#both of these ideologies are EXTREMELY dangerous and lead to similar violence

[the-incorrigible-chaia]

[alt id]Two pages from the pamphlet "The Past Didn't Go Anywhere" by April Rosenblum, that read as follows:

it was a good try, but time to rethink.

on targeting “zionism”

A lot of activists work to avoid anti-Jewish oppression, and to make a distinction between Jewish people and Israeli misdeeds, by targeting their comments at "Zionists," not Jews, and "Zionism," not Judaism or Jewish culture. Unfortunately, this shortcut doesn't work.

First, it backfires because major, organized antisemitic movements also use the term, for the opposite purpose: to spread anti-Jewish ideology without looking so bad. That's why 2005's international conference, "Zionism As the Biggest Threat to Modern Civilization" was co-chaired by neo-nazi politician David Duke. For many antisemitic groups, “Zionists” are the demonic Jews controlling the world, Protocol-style; and “Zionism” is the general body of evildoing by Jews. Because we activists are only suspicious of Jew-bashing, not attacks on “Zionists,” their antisemitic imagery makes its way right into our circles. Second, because it replaces one one-dimensional image of a 'bad guy' with another. It bypasses the actual work of avoiding anti-Jewish oppression: reshaping how we think and talk about Jews and Israelis to see them as 3-dimensional human beings, capable of wrongdoing like any others. Finally, using the term "Zionists" doesn't protect Jews. It just makes people who bomb Jewish schools, synagogues, etc., call the people they're killing Zionists.

Principled anti-Zionism has little to do with the fake "Zionism" that antisemites like Duke attack. There are many rational reasons why some people are opposed to the philosophy that there should be a Jewish state, just as lots of rational reasons motivate others to believe a Jewish state is neccessary.*

There's no shame in thinking critically toward Zionism. But in a world of unresolved antisemitism, there's also no getting out of fighting this oppression head on.

*For instance: An anti-Zionist might rationally oppose Zionists' having consciously established a state where they did, knowing that this would lead to dispossessing the Palestinian people. A Zionist might observe that Jews' vulnerability was linked to being a permanently small minority and support Jews having one place where they are the governing majority.

innoculate your Palestine work against antisemitism

If you're white, understand: When you take no action to stop anti-Jewish patterns in our movements, you set Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims up to take the fall. Though historic Left mistreatment of Jews has largely been a legacy of white, European/American movements, Arabs and Muslims are the ones who today get publicly scapegoated for charges of Left antisemitism. Don't let them pay the price. Take the struggle on.

Beware of saying Israel is the only country doing anything, or the worst case of any given injustice; it’s often not true, and it gets used to justify global violence against Jews. Know and speak about countries guilty of similar offenses. This not only guard against danger to Jews; it brings a global perspective that strengthen the fights of all peoples, even while we focus on Palestinians.

Be specific about the injustice you're talking about. For instance, don’t jump into generalizations like “Israelis are like Nazis.” Focus on the original thought that led there; ie, “Israeli policies like [blank] treat Palestinians as if they’re not human.”

Remember that, as with every oppression, it’s possible to spread antisemitic ideas without necessarily harboring any ill will toward Jews. Stay open to re-evaluating tactics, even though you know your intentions are positive and just.

Don't casually use one-dimensional, charicatured portrayals of cruel Israelis. Rather than sensationalizing Israelis, and compounding anti-Jewish oppression in a world that already paints Jews as evil, help people see Palestinians: real people, suffering daily injustice, both mundane and extreme, and deserving of global attention.

At the center of Palestinians’ struggle for freedom and human dignity is their human and legal Right to Return to their land. But there are real reasons why Jews around the world fear losing majority control of Israel. (See p. 25.) If you fight for the Right to Return, understand the implications it could have for Jews in a world where anti-Jewish oppression has not been solved. Consider what role you can play in bringing about global safety for Jewish people.

If people use opposition to the term 'antisemitism' to shut down discussion, by all means, speak of anti-Jewish oppression. But speak of it. Don't let fellow activists silence conversation about antisemitism by complaining that the word is wrong, and blaming Jews for the problem. (See page 6.)

Above all, remember:

Taking care to resist antisemitism is not about walking on eggshells or acquiescing to pressure. It's about making a greater commitment to refusing to take part in oppression - and building movements that can win.

[end id]

[jackalmeat]

The first time I watched Arcane, the framing of Vander's and Silco's ideological clash led me to initially assume that, when Vander attempted to kill Silco, it was because Silco had grown so 'extreme' in his views/actions that Vander became disillusioned and ultimately tried to kill him to prevent him from carrying out some course of action that Vander saw as 'going too far'. The season was notably vague on what exactly was the catalyst for the attempted murder, and I think it's reasonable to say that my kneejerk assumption about the situation was indeed the version of events that the show itself seemed to want viewers to believe.

That is to say, the show itself seemed to want viewers to believe, at least for now, that Silco must have crossed some kind of moral event horizon (or imminently intended to) that was so big and so bad that Vander saw fit to kill him for being, essentially, Too Much.

The thing that makes me hesitant to believe that that's the entire truth of what happened, or that Silco unequivocally """earned""" the attempt on his life by becoming too dangerous (too radicalized?) in Vander's eyes, is simply the fact that the very first thing we see Vander do on-screen is beat an Enforcer to death, with gauntlets, in front of freshly orphaned children. It's communicated visually in that sequence that that kind of violence was the currency Vander had dealt in for a long time; and that his choice at that moment to cast down his gauntlets and walk away from the smouldering battleground (literally and figuratively) with Vi and Powder in tow marked a significant turning point in the way that he engaged with the world.

In light of that, it just seems like the natural follow-up question is, "Okay -- if Vander was still down for leading a violent insurrection, beating people to death with his own two hands, etc. right up until this moment here, then what the fuck did Silco do that was enough to make even him go, 'come here, naughty rat man, it's murder time'?"

This isn't "proof" or "evidence" that Silco and Vander couldn't simply have had a violent ideological split that culminated in attempted murder by any stretch. I just find the overall framing of the situation odd in a way that makes me think there's more to the tale than what the show has thus far implied.

(For instance: perhaps some kind of external pressure which forced Vander into a bitter choice, similar in spirit to the "we both have our shitty parts to play -- get me Jinx, and I'll give you your nation of Zaun" deal Silco was later faced with? The difference being that Vander sacrificed Silco [or attempted to] in favor of whatever was to be gained by doing so; whereas Silco recognized that he had arrived at the same precipice Vander once had, and ultimately couldn't do to Jinx what had been done to him?)

[sparkling-pink-lemonade]

Ok, gotta give my steak in the whole recent drama regarding AO3 and irl politics. Voicing my thoughts on a post made by the republican organization "Children and Screens".

(discussions of proship/profic vs anti ideology, censorship, media "brainwashing" children, what "fiction does not affect reality on a 1:1 scale" means to me, social analysis/commentary, long post)

There is no "TLDR", so if you struggle with large paragraphs, I highly suggest using a screen reader.

So first things first, if you are unaware of the recent drama about the republican politician, Audrey, running to join the OTW board, and what that means, I'd suggest looking it up for details. Other people said it better than I could. But the idea is that she could potentially make AO3 go down the same rabbit hole as FF.net. And she is the lead of "Children and Screens", an organization that self proclaims advocacy for the safety of children regarding media consumption.

While I don't use the toxic cesspool that is Twitter, I've been made aware of a post CaS has made, featured below. (Alt text for image available)

After reading the snippet, I had to fucking LAUGH at the irony before groaning at the hypocrisy. And by that, I don't mean the hypocrisy of CaS. More so the implications regarding the rampancy of antis and purity culture in social media within these past few years.

Proship is the belief that all fiction has a right to exist and be shared, so long as proper warnings are given. Anything portrayed within a fictional setting has no direct impact on reality, and thus does not portray what is considered okay in real life. Because of that, harassing others for the media they create is never okay. If you don't like something, block it and move on.

Antis believe that fiction they find morally reprehensible is a direct portrayal of the author's beliefs, and is very dangerous to share in any capacity as it may traumatize others, or lead to the normalization of dangerous behavior in real life. Therefor it's not only okay, but encouraged to seek out and harass creators of problematic fiction in hopes to either get them to see the error of their ways, or delete their creations and leave the platform entirely, thus making the internet a "safer" place.

Both are centered on the idea of "does fiction affect reality?"

And as a proshipper, I'm of the stance that fiction does not affect reality on a 1:1 scale. What does that mean?

Well, let's say that the antis are right, and fiction has a major impact on reality. Upon the knowledge that this quote CaS provides up, provides a HUGE sense of irony. Why? Because the post is literally describing the behavior of anti culture. From a very young age (because we all know that most kids have seen a pg 13 movie before they turned 13, especially with how huge the superhero genre is), these people have been brainwashed by media to engage in violent behaviors in the name of morality.

If most of the violence portrayed in pg 13 media is perpetuated by the heroes, and excused away with "it's okay when the heroes do it, because they are morally superior, so their actions are justified." Then because the violence isn't excessively gory and bloody, kids don't have to contemplate whether or not the heroes used excessive force or have gone too far to subdue the villain.

So when antis grow up on these violent pieces of fiction, it has normalized the idea that it is okay for them to attack those "nasty proshippers" because the media they made is morally bad. So by using extreme harassment, violent threats, and other excessive means to bully someone, they are protecting the greater good, while being free from seeing the gruesome consequences of their actions on the other side of the screen.

It's so fucking ironic, because this sense of justice they have is such self centered moral superiority. If you ask an anti what media is considered okay, and what is problematic, while you will get inconsistent answers, for the most part there will be a similar theme. Anything sexual or romantic in nature that could be considered unhealthy or dangerous if acted upon in real life, is harmful and evil. But any acts of violence or aggression that could be considered unhealthy or dangerous if acted upon in real life, well clearly everyone knows that stuff isn't okay IRL, people are nuanced enough to enjoy these themes in fiction without condoning the real world equivalent.

If these people are right about problematic behavior in media influencing young audience members, while claiming that media doesn't encourage violence in its audience members since it doesn't "glorify it", it only proves that they are ignorant to how media has irreversibly "brainwashed" them like they so claim is possible.

But if we acknowledge that fiction doesn't affect reality on a 1:1 scale, then what? If it isn't all the "gross" media that makes and exposes deviants and sexual offenders, if it isn't all the "violent" media that makes people into self righteous harassers, then what is it?

It's the other people in our life. Our role models, our friends. And the chain that forms from it. You're a kid, and you never heard what Call of Duty was. What you do know is that your dear parents you love have greatly expressed that gun violence is bad. Even holding one is horrible because you are now in possession of a weapon that can take a human life, and one accident is all it takes for you to be a murderer. You should never even think about wanting to hold a gun because that is the first step to something going horribly wrong. Your friend at school hasn't had any sort of lecture like that before, they know guns are dangerous obviously, so as long as they aren't actively using a real gun against other people, no harm is being done. So when their favorite youtuber starts showing gameplay of Call of Duty, they end up loving the game, and are excited to tell you about it the next day. When they tell you all about it, you think of what your parents have said, and you are horrified your friend could do something as horrible as like a game that has guns in it. You cut them off, and tell your other friends. Your other friends really admire and respect you, and with no previous thought on the matter, they take your side. They spread it to their friends and siblings, and so on and so forth. Until many who weren't even aware or had any major opinions of their own are now against the idea of first person shooters existing.

Of course the example I used is extreme. No one but pearl clutching parents and their five year olds who repeat what they say are gonna be preaching that first person shooters are turning kids into murderers.

But when it comes to fiction, the more controversial the subject is, the more shock value it has, the more likely that scenario above is. And it's even worse now that the internet is more and more accessible to the entire world, including children who don't have any positive role models in their life. They are consuming large amounts of media, and most of their exposure is from online friends and influencers who spread that media, and how their role models interact with that media. Therefor it's not fiction itself that affects reality, it's how people choose to interact with it.

And reality check... you know who is exposing all this "disgusting" problematic stuff to kids? Is it the people who make it and share it in a positive manner with proper warnings and disclaimers so no one can accidentally see it? Or is it the people who saw the content anyways, and became so disgusted that they feel the need to spread it around so that everyone they know is aware of how awful this person and the fiction they create is?

Fiction only affects reality if people make a big enough deal out of it. With the opinions of a few people being mutilated, morphed, and added upon as it spreads in a grotesque game of internet telephone.

[purgemarchlockdown]

#One of my favorite things about your posts in general is how you don't shy away from the characters' deepest flaws and harmful actions#And by that I mean their actions outside of their murder that make them shitty individuals#And I think that's especially true in the case of Kotoko#This isn't like... shade towards anyone specifically nor is it meant to be mean or anything#But I feel like a lot of Kotoko fans tend to somewhat tiptoe around her ideologies that lead her to do the things she does#And often don't go past her self-hatred in terms of discussion because well#“She hates herself” is a lot more sympathetic than “She's a ableist misogynistic fascist grooming a 15 year old AND she hates herself”#And that makes me kind of upset because a big part of Kotoko's character to me at least is how at least how I interpret her#She's meant to be a cautionary tale#I mean all of the prisoners are but it's especially the case for Kotoko because she is the antithesis of what Milgram wants to teach#That's why I call her the antagonist of Milgram despite narratively Milgram not having an antagonist#Milgram is a project with the foundation of human understanding and self-interrogation#Of understanding that you are not immune to doing the things that these prisoners do and pretending that you are is a white lie#And in understanding that you have to acknowledge that these people are human. Flesh and blood like me and you#If you fool yourself into willful ignorance and dehumanize those you see as bad people whether they are or not#Then congratulations#you are on the road to becoming like Kotoko Yuzuriha#And I can't even say that she's an extreme example because well#I've KNOWN people like her. I've been FRIENDS with people like her.#And I think that's why she is such an important character to me and why I think more people should acknowledge her ideology like you said @sunlit-haruka Thank you about my writing! Dw about long tags I like them a lot. I get what you mean but funnily enough I actually have this problem stronger with Kotoko Criticism? Weird to say and this also isn't a dunk on anyone, but when going through youtube comments and the like, people Know that Kotoko beating people up is bad and she's self-righteous but it usually stops There.

God I hope this doesn't sound pretentious- but in a way I think it's even more important that when your being critical of Kotoko that you go beyond just that? Those are important yes, but there more symptoms of the wider problem of "Kotoko beliefs are extremely dangerous and Not Unique To Her."

I think this focus on her violence specifically as the problem is why people Miss that Shidou has very similar ideals and ideology. He's not as noticeably violent and destructive and he seems regretful and sorrowful so he passes under the radar. Even though when you break it down their both very similar in how they view the world.

It goes back to what your saying actually, if we just stop at "their bad people because their bad people" and not interrogate further we both deny seeing them as human and deny seeing that we could also be like them.

Also I like that idea of Kotoko as a thematic antagonist...that's a really fun idea...

For the ask game !! 2 and 9 for Amane 25 for Muu 8 for Kotoko

I'm a bit tired (I haven't eaten the whole day, Im about to though dw) so this might be shorter than you'd like! Sorry about that!

Amane:

2. Favorite canon thing about this character? Everything about her next question-

(Cat Symbolism if you Really Had to make me choose)

9. Could you be roommates with this character?

Yeah, she acts like younger me and I have a younger sibling.

The question is would she tolerate being roommates with me, person who talks for 5 hours unprompted and says that I'll be "done quickly" even though I never am.

Muu:

25. What was your first impression of this character? How about now?

I've said before INMF was my first impression of Milgram generally. I remember it really clearly.

Me: Oh huh this is some really pretty animation, she seems like an ass but that's entertaining to- oh my god she killed someone. Oh??? What???? *checks comments* This is a series?????

I think of her more sympathetically now compared to before. I still think she's...a questionable person but also everyone here is a questionable person morally. Extremely enjoy her and her cycle.

Kotoko:

8. What's something the fandom does when it comes to this character that you despise?

Coming here swinging huh- this is a weird grip with Kotoko discussion I Have. I think we focus too much on how the actions are bad and why she does them, without fully examining her mindset and ideology? If that makes sense?

She sits in the same boat with my feelings about how people view Shidou. Those actions come from genuine places of grief or depression or self-hate yes but they aren't...just that. Their part of a character's wider ideology.

Kotoko being self-hating and wanting to get rid of the "dirty" parts of herself...does not change the fact that the way she's doing it is by eliminating the people SHE sees as dangerous, degenerate and destructive. It's why I'm trying to get more confident in just calling her a fascist. I like how Milgram forces us to realize that the "monsters" are not really...separate from us. That there's nothing really separating us from falling into those mindsets. But to do that we have to acknowledge what those mindsets Really Are? If that makes sense.

Kotoko is ableist, Kotoko is misogynistic, Kotoko aligned with the system of Milgram. These are all important parts of her character.

When Kotoko hates "evil" she's describing Groups of people she considers inherently flawed in some way and thus needs to be eradicated for the greater good.

This mindset is self-destructive, no one can be perfect enough for Kotoko, least of all Kotoko. But it harms So Many People outside of her.

Admittedly, Kotoko is more personal to me, uh- I know for a fact that ten year old me would of been murked by her. I also know ten year old me wanted to hurt everyone who hurt her. This colors my view of her significantly. I try my best to be kind to her but that really weighs on me sometimes.

...That got sadder than I meant it to be.

[aspoonofsugar]

Hello, I would like to know what you think about the discussion that Cinder and Watts had.

It is interesting to note that what Watts tells Cinder is that her suffering doesn't make her strong or special or worthy of anything and by extension Watts tells Cinder that as much as she pretends that her suffering made her strong in reality she is still quite fragile and vulnerable because she hasn't been able to overcome her trauma and still wants to give meaning to her life and suffering.

Hello anons!

These two asks can be answered together.

First of all, I really liked that scene! It is probably my favourite moment of the episode together with the sequence in the underground.

I think there are two ways to see Watts and Cinder’s interaction in the episode.

1) Cinder

Cinder: You’re right. Without you I am nothing. But because of you, I am everything.

