#and it can be regardless of their additional identities or political views

[umberandmochaagate]

We're starting to really talk about how oppression affects people on an epigenetic level for those victimized

We need to also look at how epigenetics are affected in oppressors and white supremacy

Because how in the hell you're gonna go to a South Asian country as a refugee from Europe and start tryna throw a fucking "white only" party and hating on the native people like what the fuck

[venusianpulp]

Part 1 of Asteroids & Major Aspects

These are just some examples. I think, just like Tarot, it extremely important for peoples personal experiences and intuitive guidance helps create the whole interpretation from a chart by chart perspective, therefore... this would primarily help those of you who don't know the generak themes/are just starting out in astrology. Regardless, this is hyper-generalized as more of a starter guide:

Asteroid Juno:

The asteroid Juno represents marriage and commitment dynamics in astrology. Having significant aspects to Juno in a natal chart can reveal information about someone's approach to long-term partnerships:

Juno conjunct Sun/Moon - Commitment is central to one's identity and emotional needs. Loyal but may depend heavily on partner.

Juno conjunct Venus - Highly romantic nature. Idealistic in relationships. Strong desire for marriage or lifelong bonding.

Juno conjunct Mars - Sexual needs tied to intimacy. There can be contention around commitment needs.

Juno square Saturn - Difficulty with obligation in relationships. Fears of losing freedom or individuality through marriage.

Juno opposite Uranus - Drawn to unconventional relationships. Dislikes feeling "owned" or bound. Issues with fidelity.

Juno trine Jupiter - Faith in marriage and willingness to work through challenges. Expansive benefits from partnerships.

Juno quincunx Neptune - Yearning for soulmate union. Can sacrifice too much or ignore red flags when in love.

Aspects to Juno should be considered alongside the entire chart. But they can reveal someone's unique needs, wounds, potentials or lessons when it comes to long-term marriage and commitment. The house placement of Juno also adds additional context to these relationship tendencies.

Asteroid Ceres:

The asteroid Ceres represents nurturing, maternal instincts, and family/childhood issues in astrology. Having significant aspects to Ceres in a natal chart can indicate the following:

Ceres conjunct Moon - Deep need to care for others, especially children. Strong maternal instincts. Early childhood issues around nurturing may arise.

Ceres conjunct Venus - Expressing affection by providing food, comfort and security. Partners may take on child-like roles.

Ceres conjunct Mars - Nurturing drives or inhibits sexuality. Could indicate conflicts around parenting.

Ceres square Saturn - Difficulty nurturing oneself/others due to parental criticism or early life responsibility.

Ceres opposite Uranus - Nurturing patterns disrupted by sudden change. Rebellious response to restrictive mother.

Ceres trine Jupiter - Positive nurturing from mother and family. Natural talent for parenting, cooking, gardening.

Ceres quincunx Pluto - Intense need for security. Hunger for deep connection. Early power struggles around dependence.

Ceres Return - Time of reconnecting with these themes. Healing childhood issues. Revisiting parenting roles.

Aspects to natal Ceres help uncover your unique attachment style and talents/wounds around providing and receiving nurturance within families. Ceres' house placement adds more detail about where these dynamics play out.

Asteroid Pallas:

The asteroid Pallas represents wisdom, strategy, and political/social justice in astrology. Major aspects to Pallas in a natal chart indicate the following:

Pallas conjunct Mercury - Strong strategic thinking and gift for seeing multiple angles of a situation. Able to mediate conflicts.

Pallas conjunct Venus - Sense of justice and fairness applied to relationships and social connections. Diplomatic mediator.

Pallas conjunct Mars - Fights for beliefs, sometimes aggressively. May be combative communication style.

Pallas square Saturn - Difficulty employing practical strategy. Wisdom gained slowly through experience.

Pallas opposite Uranus - Innovative thinker but can be stubborn in views. Fights for radical change.

Pallas trine Jupiter - Expansive wisdom, big picture thinking. Natural lawyer or wise counselor. Lucky planning.

Pallas quincunx Pluto - Compulsive need to understand hidden agendas. Sees manipulation in all interactions.

Pallas Return - Period of reconnecting to inner wisdom and reassessing life strategies.

Pallas aspects in the natal chart illuminate your relationship to wisdom, discernment, strategy, and ability to negotiate. Pallas' house placement provides added context on applying these qualities to specific life areas.

Asteroid Vesta:

The asteroid Vesta represents devotion, focus, sacred rituals, and the temple of the self in astrology. Major aspects between Vesta and planets/points in a natal chart indicate:

Vesta conjunct Sun - Strong sense of inner purpose. Needs to dedicate self to meaningful cause for fulfillment.

Vesta conjunct Moon - Soulful devotion and emotional investment in what one holds sacred. Possible spiritual calling.

Vesta conjunct Mercury - Mental dedication to areas of focus and study. Disciplined thinker.

Vesta conjunct Venus - Deeply devoted in relationships but needs personal space respected. May be devoted to arts.

Vesta conjunct Mars - Drive to devote energy passionately but can lead to burnout without care.

Vesta square Saturn - Challenges in reconciling dedication with responsibilities. Tests of commitment

Vesta opposite Uranus - Needs freedom and humanity in what one dedicates to. Rebellious to dogma.

Vesta trine Neptune - Spiritual devotion comes naturally. Drawn to mysticism and esoteric rituals.

Vesta quincunx Pluto - Intense focus can lead to destructive tendencies without balance.

Vesta aspects reveal the positive and challenging ways one directs devotion, ritual, and sacred focus in life. Vesta's house and sign placements add more texture.

Asteroid Pholus:

The asteroid Pholus represents one's response to crisis, the unexpected, and where we may feel pressured to take extreme measures or actions. Major aspects to Pholus in a natal chart indicate:

Pholus conjunct Sun - Identity tied to managing crises. Drawn to emergency response and high pressure situations.

Pholus conjunct Moon - Heightened emotional reactions to the unexpected. Difficulty regulating feelings under duress.

Pholus conjunct Mercury - Strong mental strategizing to handle catastrophes. Tendency to give unsolicited advice when stressed.

Pholus conjunct Mars - Reacts urgently, aggressively when faced with disruption. Prone to impulsiveness under pressure.

Pholus square Saturn - Hardships build character and skills to handle predicaments. Can also cause rigidity and avoidance.

Pholus opposite Uranus - Rebellious reactions to turmoil. Uses shock value to shake things up.

Pholus trine Pluto - Able to regenerate and find power when faced with what seems like disaster.

Pholus quincunx Neptune - Handles chaos through imagination, spirituality, chemicals. Can lose grip on reality.

Pholus aspects point to our reflexive responses to crises and willingness to cross boundaries when pressured. Pholus' house placement adds more context.

[a-slut-for-vegaspete]

Playboyy – Porn without Plot?

Initial Thoughts on/ Reaction to Playboyy Episode One

As someone who loves to study (quite literally; I’m currently pursuing a MA degree in cultural studies) and investigate depictions of sex and sexuality in media, Playboyy has been one of my most anticipated releases of 2023 and it’s easier for me to work through my issues with a piece of media when I put my thoughts on paper or in a word document; so this post is primarily for myself.

Sex is sometimes presented as a personal, individual matter but in reality, our thoughts on sex, our dislikes and likes are a product or, at the very least, are shaped by, and of course in term can also influence, existing, dominant discourses on sex(uality), gender, class, race etc. One example of this – one most BL viewers/ queer individuals will recognise  – would of course be sex between queer individuals; an issue that remains highly debated. Some people/governments to this day like to think that they have the right to dictate who is allowed to have sex with whom and what sexual practices people can engage in without facing societal/legal punishment. So sex is never just about sex but is always also political; it’s just that this is more obvious to people who are part of a (or multiple) marginalised group(s). Sex is an entangled, complex phenomenon that always needs to be understood in relation to other discourses on e.g. (normative) femininity/masculinity, national identity etc. So any sexual act (on screen/irl), whether intended or not, engages with these discourses, subverts them and/or reaffirms them.

Regardless of whether the creators of Playboyy – or any piece of media for that matter – have meant for this series to serve as a critique or subversion of certain ideas surrounding sex and sexuality, the series (un)intentionally presents us with certain performances of sex and in doing so adds to, intervenes in and shapes existing discourses on sexuality and influences how topics such as kink, queerness, sex work (to name a few) are understood and talked about. 

Since only one episode has been released so far, and since I don't know what goes on in the writers’ minds, I, of course, can’t say for certain whether Playboyy is intended to engage with the political and social aspects of sex. However, I do think that Denice’s Twitter accounts (he is one of the writers (@ VivienneActing)) can provide us with insights into the writers’ intentions behind creating this show. In addition, the opening scene of episode one makes it clear that this piece of media, in some capacity at least, serves as a social commentary on the construction of sexual practices and sexual identities (in Thailand). The viewer is seemingly directly addressed, questions regarding sex are posed and the statement that “sex has many forms and careers in many places with many preferences” is made, which leads me to think that the creators have thought about and want the audience to critically think about how sex is often presented and talked about within dominant discourses. The character goes on to say that “it would be great if we could stop faking it and be frank about it”, which implies that the way we currently talk about sex is dissatisfactory to the character in the show/the creators of the show and that this series intends to present their own – potentially non-normative – views on sex. Especially the comment that “it’s a shame that we can’t be that free in this country” functions as a critique of how sex and the sex industry are frequently conceptualised in Thailand. (And when I say ‘Thailand’ here I of course don’t mean the entire country; I’m specifically referring to people/institutions/political parties that uphold and propagate conservative beliefs on and attitudes regarding sex. And I think this is the part of Thailand the series is critical of here as well).

However, I also don’t want to place too much importance on the intentions of the creators (in part, bc as I have said before, unless we are told specifically we can only speculate about their motives). I for one am also very interested in how I myself (and other viewers) read and interpret the narratives the series presents us with.

Little disclaimer: I watched episode 1 last night, half asleep, I don’t have the best memory and since the story has literally just begun (and there are so many ways this could pan out), my stance on these issues will probably change with the release of future episodes. So my ramblings have their limitations. In addition, I’ve grown up in the West, which influences how I conceptualise sex(uality) and gender; which is definitely something to be wary of and to be critical of, as well. 

As of right now, I’m the most intrigued by Zouey and by how he navigates sex and how he expresses himself sexually. What I find so interesting about his character is his non-normative approach to sex. While he is introduced as someone who apparently hasn't slept with anyone yet, we also see that he has sexual needs and desires. I love that the show does not limit sexual expression to intimate relations between two or more people but also showcases the possibility of exploring it on your own. 

I’m fascinated by people’s initial reactions to Zouey and what people make of his character; in particular people’s thoughts on the scene where he is in a dark room masturbating to a painting. I do wonder how much the colour grading (quite dark and gloomy) and the music (somewhat ominous) might influence or shape viewers’ perceptions of this scene and their conceptualisation of Zouey, and more broadly speaking their reception of expressions of non-normative sexual acts (in media).

The way Zoey negotiates his boundaries regarding sex is so interesting to me, as he clearly feels sexual attraction but does not feel comfortable being touched sexually. (I do wonder if there is a reason for this. Not saying that there needs to be a particular reason; I’m genuinely just curious if we might find out more in future episodes). I personally love how that doesn’t stop him from blowing Teena (twice if I remember correctly). I think his performance disrupts the normative script of sex, (or one of the normative scripts. To say that there is only one normative way to have sex would be incorrect I guess). He definitely doesn't adhere to this script/these scripts, and this seems to have created discomfort/confusion for some viewers, while others seem to really appreciate it. 

Also a little side note: the way Zouey does or doesn’t have sex can also lead us to posing the question of what counts as sex. Only penetrative sex? That seems like a somewhat outdated and not exactly queer-friendly definition of sex, right? And what even is virginity? Is Zouey still a virgin or not by the end of the episode?

