#being a bigot is acTuaLly humanitarian apparently) | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

random-thought-depository · 4 years ago

Text

Bryan Caplan’s humanitarian argument against the welfare state is that the welfare state is incompatible with open borders and open borders would help more people. But “the welfare state is incompatible with open borders” is only true if most immigrants in an open borders regime can’t work or would prefer living on welfare to work, or at least if most immigrants in an open borders regime would be net drains on the economy unless their consumption was curtailed by poverty. I have some objections to this apparent implicit assumption:

1) It’s very much a [citation needed] thing. That wasn’t how things worked in the era of easy immigration Bryan Caplan wants to bring back, though I suppose Bryan Caplan would say open borders worked back then because back then were were content to have immigrants living in awful crowded unsanitary tenement apartments and dying of cholera by the thousands. Notably, it contradicts the usual argument of open borders and easier immigration advocates, that immigrants boost the economy. Immigrants have the same basic psychology as everybody else, and will want to work for a more comfortable living even in the presence of a welfare state.

2) If most immigrants in an open border regime would lack the skills to be net positive contributors to the economy at minimum wage, there’s an obvious better solution: retraining! Open the borders, keep the welfare state, and set up huge free education and free retraining programs that anyone can take advantage of! This wouldn’t just allow us to reconcile the welfare state and open borders, it would greatly increase the economic benefit of open borders! You’re welcome, Mr. Caplan!

3) This is kind of funny in light of Bryan Caplan’s smug “I’m the real humanitarian here, leftists are the real nationalists and racists!” schtick. Apparently his opposition to the welfare state rests on assumptions identical to those made by right-wing types who claim we have to keep immigrants out because they’ll use up our benefits and be a drain on society! Bryan Caplan apparently doesn’t have a very high opinion of Haitians either (or at least he doesn’t have a very high opinion of their economic potential, but let’s be real, Bryan Caplan is totally the type of person who thinks your salary reflects your worth as a person), and has rather nasty plans for them! His plan is for them to make $5 an hour washing dishes and live in a make-shift shack in a Hooverville, and he thinks this is humanitarian because it’s better than how they lived in Haiti!

4) Which ties into the next objection: the “leftists are the real bigots/nationalists!” libertarian smug hot take fails to predict the shape of the real political coalitions. Socialists tend to support open borders! More moderate left-liberals tend to want to make immigration easier. Opposition to immigration is mostly the politics of the right-wing; you know, the same right-wing that’s the real powerful constituency for libertarian economic policies! Protectionism has more cross-over appeal, but notably protectionism is an opposition to an arrangement where Third World workers get to participate in the First World economy and benefit somewhat from that but don’t get access to the worker protections and welfare benefits that First World workers get (in other words, to an arrangement a bit like the guest worker programs Bryan Caplan envisions). I think if you asked most leftists, they’d say they want Third World workers to have the same protections and benefits as First World workers, and the fact that leftist opposition to outsourcing is stronger than leftist opposition to immigration is consistent with them telling the truth when they say that (legal immigrants get First World worker protections and benefits, workers in a Nike factory in Bangladesh don’t).

Now, to be fair, I might be reading into Bryan Caplan’s argument an assumption that isn’t actually there, he doesn’t actually say that the welfare state is incompatible with open borders, he just says that “the existence of welfare state is one of the main rationalizations for undercutting the greatest anti-poverty campaign the world has ever known: immigration.” But if the real problem is just that “immigrants will take welfare benefits and be a drain on our state” makes a handy excuse for racist anti-immigration politics, then Bryan Caplan’s argument against the welfare state is even weaker! There’s an obvious much better solution: people should just stop being racist!

One of the most off-putting things about the “rationalist” subculture is the number of rat-sphere types who seem to think Bryan Caplan is an insightful and interesting thinker.

#class politics #economics #immigration

6 notes · View notes

go-diane-winchester · 6 years ago

Text

5 Reasons why Supernatural is not queer baiting you [and is not stuck in the closet]

This is an edited repost.

Interpretation of any piece of art and literature is one of the fun aspects of being human. You use your imagination to analyze a loved work from every angle so as to increase your pleasure of said work. However, if you present your interpretation as if it is a fact, and it results in harassment, bullying and threats for actors involved in a show, then it becomes a problem. Why do some fans accuse Supernatural of queer baiting, whilst others are vehemently opposed? Why is it not a universal argument in fandom? It is because the former don’t admit that their interpretations are just that: interpretation. Bi Dean arguments have no basis in canon, and proponents of Bi Dean in fact refuse to acknowledge canonical oppositions to their interpretations. The vehement opposers of Bi Dean actually respect canon. Truth is universal and canon is truth.

1. Dean was not born from gratuitously bisexual inspiration

As a fiction writer myself, I know that an original character is not easy to put together. You have to do a character analysis [I believe in using a homemade template, myself], character background [because it should shape what the character becomes in the current canon] and formulation of their physical attributes as well as wardrobe. I, in fact, include things like medical history and diet choices in my own template to get a feel for the character that I want. But every writer is different and chooses a different approach. Eric Kripke had a clear idea of what he wanted his characters to be.

For the character personalities

Kripke wanted them to be like Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. Han Solo was a cavalier renegade who had no respect for authority and fits in with Dean’s overall personality. Dean doesn’t care if he is talking to an FBI agent, a priest or even his own father. If you say something wrong, he will correct you and he has done that in canon. If you have given him a reason to hate you, trust Dean to let you know, right to your face. Dean doesn’t kiss up to authority. He is the quintessential bad boy.

Luke Skywalker is the polar opposite of Han. He does things by the book. He wears his heart on his sleeve and shows more empathy and emotion than his counterpart Han. Sam is all of this and, like Luke, gives off an air of innocence, and sporadically the viewer feels the need to protect him because of said innocence. Despite the fact that Sam has grown up and out of his chocolate boy features, he still remains the quintessential good boy.

There are many tropes at play here that fiction writers cling to. The polar opposite trope is favored because it provides room for friction. Imagine how Supernatural would be, if Dean and Sam just agreed with each other all the time. It would make for bland viewing. Sometimes they are on the same page. Some times they aren’t. Polarizing characters make for more vivid story telling and [particularly in our fandom] forces you to pick a side. In other words, it keeps you invested in the characters. The polar opposite trope can also be used for two enemies who are stuck in the same situation. And in some cases, one of them is the overall baddie in the story. It is not just a friendship trope.