As I have written here:

Cinder’s way of thinking is very similar to Mercury’s. Not only have they both endured their parents’ violence, but they have tried to give this violence meaning. It is because of Madame that Cinder has become “everything” and it is because of Marcus that Mercury has become “strong”. They must believe that it was not all for nothing and that the pain they felt made them stronger instead of weaker.

This is why Cinder thinks that deep down her “hunger” is good. It is because it drives her, but she ignores that it blinds her too.

The idea that suffering made her stronger and more deserving than others is Cinder’s main coping mechanism.

She was treated as nothing, so she needs to believe she is secretly worthy of things others are negated. As I have stated here, she deep down wants to be chosen:

I would say that Cinder wants to be chosen. She wants to be special and to be given value. This is probably why she is serving Salem. It is because Salem has chosen her for an important role.

Well, Watts’s speech is about exactly this:

Watts: You think you’re entitled to everything because you’ve suffered, but suffering isn’t enough. You can’t just be strong, you have to be smart. You can’t just be deserving, you need to be worthy.

In a couple of phrases he deconstructs Cinder’s coping mechanism and this is why she is made to feel so vulnerable.

The whole point of Cinder is that she should stop reducing herself to her trauma and pain. By doing so, she both dehumanizes herself and dismisses others.

She dehumanizes herself because she tries to overcome her inferiority complex by looking for power and she does not realize that this is turning her into a monster:

Raven: Aura can’t protect your arm, it’s Grimm. You turned yourself into a monster just for power.

She dismisses others because she is so focused on her own pain that she can’t notice others’.

In short, she must stop pretending everything revolves around her and should start working on herself and her own issues. This is thematically what Watts’s speech is about. It also ties to the teaching of the Fall Maiden about choice. Destiny is not something that is given to you, but something you work towards:

Pyrrha: When I think of destiny, I don’t think of a predetermined fate you can’t escape. But rather… some sort of final goal, something you work towards your entire life.

Cinder is looking for worth outside herself. She wants Salem to recognize her and magical powers to be strong. She misses that self-worth is something only Cinder can grant herself.

However, things are not as simple in-universe because Watts is not referring to this in his speech. What he wants is not for Cinder to overcome her issues and to realize serving Salem is wrong. What Watts wants is for her to become better at her job.

Not only that, but in Watts’s speech there is hidden also this message that @luimnigh and @harostar have discussed here. Their posts are already clear, so I won’t spend much time on it.

The main idea is that Watts is worthy, while Cinder is not and how it goes back to their different upbringings and social status. In short, Watts is an Atlesian elite, while Cinder is a no-one, who was bought as a slave. Cinder keeps feeling this difference and can’t really break free from this kind of mentality.

That said, I think this last point gains more nuance when one looks at what this speech means for Watts himself.

2) Watts

Watts’s allusion is Watson and WoG says that he is Watson if he had connected with Moriarty instead of Sherlock. Personally, I think that as for now another good way to describe his allusion is that he is Watson if he were jealous of Sherlock instead of loyal to him.

As for now, Watts’s defining trait is his jealousy of Pietro Polendina and of his creation:

Watts: She’ll open the vault and she’ll destroy herself...And our little Penny problem would be...

It is not by chance that he wants to blow her up, even if that would not really be necessary. The Little Penny Problem he is talking about is really his problem and not Salem’s, who could not care less about Penny once she has the relic.

Watts wants to destroy Penny because he wants to be better than Pietro. Still, he misses why Pietro is better than him:

Watts: She’s on a set-path now...At least she should be...As much as I hate to admit it there seems to be some part of her capable of resisting...

As we know, the part of Penny who is capable of resisting is her humanity. Penny is a masterpiece not because she is a war machine, but because she is a real girl. This is the core of Pietro’s genius and this is what Watts can’t grasp:

Watts: Our tin soldier's heart has cost him his mind. We need to keep their attention on Mantle for as long as possible.

Watts, just like Ironwood, believes that feelings make you weak and stupid. Of course, this is the anti-thematic statement which has already been proven wrong over and over. Even when it comes to the situation above, Watts is actually being baited by Ironwood and him falling for it results in his arrest. The moment Ironwood is more open about his feelings is also the moment he is acting more logically.

In short, Watts is a brilliant scientist, who bought in Atlas’s ideology that you must pursue success at all costs. You must be strong/clever because only in this way you can be successful. If you let feelings cloud your determination/mind, you are a failure.

However, it is precisely this ideology taken to its extreme that is Watts’s own downfall.

He can’t understand Pietro’s ideal and is overshadowed by him. What is more, the idea of not being the first in his field drives him to disgrace.

His backstory makes so that Inside team WTCH Watts represents Salem’s entitlement.

This makes him similar to Cinder, as well. He is different from her for upbringing and status. Still, they both have the same flaw. They believe they are entitled to things.

Cinder does so because she has suffered. She was no-one, so now she must be the most important person in the world.

Watts does so because he was born an elite and he should stay an elite forever.

Watts is there not only to tell, but to show (both Cinder and the viewers) that the path Cinder is on leads nowhere. Watts had probably everything Cinder ever wanted. He was successful and rich. He did not have to worry about food or poverty. Still, that was not enough for him. He wanted more and this led him to betray his own country and to join a nihilistic witch.

In other words, Cinder will never find what she is looking for in power or success. Watts had both, but he is empty just like her. He is hungry just like her.

This is well conveyed symbolically by Watts being one of the very few characters that never unlocked his semblance. It means he never truly unlocked his full potential. He never truly understood who he wanted to be. He tried to be who his society wanted him to be, but he was not satisfied and decided to destroy it instead.

So, when Watts talks about the need to be smart and the difference between being deserving and worthy, he is actually talking about himself, probably without even realizing it. He is projecting his feelings of failure on Cinder. He was deserving, but not worthy. Pietro was the worthy one.

Other than these two, there is also another level to this confrontation that has been underlined by @misstrashchan​ here.

It is about the parallel between Cinder and Ironwood when it comes to their reactions to Watts spelling them the truth about themselves:

Ironwood: I will sacrifice... whatever it takes... to stop her.

Watts: Oh, I hope you do, James. I hope you do.

The difference, as the post above explains very well, is that Cinder is able to listen to Watts, while Ironwood ignores his words altogether.

This ties to how Ironwood’s inability to recognize his mistakes and to change his mind (literally what his semblance Mettle is about) is why he is the main villain in an arc where we are having the first redemption arc of one of our original trio of villains:

A redemption, which will probably be followed by other defections among the AceOps themselves.

In order to redeem one-self, a person must accept they were wrong and change their mind. Ironwood is unable to do so and this is why he is dangerous.

In conclusion, I love this confrontation because it is very complex, has many levels and is gray. In terms of complexity it reminds me of Tyrian’s interactions with Emerald and especially Mercury:

 Tyrian is seen tormenting the two kids whenever he gets the chance. That said, he ironically ends up spelling out for them truths the two must face:

Tyrian: Do what makes you happy children… please? I’m begging you…

Tyrian: Of course she is! You’re surprised? Salem is destruction incarnate! Our mistress wishes to see the end of it all! There is no ideal more beautiful.

Tyrian is a great evil mentor because he manages to spell out what Emerald and Mercury should do and to make sure through his body language that they are not able to. He tells them the truth and threathens them, so that they can’t pursue what they need.

Here, Watts tells Cinder the truth by lashing out about how she is so worthless, that a machine must do her job.

It is also interesting because both Emerald and Mercury are clearly set-up to have an evil mentor figure:

Emerald and Hazel’s foiling has already paid off, while Mercury and Tyrian’s will probably pay off in the future.

I am not sure if Cinder will have a similar foiling/relationship with Watts. Still, it is an interesting possibility. Especially because one thing I would really like to happen with the original villain trio is for the abuse and the manipulation they are subjected to backfire. I would like for them to break free (with others’ help obviously because they can’t free themselves alone) by taking all these thematic truths they are told, so they can be manipulated, and to change them in teachings they can use against their abusers.

In short, I want Cinder to say...”Yeah, I do not need to be deserving of power because I am already worthy on my own”. And I want Mercury to free himself and to tell Tyrian...”This is what makes me happy”.

I think that this has partly happened with Emerald in the sense that Salem’s tactic to weaken her loyalty to Cinder through fear backfired:

Salem: Emerald... I want you to tell me whose fault this was. Now

Emerald: Cinder! We failed because of Cinder...

Salem: That's right. I want you to understand that failure. I want you to understand why Cinder must be left to toil in her isolation until she redeems herself.

The whole point of this interaction was to make Emerald submissive. It is clear Emerald is there for Cinder and not for Salem, so Salem frightened her and forced her to symbolically “betray” Cinder.

Still, this did not work for two reasons.

a) Emerald needs to see Cinder for who she is, so that she can break free from her.

b) Fear is among the factors that motivated Emerald to leave:

Yang: You're gonna have to try and summarize it. Why should we trust you?

Ren: Because she's scared. Just like us.

Not only that, but in an inversion of what usually happens with fear in the series, it is specifically because Emerald and JOYR are all scared that they can overcome their conflict and work together (as @echo-from-the-void​. noticed). Fear has separated our protagonists from the AceOps, but has brought them Emerald.

These are my main thoughts on the scene, thank you for the asks!

[harostar]

How do you think of how AoT handles Anti Semitism, X Men fallacy aside. I've heard of how the reason the Eldians are so Hated was a result of reprehensible things there ancestors had done, and there religon with Ymir was sort of based on a Lie.

That would seem problematic at first glance, But I did want to learn more from someone who actually knew the series. Especially as I do know the situation in real life has complexities regarding Cycles of hate

You know, I had kind of set this Ask aside and been unsure about answering it. But I think I will give it a poke, as best as I can as someone that is one-degrees of separation from Jewish folks. So obvious disclaimer that I am approaching things from an outsider’s perspective.

The series stumbled heavily in choosing to so closely use allegories related to Nazi Germany and the Jewish people. I think a large percentage of the problem is because the Holocaust has become short-hand in public consciousness for Genocide and atrocities. Those images are scorched into the world-wide mind, and unfortunately touching on it as an allegory or using it as the basis for fictional discrimination is a very, very, very messy and difficult thing. ESPECIALLY when the creator(s) involved are not Jewish, and don’t understand the deeper aspects of Antisemitism that have been weaved into Western culture for centuries. 

Isayama borrowed from European history, used a historical atrocity to create a comparison in his work. He.......made many mistakes in doing so, because it’s a messy thing to do even when you ARE familiar with how much that hatred is woven into a lot of European imagery, stories, and beliefs. A Japanese audience is probably not going to pick up on those elements, the way a Western reader might for better or worse. 

I think that decision has muddled and tainted a lot of discussion around the series. Some people outright call it “Nazi Propaganda” and refuse to associate with people that read the series. I would argue that we are the audience have a lot of digest and discussion in terms of how the “Eldian Allegory” plays in comparison to the other themes of the work. 

Because the series would have worked MUCH BETTER had he not made the decision to base his fictional ethnic group on a real one. It was a mistake that casts doubt on a work that focuses so much on themes so opposed to a “Nazi” or “Fascist” ideology.

The atrocities of the Eldian Empire simply being exaggerations and demonizing, not matching a simple history of neighboring groups/nations fighting each other for resources and land. The idea of Ymir as a Goddess or a witch that made a deal with the Devil both being false versions of what was simply....a girl. An ordinary girl that stumbled across something Otherworldly, and gained a power that was exploited. 

The history of the series is simply about one group gaining an advantage over their neighbors. The Titans served as numerous metaphors throughout the series:

Dehumanization, especially in times of war

Gunpowder 

Chemical weapons

Nuclear weapons

The largest theme that emerges particularly in the final arcs of the story are explicitly Anti-War, Anti-Imperialism, Anti-Militarism, and Pro-Humanitarian.

Hatred and Bigotry are learned, they are things that people actively have to teach their children. The most powerful counter to Hatred is simply meeting other people. Our shared humanity proves that we are more similar than we are different. 

(This is beautifully illustrated in a flashback, in which the Survey Corps are infiltrating Marley. They end up meeting a group of foreign refugees, who welcome them into their camp for helping a child. Though the two groups do not speak the same language, they are able to understand each other enough to share in a communal meal and then party the night away. Even when we come from vastly different cultures and don’t speak the same language, we can find common ground. There is a simple joy in how people are people are people, no matter what differences we might have.)

In terms of the problematic elements, I would argue that Isayama did not intend anything Antisemitism about his work. In particular, he frames the allegorical Eldians as sympathetic with most of the cast coming from this group. The story centers on their plight and spends the most time in humanizing them. Ignorance rather than Malice. It taints the work, but also clashes with the major themes of the story. 

Indeed, our common humanity is such an important theme. Hatred and Revenge are empty, only leading to further tragedy. Eren represents those emotions and urges taken to the extreme, and that is ultimately why he becomes the Final Villain of the series. Because he allows hatred to consume him, and loses hope in the world. He can only see “Us vs Them”, and cannot see a path forward that does not involve Genocide. It’s a tragedy that warns us about letting anger consume us, and the dangers of surrendering ourselves to Violence being unavoidable. Eren can see the Future, and therefore he is trapped with the belief that there are no other paths forward. That he must follow in the footsteps of his future self, no matter what. 

It’s an ugly, tragic turn that transforms the series protagonist into a Monster. Into a world-ending monster that his loved ones must now deal with, because they have learned the lessons he did not.

The thing that separates the heroes in this story is Hope, but also a willingness to recognize the futility of revenge and hatred. As the final arcs progress, they are increasingly confronted with the option to look away from atrocities or to take revenge on people. Increasingly, they choose to take a different path.

The story of Sasha and Gabi is central in this particular theme. Sasha kills soldiers that Gabi knew, and attacked her home. But she cannot bring herself to shoot a child, even one that is clearly an enemy. Gabi is a child indoctrinated into Nationalistic, bigoted views. She kills Sasha as an enemy, but then finds her world turned on its head when she accidentally meets Sasha’s family. She’s forced to confront the reality that there are no Monsters and Devils, just ordinary people just like her that have suffered tragedies because of war. 

When given the opportunity for revenge, Sasha’s father refuses. He gives the “Forest” speech, comparing his daughter’s decision to become a soldier in war to letting her go alone into the forest. He accepts her decision and the tragic outcome, but also HIS responsibility as an adult to not pass burdens of Hatred and Revenge on to the next generation. He will not punish Gabi for being a child caught up in war. 

And this becomes an important moment for Gabi and for everyone else. She is not FORGIVEN for her crime, but these people make the conscious choice to spare her. Mikasa shields her from harm, Jean regrets hurting her in anger, they all make the choice to treat Gabi as a CHILD and not a soldier. To recognize their responsibility in doing better than the adults responsible for them. They were Child Soldiers, but they make the choice that the next generation SHOULD NOT be soldiers. 

The series deals heavily in Trauma, especially the ways that War destroys people. The physical, mental, and emotional cost to people are heavily on display throughout the series. The cast have suffered emotional and mental injuries that will never heal, and they struggle with wanting a better world for the next generation.

Children are another big theme. We have the cast start out as children, becoming Child Soldiers, and eventually reaching Adulthood. As they become the adults, we have a new generation introduced in Gabi, Falco, Udo, Sofia, and Kaya. The series gets a little heavy-handed with how Children are the Future, and people have a responsibility to not burden them. To not force their sins upon the children, to not teach them hatred or revenge, to not use them as tools. 

Zeke’s storyline contrasts with Eren’s in that each brother has reached a different conclusion about the central problem. 

Zeke wants to snuff out their own future, preventing more Eldians from being born. Their lives are suffering, so the kindest thing that can be done is to kill them or prevent them from being born. Life is meaningless, because living means suffering. 

Eren takes his hatred to its most extreme, deciding that to protect his “In Group” (the Island of Paradis) that he will destroy everything else. He has taken Dehumanization and Us vs Them mentality to its greatest extreme. He sees no future where people can do better. He refuses to even let them try. He has no hope, he sees only ugliness in the world.

In contrast, we have what has become the alliance. The surviving members of the Survey Corps, the surviving members of the Warriors, and an assortment of people from other nations. A motley group of people of different backgrounds, races and political alliances that are all brought together by a singular belief that the world is worth saving. That it shouldn’t be a Zero Sum game.

That the world is very cruel, but also very beautiful.

Hatred, cruelty, selfishness, greed, militarism, nationalism, imperialism, racism, and bigotry have led the world towards possible destruction. The Rumbling as a metaphor for Nuclear War, humanity destroying itself because it cannot look for a path besides violence.

The pure Destructive urge that is Eren, contrasted against the other two parts of that Golden Trio. 

Mikasa, the girl that was saved by a single act of kindness. The strongest of all, but also so very kind. A girl that has seen the ugliness of the world, but also the goodness in it. 

Armin, the boy with a dream. The intellectual that once asked if it was necessary to abandon your humanity to win, but has realized that our shared humanity is more important. The one filled with hope, even in the darkest moments.

And of course into this, we have Falco Grice. The boy that embodies the central themes of the story: a child soldier that has seen the worst of humanity, and has decided the best way to fight is by being Kind. 

[werevulvi]

I wanted to write a bit about sex segregated spaces, in regards to people who pass as the opposite sex. This is not actually about trans people, as much as it is about the safety, integrity and general rights of male-passing biological women. I am not the only gender non-conforming woman who gets tossed out of female only spaces, based on the false presumption that we’re men. I do not care about validating trans women, or even trans men, for that matter. I care about real life practicality, risks and safety for ALL women, not just those who look conveniently clearly female, which starts with accepting that some women, whether they've medically transitioned or not, pass as male. And none of them should have to feminise themselves to access female only spaces. Whether that be to ensure safety from males, or to just take a leak.

The fact that I choose to keep my beard has almost nothing to do with that I'm male-passing. It may be my strongest "male" feature, but it's hardly the only one. I still pass as male with a clean shaven face, which makes shaving my beloved beard rather pointless, in my opinion. I would realistically need to go through more than just facial hair removal to pass as my own sex again. I'd probably even need facial feminisation surgery, hair transplant, voice feminisation and full body hair removal, at the very least, to even get close to passing as female again. But even then, I'd probably STILL be read as a trans woman, i.e. male. And even IF I did all that... WHY should I have to mutilate myself (a second time) by buying into harmful patriarchal beauty standards, which would worsen my dysphoria and reduce my comfort in my own skin significantly, to be allowed the safety of male-free spaces?