I think the first episode already touches on so many different issues and I love it. People have pointed out the different social statuses of First and Soong, so we already have a storyline that highlights how sex and class are interconnected issues. We have seen a fair amount of kinky sexual practices, and sex workers have also made an appearance. So to come back to my initial question, is Playboyy porn without plot? Personally, I wouldn’t classify it as such. In my opinion, while the first episode does heavily focus on sex, sex is used as a tool for storytelling and the creators have taken the unique approach of introducing the viewers to the characters via sex. Plus, there is the mysterious disappearance of Nun/Nant(?). But also to me, it doesn’t really matter whether this is porn without plot or not. Firstly, because I think that sometimes (emphasis on ‘sometimes’, okay?) when something is labelled as porn without plot this is done to discredit a particular piece of media and to paint it as something that is inherently ‘less’ (less serious, less valuable etc.) and I don’t agree with this particular conceptualisation of plot without porn because I think it fails to recognise the value of such stories, not just for people’s own enjoyment but also in regards to academic analysis. And secondly, because I am more interested in how the series is situated (and maybe even actively positions itself) in relation to broader discourses such as (non-normative) sexualities, kink, sex work (in Thailand) etc. and for this we don’t necessarily need a “good” plot structure. So I, for one, am I excited to watch (and analyse) the rest of the show. 

[heartofstanding]

I think the image issue of Saint Isabella has a reason for setting too high a moral standard for women... She must have been insulted for over a decade and not be held accountable for any crimes against her allies in order to be qualified to overthrow her husband

She cannot be greedy and cold on her own. She must wage war for the sake of British peace rather than her own dignity

The reason why Isabella's infidelity is widely accepted by most historians is probably that she did not fight for the interests of her husband and son (such as Margaret of Anjou) and prioritized her own interests over theirs... Women can betray their fathers and brothers for the sake of their husbands, sons, and brothers, but it is considered inappropriate for them to rebel against their husbands or sons for the sake of their own private interests.

I think that is very true. There's a tendency for women to be judged more harshly than men for the same things. Women have to be perfect to be viewed sympathetically and taken seriously (but then her perfection often becomes "unrealistic" and proof she's a "Mary-Sue") while men are allowed to be flawed and still taken seriously and be considered likeable and sympathetic. This is true for most, if not all, marginalised identities, obviously.

There's also an additional factor in the sense that the sympathetic Isabella narratives are revisionist and a lot of revisionist narratives (fiction or non-fiction) do tend to sanctify and victimise their subject, regardless of their gender.

Ricardian narratives is probably the most obvious example of this. Richard III has done nothing wrong in his whole life, ever, except maybe being too noble and too trusting (so, you know, it's not really his fault) and a lot of time is dwelt in his suffering, imagined or not. The Ricardian treatment of the Rout of Ludford Bridge (also known as the Sack of Ludlow) is a key example of this. Ricardians always depict it as one of the most brutal events in the early Wars of the Roses and especially traumatic for the child Richard. In reality, it was a "largely bloodless" conflict and while we know Richard was present, we have no evidence that he witnessed anything of the sack, much less that he was particularly traumatised by it.

This victimisation (one might be tempted to use the fandom term "woobification") is used to forge (or force) a connection between the subject/character and the reader/audience. Who wouldn't feel the small child traumatised by the horrors of war and wouldn't then root for him in his family's stance against the sadistic and brutish Lancastrians?

With Isabella, her victimisation is more obviously gendered. Isabella's story is depicted as a sort of "everywoman" tale. This is the lot of a woman: she is born to be used as a pawn by her father, to married off for political gain, and if she is unlucky, she will be married to a bad man who will use her as a broodmare and will subject her to domestic and sexual abuse (which, while experienced by all genders, are stereotypically portrayed as something that only happen to women). This not only forces to us to feel sorry for her but it also is designed to make her relatable to (most) women. Isabella's suffering also justifies her rebellion against her husband. If her husband mistreats her, then he has already broken their marriage and she owes him no allegiance.

And of course, who wouldn't think Isabella deserved happiness in Roger Mortimer's arms after all that?

(nevermind Mortimer's

I think another reason Isabella's adultery is so widely accepted is because the narrative was specific and consistent. The adultery rumours about Margaret of Anjou never named anyone specific, only rarely suggested a potential lover, and often betrayed scepticism about the reports (though that's never stopped a depressingly large amount of historians, especially Ricardian/Yorkist historians, from claiming that she was definitely having an affair and Edward of Lancaster was definitely a bastard), while Isabella was consistently paired with Roger Mortimer. Even when the contemporary chronicles implied rather than made an explicit claim, they linked Isabella and Mortimer together.

[crionic-dubs]

A frequently recurring theme when discussing the history of Palestine, is the question of “who was there first?”. The implication being, whoever was there first deserves ownership of the land. I have lost count of how many times I have encountered the argument that “The Jewish people have been in Palestine before the Muslims/Arabs,” or a variation thereof. This has always struck me as an interesting example of how people learn just enough history to support their world view, separating it completely from any historical context or the larger picture of the region.

[...]

The argument is simple to follow: Palestinians today are mostly Arabs. The Arabs came to the Levant with the Muslim conquest of the region. Therefore, Arabs -and as an extension Palestinians- have only been in Palestine and the Levant since the seventh century AD.

[...]

The second problem with this is that there is a misunderstanding of the process that is the Arabization of the Middle East and North Africa. Once again, we must view the Islamization of newly conquered lands and their Arabization as two distinct phenomena. The Islamization process began instantly, albeit slowly. Persia, for example took over 2 centuries to become a majority Muslim province. The Levant, much longer. The Arabization of conquered provinces though, began later than their Islamization. The beginning of this process can be traced back to the Marwanid dynasty of the Ummayad Caliphate. Until that point, each province was ruled mostly with its own language, laws and currency. The process of the Arabization of the state united all these under Arabic speaking officials, and made it law that the language of state and of commerce would become Arabic. Thus, it became advantageous to assimilate into this identity, as many government positions and trade deals were offered only to Muslim Arabs.

So although the vast majority of the population of these lands were not ethnically Arab, they came to identify as such over a millennium. Arab stopped being a purely ethnic identity, and morphed into a mainly cultural and linguistic one. In contrast to European colonialism of the new world, where the native population was mostly eradicated to make place for the invaders, the process in MENA is one of the conquered peoples mixing with and coming to identify as their conquerors without being physically removed, if not as Arabs, then as Muslims. Following from this, the Palestinian Arabs of today did not suddenly appear from the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century to settle in Palestine, but are the same indigenous peoples living there who changed how they identified over time. This includes the descendants of every group that has ever called Palestine their home.

[...]

We must separate the political nationalist identity of people from their personhood as human beings, as nationalism is a relatively modern concept, especially in the Middle East. Naturally, no region is a closed container. Trade, immigration, invasion and intermarriage all played a role in creating the current buildup of Palestinian society. There were many additions to the people of the land over the millennia. However, the fact remains that there was never a process where Arab or Muslim conquerors completely replaced the native population living there, only added to them.

[...]

So, what does this all mean for Palestine? Absolutely nothing. Although the argument has many ahistorical assumptions and claims, it is not these which form its greatest weakness. The whole argument is a trap. The basic implication of this line of argumentation is as follows: If the Jewish people were in Palestine before the Arabs, then the land belongs to them. Therefore, the creation of Israel would be justified.

From my experience, whenever this argument is used, the automatic response of Palestinians is to say that their ancestors were there first. These ancestors being the Canaanites. The idea that Palestinians are the descendants of only one particular group in a region with mass migrations and dozens of different empires and peoples is not only ahistorical, but this line of thought indirectly legitimizes the original argument they are fighting against. This is because it implies that the only reason Israel’s creation is unjustified is because their Palestinian ancestors were there first. It implies that the problem with the argument lies in the details, not that the argument as a whole is absolute nonsense and shouldn’t even be entertained.

The ethnic cleansing, massacres and colonialism needed to establish Israel can never be justified, regardless of who was there first. It’s a moot point. Even if we follow the argument that Palestinians have only been there for 1300 years, does this suddenly legitimize the expulsion of hundreds of thousands? Of course not. There is no possible scenario where it is excusable to ethnically cleanse a people and colonize their lands. Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years.

If we reject the “we were there first” argument, and not treat it as a legitimizing factor for Israel’s creation, then we can focus on the real history, without any ideological agendas. We could trace how our pasts intersected throughout the centuries. After all, there is indeed Jewish history in Palestine. This history forms a part of the Palestinian past and heritage, just like every other group, kingdom or empire that settled there does. We must stop viewing Palestinian and Jewish histories as competing, mutually exclusive entities, because for most of history they have not been.

These positions can be maintained while simultaneously rejecting Zionism and its colonialism. After all, this ideologically driven impulse to imagine our ancestors as some closed, well defined, unchanging homogenous group having exclusive ownership over lands corresponding to modern day borders has nothing to do with the actual history of the area, and everything to do with modern notions of ethnic nationalism and colonialism.

I do think it's interesting how when we're talking about Jewish indigneity, we're completely excluding the fact that Palestinians have always been indigenous to the region and share common ancestry with Jewish people, especially Sephardic Jews. After all, many Christian and Jewish people did convert to either Christianity or Islam, and we have plenty of historical records attesting to the fact that all of these communities have intermingled with each other. In fact, Palestinian Christians are one of the oldest Christian communities, dating back to the first century, whereas the Palestinian Samaritans had a consistent presence in Palestine since 500 B.C.

[leonalfari]

Denny JA built a policy that respects religious traditions as a source of inspiration

In the political world, it is important for leaders to build policies that pay attention to religious traditions as a source of inspiration. One of the figures who hold this principle is Denny JA, a famous Indonesian intellectual and politician. Denny JA has long been known as a person who respects religious traditions in every policy he makes. This article will review how Denny JA builds policies that respect religious traditions as a source of inspiration. Denny Ja, born in Jakarta on June 23, 1954, has contributed in many fields, including politics, social and cultural. He is known as the founder and general chairman of the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) who has given an assessment and view of various political issues in Indonesia. In addition, Denny Ja is also active in supporting education, research and development of human resources in Indonesia. One of the things that makes Denny Ja unique is its inclusive approach to religious traditions in policy making. He is aware that Indonesia is a country with a variety of religious traditions that must be respected and used as a source of inspiration to build a harmonious society. Denny Ja strongly believes that religion can be a moral and ethical foothold in the life of the nation and state. In every policy that Denny is proposed, he always ensures a deep understanding of the religious values in Indonesia. He tries to build an understanding that religion is not only a personal matter, but is also part of the identity of the nation and state. By understanding religious traditions in depth, Denny can create policies that respect and accommodate the needs and aspirations of religious people. One example of the policy built by Denny Ja is in the field of education. He realized the importance of education that reflects the religious values in Indonesia. Denny Ja supports the existence of quality religious education and can be accessed by all people, regardless of the religion adopted. He also encouraged the introduction of religious values in the general education curriculum, so that the young generation of Indonesia can understand and appreciate the religious traditions that are around them. In the field of culture, Denny Ja also plays an active role in preserving religious traditions as a source of inspiration. He supports the development of art and culture that raises religious values. Denny Ja believes that art and culture can be a means to convey religious messages to the community in an interesting and inspiring way. By strengthening the bond between religion and culture, Denny Ja hopes to build a more harmonious religious life in Indonesia. In addition, Denny Ja also often presents religious leaders in various discussions and public forums that he holds. He tried to give a stage to religious leaders so that their voices were heard, as well as giving space for dialogue between religious believers. Denny Ja is aware that by dialogue and respecting differences, we can achieve a better understanding of religious traditions and increase tolerance in the community. Through its inclusive approach to religious traditions, Denny Ja has succeeded in building policies that respect and accommodate the interests of religious communities. He understands that religious traditions are an important part of the identity of the Indonesian nation and must be considered in every policy made.

