated over the recent trends of how the politically uninformed and uninvested co-opt the language of progressive activism into hollow, feel-good platitudes of pop feminism for the sake of clout through that dreaded act of v i r t u e s i g n a l l i n g. And the actual valid importance of virtue signalling in certain contexts is its own messy discussion, which I'm not going to suck up more of this music review with. But as aggravating as clout-chasing fake-wokeness is, the similar practice on the more radical side of the political spectrum, in its own way, is similarly problematic. On the more aggressively confrontational sliver of the broad anti-fascist position, the boisterous expression intolerance for fascism and its proponents under the guise of justified lack of civility is as much of a disingenuously motivated performance as what happens in the clout-chasing middle of the political spectrum. At least that's what it seems to be from what I have consistently seen on the anti-fascist metal Twitter sphere that Neckbeard Deathcamp participates in and has now based their identity upon. And Neckbeard Deathcamp are honestly not even the most egregious offenders in that bubble, but they do participate in and perpetuate it, and it is something that needs to be talked about but seems to be rather suppressed. And just to be clear so that no one from that circle gets as quickly upset as the sensitive Nazis on the other side, it's not that fascism isn't a reprehensible ideology or that neo-Nazis deserve to feel as comfortable sharing their ideas as we do; it's because the indulgence in the catharsis of vehemently vilifying the, indeed, justifiably condemnable evil of fascism seems to be done so lazily and aimed so irresponsibly that it comes across as self-serving and counterproductive. Rather than proclaiming baseless platitudes about girl power for woke pop feminist clout or publicly shaming borderline offences for the sake of self-righteous elation, the more radical version of these practices finds publicly committed antifascists chasing the same kinds of validation through ostentatious expressions of basic, widely appealing condemnation of fascism (like the feigned valor of the "Nazis are not welcome here" proclamation, as if it's really all that bold or controversial of a stance or as if Nazis these days are even overt enough to be deterred by that kind of blanket-statement-ass lip service). But then there's also the poor aim and irresponsible invocation of infighting when criticism of mishandling of aggression or advocacy for violence arises from other progressives, during which expressive and careless antifascists tend to deflect from justified questioning to the suggestion that criticism of their methods is compliance with, if not indicative of direct support of, fascism. It usually comes with the suggestion that the forsaking of civil discussion is justified because of how dangerous fascist ideology is and how critical it is to stamp it out. ("What kind of person is against punching Nazis?") It's the stereotypical cop-out of calling everyone against you a Nazi that the political right wing has run wild with. And, again, it's not that Nazis should feel their worldview is valid and accepted in society. The problem with mislableing and then lashing out when the mislabeled defend themselves is that it looks ridiculously unreasoned from the outside (which it often is) and pushes away those quieter, less politically invested people on the fence away when they see it or experience it. I get that fascists these days are cryptic with their fringe status (which I certainly like to look at optimistically as one positive sign of the times among the many other dismal ones). But of course fascists will resort to these methods when the fully evolved from of their worldview is so universally detested. And if fascists will adapt their game plan to resist the one-dimensional attack of antifa shrieking, which they will if they haven't completely already, anti-fascist activism and those who represent it like Neckbeard Deathcamp like need to adapt to combatting the more covert spread of fascism as well. Good god, I thought this was an album review, about an album, of music./10

[idlnmclean]

In which someone doesn’t actually read what was written.

Me: “This nowadays tendency of putting on the author the responsibility of teaching their readers morality.”

Bullshit. Ever hear about the Hays Code or the Comic Code? Before the advent of the commonly published graphic comics and the movie there were all manners of normative structures mandating that the primary function of publication was teaching people about what is right and what is wrong.

This goes back a long time in all classical cultures. It isn’t “nowadays” as if there were a mythical golden era of before.

Authors are allowed to write whatever the fuck. But whatever you write has consequences. Maybe you write something interesting with a lot of care that has great social value and happens to be about child abusing serial murders. Chances are that if your primary product is indistinguishable from political propaganda for Nazis and child abusers that you are indistinguishable from a Nazi and child abuser apologist.

Being the author for a thing does not make you immune to criticism for your authorial choices and does not bar people from opposing the publication of your work particularly in an environment where such work constitutes a kind of political propaganda to normalize violence and oppression.

Whatever you create is never truly independent of you. Narrator is not strictly identical to the author, but they may be similar enough that for general arguments the difference can be neglected without loss of precision.

You get free speech. That does not mean freedom from social consequence. In situations of injustice such as colonial, imperial, patriarchal, or capitalist politics choosing a neutral point of view as a creator is siding with the abuser. If you as an author choose to not teach ethics or morality or consider such things real world implications then you have made a choice which is reflected in your artifacts.

Language matters. Representation matters. Political apathy is not commendable.