Does that sound feminist to you? Because to me, it's incredibly misogynistic, and strongly counterproductive. To uphold patriarchal gender roles for the safety of women... is the most insanely anti-feminist double standard I can possibly ever think of.

To lay out my argument on this topic, I'm going to use my own experiences as examples a lot. Mostly because I cannot with any conscience speak for anyone else than myself, at least not in such detail and with such harsh judgement. But I'm sure a lot of my experiences are applicable to other masculine women as well.

First off, I still consider myself gender critical, but my allegiance to radical feminism has been waning lately. This is mostly due to that although I agree with the base premise of radfem, I tend to disagree with the proposed solutions to almost all of the issues, because to me they come across as unfounded beliefs (yes, BELIEFS) that "it would just work" without much of any evidence to back up such a claim.

And when it comes to trans people, I've noticed a lot of... shall we say, willful ignorance, going on among many radfems, which does affect opinions on gender abolishion as well as sex segregated spaces to appear rather... intellectually dishonest, to be frank. Although this is not intended as a call out by any means, I merely want for people of all sides of the radfem/gender critical/pro-trans fence to stay critical and keep questioning everything, even one's own beloved ideology. Which I don't see a lot of. Instead I see almost religious defending of radfem as the ultimate/perfect ideology... oh, guess where I've seen that before? I've come to believe that "hivemindedness" is probably part of every possible ideology out there. Even radfem.

So, anyway.

One thing I come across time and time again is the belief (yes, I dare say "belief") that people never pass as the opposite sex, although it's mostly directed at trans people, this very much applies to people who are just gnc as well. Let's not forget that. And this belief seem to often lead to that transitioned/gnc people can just use the space intended for their biological sex, no problem. However, this is not the case. There is a problem. Very many trans people, and some gnc people, pass well enough to at least blend in enough to not raise much of an eyebrow among the opposite sex, and to most definitely stand out as an outsider among people of the same sex. OR they pass barely enough as either sex, and thus stand out as an outsider among both the same sex and the opposite sex, which can cause similar problems with single sex spaces.

There's also the thing that it generally is easier to pass as the opposite sex among complete strangers, compared to people who know you/your background. They tend to read you differently, depending on that.

At least in my experience, complete strangers assume I'm male and don't even as much as raise an eyebrow about how male I come across as. They accept their false assumption at face value. And why wouldn't they? 99,97% of people who "look like me" are biologically men. Then people who know I'm transitioned, but didn't know me pre-transition, tend to see me as a female who looks very convincingly male, whether that makes me a masculine woman, trans man, or any other (female) label in their eyes. They claim to be able to "see" my female nature, yet they somehow had no idea before I told them about my true sex. Then people who know about my history and saw it happen from the time before my transition (now only really my family) never quite succeeded to see me as anything other than a gnc woman. To quote my dad: "You look like a woman who's trying to look like a man." Although I'm sure my mom and sister don't have quite as harsh views about me, lol. They still seem to see me the way they always have, regardless of what name or pronouns they use for me.

This matters, because although people who know I'm transitioned and may even have witnessed my transition from the beginning, struggle to see me as a man (which I respect entirely and I'm VERY careful to not push wanting to be seen/read as anything in particular, but also, people do not want to be rude, especially irl) that does not go for people who have never even seen me before the moment I walk into... say, a public bathroom. To them I cannot possibly be anything other than a man, and it's almost impossible to change their view of me as male once their brains have registered me as such. I need to conjure up pretty fucking compelling evidence to shatter that view they have of me.

This is important, because it means I cannot feasibly use female only spaces, unless someone else (who is also female) vouches for me and explains my situation for me. This is, most likely due to people being more likely to believe an unlikely explanation when it's told by someone else, because maybe I could be lying; and only someone of the same sex as me can accompany/escort me into female only spaces, obviously. But even then, there's a ton of tension around my presentation. An air of distrust, basically. The question that hangs in the air: "Is that a trans woman?" even after they've been given a thorough explanation of my situation. It's uncomfortable for everyone involved. Imagine how it goes then if I'd just show up unannounced, and without someone to vouch for me. I just get booted on sight.

Yes, I can whine about this all day, but that is NOT my point.

My point is that I'm either directly, or implicitly, unwelcome in female only spaces, despite being biologically female, because of my transitioned appearance... despite I'm not even on testosterone anymore since 2 years ago. Sure, most gnc women (whether transitioned or not) don't seem to have turned out quite as passable as me, but clearly, it happens. So let's stop pretending that it doesn't.

So with that in mind, I don't always have access to a gender neutral space. Like for example when I travel with the ferry that goes between my island and the mainland of my country, there is only men's bathrooms and women's bathrooms. No third option. That's a 3 hour boat ride, and with my coffee drinking habit, I will need to pee at some point or another while aboard that ship, alright. And no, peeing in the ocean is not an option, as squatting over the railing would be incredibly dangerous, and most likely not even remotely allowed. Granted, I don't take the ferry often, it's just the most clear example I can think of. Because it's my only means of transportation to/from the mainland, except from flying, which is incredibly expensive, less reliable and obviously an environmental hazard. So when I do have to use that ferry, I'm kinda stuck with my choices.

So then, am I better off going with the men's or women's bathroom? I am much more likely to be left alone to do my business in the men's, so even though that is not the space I want to be in, nor do I think it's "right" for me to be there, sometimes it's even a bit scary, other times even impractical if there's only urinals and no stall, and it's absolutely not validating at all - it's the only bathroom that I can realistically use, without too much trouble. And I don't want trouble. But I also hate having to put my own safety on the backburner for the perceived safety of other women, who are not actually at any higher safety risk when left alone with me.

So, onto the more general, political aspects of this issue:

Women in male only spaces may be less of an issue in regards to safety, at least for the majority of people (men) in that space, especially if the woman in question passes as male. No one gives a fuck, generally. But problem is then that she is at far greater risk than the majority of people (women) would be with a single male, in a female only space. As I think a group of women against one male is generally less risk towards the women, when compared to a group of men against a single female, which can be extremely dangerous for her. Although I've so far never been faced with any sort of violence in a male only space, let's not pretend that my presense in a male only space is somehow LESS dangerous for me, than how dangerous the presense of ONE male in a space with a whole group of women, would be for those women. Statistically and realistically, I'm at a far greater risk than they are, and no, I do not have any more choice in the matter than they do.

Thus, this kinda skewed idea of safety and choice, becomes a question of ethics, I think.

Furthermore, I'm a person of principles, and it wouldn't sit right with me that if males should never under any circumstances be allowed in female spaces, but females could be allowed in male spaces. I refuse to be a hypocrit on purpose! No, if males should never under any circumstances be allowed in female spaces, then females should also never under any circumstances be allowed in male spaces. OR, if females CAN under some special circumstances be allowed into male spaces, then males should be allowed the same in female spaces. Both of these solutions pose serious problems, which I keep seeing being brushed under the carpet a lot, and that annoys me.

But if we go with the first idea, of barring people from using opposite sex spaces altogether, then where the fuck do I pee? Should I utilise my "right" to use female spaces, despite making everyone uncomfortable and feeling threatened by my presense, as well as risking being kicked out and forced to use the equivalent male spaces anyway, which is exactly what that idea is meant to prevent - or should I completely avoid being in places which I know does not have a gender neutral bathroom, such as the ferry? Would that not be discrimination? Which is the most reasonable option here, what is the most practical, what's wrong and what's right? Do I even have a RIGHT to use female bathrooms, and if so, how do I prove it, considering my ID still says I'm male?

Trans men aren't gonna be nearly as willing to use female only spaces, and trans women definitely not eager to use male only spaces. But aside from that validation factor, I have the exact same struggle as trans people do on this particular point. Quite often they do toss and turn at which bloody bathroom to pick, not just out of validation, but because they genuinely struggle to figure out which one is the best option for them practically. Especially if they don't quite pass as either sex, and most and foremost just wanna do their business without unneccesary drama.

Also, to clarify: barring trans people from opposite sex spaces is NOT discrimination, as they never belonged there to begin with - but leaving them with no other option than to pee themselves, is. Which means that I think it's fucked up to barr them from those spaces BEFORE having solved the problem of "if they can't go there, then where?"

Perhaps I'm the only one around here who cares about males' integrity, safety and human rights. But even if so, I should not be the only one to care about gnc females' integrity, safety and rights. Male-passing females, whether transitioned or not, whether bearded or not, are still female, and if we don't want them in female only spaces, and not in male only spaces either; why? Because they "chose" to medically transition and/or dress in men's clothing?

Yeah, well, in most cases of transitioned females, they transitioned because of dysphoria, which no one chooses to have. It's a medical condition. Barring people from spaces they'd otherwise be welcomed into, due to the visual outcome of the treatment of their medical condition... is ableism. Barring a woman from a female only space she belongs in, solely because her unusual physical appearance freaks you out... is ableism. Also, simply being gnc and being viscerally uncomfortable with presenting femininely is also not a choice. And even if it was... shouldn't it be? That's why I cannot roll with that sorta solution. I dunno if it counts as a form of discrimination by definition, but it just smells a lot like it from where I sit. That it's no more right to toss me out of, or give me trouble, in a women's bathroom, than a masculine women who also passes as male but who has not medically transitioned.

That said, however, women's safety DOES matter a lot to me. Hence my reluctance to join their spaces, despite being a woman myself. I guess, what I'd want is complete sex segregation to work in my favour, but I can't promote a rule that would discriminate against me. I'm sorry, I just can't. I desire FUNCTIONAL sex segregated spaces, but realistically they cannot function. Truth is that the only womens spaces I've been allowed into since I began passing as male, are "trans inclusionary" ones that openly allow in trans women, ironically. I care about the safety of other women, and their right to have their own spaces... but not at the expense of my own rights, as a fellow woman. To say otherwise would be a crime against myself. I really wish this could be solved in some way that would work in practice, but honestly I don't think it can anytime soon. Not without some seriously tried and proven, practical and humane methods to check what sex people entering single sex spaces actually are.

That is the reality that people have to face. And personally I'd rather focus on women's rights than trans rights, but as a woman who's medically transitioning, I'd shoot my own foot no matter which one I'd choose. That's quite a dilemma.

So where my opinion stands on this right now, is basically this: I think female only spaces should only be for biological women, but I'm reluctantly okay-ish with males who pass as female utilising female only spaces, and vice versa for females in male only spaces. However, this does not feel ideal at all. It's a compromise. Ideally, I want such spaces to be entirely sex segregated, and for even people who pass as the opposite sex (like myself) to be allowed into spaces of their biological sex. My appeal here is both realistic practicality with the reality that some people really do pass as the opposite sex, as well as the safety, rights and integrity of male-passing women.

[ariainstars]

Love and War: Politics and Spirituality in Star Wars

As I followed the Star Wars saga closely last year, I couldn’t help noticing that its central theme is not Good against Evil, but Love against War.

More precisely, it seems like a long parable about a mind at war: the galaxy far, far away keeps struggling with different powers which, until now, never were balanced by a common ideology. 

  The Jedi: We Have No Personal Agenda (…do we?)

As we get to know the Jedi in the prequels, we can’t be but disappointed. The supposed keepers of peace, guardians of the Force, seem a bunch of elderly, stuck-up guys who are wary of anything coming from the outside. Their meetings take place in a place which even looks like an ivory tower.

We witness the first conflict in the saga in The Phantom Menace, which absurdly is kicked off by two weird-looking guys who seem interested in nothing but their economic power.

The irony is that in their own way, the Jedi do not seem more open-minded than them; though not interested in wealth, they do only think of themselves - of the status their rank as Jedi gives them. They are so convinced of being the “good guys” that they will not lift a finger to end a raging conflict, and they don’t care what will become of a weirdly powerful nine-year-old boy who just lost his only living relative, his past and the only home he ever knew. 

It is Padmé, who is not a Jedi and has no power in the Force, who takes matters in their own hands, to the point where she falls on her knees before the Gungans asking them for their assistance..

I have repeatedly heard the Star Wars prequels being criticized due to the seeming lack of agenda of the protagonists. Which is right - they basically haven’t. The only agenda everybody seems to have is to keep things the way they are so that their personal, comfortable situation won’t change. 

But the truth is that they are not aware of the power pulling at them: there is someone who is the mastermind behind all that happens during Anakin’s youth, and we can assume that he was at work even before the boy stepped onto the stage. 

It is Senator Palpatine who convinces the Queen of Naboo to plead for a vote of no confidence against Chancellor Valorum, which in the end leaves Palpatine himself in charge. It is he, again, who makes JarJar convince the Senate to give him emergency powers due to the surge of the Separatists.

Palpatine is repeatedly shown as being Evil incarnate. Absolute power is his ultimate goal. For him, it is all or nothing. There is nothing human about him, ever, as good as he is as posing as a mellifluous politician who only has the best ends in mind.

And on top of it, Palpatine makes it appear as if he only has the purest motives, leaving the dirty work to others: Anakin marches into the Jedi temple killing everyone…

…Obi-Wan cripples Anakin mercilessly, which gives Palpatine the chance to strap him into the armor and mask that he will hence need in order to survive at all.

  The End of Everything We Loved

The name “Devil” means “separator”. Palpatine’s influence leads to separate all people who ought to belong together: friends…

 …husband and wife… 

…brothers and sisters. When they first meet, Luke and Leia don’t realize for a long time that they are, actually, siblings.

Vader doesn’t recognize his own daughter…

…nor his son: during the trench run we hear him say “The Force is strong with that one.”

  The Jedi’s failure

Enter Anakin, someone with huge personal agendas. Anakin has known slavery, the pain of separation from his mother, the helplessness having to watch her die, the fear of losing wife and unborn child in a similar way.

Does that make him an evil person? We see Anakin struggle against his fears and his violence for years. His deepest impulse is to use his enormous strength in order to protect others, but he isn’t allowed to. He can only be active if the Jedi order him to, which leads among other things to the absurd situation of having to save Palpatine, i.e. evil incarnate, risking his own and his master Obi-Wan’s life; while he was supposed to toughen it out when his own mother, a woman who probably never harmed anyone in her life, was tortured to death. 

Instinctively, Anakin’s heart always told him who needed his help. But this generosity and protectiveness never was appreciated by the Jedi, to whom “the Code” came first of all.

But what is the Jedi code, looking at it, if not a strategy to detach themselves from the world?

No families of their own.

No possessions.

No close attachments.

How is anyone supposed to still see if someone is in pain, when he was trained from early childhood on to live in a metaphorical ivory tower? 

Though not actually evil-minded (they assuredly do not want power or promote terror), the Jedi are in constant denial of the truth around them. They witness Palpatine’s ascent over and over and never realize that the most powerful Sith Lord of all is sitting a few meters away from them. 

Because to the Jedi, “what can’t be doesn’t exist”. Palpatine may be a Sith, but officially, belongs to the Jedi. Count Dooku even warns Obi-Wan; the Jedi proves his denial again with his words “Impossible. The Jedi would have sensed it.” 

So, not wanting it but also not knowing what they were doing, the Jedi enhance the conflict. And the Skywalker family, whose founder had been fathered by the Force itself, is torn and kept apart from both Jedi and Sith. 

Now we could argue: who would want to cooperate with the Sith, to have them as part of a balance, if they are evil and never do any good? 

Do they, and do the Jedi only do good and virtuous deeds? 

Obi-Wan told Luke an outright lie pretending that Vader had been Anakin’s killer; convinced that it could end only if the son killed the father.

The supposedly evil Lord Vader is the one who finally tells the truth: he proclaims to be Luke’s father, which also unveils his old master’s lie. Luke is traumatized because the truth is the opposite of what he believed. Until this very moment he was in denial, convinced that he was dealing with his father’s killer; Vader had literally to cut off his son’s hand in order to create a dramatic pause which finally allowed him to say what he wanted to: the truth.

To believe that a deed like patricide could be a positive thing only enhances the absurdity of the situation and the depth of the Jedi’s denial. As Luke confronts Obi-Wan with his manipulation, the Jedi still does not take responsibility, beyond his grave.

The Mistake: Making Things About Oneself

So, we have seen that Evil is not always wrong and Good not always right. They are strangely connected by one common, capital fault: making things about themselves.

But we repeatedly meet people who are mature enough not to make things about themselves: Padmé, Shmi, Senator Organa, (dare I say it? even JarJar), Owen and Beru.

Luke’s meeting with Vader on Bespine is pivotal because confronted with the words “You are not a Jedi yet” Luke draws his weapon first, proving Vader right. He hates the man in whom he still sees his father’s killer. It is this hatred which could have pushed him to the Dark Side. Though unknowingly and acting out of possessiveness, Vader pushed his son away from the Dark Side by saying the truth and thus crushing Luke’s hatred for him.

Much later, as he tries to save his friends, we see that Luke has learned his lesson: he tries to convince Jabba diplomatically and draws his weapon only at the last moment.

Terrified that Vader and Palpatine might be after his sister, Luke lashes out one last time. Only when he sees his father’s robotic hand he realizes the trap he was about to fall into.

Forgiveness and love bring Vader down. Compassion has won. Peace ensues, the family is united.

But many years later, we see Luke fail making things about himself again: he fears the danger his nephew could become for everything he loves.

His moment of panic pushes his nephew to the dark side. As a long-term consequence, the young man will be the murderer of the man who used to be Luke’s best friend.

Ben adopts another name and joins Snoke; war flares up and pushes itself between the members of the Skywalker family again.

Han and Leia meet after a period of separation, each bemoaning the loss of their son.

Luke, guilt-stricken, has retired to a lonely island, away from everybody.

Only shortly before his death, Luke tries to reconnect: with his sister, his brother-in-law (symbolically through the dice), the droids, his nephew. The Skywalker family is getting closer again, hinting at a future peace.

  Conclusions

The absurd situation of this generation is that at the opposite ends of the conflict are two persons who despite their outward differences couldn’t be more alike. Kylo and Rey both are lost children, desperately searching for belonging and purpose. In the brief moment of their alliance against Snoke we can see that working together, Dark and Light side are indeed invincible.