Check more:

[arifreko]

Denny Ja: Opening Eyes: Errifying the Inner by Understanding the Diversity of Religion

Denny Ja, or his full name Denny Januar Ali, is a social movement figure and Indonesian writer who has contributed a lot in enriching understanding of the diversity of religions in the community. He was born in Cianjur on January 22, 1953 and had aspired since childhood to become a social activist.

Denny JA, who is a Catholic adherent, greatly appreciates the diversity of religions and beliefs that exist in Indonesia. He saw the diversity of religion as a wealth that should be maintained and appreciated, not as a problem that must be avoided or eliminated. With a deep understanding of the religions in Indonesia, Denny JA is trying to open the eyes of religious adherents and society in general, in order to enrich the mind by understanding and respecting this diversity. Denny JA is known as a vocal and critical figure in seeing various social and political issues in Indonesia. One of the focus of his struggle is in defending minority rights and groups marginalized by the community. Denny Ja is of the view that the diversity of religions and beliefs in Indonesia can only be enjoyed in full if all groups, regardless of their religion and beliefs, can live side by side harmoniously and fairly. To realize this vision, Denny Ja has written and socialized about the diversity of religions. He shows that every religion contains universal values that can be taken by all humanity, not only by adherents of these religions. With a correct and objective understanding, the diversity of religions will be a source of power that can unite the Indonesian people in diversity. In his paper entitled "Diversity of Religion: Between Tolerance and Maintaining Identity", Denny Ja stated that religious tolerance is not only limited to respecting and accepting the existence of other religions, but must also understand and respect differences in religion. In this context, Denny Ja suggested that followers of religion can learn and understand other religions, so they can get better insight about the diversity of religions. Denny Ja also stressed the importance of interfaith dialogue and lead various interfaith dialogue events that have been held in various regions in Indonesia. With inter-religious dialogue, a better understanding of differences in religion and ways to maintain harmony between these religious groups will be created. In addition, Denny Ja also promotes the "Indonesia without discrimination" campaign, which aims to respect and respect cultural, religious, and racial differences in Indonesian society. This campaign includes social actions, such as providing assistance to marginalized groups, such as street children, poor people, and victims of natural disasters. Denny Ja also established a social institution called the Institute for Democracy and Social Justice (Ideas), which aims to fight for minority rights and groups marginalized in society and build a more just and democratic society. This institution has carried out a lot of research and advocacy for various social issues in Indonesia, such as human rights, discrimination, and social justice. Denny Ja is a very inspiring figure for many people, especially for those who care about the diversity of religions in Indonesia. With a sincere spirit of struggle to fight discrimination and respect religious differences, he has given many positive contributions to the Indonesian people. Hopefully the spirit of religious diversity that he brought continues to develop and can be realized in a better and harmonious society.

Check more: Denny JA: Opening Eyes: Enriching the Inner by Understanding the Diversity of Religion

[syifablog2]

Relying the meaning behind the work of Denny Ja’s choice: “Don’t Cry Palestine”

In the world of art, literature, and theater in Indonesia, it is undeniable that the name Denny Ja has become the center of fans and observers. One of the works he produced, which has invited a lot of attention and controversy, is “Don’t Cry Palestine.” In this article, we will reveal the meaning behind this controversial Denny JA choice.    Theater work “Don’t Cry Palestine” was first staged in 2018. The story has a background in the Israelpalestinian conflict which has lasted decades. However, Denny JA not only wants to highlight the conflict itself, but also shows its impact on the daily life of the Palestinian people.    In this work, Denny JA managed to present a different perspective and represent several aspects of life in Palestine. He displays character characteristics that describe sadness, loss, courage, and endurance. Through a strong narrative and sharp dialogue, Denny Ja invites the audience to reflect on the sacrifice and struggle experienced by the Palestinian people.    One meaning that we can find behind this work is the importance of empathy and solidarity between people. Denny Ja through “Don’t Cry Palestine” wants to remind us of the importance of respecting the lives of others, regardless of background, religion, or ethnicity. This work invites us to open our eyes and heart to the suffering experienced by our brothers in Palestine.    Not only that, “Don’t Cry Palestine” also invites the audience to reflect on the conflict that occurs in this world and question the actions that we might take as individuals or as a society. Is there anything we can do to help alleviate the suffering of others? How can we contribute to creating peace?    In addition, this work also highlights the importance of maintaining identity and culture in the midst of raging conflicts. In “Don’t Cry Palestine,” Denny Ja shows how the Palestinians stick to their culture and tradition in the midst of all the limitations and difficulties they face. This message reminds us of the importance of respecting and preserving cultural diversity in this world.    Of course, like the work of other contemporary arts, Denny Ja’s work also reaps various responses and interpretations. Some people may see it as a call to politics and action, while others may see it as a form of expression of art that moves the heart and mind. However, it is undeniable that “do not cry Palestine” has made an important contribution in raising relevant social and political issues.    In conclusion, Denny Ja’s choice of choice is controversial, “Don’t cry Palestine,” offering us different views on Israelpalestinian conflict. Through strong characteristics and evocative stories, Denny Ja invites the audience to reflect on empathy, solidarity, and the importance of maintaining cultural identity in the midst of conflict. This work shows the important role of art in delivering in -depth and inspiring humanitarian messages.

Check more: Uncovering the meaning behind Denny JAs Selected Work: “Don’t Cry Palestine”

[rynn-1]

Denny Ja reviews the phenomenon of feminism 4 waves and its impact on society

Wave 4 feminism has become a phenomenon that is quite interesting in the midst of society today. In this article, we will review the development of this phenomenon and its impact on society. As one of the famous Indonesian intellectual figures, Denny JA gave his view of this phenomenon.

Introduction Wave 4 feminism is a feminist movement that emerged in the early 21st century. This movement has the main focus on the elimination of gender and female injustice. Wave 4 feminism fights for gender equality in all aspects of life, including in the political, economic and social fields. This movement also emphasizes the importance of supporting women in achieving their full potential, as well as opposing stereotypes and gender discrimination. Discussion Wave 4 feminism has several special characteristics that distinguish it from previous feminist movements. One of them is the use of technology and social media as a means to spread messages and mobilize the masses. Through platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook, feminist activists can easily communicate and organize their actions. This allows this movement to reach more people and get broader support. In addition, Wave 4 feminism also emphasizes the importance of inclusion and better representation for women in various fields. This movement urges women to have the same access as men in education, work, and leadership. They struggle to overcome gender gaps that still exist in society, including gaps in wages and career opportunities. The impact of feminism wave 4 on society is also very significant. This movement has succeeded in changing the views and awareness of many people about gender issues. They encourage people to question and overcome gender injustice that still exists in our social system. Many companies and institutions also begin to realize the importance of gender equality and take steps to create a fair and inclusive work environment. However, Wave 4 feminism also faces challenges and controversy. Some people criticize this movement as "extreme" or "excessive" in their demands. They argue that this movement is too focused on women and ignores other issues that are also important. In addition, there are also those who feel this movement threatens the traditional order and values that already exist in society. Conclusion Wave 4 feminism is an important movement and has a significant impact on society. This movement brings gender issues to the surface and encourages changes in social systems that are still full of injustice. Despite facing challenges and controversy, this movement continues to grow and get wider support. Denny JA gives his understanding of this phenomenon and emphasizes the importance of overcoming gender injustice in our society. In his view, gender equality is not a threat, but a need that must be fought for together. In dealing with wave 4 feminism, we need to open our minds and listen to all the sounds. Only can we create a more just and inclusive society for everyone, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Wave 4 feminism is a call for everyone to participate in creating a better world.

Check more: Denny JA reviews the phenomenon of feminism 4 waves and its impact on society

[mysticalkidangel]

The Most Hilarious Complaints We've Heard About miniatur kereta api

Being able to speak efficiently with Other people necessitates individuals skills, and here's eight crucial kinds:™

one. Being familiar with people today

Folks not merely are available all sizes and styles, Nonetheless they include distinctive identity forms at the same time. You might want to brush up regarding how to talk to the four most important temperament kinds by reading this text. Without a doubt, focused pupils of conversation could do little better than invest in Bem Allen's excellent introduction to persona kinds, 'Identity Theories'.

Consumers are men and women, with as quite a few similarities from one particular particular person to the subsequent as discrepancies. To communicate most properly, Every will require you to communicate with them in their own individual specific preference design, applying their language, their entire body gestures, as well as their pace and intonation.

So How would you Discover how greatest to talk to another person? Spend time with them! Really don't hope to meet a person off the road and converse intimately with them in just a moment. Being familiar with a topic requires time -- no matter whether that topic is a tutorial just one or Yet another individual.

2. Expressing your feelings and thoughts Plainly

Our brains can only get a lot of details in at any one time. We are bombarded with messages every single next of the working day, so to compete Together with the barrage of 'sounds' somebody faces, your information should be obvious, succinct also to The purpose.

It's very worthwhile taking the perfect time to prepare your interaction -- regardless of by what approach it is shipped -- to make sure that you are using the least amount of time to express the best degree of assumed in by far the most receptively straightforward method.

3. Speaking up when your preferences usually are not being fulfilled

Equally as critical in business relationships as in domestic kinds, Talking up in order that your preferences are satisfied can be a essential A part of any relationship.

You could possibly need to examine this informative article on assertive, not aggressive, communication, but in a nutshell you will find 6 different ways it is possible to be assertive rather than intense within your communication: by rehearsing your conduct before the communication; by repeating your communication (the 'damaged report' procedure); fogging; asking for detrimental feedback; tentative agreement with damaging suggestions; and making a workable compromise.

Assertiveness can be a practical conversation Resource. It truly is software is contextual and it is not suitable to get assertive in all predicaments. Remember, your unexpected use of assertiveness may very well be perceived as an act of aggression by Other individuals.

four. Requesting comments from Some others and providing high quality suggestions in return

Along with assertiveness strategies, the providing and acquiring of comments is a crucial interaction talent that needs to be learnt if you would like have any hope of creating lengthy-term business relationships..

Toastmasters Global train a helpful opinions and significant evaluation system -- very first provide a sincere compliment, stick to this palang pintu kereta with any useful ideas for improvement, then wrap up with more sincere praise. It is called 'CRC', or 'Commend, Advocate, Commend', A 3-stage model for excellence in supplying quality suggestions.

Remember, much too, that truthfulness is really a subjective view. Everything you may possibly discover distasteful in someone could possibly be Similarly attractive from another's point of view. As I learnt, by residing via a series of IRA atrocities in England and observing the US political and media reactions, a person person's terrorist is an additional male's liberty fighter.

5. Influencing how Some others Feel and act

Every one of us have the chance to affect how Other individuals Assume and act. All the way from Cialdini's Persuasion concepts right down to simple violence (of a verbal or Bodily mother nature), we've been daily capable of condition the thoughts and steps of All those about us.

From one thing as simple as smiling and expressing, "Hello there!" like a technique for influencing somebody's temper, to foremost by instance throughout an intensive period of adjust, there are various means of possibly bringing about or drawing outside of Other individuals demanded behaviours and attitudes.

Do not forget that an Angle leads to an emotion, which in turn contributes to an motion. Condition the attitudes and you've got a far more reputable technique for predicting steps.

six. Bringing conflicts into the area and acquiring them solved

I confess: I am not a 'purely natural' at managing conflict. It is really taken marrying into an existing relatives of three kids to aid this only kid come to conditions with conflict.

It is really taken me 3 years of living in my loved ones to realise It is really possible to co-exist in conflict and never get Individually involved. However it wasn't a straightforward lesson to know, I am able to let you know!

But currently being a move-father to teenage young children has served me discover the necessity of bringing conflicts and resentments into the area the place they can be a lot more effortlessly managed.

Your workforce is likely to be harbouring top secret resentments of you, and Unless of course you find out whatever they are, provide these 'dark insider secrets' out into The sunshine of day, you are never ever likely to be able to correctly manage them.