Them: I literally stopped after you cited the Hays Code and Comics Code as “mandating that the primary function of publication is teaching people what is right and what is wrong.” Because if that’s the case, you must think that gay people, interracial marriages, adults drinking alcohol, and married couples sleeping in the same bed are wrong. Let’s be real clear here: the Hays Code was both ridiculous and unconstitutional and the Comics Code was a parody of itself, and both of them made queers invisible unless they were suffering for their queerness. It was literally a rule, because homosexuality was “perverse”. Under the Hays Code:

`Crime (again, including BEING OPENLY GAY) must have consequences shown on-screen. You couldn’t be gay without punishment for your gay. The “correct standards of life” must be upheld. Guess what? NO OVERT GAY, because that wasn’t correct. No interracial marriages. Both of those items were directly and explicitly banned as “perverse.” Anything that didn’t fit the sanitized version of life could not be shown. Also, directors shied away from depiction of poverty, or anything that the ruling class didn’t think was ‘correct standards of life,’ because showing people living in poverty could be construed as not showing people ‘living to proper standards.’ No nudity or sexual activity even between consenting adults. The Hays Code is why married adults on sitcoms had separate twin beds. This also included pregnancy and childbirth, as those were the ‘results’ of sex. To prevent love scenes from being considered sexual, a woman had to be shown with one foot on the floor. Adults could not drink alcohol unless it directly was related to plot. Religion could never be ‘depicted in a mocking manner,’ which led to some editorial changes. For example, 1940′s Pride and Prejudice? Mr. Collins was a librarian. 1948′s Three Musketeers had Prime Minister Richeleu. To avoid being accused of ‘mocking’ religion, studios removed religion altogether. And, of course, the sanctity of marriage had to be upheld. You know. Marriage between one cisgender heterosexual man and one cisgender heterosexual woman. That marriage. `

The CCA was so ridiculous that it wouldn’t approve a comic written by Stan Lee called ‘Green Goblin Reborn’ which was explicitly recommended by the US Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, because it depicted a character’s drug use in an extremely negative light and had an extremely anti-drug message. The CCA wouldn’t approve the comic because it showed drug use at all. Comics couldn’t even have positive messages or show characters overcoming or recovering from negative paths they were on because those negative paths couldn’t be shown in the first place. And of course they had all the same issues as above. It’s also worth noting that the United States Supreme Court began neutering the Hays code 14 years after its inception, and in 1965 it ruled that the Hays Code could only approve a film, it could not ban one, because that was an infringement on the First Amendment. This is how we got – wait for it, wait for it! – a ratings system instead of content bans! Jack Valenti was elected to the head of the MPAA in 1966 with the specific promise to move from bans and codes to ratings. So, if your point was ‘this already existed and it was good!’ actually, uh, those things already existed, and they failed, and it bears repeating that attempts to bar films from being shown without Hays Code approval were explicitly declared unconstitutional, and were replaced by ratings systems and content warnings. I don’t give one good goddamn about shipping wars on Tumblr, but for fuck’s sake, at least take three hot seconds to Google the history you’re citing and see if what you’re holding up as some standard that supposedly “established blah blah movies should only teach us morality” did something other than

`fail miserably lead to a bunch of ridiculous workarounds and euphemisms and Melanie in Gone With The Wind giving birth like she’s some shadow creature about to stab Renly Baratheon disproportionately affect LGBTQ/queer people, POC, and other marginalizations get declared unconstitutional (because, as it turns out, making a big board of people who decide what can get published does in fact violate the First Amendment) make such a parody of itself that comics companies stopped giving a fuck and released comics without the Comics Code approval. Like, seriously, this isn’t difficult history. You could Google it. Literally the only film critic these days who actually supports the Hays Code is Michael fucking Medved. You know, the guy who says that all non-Orthodox Jews vote primarily based on their hatred of Christianity? The one who’s super great buds with Daniel Lapin? The one who wrote “Six Inconvenient Truths About The US and Slavery”? That’s the only film critic still around who thinks that the Hays Code was ever a good idea. That’s who you’re aligning yourself with by pointing to the Hays Code and going “see? The Hays Code! ‘mandating that the primary function of publication is teaching people what is right and what is wrong.’” That is literally the only film critic I could find who agrees with you. Someone who thinks that the United States didn’t prosper because of slavery and that the concept that slavery is what built the US a lie, who champions himself as a former delusional leftist turned ‘conservative champion.’ That’s your buddy. That’s your pal in morality, methods, and rightness. Jesus fuck, read a little history. I’m so exhausted.

The person that is responding to commentary fixates on arguing something that to me is unnecessary. We are in gross agreement on the nature and history of the Hays and Comic codes. They didn’t read my commentary and did not actually comprehend the nuance of what I wrote.

To make it explicit: the Hays Code and the Comic Code were bad, and there was a political uprising that took up most of the 20th century to peel them back.

‘this already existed and it was good!’ is the exact wrong interpretation of what I wrote.

A bunch of authors got together and deliberately wrote in political stances and created representation in defiance of the Hays Code and the Comic Code. They wrote both fiction and non-fiction lobbying against those codes.

Much of the explanation above is useful for those who are not familiar with those codes and their histories, but they are irrelevant to the point I was making which was that things like them are not new.

