#and there's definitely a racial aspect to it but i don't even want to make it about that because xenophobia is also a huge problem

[wiisagi-maiingan]

Religion and culture and their intersections always face the same savior attitudes, where outsiders who have no experience with those communities assume that the people in them are dumb savages who need to be saved from their own ignorance. The idea that we could not only be aware of issues in our communities but actually talking about them and trying to solve them just does not occur to people who want to play the role of the intelligent and rational heroes.

[ftmtftm]

I've been scrolling through your blog, and I saw your post about discussing the racialized nature of gender. As someone who has several transmasc POC friends, and someone who's a nonbinary POC themself, I wanted to give my 2 cents.

It's important to understand that "woman" in the "man vs woman" gender binary is a colonialist, white supremacist construct, especially in Western countries where you are the numerical minority. My trans friends aren't on T, they haven't gotten top surgery, we are all quite young. But they all have numerous stories about being addressed as "sir" which brings them euphoria but as one person said, while we were making fun of the amount of white people in our club, "Due to my race and skin color, I get masculinized."

And again I'd like to emphasize, that since we're young, none of us really have medically transitioned due to financial and familial barriers. Their hair is long, our binders we definitely have notable chests, and even if they dress masculine, it's notable that no one in our communities would ever gender us properly. It's often white people calling them "sir." Again, I think this reflects how gender performances in mainstream queer communities are deeply White. Like, trans boys talk about having haircuts, but only one of my friends has that wavier, more manageable hair that will help them pass. When you've got curly/kinky hair, the standards are different. For a white person, what's the difference between a "girl" Afro and a boy "Afro"? White cis people have a harder time identifying us, and literally talk to any black girl, and they'll tell you about being mocked, dehumanized, and called "manly".

I don't have much else to say. These are just my personal experiences. But if you want to be an ally to POC in the queer community, this is why it's so fucking important to bring in colonialism/imperialism/white supremacy into discussions of queer liberation. My biggest gripe with ignorant white queers is when they ignore their white privilege, and act like "cishets" (AKA the patriarchal system regulating sexuality and gender) is the only enemy. Because cishet POC deal with plenty of shit with being infantilized, masculinized, feminized, seen as brutish & dangerous, the list goes on. Doberbutts had a post saying, "Believe me, your family's going to care more about me being black than my queerness." towards his white partners. Acknowledging and creating a framework that centers these intersections of queerness and race into your beliefs is true allyship. This is why if you're not anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, ACAB...I do not think you care for queer liberation. None of us are free until all of us are free.

Please don't view this post as an attack. But this is my perspective, and I thought you'd be receptive to me sharing my lived experiences.

Oh I absolutely don't view this ask as an attack, and I really appreciate you bringing these things up because you're right! Like, just very plainly: You are right and your and your friends lived experiences are extremely important to the conversation on the racialized aspects of gender.

It gets me thinking about where Misogynoir and the social White Fear of Black manhood intersect for Black trans men in particular. Because Black women and Women of Color in general are masculinized by White gender standards and the ways in which Black trans masculine people are gendered in alignment with their identity is absolutely not always done with gender affirming intent. In fact, it's often actually done with racist intent or is fueled by racist bias when it's coming from White people or even from non-Black POC.

That's kind of restating things you've said but differently, it's just such a topic worth highlighting explicitly since it's extremely relevant to the conversation that's been happening about Male Privilege here the last few days.

I do think I know exactly what @doberbutts post you're talking about and yeah. It's just truth. It's something Black queer people have been talking about for ages in both theory and in pop culture (my mind immediately goes to Kevin Abstract and "American Boyfriend") where Black queer/trans identity is both materially different from (neutral) and is treated differently from (negative) White queer/trans identity in multitudes of ways and those differences are worth sharing and exploring and talking about.

Genuinely, thank you for sharing! I try really hard not to lead these kinds of conversations outside of explicitly referencing back to non-White theorists because I don't particularly feel like it's my place to do so, but I will always provide a platform for them because they're extremely important conversations to be had.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hi! I was wondering do you know why Loumand is so hated ? Was it like that for books readers too? I'm in the middle of the 1st book but i do like their fucked up dynamic on the show and if you ask me, i do think there is love between them.

It's funny because when I started following the fandom everyone was saying how vampires are poly and how we'll have to adapt to this fact now that i'm finally adapting my view, i keep reading ''Louis and Armand don't love each other'' etc.. people call us delusional... sometimes i feel like the only accepted poly is Lestat? I love all their dynamics,give me anything, i'm just here to see characters doing unhinged things that's what attracted me to the show,but sometimes i feel like people just want conventional stories despite what they are saying.

... well.

Okay, so, I'm not too hot on them either. I'll try to explain (and please do read until the end^^) Because while there's certainly love between them (and I have always maintained that!!) - there's also the "problem" that Armand initially becomes interested in Louis... because he is Lestat's. He engages Louis after Lestat has told him about Louis, tries to keep them (Louis and Claudia) save.

Armand... manipulates Louis, and canonically influences him to turn Madeleine, spell-binds him, lies to him, puts a "veil" onto him.

The show, very early on, hinted at the darker aspects of Loumand with the posters, and their reference to the movie "Gaslight".

Armand... Armand has baggage. And luckily(!) he falls for Louis. From his side it's definitely not a lie that he loves Louis. Louis... Louis is certainly infatuated. I do think he loves Armand. But... not like that. Both show and books make that quite clear, and their later canon time together is a very sedated safe time at Trinity Gate.