It truly is embarrassing, possibly humiliating and demands a potent amount of endurance to not start straight right into a defensive mode, but offering people the chance to Specific their considerations, disappointments and anger, facial area-to-experience, will give you tremendous possibility to set factors right, or enable them see in which their thoughts and inner thoughts are misplaced.

seven. Collaborating with others as opposed to accomplishing matters by your self

I'm a shocker at this, but Finding out to delegate and share continues to be instrumental in developing my very own enterprise.

The quickest strategy for burying on your own in excess element and workload is always to attempt to do all the things you. Nevertheless sharing the workload is often the smartest point you might at any time do. This is why:

'Leverage'.

Leverage is having your skills and abilities and making it possible for Other individuals to Amplify your work ability. You teach them to do That which you do and you simply do another thing.

One particular bricklayer can only lay a certain variety of bricks in an hour or so, but that same bricklayer can educate 15 mates to lay bricks and abruptly Individuals 15 bricklayers are constructing monuments whilst the main bricklayer is out securing extra perform for them.

While the fifteen are laying bricks, the original bricklayer could be Studying tips on how to perform Sophisticated bricklaying, or find out gross sales approaches, or understand supervision abilities.

The lesson is simple: try to do everything on your own and also the 'all' will bury you; educate Other individuals to complete That which you do and you simply build a monument.

Jesus taught eleven Gentlemen the best way to do what he did. Then he remaining them to hold on though he moved on to other things. From The easy act of one guy teaching eleven Other individuals, a church and the biggest, most influential religious motion the world has ever recognized was born.

8. Shifting gears when relationships are unproductive

At times you might want to stroll absent. At times you might want to jettison unhealthy cargo. And often you should take drastic measures to get back balance and momentum.

'Shifting gears' is often so simple as modifying the venue of one's supervision Assembly from the dim Place of work to a close-by cafe. In some cases it might be relocating the Assembly from straight just after lunch to very first thing subsequent early morning, when clearer heads may possibly prevail.

Often it may possibly imply raising the extent of assertiveness in order to ensure the point you are creating is staying received. From time to time it might mean bringing Other folks in the Assembly to make sure that one other man or woman understands the implications in their attitudes or actions.

And in some cases it may possibly suggest serving to them look for a a lot more meaningful and satisfying role outside of your sphere of impact.

To be a management psychologist I Plainly try to remember one particular organisation I consulted to: the sole way outside of a workers deadlock was to get rid of the impediments to development. Which intended assisting vital protagonists locate new get the job done outside of the organisation. Sometimes tradition improve can only be effected in A fast way by bringing in an entire new staff and throwing away the useless wood. But only as a last resort.

Summary

The whole idea of staying people today proficient is knowing or acquiring how to provide out the most beneficial in Other folks in any circumstance, in lieu of their worst. By mastering these 8 important people abilities you considerably raise your possibilities of accomplishing the very best results out of one's interactions and business worries.

Cleansing your Lionel design trains railroad tracks is a task that should be carried out if the tracks are significantly soiled or when the coach appears to stay and pause for the duration of Procedure. There are various techniques that do the job perfectly and you may want to experiment to find the one which satisfies you the ideal. The more you use your product trains, the fewer usually you must clean the tracks. Conversely, with rarely applied tracks, you might find you'll want to execute heavier-responsibility cleansing nearly every time you make use of your toy model trains.

For HO scale trains, you can purchase a monitor-cleaning motor vehicle. You fill the vehicle with light oil and the keep track of-cleansing car or truck is pulled throughout the keep track of with the motor. Be cautious that you don't overfill the keep track of cleansing auto, for in doing this, oil might spill in excess of on to the tracks or even the surroundings. Insert oil sparingly to stay away from the mess. The cars include a small tank with protrusions that rub around the rails, cleaning the rails since the train travels the size on the observe. The track-cleansing car or truck can be employed regularly. If you utilize a brass monitor, you might see oxidation forming. If that is so, a more thorough cleaning of your keep track of may very well be vital.

For significant-obligation cleaning and eradicating oxidation from brass tracks, you'll need a product for example Walther's Bright Boy. It is just a hand-held cleaner that appears like a small flat eraser, measuring about 2" x 1.5". You rub the bar throughout the rails, allowing for the grit to eliminate Filth, paint, and oil from your product tracks. When you've got brass tracks for your personal toy product, this cleaner will take away most of the oxidation through the tracks. Applying sandpaper or emery isn't encouraged as these goods could depart pits inside the tracks of one's toy product trains.

When you have cleaned the tracks While using the bar, you will want to rub a tender fabric along the tracks to remove any residue remaining guiding from your cleaner. Cleansing your tracks regularly will hold the toy trains operating effortlessly, giving you much more time to love playing and fewer time cleansing.

Yet one more cleansing selection is to implement a liquid item which is produced for observe cleansing. LifeLike is one these types of merchandise and can be obtained at your neighborhood passion retail store. Dampen a smooth fabric with the liquid and rub the tracks. Maintain modifying destinations on the cloth when you go so you are not using the exact place continuously. Dry the teach tracks when you go. As you might be cleaning, inspect your observe for indicators of damage and repair or exchange them as essential.

Once your design trains tracks are cleanse, you will need to perform normal servicing to maintain them like that. A product such as Pacer Technology's Rail Zip is a superb cleaner to keep up your monitor's cleanliness. You squeeze a fall or two about the observe in a number of locations and Enable your toy product trains operate for many minutes. This enables the products to get spread fairly evenly throughout the observe. Also, this item will preserve the wheels clean. Rail Zip will likely restore the electrical conductivity by preventing and lessening sparking.

[sophiegold123]

1.

In "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," Laura Mulvey addresses the concept of the male gaze in cinema and its implications for the portrayal of women. Traditional films present men as active, controlling subjects and treat women as passive objects of desire for men in both the story and in the audience. Such films objectify women in relation to ‘the determining male gaze’ presenting ‘woman as image’ (or ‘spectacle’) and man as ‘bearer of the look’. Mulvey declares that in patriarchal society ‘pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female’ (1). 

All viewers, regardless of race or sexuality, take pleasure in films that are designed to satisfy the male gaze as the cinema provides an opportunity for the pleasure inherent in looking and as the spectator identification is with the male protagonist. Mulvey states “The cinema satisfies a primordial wish for pleasurable looking, but it also goes further, developing scopophilia in its narcissistic aspect.”(2) Meaning, that the cinema not only satisfies the basic desire for pleasurable looking but also allows viewers to indulge in narcissistic fantasies and desires through the act of watching and identifying with the cinematic content. Women are presented as spectacle as the man's role is “the active one of forwarding the story,” Therefore, “the spectator identifies with the main male* protagonist, [...] so that the power of the male protagonist as he controls events coincides with the active power of the erotic look”. (3) As the viewer identifies with the male protagonist, they adopt the perspective associated with the male gaze. Overall, viewers gain pleasure in looking at films that are designed to satisfy the male gaze as viewers identify with the main male protagonist.  

2.

In Bell Hooks’s “Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators” She addresses the issue of how films and media maintain white supremacy through limited scope of Black representation on the screen. Since pleasure can come from looking and further identifying with main protagonists or the “hero” on the screen, white people and men have representation on the screen that allows them identification and pleasure with no issue. For Black people, pleasure through watching a film can be gained through critical interrogation or discussion of the film as it “ maintains the distance between spectator and the image.” (4) Furthermore, Black women can gain viewing pleasure in different ways through their choice of identification with the image. Some say that they could get pleasure as long as they “ did not look too deep.” (5) In addition, Black men and women have different experiences of looking at films, which can differentiate the ways they gain pleasure or reject the perpetuation of racism in the media. Hooks talks about how Black men have the agency to do this “by engaging phallocentric politics of spectatorship.” (6) Within the dark movie theaters, they can challenge the dominance of white supremacy as they have the ability to enter into a realm of power characterized by male dominance. Hooks states “There they could 'look' at white womanhood without a structure of domination overseeing the gaze, interpreting, and punishing.”(7)

Bell Hooks talks about how Black people have been denied the right to gaze, and “That all attempts to repress our/ black peoples' right to gaze had produced in us an overwhelming longing to look, a rebellious desire, an oppositional gaze.” (8) Within the oppositional gaze, Black female spectators actively choose not to identify with white womanhood. Hooks states that these women “who would not take on the phallocentric gaze of desire and possession, created a critical space where the binary opposition Mulvey posits of 'woman as image, man as bearer of the look' was continually deconstructed.” (9) Through a conscious and critical awareness of how dominant visual culture represents and constructs identity, the oppositional gaze empowers viewers, especially Black females as they resist the objectification and stereotyping of Black women in mainstream media.

Footnotes:  

 Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” in Film Theory and Criticism (New York: oxford University Press, 2009), 715.

Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” 714.

Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” 716.

Bell Hooks, “The Oppositional gaze: Black Female Spectators” in Feminist Film Theory (New York: New York University Press, 1999), 309.

Bell Hooks, “The Oppositional gaze: Black Female Spectators,” 312.

Bell Hooks, “The Oppositional gaze: Black Female Spectators,” 309.

Bell Hooks, “The Oppositional gaze: Black Female Spectators,” 309.

Bell Hooks, “The Oppositional gaze: Black Female Spectators,” 308.

Bell Hooks, “The Oppositional gaze: Black Female Spectators,” 313.

Reading Notes 7: Mulvey to hooks

Shifting our visual analysis and critical inquiries to gender and sexuality, we will begin our explorations with Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” and bell hooks’s “Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators.”

How does the spectacle of the female image relate to patriarchal ideology, and in what ways do all viewers, regardless of race or sexuality, take pleasure in films that are designed to satisfy the male gaze?

How do racial and sexual differences between viewers inform their experience of viewing pleasure, and in what ways does the oppositional gaze empower viewers? 

@theuncannyprofessoro

[damnesdelamer]

Recommended reading for leftists

Introduction and disclaimer:

I believe, in leftist praxis (especially online), the sharing of resources, including information, must be foremost. I have often been asked for reading recommendations by comrades; and while I am by no means an expert in leftist theory, I am a lifelong Marxist, and painfully overeducated. This list is far from comprehensive, and each author is worth exploring beyond the individual texts I suggest here. Further, none of these need to be read in full to derive benefit; read what selections from each interest you, and the more you read the better. Many of these texts cannot truly be called leftist either, but I believe all can equip us to confront capitalist hegemony and our place within it. And if one comrade derives the smallest value or insight herefrom, we will all be better for it. After all... La raison tonne en son cratère. Alone we are naught, together may we be all. Solidarity forever.

***

(I have split these into categories for ease of navigation, but there is plenty of overlap. Links included where available.)