Authoritarians do and absolutely will take unambiguous political stances with respect to media that they either outright create or which they malappropriate and decontextualize.

To be explicit about the relevance of the Hays code and the Comic Code to the specific things being argued here: authors political opposed those codes with their work and in doing so argued effectively about morality and ethics.

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby’s great contributions to the world of comics was in teaching readers around the world what was right and what was wrong.

A bunch of the examples in the OP, like Lolita to cite one, are written by authors who arguably had good intentions in their writing but none the less contributed works that have lasting and damaging legacies.

What we write has consequences. Some consequences are good and desirable. Some consequences are bad or undesirable. Write in opposition to laissez-faire authorship in times of rising fascism, and you may find yourself blocked by people who might otherwise be well meaning.

Sometimes writing a dystopian depiction of society in sufficient detail is irresponsible especially when the author try to “let the work speak for itself” rather than outright condemn the people and circumstances that create the dystopia. The representation may be used as a blueprint for implementing that dystopian society, and it can be demonstrated for a wide variety of cases that is exactly what has happened.

Much of the advice of the thread is perfectly fine with good faith politics and good faith authorship among trustworthy and responsible communities of readers and activists. However, my view comes specifically from watching the underworlds of authorship where bad faith abounds.

An awful lot of things which are written as fiction are no such thing. They are either retellings of real world abuses in coded terminology shared among abuse cultures or they are de facto manifestos of political ideologies for covert organization by abuse cultures.

There is a reason why rape, incest, and abuse narratives are so prevalent in erotic and pornographic media development communities particularly those adjacent to the neo-technocrats.

it is important that authors never lose sight of the world and history from which they emerge and within which they exist. It is important that we teach each other about this world and about these histories.

[secretsofthemasquerade]

What the fuck is happening with V5, neonazis, and shits.

So, first, terminology. Everything I am going to be talking about here concerns the company White Wolf Publishing, which is the Swedish company created by Paradox Interactive for when they bought back the IP from CCP. 

This DOES NOT include Onyx Path (with whom I have grievances, but they are mostly a question of taste and some of their business practices I am somewhat disapprove of, but this has nothing to do with them), and their classical authors, whom have nothing to do in the thing. So don’t go about telling Richard Thomas he’s a Nazi asshole okay? They’re clean in this matter and their statement is genuine and honest, and their statement matches their actions and publications. This also does not involve By Night Studios. 

Basically, White Wolf Publishing (new version, the one in Sweden, owned by Paradox) has released a preview for V5 (corebook, which is due in three weeks), and they presented neo-nazis in a way that is controversial to say the least, in the clanspread Brujah for V5, which is in their V5 preview.

Some see it as "wwp trying to make neo nazis play their game", some are saying "lol sjw are being sensitive and ruining everything", some are saying "it's ok to explore dark themes but this is poorly worded and looks like they're glorifying it", and some are all censorship and stuff. 

The spectrum of answers are very wide, with assholes on both sides, and death threats being sent to everyone by everyone. Including OPP people who are completely out of the loop on this one (altho some may argue that since they’re licensing the IP from WWP that makes them a level of complicit/quiet acceptance; that argument can be heard, but I am pragmatic and I understand they don’t want their company and their livelihood to sink into oblivion because Ethics are superior to Food)

Here’s the catch. People aren’t pissed just about the Brujah issue, that places neo-nazis at the same level as any other character concept and definition of the Brujah, without an ounce of self awareness, and using terminologies that clearly appeal to gamer gaters (the use of terms such as “fourth wave feminists” and others...). They’re pissed and worried because this isn’t the first WWP offense, they have multiple times allowed themselves to poke towards such people, more or less willingly. 

There's been plenty of other signs by the WWP crew that they may be integrating alt-right and neo nazi elements in their games, not because they are saying they're a thing, but also somewhat inserting (willingly or not) some propaganda elements, not as a way to criticize them, but normalizing them or even misrepresenting them as "rebels with a cause" (aka Brujah, which makes little sense nowadays, current day neo nazis and alt rights are in positions of power and are very much accepted if not encouraged by our political systems, much to my screaming French ass). 

They somewhat normalize and even glorify them. Despite being a game about monsters (lol u know what vamps are?? have said many people on those threads), it isn’t a game about BEING a monster. It is a game about Dealing with It and their Humanity. 

WWP says it's to "acknowledge the state of the world today" but other elements such as dog whistle elements for neonazis, as well as the use of hate groups types of phrasings (euphemisms, like, clearly derogating terms like "fourth wave feminism" mocking tone like) are pushing non-straight non-white, non-male players out of their base. And oddly, almost everyone defending their edge-approach are.. yes, regular white dudes.

