#adult supremacism

[maxdibert]

do you think in his youth Snape was a racist? Not as an adult but when he was at Hogwarts and joins the DE group.

First of all, comparing the issue of blood purity to racism seems quite biased to me because racism has very different cultural roots and foundations. Racism involves quite complex factors such as colonialism or imperialism, intertwined with physical prejudices that have nothing to do with the sociopolitical context of the magical world regarding blood supremacy. Wizards have no way of knowing if someone is a Muggle-born unless that person openly references their origins. They can't look at someone and automatically discriminate against them; it doesn't work that way. There’s also no previous history of colonization, slavery, and mass genocide of Muggle communities, nor of intervening in and erasing their cultures. In fact, it's the wizards who hide from the Muggles, the wizards who have to be careful not to be discovered by Muggles, and the wizards who restrain themselves in front of Muggles. I think if Rowling was trying to make some sort of metaphor here, she failed miserably because she completely overlooked the socio-historical roots of racism. But well, Rowling is terrible at analyzing social issues and drawing conclusions about them, so I can't say I'm surprised.

Secondly, Severus is literally half Muggle. He’s not a half-blood because his parents were Muggle-borns, or because he had mixed-blood parents, or one pureblood and one Muggle-born parent. He’s half-blood because his father was a Muggle, and he grew up in a Muggle neighborhood, in a Muggle house. I don’t think it takes a genius to understand that if he feels so much disdain toward Muggles during his youth, it’s basically because to him, being Muggle is his father, it’s his crappy neighborhood, it’s his social position where he can’t even have his own clothes and has to wear his mother’s. He rejects Muggles because what he knew of the Muggle world is something he doesn’t want to have anything to do with, period. It also seems completely logical to me, given his life experience, that he would be attracted to the idea of being someone who was above his father, someone who, because he had powers, was better than that man who had ruined his childhood, and that people like him had no place in the world promised to him by the purebloods in his house. I also think it’s pretty logical and understandable that he would like the idea of having the right, just by being a wizard, to do whatever he wanted with his father and take revenge for everything he had put him through. I honestly think his affiliation with the Death Eaters, aside from the fact that he had a pathological need to be accepted somewhere after years of constant marginalization and that the idea of power attracted him since he had never had anything like it, was intrinsically motivated by the idea that in this way, he could confront his father and rid himself of his shadow once and for all. I also believe that if four cool Gryffindor kids hadn’t tormented him for years, he probably wouldn’t have fallen so easily into the rhetoric of supremacism, but that’s another topic.

What I’m getting at is that no, I don’t consider Severus to be racist. I consider him a victim of circumstances who, in a situation of vulnerability very close to social exclusion, fell into the manipulation and promises of glory that a sect offered him. He’s literally the perfect victim for that kind of group.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

I generally don't know what to think in "parents' rights over their children" conversations, because while I fully agree that children should be afforded much more agency than our society currently permits, I strongly associate this kind of anti-parent rhetoric with adults who have no real belief in children's agency and simply want authority over children transferred to them. As a child, "my parents taught me to X/not to Y" was a powerful conversation ender and adults who kept pushing past that point (or started pushing even harder) marked themselves as evil in my eyes. Groomer rhetoric is generally obviously disingenuous, but to steelman it, there is a pronounced difference between letting a child read whatever they want and making a child read whatever you want, and people love to equivocate between them.

Yea and this is like, 1-to-one the problem in the other direction too: the overwhelming majority of "school abolition" stuff is either homeschooler parental supremacism or ppl being useful idiots on behalf of same. Not good!

[rametarin]

I touched upon this a few nights ago, but

The people talking about Israel like it's an oppressive white supremacist force would've been treated like Charlottesville "Nazis" just 9 years ago, for any questioning of supporting Israel, "must be linked to antisemitism."

And that's what pisses me off, so much. That particular ideological bend comes from a passionate reactionary position of limited information and "publically acceptable" amount of outrage and dogmatism. If they decide you're somehow a Nazi even on the flimsiest of pretext, then they'll immaturely shout down every string of information you speak and think they're doing good works.

But lo and behold suddenly questioning Israel is A-OK if THEY do it, because "their motivations are pure." Whereas anyone outside their very specific ideology must be motivated purely by white supremacism and Nazism to do it.

I've seen people post the most asininely antisemitic conspiracy theories that you would've heard at any "unite the right" or "I'm not really white supremacist or religious conservative, I just think maybe the Jews shouldn't be given American or European money to prop up their regime anymore" brand alt-righters.

So congratulations you mouthbreathing morons, you actually agree with the alt-right and anyone that wants to see Israel dismantled and the Jews driven into the sea. You put on a bunch of pretensions that your desired outcome is pure and wholesome because you're correct, but in the end, it just boils down to, "Those Jews got a conspiracy operating in Hollywood, medicine and foreign affairs!" Turns out all you need to do is oppose religious Christian culture and cover your position in rainbows for your antisemitism to be palatable and disguise as something else.

You fuckers absolutely will not even entertain the idea of adult context or benefit of the doubt for motivations when it comes from an ideological other. These exact same sentiments that dare question something, and if it's not something approved of to be spoken of by far-left capital P Progress, it's untouchable without dying yourself as evil.

But the self-appointed progressives? Audacious enough to scream about Israel needing abolition and calling modern Israelis colonizers. Ho-ly-shit.