Classics of socialist theory

~

Capital (vol.1) by Karl Marx Marx’s critique of political economy forms the single most significant and vital source for understanding capitalism, both in our present and throughout history. Do not let its breadth daunt you; in general I feel it’s better to read a little theory than none, but nowhere is this truer than with regards to Capital. Better to read 20 pages of Capital than 150 pages of most other leftist literature. This is not a book you need to ‘finish’ in order to benefit from, but rather (like all of Marx’s work) the backbone of theory which you will return to throughout your life. Read a chapter, leave it, read on, read again. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf

The Prison Notebooks by Antonio Gramsci In our current epoch of global neoliberal capitalism, Gramsci’s explanation of hegemony is more valuable than much of the economic or outright revolutionary analyses of many otherwise vital theory. Particularly following the coup attempt and election in America, as well as Brexit and abusive government responses to Covid, but the state violence around the world and the advent of fascism reasserts Gramsci as being as pertinent and prophetic now as amidst the first rise of fascism. https://abahlali.org/files/gramsci.pdf

Imperialism: The Highest Stage Of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin Like Marx, for many Lenin’s work is the backbone of socialist theory, particularly in pragmatic terms. In much of his writing Lenin focuses on the practical processes of revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism via socialism and proletarian leadership (sometimes divisively among leftists). Imperialism is perhaps most valuable today for addressing the need for internationalist proletarian support and solidarity in the face of global capitalist hegemony, arguably stronger today than in Lenin’s lifetime. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/imperialism.pdf

Socialism: Utopian And Scientific by Friedrich Engels Marx’s partner offers a substantial insight into the material reality of socialism in the post-industrial age, offering further practical guidance and theory to Marx and Engels’ already robust body of work. This highlights the empirical rigour of classical Marxist theory, intended as a popular text accessible to proletarian readers, in order to condense and to some extent explain the density of Capital. Perhaps even more valuable now than at the time it was first published. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

In Defense Of Marxism by Leon Trotsky It has been over a decade since I have read any Trotsky, but this seems like a very good source to get to grips with both classical Marxist thought and to confront contemporary detractors. In many ways, Trotsky can be seen as an uncorrupt symbol of the Leninist dream, and in others his exile might illustrate the dangers of Leninism (Stalinism) when corrupt, so who better to defend the virtues of the system many see as his demise? https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/dom.pdf

The Conquest Of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin Krapotkin forms the classical backbone of anarchist theory, and emerges from similar material conditions as Marxism. In many ways, ‘the Bread book’ forms a dual attack (on capitalism and authoritarianism of the state) and defence (of the basic rights and needs of every human), the text can be seen as foundational to defining anarchism both in overlap and starkly in contrast with Marxist communism. This is a seminal and eminent text on self-determination, and like Marx, will benefit the reader regardless of orthodox alignment. https://libcom.org/files/Peter%20Kropotkin%20-%20The%20Conquest%20of%20Bread_0.pdf

Leftism of the 20th Century and beyond

~

Freedom Is A Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, And The Foundations Of A Movement by Angela Davis This is something of a placeholder for Davis, as everything she has ever put to paper is profoundly valuable to international(ist) struggles against capitalism and it’s highest stage. Indeed, the emphasis on the relationship between American and Israeli racialised state violence highlights the struggles Davis has continually engaged since the late 1960s, that of a united front against imperialist oppression, white supremacists, patriarchal capitalist exploitation, and the carceral state. https://www.docdroid.net/rfDRFWv/freedom-is-a-constant-struggle-pdf#page=6

Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic Of Late Capitalism by Frederic Jameson A frequent criticism of Marxism is the false claim that it is decreasingly relevant. Here, Jameson presents a compelling update of Marxist theory which addresses the hegemonic nature of mass media in the postmodern epoch (how befitting a tumblr post listing leftist literature). Despite being published in the early ‘90s, this analysis of late capitalism becomes all the more pertinent in the age of social media and ‘influencers’ etc., and illustrates just how immortal a science ours really is. https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2016/SOC757/um/61816962/Jameson_The_cultural_logic.pdf

The Ecology Of Freedom: The Emergence And Dissolution Of Hierarchy by Murray Bookchin I have not read this in depth, and take issue with some of Bookchin’s ideas, but this seems like a very good jumping off point to engage with ecosocialism or red-green theory. Regardless of any schism between Marxist and anarchist thought, the importance of uniting together to stem the unsustainable growth of industrialised capitalism cannot be denied. Climate change is unquestionably a threat faced by us all, but which will disproportionately impact the most disenfranchised on the planet. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-ecology-of-freedom.pdf

Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton I’ve only read excerpts of this; I know Eagleton better for his extensive work on Marxist literary criticism, postmodernity, and postcolonial literature, so I’m including this work of his as a means of introducing and engaging directly with Marxism itself, rather than the synthesis of diverse fields of analysis. But Eagleton generally does a very good job of parsing often incredibly dense concepts in an accessible way, so I trust him to explain something so obvious and self-evident as why Marx was right. https://filosoficabiblioteca.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/EAGLETON-Terry-Why-Marx-Was-Right.pdf

By Any Means Necessary by Malcolm X Malcolm X is one of the pre-eminent voices of the revolutionary black power movement, and among the greatest contributors to black/American leftist thought. This is a collection of his speeches and writings, in which he eloquently and charismaticly conveys both his righteous outrage and optimism for the future. Malcolm X’s explicitly Marxist and decolonial rhetoric is often downplayed since his assassination, but even the title and slogan is borrowed from Frantz Fanon.

Feminism and gender theory

~

Sister Outsider: Essays And Speeches by Audre Lorde The primary thrust of this collection is the inclusion of ‘The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master’s House’, probably Lorde‘s most well known work, but all the contents are eminently worthwhile. Lorde addresses race, capitalist oppression, solidarity, sexuality and gender, in a rigourously rhetorical yet practical way that calls us to empower one another in the face of oppression. Lorde’s poetry is also great. http://images.xhbtr.com/v2/pdfs/1082/Sister_Outsider_Essays_and_Speeches_by_Audre_Lorde.pdf

Feminism Is For Everybody by bell hooks A seminal addition to Third Wave Feminist theory, emphasising the reality that the aim of feminism is to confront and dismantle patriarchal systems which oppress - you guessed it - everybody. This book approaches feminism through the lens of race and capitalism, feeding into the discourse on intersectionality which many of us now take as a central element of 21st Century feminism. https://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf

Gender Trouble: Feminism And The Subversion Of Identity by Judith Butler Butler and her work form probably the single most significant (especially white) contribution to Third Wave Feminism, as well as queer theory. This may be a somewhat dense, academic work, but the primary hurdle is in deconstructing our existing perceptions of gender and identity, which we are certainly better equipped to do today specifically thanks to Butler. Vitally important stuff for dismantling hegemonic patriarchy. https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/butler-gender_trouble.pdf

Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink Or Blue by Leslie Feinberg Feinberg is perhaps the foundational voice in trans theory, best known for Stone Butch Blues, but this text seems like a good point to view hir push into mainstream acceptance where ze previously aligned hirself and trans groups more with gay and lesbian subcultures. A central element here is the accessibility and deconstruction of hegemonic gender and expression, but what this really expresses is a call for solidarity and support among marginalised classes, in a fight for our mutual visibility and survival, in the greatest of Marxist feminist traditions.

The Haraway Reader by Donna Haraway Haraway is perhaps better known as a post-humanist than a Marxist feminist, but in all honesty, I am not sure these can be disentangled so easily. My highest recommendation is the essay ‘A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century‘, but it is in many ways concerned more with aesthetics and media criticism than anything practical, and Haraway’s engagement with technology has only become more significant, with the proliferation of smartphones and wifi, to understanding our bodies and ourselves as instruments of resistance. https://monoskop.org/images/5/56/Haraway_Donna_The_Haraway_Reader_2003.pdf

Postcolonialism

~

The Wretched Of The Earth by Frantz Fanon Perhaps my highest recommendation, this will give you better insight into late stage (postcolonial) capitalism than perhaps anything else. Fanon was a psychologist, and his analyses help us parse the internal workings of both the capitalist and racialised minds. I don’t see this work recommended nearly enough, largely because Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks is a better source for race theory, but The Wretched Of The Earth is the best choice for understanding revolutionary, anti-capitalist, and decolonial ideas. http://abahlali.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frantz-Fanon-The-Wretched-of-the-Earth-1965.pdf

Orientalism by Edward Said This is probably the best introduction to postcolonial theory, particularly because it focuses on colonial/imperialist abuses in media and art. Said’s later work Culture And Imperialism may actually be a better source for strictly leftist analysis, but this is the groundwork for understanding the field, and will help readers confront and interpret everything from Western military interventionism to racist motifs in Disney films. https://www.eaford.org/site/assets/files/1631/said_edward1977_orientalism.pdf

Decolonisation Is Not A Metaphor by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang In direct response to Fanon’s call to decolonise (the mind), Tuck and Yang present a compelling assertion that the abstraction of decolonisation paves the way for settler claims of innocence rather than practical rapatriation of land and rights. The relatively short article centres and problematises ongoing complicity in the agenda of settler-colonial hegemony and the material conditions of indigenous groups in the postcolonial epoch. Important stuff for anti-imperialist work and solidarity. https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf

The Coloniser And The Colonised by Albert Memmi Often read in tandem with Fanon, as both are concerned with trauma, violence, and dehumanisation. But further, Memmi addresses both the harm inflicted on the colonised body and the colonisers’ own culture and mind, while also exploring the impetus of practical resistance and dismantling imperialist control structures. This is also of great import to confronting detractors, offering the concrete precedent of Algerian decolonisation. https://cominsitu.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/albert-memmi-the-colonizer-and-the-colonized-1.pdf

Can The Subaltern Speak? by Gayatri Spivak This relatively short (though dense) essay will ideally help us to confront the real struggles of many of the most disenfranchised people on earth, removing us from questions of bourgeois wage-slavery and focusing on the right to education and freedom from sexual assault, not to mention the legacy of colonial genocide. http://abahlali.org/files/Can_the_subaltern_speak.pdf 

Wider cultural studies

~

No Logo by Naomi Klein I have some qualms with Klein, but she nevertheless makes important points regarding the systemic nature of neoliberal global capitalism and hegemony. No Logo addresses consumerism at a macro scale, emphasising the importance of what may be seen as internationalist solidarity and support and calling out corporate scapegoating on consumer markets. I understand that This Changes Everything is perhaps even better for addressing the unreasonable expectations of indefinite and unsustainable growth under capitalist systems, but I haven’t read it and therefore cannot recommend; regardless, this is a good starting point. https://archive.org/stream/fp_Naomi_Klein-No_Logo/Naomi_Klein-No_Logo_djvu.txt

The Black Atlantic: Modernity And Double Consciousness by Paul Gilroy This is an important source for understanding the development of diasporic (particularly black) identities in the wake of the Middle Passage between African and America, but more generally as well. This work can be related to parallel phenomena of racialised violence, genocide, and forced migration more widely, but it is especially useful for engaging with the legacy of slavery, the cultural development of blackness, and forms of everyday resistance. https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/756417/mod_resource/content/1/Gilroy%20Black%20Atlantic.pdf

Imagined Communities: Reflections On The Origin And Spread Of Nationalism by Benedict Anderson This text is important in understanding the nature of both high colonialism and fascism, perhaps now more than ever. Anderson examines the political manipulation and agenda of cultural production, that is the propagandised, artificial act of nation building. This analyses the development of nation states as the norm of political unity in historiographical terms, as symptomatic of old school European imperialism. Today we may see this reflected in Brexit or MAGA, but lebensraum and zionism are just as evident in the analysis. https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2016/SOC757/um/6181696/Benedict_Anderson_Imagined_Communities.pdf

Discipline And Punish: The Birth Of The Prison by Michel Foucault Honestly, I am not sure if this should be on this list; I would certainly not call it leftist. That said, it is a very important source to inform our perceptions of the nature of institutional power and abuse. It is also unquestionable that many of the pre-eminent left-leaning scholars of the past fifty years have been heavily influenced, willing or not, by Foucault and his post-structuralist ilk. A worthwhile read, especially for queer readers, but take with a liberal (zing!) helping of salt. https://monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucault_Michel_Discipline_and_Punish_The_Birth_of_the_Prison_1977_1995.pdf

Trouble In Paradise: From The End Of History To The End Of Capitalism by Slavoj Žižek Probably just don’t read this, it amounts to self-torture. Okay but seriously, I wanted to include Žižek (perhaps against my better judgement), but he is probably best seen as a lesson in recognising theorists as fallible, requiring our criticism rather than being followed blindly. I like Žižek, but take him as a kind of clown provocateur who may lead us to explore interesting ideas. He makes good points, but he also... Doesn’t... Watch a couple youtube videos and decide if you can stomach him before diving in.

Additional highly recommended authors (with whom I am not familiar enough to give meaningful descriptions or specific recommended texts) (let me know if you find anything of significant value from among these, as I am likely unaware!):

Theodor Adorno (of the Frankfurt School, which also included Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Walter Benjamin, all of whom I’d likewise recommend but with whom I have only passing familiarity) was a sociologist and musicologist whose aesthetic analyses are incredibly rich and insightful, and heavily influential on 20th Century Marxist theory.

Sara Ahmed is a significant voice in Third Wave Feminist criticism, engaging with queer theory, postcoloniality, intersectionality, and identity politics, of particular interest to international praxis.