Add in their hiring of Zak S for their video game from February 2017 and the overall lack of research, + their apology / non apology / defense about all of these issues altogether up to now about the whole ordeal when people bring out the issues, and you've got a massive shitstorm of suspicion about whether they are actually openly welcoming neo-nazis and alt-righters into the games, especially when public comments made by WWP staff implies "they are very fine people” and “both extremes are horrible”, putting into equal footing antifascists and neonazis. That in and out of itself is suspicious, but arguable to some degree. Plenty of comments have been made both by the horrid fanbase, but also by WWP staff on the matter, as such they cannot really deny their hands being dirty (looking at you, MR-H and Ericsson, receipts are provided all over reddit and the FB threads from WWP but also from the VtM groups, including this one).

Just because they state they condemn racism, sexism and xenophobia, doesn’t mean that their writings and actions match those statements. They still sign “Blood and Souls,” their letters and posts, which is ODDLY similar to “Blood and Soil”, a known Neo-Nazi chant. The integration of 1 4 8 8 as a dice roll result may be completely meaningless and a sad occurrence, but there are SO MANY other occurrences that giving them the benefit of the doubt is hard. Especially when you add the fact that the lead dev has written books about nazis (so has done research, and when you research, 1488 comes up easily). 

I’m always willing to blame ignorance and stupidity over Malice, and I am doing it for V5 write-ups, but their apologies and defense instead of listening to our concerns takes away their credibility. Their reaction should have been to listen and fix it.

In Game, there is also a BIG BIG PROBLEM that the authors didn’t even research. The Alt Right and neonazis are NOT in a marginal position of protesters anymore. They are in power. They are very much allowed, encouraged, protected by the system, at least in most Western Societies. They are no Brujah hunting ground, they are great Ventrue targets! 

There’s a difference between allowing the themes be used and explored very darkly and grimly and glorifying them as a good thing (the little red book or Leni Riefenstahl’s movies), and doing the same but with careful research, expert consulting and making sure your intent is clear as a content creator (like the Handmaiden’s tale or 1984). You can’t objectively say that Wolfenstein is a game that approves of nazis despite being all about nazis, nor Far Cry 5 about wtf is going on in Far Cry 5, or that Just Cause approves of American Intervention in island nations or Latin American countries, or that Tropico approves of banana island dictatorships. Cartel Ciudad Juarez or many modern warfare games, on the other hand, do not manage this and are clearly not aware of what their game is saying (not unlike a RPG like Fatal... :p).

Then the article archived and linked above was made and shared, and that’s where all shit hit the fan. I do not believe the author is fully right about everything in the contents, especially when it comes to Zak S (who is an asshole by all means, but he is neither a gamer gater nor an alt righter), but there are solid elements that put together some of the various “uh” moments. The article has since been removed due to the harassment, death threats and worse. 

Oddly, Reddit is doing okay (x, x) but Twitter has also given us frowny things about upcoming W5...

Do I think they are openly and willingly trying to pull one past us? No. Do I think the WoD has brought in lots of neonazis as players and has been a problem since the 1990s? Yes, for Vampire and Werewolf for sure. (Werewolf in particular is plagued with them despite the Revised attempts at fixing certain things...). Do I believe the 20th anniversary edition were made to glorify those days? No. Not at all. Do I think Ericsson and co are neonazis? No. They’re not. Do I think WWP is trying to be edgy to cater to anti-sjw and unapologetic show offs? Yes. Do I think WWP wants to openly cater to neonazis? No, but they’re not doing anything to make a stance against them buying and using their games. If their idea of Mature Themes is punching down and glorifying monsters, they are wrong and we should let them know. If a mature theme is exploring the dark sides of the world in a thoughtful manner, having Horror as a key component of VTM, then yes, that is what we want, but it has to be presented properly and fine-tuned. Right now, it’s “oh, wouldn’t it be cool/grim if...?”. They need to consult experts. They need to hire sociologists. Psychologists. Game Theorists. They need to SEE what Chaosium has done with Call of Cthulhu. They need to 

I’m just also going to say that the two FB WWP threads are insane (here and here), full of fanboys and fangirls defending WWP and telling them they shouldn’t apologize, they even made a petition saying they did nothing wrong. I do not want to give up, and I do not want to let my voice be silenced by these assholes for a game I love and care about even if I am such a critic of it.

Let me be very clear. The problem is -not- the inclusion of asshole character concepts in the write up, it is the WoD after all... The problem is that they are presenting them under a good, acceptable, apologetic light even. The problem isn’t exactly the content of the game, the problem is how little research and how little awareness they’ve had about their publication, and the responses that they have given when we have raised questions and concerns about these issues. The problem is Accidental Indoctrination. The problem is Propaganda Games. What are your mechanics saying? What are your actions saying? What is your game saying?

https://youtu.be/4jKsj345Jjw

https://youtu.be/UP4_bMhZ4gA

(Yes they’re video games but it’s he same thing)

And in opposition, extra credits did also an episode about the Shoah book for Wraith. https://youtu.be/EDEgXUqHL9Q

So, do we want great quality mature content, serious gaming material, or shock for shock value? Do we want This War of Mine, Papers Please, Dead of Winter, CupidVN, Spec Ops the Line, Bury Me My Love? Or do we want Hatred, DARK, WoD Preludes, Ciudad Juarez or even Dante’s inferno?