So, must the Light Side win again in order to ensure peace? 

The Dark Side is the human Id, which is all about oneself. Its advantage is that being straightforward, the Id can’t lie. Anakin / Vader always told the truth, as painful as it was.

The Id is aware of the fact that it needs its other half to be balanced. Hence, the “bad guys” always struggle to dominate, possess and at worst kill the “good guys”. We constantly see a powerful Dark Side user (Vader, Kylo) being at his strongest while he is chasing his Light Side counterpart (Luke, Rey). 

The Light Side is the Super-Ego, the conscience, which at its extreme might push a person to give up his life for someone else. The disadvantage is its tendency to deny that it needs its other half also; to believe to be solely in the right. The Jedi (including Luke, the last and the strongest of them) often overlook vital truths: none are so blind as those who will not see.

Both Luke and Rey needed their Dark Side counterparts to confront them with the truth (“I am your father”, “Your parents are dead… filthy junk traders who sold you for drinking money”). As much as it hurts them, both need to know these truths because their false pretensions held them back from being who they truly were. 

That is why “balance” is so vitally important and the only thing that can save the day and make lasting peace. Because no one can pretend that he lives solely for others (the Jedi), and no one can exist long living only by himself and for himself (the Sith). Only acknowledging one another’s positive sides and learning to cooperate, the Force users can make lasting peace in the galaxy possible. Only when a common ground is found at last, the galaxy can finally be free of the Old Republic’s stagnation, the Empire’s tyranny and the turmoil of the Rebellion. 

Peace, at last, to people of good will.

[ramen540k]

“Terrorism”: Inequities of Association

Sai Hudspeth

S5126293

Media Production

Level 4 Terrorism has many different yet similar definitions and as such is not wholly defined legally in many areas (Al Jazeera, 2014). Due to the lack of consistent definition, terrorism has often been assosiated with foreign forces, especially post-9/11. A series of attacks were committed by a terrorist organisation known as “Al-Qaeda” on September 11th, 2001 (Bergen, 2020). These attacks went down in history as the single largest act of terrorism in history being live broadcasted all over the world and leaving a lasting fear in the hearts of American Citizens. Since, and to a lesser degree prior to, the attacks of 9/11 the world has experienced a heightened sense of Islamophobia. With heightened fear and a common enemy, an anti muslim rhetoric was adopted in the media and soon after, the “War on Terror” (Bergen, 2020). Even though it has been almost a decade since the the 9/11 attacks, anti muslim sentiments continue to grow while acts of terror committed by white supremacy groups are utterly disregarded, and racial equality organisations are labeled as domestic terrorist organisations (Al Jazeera, 2010).

Post 9/11 showed a 90% increase from 1,171 to 2,227 deployments by federal tactical teams between 2005 and 2014 based on research done by the Congressional Research Service (Grabianowski, 2007). It was SWAT’s initial purpose to be a higher powered response to increases in bank robberies in Philadelphia but later was expanded to cover a range of high risk situations including; hostage situations, search warrants, anti terrorism, and riot control (Grabianowski, 2007). As previously shown in the CRS research, SWAT’s expansion has put in place a large amount of high powered forces across the usa, accounting for around 1,200 teams in total countrywide (Federal Tactical Teams, 2015). It is important to note this as the way the USA and other countries’ media defines terrorism may warrant use of high powered forces on unwarranted situations. By observing race politics, the media’s rhetoric, and the ethics behind the use of the word “terrorism”, we are able to discern when the word “terrorism” should be used.

The war on terror was not confined to the USA, a major defining contributor to islamaphobia were a series of bombings in London that shook the foundation of “British Liberality”. Known as 7/7 these attacks on July 7th, 2005 launched the UK into severe paranoia just as 9/11 had in the USA (Sky News, 2014). Due to two proliferators of this act of terror being under surveillance for two years prior to 7/7, the public was in serious unrest over the lack of decisive action taken by the British Intelligence Service, which many thought could have prevented two of the attacks (Sky News, 2014). In addition to the lack of action, and the fact that the bombers were born and raised in Leeds, UK further instigated anti-immigrant/muslim ideologies of the British public (Al Jazeera, 2014).

As stated in The impact of counter-terrorism measures on Muslim communities, a study done by the research department of Durham University, “There is a danger that Muslims in contemporary Britain may become the new suspect community. Policymakers and operatives are grappling with the old dilemma: it is an inescapable fact that the majority of those suspected of terrorist activities are Muslim, and that counter-terrorism measures are likely to target Muslims.” (Choudhury and Fenwick, 2011) With the rise of hostility the freshness of a home grown attack provided space for people to vocalise and bring physical attacks against both immigrants and muslims alike due to fear. As a caller on LBC said “The population of the third world widens by 5% every year...there are 23000 people among us who are plotting to kill our families” (Ferrari, 2018) referring to people of interest to the British Intelligence Service, representing both the concern for the public's safety and the connotation between people of interest and islamic terrorists. By piggybacking off this fear legislation was pushed by both the USA and UK in an attempt to prevent future acts of terror. This however led to more frequent stop and searches of racial/religious minorities as well as higher levels of police presence in the USA and the UK.

As we move further and further from 911 and 7/7, the definition of terrorism has been used more loosely used and not allocated to some blataint acts of terror. In the USA, there is no “...statute that applies to domestic ideology inspired extremisms...” (Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Mccord) and as they are not associated with foriegn terrorist organisations they cannot be charged with terrorist crimes (ITV News, 2019). This effectively omits one of the most prolific terrorist ideologies in the USA, white supremacy. A combined disregard for white domestic terrorism combined with hightened conservative media spokes people, tentions have risen contributing further to the race rift as well as provide a normalised culture around white terrorism. Conservative news outlets took up the call to action, during Obama’s presidency, spreading defamatory statements such as “This president I think has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep seeded hatred for white people…” (Fox and Friends) and commentary on the economic depression that was “caused by immigrants” further hightening both conservative and white supremacist ideologies (Al Jazeera, 2010).

With the onslaught of antiterrorism rhetoric, and a widening race gap, the USA would face its biggest turning point yet with the inauguration of Trump in 2016. Following his inauguration, incidents in Charlottesville known as “Unite the Right” in 2017 where the largest white supremacy gathering occured, resulting in an act of terror in which a white supremacist drove their car through an anti fascist protest killing one and injuring 20 others (PBS, 2019). Thus, the birth of media’s buzz word “antifa” would become interchangable with terrorism. After this act of terror, Trump would take to live broadcast and condemn “this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence, on many sides…” (PBS, 2019). Following this press conference, the former leader of the KKK tweeted saying he was grateful for Trump to “condemn the leftist terrorists in antifa and Black Lives Matter.” (PBS, 2019) sparing national outrage and further social unrest. Simultaneously with acts of terrorism against minorities, combined with more acts of police brutality caught on video and distributed throgh various media outlets, the single party and democratically fascist government consciously decided to negate any mention of the word “terrorism” in association with white supremacy.

With continued social unrest the ethicality of the use of the word “terrorism” in mass media, is an important conscideration to take. If a country is not willing to define domestic acts of terror as “terrorism” yet uses the word to amplify their own political views as Trump has done by attempting to label antifa (an ideology not an organisation) and BLM as terrorists on national news (France 24 News, 2020). As we take into account the current and past events that led to the condition both the USA and UK are in, associating “terrorism” with minorities and immigrants must be reconscidered when part of the rising threat of terrorism is contributed to by white supremacy as preducated by National Police Chief’s Council lead for counter terrorism policing, Neil Basu in a Channel 4 Interview. In this interview, Basu says 7 of the 22 plots foiled since 2017 have been in association with white supremacy. The only effective way to deal with this and other racial and religious biases, is to elect people into power who provide fair and equal ideas for the betterment of our global society. In doing so, we will be able to provide a clear definition for terrorism and an equal understanding that the treat of terror can not solely be attributed to minorities or immigrants without running into ethical issues as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has stated in her question to the FBI over the double standard that goes into labeling organisations and people as terrorists (Guardian News, 2019). When a topic such as terrorism is spoken about on mass media outlets, we must understand our words have consequences legally, socially, and ethically. Using words such as terrorism in connotation with minorities can have long lasting affects on the legislation of a country, and the ability for the general public to coexist in a multicultural society.

Bibliography

Al Jazeera, 2010. People & Power - White Power USA. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8PsZwlv0Uk> [Accessed 31 September 2020].

Al Jazeera, 2014. War On Terror, War On Muslims?. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkJGd22W55o> [Accessed 21 October 2020].

Bergen, P., 2020. September 11 Attacks. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: <https://www.britannica.com/event/September-11-attacks/The-attacks#ref301276> [Accessed 4 November 2020].

Choudhury, T. and Fenwick, H., 2011. The Impact Of Counter-Terrorism Measures On

Muslim Communities. [ebook] Manchester: Durham University, p.iii. Available at: <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-72-the-impact-of-counter-terrorism-measures-on-muslim-communities.pdf> [Accessed 5 October 2020].

2015. Federal Tactical Teams. [ebook] Congressional Research Service, pp.1-3.

Available at: <https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44179> [Accessed 20 October 2020].

Ferrari, N., 2018. Nick Schools Caller Who Said 7/7 Bombers Weren't British Natives.

[video] Available at: <https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/caller-who-said-7-7-bombers-werent-british/> [Accessed 3 November 2020].

France 24 News, 2020. Trump To Designate ‘Antifa’ As Terrorist Organization After

Unrest Over George Floyd's Death. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrGWjMnHBp8> [Accessed 1 October 2020].

Grabianowski, E., 2007. How SWAT Teams Work. [online] HowStuffWorks. Available at: <https://people.howstuffworks.com/swat-team.htm#pt5> [Accessed 10 October 2020].

Guardian News, 2019. 'Is White Supremacy Not A Global Issue?' Ocasio-Cortez

Dissects FBI’S Terrorism Definition. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HeLL6WC8k0> [Accessed 2 October 2020].

ITV News, 2019. Why Does America Struggle To Call White Supremacists Terrorists?.

[video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsKFpJ-cyJY> [Accessed 10 October 2020].

Jenkins, J., 2020. Terrorism. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: <https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism> [Accessed 30 October 2020].

PBS, 2019. Documenting Hate: Charlottesville. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPLvWO_SOgM> [Accessed 30 September 2020].

Sky News, 2014. 7/7 Attacks On London. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFb-gV-6uDo> [Accessed 19 October 2020].

[creepingsharia]

“They Asked Him to Deny Christ” - Muslim Persecution of Christians, August 2019

by Raymond Ibrahim

Hate for and Violence against Christians

Cameroon: Militant Muslims reportedly connected with the Nigerian based Islamic terror group, Boko Haram, “reached new heights” of depravity, according to a report: after devastating the Christian village of Kalagari in a raid, they kidnapped and fled with eight women.  Some of the women were later released—but only after having their ears cut off (image here).  The report adds that  Boko Haram “has terrorised Christian communities in Nigeria for the last decade and has now splintered and spread its violent ideology into Cameroon, Niger and Chad.”

Nigeria: On August 29, Chuck Holton, a CBN News reporter, aired a segment on his visit with Christian refugees who had fled Boko Haram’s incursions into their villages.  Among the stories of death and devastation, the following, spoken by a young man, stood out: “On 29 September 2014 was the day that they attacked my village. Around ten I had a call that they have killed my dad. They asked him to deny Christ and when he refused they cut off his right hand. Then he refused [again], they cut to the elbow. In which he refused, before they shot him in the forehead, the neck, and chest.” “Many of the 1,500 Christians living in this camp have similar stories,” adds Holton.

Indonesia: A Muslim preacher in a Christian majority region referred to the Christian cross as “an element of the devil,” prompting outrage among Christians and some moderates.   Sheikh Abdul Somad made the comment during a videotaped sermon when he was asked why Muslims “felt a chill whenever they saw a crucifix.”   “Because of Satan! Was his response: “There’s an evil jinn in every crucifix that wants to convert people into Christianity.”  Christians and moderates condemned his words.  Even so, “I can’t imagine the reaction if it had been another preacher of a different religion insulting an Islamic symbol,” observed one moderate. “There would have been a tsunami of protests, with the perpetrator severely punished.”  Sheikh Somad responded by releasing another video; his excuse was that he was unaware that non-Muslims might hear his words: “The Quran reciting session was held in a closed mosque, not at a stadium, a football field, nor aired on television,” he explained. “It was for Muslims internally. I was answering a question about statues and the position of the Prophet Isa (Jesus) relative to Muslims.”

Burkina Faso: Although most mainstream media downplay the religious element in Muslim on Christian violence in Africa, attacks on the Christians of Burkina Faso have become so flagrantly based on religion that the Washington Post published a report on August 21 titled,  “Islamist militants are targeting Christians in Burkina Faso.”  Its author, Danielle Paquette, explained that “A spreading Islamist insurgency has transformed Burkina Faso from a peaceful country known for farming, a celebrated film festival and religious tolerance into a hotbed of extremism.”  She noted that the jihadis have been checking people’s necks for Christian symbols, killing anyone wearing a crucifix or carrying any other Christian image.   In a separate report discussing several deadly attacks on Christians and their churches, Bishop Dabiré said, “If this continues without anyone intervening, the result will be the elimination of the Christian presence in this area and — perhaps in the future —in the entire country.

Egypt: Authorities reinstated Sheikh Yasser Burhami, a notoriously “radical” cleric and hate preacher, to the pulpit (minbar) despite strong opposition.  Burhami had previously issued numerous fatwas—edicts based on Islamic scriptures—that demand hate and hostility for non-Muslims, most specifically the nation’s largest and most visible minority, the Christian Copts, whom Burhami has referred to as “a criminal and infidel minority,” and has invoked “Allah’s curse” on them.  He once went so far as to say that, although a Muslim man is permitted to marry Christian or Jewish women (ahl al-kitab), he must make sure he still hates them in his heart—and show them this hate—because they are infidels; otherwise he risks compromising his Islam.  Burhami has also stated that churches—which he refers to as “places of polytheism (shirk) and houses of infidelity (kufr)”���must never be built in Egypt.  He issued a separate fatwa forbidding Muslim taxi and bus drivers from transporting Christian clergymen to their churches, an act he depicted as being “more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar.”  Burhami’s fatwas also include calling for the persecution of apostates, permitting Muslim husbands to abandon their wives to rape, permitting “marriage” to 12-year-old girls,  and banning Mother’s Day.  In a video, Dr. Naguib Ghobrial, a Coptic activist, politician, and head of the Egyptian Union for Human Rights Organization—which over the years has lodged 22 separate complaints against Burhami—repeatedly questioned Egypt’s leading religious authorities’ decision to reinstate the hate preaching sheikh:

Is what Burhami teaches truly what Islam teaches—is that why no one has done anything to him [in regards to the 22 complaints lodged against him]?  Truly I’m shocked!  Please answer Sheikh of Al Azhar; please answer Grand Mufti: are the things Burhami teaches what Islam teaches?  Is this why none of you oppose him or joined us when we lodged complaints against him?… Why are you so silent? Amazing!

The Slaughter of Christians

Pakistan: “A ten year old Christian child who chose to work in a dangerous scrap factory so he could support his mother who had to fend for a family of two boys and a drug-addict husband, was raped and tortured before being killed by his Muslim employers,” according to a report (with photos).  Badil, 10, worked at the men’s factory in order to support his impoverished mother, Sharifa Bibi:

I worked hard for many hours just for the sake of my two sons so that they would not have to suffer as I have suffered without education.  My son Badil couldn’t bear to see the struggle of his mother and insisted on working to help the family—despite my insistence that he avoid work till he was older.  Badil was such a responsible son.  Daily before leaving for work he asked me what should bring in the evening from his wages.  I insisted that he kept his money for himself, but he brought groceries like sugar, rice, flour, ghee daily.

Badil had to walk long distances and work for many hours a day to earn the equivalent of one dollar a day.  Soon his employer began to cheat him on his wages.  His mother insisted that he quit, but the boy persevered; at one point he took his younger brother, 9, with him to help.  When the employers refused to pay his brother anything for his contribution, Badil finally decided to quit—which angered his Muslim employer.  His younger brother recalls:

As Mr Akram heard this he ran to hit Badil but Badil ran from the shop and Akram gave chase.  However, A friend of Akram was standing nearby on his motorcycle and told Akram to sit behind him, then both men chased Badil till they caught up with him. Akram then got off the motorcycle and dragged Badil back to the store.  They took Badil inside the store which is full of scrap.  For half an hour I was completely unaware of what was happening with Badil inside.  Eventually both men came outside and pretended as if nothing had happened inside.  I thought my brother had also left the store from another exit so I went to look for him.  I searched vigorously for 15 minutes and then saw my mother [approaching to walk the boys home], so I rushed to her to tell her what had happened.

Sharifa and her younger son searched frantically for Badil and finally found him collapsed on the ground near their home.  They rushed to him, thinking he was exhausted from the day’s work and subsequent thrashing, but quickly realized that he was barely breathing: “At this point the whole situation was too much to bear for Sharifa who began to scream and wail hysterically,” the report notes.  Badil was taken to a hospital where, seven hours later, the boy was pronounced dead. His brother “has been traumatised following his brother’s death and hasn’t left his house since and often screams in terror thinking the men responsible will take him too.”

Cameroon: A Bible translator “was butchered to death on Sunday morning [August 25] during an overnight attack while his wife’s arm was cut off,” according to a report:  “Bible translator Angus Abraham Fung was among seven people said to have been killed during an attack carried out by suspected Fulani herdsmen sometime during the early hours of Sunday morning in the town of Wum, according to Efi Tembon, who leads a ministry called Oasis Network for Community Transformation.”  Fulani herdsmen are Muslim and the chief persecutors of Christian farmers in Nigeria.  “They went into houses and pulled out the people,” Tembon explained: “They attacked in the night and nobody was expecting. They just went into the home, pulled them out and slaughtered them.”  Fung’s wife, Eveline Fung, who had her arm hacked off was last reported as receiving a blood transfusion at a local hospital.