So as is typical, absolutely no big boy conversation topic can have higher brain function discussion or nuance unless it gets pre-approval from the nebulous group that dictates the lines in the sand for progressive political thought and reinforces it with invisible commisars of popular mean girl type bitches, all the way on down to the grass roots. That constant threat of unleashing weaponized ignorance and zealosness of a mob, but pretending it has no such responsibilty for that mob's actions, because, "that's just society. :^)"

"OUR book burnings are totally fine because WE'REdoing it in the name of equality and anti-bigotry!"

The last time communists and Nazis agreed on something, Poland got eifel towered.

[horizon-verizon]

Just because some people like this fictional character doesnt mean they have the same view as them *they were rise as royalty in medieval world that they think they were better than everyone else* if someone else still turn out good, well good for them people should not explaining this, George books is for adult, everyone with working braincells know racism is bad and i don't have to excuse Rhaenyra for that but the way this people thinking that Daemon is better than her is CONCERNING, Daemon also the one who calling baby Baelon as "the heir of the day" wtf did you thing a BABY did to Daemon? Existing? so they dont have the same rage with this because the baby didnt have character to talk about they even makes a joke of it just like Daemon was, he also constantly insulting his wife, the main characters in this story said fucked up thing Alicent also calling Rhaenyra's children "Bastards seeds of war"? Aemond constantly calling rhaenyra "whore" for sleeping with a man she likes and have children with harwin instead rap3 her gay husband or chosing some sex worker who have similar looks with her how dare her! And still want an iron throne?, she should keep her legs closed and lonely on her castle like good obidient women was, people killing children and their own sibling, rapng woman but this people draw the line at racism? Wow even Maegor wish he gets the same hate as her and treat as one of the most hated character in the entire franchise, but he's only a man everyone have excuse for a man's crime (he's just silly boy who decapitating kittens) unlike whore rhaenyra who raise taxes and insultingsomeone by their skin color

did you know celebrating a child death or insulting your wife is not real its only fiction when it was Daemon who did it? See Daemon is not racist at all when he calls women in the vale ugly than the sheeps This is not Racist he just saying truth because women in the vale is white (you could never be racist if they are white according to American logic) and according to people who see them they actually ugly so we didnt hate him for it, why people so hard to except the truth? So how dare people accuse him for racist? I could never! he defintly better than His racist niece, i still dont understand why Rhaenyra even chose man who looks "common" as lover she maybe drunk you know she's racist and Valyrian supremacist unlike Daemon (shakes my head)

I watch a movie called The return of the witch when the main character like Rhaenyra was, and there was a knight who being bothered by this witch thank god someone save his ass from her

Anon's probably responding to this post.

The anon of that posts said [excerpt]:

I am not here for any Rhaenyra’s stan trying to excuse or downplay a white woman’s misogynoir and classism because her sons died. Grief doesn’t make you suddenly racist, or compel you to say racist things. You were always that way. The grief just brought out the racism and supremacism that was always simmering beneath the surface.

You didn't need to move away from Rhaenyra's racism into the misogyny levied against her to argue against that past anon's words. That anon was expressing that they don't respect those who do stan her refusal to acknowledge her misogynoir against Nettles, that it came from Rhaenyra's will even under all those stresses, and that it is as serious as it should be seen.

A)

Anonymous, Daemon says the "heir for a day" in the context of wanting the throne but not actually having the biggest claim to it as the nephew or Rhaenyra would, bc he is not Viserys' child. It is a localized infraction, personal, against Viserys AND it was offhand. However, if someone calls me a racial epithet or does as that writer who almost got published did and tried to leave bad reviews of Black and PoC authors to establish dominance, then they are attempting to promote systematic suffering so they can come out on top. There is an intention to destroy a person's life AND to have socio-political privilege over others based on their socialized identity conditioned to be as immutable as possible. Like many said, you don't get to be racist because you had a bad day, are mentally ill, an alcoholic, your parents died, etc. as that writer tried to reason.

Racism is not this personal moral failing or symptomatic result of a racist facing oppression like hating on babies. It comes from systematic privilege given to the racist that allows them to see the oppressed as lesser than & historical, generational violence against said oppressed group. Hating on babies for one moment out of jealousy does not have that scope, level, depth, etc. racism does and never will. People may say often that "oh, they're being racist bc they have envy", and yes people default to their racism or sexism or classism bc they are envious...but their envy is the kind where they feel that the person they are envious of shouldn't have what they have bc what they have is something the racist/sexist/etc has learned they should have by "default" bc of their social class/race, etc. Key word is "systematic".

This reveals, anon, that you either are white or you are a PoC/Black person with a lot of internalized racism and a lack of understanding of racist history.

B)

You: "See Daemon is not racist at all when he calls women in the vale ugly than the sheeps This is not Racist he just saying truth because women in the vale is white (you could never be racist if they are white according to American logic) and according to people who see them they actually ugly so we didnt hate him for it, why people so hard to except the truth?"

Anon, what are you on about? Who said that Daemon was racist here? Who said anything about the Vale or that his comments to Rhea Royce were racist? Who is it that made Daemons' opinion about Rhea Royce's looks a racial thing? It certainly wasn't the past anon or me and I have never seen someone try until you just did.