Games Matter.

Education Matters

We matter.

Tyvm

If you have any questions, they’re going to do an AMA on Twitch on July 13, here’s the info.

Let’s try and be numerous to voice our concerns. EDIT: Blood and Souls actually references Elric, it was my bad and I apologize for it, but you’ll understand that sometimes, when it sounds and moves like a horse, it’s hard to see it’s a zebra. Especially considering all past elements from the different eyebrow raising worth of edge for edge’s sake.

I still do not believe they’re deliberately calling neo-nazis but considering their AMA’s comments of people who just don’t want to be respectful and do basic research when treating mature content in an adult way, and be like “hell no, DARK STUFF, don’t steal my dark stuff!”, there’s honestly all the proof we need that that’s the kind of crowd they’ve accepted was using their games as entertainment. Jason’s answers were clear, and did not bite the whole “but what about antifaaaa”. I’m cautiously optimistic, and I’ve chosen, like many others, to keep publishing in the Vault to show them we can do better, and that it’s in the community’s best interest they listen.

They also confirmed Mark Rein Hagen was just a “consultant” and isn’t part of the team in anyway ;)

[natalie-hemstock-project-one]

Critical And Contextual Awareness

Your second project is based off the theme of identity. Your first task is to initiate some research to inform your critical and contextual awareness.

Identity? Identity is where have different types of identity for different things, such as: social identity, ethnoliguistic (language) identity, ethnic identity, cultural identity, LGTBQ+ identity, gender identity and human identity.

How do artists and photographers often explore the characteristics that determine our personal and social identity? Artists and photographers explore identity into their work by including the different aspects that make up those different types of identity and then it is up to the viewer to decide what identity the artist or the viewer is trying to put across; such as social or personal identity. With that, once the viewer has picked out the certain characteristics of the two different identities they then can make the judgment on whether its social or personal.

What is personal identity? Personal identity is something that develops over time as a person grows and learns more about the world. Alongside that, as the person grows that person also keeps the identity they have grown into; as they may have been given that identity when they were born (like their name; which in some cases may change if that person no longer thinks that name fits who that person is anymore, or their eye colour) and things that they grow into (like the TV shows they watch, the music they listen to or the people they talk to) all of these; and many other things, all add up to make someone’s personal identity.

How do identify yourself culturally?  I identify myself as a non religious, socially awkward, white British female.

What situations would you need to prove your legal identity? The situations that you would need to prove yourself is when you are buying alcohol and you don’t look over the age of 18; so the cashier knows that you are legally allowed to buy the alcohol., when you are catching a flight and you have to go through security; so the guards know who you are and not somebody trying to sneak in without a ticket, when you are at the hospital; so the doctors and nurses can see your medical history and update it or when you are at a hotel that you have booked; so that the receptionist can put you through to the correct room.

Research Task

Claude Cahun:

Composition

1. Identify and describe relevant Formal Elements (Line, shape, form, texture, colour, light etc.) 

This photographer; Clade Cahun, used diagonal lines on the hat of the subject that lead the eyes all over the subject’s head; so the viewer is left wondering if the subject has much hair under the hat or is it just part of the costume. Also, in this photograph there is the rule of three with three small balls on the coming off the subject’s hat, leading the viewer down to the rest of the photograph. Alongside that, there is also the use of contrast as the photograph is in black and white; which helps the subject to stand out more.

Meaning

1. What is the image communicating?

The photograph is communicating the fact that there are people out there who hated the all of the thongs that the subject was doing and the subject is expressing through their face that they have had enough of the sort of things that the haters are doing to the subject and others like them, but the subject and others like the subject are going to try to carry on resisting all of the things that the opposes are doing to them.

2. What ideas/issues are being explored or expressed?

The ideas/issues that are being explored and expressed are the facts that the subject is not happy with what is happening in the world because they may be being told that they want an equal society; but then they are being oppressed because they are different from everybody else, since they like doing other things and want society to move forward and except new things so other people like the subject can know that they are excepted in society. However, because of the time and who was in power at the time, the things that the subject wants to change isn’t going to happen anytime soon because they wanted to keep things in the ‘traditional’ way of life.

Context

1. What made the work important?

The subject’s face makes this photograph work importantly, because you can see all the annoyance in the subject’s face about everything that is going on with what type of society the subject is in.

2. What makes it different?

The outfit and the makeup make’s this photograph different because in modern day society you don’t see that type of style anymore because the times have changed; along with people’s dress sense.

3. What was going on in the world at the time? World events/society/politics (Keep it relevant)

During 1934; which is when the photograph was taken, there was a lot of hate towards people in Cabaret Clubs; as this was before the Second World War (1939-1945), and in Germany 1934 Hitler was in power and wanted a more ‘traditional’ right winged way of life because he and others who were similar to him in a way believed that this Cabaret Club way of life was unnatural. So, he closed down and un-legalized this way of life after he got into power in 1933 in hopes to discourage people altogether from moving forward and have the times changed. Once Hitler had closed down the Clubs in Germany other right winged governments may have thought that it was a good a idea to follow him down that route. However, those who worked in the Cabaret Clubs in France; where this photograph was taken (Paris more specifically), were obviously not happy about this and annoyed that this was happening; even after the First World War, which the French were not so best pleased with, as they had lost a lot of homes to the war and the fact that they were already annoyed with Germany for ‘starting’ the war.