Attacks against Apostates and Evangelists

Iran: Authorities sentenced a 65-year-old woman, a Muslim convert to Christianity, to one year in prison, on the charge that she was “acting against national security” and engaging in “propaganda against the system.”  According to the report, “The hearing was owing to her arrest shortly before Christmas when three agents from Iranian intelligence raided her home and took Mahrokh to intelligence offices where she endured ten days of intensive interrogation before she was released after submitting bail of 30 million Toman (US$2,500).”  Friends of the woman said that “the judge was very rude and tried to humiliate Mahrokh after she disagreed with him.”

Separately, a Kurdish bookseller in Bokan, Western Azarbaijan province, was arrested for selling Bibles.  According to the August 27 report, “Mostafa Rahimi was arrested on 11 June on charge of selling bible[s] in his bookstore, and he was released later on bail until the court issued his sentence. Hengaw Organization for Human Rights has learned that Rahimi is sentenced to 3 months and 1 day imprisonment.  Later in mid-August he was arrested again, and he is currently at the central prison of Bokan.”  Another report elaborates: “Iran’s government is officially Islamic, and authorities actively restrict access to Bibles and other Christian literature. Sharing one’s faith is categorized as a criminal offense, usually of the national security nature. The authorities often pressure Christians so extensively, routinely violating their human rights, that they are given no choice but to escape their country.”

Somaliland: An August 16 report shares the experiences a married Muslim woman, 32, underwent after her husband discovered a Bible in her possession.

“I told my husband that I found the Bible in Nairobi and wanted to read it,” the woman responded. “He just pronounced the word talaq [Arabic for divorce] to me. I knew that our marriage had just been rendered null and void because I joined Christianity, so without wasting time I left the homestead….  There and then he took our two daughters [ages 4 and 7] away from me and divorced me.  He gave me a stern warning that I should not come close to the children, and that if I do, he will take the Bible to the Islamic court and I will be killed by stoning for becoming an apostate.”

Her former husband proceeded to expose the clandestine Christian to her Muslim family. “My brothers beat me mercilessly with sticks as well as denying me food,” she said. “I feared to report the case to the police or the local administration, because they will charge me with a criminal offense of apostasy in accordance with the sharia.”  She has since relocated to an undisclosed location: “God has spared my life, and my fellow underground Christians in other regions of Somalia have received me and shared the little they have, but I am very traumatized.”  According to the report,

Somalia’s constitution establishes Islam as the state religion and prohibits the propagation of any other religion, according to the U.S. State Department. It also requires that laws comply with sharia (Islamic law) principles, with no exceptions in application for non-Muslims.  Somalia is ranked 3rd on Christian support group Open Doors’ 2019 World Watch List of the 50 countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian.

Pakistan: After opening a summer education program for the youth, a Christian family was “terrorized” and forced to shut down on the accusation that they were clandestinely trying to convert Muslim children to Christianity.  According to a family member: “We started a project for interfaith harmony and education teaching marginalized children from different faiths about a year ago. In June, we started a summer camp that provided a free program for children that have dropped out of school. The design of this program was to provide guidance for these children to become civilized and tolerant.”  Two weeks into the summer program, a group of men, two of whom were armed, stormed into the academy, did violence to the property and harassed the children, and beat one of the instructors: “They threatened us with consequences if the academy was not shut down.  They alleged that we were promoting Christianity and were doing Christian evangelism.  For safety and security, we had no other choice but to obey the extremists and shutdown the academy….  I don’t want to lose my son or any family member. This terrorizing incident has already put us into trauma.”

In a separate incident in Pakistan, around 4 a.m. of August 2, seven Muslim men stormed into a parish house, where they tied up and savagely beat two young priests, Fr. Anthony Abraz and Fr. Shahid Boota, all while they “humiliated and abused them for preaching the Gospel in a Muslim-majority neighborhood.”  The invaders also vandalized the building—including by breaking windows, bookshelves, and cupboards—and desecrated Christian objects, including Bibles, Christian literature, and icons. Afterwards, “We were told we will have to face consequences if this house is not vacated,” Fr. Abraz reported. “They said, ‘We don’t want a Christian center near the mosque.’”

Finally, increasing numbers of Christian girls continue to be targeted for kidnapping, rape, and/or forced conversion in Pakistan.  According to one report,

In August, Yasmeen Ashraf, age 15, and Muqadas Tufail, age 14, were kidnapped and raped by three men in Kasur. The pair of Christian girls were taken when they were on their way to work as domestic workers.  Also in August, another young Christian girl, named Kanwal, was kidnapped, raped, and forcefully converted to Islam by a group of Muslim men and a cleric in Lala Musa, located in the Gujart District. After reuniting her family, Kanwal shared that she had been beaten, sexually assaulted, and threatened with the deaths of her brothers if she refused to convert to Islam.

In the previous month of July, at least three similar cases occurred.  “Oppression exists in different layers for Christian girls in Pakistan. They are suffering on the bases of gender, religion, and class. It has been documented that young Christian girls face higher levels of sexual harassment and are persecuted for their Christian faith,” Nabila Feroz Bhatti, a human rights defender in Lahore, said in response to the aforementioned incidents.  Similarly, the Pontifical charity, Aid to the Church in Need, announced in August that it “is sounding the alarm on the plight of young Christian women, and even teenagers, in Pakistan who are forced to convert to Islam.”  “Every year at least a thousand girls are kidnapped, raped, and forced to convert to Islam, even forced to marry their tormentors,” elaborated Tabassum Yousaf, a local Catholic lawyer.

Meanwhile, those who try to protect Christian girls are punished.  On August 16, Maskeen Khan and two other Muslim men attacked the home of Bahadur Masih, a Christian.  While holding a knife, Khan and his partners tried to rape Masih’s daughter, Rachel, but were prevented by the rudely awoken family that immediately and desperately responded.  “Since the Christian family was defending themselves, Khan also got some injuries,” Ahsan Masih Sindhu, a local Christian political leader, reported. “The family handed Khan over to police and he got medical treatment. However, he later died in police custody.”  Police arrested and charged four members of the family with murder, even though they were in their own home protecting their daughter from violent intruders.  Other members of the family have gone into hiding due to threats from the dead would-be rapist’s relatives.  “We are sad about the death of Khan, however, the Christian family did have the right to defend,” Sindhu explained. “The police must conduct a fair investigation into this incident.”  Instead, police are denying the family the “right to defend” itself.

Attacks on Churches

Algeria: On August 6, police barged into a church during worship service, evacuated reluctant worshippers, and sealed the church building off.  “I am deeply saddened by so much injustice – it breaks my heart,” Messaoud Takilt, the pastor said.  “This is not surprising since other Christian places of worship have been closed and sealed as was the case today. But anyway, we will continue to celebrate our services outside while the Lord gives us grace for a final solution.”  When police denied, with a veiled threat, his request to at least let the worship service conclude,  “The assembly finally yielded and agreed to leave the premises, but with much pain.  Some went out with eyes full of tears. ”  Police proceeded to empty the premises of all furniture and sealed off every door before the distressed pastor (picture here).  Responding to this latest church closure the World Evangelical Alliance issued a statement on August 12 calling on Algeria to cease closing and instead reopen churches. A portion follows:

We deeply regret that two additional churches were forcibly closed by administrative decisions, in May and in August 2019 in the city of Boudjima, northeast of Tizi-Ouzou in Kabylie Region.  This brings the number of forcibly closed churches to 6, including one house church…. Many more churches are threatened with closure, amid denial of formal registration and recognition by authorities.

Indonesia: Muslim protestors compelled local authorities to revoke a permit for and cease construction of a Baptist church in Central Java.  On August 1, residents went to the partially constructed church and padlocked its fence.  A meeting was later held between the church, local residents, authorities, and others.  Although the pastor displayed the governmentally issued permit to build a church, Muslim residents insisted that it was wrongly given, leading to a standstill in negotiations.  In the previous month, July, two other churches were shut down in Indonesia following local protests.

Turkey: St. Theodoros Trion, an abandoned, historic church—the original Greek congregation of which was purged by the Ottoman Empire—was vandalized, including with genocidal slogans.  According to the report,

The vandals sprayed hate speech across the church’s walls. The vandalism was largely a reference to the secularism that Ataturk, modern Turkey’s founder, had forced into the governmental structure….  Just a few years ago, the same church was targeted by Islamist vandals who wrote slogans such as “the priest is gone, he went to the mosque” — a reference to the country’s genocide and the forced conversions which occurred during this time. There are no Christians attending this church. All of the congregants were victims of the genocide. They faced death, deportation, and forced conversions. Those few who survived have since fled the country. The church currently stands as a historic monument to the Christianity that once was commonplace in the region.

Egypt: A Christian toddler was the latest, if inadvertent, victim of Egypt’s draconian restrictions on churches.    According to an August 21 report, Youssed Ebid, a 4-year-old Christian boy (photo), was struck by a tractor while waiting outdoors for a bus to take him to church in another village.  His own village is currently denied one, forcing its Christian residents to travel long distances to attend church.  Many Christians in Egypt are in the same situation, and accidents during their long treks are not uncommon.

Raymond Ibrahim, author of the new book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

About this Series

The persecution of Christians in the Islamic world has become endemic.  Accordingly, “Muslim Persecution of Christians” was developed in 2011 to collate some—by no means all—of the instances of persecution that occur or are reported each month. It serves two purposes:

1)          To document that which the mainstream media does not: the habitual, if not chronic, persecution of Christians.

2)          To show that such persecution is not “random,” but systematic and interrelated—that it is rooted in a worldview inspired by Islamic Sharia.

[southeastasianists]

The time has come where Philippine Rodrigo Duterte is no longer one of a kind. Last October, Brazil elected its very own populist, misogynist strongman in the form of Jair Bolsanaro.

The similarities could not be more pronounced. Both men ran on the promise of law and order, emerging from contexts plagued by crime and corruption. Both men are practicing penal or “criminal” populism. They are offering simplistic solutions to complex problems of development but what they have undertaken does not solve the issues of poverty, inequality, and corruption within their own countries.

The Philippines’ transition to democracy has left much to be desired. After the overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos and the creation of a new constitution in 1987, the Filipino people hoped for a government that was free of corruption. However, the resultant People Power Government was ineffective and mired in scandal. As it stands, the Philippines has the highest level of poverty amongst ASEAN countries as well as the highest level of income inequality between the rich and the poor. This is attributed to widespread political corruption in the Philippines, which is suffocating the most marginalised communities. Before Duterte’s election, the Philippines saw an increase of 300% in serious crime from 2012–2014.  In addition, the autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is known for high levels of violent crime, murder, kidnapping and internal conflict. Duterte and other politicians have lobbied on the public’s fear of crime and drugs spreading across the country and into their communities.

Brazil’s transition to democracy has also been rocky. There has been tremendous growth in terms of wealth, but widespread poverty and inequality still plague the country. Brazil has one of the highest levels of urban poverty in Latin America and carries the same of having the highest levels of income inequality in the region. This is also attributed to corruption in government and business, which amount to an elite class of “Brazilianaires”. The well documented “Lavo Jato” anti-corruption campaign shed light on billions of reals in money laundering lining the pockets of politicians. Additionally, a record high 62,000 Brazilians died because of violent crime last year, including well known politician Marielle Franco. Seventeen of Brazil’s major cities are among the most dangerous in the world for violent crime. Undoubtedly, Brazil is becoming more dangerous and past administrations have failed to counter it.

There is no denying that the economic and safety issues of both countries contributed to the rise of these two populist strongmen. Duterte and Bolsonaro harnessed the frustration and fears of their citizens and rode on a wave of criminal populism. Their tough talk and rhetoric resonated with an electorate that was desperate for change.

Born into a political family, Duterte became the mayor of Davao City in 1988. Human rights groups claim his association to the Davao death squad, which targeted drug dealers, petty criminals, and even his political opponents leading to the death of over 1,400 people. Upon his nomination for president in 2015, Duterte emerged as a front runner because of his reputation for being tough on crime. He promised to kill over 100,000 criminals and dump their bodies in Manila Bay. He promised to rid the Philippine government of corruption in 3 months, by any means.

Despite or because of his inflammatory comments, he won the election in a landslide victory. Since Duterte’s election in 2016, over 4,200 people have been killed in anti-drug operations, with an additional 23,000 homicides under investigation. Human rights groups have condemned his actions and believe that the real numbers are much higher. Duterte has compared his war on drugs to Hitler, stating “he massacred 3 million Jews, there are 3 million drug dealers, I’d be happy to kill them.” Duterte extends no sympathy for whomever he labels as “criminal”, seemingly taking pride in their extinction. He now faces an inquiry for crimes against humanity from the international criminal court.

Jair Bolsonaro shares many similarities with Duterte. Bolsonaro has been a politician for over 27 years. He built a reputation as a controversial leader with his tough talk and provocative rhetoric. “A dead son is better than a gay one,” he once said.

As corruption scandals came to light and levels of violence reached new highs, Bolsonaro’s far right approach to these problems distinguished him from other politicians. He quickly became a front runner in the Brazilian election. Brazilians were tired of the scandal plagued Workers Party (PT). When Bolsonaro was pitted against the relatively unknown Fernando Haddad of PT in the presidential run-off, the contest became uncompetitive. Despite his ultra-conservative stances and controversial language, Brazilians were eager for someone to quell years of political instability.

Bolsonaro ran his campaign like Duterte’s. He focused on eliminating the country of corruption and crime. He promised to use the military to eradicate criminals. He wants to loosen gun regulations to allow people to defend themselves. Since his election, videos have emerged of police in Rio piling dead bodies into the back of vehicles. Politicians from Bolsonaro’s party praised the efforts to clean up the streets. He promises to fight violence, with violence.

Bolsonaro and Duterte have similar approaches of “cleaning up” their countries. They promise to do so with an iron fist. Nothing will stand in their way, not even the democratic traditions, norms, or constitutions of their states. They have degraded or threatened to purge their countries of the very institutions that make them a democracy. They are practicing creeping authoritarianism in their grasps of power, reminiscent of the dark days of authoritarian rule in both countries.

Duterte has attacked the press, even going so far as charging and arresting journalists critical of his government. He supports extra-judicial killings. He has declared martial law in parts of his country. He has ordered Congress to impeach a Supreme Court justice for having ideological differences. He has established a political climate of fear and faces limited opposition in congress. Duterte has all but eliminated the checks and balances established in the Philippine constitution. As it stands, there is very little to stop him or to oppose his mandate, and most people are too scared to speak out.

Bolsonaro has done or proposes to do similar things. He has attacked journalists and spewed the rhetoric of fake news. He has promised to relinquish control of the police and military, granting them less government oversight in their war on crime. He has appointed military figures to high government posts, including his vice president Antonio Hamilton Mourao, who admits that a “military coup could be a possibility” if crime continues to increase. Bolsonaro has stated that he has no trust in the Brazilian Congress or political system, threatening to shut it down or overthrow it. He has threatened his political rivals with jail. He opposes human rights and is pro-torture. He aligns more closely with military rule than to democratic order.

These two men rose to power as the world undergoes its own political transition. Donald Trump has praised Duterte and overlooks the criticism stemming from human rights organisations around the world. Bolsonaro also has a close relationship with Donald Trump, receiving the ultimate praise; a congratulatory phone call and tweet after his election. These three men have a strongman connection, empowering and emboldening one another’s dismantling of democratic order.

Ultimately, if the United States refuses to speak out against the erosion of democracy in these two countries and the extreme use of force against their own citizens, who will? And will anyone listen?

The main difference between Bolsonaro and Duterte involves the citizens of Brazil. The primary issue facing Bolsonaro, that Duterte does not have, is a large countermovement against him. The country was heavily divided in this election, and it is likely that his polling will look more like Donald Trump’s (40%) than to Duterte (upwards of 80%). He has yet to win over a large part of the country, and with his abrasive rhetoric, he most likely won’t.

This appeal of these strongmen is a part of the growing pains of these young democracies. It is a recognition of the failures of previous governments and demonstrates a need for change.

These men are practicing criminal populism. What they have undertaken does not solve the problems of poverty, inequality, and corruption within their own countries. They are simply lining their streets and favelas with dead bodies. They are fuelling a sense of fear and suppressing their people. Their campaigns hurt their most marginalised and disenfranchised citizens.  Crime rates may drop, but extrajudicial murders and homicides will increase, and already have in the Philippines. The favelas may empty, but they will fill again unless the governments tackle the complex problems facing their societies.

Citizens must not turn a blind eye to authoritarians consolidating their power as days go by. Citizens deserve better. Killing is easy, especially if the targets are the marginalised, the poor—those whose lives are often taken for granted by societies willing to turn a blind eye. Many innocent people are suffering and will continue to suffer long after these strongman’s reigns are over.

[terraaurea]

A note on Keith’s Galra Heritage: a Galrapological analysis nobody asked for

This is my excuse not to work on writing a syllabus. 

I do hope that Voltron someday elaborates even further, either on screen or in interviews/podcasts/comics/etc., about the pre-destruction cultures of Daibazaal. I also REALLY hope the VLD writers do not cop-out and incapacitate Keith by claiming that his Galra genes make him inherently evil or malicious. A few notes from your friendly neighborhood Anthropologist (we’ll see if my knowledge of humans can connect anywhere with alien sci-fi nonsense...)!

1a. I am sure a ton of people have already talked about this, so I won’t go into it too deeply. The main important part is that Galra genes are in fact probably incredibly recessive or at least highly compatible with other species. The Galra species at the time of VLD has an extremely wide range of characteristics, though they tend to share their purplish color scheme. Their body size can range from small, to broad and tall. Sometimes they have tails, furry ears, sharp canines, and eyes with or without irises/pupils. It is difficult to tell whether this is reminiscent of the intergalactic expansion of their Empire over more than 10,000 years, but I would think that has a huge part in it. Lotor shed a lot of light on the subject, since he advocated originally for the fair treatment of Galra with mixed heritage. 