You're making large leaps of logic here to justify and derail away from examining Rhaenyra's actions, as I already mentioned, to the point your words are incoherent. You are both trying to run away from race talk and flinging it at another character...

You: "So how dare people accuse him for racist? I could never! he defintly better than His racist niece, i still dont understand why Rhaenyra even chose man who looks "common" as lover she maybe drunk you know she's racist and Valyrian supremacist unlike Daemon (shakes my head)"

?! (incoherent)

[wufflesvetinari]

i’m at the end of season 2. other interesting things:

the recurring idea that adults who put themselves above others--from “i’m cooler than you because i’m a psychic!!!” to “i am genuinely very scary and will now villain-monologue about how all life is beneath me” are trapped in a middle school mindset. that evil and supremacism are banal (and, specifically, immature)

the contrast between 1). the narrator telling us directly at the beginning of season 1 that mob suppresses his emotions and does not know how to express them and 2). reigen telling their allies that mob’s greatest strength is explaining his feelings to people. mob can struggle with “expressing his feelings” in a “typical” way while still being able to make them known in other ways. you could argue that reigen is just remarking on how much mob has grown since season 1, but he doesn’t frame it that way exactly--not “he’s learned to do this recently” but “that is his greatest strength.” 

an alternate reading is that reigen has that kind of confidence because he’s been able to understand mob from the beginning, even when mob hadn’t started trying to reach out to others and make connections yet. that reigen straight up has never considered mob hard to read or closed off to him. (which, fair, we see the scene they meet and reigen basically cold reads him immediately)

[rametarin]

I think it's a little of all of this in different gradients.

Highschoolers want to read about highschoolers and relate to highschoolers that actually go on adventures and don't get put behind bars for it. Writers want to imagine the lost potential of what could've been. Business banks on the audience and the writers, but may not necessarily understand the relationship.

I don't buy it's purely a "power fantasy". That tends to play into ideas of dominance and supremacism that plays into other avenues of the theorist's usual ideas about how the world works (whether they're garden variety Marxists or just BDSM fans that try to apply their Alpha and Omega dichotomy to EVERYTHING) or shonen or shojo reading teenagers basically just wanting to read about a mirror of themselves, but highschoolers are highschoolers and they know it.

That awkward middle ground where they're practically adult children. Legally prevented from exerting any kind of independence or autonomy of any significance beyond going to the store for bread or being allowed to babysit other kids. Adult interests, second class citizenship. Maximum number of years to piss away enjoying themselves between the suck, but maximum obligations and antagonism by society if they don't participate how the state says it ought to.

Some have floated the theory that this media is "propaganda designed to make it seem like your teen years are the best, most important years of your life," and consider you old and obsolete after 25. I don't buy that, either. At best it could be perceied as the networks kiss-assing teenagers because they have their own disposable income as well as their parents'.

Part of getting older is realizing how absolutely insane it is that basically every form of media is constantly trying to convince us that the most interesting moments of the lived human experience are happening in HIGH SCHOOL…… girl who gives a flying fuck what 16 year olds are doing.

[bourbonboredom]

Positive: Having a possible fic idea for Blackkklansmen that further explores anti-semitism and Jewish culture in post-WWII

Negative: Realizing how many slurs and awful shit I’d have to research/write

[aronarchy]

https://twitter.com/AbolitionF_ists/status/1467939051613396995

[transcription:

ember ☭ @bimbomarxistt · Dec 5, 2021

imagine hearing a baby cry and your first thought is that they’re t[r]ying to manipulate you into spoiling them

Afrofuturist Abolitionists of the Americas · Dec 6, 2021

The ascription of malice to Children comes from white supremacy. Especially in the US case the logic was built into Puritan theology. The text “Performing Childhoods” goes into the ways this intersected with antiblackness especially during slavery and into the late 1800s

At some point white children were placed into a notion of child innocence especially as the developing bourgeois society needed, in places like the US, to frame them as blank slates to be trained in the school system to become workers. Black children never got that

Black children became the embodiment of childhood malice that needed to be controlled. This always had implications for Black parents bc it became common to paint the children as either dangerous or endangered by Black adults’ irresponsibility

These narratives still follow us: overpolicing blamed on kids having “no home training”; and lack of “home training” blamed on supposed Black Matriarchy (a la Moynihan ideology); or on poor Black cishet men not being proper breadwinners (Bootstraps ideology)

None of these ideas developed in a stable form. It developed over time. We specified the late 1800s bc around then the foundation of more well known “science” inquiries was being harnessed in a unique way, especially as class struggle are under way, in the way of abolitionisms...

... the early “intellectual projects” that would become eugenics in the 20th century, the scramblings for territory in Africa that definitely was a material undercurrent to these things... It is all connected. These things were interacting

Interested in hearing about how Colonial constructions of childhood developed and shifted outside the US context tho. If any folks [have] information on that let us know.

(As far as the Christian theology: original sin doctrines had a history of positioning children as in need of authoritarian parenting in order to punish the devil or temptation out of them. The same logic went into certain values of why abstinence and cisheterosexism was needed to control so-called human sexuality that often got coded as the quintessential expression of original sin.)

The reinforcement of childis[t] and cisheterosexist relations under Patriarchy has a class function. In the Colonial context it takes on a particular life because Black and Indigenous are coded as inherently devilish and heathen because of religious/ethnic supremacism. But also as a civilizational insistence to justify clearing away class/social relations that didn’t fit the mold necessary for the interests being mounted by Man, including relations of gender/sexual lines, as well as relations between children and adults/elders.