Armand later tells in his own book that in Paris:

"I must have Louis, that was my injunction. I knew no other."

He must have Louis.

Armand... is someone who does things as he sees fit, even if others disagree. Hunting the young vampires down, for example, even in modern times, wherever he is. Lestat is later very loathe to do that, but Armand keeps wherever he is "clean". The ever multiplying vampire population is for example why Louis goes to Armand at Trinity Gate for the first place - to be safe. But that just as a note.

So... I think it's... complicated. :)

It should go without saying(!) that you can enjoy them as you wish^^.

I think... I think a lot of people are very unprepared to watch a show like this (with characters like these), because we rarely get to see something like this! Like, all these relationships are toxic!! All of them are flawed. There is no good or bad vampire. They're all manipulative, toxic serial killers. They all abuse, and are abused. Yes, even Louis. :))

Fandoms... sometimes tend to be very polemic. This fandom has had the added complexity of the racial recasts, a setup as a tale and a show that has put its fingers into wounds... and then not only split the first season in half, but was also delayed by strikes. Some things... festered.

BUT. That should not stop you from enjoying what you enjoy?! I can only recommend curating your dash^^, and enjoy them.

It's a wild dynamic after all, and while I personally did not think they would go so dark for them I do see the appeal of diving into this dynamic :)

So - look for those who enjoy them as well, and... forget the rest?^^

[girlcored]

making this a new post because i want to add relevant tags and elaborate on what i mean here. all panels from nightwing (2016) #108

there's the issue of dick pushing bea aside to be with barbara

there's plenty of other posts exploring the issues with this and i did too in my original post. like yeah there is definitely a racial aspect here

2. bea is the adopted child of a secret pirate society in bludhaven. her adoptive brother, a white man, claims to be the "true" heir

a) ignoring that this reads like this supporter of her brother is calling bea a racial slur b) you can't write this and then ignore the racial dynamics that are absolutely at play here. nowhere in this comic is it even mentioned that white members of the crew might not accept bea as the heir because of her race, even though in a story that is at least based in reality, this is absolutely true. c) when race dynamics are not addressed, it leaves me with this really uncomfortable feeling. like the characters are doing racism and it's not addressed to a point where it's ignored, which isn't what i need or want. i don't need my hand to be held when discerning the meaning of a text. i do need certain things actually written down for them to be part of that meaning. otherwise it feels like disregarding the racial aspect of this conflict to a harmful degree.

even if the purpose of this arc was to explore the racism bea faces, in not doing so in an explicit way, the story itself is being racist to her. like guys idk. tom taylor what the fuck is wrong with you.

3) bea getting fucking stabbed by her white nationalist brother

hey um. why'd you do that.

and i am saying all of this as someone who fucking hates the ric grayson arc and does genuinely enjoy dickbabs. i just don't see anyone else talking about this and it's wild. it's wild that tom taylor is just getting away with this

[ofbreathandflame]

Re: anti sjm stuff, the funny part is I think even in the anti community, racism rarely gets brought up. it gets a footnote when people ask what's wrong the sjm's work.

Hi anon!

This is interesting! I do think it is commonly talked about within the anti-community and many of the problems that are discussed usually lead back to the racism in the stories. I like your comment about it being mentioned as a footnote when people discuss the problems in her story. That sums up the problems when discussing the racist aspects of her novels. The anti-tag has definitely become more anti-character motivated since the release of A Court of Silver Flames -- but I think that's just a consequence of her own fandom not allowing criticism of work outside of their dedication to their favorite character. I've noticed that because people have talked themselves into a corner defending these characters (and the story has written itself into a corner as well) people have a hard time actually objectively critiquing racist portions of the story.

There's always the broad statement that 'SJM is racist' thrown around -- or that she has 'problematic' storylines but it is only discussed within the framework of undesirable characters (Nesta, Tamlin, Lucien, Beron, Illyrians). The Illyrian plotline is objectively a racist one; there is no scenario where a permanent second class of brown men and women is justifiable but it is. Introspection into that storyline will always negatively affect the characters in the world of the story, but a lot of people will pivot the conversation to an 'anti-feysand' rhetoric instead of a racial one. Aelin being unwilling to help end slavery until her black friend has to orchestrate her own death is both a racial and character problem, but the idea is that these storylines negatively affect her character. People want desperately to separate the racism in the story from the characters when we just...can't. And then people become irritable with the critiques -- even subtly so -- and they develop an aversion to them. The 'Illyrian' problem becomes an only anti-Rhys problem and so they feel comfortable ignoring, justifying, and bashing us for talking about it.

Or they assign these critiques under a 'pro tamlin/pro nesta' category and do the same thing; instead of engaging with the issue at hand we get pages of anti-tamlin, nesta rhetoric. We talk about the Illyrian issue? I'll see a post about how Tamlin is a pig, he should die, and then they feel better about themselves. Or we'll see a post about if we critique Feyre -- then Nesta is worse! She's XYZ and how dare critique Rhys when Nesta is right there.

When the reality is: SJM could kill Tamlin off Kill Nesta off, have them grovel or whatever they imagine they want SJM to do, and it wouldn't really change the racial problems at hand.

The Illyrian problem, the Human problem in CC, the Slavery problem in ToG have facilitated an environment where people feel comfortable defending things akin to 'separate but equal laws,' 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps', 'and justifiable segregation conditions. And I don't have to look far to see it. And if we were all mature -- we could talk about these characters without regurgitating that type of dogma -- but alas we can't because its baked into the story.