Another well known trope that is being used here, is the much-loved buddy formula. The buddy formula is used by a lot by screenwriters, because it is so popular with audiences, and can share similarities with the polar opposite trope. Essentially the buddy formula contains two characters and even though they may be polar opposites, they tend to have a deep affection for each other. Cagney and Lacey, Riggs and Murtaugh, Thelma and Louis and finally, Sam and Dean are example thereof.

At this juncture, I would like to laughingly point out that Bi Dean advocates will cling to Thelma and Louis as proof of bi dean, because of the possible lesbian subtext. Stop right there. I watched Thelma and Louis, and I felt that they were fed up friends, almost sisters who didn’t want to live in the world any more. I didn’t see any subtext. If you did, good for you. It increases your viewing pleasure. However, as a straight woman, I have my own interpretation and it is just as significant as yours. Hilariously, Sam and Dean have referred to themselves as Thelma and Louis. So you cant use that to proof Dean is bi, because essentially you will be proving wincest.

The difference between the buddy formula and the polar opposite trope is the affection that is inherently mixed into the buddy formula. Buddies are more affectionate with each other. In one of the Lethal Weapon movies, Riggs walks into Murtaugh’s kitchen, plants a kiss on Mrs Murtaugh’s cheek, walks up to Murtaugh and nonchalantly plants a kiss on his cheek as well, before going to raid the food storage. Murtaugh doesn’t react negatively. That scene was added for many reasons but there are two important reasons: [1] to show the affection between the two, which is platonic [2] to get a laugh out of the audience by showing how irritatingly unaware Riggs is, that Murtaugh is angry with him.

Murtaugh even “sensed” that Riggs was drowning and saved him, telling Riggs “I heard you, Riggs. I heard you, baby.’‘ Yes, that is an actual line from Lethal Weapon and it proves that they love each other. How you perceive their love is up to you. Affectionate name calling is used in the buddy formula and is also apparent in Sam and Dean’s interaction as well.

Is Cas an affectionate shortening of the name Castiel? Both Dean and Sam call him Cas? Maybe. Or it maybe because the name Castiel doesn’t syllabically roll off the tongue. It’s an ancient name and for modern day Sam and Dean, saying the full name is verbally cumbersome. So they opted for Cas. If the shortening of the name means Dean is in love with Cas, then it easily means Sam is in love with Cas too. Oddly, despite the character name of Samuel being shortened to Sam, by Dean so it will roll of the tongue during a conversation, Dean actually adds a syllable and called him Sammy out of affection. So for Sammy, the ’'name is too long and cumbersome’' excuse flies out the window. Sammy gets used even when Dean is in a hurry, angry or affectionate. It is a part of his personal lexicon.

For the character backdrop

Part of Kripke’s logline for Supernatural and its backdrop included “Star Wars in truck stop America,”. Another trope comes into play here: The fish out of water. In earlier seasons, the studious and preppy Sam clashed with the dustbowl Americana surroundings and its people. Dean fit in. Dean is salt of the earth. Sam is more aware of the world beyond the dustbowl Americana because he is an intellectual. Another part of the logline was ’'X Files meets Route 66”. Route 66 is about two guys [Todd, the Yale graduate good boy and Buz, the street smart fighter bad boy from the wrong side of the tracks] who go on a road trip across North America, encountering and solving social problems along the way, while trying to find a place to settle and find how they themselves fit into their world. Kripke picked very accurate loglines for Supernatural, because Todd and Buz are exactly like Sam and Dean. But they had names that Kripke didn’t like. I don’t blame him.

For the character names

Bi Dean advocates always use the name Dean as being proof of Bi Dean. Kripke chose both the names of his main characters from Jack Kerouac’s Beat Generation classic On the road. it is not an LGBT classic. It was a universal classic that just happened to have a bisexual character. The characters were Dean Moriarty and Sal Paradise. That is all he took from the work. He didn’t take the road trip idea from On the road. He took it from Route 66. Even the polarizing characters were taken from Route 66. All he took was the names, and even then, he wasn’t happy with Sam’s previous name so he changed one alphabet. He took nothing else. And that is the one thing Bi Dean advocates cling to. There is no unique similarity between On the road and Supernatural. Or between Dean Winchester and Dean Moriarty, for that matter, other than one character sharing a name with another. I can understand why he stuck with Dean. The name just has an All-American ring to it.

Bi Dean advocates argue that the bisexual Dean Moriarity was inspired by a real bisexual man called Neal Cassidy. What they fail to realize is that Moriarity and Cassidy were not only bisexual but also pedophiles. Dean Winchester is not a pedophile.

Don't dig into Kerouac’s character's backstory to try and prove that Dean from Supernatural is bi, whilst ignoring the backstory of Supernatural own formulation. That is called over reaching, and some fans use this unsteady theory to threaten the leads and plant accusations of bigotry. Jensen has received online abuse for this and his reputation is completely tarnished with accusations of homophobia.

2. Castiel’s wardrobe choice does not reflect on Dean’s sexual orientation

I remember watching a scene from That’s 70’s Show, where Fez confessed to having an erotic dream about Kelso. Kelso is shocked and declares “Do you know what this means? Its means I’m gay”. This fandom is proof, that Kelso is not unique in his stupidity. Our fandom has a rich supply of ignorance, conveniently shrouded in social justice, so that when you successfully contradict them, they can just call you a bigot and quieten you down.

For Castiel, Kripke only took wardrobe inspiration from John Constantine, a famous bisexual character. That is it. He took nothing else. Trenchcoats are wardrobe items and not a sign of an individual’s sexuality. Constantine was bisexual. Columbo was straight but also wore a trenchcoat. There is no unique similarity between Castiel and Constantine. Constantine is a man, an occult detective, a humanitarian and is best known for his sarcasm. Does that sound like Castiel to you? Castiel is an angel [a very useless one], a killer of many innocent people, a displacer of angels and very rarely says something mildly sarcastic. And if the trench coat makes Castiel bi, how does that reflects on Dean?