Authoritarian parental mastery and cis/allo-heterosexist control had to take on a particular kind of intensity and regulation for the “backward” peoples who are always already the embodiment of a Fallen Nature that the church and Western institutions must police on behalf of the ruling class’ material interests.

The mistreatment of Black children by the school, nuclear family, police + media narratives, church, and the implications this is having for how Black adults (especially QTGNC ones, bc this is connected to why the “Gay Agenda” idea is used to accuse us of forcing queerness/transness onto kids) get impacted by the State, the family misregulation (foster care/child protective) system, esp for mothers & birthing parents... there is alot to parse.

Again, it is all part of a system. We need to study, struggle, build solidarity, and a revolutionary spirit: and fight for our collective liberation. We can also talk about how rape culture is often upheld by the ascribing of adultlike malicion and sexual proclivities to Black children across genders. This is why the cishet boys aren’t seen as victims of CSA; and young girls and marginalized genders across the spectrum are always victim-blamed or painted as the real predators or deserving of it all.)

In all we gotta fight racial capitalism and cisheterosexism, patriarchy and ableist notions of biology, psychology, neurology, etc that are used to organize many of these institutions and relations: and part of that requires examining how the pathologization of children is used

/end transcription]

[radgirl-spray]

Often we see the "other cultures had 3° gender" argument and i just want to point out a couple of things after reading about it:

a)Almost all of these 3° gender people were biological men.

b) most of them were homosexual.

c) Of these, all of them were a gender DIFFERENT from women.

d) the few i found where women were in fact able to be considered themselves men, was to escape forceful marriages and rape, which could be linked to sexuality and fear, more than gender itself.

e) The cases where women and men were to have 2 spirits they still were appart from being women or men alone.

Now, the problem with using these as a source of validation for being transgender relies on 3 things:

a) In the men cases most of them were sacred. Which explains why they would still not be considered women. Hence, they would not equal a woman, the understanding of womanhood and sex opression would not change.

b) There is an undenying homophobia behind these.

c) the one with both male and female spirit, where still not regarded in the same way the rest of the people. Being considered devine and appart.

Again, as i've said a million times: Most of these identities depend from very tight gender roles of what a man should be or what a woman should do. The reason why feminism clashes with gender ideology, is because those gender roles are often very opressive towards women, deeming anything related to women as less. Even now the idea that women have to perform some sort of femeninity to be valuable is very opressive itself.

These cultures having a 3° gender is not an excuse for men to invade women's spaces. And these cultures having gender roles doesn't eliminate the fact that gender roles in general are in fact a tool to create power dynamics based on sex. The existence of gender roles in every culture and how women are always the lesser sex is the proof that systems based on gender are unfair.

This is not white supremacism. Is simple logic. For example: The existence of hijra in indian cultures, doesn't erase the fact that the women are terribly misstreated for being women, that they are expected to be obedient wives, that they are shunned for their biology. That the gender role assigned to them based on sex is awful. At the same time the fact that hijra often live in poverty and turn to prostitution to survive because they are segregated because they are afeminated proves again that gender itself is a problem. These men shouldn't have to be castrated, they shouldn't have to be excluded from society because they don't fit the gender role assigned to men.

Women should be able to be adult humans in female bodies without any expectation, the same way these 3° gender people should be able to be themselves without being classified as others different from their peers and to be mutilated because of it. Again: sex itself, anatomy, the body is not wrong, nature is not wrong. Is the expectation of it and that's gender. If anything feminism compells you to love your body and take care of it. To feel at peace with it and not to perform gender roles.

Also, you cannot assume these people must belong with the other sex, especially with women, because right now, females have very different needs and most of those are tied to the opression based on sex. By dismissing the fact that womanhood is a reality based on your anatomy alone, in order to validate stereotypes, you are denying that women are opressed because of our sex. Again, the body is not wrong, nature is not wrong, is the gender role what's opressive. Womanhood is not a feeling, you don't feel woman the same way you don't feel blonde, or don't feel mammal. Woman is not a gender itself. Is a scientific definition.

[rametarin]

"Ehhh, I don't like this character, she's child coded."

If I have to sit through another rainbow haired bitch demean the artistic direction of a creator because they chose to depict one of their characters as small and feminine, but still a grown woman, and make the logical leap to declaring that to be 'a child,' I'm going to holler.

There are small women. There are very girly women. and, get this.. sometimes, there are small women that behave immaturely. Up to and including getting emotional and breaking down over stupid shit, and needing reassurance. There are TALL WOMEN that suddenly act like emotionally naked two year olds throwing tantrums because they aren't getting their way.

Often the problems I see women having revolve around being unable to handle all their emotions at any given time and regressing as a deflective defense mechanism. Big girls do that shit too, they just know it's not as cute when a tall woman does it (or don't think themselves as cute when they do it) so they salvage the pride and don't break down as hard, knowing they can't get away with it. And they sure as fuck hate the small 'cute' ones doing it, calling them babies.