Mikhail Bakhtin was a critic and scholar whose theories on semiotics, language, and literature heavily guided the development of structuralist thought as well as later Marxist philosophy.

Mikhail Bakunin is perhaps the closest thing to anarchist orthodoxy. Consistently involved with revolutionary action, he is known as a staunch critic of Marxist rhetoric, and a seminal influence on anti-authoritarian movements.

Silvia Federici is a Marxist feminist who has contributed significant work regarding women’s unpaid labour and the capitalist subversion of the commons in historiographical contexts.

Mark Fisher was a leftist critic whose writing on music, film, and pop culture was intimately engaged with postmodernity, structuralist thought, and most importantly Marxist aesthetics.

Che Guevara was a major contributor to revolutionary efforts internationally, most notably and successfully in Cuba. His writing is robustly pragmatic as well as eloquent, and offers practical insight to leftist action.

Hồ Chí Minh was a revolutionary communist leader of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and a significant contributor to revolutionary communist theory and anti-imperialist practice.

C.L.R. James is a significant voice in 20th Century (especially black) Marxist theory, engaging with and criticising Trotskyist principles and the role of ethnic minorities in revolutionary and democratic political movements.

Joel Kovel was a researcher known as the founder of ecosocialism. His work spans a wide array of subjects, but generally tends to return to deconstructing capitalism in its highest stage.

György Lukács was a critic who contributed heavily to the Western Marxism of the Frankfurt School and engaged with aesthetics and traditions of Marx’s philosophical ideology in contrast with Soviet policy of the time.

Rosa Luxemburg was a revolutionary socialist organiser, publisher, and economist, directly engaged in practical leftist activity internationally for a significant part of the early 20th Century.

Mao Zedong was a revolutionary communist, founder and Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, and a prolific contributor to Marxism-Leninism(-Maoism), which he adapted to the material conditions outside the Western imperial core.

Huey P. Newton was the co-founder of the Black Panther Party and a vital force in the spread and accessibility of communist thought and practical internationalism, not to mention black revolutionary tactics.

Léopold Sédar Senghor was a poet-turned-politician who served as Senegal’s first president and established the basis for African socialism. Also central to postcolonial theory, and a leader of the Négritude movement.

***

I hope this list may be useful. (I would also be interested to see the recommendations of others!) Happy reading, comrades. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

[olderthannetfic]

asdfgh yeah polls are not going to give you an accurate view of fandom unless they're hosted by a centralized website and even then, only for that community. Sample bias baby!

The anonymity is actually not too big a problem in certain circles of study like the humanities. There's been a lot of discussion over stuff like gaining informed consent and ethics and privacy which is a super thorny issue btw, which with the pandemic has become even more a Thing To Discuss, but basically the idea is your online identity is still basically a facet of you. Sure, it might not be the same as your IRL persona but in the same way your work identity might be different to your home persona or in-polite-company persona and that performance as shaped by space and relationships is kind of a thing a researcher is already aware they're supposed to navigate. Usernames can function just as much a performance of identity and socialization as IRL or legal names.

But this is less hard stats and more qualitative data through stuff like participatory observation and interviews. The thought of trying to get any hard stats about fandom or anything online without the aid of a larger organization gives me a headache. I'd probably narrow it down to the larger fandoms, and then the major social groups within those to push my survey. And then choose some small fandoms and more sidelined social groups do the same to them. And then make sure the data from these samples are weighted correctly. And that would only give me a rough projection with no way to tell how the canon itself each fandom is based around shaped the demographics. Idk, I'd have to refine the methodology and even then there'd be a high percentage of error since it would give me, at best, a vague guess in some trends.

--

What I would do if I were an academic who wanted to study this and I had tenure and freedom to do anything I liked (so basically zero actual academics who work on fandom) would be this:

Define my population of interest as fanfic writers who write in English.

Focus on the "big three" of FFN, AO3, and Wattpad because their scale (and the minute scale of anything else in comparison) means that taken together, they likely do represent fanfic writers overall pretty well. (Obviously, if I were looking at all languages, I'd have to look at, say, Ficbook, which is smaller than the big three but still pretty huge.) It might also be necessary to look at Quotev. I'm not sure how big it is and how much the population overlaps with Wattpad. That would require investigation.

Also look at FIMFiction and Space Battles for comparison (as spaces that are as opposite of AO3 and Wattpad as fic spaces get), though AFAIK, these are pretty small in comparison.

Collect extant fandom survey data for comparison. That means the AO3 Census, that FFN research blog from 2010, r/Fanfiction's periodic demographic surveys, etc.

Do a big survey distributed through tumblr and twitter and reddit, etc. This survey would include questions about where you found the survey and which sites you use in addition to whatever else I was interested in.

But also, and this is key, I would randomly sample the big three (four?) to find random user accounts. I would look at the profiles of those accounts and either try to contact them for survey participation in a second survey or gather data directly from them/places they link to or both. Aside from that FFN research where they looked at profile pages, I haven't really seen attempts to randomize the sample like this. Nobody tries it because it's a pain in the ass.

Issues you'd face:

no PM function on AO3

very few filled-out profiles on AO3

filled out profiles being non-random (i.e. disproportionately power users or long-time fandom people, not new n00bs, regardless of site)

low response rate even if you're able to contact people

lack of demographic and other data on most profiles on most sites (though you can often tell gender or pronouns)

people perceiving this as spam or intrusive

I would also do a comparison of archive content. This is easier to randomly sample than users are, so comparing overall archive shipping stats to what survey respondents say they like could give one insight into how well the sample of users represents the archive... or it could point to gaps between what people think of themselves as doing and what they actually do. Same for other ways of looking at content: fandom, rating, etc.

Obviously, this too would require refining, but at least trying to add these other two elements would be far more interesting than the samey voluntary surveys distributed through a couple of people's LJ flists or twitter followers that we get now.

[izzyizumi]

DIGIMON ADVENTURE + 02 + tri. featuring CHARACTER: Koushiro[u] Izumi [Koushiro “Izzy” Izumi in US dub] + COMMON VISUALS / AESTHETICS: {TYPING} / {INTERESTS (IN TECH)/KNOWLEDGE} + {HANDS} + {LAPTOP} / {SETUPS}

“INDEED, Koushiro-han.”

“There’s hope. There’s A CHANCE! ALWAYS reaching for hope and chances Frantically learning”

“That’s the Koushiro-han I KNOW!”

{Vamdemon Arc}:

Gifs by @izzyizumi, {Do Not Repost} {Do Not Remove Caption} {Do Not Reproduce under Any Circumstances}

BONUS + original commentary under the ‘read more’!

{Izumi Family further supporting their son by showing attentiveness and acknowledgement when he tries to educate them about Digimon; Mrs Izumi no longer pulling him away from the computer}:

{early Dark Masters arc, Koushiro setting up a complicated plan, within Whamon}:

{Tailmon, in deadpan voice: “Koushiro. What are you doing?”}

(And...) {Digimon 2020, Ep01}:

“Stop putting on a show!”

gifs by @izzyizumi, {DO NOT REPOST} {DO NOT REMOVE CAPTION}

{usage of gifs may be allowed if permission is asked / or if credit is given. However, read my about & FAQ pages first. Please do NOT use / ask if you match anything in my “Do Not Interact” sections.}

{Additional note: this post is mainly intended SPECIFIC CHARACTERs/POSITIVITY FOCUSED. please remember + RESPECT this when interacting [Please ONLY tag family as ‘familial’ / with ‘Platonic’ tags!] {Failure to acknowledge interacting rules WILL result in a block}

{PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS A BLOG DEDICATED TO A Support OF DIGIMON ADVENTURE[S] as an ENTIRE SERIES. While I cannot stop people from engaging, please respect my rules. Please DO NOT Interact OR FOLLOW / REBLOG if you are unable to interact respectfully (including within tags).}

[Note: commenting/tagging positively/respectfully is ok!] (Please AGREE TO BANNERS BEFORE interacting) (Note: Click on the banners to view in full or enlarge!)

{DO NOT DERAIL THE CHARACTER/CANON POSITIVITY INTENT} {Failure to acknowledge rules WILL result in a block}

Rules for using edits under the ‘read more’!

REGARDING EDITS/GIFS USAGE:

- they must NOT be used to spread negativity for the canon/fandom! {INCLUDES: in regards to Adventures AS A WHOLE, Adventure (Original series), 02, Tri, Kizuna, Adventure & 02 movies, Drama CDs, any spinoff materials} - they must NOT be used to promote shipwarring within the fandom - they must NOT be used to attack any Adventures character focused on - IF I SEE YOU DOING THIS I WILL LIKELY BLOCK WITHOUT MERCY {usage may be allowed IF PERMISSION IS ASKED TO USE.}

{Please also LIKE this post if you are wanting to use!} {Once you have “Liked”, feel free to contact me to ask for permission!} {However, read my about & FAQ pages first. Please DO NOT use / ask if you match anything in my “Do Not Interact” section.} {I MAY POLITELY DECLINE USAGE REGARDLESS. Please do not take it personally!} {if you are unsure if you can use you can SEND ME AN ASK} {I will check your blog; if you do not match anything on my “DNI”; [CHECK THE FAQ FOR MY DNI SECTION/S] you will likely/may pass the check and can use!} {However please note my ENTIRE FAQ sections on such} {It is possible I may not grant permission for other reasons} [i.e.: You post a lot of something I have blacklisted]

PLEASE ALSO NOTE: {My headcanons for the characters of this series VARY} {for this set particularly [Adventure+02 Chosen / various Advs charas]; I headcanon most as M spec/Multi gender attracted*} {this post/my edits ARE NOT for people who cannot respect this fact or M spec people / M spec headcanons / MF relationships, Queer identities, etc. in general!}

[PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL AND FOLLOW MY RULES] {OR DO NOT INTERACT WITH THIS POST/MY CONTENTS}

[whitehotharlots]

A movement that cannot be criticized cannot achieve positive goals

The hardest part of talking about malignant trends on the broad left is that, well, you’re not allowed to talk about them. It’s no exaggeration to say that criticism has become fully conflated with violence. If you attempt to engage critically with a left-liberal writer--regardless of how thorough and respectful you may be, and regardless of how powerful, public, or insulated the subject of the criticism--you will be accused of dismissing and erasing the writer, of inciting violence against the writer, and of committing some form of genocide against whichever identity groups the writer belongs to.

Conversely, if you don’t provide specifics, you’ll be accused of making stuff up. The same people who claim it’s an act of aggression to ask for proof when they make claims of victimization turn into immense pedants the moment they encounter a heterodox opinion. 

Unsurprisingly, a discourse milieu in which critical analysis is forbidden is a prime breeding ground for unsustainable (and even horrific) behavioral standards. Never mind improving the world that exists outside their sphere of influence... these people are perpetually on the brink of destroying their allies, their institutions, and themselves.

Today I dug into an especially profane case that highlights both of these points. It’s a matter of public record, so I hopefully won’t get accused of “doxing” anyone for discussing it. It’s also the sort of story where if someone cares about it, they’ll have an opinion of it within a second or two of reading a headline describing what happened. This means it’ll only be of interest to the sort of cranks who read this blog. My goal here isn’t to express outrage or advocate for one side or other--although it is outrageous, and you won’t have to try too hard to see which side I favor. Instead, I’m going to try to move beyond that, to use this instance as a broader cautionary tale in regards to the more horrific tendencies of the identitarian left, and to begin formulating some means of resistance. 

In other words, this might get boring. Even more so than usual. 

The story involves a court case, documented here, in which a young man named Kieran Bhattacharya is suing the University of Virginia Medical School. Mr. Bhattacharya (a white supremacist name if I’ve ever heard one) was subjected to formal censure, repeated psychological evaluations, suspension, and eventual expulsion. This all happened because he raised some concerns after a White Fragility-inspired panel on microaggressions.