3. Castiel’s sexual orientation is not complex, neither is it reflective of Dean’s sexuality

Castiel is not human, and therefore is not shackled by human limitations. He is not even a “he”. He doesn’t have any preferences, nor does he canonically have any sexual desire except for Meg, whom he willingly kissed. But that might be borne out of his love for her and her relentless pursuit of him. His bond with Meg was not sexual. When he became human, sexual desire awoken in him and he slept with a woman merely because she hit on him and he was curious. But he doesn’t do that in his angel state. He doesn’t seek out sex in his angel state because he has no human, physical desire. Canonically, he doesn’t even have a soul, so how he and Dean can be seen as soul mates baffles me. Nobody else has relentlessly pursued Castiel accept Meg. Dean hasn’t. Dean kicked him out of the bunker despite the fact that he was vulnerable because Sam’s host Gadreel had a problem with him. Dean doesn’t love Castiel, nor does Dean pursue him. He looks for Sammy when Sammy is missing, but doesn’t do that for Castiel. Dean doesn’t sympathize with Castiel’s pain, even telling Castiel once “nobody cares that you are broken”.

4. Dean cannot, textually, be interpreted as a bisexual unless you relinquish common sense

Most of the canon examples of bi dean can easily be explained away.

Dean is not giving Charlie flirting pointers because he has hit on men before. He is himself a man, and know what he wants to hear from a woman and what would get him interested or distracted. By the end of the scene, both Dean and Charlie who like women and not men, felt dirty. And Sammy laughed through the whole thing because he knew how uncomfortable his brother was. Because Sammy, who was raised by Dean, knows his brother. Dean wont keep his bisexuality from Sam, because he has no reason to. Sam is not narrow-minded.

In the context of this scene, when Castiel just berated Dean, only a true intellectual maverick is going to think that Dean is inviting Castiel to a impromptu session of fellatio. Because that would make sense for the whole vessel scene, wouldn’t it, geniuses. For people, who are not soaked in delusion, Dean is countering Castiel’s berating with disrespect because he is angry. I cant believe this needs to be explained because “blow me” is a popular colloquial slang, used to insult someone. Have none of the bi dean advocates ever heard that term before? Do they think “scr*w yourself” means “Go and masturbate right now”? Which rock to they live under?

Dean is not flirting with the sheriff here. He is drunk. There is a reason, a drunk person’s testimony doesn’t fly in court. You don’t take a drunk person seriously. The deputy isn’t flirting back either. He is just amused by the compliment which he didn’t earn or deserve. He even asks Sam beforehand if the other “agent” is drunk. He is probably amused by a drunk, anxious agent hanging around the station.

The gif is wrong. He didn’t say hi. He said doctor. I am touchy about this one because Jensen got a death threat over it. The idea that a man can only be a fan of a male celebrity because he wants to sleep with the male celebrity, is completely insulting and a failure to understand male psychology. Dean’s flustered facial expression here is used for two reasons. [1] that is how some fans, both male and female behave, and [2] its hilarious to watch Dean fanboying. This is a humor device and nothing else. Even blushing is not a sign of attraction. If your teacher compliments your work in front of the entire class, and you blush, does it mean that you are in love with Mrs Haggerty from Science Lab?

Ah, the birth of Performing!Dean. Performing!Dean doesn’t exist. He has no reason to. Because Dean has no motivation to stay in the closet and hide his supposedly feminine bisexual self behind a toxic masculine façade. Sam is not giving us clues of Dean’s bisexuality. He is taunting his big brother because that is what obnoxious little brothers do. Remember, the hotelier thought that they both were gay. Sam only picked on Dean here, because only Dean has an issue with it. He isn’t a homophobe but a proud straight man.

Dean doesn’t care about the human state of the world. He doesn’t care about human issues like racism, sexism and the lgbt. He will categorize you as a human being and protect you, if you gave him a reason to. He doesn’t care how you look, which way you swing, and how you pray. If you give him a reason to like you, he will like you. If you give him a reason to hate you, he will hate you. Dean will only care if you are useful to him in his hunt. The hunt is his life and his motivation to hunt is Sam and keeping Sam close and safe. Dean is not pro or anti anything. If you are human, you matter. That is why de-graced Castiel is left out of hunts, because without any power, Cas is “basically a baby in a trenchcoat”, in other words, utterly useless to them. But if Sam’s wall breaks, hold the phone.

He doesn’t judge your sexual orientation. He has worked with gay and bi people before, like Charlie and the gay hunting couple. So he is not a bigot. However he isn’t used to men hitting on him. He almost throws up because the Chief from the BDSM club [Criss Angel is a douchebag] describes what he is planning to do to Dean and asks for a safe word, and he is flustered by Aaron because he doesn’t know how to react. He wasn’t expecting Aaron to tell that very clever lie. He didn’t bother telling Aaron he was straight. Of course, bi Dean advocates think that is significant, and how he closed his badge is also significant.

It is. It shows that Dean is compassionate. He was ready to punch Aaron in the face for following him. But when Aaron lies about being attracted to Dean, Dean lets him down easily. What was he supposed to say to a man he thinks he will never meet again: “Look dude, I am not queer. We didn’t have any moment.’' Dean quietly packs away his badge, because he realized that he brandished it at the wrong person. Another reason is that Dean is an arrogant man when it comes to his looks and doesn’t mind a compliment. So he isn’t going to break the heart of the person complimenting him. He is compassionate but he has an ego. That is why he was disappointed that Aaron had successfully fooled him by inflating his ego. Because he did it so easily and Dean must have wanted to kick himself for falling for it.

Dean being born in the Bible Belt of America means nothing. His father was an atheist. He was too, until he came face to face with an angel. He acknowledges the Divine exists, but he believes in free will. He spent most of his life, traipsing around America. Its not like he stuck it out in the Bible belt area. He has no religious reason to be in the closet. He raised Sam and Sam isn’t a bigot, so Sam wont have a problem with him being bisexual. Dean has no motivation to hide himself from Sam because, in many ways, Sam is his child and knows him. If Dean was bi, Sam would have figured it out.