Arguably, however, the Galra phenotypes were far more gracile before Daibazaal’s destruction. There was variation of course, but in general even the broadest of Galra maintained a sleeker facial structure with minimal fur, and no tails. For example, one may be able to see so-called ‘pure’ (scare-quotes) Galra phenotypes in Zarkon by comparing his characteristics to Galra from 10,000 years ago. It is for this reason (in addition to other propaganda) that nobody questions Lotor gracile face, despite his mother being Altean. He appears as a visionary for mixed heritage Galra then in the way that he pretends to be the ‘pure’-blooded savior of the oppressed. Remember, too, that thousands of years of history have been excluded from our knowledge, so there is likely no way to really know for sure what the original phenotypes of the so-called “Galra nation-tribe” were (according to Dayak’s teachings). Dayak does believe though that gracile facial features are signs of more dignified Galra (to Hunk: “That doughy face of yours is very un-Galra”). Cf. these lovely folks to a younger Zarkon pre-Quintessence exposure: 

(To be honest, I still cannot decide whether his supra-cranial ridges are biological/organic, or part of his armor. It does not help that we cannot see his ears)

1b. With all of this said, we learned that in the modern-day Galra Empire there are several shared cultural norms. As a student of cultural change and impact, I have to stress something which I believe is applicable (hopefully, please) to our world and this sci-fi universe: culture and genetics are not explicitly linked, and culture is an acquired characteristic, not an inherited one.

Hunk’s training with Lotor’s childhood governess Dayak tells us a lot. Bless this beautiful boy, realizing that knowing about one another’s culture is important for understanding each other! Up until the destruction of Altea, the Alteans were skilled in this, and even used their ability to shape-shift to work with others when appropriate.

For one, the concept of a ‘blood emperor’ has existed since before the Galra “were a star-faring race.” Lotor appears annoyed by Dayak’s use of the term, but it is clear that her belief in its solidarity remains, and can be seen elsewhere in the discrimination shown to Galra of mixed heritage. Lotor obviously wants to come off as progressive to the paladins, here. From her lessons, which she is pleased to give Hunk, we learn that historic Galra customs held strong weight in: defeating your enemies, absolutes (”victory or death”; alt. Blade of Marmora “knowledge or death”), enlightening pain (palen-bol), and the belief in a singular “killing thrust” (vrepit sa) that put the Galra above all other tribes on Daibazaal. If anyone has studied history before, it becomes clear that this singular event was likely instead a series of hundreds, or thousands, of years of combat, diplomacy, and the like (cf. ancient Mediterranean/Mesopotamian/Indian flood myths, fictive kings [like the original monarchy of Rome/Romulus and Remus], etc.). This belief in a singular event reinforces the modern Galra preference for absolutes. This is also why there is no error in violence, as it is the “searing light” that “burns away all imperfections” on both societal, and personal levels. There is no in between. Regardless, the most important takeaway is that Hunk learns these tenets from Dayak and is then able to apply them when working with Galra. Young Galra, like Lotor, were not born with these ideologies, but instead learned them (acquired them) from their ancestors, teachers, and families. 

Now that we have addressed basic Galra phenotypology (for funsies), and that culture and genetics are not inexplicably linked, we can cover the reason why it is in VLD’s best interest not to cop-out and give Keith a specific weakness on behalf of his blood heritage. (Also, where there are small links at the most basic level between the human propensity for culture/social interaction on a genetic level is impossible to address here and would be far too anthropo-centric for our purposes, are highly contested, and ultimately inconsequential. Nobody DM me quoting Richard Dawkins and the ‘selfish gene,’ please I beg you). 

2a. I can already sense this possibility: Keith loses control because his ‘Galra-side’ takes over. He cannot help it, becomes openly violent, and regrets his parents having met. He regrets his mother being Galra, and wishes he could either be human or not exist at all. I SINCERELY HOPE THAT VLD DOES ITSELF A FAVOR AND AVOIDS THIS ROUTE. I have faith, because VLD has expressed a decent amount of intuitiveness when it comes to cultural race vs biological species. There are far better ways to go about this, both for the sake of narrative and accuracy! 

At the very most, Keith’s Galra genetics should provide him with a few unique attributes: physical strength and acuity, and at the very most a different level of hormonal sensitivity, leading to increased or decreased moodiness or impulsiveness. Ultimately, the Galra across the Empire are not violent on account of their genes, though. Moody? Perhaps. Bloodthirsty? No. They are violent because of their upbringing. Keith’s impulsiveness is almost certainly more rooted in his difficult childhood, and his discipline issues are mirrored in other human children and adults who have faced similar losses (absent parental figures due to death, bullying, etc.). There is a reason why Shiro appearing in Keith’s life has lead him to slowly improve his self-control. There is a reason why Keith’s experiences with the Blade of Marmora (and likely his mother, Krolia) have had similar effects on his self-control. These situations have provided him with teachers who guide him. Human or Galra, he would have the same issues if he was left unattended for his entire life.

What, then, could give Keith troubles on account of his genes? Simple answer: power.

2b. We saw in the fight between the Black Paladins that in times of intense stress, Keith’s Galra phenotypes show through, making his face purplish and his sclera yellowish. This is interesting because it reminds me more of Altean shapeshifting abilities. Whether this happens in other mixed heritage Galra is hard to discern, and it is equally viable that Krolia is of mixed heritage in the first place. Keith in general has heightened strength and visual acuity, which can already be attributed to his hard work. But, the two years with his mother may have contributed to his growth spurt: Galra lifespans are longer, so he may not have reached physical maturity yet. Being with a parental figure of Galra descent for an extended period of time may also have helped this on some hormonal level.

Keith has worked hard to tame his impulsiveness. Patience yields focus! But, once one has been patient, has grown, and can focus--there are still mistakes to be made. Humans are physically weaker than Alteans and Galra. Should one give the strength of an Altean or Galra to someone like Lance, Hulk, or Pidge, they surely would struggle to reconcile their strength with their ability to overcome enemies, or manipulate others. All suffered in the Quintessence Field while fighting Lotor, because power flowed through them, and their inhibitions were severely lowered. Not because they are bad people, but because it was a physical feeling of something different, imbuing them with pure energy, which Quintessence is. One of the only examples we have of someone successfully doing this is Shiro, whose Galra-tech arm renders him incredibly strong. But, we also now see from the Black Paladins battle that, if not for Shiro’s mind, he would be difficult to beat as an enemy, and could even become cruel on power. When he exclaims, “Now that’s the Keith I remember!” he refers to the boy before he learned control, and whose recklessness paired with his acuity (see his piloting skills at the garrison) made for dangerous situations for himself and others. These are weaknesses not of the body, but of the mind. The body is strong, and the mind falls victim to greed if it has not trained properly to handle it.

Keith may need to come to terms with the power he is awakening, and very well may accidentally hurt someone he cares about without realizing. It should not be because Galra cultural mores are violent and absolutist, though! It should instead be because he does not know his own physical strength. In this way, perfectly good intentions can end very, very badly, very quickly. With the help of mentors (there are many options!) he can overcome this. He is not evil because he is part-Galra, and his Galra genes should not incapacitate him as though he were a soulless robot. It would be an excuse, a cop-out, and low key a reason for the entire galaxy to warrant wiping the universe of Galra genes. Trust me, it would not be good.

This was my TED talk...

[patriotsnet]

Why Do Democrats And Republicans Hate Each Other

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-democrats-and-republicans-hate-each-other/

Why Do Democrats And Republicans Hate Each Other

Partisan Division Has Reached Its Peak Shows An Alarming New Study That Identifies Three Crucial Components

Union workers caravan in support of Joe Biden.

American political polarization has reached alarming heights, shows a new study.

Democrats and Republicans hate the other side more than they love their own party.

The polarization grows worse despite the fact that differences between the sides are not so dramatic.

To say that the current election is stressful and divisive is beyond an understatement. The United States is strained at the seams, ready to explode no matter who wins the presidency. A new study shows just how bad it’s become, with anger at the opposing party now outstripping the love a supporter might have for their own party. To put it in other words: People hate those on the opposite side of the political spectrum more than they care for their own.

Is this a recipe for disaster? The study describes the current political attitudes in the country as “political sectarianism,” linking it to religious fervor. The research also shows that, for many, political identity has become their primary identity.

The study’s lead author Eli Finkel, professor of social psychology at Northwestern University, described the dangers of the situation:

Finkel’s conclusions are based on a survey of dozens of published researched studies, going back to the 1970s. The research drew on the expertise of co-authors from six disciplines: political science, psychology, economics, sociology, management as well as computational social science.

1. “Othering” – seeing the other side as different.

Republicans And Democrats Hate The Other Side More Than They Love Their Own New Analysis Shows

ResearchArts and Science

Disdain for the opposing political party now outweighs affection for one’s own party, shows a new analysis by a multidisciplinary team of researchers.

Disdain for the opposing political party now outweighs affection for one’s own party, shows a new analysis by a multidisciplinary team of researchers. Its conclusions reveal for the first time on record that negative sentiment for the opposition outstrips positive feelings for one’s own partisan affiliation and may be more important than ideological differences in guiding political behavior.

The work, “Political Sectarianism in America,” appears in the latest issue of Science and provides a broad survey of current scientific literature to interpret the current state of politics.

The paper introduces the term “political sectarianism” to describe the phenomenon, offering a new framework to interpret the current state of politics and illuminate current scientific literature. Political sectarianism embodies religious fervor, such as sin, public shaming, and apostasy. But unlike traditional sectarianism, where political identity is secondary to religion, political identity is primary, the authors note.

The team includes researchers from several academic disciplines—political science, psychology, sociology, economics, management, and computational social science. Among them are New York University’s Jay Van Bavel, a professor of psychology and neural science, and Joshua A. Tucker, a professor of politics.

Study: Republicans And Democrats Hate The Other Side More Than They Love Their Own Side

“When ideals and policies matter less than dominating foes, government becomes dysfunctional,” researchers say

Stephanie Kulke

The bitter polarization between the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S. has been on the rise since Newt Gingrich’s partisan combat against President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. But according to a new Northwestern University-led study, disdain for the opposing political party now — and for the first time on record — outweighs affection for one’s own party.

The study, titled “Political sectarianism in America,” will be published Oct. 30 by the journal Science. The authors provide a broad survey of current scientific literature to interpret the current state of politics.

The paper introduces the construct of “political sectarianism” to describe the phenomenon. Political sectarianism has the hallmarks of religious fervor, such as sin, public shaming and apostasy. But unlike traditional sectarianism, where political identity is secondary to religion, political identity is primary.

“The current state of political sectarianism produces prejudice, discrimination and cognitive distortion, undermining the ability of government to serve its core functions of representing the people and solving the nation’s problems,” said lead author Eli Finkel. “Along the way, it makes people increasingly willing to support candidates who undermine democracy and to favor violence in support of their political goals.”

Divided Nation: Democrats Republicans Hate The Other Side More Than They Love Their Own

“When ideals and policies matter less than dominating foes, government becomes dysfunctional,” researchers concluded.

Jason Sandefur

— For the first time on record, disdain for the opposing political party outweighs affection for one’s own party, according to a new study published Thursday in the journal Science.

“When ideals and policies matter less than dominating foes, government becomes dysfunctional,” the study concluded.

“The current state of political sectarianism produces prejudice, discrimination and cognitive distortion, undermining the ability of government to serve its core functions of representing the people and solving the nation’s problems,” said lead author Eli Finkel. “Along the way, it makes people increasingly willing to support candidates who undermine democracy and to favor violence in support of their political goals.”

Finkel is a professor of social psychology with appointments at Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and Kellogg School of Management. To ensure the study’s findings incorporated the collective knowledge base, he recruited co-authors from six academic disciplines: political science, psychology, sociology, economics, management and computational social science.

Using national survey data dating back to the 1970s, the authors combed dozens of published research studies to calculate “the difference between Americans’ warm feelings toward their fellow partisans and their cold feelings toward opposing partisans.” 

The Divide Between Political Parties Feels Big Fortunately Its Smaller Than We Think

Image adapted from: Ben Sweet/Unsplash

Political polarization in the United States was once defined by ideological disagreement. Now, this ideological division has been fused with an “us versus them” sectarianism that feels reminiscent of divisiveness and vitriol more commonly seen in war-torn countries than in healthy democracies. To illustrate the current state of polarization in the United States, consider the following: in the lead up to the most recent presidential election, the federal government arrested a militia that allegedly planned to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, yard signs expressing support for both Democratic and Republican candidates were regularly stolen and vandalized, and businesses across the country boarded up their windows for fear of widespread post-election violence.

As social psychologists, we are interested in understanding how such a toxic form of polarization manifests in our everyday psychology, and how the mental models we hold can undermine social cohesion and democratic health. And as concerned citizens who are also scientists, we are also interested in identifying evidence-based solutions to overcome the division that defines American politics. Through a partnership between a research team at the University of Pennsylvania and the nonprofit organization Beyond Conflict, we work to translate research on political polarization into science-backed interventions to reduce conflict.

Why do these misperceptions matter?

How Americas Political System Creates Space For Republicans To Undermine Democracy

9) Republicans havean unpopular policy agenda

Let Them Eat Tweets

The Republican policy agenda is extremely unpopular. The chart here, taken from Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson’s recent book , compares the relative popularity of the two major legislative efforts of Trump’s first term — tax cuts and Obamacare repeal — to similar high-priority bills in years past. The contrast is striking: The GOP’s modern economic agenda is widely disliked even compared to unpopular bills of the past, a finding consistent with a lot of recent polling data.

Hacker and Pierson argue that this drives Republicans’ emphasis on culture war and anti-Democratic identity politics. This strategy, which they term “plutocratic populism,” allows the party’s super-wealthy backers to get their tax cuts while the base gets the partisan street fight they crave.

The GOP can do this because America’s political system is profoundly unrepresentative. The coalition it can assemble — overwhelmingly white Christian, heavily rural, and increasingly less educated — is a shrinking minority that has lost the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential contests. But its voters are ideally positioned to give Republicans advantages in the Electoral College and the Senate, allowing the party to remain viable despite representing significantly fewer voters than the Democrats do.

10) Some of the most consequential Republican attacks on democracy happen at the state level

11) The national GOP has broken government

Mike Pence Accidentally Admits The Real Reason Republicans Hate Democrats So Much

Common Dreams

The grassroots organization People for Bernie on Tuesday advised the Democratic Party to take a page from an unlikely source—right-wing Vice President Mike Pence—after Pence told a rally crowd in Florida that progressives and Democrats “want to make rich people poorer, and poor people more comfortable.”

“Good message,” tweeted the group, alerting the Democratic National Committee to adopt the vice president’s simple, straightforward description of how the party can prioritize working people over corporations and the rich.

Suggesting that a progressive approach to the economy will harm the country—despite the fact that other wealthy nations already invest heavily in making low- and middle-income “more comfortable” by taxing corporations and very high earners—Pence touted the Republicans’ aim to “cut taxes” and “roll back regulations.”

The vice president didn’t mention how the Trump administration’s 2017 tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited wealthy households and powerful corporations, with corporate income tax rates slashed from 35% to 21%, corporate tax revenues plummeting, and a surge in stock buybacks while workers saw “no discernible wage increase” according to a report released last year by the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Popular Democracy.

Pence’s description of progressive goals was “exactly” correct, author and commentator Anand Giridharadas tweeted.

“Yes, and what’s wrong with making poor people more comfortable?” asked Rep. Ilhan Omar .

Think Republicans Are Disconnected From Reality It’s Even Worse Among Liberals

Arlie Hochschild

A new survey found Democrats live with less political diversity despite being more tolerant of it – with startling results

Last modified on Tue 8 Sep 2020 16.13 BST

In a surprising new national survey, members of each major American political party were asked what they imagined to be the beliefs held by members of the other. The survey asked Democrats: “How many Republicans believe that racism is still a problem in America today?” Democrats guessed 50%. It’s actually 79%. The survey asked Republicans how many Democrats believe “most police are bad people”. Republicans estimated half; it’s really 15%.

The survey, published by the thinktank More in Common as part of its Hidden Tribes of America project, was based on a sample of more than 2,000 people. One of the study’s findings: the wilder a person’s guess as to what the other party is thinking, the more likely they are to also personally disparage members of the opposite party as mean, selfish or bad. Not only do the two parties diverge on a great many issues, they also disagree on what they disagree on.

Read more

“This effect,” the report says, “is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree.” And the more politically engaged a person is, the greater the distortion.

A coalition of college Republican clubs recently endorsed a tax on carbon pollution.

Republicans Dont Understand Democratsand Democrats Dont Understand Republicans

A new study shows Americans have little understanding of their political adversaries—and education doesn’t help.

About the author: Yascha Mounk is a contributing writer at The Atlantic, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and the founder of Persuasion.

Americans often lament the rise of “extreme partisanship,” but this is a poor description of political reality: Far from increasing, Americans’ attachment to their political parties has considerably weakened over the past years. Liberals no longer strongly identify with the Democratic Party and conservatives no longer strongly identify with the Republican Party.

What is corroding American politics is, specifically, negative partisanship: Although most liberals feel conflicted about the Democratic Party, they really hate the Republican Party. And even though most conservatives feel conflicted about the Republican Party, they really hate the Democratic Party.

America’s political divisions are driven by hatred of an out-group rather than love of the in-group. The question is: Why?

David Pozen, Eric Talley, and Julian Nyarko: Republicans and Democrats are describing two different Constitutions

Democrats also estimated that four in 10 Republicans believe that “many Muslims are good Americans,” and that only half recognize that “racism still exists in America.” In reality, those figures were two-thirds and four in five.

Why Do We Suddenly Not Want Our Elected Officials To Get Along With Each Other

Surely the doxxing of an opponent’s donors, snarking on Twitter, and what basically amounts to little more than schoolyard name-calling is detracting and distracting from the job of good governance.

This is leadership? If all this bitter hatred is real, we’re really in trouble. People who hate each other this much can’t be expected to overcome such disfunction. If it’s exaggerated for effect, or more specifically for campaign fundraising effect, we’re in even worse trouble.

Because people are actually buying it.

If their elected official is blasting, ripping, sick-burning, and raging against “evil” political opponents on Twitter, that elected official is doing what we elected them to do. Get them!

If the elected official is reaching across the aisle, compromising, and working together with their political opponents, they are NOT doing what we elected them to do. Get them!

Except they are. That is exactly what elected officials were sent to Capitol Hill to do; bipartisan compromise is the only way anything ever gets done.