A secret city built on the blood of brown men and women who live in tents and give their sons to society they will never get the chance to participate in is a very crazy thing to justify. As is arguing that a group of people WOULD WILLINGLY choose to stay trapped under a mountain. It's not a choice because these people do not have a choice to go to Velaris. It's worse when we consider that Velaris DOES NOT HAVE A STANDING ARMY. It primarily relies on the Illyrians and the Darkbringers. And the story tells us these things bc these are intentional choices.

Critiquing this makes us anti feyre and therefore instead of heading these critiques, people JUMP TO JUSTIFY THEM. There are a lot of reasons why employing a barely literate white teenager in the top office over the 'brown savages' is a bit wild. But introspection into that plotline = anti feyre. And then instead of introspection, we get people justifying the plot point. And that's what's dangerous about sidelining the racism conversations in her work. It's also the problem with rabid shipping culture. It's not being able to recognize the problems in the story outside of characters you love and then justifying harmful ideologies bc you can't separate the critiques from your love a character.

[langernameohnebedeutung]

TBH, I don't consider reducing/hiding scars a minor pet peeve at all. Activists for facial differences have been talking for years about 'disfigurement' being used as shorthand for moral failings. I could blame wanting to lighten the burden on makeup artists, but there's never any hesitation to make villains scarred. It's only if the character is meant to be sexy or heroic that their scars get toned down or removed.

DEFINITELY!

I think there are many aspects to this, the biggest one being the one you mentioned, this dynamic of villain = scarred, hero = not scarred.

And another thing that I hate about it is how especially in adaptions they take a facial difference and make it much smaller, less visible, move it etc. - and then try to pull off the same narrative about this character being perceived as not conventionally attractive. Which immediately becomes incredibly condescending and makes it even worse, especially when they choose a conventionally good-looking character to play that role.

An example:

He is supposed to look "monstrous" - like bro, what does that make the rest of us?

(And just to make the dehumanisation of people with facial differences more obvious: In the source material, this guy had half-lion features)

Another aspect I can think of is the fetishisation of self-hatred in this regard. It is portrayed as "good" when a character with a facial difference (especially a woman, in these tropes) puts herself down - but then in swoops a love-interest to tell how beautiful they are. Meanwhile, a character with a facial difference or something similiar who - for themselves - says: "Hey, actually I like the way I look" - is treated as arrogant and the butt-end of the joke. (There is this Colleen Hoover book I'm thinking of here, as one example, that in my defence I only watched a pretty scathing review of)

But I also think that there are some racial aspects and gender aspects to this. There are probably a lot of people more qualified to talk about these racial aspects of this and maybe I am imagining things or don't see the full scope of it but I definitely feel like they feel far more comfortable doing this "villains have scars" thing with characters of colour - at least relative to the amount of representation characters of colour get to begin with. And it feels like...well, again, I'm not the best person to put this into words but since it usually goes hand in hand with the villain-trope, it feels like an effort to dial up the othering, especially in older shows and movies that use stuff like rituals or something for shock value. To make other races or cultures look sCaRy and DifFeReNt.

Or - just the first example that comes to my mind: The original mirror-verse episode of Star Trek. The reason I'm mentioning this is because it is a piece of media where you can see side-by-side which visual cues writers settled on to make our characters look "evil": One is dialling up the sexy - especially with the women who are all much more horny - another is giving mirror!Sulu a big facial scar. And on the surface level, the reasoning even makes sense - that world is a lot more brutal so it makes sense that someone would have scars. But for one, there is the interesting choice to make Sulu the character to give it to. Not to mention: Our "normal"-verse characters also see fights and injuries. They could have scars very reasonably. Star Trek is all about inclusivity - but there is a notable absence of e.g. scarring of visible body differences in the original show - they even used body doubles and selective shots to hide James Doohan's missing finger. But the moment we go into an "evil" universe, there is facial difference and it is on the body of a man of colour.

And then you have the issue that female characters must not have visible scars in most cases - because they have to be eye-candy for the audience. And considering the huge pressure that is already placed on women to be beautiful, it feels like another body standard in the media ("we will show women suffering in all shapes all the time to the point of being exploitative, but also they heal back perfectly and don't appear changed at all. So the audience gets to eat their misogyny cake and eat it too.) Meanwhile, some male hero characters (usually action heroes, video game heroes) do get to have scars or some facial difference to show their "journey" and how much they hardened and what they survived - which I think can be a positive message - "hey, your scars talk about what you went through and what you survived and that you're a badass!" - but women get this to a much smaller degree despite having extra tons of pressure placed upon them to look beautiful so it feels really cool (also - referring back to my first point, self-empowerment is also treated as negative and almost egomanical because informing a woman that she is beautiful is a man's job)

(An example: I watched a a Netflix adaption of a book I had read recently and in the book, two major female characters have an identical scar on their face and that is pretty relevant to the story - and they just decide to place in the palms of her hands instead where it is much less visible and the scenario behind the first woman's injury becomes a lot less believable than the one in the novel)

And the thing is, I don't even always buy that it to save on make-up or effects in a lot of cases because often they are productions that have tons of budget for other things and a lot of movies and shows can show their characters for half the episode/movie with scrapes on their face and blood on their face etc. I have a hard time believing that this is so much harder to do than a scar.