Do not take my post and make it into some, "Oh yes! THEY certainly do that! Especially when they're Asian! It's actually rooted in white supremacism and patriarchy!" bullshit. No. It goes deeper than that, don't you dare fucking deflect it this way. Sidestepping the entire topic of race or culture, there's very few surviving cultures on this earth where the phenomenon of women behaving younger or less mature than they are, isn't a thing when they get stressed or giddy, because in many women's hearts, they're still 17. It doesn't make a grown assed woman a fucking child or, "child coded," because she breaks down bawling and wants some consoling and reassurance over something.

Their ethnic and linguistic and cultural background does not matter. Grown women that momentarily act immature and throw on the waterworks are not, "child coded." Not if they're two meters tall, not if they're adult and fully grown, but a meter tall. Some grown women are just gremlins. It just is. Don't project insecurity over lolicon onto grown adults.

If all it takes to be disregarded as "child coded" when you're physically mature and grown, is to be short and have an emotional breakdown, then half you rainbow hairs belong in a daycare or an asylum, no matter how tall or old you are. I've consoled enough of you to be disgusted at the prospect, and I know envy towards tiny cute women when I see it.

It's childish to break down and cry like a two year old that can't control their emotions. It's not being a child when you're a grown assed adult, therefore, "child-coded" is meaningless.

And we're not even talking about the, "800 year old vampire loli" shit. A character established to be a grown woman that is just small and cute and adorable is not a child. No matter how much you try and strain that.

[papirouge]

Whenever I see people talking about how some countries are in decline due to low natality, and then search their politics on issues like abortion I actually hope that these countries do stop existing and that ones that do value life end up being created. Also reading about Japan's past w this was gut churning

Yeah since I do understand japanese I sometimes browse their forum/SNS and it's insane the amount of women saying a child is just too expensive to have one. Japan's population is declining and aging like crazy and the dim newer generation has to bear the weight of this aging population. Many people complain their country is ruled by oldheads who are out of touch with reality. IDK if you followed up the fiasco of the Tokyo Olympics and how the Olympics bureau screwed up the initial (and quite promising) ceremony plan for a much more austere and boring ceremony (sure C0vîd changed their plans, but what was the point to straight up cancel the entertainers presence when they could simply reduce the scale/budget of their performence?).

Shit happening in Japan is very distopic and wicked and the only ppl hyping this country are racialist rightoids raving about muh crimeless ethnostate wet dream and weebs who think Japan is like anime and want to live there as rootless plants living their Yamato Japan dream à la PewDiePie who's finally settled there....only to hang out with White gaijin 💀 lmao But beside these idiots, hardly anyone wants to live through such a demographic nightmare.

I've always said Japanese entertainment culture being so rich was a cope of an IRL lifestyle that was bleak and unfulfilling. And now this whole anime/manga culture has made its way here bc the Western world is undergoing the same societal collapse that Japan did a few decades before (social isolation, gaming, parasocial relationships becoming the norm over social ones, etc.).

People with fulfilling life don't watch anime/do gaming for hours once they get home or dress up as fictional characters half their age.. (especially when 99% of these shows are stupid and intellectually regressive). This self indulgence is why many adults today behave like children and become degenerates. I got so much shit for saying that, but an anime fan over 25 years old has something wrong with them. Casual watching is ok but being obsessive with that culture is mental deficiency in action.

And yes, Japan History esp during WWII is sketchy but they have this sort of revisionism where they act like nothing much happened. It's highkey creepy to see the amount of japanese words coming straight from German (アルバイト, ワッペン etc. ) when you know the context of how this happened... 🥴 and let's not talk about the weird SS uniform memorabilia in Visual Kei They've become the submissive USA lackey post war though so I guess they made a deal to not get much trouble for that👀. I had a Chinese friend of mine who despised Japan and I think that's also the case of Koreans. Those countries mutually hate each other since centuries now anyway. Not surprised to see Westerners aligning themselves with Japan when Japan has the same history of colonialism and cultural & racial supremacism. Imperialists countries have this weird fellowship around the evilness they did lol

Even when browsing on japanese SNS I'm shocked by the casual racism of Japanese netizens especially against continental Asians. They had a field day during c0vîd dragging the Chinese, and whenever a public figure gets in trouble they happen to get suspicious about some supposed foreign ancestry ("this person always looked kinda foreign..."). Japanese netizens HATE Kiko Mizuhara because she doesn't have japanese blood (she's half Korean half USAmerican) yet immigrated in Japan with her (Korean) mom while still a baby and has become one of the most successful supermodel in Japan and oversea, but it doesn't stop them from calling her a foreigner and telling how she can't properly pull off the kimono cause she's not a pure japanese breed this kuso Zainichi imposter ùwú. I even saw one send shots at Kana Oya because she's half Japanese half Brazilian and call her a "poor Brazilian" (poor as in "no money" since Brazil is indeed a poor country but how does any of that relates to Kana personally..?). They have this weird obsession to use someone foreignness/mixedness as a diss. Interestingly, I hardly see them having the same energy against half White entertainers¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ (as long as they're not half Chinese or Korean ofc lol)

[trans-advice]

Is it reasonable of my mom to expect me to wait with coming out as trans until my grandma is dead, because she doesn't want me to be disinherited? Because I don't particularily care about that . . . idk

my first thought was is your mom also in the will? i'm also assuming y'all are in a jurisdiction that doesn't mandate that a will has to leave a minimum portion for various like family members.

i don't know how your grandma writes her will. i don't know whether you being disinherited will make her disinherit others along with you. it's literally her will.