Dean is sexually not a vanilla person when it comes to sex, and despite where he was born, he is a sexually outspoken, kinky, loudmouth who admits to wearing his date’s underwear, not because he is feminine, but because he is a kinky little dirt bag who will do anything the date says, so he can close the deal with her. Wearing her underwear is not proof that he is bisexual, because there are bisexual men who don’t wear women’s clothing and this is insulting to them.

5. Dean and Castiel do not make a better couple than any of their love interests

Castiel had only one genuine love interest. Meg. And this union between two polar opposite characters in human vessels, is certainly more compelling than the blank stares that Dean and Castiel shared until their screen time decreased, much to Jensen’s happiness. Meg took care of Castiel despite being a demon. Dean kicked Castiel out of the bunker for Sam’s benefit. Meg pursued Castiel. Dean let Castiel to swop places mentally with Sam, so Sam could leave the asylum, safe and healthy, whilst Castiel remained in the asylum, broken and damaged. He never pursued Castiel or took care of him.

Dean only had one girlfriend. And she was Cassie. The name Cassie does not foreshadow destiel. Cassie didn’t work out because she was far too involved in worldly things like racism and he cared about the supernatural world. She was an intellectual and he was a high school drop out. She is actually a lot like Sam, and they would actually make sense as a couple. Dean never loved Lisa. Canonically, he only shacked up with her, because Sam forced him. And when Lisa realized that, she let him go.

Castiel and Dean don’t make sense as a couple because Castiel has lied to Dean about many things. There are some things he hasn’t come clean about, to Sam and Dean, e.g. opening up the Panic Room door and letting Sam free. He used the mixed tape to double cross Dean, so the mixed tape is a proof of Castiel’s betrayal. It is not proof of destiel. The whole Leviatian affair is Castiel’s fault. And although Dean does take Castiel like a brother, canonically, he wont sell his soul for Castiel, like he did for Sammy. Using slowed down gifs of Dean and Cas staring blankly at each other, doesn’t proof that Dean is bisexual. Every time Dean stares at a man, its doesn’t mean he is attracted to that person.

The show is not queer baiting you by leaving subtextual easter eggs in the frame. They don’t have time for that. Because they average one episode a week. They are working at a break neck speed. They don’t have the time to indulge fannish nonsense. Everyone associated with the show have said that Dean is not bi. I don’t mind you interpreting, but when you force it on Jensen and threaten him when he doesn’t like it, you are being a vile and disgusting predatory beast. The only person who is reinforcing destiel, claimed at Jaxcon that Dean is bisexual and is queer baiting you is Misha Collins. Go take it up with him.

25 notes · View notes

d33-alex · 7 years ago

Text

Neo-Orientalism and the Left

Stroll through the streets of major cities in Southeast Asia – whether it be in Malaysia, Vietnam, or Thailand – and you start to notice a new fad among Western tourists. It is referred to as ‘beg-packing,’ and involves primarily white Western tourists begging on the streets for money to fund their travels across the region. Some may sell small trinkets or busk for money. I encountered this personally in the Little India area of Kuala Lumpur, where I watched a young dreadlocked white woman solicit change from passers-by with her kettle drums.

Beg-packers who depend on the charity of a poorer country to fund a luxury like travel have rightly received much derision on the Internet since the phenomenon was first reported. As one Malaysian writer noted: “I think that this kind of behavior shows how many people still look at the world with an orientalist view. They see Asia as an exotic place of spiritual discovery.”

According to the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said, ‘orientalism’ describes how Westerners have historically viewed the East (and basically any non-Western region) vis-à-vis the West. Such Western attitudes, however, are not and never were monolithic, and much of Said’s work has been discredited by other scholars as either simplistic or overtly polemical. Nevertheless, while the term is still used as a slur by many on the far Left, increasingly it is self-described progressives who are responsible for the most thoughtless and egregious examples.

The Left’s new (or old) kind of Orientalism romanticizes the Global South as a nirvana of spirituality and eccentric traditions in contrast to the banality and empty materialism of the West. It is both an exotic playground and a place crying out for salvation; its people are simple and forever the helpless victims of circumstance. Such a view treats what for many locals is a miserable, inescapable experience as something to be fetishized. Instead, the East becomes a place of self-discovery and experience – a place for wealthy narcissists and dilettante pilgrims to ‘find themselves.’

But the non-Western world is also a place in need of their assistance. In a 2013 article for The Independent entitled “The Tragic Rise of Gap Year Voluntourism,” Ritwik Deo sternly criticizes students who take package tours to the Global South for the purposes of humanitarian work. He warns that this cheapened form of charity can become a sort of White Man’s Burden, with today’s generation “thinking that it is their moral duty to intervene in the darkest stretches of the planet.” He warns that ‘voluntourism’ breeds “envy and contempt. It breeds smugness. It breeds boastfulness at cocktail parties.” It can also leave people under the misapprehension that they have gained some special expertise and insight into countries, about which they actually understand very little.

This Orientalism has clouded how many on the Western Left understand and approach minority cultures within their own societies. This has been particularly noticeable on the identitarian Left, which judges individuals primarily on the basis of factors over which they have no control, such as race, sex, or ethnicity, rather than character or values. Within this peculiar framework, minorities are treated as perpetually victimized but ennobled savages – peoples to be protected, coddled, and gawked at. They bring color, life, and exotic arts, crafts, and cuisine to an apparently soulless and culturally vapid West, as though their only value and purpose is to provide others with entertainment. Eastern cultures and religions are portrayed as inherently peaceful and wise compared to those found in the materialistic, hyper-rational, and warmongering West. But this only recalls a condescending 19th century colonial discourse which regarded Eastern peoples as feminized and residing in a mythical Edenic splendor unpolluted by the evils of modernity. Like the beg-packers, these leftists fetishize non-Western cultures, no matter how oppressive and miserable it may be to actually live in them.

Determined to preserve these cultures in their ‘natural’ state, this kind of leftism divides society into increasingly rigid ethnic and religious community enclaves, characterized by what is held to be most culturally ‘authentic.’ Those individuals within minority communities who do not toe the line – reformist Muslims, conservative blacks, or basically anyone who doesn’t feel sufficiently victimized – are denigrated as ‘native informants,’ ‘Uncle Toms,’ and ‘sell-outs.’ Not only do these leftists view the world increasingly through an identarian lens, they also take it upon themselves to judge how these identities are to be applied.