[eastgaysian]

Sincere question: I don't understand your reaction here: "also the fact i had to look up lottie's actress to be like wait is she mixed. it's just a bit silly to me tbh" . Are you saying the show should have explicitly discussed her ethnic background? Is it because you think her possible powers are related to her being Maori, or like in general it should have been more obvious?

this is a complicated one to answer because i feel like i have to go macro -> micro to get all my thoughts out sensibly. but we'll get there i promise

the genre of survivalist fiction, more specifically the deserted island/stranded in the wilderness narrative, is racially loaded. sometimes this is patently obvious, ie robinson crusoe and the character of friday, but even with a cast of entirely white characters the concept of uninhabited and untamed wilderness (which the white characters either tame or are degraded by) is tied to colonialism*, as is the tension between what is viewed as civilized or uncivilized behavior, good christian morality vs primitive/barbaric 'savagery', etc.

(* this isn't necessarily constant throughout history/a global context but is absolutely a part of this genre and the american context of yellowjackets)

yellowjackets seems to promise a deconstruction of the genre by focusing on the psychological horror angle with a diverse cast of teenage girls, as well as reflecting on how the trauma of that event would carry on into life after rescue. and like, i like it! i think it's fun to watch, it succeeds at entertaining me. but i really think it drops the ball when it comes to examining the racial implications of this kind of story.

it's clear that there's some degree of thought and significance put into taissa as a Black female character: her conversation with van about Black characters dying first in horror movies, the conversation with that potential donor who feels entitled to her trauma because of All She's Done For You People, her being the first Black female senator of new jersey.

...so what exactly are we supposed to make of the fact that she has an Evil Personality that first emerged after the crash, who eats dirt and bites people and makes shrines with broken dolls and dog heads, just lurking under the surface waiting until she loses control? the other characters are definitely psychologically disturbed, but the regression to this 'wild' state is extreme and reserved for taissa. why? it doesn't critically examine or deconstruct the ways in which the behavior we view as 'feral' is racialized. at best it's thoughtless, at worst it's actively engaging in racist tropes.

on the other hand you have lottie, whose racial identity isn't brought up in the text, but is at least a consistent casting decision for teen/adult lottie and her parents. the role she fills of being converted (to a point?) and baptized by a devoted white christian girl and then becoming an occult mystic who communes with the wilderness and wears deer antlers to try and lead a ritual human sacrifice is extremely racially loaded. i wouldn't have been irked by the lack of acknowledgment if this wasn't her role. but because it hasn't been brought up and it's not critically examined, i'm not sure whether the show wants me to think her possible powers are related to her being māori, and either way the implications are really troubling to me.

i'm not #cancelling the show i'm just disappointed by what feels like a huge oversight with regards to the racialized aspects of the genre. narratively i also think the build up of the maybe-supernatural elements was kind of all over the place which doesn't help but that's not really here nor there. it just doesn't sit well with me!

[3-2-whump]

(You don't have to reply to this publicly if you don't want to)

I read your post on adoption trauma and it really hit close to home for me. My adoption experience was a lot different (same race adoption, domestic vs international, bad adoptive parents, etc) but I still feel a lot of the same frustrations.

I can't claim to understand through racial aspect and I don't want to equate my experience to that (that's a whole other level of hurt I can't even imagine), but I think it's important to note that there's another culture that gets lost in adoption: *familial* culture.

I don't know my genealogy. I don't know how my family celebrates holidays. I don't know their little inside jokes and how they show affection and all their favorite things. I don't know my half-siblings but they know me. They know our mother. They know her hugs, her smile, her laugh.

And even though I know *who* my parents are and I could contact them, it still feels like forcing a piece from another puzzle into a completed one. I will never have that relationship with them. Of course, that's my personal experience and I know it's different for others, but that's how it feels for me. That rift is permanent, even if I take the risk of rejection and try to build a bridge.

Anyway, didn't mean to blabber in your inbox. Just had a lot of feelings and thought I might share. Also hi, I have a whump blog as well lol. It's @the-whumpening but most of my stuff has some of your squicks so don't feel obligated to check it out.

Oh yeah, there is definitely a loss of familial culture for both of us. I didn’t highlight it because I thought it was just an implied, a given -but you’re totally right, it is there, and we should address it.

I don’t know my genealogy either, or how my birth family observes holidays like Lunar New Year, Mid Autumn Moon Festival, Qing Ming, and the rest. I don’t know if you care about such things like religion but I don’t even know what mine practiced, or if it’s a faith I would have preferred to grow up in. I know I have a blood sibling; that much is implied through my story, but aside from that, I can only make guesses.

I think it’s cool though that you *know* who your birth parents are -something that will be a miracle for me to find- and I fully respect your decision to not want to contact them, but it must be kinda weird, I imagine, for both of us to imagine a world without our rifts you so accurately mentioned…

Thanks for chiming in! If you want to talk about it more feel free to message me.

[bathsaltsmcgee]

Hey! I'm sending you a message because I love your fanfic, Beneath The Mask. It's really immersive! Your writing is so impressive, and your Alastor and Charlie feel so real! You really display every part of them so well, from their attire to their mannerisms and inner thoughts. And you balance it with your amazing plot so masterfully! I'm curious as to what resources you use when you research the place and time period. It's because I'm working on my own Charlastor fanfic in the same setting (1920's-1930's New Orleans). You're a writer that I look up to, so I thought I'd reach out to ask you for advice. Thanks!

Aw, thank you! I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying my work that much. :D

Well, odd as it is to say, when it comes to researching the 1930s, YouTube is a fantastic place to start. There are loads of documentaries about the roaring twenties, as well as the Great Depression, uploaded on there that go into great detail about everything from daily life, to fashion, to racial and societal tensions, to even old diary entries, and whenever I'm doing something I don't want to, I'll put on one of those so the grind of vacuuming doesn't seem nearly so monotonous.