why i'm thinking she might also cut out your mom & others is because in my life i had special ed teams & those teams at my school tried to blame my mom for everything, as opposed to the rampant cisheterosexism, adult supremacism, christian supremacism, ableism, white supremacism, snobbery, in the schools & elsewhere. like the professional invoking of "Oedipus Complexes" were still rampant in the 1970s & my special ed case file started in the 1990s, so as an institution the ADA workers were coming from, the detoxing from that momist scapegoating was barely there. Like I still dealt with like evangelical christians in my special ed teams... ugh.

so i cannot give you advice on how to handle coming out, transitioning, or even how to avoid your grandma from catching on to your gender identity. i don't know how to find out how your grandma is writing her will either & therefore how many people will be disinhereted (from zero, or more than you, just you, etc).

good luck, peace & love,

eve

[pompadourpink]

2020 dictionary additions

Adulescence: keeping the behaviour of a teen as an adult

Alphabète: who can read and write (from Burundi and Switzerland)

Antispécisme: rejection of the notion of hierarchy between different animal species and of the superiority of the human specie

Apatridie: absence of legal nationality

Bigorexie: unhealthy exercise addiction

Bioplastique: biodegradable plastic

Bore-out: burnout caused by boring jobs/daily tasks/lack of work

Charge mentale: situation where someone, usually a woman, is expected to supervise everything regarding the house and children, generating physical and psychological exhaustion

Cryptomonnaie: virtual payment method that uses cryptography to stay safe and avoids being regulated and controlled by banks

Cyberdjihadisme: using the internet to promote jihadism

Dagobert: sandwich (from Belgium)

Darknet: anonymous network that can only be accessed using special software, configuration, or authorization

Datacratie: political weight of digital data

Dédiésélisation: process of trying to reduce the number of Diesel vehicles

Divulgâcher: to spoil (from Québec)

Emportiérage: action of unintentionally injuring a cyclist by opening a car door without looking (from Québec)

Fachosphère: whole of fascist/far-right political parties

Inclusif/ve, adj: integration a person or group to end their exclusion

Iridescent-e: iridescent

Hackaton: working marathon where a group of people work constantly for 24-48h to find new ideas, usually in digital innovation jobs

Locavorisme: eating only local/seasonal fruits+vegs to protect the planet

Nounoune: a bit naive, stupid (from Québec)

Raguiller: to put back on track (from Switzerland)

Sentience: possession of consciousness or sensory awareness

Slasheur: person, usually young, who works several jobs

Smicardisation: increase of the number of employees paid minimum wage on the long-term (SMIC in French)

Sorteur: party animal (from Belgium)

Suprémacisme: supremacism

Survivalisme: lifestyle of a person or group of people who get ready for a catastrophy on a local or world scale

Taxieur: cab driver (from Algery)

Traceur: satellite geo-locating tracker

Ubériser: making an existing business model obsolete, usually by using a virtual platform

[skinfeeler]

you may notice so-called progressive members of religions (including those which are minority religions in ‘the west’) spend much more time on critics of religion than conservatives in their own circles. sentiments such as “X discussion belongs within the community” might clue us in as on why, but allow me to proffer a red thread that i believe i have identified throughout all of this.

it is, obviously, true that critique of religion often constitutes or is a vehicle for assorted bigotries. a certain vigilance can be understandable and i advocate among my peers to not let us become callous of the very real dangers that members of certain ethnic and cultural groups (however one might understand these) face, even people marginalised in and by such religious communities. this is then, in fact, the crux of my project: the acknowledgment that say, ex-muslims aren’t really helped by islamophobia given the fact that it’s not like they’re going to get support from those people peddling it, which is exactly why it’s so tragic that many of them feel there’s no place for them on the left, because so many people on the left refuse to acknowledge that even though islamophobia is well, extant, it’s not like people stuck in certain spheres (among which gay and trans people, women, and all children) are impervious from being harmed just because larger society might not be accepting of those who level that harm unto them. this much then is important: to do right by everyone who must be done right by in whatever way and to leave people’s dignity intact, and to do so in such a way that cannot be co-opted by white supremacists and the like— the most important way to do this is to attack the concept of parental authority, which (culturally) christian conservatives will never accept but will resolve basically all problems that result from the shape of religion as a non-elective membership propagated through the family (as structured by clergy etc etc, whatever).

inoffensive as this clause should be to anyone who claims to be part of the left — which must fundamentally oppose the family for either marxist reasons per engels or for other reasons — even anti-theism which very clearly takes this form is mistaken, usually on purpose, by many religious apologists, to be something it’s not. one of those things that get invoked is the very real white supremacism and imperialist thought that is too endemic in our circles. i’ll admit to tendencies herein appearing from time to time — including in myself, at times, regrettably — but i also insist that a large part of this is simply the fact that while religious people enjoy the benefits of community and avenues for discussion and review, many of us do not: all we have at this stage, sadly, is the diatribes of new atheists who consider christendom an important ‘bulwark’ to protect the ‘occident’ who are useless to anything but an insipid culture war. mistakes are going to be made, and i think some small leeway should be allowed those most ambitious of us who still have a clear and provable dedication to justice and equity (and this is in fact the point of any useful notion of freedom of speech), especially since what we currently have works for nobody except those who want first and foremost to remain comfortable— which is exactly what i believe describes so many anti-anti-theists, but we do in fact need an alternative.