Recall the abuse suffered by British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz for daring to speak to prominent neuroscientist Sam Harris in 2015 as part of a conversation about the future of Islam. For this transgression, Nawaz was subjected to a depressingly familiar catalogue of racist and dehumanizing slurs, including ‘lapdog,’ ‘porch monkey,’ and ‘native informant.’ This desire to find the most ‘authentic’ voice among minority communities often ends up hurting members of those communities the most, as it inevitably leads to the most reactionary and bigoted voices being hailed as the only ‘true’ community representatives, thereby perversely silencing more liberal elements. As Nawaz himself noted:

The pitfalls of “Am I Black Enough” are well-known. It is equally dangerous to disappear down the “Am I Muslim Enough?” rabbit hole. For the only winners in this gutter game of one-upmanship are ultimately the religious fanatics.

Even when the most toxic strands of these non-Western cultures erupt beyond the community to actively harm the wider society, many on the Left will only obfuscate or deflect. This is particularly noticeable in a common reaction to recent jihadist attacks in the West. Rather than confront the toxic subcultures found within ghettoized Muslim communities in Western cities and that promulgate the hatred of women, homosexuals, Jews, non-Muslims, and other minorities, many on the Left prefer to declare that it is the West which is always and everywhere at fault.

Following incidents of jihadi mass-murder that claim the lives of innocent citizens of all faiths in Western cities, the Orientalist Left point their fingers of blame, not at the perpetrators or at the doctrines they espouse, but at past and present Western actions in the Muslim-majority world. US actions in Iraq, for example, are believed to explain why a man who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State decided to murder 50 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando. The alarming prevalence of homophobia within Muslim communities – and its importance to Islamist ideology in particular – are, it seems, to be considered irrelevant. By the same token, Israeli policy in the occupied territories is blamed for the increasing frequency of anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated in Sweden, which have become so bad that children at a Jewish kindergarten in Malmo play behind bulletproof glass. Meanwhile, it is not Islamist blasphemy doctrines that explain why 12 people were murdered in the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, but the historical colonization of North Africa and France’s supposedly systemic racism.

What is striking is that the attitude of the Orientalist Left towards the non-Western world reflects the colonial pundits whose ideas they hold in such contempt. Both robbed the non-Western world of its agency and the capacity to decide its own destiny. It is the West which is the vehicle of history and Western actors alone who are considered to be moral agents. Should anything occur in the East, it is because Westerners caused it, either intentionally or not. The East is simultaneously exoticized and treated as a blank slate, its own ideologies and cultural views somehow both romanticized and irrelevant. Its peoples are inherently innocent and perpetually vulnerable, requiring outside salvation both in their native lands and their adopted Western homes.

During the dawn of the modern world, Europeans arrived on eastern shores with a vision of its societies as historically stagnant, its traditions as timeless and pure, and its peoples as victimized and noble. With a mixture of good intentions and ignorant condescension, millions of natives were oppressed and their societies ruined. The Orientalist Left should stop to consider whether their own good intentions are paving a new road to Hell.

Written by Imran Shamsunahar, a political risk analyst based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He also works as a freelance writer in his free time, writing mostly on international security. He has contributed articles to War Is Boring, The National Interest, and The Strategy Bridge. Published on January 31, 2018 in Quillette: http://bit.ly/2E0r8Lt