However, I would recommend not just listening to the ones about the economy and the stock market crash. While they do play an integral part in what went down back then and are definitely worth a listen, it's vital to take into account the human suffering on the ground level that occurred at the time, too.

Wall Street is important, but Main Street is everything.

People were starving, dying in the streets, and kicked out of their homes because they couldn't pay the rent. Poverty was rampant, loads of families had to uproot across state lines, just to survive, and the dust bowl was sweeping through the US farming country, making it unviable for planting and raising livestock. Civil unrest was all over the place, debt, both personal and commercial, was at an all time high, roughly 25% of all working Americans were unemployed, riots and police standoffs were occurring everywhere one looked, like what happened with the bonus army in 1932 in DC, and brutality and scapegoating were the way of the day, with random acts of violence against one other on the rise every day that went by, regardless of whether or not there was even a reason, be it perceived or real.

So, the human struggle against scarcity, despair, misery and hopelessness that the Depression brought which persisted throughout that time period is essential to take into account when writing about it, as it affected almost everyone and usually stayed with them to some degree for the rest of their lives, even long after the depression itself was gone.

Which is why a lot of old people who lived through it never threw anything away, eschewed any and all kinds of waste, and washed and folded up used tinfoil, among other things.

Another important aspect about the Great Depression and the roaring twenties that proceeded it is that everything is intertwined and connected with each other to an almost disturbing degree. For instance, the release of labor saving devices, shiny new inventions and household appliances, such as electric washing machines, radios, cars and what have you, behooved people to take on a boatload of debt in order to purchase them, which, in turn, put them into a bad financial position when the bottom fell out of the economy and they'd no way of paying their loans back because they were without a job.

The banks going bust and there not being any sort of insurance to cover the financial losses at the time didn't help, either.

Hemlines in skirts also have a way of either rising or falling depending on the state of the economy as well. If it's a bull market, the hemlines rise. If it's a bear, they fall down to the floor.

Also, the YouTube channel, 'Great Depression cooking with Clara', is a great window back into life in the days, so I'd look that up too, if you're so inclined.

As for fashion knowledge, I'd recommend either vintage dancer or glamour daze. They've got loads of tutorials for makeup and fashion from the turn of the century all the way up into the 80s, as well as real life magazine articles from back then, detailing how women, and sometimes men, were expected to dress in order to appear 'smart' in public, as being well groomed was a sign that one still had their act together, if only on the surface.

Hope that helps!

[clonehub]

someone in the tags of that meme said they dont understand why tbb stans take criticism of their shows so personally. while i have a range of theories as to why, in general, fans of a show cannot just let people not like the show, the tbb stans in particular seem to....idk, think the bad batch is Doing Something? i did literally see someone say that you cant criticize the show because the animators work so hard on it, and they conflated negative feelings about the series with a lack of desire to see *any* aspect of the Bad Batch, like "yeah youre complaining but look at these nice visuals do you not want those anymore???" which was a false equivalency.

and of course there's the whole fandom-as-identity and stan-as-personality and a lot of people's growing inability to take variegated and holistic approaches to the series. even the ones who admit that the show has flaws regarding how they write wrecker seem to be unable to realize/point out that wrecker's writing is problematic because it is racist.

racism as a factor in the poor quality of the writing is one that ive noticed gets ignored almost COMPLETELY. i and others like me who do not like the bad batch are able to point out the stereotypes and poor optics and everything else while talking about the writing. people who love the bad batch cannot. i guess because then, admitting that the writing and animation are inextricably racist would make them look a little silly for loving the show so much, because you can say the character development was slow but you still love it. but you can say "yeah he's a racial stereotype and there was a weird reverse racism thread to their back story and they do make efforts to prove these white characters are better than these nonwhite ones--but i still love it".

but in general, since ive deviated a little, like....i remember when uwwtbb first came out and it was *incredibly* difficult for people to separate themselves from what they were consuming. people complained about the racism in the show and they complained about the more or less explicitly racist fans of the bad batch and you had other stans (who often had to bring up that they were poc, but obv not always) saying "well im not a bad person for watching the show" or asking if they could watch it. like i cant control what you watch. me passing judgement on you specifically makes no sense. although one does have to consider how much they're willing to tolerate, praise, or brush aside for the sake of their own personal entertainment. i am watching season 2 of the bad batch to keep track of any other racist developments that happen (which, thankfully, have been minimal). you are watching because you find joy in it. we are not the same. we dont need to be.

but connecting to what id said earlier about tbb stans i guess not understanding their own "buying power", so to speak--if criticizing a show means criticizing the people who watch the show, and if a lot of people who watch the show definitely don't care about the whitewashing that much, then there is no sense in acting shocked when the by products of a racist show are racist. the confusion over tech's 1/6th model as if he doesn't look like a boring white man in the series was irritating. you asked for this. you can't say tech is hot and you can't spread whitewashed fanart and you cannot implicitly and explicitly support the racist design and then turn around and be surprised when you are given exactly what you asked for.

[casasupernovas]

Hi

Say if Joan said yes to travelling with the doctor, but Martha didn’t like the idea and gave the doctor an ultimatum who do you think he would choose? Like I want to ship Ten/Martha, but the whole Joan thing is kinda stopping me. Sorry if this is a weird question - I just wanted to see someone else’s thought’s on the matter.

I think he would ultimately choose Martha. Because I'm sure Martha's ultimatum would entail more about her understanding that he's trying to get Joan out of guilt, but ulimately not wanting to be around someone who is racially prejudiced. Martha has already been in a backwards time for too long, we don't want to bring it with them, especially as it wouldn't just affect Martha but the Doctor too. Race is a problem from what we know but she'd definitely start othering the Doctor. I do really think he asks for Joan out of guilt.