it’s not easy to be leftist and religious and my heart goes out to those who try, even if i don’t ultimately think that where they are heading will allow them to keep their principles coherent and intact: members of one’s congregation and one’s spiritual leaders may tacitly condone or endorse ethnic cleansing in the levant, assorted infant genital maiming rituals, reifications of gender that only those least abject to it can find peace with (consider the humble theyfab), the imperative and exaltation of procreation, to name a few possibilities, which one then is implicitly required to respect in order to remain part of such communities, and i understand the struggle of wanting to be or remain part of those and to have to tangle with that. what i don’t understand then, though, is the abhorrence of people outside such circles who perform critique of the like: i simply do not agree with the fact that certain discussions should stay within the community and they should be well left alone in literally every way with no demands made given the fact that certain members in those communities who this harm is visited upon and whose membership isn’t elective (including all children) do not have voice or agency in those discussions — they deserve support and solidarity across cultural lines, especially as it’s apostates from so many religions who helped me survive and i will owe this to them forever — let alone those in the outgroup who fall victim to the real geopolitical consequences of the substance of certain positions that proliferate in some of these communities, as is now more relevant than ever. this latter aspect is obvious to even the progressive religious apologist, however… at least those conservatives, both inside the congregation and in much more conservative movements don’t threaten what they perceive to be the faith.

an instantiation of this which i will see even most progressive religious people abhor is the notion that any religion is tied, inherently, to not just a nation, but a state. and so they can quibble with their zionist peers and spiritual leaders on this, because both of them have one thing in common: the idea that even if one’s religion/culture is not most meaningfully embodied through state, it is through family, and the criticism of the conservative that the progressive has is not that they are wrong, but merely inauthentic and clinging to something unnecessary, but they are not. i vehemently disagree: the nature of most organised religions has changed through both necessity and acknowledged moral imperative. why can a religion which doesn’t transmit through the family (one of only adult converts perhaps) be envisioned— which in turn wouldn’t depend so heavily on the reification of bodies and family immanent in the aforementioned (a conclusion worth stressing on its own)? if you ask me, it’s a matter of a lack of courage borne from a lack of understanding of history— one may want to read doubt: a history by jennifer michael hecht who is considered jewish according to halakha (for however much that fucking means) who speaks on what the german jews in the 19th century, understanding that they could either stay stuck in the present (and thus have their worldview eventually become as farcical as those who believed that recreating the temple era of judaism was either viable or desirable in any histiographical or theological sense as a result of you know, history historying) or establish those principles which they believed were actually important that could be passed on regardless of how judaism was envisioned before. their work, however hegelian in nature, produced some of the greatest minds even among their apostates, including theodor adorno. turns out that even when people become philosophers rather than rabbis (or ministers, or imams, or gurus), they have plenty to offer, there is wisdom and value in exalting sagehood above the pulpit and how the pulpit must always lay down the law for the mechanisms of familial transmission.

consider second, the ancient greeks: the ancient greeks no longer possess the structures required to exercise their worldviews and theodicies as a bloc (in diaspora or otherwise). regardless, many of their concepts and wisdoms persist in various cultures literally all across the worlds, including mine: their strands of cultural dna have germinated in a larger cosmopolitan phenotype, and i believe this is beautiful and worthwhile in its own right, and in no way whatsoever a loss. sure, their influence might not be recognisable as an enduring culture, but does that make it any less valuable? no, not in the slightest. the fact is, once you are on the other side this is the most normal thing in the world, nobody will mourn it, and everyone who wishes to return will be easily dismissed as entertaining a fantasy. the only way to forestall this is in fact a tautological clinging to the present which will necessarily through the course of history become an immanence of reaction, after all, the prime fallacy of reactionary thought is that it is in fact possible to recreate the past, which is plainly not true except perhaps for aesthetic but which will regardless necessarily be rooted in the current conditions of the world. all that forestalling this progression constitutes is the insistence on the completely artificial. much like the workings of the state are one that imposes a false reality, a phantasm, a reification onto the world, so with family, and literally the moment you stop propping it up it will be superceded. let me repeat that: supercession is inevitable, and the most sophisticated elements of any culture acknowledge this and have for literal centuries (although some cultures are ahead of others in this regard by-and-large). for every generation of a culture persisting as itself, apostates and deviants emerge and at this rate they have done more for the progress within any cultural body than will ever happen within such cultural bodies, which must begrudgingly acknowledge that they are dependent on modernity in order to make any progress at all (and as such, will wither away together with modernity), although of course they will deny this at any front— the adaptation of any covenant is desperately contingent on integration and naturalisation of the apostate and the ‘modern’, or at least her wisdom , which the embodied religious individual will then, of course, pretend to practisee more ‘maturely’ than the apostate because they insist on integrating it in a neutered fashion where it is stripped of future potential of development until the next steal comes along, which is better than fully embodied anti-atheism as the ever-sublating struggle against entropy, for some fucking reason.