This is one of those cases where both sides are going to assume there’s a lot more going on beneath the surface and, like I said, are going to be disinclined toward actually reading the available evidence. Thankfully, the court brief is fairly exhaustive and--importantly--the account provided in the brief has received the approval of both plaintiff and defendant. To stress, everyone involved in this case agrees, legally, that the account provided herein is an accurate picture of what happened. Additionally, we also have audio of the initial microaggression seminar (Mr. Bhattacharya’s comments start at around the 28:30 mark), as well as of the pursuant committee meeting that ended in his expulsion. 

Here is the initial exchange, as documented by the brief:

Bhattacharya: Hello. Thank you for your presentation. I had a few questions just to clarify your definition of microaggressions. Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group? 

Adams: Very good question. And no. And no— 

Bhattacharya: But in the definition, it just said you have to be a member of a marginalized group—in the definition you just provided in the last slide. So that’s contradictory. 

Adams: What I had there is kind of the generalized definition. In fact, I extend it beyond that. As you see, I extend it to any marginalized group, and sometimes it’s not a marginalized group. There are examples that you would think maybe not fit, such as body size, height, [or] weight. And if that is how you would like to see me expand it, yes, indeed, that’s how I do. 

Bhattacharya: Yeah, follow-up question. Exactly how do you define marginalized and who is a marginalized group? Where does that go? I mean, it seems extremely nonspecific.

 Adams: And—that’s intentional. That’s intentional to make it more nonspecific . . . . 

After the initial exchange, Bhattacharya challenged Adams’s definition of microaggression. He argued against the notion that “the person who is receiving the microaggressions somehow knows the intention of the person who made it,” and he expressed concern that “a microaggression is entirely dependent on how the person who’s receiving it is reacting.” Id. He continued his critique of Adams’s work, saying, “The evidence that you provided—and you said you’ve studied this for years—which is just one anecdotal case—I mean do you have, did you study anything else about microaggressions that you know in the last few years?” Id. After Adams responded to Bhattacharya’s third question, he asked an additional series of questions: “So, again, what is the basis for which you’re going to tell someone that they’ve committed a microaggression? . . . Where are you getting this basis from? How are you studying this, and collecting evidence on this, and making presentations on it?”

You can listen to the audio if you like. There’s nothing there, in my opinion, that is not captured accurately in the written description. Bhattacharya does not yell or raise his voice. He sounds skeptical, but in no way violent or threatening. Nor does Adams, the presenter, signal that she is experiencing anything that approaches fear or trauma. 

Immediately after the event, a professor who helped organize the discussion filed a “Professionalism Concern Card”--a cute academic euphemism for a disciplinary write up--against Bhattacharya, alleging he had displayed a troubling lack of respect for differences (the irony here probably does not need to be explicated).

Soon after that--literally still the same day of the panel--Bhattacharya received an email from faculty asking him to “share his thoughts” so as to help him “understand and be able to cope with unintended consequences of conversations.” The tone of the email is polite and professional, but the text hints toward an attempt at entrapment. You’ll see this a lot in woke spaces--invitations to come to an understanding with one another that are, in actuality, attempts to get a person to say something cancellable.

Bhattacharya took the bait, and, well… 

During Bhattacharya and Peterson’s one-hour meeting, Peterson “barely mentioned” Bhattacharya’s questions and comments at the panel discussion. Dkt. 33 ¶ 73. Instead, Peterson attempted to determine Bhattacharya’s “views on various social and political issues—including sexual assault, affirmative action, and the election of President Trump.” 

At this point, the kid was fucked. He soon after had an uneventful-seeming meeting with a dean. Two weeks after that, a separate panel found him guilty of “patterns of unprofessional behavior and egregious violations of professionalism” and strongly encouraged him to seek psychological counseling. 

Pre-Trump, Bhattacharya still probably would have been fine if he had just kept his head down, gone to a couple therapy sessions, and maybe issued an empty apology. Since 2016, however, the rules have changed. An accusation is now absolute proof of guilt and no amount of ablution can save someone in a vulnerable position. 

Eleven days after receiving the ostensible suggestion that he receive counseling, Bhattacharya was informed that he would not be permitted to return to classes until he had been evaluated. A day after that--before even having the opportunity to seek the mandated counseling--he was given a mere 3 hours notice before having to attend another disciplinary committee meeting. 

This meeting found that Bhattacharya’s continuing behaviors were proof that he posed an imminent danger to the campus community, although the committee did not bother to explain what those behaviors entailed. His behavior was simply noted as “unusual” and this was proof that “Any patient that walked into the room with [Bhattacharya] would be scared.” The following day, Bhattacharya was forcibly removed from campus and told he could not return until he had been screened. He was, subsequently, not allowed to receive sanctioned screening, because of his status of having been removed from campus after being deemed a security risk.

Again, none of what I have described is an exaggeration. None of these details are even being contested. 

Now for my own conjecture: the problem isn’t that anyone genuinely believes Bhattacharya poses a threat to anyone’s safety. The problem is that he attempted to question the ideological firmaments of contemporary anti-racist training. These firmaments are protected with aggressive viciousness precisely because they cannot withstand scrutiny. Had Bhattacharya merely scoffed at them, or even if he had been outright condescending and dismissive, he probably would not have received such a severe punishment. The problem was that he was right, and his accusers knew it.

Understanding speech in the manner prescribed by the peddlers of microaggression theory cannot possibly be codified in a way that won't result in arbitrary punishment. Bhattacharya’s experience demonstrates that with horrific irony. 

The assertion here is that the intention of a speech act should have no bearing on how we adjudicate the morality of that speech act--such a point was made repeatedly in the initial discussion, and stressed once again after Bhattacharya’s concerns have been raised. This standard contradicts how we've processed the morality of speech for centuries, but that's what people are very explicitly demanding.

How is this workable, when literally any statement could, conceivably, be considered offensive by at least one individual? This, I feel, was the point Bhattacharya reaching toward. If you were to say, I dunno, "I love trees" to a group of 1000 people, 999 of them could regard that statement as benign. But what if one person takes offense to it? What if they work in the lumber industry, or they were molested by guy in a Smokey the Bear costume? What if that person then files a report accusing the tree lover of offensive speech? Will the speaker be disciplined? Or will the powers that be take intention and effect into account?

Of course, we're not going to criminalize all speech in this way. Like all extreme and broad-reaching disciplinary standards, this one will only be selectively evoked in order to punish people with heterodox opinions and/or those whose presence threatens the status quo. Someone who says something much more incendiary, like "all men are rapists" or "white people shouldn't get social security" would not receive a reprimand regardless of how much offense their statements caused, because they're saying something that's acceptable in our current milieu. And right now, the least acceptable speech is that which shines a light on the manifest flaws and hypocrisies of corporate anti racism. 

Back to my hypothetical example, if the tree-loving speaker was on good terms with everyone, the complaint would most likely be ignored. But if he had said or done other things that for whatever reason displeased the people in charge, the specious accusation could still ruin him. What's worse, the person who filed the allegation of offense might not have even actually taken offense at the statement--they were just looking for a way to get rid of him.

Bhattacharya was attempting to voice legitimate criticisms about a political movement whose suggestions are functionally unworkable and that, even if it were implemented fully and uncritically, does not contain even a hypothetical explanation in regards to how its goals would result in improved racial equality/equity. Because of that, he was cynically labeled dangerous and expelled from a public university. 

You'd think a group that obsesses over power differentials and their own marginalization would have some grasp of this. Regardless of which side you fall into with this particular culture war, it should fucking terrify you that a movement that’s been tasked with addressing pressing social problems is designed in such a way that any substantial criticism is met with aggressive punishment. 

There’s no way you can win if this is you is how conduct yourself. This is why we’re losing. This is why even if you get all the censorship and deplatforming you can ever dream of, even if every major bank and multinational corporatation professes fealty to your movement, you will still lose. Because there’s no way you can win. 

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous said: I didn’t know too much about the late British philosopher Sir Roger Scruton until I followed your superbly cultured blog. As an ivy league educated American reading your posts, I feel he is a breath of fresh air as a sane and cultured conservative intellectual. We don’t really have his kind over here where things are heavily polarized between left and right, and sadly, we are often uncivil in our discourse. Sir Roger Scruton talks a lot about beauty especially in art (as indeed you do too), so for Scruton why does beauty as an aesthetic matter in art? Why should we care?

I thank you for your very kind words about my blog which I fear is not worthy of such fulsome praise.

However one who is worthy of praise (or at least gratitude and appreciation at least) is the late Sir Roger Scruton. I have had the pleasure to have met him on a few informal occasions.

Most memorably, I once got invited to High Table dinner at Peterhouse, Cambridge, by a friend who was a junior Don there. This was just after I had finished my studies at Cambridge and rather than pursue my PhD I opted instead to join the British army as a combat pilot officer. And so I found out that Scruton was dining too. We had very pleasant drinks in the SCR before and after dinner. He was exceptionally generous and kind in his consideration of others; we all basked in the gentle warmth of his wit and wisdom.

I remember talking to him about Xanthippe, Socrate’s wife, because I had read his wickedly funny fictional satire. In the book he credits the much maligned Xanthippe with being the brains behind all of Socrates’ famous philosophical ideas (as espoused by Plato).

On other occasions I had seen Roger Scruton give the odd lecture in London or at some cultural forum.

Other than that, I’ve always admire both the man and many of his ideas from afar. I do take issue with some of his intellectual ideas which seem to be taken a tad too far (he think pre-Raphaelites were kitsch) but it’s impossible to dislike the man in person.

Indeed the Marxist philosopher G.A. Cohen reportedly once refused to teach a seminar with Scruton, although they later became very good friends. This is the gap between the personal and the public persona. In public he was reviled as hate figure by some of the more intolerant of the leftists who were trying to shut him down from speaking. But in private his academic peers, writers, and philosophers, regardless of their political beliefs, hugely respected him and took his ideas seriously - because only in private will they ever admit that much of what Scruton talks about has come to pass.

In many ways he was like C.S. Lewis - a pariah to the Oxbridge establishment. At Oxford many dons poo-pooed his children stories, and especially his Christian ideas of faith, culture, and morality, and felt he should have laid off the lay theology and stuck to his academic speciality of English Literature. But an Oxford friend, now a don, tells me that many dons read his theological works in private because much of what he wrote has become hugely relevant today.

Scruton was a man of parts, some of which seemed irreconcilable: barrister, aesthetician, distinguished professor of aesthetics. Outside of brief pit stops at Cambridge, Oxford, and St Andrews, he was mostly based out of Birkbeck College, London University, which had a tradition of a working-class intake and to whom Scruton was something of a popular figure. He was also an editor of the ultra-Conservative Salisbury Review, organist, and an enthusiastic fox hunter. In addition he wrote over 50 books on philosophy, art, music, politics, literature, culture, sexuality, and religion, as well as finding time to write novels and two operas. He was widely recognised for his services to philosophy, teaching and public education, receiving a knighthood in 2016.

He was exactly the type of polymath England didn’t know what to do with because we British do discourage such continental affectations and we prefer people to know their lane and stick to it. Above all we’re suspicious of polymaths because no one likes a show off. Scruton could be accused of a few things but he never perceived as a show off. He was a gentle, reserved, and shy man of kindly manners.

He was never politically ‘Conservative’, or tried not to be. Indeed he encouraged many to think about defining “a philosophy of conservatism” and not “a philosophy for the Conservative Party.” In defining his own thoughts, he positioned conservatism to relation to its historical rivals, liberalism and socialism. He wrote that liberalism was the product of the enlightenment, which viewed society as a contract and the state as a system for guaranteeing individual rights. While he saw socialism as the product of the industrial revolution, and an ideology which views society as an economic system and the state as a means of distributing social wealth.

Like another great English thinkers, Michael Oakeshott, he felt that conservatives leaned more towards liberalism then socialism, but argued that for conservatives, freedom should also entail responsibility, which in turn depends on public spirit and virtue. Many classical liberals would agree.