Additionally the awareness that Joan could very well become socially aware is a thing but ultimately, that is not Martha's responsibility, and if the Doctor wishes it to be his, then Martha is within her right not to be a part of it. Also I truly believe that the Doctor would regret his decision to travel with her. Firstly, I do not believe Joan has the aptitude to be a companion. She'd probably die on their first adventure. Also Joan is incredibly bland, I think the Doctor would get bored easily.

I think the Doctor offered her a trip because he assumed she'd be more impressed with him instead of the fake. Joan never seemed too impressed with the Doctor from the story to begin with though. Interested but not that interested. And I think he'd get a kick out of showing a woman from 1913 the universe. I also think Joan was probably embarassed to fall in love with a story than a real person.

But ultimately I think he would choose Martha. I think when he talks to Joan, again I think it's out of guilt. When he speaks to Martha outside, she clearly knew what he was trying to do. Remember when John asked Martha why she didn't stop him and Joan falling for each other? Martha saying that wasn't on the list? The fault ultimately lies with the Doctor missing one of the most fundamental aspects of humanity. That is the alien making a massive error. So, he tries to placate it. I look at the scene both ways because as awful and manipulative as it seems, you can't help but feel sorry for the Doctor as you see how he is crashing and burning without realising. He just doesn't get it. But I think Martha does, and would tell him.

I think Martha would have laid it out in this ultimatum if he proposed to want to get Joan to accompany them out of guilt. The Doctor thinks a trip in the Tardis is an adequate thank you, it's partly how he got Martha in the first place. He's not self aware enough to understand why he'd be rejected (even at the end of the Runaway Bride, The Lazarus Experiment and ultimately the end of the series). But Martha. I think the core of Martha's ultimatum would also be that she is here for him.

The Doctor makes many mistakes this two parter, some out of ignorance, some under duress. In the show, when Martha offers to speak to Joan, I think she wantes to try and convince her not to travel with them exactly, but to not to think too harshly of the Doctor. As Joan and John came at her, all Martha did was defend the Doctor. Martha Jones understands him better than most companions in my opinion. I'd think she would want to come at the angle of two humans regarding the Doctor. I don't think she'd convince her, but I think she'd want to lower Joan's hate. And give her something to think abput regarding her society in general.

And I think this consideration, and understanding from Martha telling the Doctor that she would try to help ease his guilt, just not at the cost of her own sanity. And the Doctor would choose her.

[ephrom]

Lily Orchard and Anti-Oppression

I'm not sure if I'm going to commentate on Orchard's latest video--video essays are the hardest to commentate on--but this video is not only bad, it's dangerous--and it represents one of the signs that somebody is not actually a leftist but just wants to rage against a machine. I'm just going to put all my cards on the table: The biggest issue with Orchard's view on oppression is the same issue people who voted Trump in 2016 to "shake things up" and declared him an "underdog" had. They saw somebody who was fighting against the system and supported him on that basis--never wondering what aspects of the system he was against and why he was against them.

Nobody declares themselves pro-oppression, and this includes actual Nazis and White Nationalists. On The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one of the most famous pieces of fascist texts (although its embracement by fascists is really just coincidental), argues that the people of the world are being oppressed by a Jewish ruling class that is conspiring against them. The Turner Diaries is a literal underdog story about a group of fascists committing a coup against the American government because they're run by Jews and racial minorities.

It's funny that Orchard insults Vaush as genocidal in this video when this is the attitude he constantly has to fight against, primarily while debating actual geocidal people like Professor Flowers and possibly NonCompete. In truth, people like Orchard are the kind to back genocidal groups because their in opposition to shaky morally imperfect regimes. The only reason I know she's not a tankie is because I've previously seen her call the USSR fascist--which--okay that's wrong but that's a topic for another time.

Hitler told the people of Germany that he was going to free them from the oppressive status quo. Although this does not mean that everyone who makes that claim is Hitler, that does mean that bad people will claim to be good. In real life, nobody will tell you their the bad guys--most people don't consider themselves the bad guys even when they're doing bad things. Being "against oppression" is not an ideology on its own unless you have a coherent and reasonable definition of oppression--which Lily, and I cannot stress this enough, does not.

[neverwritewhatyouknow]

Hi, so I'm uneducated on this and I was wondering if you would answer a question I have. Would it be still ok for Nora's actress to portray Nora as jewish despite the fact that she (the actress) isn't jewish?

It's my understanding that there's nothing wrong with an actor playing a character that practices a religion which they don't. (Idk though, I'm not religious). It's also my understanding that being jewish refers to a race as much as it does a religion and I see the problem with someone playing a character of a different race.

That being said, could she play Nora as someone who is jewish by praciting the religion but not racially? It's my understading you can be one without the other.

Sorry if I'm using the wrong terminology with anything and thank you for your patience and for continuing to educate us.

Hi! Great questions. And your terminology is all correct. The issue with them having Nora still Jewish but not casting a Jewish actress, is that they could have just cast a Jewish actress in the first place. I have another post where I mentioned that they would have to go out of the way to show her being Jewish because the actress isn’t. Like they would have to purposely have her do “Jewish things” or wear a Star of David necklace. But they could have just cast a Jewish actress and that wouldn’t be an issue. It would be like not casting a Mexican actor as Alex, and having the actor walk around eating a taco and speaking in Spanish the whole time so people still think he’s Mexican.