What would become of a company whose employees treated each other this rudely, and in public?

Like any business, colleagues have to work together. That means respecting each other, on and off social media; even if you don’t like each other.

Who are we kidding, especially if you don’t particularly like each other.

Or not.

Different strokes.

Getting along has never been more important. So do us all a favor, and tone it down, whatever your political bent.

Pandemic Puts A Crimp On Voter Registration Potentially Altering Electorate

For all the discussion about the effect of voter ID laws, however, a study last year found that whatever impact those laws might have is offset by increased organization and activism by nonwhite voters — leading to no change in registration or turnout.

Another battleground is early and absentee voting. Rules vary by state, with some requiring more explanation than others as to what’s permissible.

Bitter lessons

The parties today have arrived at this moment after years of what they would argue were bad experiences with elections at the hands of their opponents.

Republicans, among other things, sometimes point to what they believe was cheating in the 1960 presidential race. Alleged Democratic chicanery, in this telling, threw the results to John F. Kennedy and cost the race for Richard Nixon.

Fraudulent IDs, undocumented immigrants voting, people being “bused in” on Election Day remain consistent themes when Republicans talk about elections.

Democrats look to the decades of Jim Crow discrimination that kept many black voters out of elections.

More recently, they look at the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision that handed the outcome of that election to George W. Bush over Al Gore. The court halted the counting of ballots that Democrats argued could have changed Florida’s results, swinging the state to Gore.

Abrams’ group perceives what it calls a deliberate campaign by the establishment to purge Georgia voter rolls of mainly black or Democratic voters.

Matters of principle

We’re Less Far Apart Politically Than We Think Why Can’t We All Get Along

Partisans on both sides of the aisle significantly overestimate the extent of extremism in the opposing party. The more partisan the thinker, the more distorted the other side appears. And when we see the opposition as extremists, we fear them. Our tribal thinking prepares us for battle.

What’s the solution? More information? More political engagement? More education?

Surely more information leads to better judgment. But social scientists at the international initiative More in Common find that having more information from the news media is associated with a less accurate understanding of political opponents. Part of the problem appears to be the political biases of media sources themselves. Of all the various news media examined, only the traditional TV networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, are associated with a better understanding of political views.

This discrepancy may be a result of the lack of political diversity among professors and administrators on campus. As political scientist Sam Abrams found, the average left to right ratio of professors nationwide is 6 to 1 and the ratio of student-facing administrators is 12 to 1. Democrats who have few or no Republican friends see the other side as more extreme than do those with more politically diverse friends. And the more educated Democrats are, the less likely they are to have friends who don’t share their political beliefs.

So what can you do?

A version of this article appeared on the Newsmax platform.

Most Republicans See Democrats Not As Political Opponents But As Enemies

The idea is a simple one: A country in which people with at-times differing views of how things should be run get together and vote on representatives who will enact policy. The candidates with the most support take office, working to build consensus for the policies their constituents want to see. Both before and after the election, there’s an expectation that disagreements will be resolvable and resolved.

arrow-right

This is an idealized version of our system, of course, but that’s how ideals work. Central to American politics is the idea that even if your candidate loses, the winner will advocate for you. But in an era in which the winners of elections in November are often those who manage to clamber over their primary opponents in the spring, the idea that a Democratic legislator will feel beholden to Republican constituents — or vice versa — seems almost quaint.

That said, we run the risk of establishing an equivalence where one may not exist. For example, we have new polling from CBS News, conducted by YouGov, which explores how members of each political party tend to think of members of the opposing party.

Most Democrats say that they tend to view Republicans as political opponents. Most Republicans say that they tend to view Democrats as enemies.

How is this unwound?

The Legal Fight Over Voting Rights During The Pandemic Is Getting Hotter

Or as former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, told NPR, there are no “fair” maps in the discussion about how to draw voting districts — because what Democrats call “fair” maps are those, he believes, that favor them.

No, say voting rights groups and many Democrats — the only “fair” way to conduct an election is to admit as many voters as possible. Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams, who has charged authorities in her home state with suppressing turnout, named her public interest group Fair Fight Action.

Access vs. security

The pandemic has added another layer of complexity with the new emphasis it has put on voting by mail. President Trump says he opposes expanding voting by mail, and his allies, including White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, call the process rife with opportunities for fraud.

Even so, Trump and McEnany both voted by mail this year in Florida, and Republican officials across the country have encouraged voting by mail.

Democrats, who have made election security and voting access a big part of their political brand for several years, argue that the pandemic might discourage people from going to old-fashioned polling sites.

Democrats And Republicans Dislike Each Other Far Less Than Most Believe

A new study indicates that some of our political polarization is based on unfounded beliefs.

Democrats and Republicans dislike and dehumanize one another roughly equally.

At least 70% of both Republicans and Democrats overestimated how much the other group disliked and dehumanized their group.

Political polarization is a well-documented issue in the United States, and the schism between left and right can sometimes feel impossible to overcome. But a new study from the Peace and Conflict Neuroscience Lab at the Annenberg School for Communication and Beyond Conflict may offer some hope for the future.

Often, people’s actions towards a group they are not part of are motivated not only by their perceptions of that group, but also by how they think that group perceives them. In the case of American politics, this means that the way Democrats act toward Republicans isn’t just a result of what they think of Republicans but also of what they think Republicans think of Democrats, and vice versa.

The study, , found that Democrats do not dislike or dehumanize Republicans as much as Republicans think they do, and Republicans do not dislike or dehumanize Democrats as much as Democrats think they do. This finding could indicate that some of our political polarization is based on unfounded beliefs.

They Hate Each Other’s Political Views So Why Have They Become Friends

Our political culture is becoming more and more polarized. In such a partisan world, can we still get along with those whose beliefs we can’t abide?

Last modified on Thu 8 Oct 2020 11.33 BST

When Glenn Stanton and Sheila Kloefkorn first ended up in the same room together, they knew they were not going to see eye to eye.

Read more

Stanton, the director of Global Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian values organization, had spent years vociferously fighting gay marriage.

Kloefkorn, on the other hand, had married her wife in 2014, on the day gay marriage became legal in Arizona. Having fought for equal marriage for decades, finally being able to wed meant letting go of a life’s share of feeling like a second class citizen.

But today, Stanton and Kloefkorn are friends. They met through Braver Angels, an organization which encourages people to befriend and understand people who have differing political opinions. Today, they laugh when people are surprised at their friendship.

“I don’t believe that Glenn is out to get me in the way I probably would have in the beginning of my activism. I just really believe he feels strongly about the things he cares about, and that’s a great thing,” says Kloefkorn.

Reaching to the other side may sound like self-inflected pain, butKloefkorn took those steps for a very personal reason: she the only liberal in her staunchly conservative, evangelical family.

New Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Voting By Mail Amid Pandemic

Traditionally, Republicans have tended to support higher barriers to voting and often focus on voter identification and security to protect against fraud. All the same, about half of GOP voters back expanding vote by mail in light of the pandemic.

Democrats tend to support lowering barriers and focus on making access for voters easier, with a view to encouraging engagement. They support expanding votes via mail too.

The next fight, in many cases, is about who and how many get what access via mail.

All this also creates a dynamic in which many political practitioners can’t envision a neutral compromise, because no matter what philosophy a state adopts, it’s perceived as zero-sum.

Why Hatred And Othering Of Political Foes Has Spiked To Extreme Levels

The new political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable and morally contemptible

In 1950 the American Political Science Association issued a report expressing concern that Americans exhibited an insufficient degree of political polarization. What a difference a new millennium makes. As we approach 2020’s Election Day, the U.S. political landscape has become a Grand Canyon separating blue and red Americans.

So why is this happening? In a review of studies published today in the journal Science, 15 prominent researchers from across the country characterize a new type of polarization that has gripped the U.S. This phenomenon differs from the familiar divergence each party holds on policy issues related to the economy, foreign policy and the role of social safety nets. Instead it centers on members of one party holding a basic abhorrence for their opponents—an “othering” in which a group conceives of its rivals as wholly alien in every way. This toxic form of polarization has fundamentally altered political discourse, public civility and even the way politicians govern. It can be captured in Republicans’ admiration for Donald Trump’s ability to taunt and “dominate” liberals—distilled to the expression “own the libs.”

Scientific American delved into these issues with Eli J. Finkel, a psychology professor at Northwestern University and lead author of the new Science paper.

But how do you get people those facts? How do you get them to even come to the table and listen?

Much Of Ohio Is Trump Country And That Complicates Things For The Gop

However, he said, “conservatives, since the 1960s, have increasingly defined American society as a colorblind society, in the sense that maybe there were some problems in the past but American society corrected itself and now we have these laws and institutions that are meritocratic and anybody, regardless of race, can achieve the American dream.”

Confronted by the Black Lives Matter protests of last summer, as well as the Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 curriculum, which roots American history in its racist past, Hartman said many Americans want simple answers.

“And so critical race theory becomes a stand-in for this larger anxiety about people being upset about persistent racism,” he said.

Legislative action

States such as Idaho and Oklahoma have adopted laws that limit how public school teachers can talk about race in the classroom, and Republican legislatures in nearly half a dozen states have advanced similar bills that target teachings that some educators say they don’t teach anyway.

There’s movement on the national level too.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has introduced the Combating Racist Training in the Military Act, a bill that would prohibit the armed forces and academics at the Defense Department from promoting “anti-American and racist theories,” which, according to the bill’s text, includes critical race theory.

toggle caption

Donalds said the country’s history, including its ills, should be taught, but that critical race theory causes more problems than solutions.

Why Cant Democrats And Republicans Agree On Almost Anything Anymore

Why We’re Polarized

Early on in his newly released Why We’re Polarized, Vox cofounder Ezra Klein explains that his book is not meant to guide us out of the morass that is American politics. Instead, he hopes to deliver a helicopter view showing us how we got so deep in, to view from above the system driving us all batty.

“What I am trying to develop here isn’t so much an answer for the problems of American politics as a framework for understanding them,” Klein, a self-acknowledged liberal, writes in his introduction. “If I’ve done my job well, this book will offer a model that helps make sense of an era in American politics that can seem senseless.”

For Klein, that making sense can only begin if you accept that where we are today in terms of partisanship is fundamentally different from where we’ve been in the past. “The first thing I need to do is convince you something has changed,” he writes. What has changed, exactly, is that “the Democratic and Republican parties of today are not like the Democratic and Republican parties of yesteryear.” Namely, in the past, being a Republican or a Democrat was “not a rich signifier of principles and perspectives.”

Why this realignment happened is complicated—and much of it has to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the split it caused in the Democratic Party between Northern liberals and Southern conservative Dixiecrats.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

A Century After The Race Massacre Tulsa Confronts Its Bloody Past

Academics, particularly legal scholars, have studied critical race theory for decades. But its main entry into the partisan fray came in 2020, when former President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning federal contractors from conducting certain racial sensitivity trainings. It was challenged in court, and President Biden rescinded the order the day he took office.

Since then, the issue has taken hold as a rallying cry among some Republican lawmakers who argue the approach unfairly forces students to consider race and racism.

“A stand-in for this larger anxiety”

Andrew Hartman, a history professor at Illinois State University, described the battle over critical race theory as typical of the culture wars, where “the issue itself is not always the thing driving the controversy.”

“I’m not really sure that the conservatives right now know what it is or know its history,” said Hartman, author of A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars.

He said critical race theory posits that racism is endemic to American society through history and that, consequently, Americans have to think about institutions like the justice system or schools through the perspective of race and racism.

Why Democrats Hate The Electoral College And Republicans Love It

Funny thing. Democrats, who keep losing elections where they get more votes, want to get rid of the Electoral College and Republicans, who keep winning elections where they get less votes, want to keep it.

The Electoral College is certainly the weirdest part of American democracy; a confusing system with a troubled history and an ugly past.

Here are some questions you might have wanted to ask:

1. Why are people talking about the Electoral College right now? A Democrat running for President, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, said at a recent CNN town hall should be abolished.

“Well, my view is that every vote matters,” Warren said. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting. And that means get rid of the Electoral College and everybody counts.”

Plus, 11 states and the District of Columbia have joined something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, whereby states would simply agree to pledge their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Colorado became the 12th state to join that effort last week and Delaware and New Mexico may be next.

However, the compact will only go into effect if a majority of electoral votes are pledged to the popular vote. With Colorado, they’ve only got 181 electoral votes.

9. How are the 538 electoral votes assigned? Each state gets at least 3 electors. California, the most populous state, has 53 congressmen and two senators, so they get 55 electoral votes.

[thedigitalage]

Bursting your (filter) bubble

The dangers behind YouTube’s baseline recommendations of conspiratorial content reinforcing extremist ideologies

Copyright [Mashable] 

Pariser (2011) coined the phrase ‘filter bubble’ to capture the notion of how people are unaware of the individualised filtering that is conducted on their behalf, and hence may not know what important information they are missing out on, as it doesn’t conform to their ‘bubbles’. YouTube’s algorithmic promotion of conspiracy videos has sparked debate surrounding recommendation engines magnifying sensational content. 70% of viewed content on the platform are recommended videos (Solsman, 2018) which YouTube’s algorithm encourages as it enhances engagement and view-time. Because the nature of conspiracy theories are entertaining and provoking, they tend to optimise higher user-engagement (Hussein et al., 2018). August 2019 saw the FBI characterising fringe conspiracy theories as motivators for domestic extremists, crimes and violent activity due to increasing incidents influenced by such beliefs. While YouTube is a convenient source of entertainment and information, its recommendation algorithms are rooted in forcing users into a loop where more conspiracy material is consumed, reinforcing radicalism as opposed to rational factual resources (Bryant, 2020; Zhao et al., 2019). The videos below confirm and elaborate on how YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is programmed in way that may lead to the promotion of conspiracy theories.

Copyright [VICE News on Youtube] 

Copyright [Business Insider on YouTube]

Copyright [BBC]

Several of the global mass shooting attacks have been traced to small-scale thriving online communities such as 8chan, an anonymous message board site that is moderation free and advocates freedom of speech, where users support each others’ xenophobic views and declare violence as the sole remedy (Bryant, 2020). The El Paso shooting mimics a pattern conducted at the Christchurch mosque shootings and Poway synagogue shooting – in both attacks the suspects posted announcements to 8chan, permeated with white nationalist ideologies (Bryant, 2020; Hayden, 2019). Reed et al. (2019) found that YouTube’s recommender systems prioritises extremist right-wing content and after a few clicks, followers of the recommender system are instantly submerged into an ideological bubble that reinforces their pre-existing interests and beliefs (O’Callaghan, 2015). This suggests that engaging with extremist material on YouTube increases the likelihood of coming across similar extreme content in the future, thus proving the existence of YouTube’s dangerous and radicalised filter bubble. A 2017 survey found that only 9% of Americans considered it acceptable to possess alt-right or Neo-Nazi beliefs whereas 50% of Americans deemed these opinions inappropriate (Langer, 2017). Unsurprisingly, this minority of outspoken right-dependent online groups that generate substantial content online and with a large amount of that content dedicated to YouTube, further supporting Reed et al.’s (2019) findings. 

However, YouTube were quick to condemn these claims highlighting that users are always given the choice to engage or not with recommended content, and that the algorithms simply respond to each user’s online behaviours and interests (Faddoul et al., 2020). Although the role of the user’s choice is a debate for another time, it is still important that we strive to burst these so-called filter bubbles. When people begin to believe that everyone’s engine searches and recommended content are identical, regardless of the level of extremism, a potentially dangerous ideology is born.

Copyright [Axios]

References

Bryant, L. V. (2020). The YouTube Algorithm and the Alt-Right Filter Bubble. Open Information Science, 4(1), 85-90.

Faddoul, M., Chaslot, G., & Farid, H. (2020). A Longitudinal Analysis of YouTube's Promotion of Conspiracy Videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03318.

Hayden, M. E. (2019, August 4). White nationalists praise El Paso attack and mock the dead. Southern Poverty Law Center. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/08/04/white-nationalists-praise-el-paso-attack-and-mock-

Hussain, M. N., Tokdemir, S., Agarwal, N., & Al-Khateeb, S. (2018, August). Analyzing disinformation and crowd manipulation tactics on YouTube. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (pp. 1092-1095). IEEE.

Langer, G. (2017, August 21). Trump approval is low but steady; On Charlottesville lower still. ABC News/Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1190a1TrumpandCharlottesville.pdf

O’Callaghan, D., Greene, D., Conway, M., Carthy, J., & Cunningham, P. (2015). Down the (White) Rabbit Hole: The Extreme Right and Online Recommender Systems. Social Science Computer Review, 33(4), 459-478.

Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. Penguin Press.

Reed, A., Whittaker, J., Votta, F., & Looney, S. (2019). Radical Filter Bubbles: Social Media Personalization Algorithms And Extremist Content. London: Global Research Network on Terrorism and Technology.

Resnick, P., Garrett, R. K., Kriplean, T., Munson, S. A., & Stroud, N. J. (2013, February). Bursting your (filter) bubble: strategies for promoting diverse exposure. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer supported cooperative work companion (pp. 95-100).

[anotherworldnowblog]

1

TOWARDS A THEORY OF A FEEDBACK LOOP OF GOOD VIBRATIONS!

(December 2019 - January 2020)

“The cult of competition must be replaced by the cult of solidarity and of sharing.” - Franco Berardi, Futurability

A knowing smile forms underneath my scarf when I pass the bike cop. I smile because I feel, deeply, that his days instilling terror from above us are numbered. Everything from the rusted, oozing “el” tracks to the fact that damn near the entire anti-war protest stopped to help when a younger marcher fell to the ground to the way you are looking at me right now is practically screaming out a song of love, life, and possibility. I allow this tingling, rushing feeling to fill me completely, from my calloused heels up to my swelling throat. I’m high from it. I have developed a new superpower. I can see hope everywhere now. I’m drunk with belief in us. Until experiencing it first hand, I might have been convinced that this level of hope was either dangerous, delusional, or - at the very least - unsustainable. That I’d fall into lazy paralysis and a misguided belief in the inevitability of a communist future. But that’s not really how hope works, I think.