4. What was going on in the art world?

In 1934 Germany there was a lot of Nazi Propaganda going around to help Hitler gain even more support and power. Whereas, in France at this time there were traditional paintings going being painted and abstract paintings were being painted by Pablo Picasso.

5. What was happening culturally?  Music, film, TV etc.

In 1934 The Great Depression (1929-1939) was still at large so there were many people unemployed. Alongside that, in Germany people were being to turn to the more radical groups; such as the Nazi’s, because they were desperate in what they needed (even if it meant going back on what Stresemann had done for Germany just before he died in 1929). So, this allowed Hitler to grow even more powerful than he was before; also this allowed to him make himself the Führer, so which meant to the other people around Europe to try and stop him from getting more powerful and doing something that will have dramatic effect to everyone. People did this by trying to present some of the things that Hitler was against; like the photograph above, to the rest of the world to try and prove to Hitler that this is the time to change and come together and Cahun uses this photograph to try help fight Nazism along with other people who were using culture to prove to the fact that what Hitler has planned is wrong.

Materials

1.  Analogue or digital?

This photograph was taken on an analogue camera.

2. Colour or B/W?

This photograph was taken in black and white.

Diane Arbus:

Composition

1.  Identify and describe relevant Formal Elements (Line, shape, form, texture, colour, light etc.)

The Formal Elements used in this photograph are: simplicity; as the two girls are in the centre of attention and there is nothing drawing the viewer away from looking at the two girls. Another Formal Element that is used in this photograph is contrast; as the black material of the dresses stands out more as the white background helps the viewer to look at the main subjects of the photograph.

Meaning

1. What is the image communicating?

This photograph is communicating the idea that even though these twins are identical there’s something different about the two of them; for example one of them could be happy with the idea that someone taking a photograph of them (as they are smiling) and want to look happy, whereas, the other sister could  probably not be happy with someone taking a photograph of them as they may be camera shy or confused about the idea of a camera; if the twins came a from a poor family and their parents (mother) had handmade dress for them as they didn’t have a lot of money, so they probably didn’t know what a camera was. Also, it communicates they are an (unknown) important people that will help shape the world for future generations.

2. What ideas/issues are being explored or expressed?

In this photograph the photographer; Diane Arbus, took their photograph because they were outsiders; as the photographer liked to take photographs of people who were casted as outsiders. As the photographer liked to take photographs of people who were deemed as outcasts, she may have chosen these twins to prove to the people; who were not seen as outcasts, that even though these twins may be young and be deemed as outcasts in your eyes, they are still human beings no matter what.

Context

1. What made the work important?

I think that the thing that made this piece of work important is the fact that nobody is that sure on how the photographer; Diane Arbus, became aware of the event that the Twins were attending; a Christmas party for twins and triplets, and the fact that now it is also known as the tenth most expensive photograph.

2. What makes it different?

This photograph is different because nobody really takes photographs of people like the twins and in that position and the fact that this photograph became the inspiration for the twins from The Shining.

3. What was going on in the world at the time? World events/society/politics (Keep it relevant)

During the time this photograph was taken; 1967, there were a number of things going on around the world

4. What was going on in the art world?

During the time that this photograph was taken; 1967, there was a lot of Pop Art going about in the world as it was popular at that time. Alongside that, there was also a lot of minimalistic art going on at this time; as it was popular with the range of artists that were creating this type of art along with the Pop Art.

5. What was happening culturally?  Music, film, TV etc.

At this time in history, there were many things going on, such as: The Hippie Groups, The Beatles, The Vietnam War,  The Rolling Stones released their first magazine and many other groups trying to change the world.

Materials

Analogue or digital?                                                                                This was taken on an analogue camera.

Colour or B/W?

       The colour of this photograph is black and white.

Jono Rotman:

Composition

1. Identify and describe relevant Formal Elements (Line, shape, form, texture, colour, light etc.)        

This photographer; Jono Rotman, uses colour in this photograph to draw the viewer into the subjects jacket, so they can look at the subjects different items that he wears on his jacket. Also, in this photograph, Rotman uses portrait framing as it is a portrait of the subject.

Meaning

1. What is the image communicating?

This photograph is communicating the fact that there are mob members do exist and they don’t always have to come in pristine suits and clean faces, but in leather jackets and dirty faces. Also, this photograph communicates the fact that some mob members are not as better off as other members in other groups.

2. What ideas/issues are being explored or expressed?

The ideas/issues that are being explored/expressed are the fact that mob groups are still around and will be around for awhile and that some mob groups don’t really go around doing the ideas that mob groups are perceived to do. Alongside that, there’s also the fact that not all mob members look like what people seem to think mob groups are supposed to look like.