#orientalism #society and culture

0 notes

clubofinfo · 7 years ago

Text

Expert: On August 19, a week after a heavily publicized clash over a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia, an estimated 8,000 people converged on Boston Common to protest a speaking event organized by a group calling itself the Boston Free Speech Movement. Who are the Boston Free Speech Movement and what do they stand for? We’ll never know because antifascists, leftists, anti-racists, and progressives of Boston prevented them from even speaking. Some might say this was a good thing — no one wants to hear from bigots (if that’s who they were) — but, in fact, the left in all its self-righteousness was duped into an assault on the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees the right of free speech, for everyone. The left have been the pawns of much more powerful forces who, if they aren’t organizing these news events and provocations outright, are certainly happy to see precedents set for publicly shutting down free speech by the use of force. First it will be the speech of fascists, then it will be the speech of anybody the authorities don’t like, including leftists. Suddenly we are being confronted with organizations who claim to know what is or is not appropriate for the rest of us to hear. Now that sides have been established — one which can decide what it is and isn’t acceptable speech, and another which is forbidden to speak on pain of attack, all that remains is for the powerful to make sure their narrative is the one that’s allowed. Isn’t this fascism? Aren’t people who claim to be anti-fascist actually doing what classic fascists do? It’s not a coincidence that just prior to these speaking events being shut down, Google, Inc. asserted its right to decide what is and is not a legitimate news source. At the same time the US Congress is considering legislation that would make it illegal for US citizens to support boycott, divestment, or sanctions against Israel. Not surprisingly, the pro-Israel Anti Defamation League (ADL) has been brought on by Google to advise them on which news sources are legitimate and which are not. Google now has such a monopoly on information on the Internet that it is in a position to bury unapproved news sources forever. The ADL will therefore be able to effectively censor any negative news about what Israel is doing in Palestine and the middle east, just as AIPAC, through its ownership of the US Congress, will be able to censor free speech of American citizens when it comes to, once again, Israel. In the ‘50s the ADL monitored “pinkos” for the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. In the ‘90s ADL monitored activists working to end apartheid in South Africa, in the 2000s the ADL began monitoring Arab American organizations and mosques. Today the ADL monitors pro-Palestine groups on college campuses. In each case the ADL has gone after “extremism and hate speech” in the US, as defined by Israel. One wonders, why does Israel, a foreign country, have such a say on in what people in the US can and can’t talk about? There is no way to censor speech without a point of view or agenda. The agenda is usually dictated by whoever has power. Thus censorship serves those in power. When we take part in it, we serve the power. People are apparently upset about an upsurge of nazi-ism. Why weren’t they in the streets when neocon Victoria Nuland and the US State Department organized a coup in Ukraine with the overt assistance of neo-nazis? Why were nazis okay during Obama’s presidency but not during Trump’s? Where was the outrage when Hillary Clinton and the US State Department attacked and destroyed Libya? The liberal left considered this a “humanitarian intervention,” just as it did when the US decimated Yugoslavia. Why is it that after six years of siege and murder committed by US proxy forces in Syria, the only national demonstration that could be mustered in Washington was on the issue of private remarks Trump once made about grabbing women — the famous “pussy hat” demonstration? Why is it that the liars in the mainstream press could get away with false stories of chemical attacks in Syria being carried out by the Syrian government when it was obvious that the attacks were carried out as false flags by US proxy forces? Why are Syrians still being bombed and killed every day by US “coalition” forces with no protest? Why is it that Iraq is no longer a concern, after 26 years of genocidal assault by Uncle Sam, with efforts now being made to balkanize Iraq through support for “Kurdistan”? Why are US troops still there? Why are they still in Afghanistan? Where are the masses taking to the streets to shout down the liars making these policies? Why is it the business of the US to interfere in Venezuela’s internal affairs, even to the point of military intervention? Has Venezuela harmed the US in some way? Has the left swallowed yet again the lie that the US is concerned about human rights in another country? Why is it that Palestinians have been forgotten, as Israel, the US’s closest ally, transparently conducts genocide against them, year after year, so that today Israel can talk openly of forced transfer of the entire Arab population of Palestine. Isn’t terror also being committed when Israeli settlers routinely ram their cars into Palestinians in the street, or is it just terror when this happens in Europe? Why is it that the US supports a state for Jewish people only that necessarily discriminates again non-Jewish Christians and Muslims? Isn’t discrimination on the basis of religion a hate crime? Isn’t the ADL in a conflict of interests when it claims to be an authority on hate crimes while representing such a state? Has the left ever repudiated its long record of blocking for Israel and Israel’s crimes? Why is it that the virtuous left has nothing better to do than face off with a few obvious provocateurs with their over-the-top nazi slogans while the US — their country, in their name — is actively supporting Saudi Arabia in its destruction of a practically defenseless Yemen? Where has the left been in its opposition to US government and media “hate speech” and war-baiting against Russia, China, and Iran? Is World War III not a problem? Did something lead leftists to believe that life on earth was not important right now? Is the US threat of a nuclear attack on North Korea a side issue — something to be dealt with only after facing off with the Klan? What about the murder of millions of Arabs and Muslims since 9-11 on the basis of a false story about who did 9-11? Surely there is a case to be made here for discrimination on the basis of religion, if not serial mass murder, based on a pretext which itself was a an open crime for all the world to see. Why does the left consider discussion of this crime unimportant and passé? That the left has mobilized to stomp on a handful of people in Charlottesville and Boston only proves its impotence. It’s like the man who has been frustrated at work all day who comes home and kicks his dog. The worst of it all is that both the left and right have been suckered into a division which will use up all their energy and get plenty of attention from the press while the real crimes and the real criminals roll steadily along, laughing at the stupidity of everyone involved and the ease with which they were manipulated. Update August 25: Estimates for the size of the counter-Boston Free Speech demonstration in Boston were as high as 40,000 people. There is a record of one speech from Boston Free Speech at the Boston Common bandstand. http://clubof.info/

0 notes

go-diane-winchester · 6 years ago

Text

5 Reasons why Supernatural is not queer baiting [and is not stuck in the closet]

Interpretation of any piece of art and literature is one of the fun aspects of being human. You use your imagination to analyze a loved work from every angle so as to increase your pleasure of said work. However, if you present your interpretation as if it is a fact, and it results in harassment, bullying and threats for actors involved in a show, then it becomes a problem. Why do some fans accuse Supernatural of queer baiting, whilst others are vehemently opposed? Why is it not a universal argument in fandom? It is because the former don't admit that their interpretations are just that: interpretation. Bi Dean arguments have no basis in canon, and proponents of Bi Dean in fact refuse to acknowledge canonical oppositions to their interpretations. The vehement opposers of Bi Dean actually respect canon. Truth is universal and canon is truth.

1. Dean was not born from gratuitously bisexual inspiration

For the character personalities

Kripke wanted them to be like Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. Han Solo was a cavalier renegade who had no respect for authority and fits in with Dean's overall personality. Dean doesn't care if he is talking to an FBI agent, a priest or even his own father. If you say something wrong, he will correct you and he has done that in canon. If you have given him a reason to hate you, trust Dean to let you know, right to your face. Dean doesn't kiss up to authority. He is the quintessential bad boy.

There are many tropes at play here that fiction writers cling to. The polar opposite trope is favored because it provides room for friction. Imagine how Supernatural would be, if Dean and Sam just agreed with each other all the time. It would make for bland viewing. Sometimes they are on the same page. Some times they aren't. Polarizing characters make for more vivid story telling and [particularly in our fandom] forces you to pick a side. In other words, it keeps you invested in the characters. The polar opposite trope can also be used for two enemies who are stuck in the same situation. And in some cases, one of them is the overall baddie in the story. It is not just a friendship trope.

At this juncture, I would like to laughingly point out that Bi Dean advocates will cling to Thelma and Louis as proof of bi dean, because of the possible lesbian subtext. Stop right there. I watched Thelma and Louis, and I felt that they were fed up friends, almost sisters who didn't want to live in the world any more. I didn't see any subtext. If you did, good for you. It increases your viewing pleasure. However, as a straight woman, I have my own interpretation and it is just as significant as yours. Hilariously, Sam and Dean have referred to themselves as Thelma and Louis. So you cant use that to proof Dean is bi, because essentially you will be proving wincest.

The difference between the buddy formula and the polar opposite trope is the affection that is inherently mixed into the buddy formula. Buddies are more affectionate with each other. In one of the Lethal Weapon movies, Riggs walks into Murtaugh's kitchen, plants a kiss on Mrs Murtaugh's cheek, walks up to Murtaugh and nonchalantly plants a kiss on his cheek as well, before going to raid the food storage. Murtaugh doesn't react negatively. That scene was added for many reasons but there are two important reasons: [1] to show the affection between the two, which is platonic [2] to get a laugh out of the audience by showing how irritatingly unaware Riggs is, that Murtaugh is angry with him.