People can play characters of other religions. But it’s actually more rare for a character to have a certain religion specified. BUT and here’s the catch, being Jewish isn’t just a religion, it’s a race and ethnicity too (which is something most people don’t really know or think about). So casting a non-Jewish actor doesn’t mean they they just don’t practice the religion of Judaism, it means they aren’t racially Jewish either. Nora wasn’t a religious character, she celebrated Hanukkah once and that was it. That’s pretty normal, because a lot of Jews aren’t religiously involved (there are a ton that are though). In the book she was racially and ethnically Jewish, she was Jewish the whole time even when not doing “Jewish stuff.” So, saying that in the movie she would be Jewish because of the religion, wouldn’t be Nora at all, since Nora wasn’t religiously Jewish (that we know of, and it doesn’t seem like she was off-page). Does that make sense?

You can definitely be Jewish without being racially Jewish. People convert in or are adopted into Jewish families, so they’re just as ethnically Jewish as anyone else even if it’s not in their blood. Totally valid Jews. You can study the religion without being the race and you can be the race without studying the religion (the second option is really common).

BUT… 1. based on what we know about Nora from the book, she is racially Jewish. 2. If they wanted her to be Jewish they could have found someone Jewish 3. The movie would continue the wrongful education that being Jewish is just a religion based thing & not an actual race and ethnicity because they would have to focus on religious aspects of Nora that wouldn’t be needed if the actress was just Jewish. If she was Jewish, you wouldn’t have to say she was.

So to recap quickly: Without an actual Jewish actress, the movie would have to force stuff onto Nora to make her appear Jewish, even when they could have just cast a Jewish actress. Jewish people are a race and ethnicity too and they changed the race and ethnicity of Nora away from Jewish. You can practice the religion and not be racially Jewish, but for the movie… that’s pretty low blow when they could have just gotten a Jewish actress if they wanted Nora to be Jewish.

thank you so much for your question. If you have anymore, or want me to explain something else, just LMK!

[mega-ringsandthings-world]

Oof. Honestly, the idea that "poor = being a person of color" is ironically an argument that sounds even more racist than what you're arguing for.

Anyway, District 12 is set in the Appalachians, which if my source is to be trusted, is 82% white, with most of its miners also being white. Obviously that doesn't mean Katniss has to be white, especially in a fantasy setting way into the future, but I don't think it's entirely unfounded to take that into account.

And, yeah, like you said, olive skin is really wholly unremarkable lol. I know quite a few people with olive skin who are about as Caucasian as you can be.

So, personally, I really don't believe Katniss was whitewashed since she's inarguably described in the books as olive skinned, which isn't an uncommon skintone for white people, and definitely has a white mother and sister. Just as Rue is inarguably black, as she was described (iirc) as having dark brown skin and eyes. It seems strange to me for people to upset about either of those things in the films when they're canon lol.

Lol? It's not racist to say that communities of color are somewhat likely to be poor or more disenfranchised/not at equal standing with white communities. It's a plain fact, and I would know, being a person of color and having lived the literal things I speak about. Poor does not equal people of color. Do not put words in my mouth. Okay? And? The setting is in the distant future, and the events of the series take place nearly a century after a traumatic and horrific war. The idea that that the once-called Appalachians would have retained their racial topography to such a degree is debatable. The author drew from the Vietnam war and the peoples affected by it, to think that every single one of her main characters in a trilogy critiquing war and showing revolution from oppressed minorities is white, is ridiculous. Yes, Katniss and others have olive skin, a wide descriptor as it is, but the way the olive skin and Katniss' and the others' given physical traits are described and presented in contrast with with canonical white characters shows that they are intended to be not white. Just as Rue is infutably black, it should be plain that Katniss and the others are not white. At least to anyone who can read, or at least read without bias. The films miscast Katniss, Gale, and Haymitch especially, (canonically he has grey hair and dark eyes, and in the films he is a blue-eyed blond.) Rue, who you say yourself has dark skin and eyes was played by a light-skinned actress, and they initially wanted Katniss to be a sandy blonde. In the books, they are canonically poc, what the films think are canonical means jackshit to me. What you think also matters jackshit me. If you personally want to see Katniss and Co. as white, do so if it makes you happy. I honestly don't care, I'm just explaining the facts, since you brought it up. But I'm not speaking out of my ass, there are other people who agree with me, have spoken about how Katniss is a poc, the social-economic class divide and racial aspects/ of the seam vs merchant class, and all that good stuff and have also explained how and why this is true. But if you think me saying that communities of color can often be at a social disadvantage is "racist", I doubt you'd be able to handle a talk about that, lol.

[goddamnwebcomics]

Gag and Puke A Day: The Loco Bandito

I hate the term "didn't age well". You should only say that about spoiled milk or moldy bread. It also implies that EVERY single modern day media is better and could never age badly. But we won't know how much the stuff that is considered good and valid today is horribly offensive to the people in the next 20 years. For all we know, eating red meat will be as offensive as blackface to future generations. It also justifies corporations wanting to eradicate all the old media and replace it with generic, safe slob """remakes""", as well as go after the institutions whose job is to preserve these works like Internet Archive, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Also, it implies that something that was released back in the day didn't just instantly fucking suck. Take for example today's topic, The Loco Bandito. I feel that anyone who read it back in the day would find it just as offensive back then as it is today. It was dead on arrival.