Context

1. What made the work important?

I think what made this photograph work is the fact that the photographer, Jono Rotman, was a member of the Mongrel Mob. Rotman’s history with this group allows people to note that people can come from all sorts of backgrounds and can still become successful in the career that the person has decided to go down and that is what made this work important.

2. What makes it different?

What makes this piece of work different is that people don’t normally take photographs of the people who are in a gang or a mob because it is either the photographer doesn’t want to start anything between the mob or the gang or to get involved with them or the fact that the mob or the gang may not want any publicity so they can stay out of the limelight if they are in trouble with the police.

3. What was going on in the world at the time? World events/society/politics (Keep it relevant)

In 2015; when this piece of work was originally published, there were many things going on the world such as: The World Striking A Deal On Climate Change, ISIS Terrorists Strikes On Three Continents, The Refugee Crisis Roils Europe and amongst other things that were going on around the world.

4. What was going on in the art world?

In the art world there were also things going on such as: The Art Basel in Miami Beach Stabbing, Helly Nahmad’s Accursed Modigliani, Taubman Family Feud and many other things that shaped the current modern day art world.

5. What was happening culturally?  Music, film, TV etc.

Culturally in the world; in 2015, there also stuff coming out in the world such as: The Broadway Revelation: Hamilton, The Murder Mysteries: ‘The Jinx’ and ‘Making A Murder’ and The Return Of The Jedi: ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’.

Materials

1. Analogue or digital?

This photograph was taken on a digital camera.

2. Colour or B/W?

This photograph was taken in colour.

[schraubd]

The Problem With Canaries

A group of pro-Israel, anti-BDS students at a variety of college campuses issued a statement harshly criticizing the Canary Mission for hindering their efforts on campus and unjustly maligning fellow students. They wrote:

Canary Mission is an anonymous site that blacklists individuals and professors across the country for their support of the BDS movement, presumed anti-Semitic remarks and hateful rhetoric against Israel and the United States. 

As a group of conscientious students on the front lines fighting BDS on our campuses, we are compelled to speak out against this website because it uses intimidation tactics, is antithetical to our democratic and Jewish values, is counterproductive to our efforts and is morally reprehensible. 

This blacklist aggregates public information about students across the country under the guise of combating anti-Semitism. It highlights their LinkedIn profiles, Facebook pictures, old tweets, quotes in newspapers and YouTube videos. The site chronicles each student’s involvement with pro-Palestinian causes and names other students and organizations with whom the given student may be affiliated. 

We view much of the rhetoric employed to villainize these individuals as hateful and, in some cases, Islamophobic and racist. In addition, Canary Mission’s wide scope wrongfully equates supporting a BDS resolution with some of the most virulent expressions of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric and activity.