Murtaugh even ''sensed'' that Riggs was drowning and saved him, telling Riggs ''I heard you, Riggs. I heard you, baby.'' Yes, that is an actual line from Lethal Weapon and it proves that they love each other. How you perceive their love is up to you. Affectionate name calling is used in the buddy formula and is also apparent in Sam and Dean's interaction as well.

Is Cas an affectionate shortening of the name Castiel? Both Dean and Sam call him Cas? Maybe. Or it maybe because the name Castiel doesn't syllabically roll off the tongue. It's an ancient name and for modern day Sam and Dean, saying the full name is verbally cumbersome. So they opted for Cas. If the shortening of the name means Dean is in love with Cas, then it easily means Sam is in love with Cas too. Oddly, despite the character name of Samuel being shortened to Sam, by Dean so it will roll of the tongue during a conversation, Dean actually adds a syllable and called him Sammy out of affection. So for Sammy, the ''name is too long and cumbersome'' excuse flies out the window. Sammy gets used even when Dean is in a hurry, angry or affectionate. It is a part of his personal lexicon.

For the character backdrop

Part of Kripke's logline for Supernatural and its backdrop included “Star Wars in truck stop America,”. Another trope comes into play here: the fish out of water. In earlier seasons, the studious and preppy Sam clashed with the dustbowl Americana surroundings and its people. Dean fit in. Dean is salt of the earth. Sam is more aware of the world beyond the dustbowl Americana because he is an intellectual. Another part of the logline was ''X Files meets Route 66''. Route 66 is about two guys [Todd, the Yale graduate good boy and Buz, the street smart fighter bad boy from the wrong side of the tracks] who go on a road trip across North America, encountering and solving social problems along the way, while trying to find a place to settle and find how they themselves fit into their world. Kripke picked very accurate loglines for Supernatural, because Todd and Buz are exactly like Sam and Dean. But they had names that Kripke didn't like. I don't blame him.

For the character names

Bi Dean advocates always use the name Dean as being proof of Bi Dean. Kripke chose both the names of his main characters from Jack Kerouac's Beat Generation classic On the road. it is not an LGBT classic. It was a universal classic that just happened to have a bisexual character. The characters were Dean Moriarty and Sal Paradise. That is all he took from the work. He didn't take the road trip idea from On the road. He took it from Route 66. Even the polarizing characters were taken from Route 66. All he took was the names, and even then, he wasn't happy with Sam's previous name so he changed one alphabet. He took nothing else. And that is the one thing Bi Dean advocates cling to. There is no unique similarity between On the road and Supernatural. Or between Dean Winchester and Dean Moriarty, for that matter, other than one character sharing a name with another.

Don't dig into Kerouac's character's backstory to try and prove that Dean from Supernatural is bi, whilst ignoring the backstory of Supernatural own formulation. That is called over reaching, and some fans use this unsteady theory to threaten the leads and plant accusations of bigotry. Jensen has received online abuse for this and his reputation is completely tarnished with accusations of homophobia.

2. Castiel's wardrobe choice does not reflect on Dean's sexual orientation

I remember watching a scene from That's 70's Show, where Fez confessed to having an erotic dream about Kelso. Kelso is shocked and declares ''Do you know what this means? Its means I'm gay''. This fandom is proof, that Kelso is not unique in his stupidity. Our fandom has a rich supply of ignorance, conveniently shrouded in social justice, so that when you successfully contradict them, they can just call you a bigot and quieten you down.

For Castiel, Kripke only took wardrobe inspiration from John Constantine, a famous bisexual character. That is it. He took nothing else. Trenchcoats are wardrobe items and not a sign of an individual's sexuality. Constantine was bisexual. Columbo was straight but also wore a trenchcoat. There is no unique similarity between Castiel and Constantine. Constantine is a man, an occult detective, a humanitarian and is best known for his sarcasm. Does that sound like Castiel to you? Castiel is an angel [a very useless one], a killer of many innocent people, a displacer of angels and very rarely says something mildly sarcastic. And if the trench coat makes Castiel bi, how does that reflects on Dean?

3. Castiel's sexual orientation is not complex, neither is it reflective of Dean's sexuality

Castiel is not human, and therefore is not shackled by human limitations. He is not even a ''he''. He doesn't have any preferences, nor does he canonically have any sexual desire except for Meg, whom he willingly kissed. But that might be borne out of his love for her and her relentless pursuit of him. His bond with Meg was not sexual. When he became human, sexual desire awoken in him and he slept with a woman merely because she hit on him and he was curious. But he doesn't do that in his angel state. He doesn't seek out sex in his angel state because he has no human, physical desire. Canonically, he doesn't even have a soul, so how he and Dean can be seen as soul mates baffles me. Nobody else has relentlessly pursued Castiel accept Meg. Dean hasn't. Dean kicked him out of the bunker despite the fact that he was vulnerable because Sam's host Gadreel had a problem with him. Dean doesn't love Castiel, nor does Dean pursue him. He looks for Sammy when Sammy is missing, but doesn't do that for Castiel. Dean doesn't sympathize with Castiel's pain, even telling Castiel once ''nobody cares that you are broken''.

4. Dean cannot, textually, be interpreted as a bisexual unless you relinquish common sense

Most of the canon examples of bi dean can easily be explained away.

In the context of this scene, when Castiel just berated Dean, only a true intellectual maverick is going to think that Dean is inviting Castiel to a impromptu session of fellatio. Because that would make sense for the whole vessel scene, wouldn't it, geniuses. For people, who are not soaked in delusion, Dean is countering Castiel's berating with disrespect because he is angry. I cant believe this needs to be explained because ''blow me'' is a popular colloquial slang, used to insult someone. Have none of the bi dean advocates ever heard that term before? Do they think ''scr*w yourself'' means ''Go and masturbate right now''? Which rock to they live under?