Loco Bandito was made by a man known as Mike Matei. You might have heard of him, he helped to co-create Angry Video Game Nerd with James Rolfe. Now Mike has been a source of controversy these past few years. Whether it's Minecraft with Gadget, his terrible review of Elmo in Grouchland or him getting upset about people making fun of his gigantic penis(???), however none of these are as bad as The Loco Bandito.

I don't have a problem with edgy humour. Twitter has defined edgy humour as "saying bigoted shit" but that's not edgy humour, that's just bigotry. Bigotry is not really a form of comedy. That being said edgy humour is not safe, it's not supposed to make you comfortable. Edgy humour could also help you to challenge yourself and think. Many jokes that I have made in this blog in the past definitely qualify as edgy humour. While I was a lot more raunchy in the 2010's, it never crossed the line of "saying racial slurs as a joke". And that is what The Loco Bandito is. While I have issue with policing jokes, that doesn't mean I am okay with this.

Loco Bandito is about a self-hating mexican man who is horribly racist. The final page is him shitting on himself by the way.

It's bigoted for the sake of bigoted. I didn't use the word edgy because it it was edgy for the sake of edgy, it would at least be comical in some form or fashion. I know the early 2000's Internet was filled with shit like this, but that shit was either made by 10 year old kids or actual racists who have since likely commited suicide in one of the last 4000 mass shootings in the last hour that happened on American soil. Hah! Now that's an edgy joke!

This also applies to Electric Retard and I might make a post about that in a future Gag-and-Puke-A-Day since I feel that no longer belongs to the rifflist. Let's take a look at another work of misery.

This format is literally the exact same as in the last comic. And the final page involves shit again, at least they did the censoring for me this time.

I don't think I need to post any more pages, you get the idea. There is another comic where the punchline isn't racism, but still why would you fucking do this??? Why would you even associate your name with this shit?

I know that Mike has expressed regrets for making this comic, and if I were him I would have tried to erase every aspect of this comic from the internet. This is actually considered so bad, Internet Archive has actually refused to archive the original page for this webcomic. When the Modern Library of Alexandria goes "yeah this shit isn't worth preserving" then you've created something truly worthless. The Loco Bandito was dead on arrival, stillborn, to say it didn't age well would imply it was allowed to breathe.

[that-fema-corps-blog]

Day 18

August 21, 2022

Woke up at 8:00 and got breakfast before the first part of our two-day race/diversity training at 10:30. (Disclaimer: I am white and also didn't type anything here during the breaks, so I definitely missed some stuff, especially since I'm going off of hours-old memory.) Engage to Change (etc...) gave the presentation. The two speakers were a black man and a white woman, and each speaker shared several personal stories to drive home the main points.

One of the first sections was on the difference between non-racist (passive, supports status quo which is often racist) and anti-racist (active efforts against racism). We had a small group discussion on times we were non-racist rather than anti-racist (ex. not calling out a friend or coworker for saying something racist). The speakers shared the following Martin Luther King Jr. quote from the Birmingham Jail:

...I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice...

We discussed how a significant part of interpersonal and institutional racism resulted from white people being non-racist (more like the "negative peace" MLK describes) rather than anti-racist ("positive peace"). So, in actuality, non-racism is passive racism. We also discussed how many white people's avoidance of discomfort often leads to the reluctance to discuss/confront racism in favor of claiming "colorblindness" and/or trying to keep the order/negative peace... "We're great allies so we support your message, but I don't like your methods, so please stop trying to change anything because it's mildly inconveniencing me and I don't want to have to think about it :)"

We then learned about the Thomas Meyer experiment, where legal firms were sent an application from a person named "Thomas Meyer" to analyze and rate. The applications had several mistakes but were all identical, with the exception that some of the applications said Meyer's race was white, and others said his race was black. When Meyer was believed to be black, those rating the papers gave him a lower score and identified more mistakes than when Meyer was believed to be white. This demonstrated how racial biases are often present in institutions even when not obvious.

Then we read and critiqued a public apology letter by a University of Oregon law professor who wore blackface to a Halloween party. She largely avoided taking responsibility, as seen here:

During a Halloween party I hosted at my house, I wore a costume inspired by a book I highly admire, Dr. Damon Tweedy’s memoir, “Black Man in a White Coat.” I intended to provoke a thoughtful discussion on racism in our society, in our educational institutions and in our professions. As part of my costume, I applied black makeup to my face and wore a white coat and stethoscope. In retrospect, my decision to wear black make up was wrong. It provoked a discussion of racism, but not as I intended. I am sorry for the resultant hurt and anger inspired by this event. It is cruelly ironic that this regrettable episode began with my admiration for a book that explores important aspects of race relations in our society, but ended up creating toxic feelings within our community. I intended to create a conversation about inequity, racism and our white blindness to them. Regrettably, I became an example of it. This has been a remarkable learning experience for me. I hope that all who are hurt or angered by my costume will accept my apology. I meant no harm to them or others.

This professor was given a year of paid leave before returning to teach an introductory class about race that students were required to take. We discussed how the refusal to reprimand the professor would likely contribute to more institutionalized racism in the area: students of color would be less likely to feel comfortable applying/attending. This would result in disproportionately fewer students of color and recent graduates in the area, eventually leading to white people being over-represented in the legal field.

The final section for today's diversity training was on invisibilized and uncompensated labor, including emotional labor, code switching, and (historical) chattel slave labor. We had a short group discussion about other types of invisible labor and were let out for the day.

We had a couple hours off before a team meeting at 18:00. We discussed which of the two projects we each wanted to take, which interstate we would take, and which landmarks we wanted to visit along the way. Then I made myself dinner, played a couple games with a teammate, and watched a movie with the group.