In fact, he criticised Thatcherism for “its inadequate emphasis on the civic virtues, such as self-sacrifice, duty, solidarity and service of others.” Scruton agreed with classical liberals in believing that markets are not necessarily expressions of selfishness and greed, but heavily scolded his fellow Conservatives for allowing themselves to be caricatured as leaving social problems to the market. Classical liberals could be criticised for the same neglect.

Perhaps his conservative philosophy was best summed up when he wrote “Liberals seek freedom, socialists equality, and conservatives responsibility. And, without responsibility, neither freedom nor equality have any lasting value.”

Scruton’s politics were undoubtedly linked to his philosophy, which was broadly Hegelian. He took the view that all of the most important aspects of life – truth (the perception of the world as it is), beauty (the creation and appreciation of things valued for their own sake), and self-realisation (the establishment by a person of a coherent, autonomous identity) – can be achieved only as part of a cultural community within which meaning, standards and values are validated. But he had a wide and deep understanding of the history of western philosophy as a whole, and some of his best philosophical work consisted of explaining much more clearly than is often the case how different schools of western philosophy relate to one another.

People today still forget how he was a beacon for many East European intellectuals living under Communist rule in the 1980s.  Scruton was deeply attached in belonging to a network of renowned Western scholars who were helping the political opposition in Eastern Europe. Their activity began in Czechoslovakia with the Jan Hus Foundation in 1980, supported by a broad spectrum of scholars from Jacques Derrida and Juergen Habermas to Roger Scruton and David Regan. Then came Poland, Hungary and later Romania. In Poland, Scruton co-founded the Jagiellonian Trust, a small but significant organisation. The other founders and active participants were Baroness Caroline Cox, Jessica Douglas-Home, Kathy Wilkes, Agnieszka Kołakowska, Dennis O’Keeffe, Timothy Garton Ash, and others.

Scruton had a particular sympathy for Prague and the Czech society, which bore fruit in the novel, Notes from Underground, which he wrote many years later. But his involvement in East European affairs was more than an emotional attachment.  He believed that Eastern Europe - despite the communist terror and aggressive social engineering - managed to preserve a sense of historical continuity and strong ties to European and national traditions, more unconscious than openly articulated, which made it even more valuable. For this reason, decades later, he warned his East European friends against joining the European Union, arguing that whatever was left of those ties will be demolished by the political and ideological bulldozer of European bureaucracy.

Anyway, digressions aside, onto to the heart of your question.

Art matters.

Let’s start from there. Regardless of your personal tastes or aesthetics as you stand before a painting, slip inside a photograph, run your hand along the length of a sculpture, or move your body to the arrangements spiraling out of the concert speakers…something very primary - and primal - is happening. And much of it sub-conscious. There’s an element of trust.

Political philosopher, Hannah Arendt, defined artworks as “thought things,” ideas given material form to inspire reflection and rumination. Dialogue. Sometimes even discomfort. Art has the ability to move us, both positively and negatively. So we know that art matters. But the question posed by modern philosophers such as Roger Scruton has been: how do we want it to affect us?

Are we happy with the direction art is taking? Namely, says, Scruton, away from seeking “higher virtues” such as beauty and craftmanship, and instead, towards novelty for novelty’s sake, provoking emotional response under the guise of socio-political discourse.

Why does beauty in art matter?  

Scruton asks us to wake up and start demanding something more from art other than disposable entertainment. “Through the pursuit of beauty,” suggests Scruton, “we shape the world as our own and come to understand our nature as spiritual beings. But art has turned its back on beauty and now we are surrounded by ugliness.” The great artists of the past, says Scruton, “were painfully aware that human life was full of care and suffering, but their remedy was beauty. The beautiful work of art brings consolation in sorrow and affirmation…It shows human life to be worthwhile.” But many modern artists, argues the philosopher, have become weary of this “sacred task” and replaced it with the “randomness” of art produced merely to gain notoriety and the result has been anywhere between kitsch to ugliness that ultimately leads to inward alienation and nihilistic despair.

The best way to understand Scruton’s idea of beauty in art and why it matters is to let him speak for himself. Click below on the video and watch a BBC documentary broadcast way back in 2009 that he did precisely on this subject, why beauty matters. It will not be a wasted hour but perhaps enrich and even enlighten your perspective on the importance of beauty in art.

So I’ll do my best to summarise the point Scruton is making in this documentary above.

Here goes.....

In his 2009 documentary “Why Beauty Matters”, Scruton argues that beauty is a universal human need that elevates us and gives meaning to life. He sees beauty as a value, as important as truth or goodness, that can offer “consolation in sorrow and affirmation in joy”, therefore showing human life to be worthwhile.

According to Scruton, beauty is being lost in our modern world, particularly in the fields of art and architecture.

I was raised in many different cultures from India, Pakistan, to China, Japan, Southern Africa, and the Middle East as well schooling in rural Britain and Switzerland. So coming home to London on frequent visits was often a confusing experience because of the mismatch of modern art and new architecture. In life and in art I have chosen to see the beauty in things, locating myself in Paris, where I am surrounded by beauty, and understand the impact it can have on the everyday.

Scruton’s disdain for modern art begins with Marcel Duchamp’s urinal. Originally a satirical piece designed to mock the world of art and the snobberies that go with it, it has come to mean that anything can be art and anyone can be an artist. A “cult of ugliness” was created where originality is placed above beauty and the idea became more important than the artwork itself. He argues that art became a joke, endorsed by critics, doing away with a need for skill, taste or creativity.

Duchamp’s argument was that the value of any object lies solely in what each individual assigns it, and thus, anything can be declared “art,” and anyone an artist.

But is there something wrong with the idea that everything is art and everyone an artist? If we celebrate the democratic ideals of all citizens being equal and therefore their input having equal value, doesn’t Duchamp’s assertion make sense?

Who’s to say, after all, what constitutes beauty?

This resonated with me in particular and brought to mind when Scruton meets the artist Michael Craig-Martin and asks him about how Duchamp’s urinal first made him feel. Martin is best known for his work “An Oak Tree” which is a glass of water on a shelf, with text beside it explaining why it is an oak tree. Martin argues that Duchamp captures the imagination and that art is an art because we think of it as such.

When I first saw “An Oak Tree” I was confused and felt perhaps I didn’t have the intellect to understand it. When I would later question it with friends who worked in the art auction and gallery world, the response was always “You just don’t get it,” which became a common defence. To me, it was reminiscent of Hans Christian Andersen’s short tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid or incompetent. In reality, they make no clothes at all.

Scruton argues that the consumerist culture has been the catalyst for this change in modern art. We are always being sold something, through advertisements that feed our appetite for stuff, adverts try to be brash and outrageous to catch our attention. Art mimics advertising as artists attempt to create brands, the product that they sell is themselves. The more shocking and outrageous the artwork, the more attention it receives. Scruton is particularly disturbed by Piero Manzoni’s artwork “Artist’s Shit” which consists of 90 tin cans filled with the artist’s excrement.

Moreover the true aesthetic value, the beauty, has vanished in modern works that are selling for millions of dollars. In such works, by artists like Rothko, Franz Kline, Damien Hirst, and Tracey Emin, the beauty has been replaced by discourse. The lofty ideals of beauty are replaced by a social essay, however well intentioned.

A common argument for modern art is that it is reflecting modern life in all of its disorder and ugliness. Scruton suggests that great art has always shown the real in the light of the ideal and that in doing so it is transfigured.

A great painting does not necessarily have a beautiful subject matter, but it is made beautiful through the artist’s interpretation of it. Rembrandt shows this with his portraits of crinkly old women and men or the compassion and kindness of which Velazquez paints the dwarfs in the Spanish court. Modern art often takes the literal subject matter and misses the creative act. Scruton expresses this point using the comparison of Tracey Emin’s artwork ‘My Bed’ and a painting by Delacroix of the artist’s bed.

The subject matters are the same. The unmade beds in all of their sordid disdain. Delacroix brings beauty to a thing that lacks it through the considered artistry of his interpretation and by doing so, places a blessing on his own emotional chaos. Emin shares the ugliness that the bed shows by using the literal bed. According to Emin, it is art because she says that it is so.

Philosophers argued that through the pursuit of beauty, we shape the world as our home. Traditional architecture places beauty before utility, with ornate decorative details and proportions that satisfy our need for harmony. It reminds us that we have more than just practical needs but moral and spiritual needs too. Oscar Wilde said “All art is absolutely useless,” intended as praise by placing art above utility and on a level with love, friendship, and worship. These are not necessarily useful but are needed.

We have all experienced the feeling when we see something beautiful. To be transported by beauty, from the ordinary world to, as Scruton calls it, “the illuminated sphere of contemplation.” It is as if we feel the presence of a higher world. Since the beginning of western civilisation, poets and philosophers have seen the experience of beauty as a calling to the divine.

According to Scruton, Plato described beauty as a cosmic force flowing through us in the form of sexual desire. He separated the divine from sexuality through the distinction between love and lust. To lust is to take for oneself, whereas to love is to give. Platonic love removes lust and invites us to engage with it spiritually and not physically. As Plato says, “Beauty is a visitor from another world. We can do nothing with it save contemplate its pure radiance.”

Scruton makes the prescient point that art and beauty were traditionally aligned in religious works of art. Science impacted religion and created a spiritual vacuum. People began to look to nature for beauty, and there was a shift from religious works of art to paintings of landscapes and human life.

In today’s world of art and architecture, beauty is looked upon as a thing of the past with disdain. Scruton believes his vision of beauty gives meaning to the world and saves us from meaningless routines to take us to a place of higher contemplation. In this I think Scruton encourages us not to take revenge on reality by expressing its ugliness, but to return to where the real and the ideal may still exist in harmony “consoling our sorrows and amplifying our joys.”

Scruton believes when you train any of your senses you are privy to a heightened world. The artist sees beauty everywhere and they are able to draw that beauty out to show to others. One finds the most beauty in nature, and nature the best catalyst for creativity. The Tonalist painter George Inness advised artists to paint their emotional response to their subject, so that the viewer may hope to feel it too.

It must be said that Scruton’s views regarding art and beauty are not popular with the modern art crowd and their postmodern advocates. Having written several books on aesthetics, Scruton has developed a largely metaphysical aspect to understanding standards of art and beauty.

Throughout this documentary (and indeed his many books and articles), Scruton display a bias towards ‘high’ art, evidenced by a majority of his examples as well as his dismissal of much modern art. However on everyday beauty, there is much space for Scruton to challenge his own categories and extend his discussion to include examples from popular culture, such as in music, graphic design, and film. Omitting ‘low art’ in the discussion of beauty could lead one to conclude that beauty is not there.

It is here I would part ways with Scruton. I think there is beauty to be found in so called low art of car design, popular music or cinema for example - here I’m thinking of a Ferrari 250 GTO,  jazz, or the films of Bergman, Bresson, or Kurosawa (among others) come to mind. Scruton gives short thrift to such 20th century art forms which should not be discounted when we talk of beauty. It’s hard to argue with Jean-Luc Godard for instance when he once said of French film pioneering director, Robert Bresson, “He is the French cinema, as Dostoevsky is the Russian novel and Mozart is German music.”

Overall though I believe Scruton does enough to leave us to ponder ourselves on the importance of beauty in the arts and our lives, including fine arts, music, and architecture. I think he succeeds in illuminating the poverty, dehumanisation and fraud of modernist and post-modernist cynicism, reductionism and nihilism. Scruton is rightly prescient in pointing the centrality of human aspiration and the longing for truth in both life and art.

In this he is correct in showing that goodness and beauty are universal and fundamentally important; and that the value of anything is not utilitarian and without meaning (e.g., Oscar Wilde’s claim that “All art is absolutely useless.”). Human beings are not purposeless material objects for mechanistic manipulation by others, and civil society itself depends upon a cultural consensus that beauty is real and every person should be respected with compassion as having dignity and nobility with very real spiritual needs to encounter and be transformed and uplifted by beauty.

Thanks for your question.