Dean is not flirting with the sheriff here. He is drunk. There is a reason, a drunk person's testimony doesn't fly in court. You don't take a drunk person seriously. The deputy isn't flirting back either. He is just amused by the compliment which he didn't earn or deserve. He even asks Sam beforehand if the other ''agent'' is drunk. He is probably amused by a drunk, anxious agent hanging around the station.

The gif is wrong. He didn't say hi. He said doctor. I am touchy about this one because Jensen got a death threat over it. The idea that a man can only be a fan of a male celebrity because he wants to sleep with the male celebrity, is completely insulting and a failure to understand male psychology. Dean's flustered facial expression here is used for two reasons. [1] that is how some fans, both male and female behave, and [2] its hilarious to watch Dean fanboying. This is a humor device and nothing else. Even blushing is not a sign of attraction. If your teacher compliments your work in front of the entire class, and you blush, does it mean that you are in love with Mrs Haggerty from Science Lab?

Ah, the birth of Performing!Dean. Performing!Dean doesn't exist. He has no reason to. Because Dean has no motivation to stay in the closet and hide his supposedly feminine bisexual self behind a toxic masculine façade. Sam is not giving us clues of Dean's bisexuality. He is taunting his big brother because that is what obnoxious little brothers do. Remember, the hotelier thought that they both were gay. Sam only picked on Dean here, because only Dean has an issue with it. He isn't a homophobe but a proud straight man.

Dean doesn't care about the human state of the world. He doesn't care about human issues like racism, sexism and the lgbt. He will categorize you as a human being and protect you, if you gave him a reason to. Exactly like Jensen. He doesn't care how you look, which way you swing, and how you pray. If you give him a reason to like you, he will like you. If you give him a reason to hate you, he will hate you. Dean will only care if you are useful to him in his hunt. The hunt is his life and his motivation to hunt is Sam and keeping Sam close and safe. Dean is not pro or anti anything. If you are human, you matter. That is why de-graced is left out of hunts, because without any power, Cas is ''basically a baby in a trenchcoat'', in other words, utterly useless to them. But if Sam's wall breaks, hold the phone.

He doesn't judge your sexual orientation. He has worked with gay and bi people before, like Charlie and the gay hunting couple. So he is not a bigot. However he isn't used to men hitting on him. He almost throws up because the Chief from the BDSM club [Criss Angel is a douchebag] described what he is planning to do to Dean and asks for a safe word, and he is flustered by Aaron because he doesn't know how to react. He wasn't expecting Aaron to tell that very clever lie. He didn't bother telling Aaron he was straight. Of course, bi Dean advocates think that is significant, and how he closed his badge is also significant.

It is. It shows that Dean is compassionate. He was ready to punch Aaron in the face for following him. But when Aaron lies about being attracted to Dean, Dean lets him down easily. What was he supposed to say to a man he thinks he will never meet again: ''Look dude, I am not queer. We didn't have any moment.'' Dean quietly packs away his badge, because he realized that he brandished it at the wrong person. Another reason is that Dean is an arrogant man when it comes to his looks and doesn't mind a compliment. So he isn't going to break the heart of the person complimenting him. He is compassionate but he has an ego. That is why he was disappointed that Aaron had successfully fooled him by inflating his ego. Because he did it so easily and Dean must have wanted to kick himself for falling for it.

Dean being born in the Bible Belt of America means nothing. His father was an atheist. He was too, until he came face to face with an angel. He acknowledges the Divine exists, but he believes in free will. He spent most of his life, traipsing around America. Its not like he stuck it out in the Bible belt area. He has no religious reason to be in the closet. He raised Sam and Sam isn't a bigot, so Sam wont have a problem with him being bisexual. Dean has no motivation to hide himself from Sam because, in many ways, Sam is his child and knows him. If Dean was bi, Sam would have figured it out.

Dean is sexually not a vanilla person when it comes to sex, and despite where he was born, he is a sexually outspoken, kinky, loudmouth who admits to wearing his date's underwear, not because he is feminine, but because he is a kinky little dirt bag who will do anything the date says, so he can close the deal with her. Wearing her underwear is not proof that he is bisexual, because there are bisexual men who don't wear women's clothing and this is insulting to them.

5. Dean and Castiel do not make a better couple than any of their love interests

Castiel had only one genuine love interest. Meg. And this union between two polar opposite characters in human vessels, is certainly more compelling than the blank stares that Dean and Castiel shared until their screen time decreased, much to Jensen's happiness. Meg took care of Castiel despite being a demon. Dean kicked Castiel out of the bunker for Sam's benefit. Meg pursued Castiel. Dean let Castiel to swop places mentally with Sam, so Sam could leave the asylum, safe and healthy, whilst Castiel remained in the asylum, broken and damaged. He never pursued Castiel or took care of him.

Dean only had one girlfriend. And she was Cassie. The name Cassie does not foreshadow destiel. Cassie didn't work out because she was far too involved in worldly things like racism and he cared about the supernatural world. She was an intellectual and he was a high school drop out. She is actually a lot like Sam, and they would actually make sense as a couple. Dean never loved Lisa. Canonically, he only shacked up with her, because Sam forced him. And when Lisa realized that, she let him go.

Castiel and Dean don't make sense as a couple because Castiel has lied to Dean about many things. There are some things he hasn't come clean about, to Sam and Dean, e.g. opening up the Panic Room door and letting Sam free. He used the mixed tape to double cross Dean, so the mixed tape is a proof of Castiel's betrayal. It is not proof of destiel. The whole Leviatian affair is Castiel's fault. And although Dean does take Castiel like a brother, canonically, he wont sell his soul for Castiel, like he did for Sammy. Using slowed down gifs of Dean and Cas staring blankly at each other, doesn't proof that Dean is bisexual. Every time Dean stares at a man, its doesn't mean he is attracted to that person.

The show is not queer baiting you by leaving subtextual easter eggs in the frame. They don't have time for that. Because they average one episode a week. They are working at a break neck speed. They don't have the time to indulge fannish nonsense. Everyone associated with the show have said that Dean is not bi. I don't mind you interpreting, but when you force it on Jensen and threaten him when he doesn't like it, you are being a vile and disgusting predatory beast. The only person who is reinforcing destiel [and by extension Bi dean] and queer baiting you is Misha Collins. Go take it up with him.

28 notes · View notes