The ADL initially supported the students, referring to Canary as "Islamophobic & racist". Critics quickly contested what, exactly, Canary did that was "Islamophobic & racist", and a day later the ADL backed off, apologizing for "overly broad" language. I want to talk through why I think objections to Canary as Islamophobic are potentially justified. But I want to do so in what I think is a more nuanced and specified way, because there really are interesting questions here regarding the ethics of counter-antisemitism (or counter-racism, or counter-Islamophobic) discourse that I think are being elided in the usual rush to back our friends and lambaste our enemies. Let's stipulate for sake of argument that Canary doesn't use specifically Islamophobic rhetoric (in the form of racial slurs, conspiratorial claims about creeping Sharia, and the like), and that in general the factual claims they make about the targeted persons (that they did say X or join group Y) are factually accurate. I'm open to the possibility that they do use such rhetoric or that their claims aren't factual (in which case the argument that they're Islamophobic becomes trivially easy). But I make the stipulation because the case I'm going to make doesn't depend on any such behavior by Canary. Instead, let's focus on what we might think of as Canary's strongest possible foundation: factual revelations of things the profiled individual has definitely said, or groups they have definitely joined, absent any additional commentary. Again, I'm not saying that this is, in fact, all or even most of what Canary does -- I'm saying that this sort of thing would presumably represents the formulation of Canary's mission that would be most resistant to a claim of Islamophobia. So. First, I do not generally think it is a smear or otherwise wrongful to simply republish a terrible thing somebody has said (with appropriate caveats about not taking things out-of-context, omitting apologies, etc.). For example, the other day Seth Mandel accused me of a "smear" and a "lie" towards him in the context of my column on sexist responses to Natalie Portman not attending to the Genesis Prize. The irony of Mandel's complaint was that he was actually never mentioned in the column at all; he only appears in the context of two of his tweets being republished, verbatim, with no additional commentary or interpretation directed towards him whatsoever. If you can be "smeared" simply by quoting your own words back to you, then I suggest that the problem lies inward. Moreover, I'd suggest that there actually is something important about revealing the prevalence of antisemitism that exists amidst certain social movements (on campus or not) -- if only because Jews are so frequently gaslit on this subject. Just this week, the Interfaith Center at Stony Brook University had to release a statement (cosigned by a wide range of campus Jewish, Christian, and Muslim groups) in solidarity with campus Hillel after a campus SJP member demanded that Hillel be expelled from campus and replaced with "a proper Jewish organization" (proper, the student confirmed, meaning anti-Zionist). This blog had already covered the Vassar College SJP chapter distributing literal (1940s-era) Nazi propaganda about Jews. These things happen, and there's something off-putting about claiming that it's a form of cheating or a smear to document it. Too many people think that naming and shaming antisemitism is by definition a witch-hunt. That cannot be right, and we should be very suspicious of political arguments which act as if it is right, or act as if the very act of accusing someone of antisemitism (or, for that matter, racism, or sexism, or Islamophobia) is dirty pool or foul play. So what accounts for my unease? Well, for one it might be the sense that college students, in particular, often say dumb things they regret, and there shouldn't be an entire website dedicated to spotlighting them and inviting people to berate them for it. How much one sympathizes with that point would seemingly correspond to how much one dislikes "call-out culture"; if you're not a huge fan of it (especially when it comes to young people not otherwise in the public eye) then Canary would seem to be one manifestation of a generally malign social trend. Another basis for objection might be the distinctively chad gadya character of many of Canary's entries. If one reads the site, very frequently a profiled individual is listed because he joined a group which hosts a speaker who supports an organization who bit the cat that ate the goat ... and so on. There's a very distinctive "guilt-by-association" character to what Canary does that I think is obviously objectionable, regardless of how you label it. And note how it resonates with the way blacklists are being deployed against Jews and Jewish groups right now (e.g., the announcement by several NYU student groups that they were boycotting a bevy of Jewish organizations -- including the ADL). Such calls very frequently proceed by similar logic: the group supports a program which hosts a speaker who said a thing ... so on and so forth. Such logic could be used  to ensnare essentially anyone who affiliates with anything -- which means in practice it must be deployed selectively to delegitimize certain groups and causes under the guise of neutral idealism. If that stunt makes us uncomfortable when it's deployed against Jewish groups, it should make us uncomfortable when it's deployed against Muslim groups. And here is where I think the Islamophobia charge has legs. I don't want to say "imagine if this were done to Jews", because it is done to Jews (albeit perhaps not in quite as organized a form). But there absolutely are cases of blacklisting Jewish students simply because they've joined pro-Israel groups, without any claims that the student has said or done anything remotely racist or Islamophobic. And such behavior I think is rightfully thought of as deeply chilling, and striking too deep in terms of the way it polices to the letter Jewish political and communal participation. Many Canary entries seem to be based entirely on groups the individual has joined (everything from Students for Justice in Palestine to the Muslim Students Association -- the latter of which, it is worth noting, joined the letter in solidarity with Hillel at Stony Brook), rather than any specifically antisemitic things that the individual has said or done. That seems to be as dangerous as equivalent blacklist efforts targeting Jews who are part of Hillel, or Students Supporting Israel, or J Street (yes, J Street). Indeed, I could go further. Let's take the case of the students who have, themselves, said antisemitic things -- they're on the record. Surely there could be nothing Islamophobic about including them in a database? Yet even here, I'm conflicted -- and again, the mirror-case involving Jews perhaps reveals why. Imagine there was a website which cataloged people -- mostly, though not exclusively, Jews -- who were members of Zionist or Zionist-affiliated groups for the purpose of declaring to the world that they were racist and should not be worked with. Wouldn't we view that as being antisemitic in character? Suppose that it limited itself solely to those persons who had engaged in Islamophobic remarks -- with the goal of showing the degree to which Islamophobia and racism were prevalent in Zionist discourse, in a way that gave the impression that such views ran rampant amongst (Zionist) Jewish college students. Could that be viewed as antisemitic? My instinct is yes. It is an instinct that is, admittedly, at war with my above acknowledgment that documenting the real and non-negligible existence of antisemitism that exists in pro-Palestinian movements is not a form of cheating (and I'd likewise agree that documenting the real and non-negligible existence of Islamophobia that exists in Zionist movements is likewise not wrongful). But in both cases it is a delicate thing, lest the impression be given that Jews Are The Problem or Muslims Are The Problem. It isn't wrong to demand that groups be attentive to that possibility and work proactively against it, and it isn't wrong to be suspicious of them when they seem indifferent to it. What was it that Maajid Nawaz said? “Who compiles lists of individuals these days?" Of course, the answer is "many people and many groups," and maybe that's not per se wrong (or even avoidable). But certainly it is something that requires considerable care and concern, and Canary -- given its propensity for guilt-by-association, given its wide sweep, and given the range of individuals it includes under its ambit -- doesn't strike me as expressing said care and concern. Is that Islamophobic? Depends on how you define it, but I would suggest that there is a prima facie case of a sort of moral negligence directed at Muslim students. In other circumstances, that same sort of moral negligence impacts Jews. Either way, it's a wrong, and it's entirely fair to label it as such. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2r7Rd2y