this is the promise of ‘externality’ that foucault dreamt of: that there is a way of thinking ‘outside the box’ that allows us to once and for all dispel and move on from the ways of thinking that we cannot think outside of. derrida then disputed him by arguing that there is no outside context. derrida is right— regardless, i remain optimistic: perhaps this cosmopolitan neotenous emergence is a culture in itself, but it is as divergent from what came before as christianity is to judaism, and islam to both christianity and judaism. all it takes is courage, and once the leap of faith has been made, this state of affairs will be the most normal thing in the world. in light of this, the claim that anticlericalism is simply an outwash of christendom becomes obviously farcical and a clear double standard when one considers in juxtaposition their insistence that christianity is divergent from what came before, even though in both cases (christendom versus judaism, anticlericalism versus christendom) perhaps some commonality in language exists and perhaps some people exist who have not managed to estrange themselves from the trappings of christian thought— not to mention the worldwide history of anticlericalism that is yet to be integrated which exists exactly because clericalism necessarily has the same structure and function across all religions. join me in this supercessionist bliss, reject the idea that chronology of thought implies that successors are one and the same as what they draw upon or co-opt, and help usher in the only future world worth conceiving of, resting easy and comfortable in the truthful rejection of the notion that any culture needs to cling to the notion of familial transmission to have any worth at all or that its existence as such is inevitable. the complete and utter nullification of familial logic will happen regardless of whether you want it or not anyway, because it is as artificial as the logic of nation and state and likewise unsustainable and on its death march— this is the one and final eschatology of this world which is not a threat, but a promise, since it will (and can) not be the result so much of repression but of religion collapsing under its own weight, and this much is only uncomfortable to those who are disciples to the family regardless of whether they admit it to themselves or not.

[jediminddicks1000]

Master list-

Kylo ren: https://jediminddicks1000.tumblr.com/post/611419253255569409/the-rise-of-draconis

https://jediminddicks1000.tumblr.com/post/611875771574812672/the-rise-of-draconis

https://jediminddicks1000.tumblr.com/post/611876814959280128/the-rise-of-draconis

One shots- Clyde Logan.

https://jediminddicks1000.tumblr.com/post/617236317428989952/little-miss

ONE SHOTS- Kylo ren

https://jediminddicks1000.tumblr.com/post/617058575693627392/such-a-good-pet

https://jediminddicks1000.tumblr.com/post/615525974971383808/barbie-on-display

https://jediminddicks1000.tumblr.com/post/613687806868471809/you-me-and-the-devil-make-three

https://jediminddicks1000.tumblr.com/post/614154787283468288/hey-honey-can-i-make-a-request-for-sleepy-morning

[autisticadvocacy]

This past weekend, mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio killed at least 30 people and injured over 50 more. These mass shootings, the 16th and 17th in the United States this year this year, took place amidst a continued crisis of white supremacism in the US; while the administration promotes xenophobia and the President calls immigrants less than human; and in a political climate in which we have repeatedly failed to address the prevalence & availability of deadly firearms. Our hearts are with the victims, their families, and their communities.

Speaking this morning about these mass shootings, President Trump said that mass shootings are carried out by “mentally ill monsters” and claimed that in order to prevent them, we must “reform our mental health laws to better identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence and make sure these people not only get treatment but, when necessary, involuntary confinement.” These remarks are a blatant attempt to target and scapegoat people with disabilities in order to distract from the active role our President himself has played in inciting anti-immigrant sentiment and white supremacist violence. ASAN calls on policymakers and the American public not to be taken in by this dangerous rhetoric, but to insist on real, meaningful change.

Blaming mass shootings on people with mental health disabilities has become so routine that yesterday, the American Psychiatric Association issued a statement warning against blaming mental illness for “a public health crisis of gun violence fueled by racism, bigotry and hatred.” As the APA points out, people with mental health disabilities are far more likely to be victims of violence than to be perpetrators. The overwhelming majority of gun violence is carried out by nondisabled people; we cannot fight gun violence or racism by monitoring and institutionalizing people with disabilities. We urge everyone to educate themselves on this issue so that we as a nation can stay focused on working towards real solutions.

When we examine the evidence, it is easy to see that enacting legislation making it easier to surveil and institutionalize people with mental health disabilities, as the President has suggested, would not prevent gun violence. Instead, it would threaten the civil rights of the 1 in 5 Americans with mental health disabilities. People with disabilities have fought for decades for our right to live in our communities and make our own decisions about our housing and health care. As centuries of failed U.S. policies demonstrate, denying us these rights means abandoning us to abuse, neglect and segregation. The results of the President’s proposal would be catastrophic; not only for the disability community, but for our nation as a whole, because it would allow gun violence to continue unchecked.

When the President of the United States scapegoats the disability community instead of reckoning with white supremacy, he knows exactly what he is doing. He knows that his talking points, reprehensible as they may be, line up with common societal prejudices which allow him to distract from the issues at hand. It is incumbent upon all of us to refuse to play along. We must educate each other; denounce white supremacy; stand up for our friends, family & neighbors with mental health disabilities; and advocate for real solutions to gun violence, racism and xenophobia. We call on our elected officials at all levels of government to do the same.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization run by and for autistic people. ASAN was created to serve as a national grassroots disability rights organization for the autistic community run by and for autistic Americans, advocating for systems change and ensuring that the voices of autistic people are heard in policy debates and the halls of power. Our staff work to educate communities, support self-advocacy in all its forms, and improve public perceptions of autism. ASAN’s members and supporters include autistic adults and youth, cross-disability advocates, and non-autistic family members, professionals, educators, and friends.