Hope is not belief that something is actively happening (i.e. the end of global capitalism), nor is it rooted even in the odds of some potential outcome (i.e. the odds that ***** and I end up together forever). Hope flows out of the possible, indifferent of likelihood. “The future is dark, with a darkness as much of the womb as the grave” (Rebecca Solnit, Hope In The Dark). What comes next is still unwritten, and as long as that remains so, all possibilities are drawn into equivalence in their non-existence, their not-yet-happenedness. To say “anything is possible” is probably too much. As we have said elsewhere, the possible is inscribed in the present (Berardi). But I have never felt so sure that somewhere within the vast, twisting tree of the presently possible there lies at least a few better worlds. And signs seemingly affirming the existence of these possible worlds are blossoming around the globe and rebounding across its networks. Despite the neoliberal capitalists’ attempts to automate the course of history through financial trickery, ideology, and digitization, we are still here in the miserable present, and the future is just as not-here-yet, or “dark,” as ever.

I have come to believe that, at this late stage of capitalism, hope takes on meaning beyond the mere apprehension of a desirable possibility. It transcends its designation as an affective state and moves in the direction of duty and action, or praxis. The maturity of neoliberal capitalism, the pervasive twin logics of finance and digitization, and the social repercussions of existing within a near-Absolute network conjointly give rise to a moment where our hope for the abolition of the nightmarish “present state of things” can be carefully deployed as a weapon or tool for guiding latent possibility into The Really Existing. In the new economy, our sincere belief in the possibility of a future together founded upon ideals of love, global solidarity, and the broadest possible conception of the common good becomes the means of achieving the world we so clearly deserve.

After the neoliberal turn in the 1970’s and 80’s, there could be no doubt: financialization of the economy had fully decoupled the public good from private profit. Major financial institutions were now gambling against the people, at times against the state itself, and even against the very planet’s continued habitability. The economic foundation upon which emerges our society has been transformed by neoliberal capitalism into a depressing mixture of doubt, mistrust, bad faith (not to mention racialized violence, hyper-exploitation, and a politics of cynical inclusion utilizing a cybernetic panopticon). The pace of life quickened to keep up with a system that’s sole focus was short-term profit and ever faster circulation of capital. Drugs were invented to ensure workers’ ability to keep up with the new demands of an accelerating world. Work itself was transformed into an isolated, not to mention precarious, endeavor. Where there had once been factory floors there are now freelancers and independent contractors, where there had been careers there now only stands part-time or seasonal jobs, or “gigs.”

But more than just the physical terrain of work changed with the rise of neoliberalism; production itself was transformed. Today, “it is not use value but emotive or cultic value that plays a constitutive role in the economy of consumption… emotion comes to possess value for capitalism only when a switch to immaterial production occurs. Emotions have become a means of production only in our own times” (Byung-Chul Han, Psychopoltics). The means of production today is nebulous, hard to pin down, both within and without. Not just our personal property (a spare room, a car) but even a thought, a feeling, a relationship becomes a site of value creation. Everyone a means of production! We’re all now our own bosses, little self-contained enterprises, exploiting ourselves endlessly with every “like,” post, or reaction. As Han goes on to say later in the same chapter, “Emotions assume dimensions beyond the scope of use value. In so doing, they open up a field of consumption that is new and knows no limit.” Our emotional, inner selves, the sphere of our lives that used to be firmly our own despite our abysmal conditions as wage slaves has finally become raw material, food, for capital under neoliberalism. At the same time as our working lives have become unbearably precarious and anxiety appears to be the dominant feeling characterizing our moment, technologies are deployed that capture and weaponize that very anxiety against us for the sake of opening up new markets and expanding private profits.

All of this has given rise to an understandably paranoid, sad, lonely, and anxious population who are largely kept too busy and dejected to even take stock of their position or the rapid changes that have and continue to unfold around them, let alone begin organizing for a chance at a better future.

It is this sadness, isolation, exhaustion, and anxiety; this mistrust, bad faith, and simply the lack of faith in each other (or really much of anything) that constitutes the terrain upon which we will wage our revolution. The capitalists’ blind pursuit of speed and profit has sapped the life from, well, life. Our goal must be its prompt return.

“The front line no longer cuts through the middle of society; it now runs through each one of us…”  -Tiqqun, This Is Not A Program

We currently lack the solidarity and technical capacity to break free of this system, but right this moment we do have the ability to begin to prefigure the type of world that comes next and we damn sure have the ability to share that vision with the world– the techno-capitalists made sure of that. In fact, the algorithmic particularities of the networked world make things more plausible or imaginable or possible the more they are seen as plausible or imaginable or possible. The possible is actually made more possible by appearing possible. Within the network, something is made more imaginable when it is imagined.

The networked world is constantly experiencing wild feedback loops (as well as the more insidious, controlled variety) where attention is concentrated, activity streamlined and spread, virally, and the impact of the initial action then exponentially exceeds any prior estimation based on the initial activity’s supposed or predicted potentiality.

Franco Berardi describes these feedback loops as “positive feedback” in his 2015 book, Heroes. He elaborates that,

“Contrary to negative feedback, which maintains stability in a dynamic system through a reduction of the exciting factors, positive feedback is a process in which the effects of a disturbance on a system result in an increase in the intensity of the factors which generate the disturbance. In other words: A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A. Thermal runaway, for instance, is a situation in which an increase in temperature provokes a further increase in temperature, often leading to a destructive result.”

Embodied in the vast architecture of the networked world there lies, not only the obvious apparatus of a Total surveillance and future counterrevolution, but a potential weapon for our side. In building a vast system of interlocking “social networks” governed by a logic of maximized engagement, the capitalists have inadvertently created a situation where possibility can be steered into being by a relatively small number of actors, in our case, revolutionary possibility.

For a decade now, we have unfortunately seen an accelerating positive feedback loop, a wave, fed by the contradictions inherent in American neoliberal capitalism, of horrifying racism mixed with extreme violence. This wave eventually brought us Trump, while globally, a similar phenomenon brought with it Brexit, BoJo, Viktor Orban, Bolsanaro, and most recently, a fascistic coup in Bolivia. But just as the ascent of neo-fascism seems all but guaranteed, we are now witnessing the explosive birth of what could be the beginnings of a global uprising against austerity and neoliberal capitalism. What began with the Gilets Jaunes in Paris, has spread to every corner of the inhabited world. Barricades are burning in Haiti, Mexico, Iraq, Lebanon, and Ecuador. We’ve seen techniques for resisting armed police invented and honed in Hong Kong (laser pointers, tear gas neutralization, umbrellas, etc.) adapted and deployed in Chile within days of each other. Just in the week of this essay’s writing we have seen a local movement for the abolition of public train and bus fares in Chile adopted in New York, and then Toronto, and then Chicago and Seattle. Protestors are bravely de-arrested in Hong Kong and immediately, the possibility of a refusal to be detained fans across the network. Within weeks, footage emerges in France during the general strike of the same: an assertive declination to being taken by the police, on the part of the people.

From every corner of the planet, images of dignified struggle and deep solidarity are being generated and shared, and the belief that another world is not just possible, but preferred, is accelerating through the network. The same is true of the idea that fighting the police is both plausible and necessary. The combination of a brutal, artificial scarcity imposed on the masses from above along with the previously unimaginable level of cognitive interconnectivity thanks to the internet and its social networks, has brought us to the cusp of what could legitimately be a revolutionary moment. And the artificial nature of that aforementioned scarcity is a reason for real confidence in ourselves.

This brings us, finally, to the feedback loop of good vibrations. It is possible, as Subcomandante Marcos once described, referring to the EZLN’s defiant existence as a loosely federated region of communes, that “a crack in history” is in the process of opening up. Capitalist Realism is very probably coming to an end. The contradictions inherent in neoliberal capitalism have become too great to simply smooth over with dreamwork and fentanyl. What comes now, be it fascism or, hopefully, something far more agreeable (Anarcho-communism? Library socialism? Green Stalinism?), is not yet decided. As we are seeing around the world, this is a global civil war. And as has been stated above, the terrain of this struggle is not just the places we work or live but the very feelings in our hearts and dreams in our minds. It is a war for our capacity to imagine and to love.

What is meant by the half tongue-in-cheek notion of a feedback loop of good vibrations is the recognition that our position as situated in a near-Total network can be leveraged towards the aim of steering something known as the Good Life into existence, or at least catalyse a new era of struggle for that Good Life. It is in some ways an inversion of pseudo-Marxist assumptions emerging out of the idea of base-superstructure, that posit culture as something always downstream from politics or economics. Financialization, digitization, and social networkification have conjointly created a situation where the cultural production of a society bleeds back into the political.

Financialization, meaning the increasing influence and size of the financial sector in relation to the overall composition of the economy, creates a pervasive logic of risk aversion, short-term gains, and general stupidity. Digitization prioritizes speed and thus linguistic simplicity and reproducibility. And social networkification results in a spectacular consolidation of global attention, incentivizes participation or inclusion, and turns what was previously known as the private sphere into public life. The confluence of these three forces is what gives us the potential for a feedback loop. Financialization first imbues the entire system with a preference for a “safe bet.” Financialization occuring in tandem with digitization means that this preference for a “safe bet” is algorithmically encoded into the (social) network. A “safe bet” in the era of social networkification is anything that captures human attention. This is where we see the system feedback into itself. Once tagged as a “safe bet,” the algorithm accelerates and concentrates attention within the network for maximum engagement and capture. The possible is actually made more possible by appearing possible.

Up until very recently, this “feedback loop” phenomenon was perhaps hard to spot because late into the era of Capitalist Realism, much of the cultural output of our society does little else than reaffirm the status quo, forming a negative feedback loop. This negative feedback loop has been alluded to by Mark Fisher as the “slow cancellation of the future” in his essays about cultural stagnation and anachronism. We have been stuck in a kind of flattened no-time. The end result is more of the same: limitless wealth for the few and deepening misery for the many. The effect is that financial capitalism becomes a self-regulated, stable system in that its continued existence is all that we are able to conceive of. In fact, it’s continued existence depends on this very dis-ability. It’s “stability” is only relative, obviously, as it is predicated on intensifying boom-bust cycles every 8-12 years and the destruction of the only life bearing planet we currently know of. Our inability to imagine anything beyond dystopia is what guarantees that the future will be a dystopia. That makes the first task for of our revolutionary effort relatively straightforward: imagine something else.

Literally anything else. This is not suggesting a praxis that is limited in its relevance to a specific style of post-capitalist formation. Communist utopia is not (and perhaps should never seek to be) the end of the political or problems, just the end of Capitalism, money, and scarcity. If you allow yourself, imagining utopia is easy. The communist horizon exists dormant within each of us, in our sociality as animals and in our capacity for love as humans. Our utopic vision is OUR vision. The next step is trickier: prefigure, embody, and evangelize that new world while stuck within this one and do so in such a way that leverages our position as unwillingly placed within a near Total network, towards our own, revolutionary ends (in some of the writing to follow this draft, we will use a variety of techniques, including and especially fiction, to describe what this could possibly look like).

There are two parts to the initial work I am referring specifically to here: the aforementioned “prefigurative” work, as well as “narrative” work. Narrative work is simply an attempt to tell a different story. It is when we dream of a better world and share that dream with another. It’s when we articulate a lack and thus a desire. It’s the work of stripping neoliberal capitalist ideology of its power. It’s when we reveal words like “pragmatic” and “sensible” and even “progressive” to be empty constructs and it is when we inject new life into words like “love” and “solidarity” and “trust.” Prefigurative work is more complicated. While this work typically consists of an attempt to embody a future world in the here and now, there is also an understanding that the embodiment will always be incomplete, and due to systemic limitations (the literal price of staying alive, more specifically) will often be unsustainable as well. Prefigurative actions are perhaps inherently performative. That doesn’t mean they can’t meet a real need or seek to deliver a real blow to capital. It is a flash vision of the normally hidden possibilities of other forms of life, uncovered for as long as we can hold them in stasis for common consideration.

But what does it mean for us to attempt this work in a time of immense interconnectivity and hyper-surveillance? What happens when nearly every action creates an image? Can prefigurative action be designed to achieve a certain resonance within the network? Can such an action go beyond the cynicism or doubt or bad faith of our system and exist as a monument to the ideals of a newly possible tomorrow? We already know that the local can overnight become the global thanks to the propensity of the social networks’ algorithms to accelerate. If social media has turned the private lives of individuals into public performances, can those multitudinous singularities, those infinite @’s, be arranged to represent and propagate new potentialities across the networked world?

It at least seems possible.

At long last, we arrive at what I hesitate to even call a theory, so for now let’s call it a hunch. The hunch is this: performative belief in the possibility of a better world actually makes that world more possible, specifically due to the networked, financialized system we currently struggle under.

“What is to be done?” Take care of one another and attempt to narrow the space capitalism carves out between us. The space between us and our better world and the space between each of us is one and the same.

An action creates an image. Every image creates a ripple. Every ripple can become a wave.

“Revolutionary movements do not spread by contamination but by resonance. Something that is constituted here resonates with the shock wave emitted by something constituted over there.… An insurrection is not like a plague or a forest fire — a linear process which spreads from place to place after an initial spark. It rather takes the shape of a music, whose focal points, though dispersed in time and space, succeed in imposing the rhythms of their own vibrations, always taking on more density.”

-The Invisible Committee, The Coming Insurrection

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Last Wednesday, the U.S. Capitol was attacked by a mob of President Trump’s supporters, many of whom had very explicit and not so explicit ties to right-wing extremism in the U.S. There are reports now, too, that there could be subsequent attacks in state capitals this weekend. President Trump’s time in office has undoubtedly had a mainstreaming effect on right-wing extremism, too, with as many as 20 percent of Americans saying they supported the rioters. But as we also know, much of this predates Trump, too. Right-wing extremism has a long, sordid history in the U.S.

The big question I want to ask all of you today is twofold: First, how did we get here, and second, where do we go from here?

Let’s start by unpacking how right-wing extremism has changed in the Trump presidency. How has it?

ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): Well, the first and most obvious thing is that Trump has spoken directly to right-wing extremists. That is to say, using their language, condoning previous armed protests at government buildings and explicitly calling on them to support and protect him. And that, probably unsurprisingly, has emboldened right-wing extremists and made their extremism seem — well, less extreme.

That goes for a wide array of extremists in the U.S., too. I’m thinking, of course, about Trump’s comment after the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, when he said there were “very fine people on both sides.” But Trump has also encouraged white Christian nationalists, anti-government extremists and other groups and individuals that I certainly never thought I’d hear a president expressing sympathy or support for.

jennifer.chudy (Jennifer Chudy, political science professor at Wellesley College): Absolutely, Amelia. And while the actual extremists may represent a small group of the public, the share of Republicans who support their behavior, whether explicitly or implicitly, is not as small. This is, in part, due to mainstream political institutions — like the Republican Party, with Trump at its helm — helping make their mission and behavior seem legitimate.

maggie.koerth (Maggie Koerth, senior science writer): I’ve been talking to experts about this all week, and I think it’s really interesting how even the academics who study this stuff are kind of arguing over the role class plays in it. People like Christian Davenport at the University of Michigan have argued that we should understand that all of this is happening in the context of decades of growing income inequality and political stagnation. In other words, he contends that there are legitimate reasons to be angry at and mistrust the government. But it also seems like this crowd was not even close to being uniformly working class and probably contained people from a range of different backgrounds. And that’s why I liked one of the points Joseph Uscinski at the University of Miami made: We might be seeing a coalescing of two groups: the people who have been actually hurt by that inequality and are angry about it AND the people who are doing pretty well but who feel like somebody might come and take that away. And, of course, both those positions can dovetail very easily into racial animus and white supremacy.

ameliatd: That’s interesting, Maggie. As you alluded to, though, it’s important to be clear that economic anxiety — which was used in the aftermath of Trump’s election to explain why so many Americans voted for a candidate who framed much of his candidacy around animus toward nonwhite people — doesn’t mean that racism or white supremacy isn’t a driving force here, too.

Part of what’s so complex about the mob that attacked the Capitol is that it was a bunch of different people, with somewhat disparate ideologies and goals, united under the “stop the steal” mantra. But underlying a lot of that, even people’s anger over economic inequality or mistrust in institutions, is the fundamental idea that white status and power are being threatened.

jennifer.chudy: There is also just a lot of evidence in political science that racial attitudes are associated with emotions like anger. Two great books, one by Antoine Banks of the University of Maryland and the other by Davin Phoenix of the University of California, Irvine, consider this point in depth. Insofar as right-wing extremists express anger at the system (in contrast to fear or disgust), their anger appears more likely to be motivated by racial grievances than by economic ones.

Additionally, the Republican Party’s base has, for years now, become more racially homogeneous, in part because of the party providing a welcome home to white grievances. But some have argued that this has also been exacerbated by the Democratic Party speaking more explicitly about racial inequality in the U.S., something that wasn’t the case in the 1990s. Regardless, a more racially homogeneous base can make a party’s members more receptive to this type of extremist behavior.

We also can’t underestimate the role that COVID-19 plays here. As Maggie and Amelia suggested in their article from this summer on militias and the coronavirus, many folks are at home and glued to their computers in ways that facilitate this type of organizing. They can burrow themselves into online communities of like-minded folks which may intensify their attitudes and lead to extreme behavior.

Kaleigh: (Kaleigh Rogers, tech and politics reporter): Polling has shown that ideas that previously had been considered extreme, like using violence if your party loses an election, or supporting authoritarian ideas, have definitely become more mainstream.

This is partly due to Trump’s own rhetoric, but also due to the effects of online communities where far-right extremists and white nationalists mingle with more moderate Trump supporters, effectively radicalizing some of them over time.

What’s interesting to me about all of these different factions, though, is there is actually a lot of division among these groups: Many members of the Proud Boys aren’t fans of the QAnon conspiracy, for instance. And a lot of white nationalists don’t like Trump, but they still end up uniting against a perceived common enemy. That’s why you saw people in the mob at the Capitol waving MAGA flags alongside people with clear Nazi symbolism. They are not all white nationalists, but they’re willing to march beside them because they think they’re on the same side.

But in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack, those divisions are becoming more stark in these online communities. I’m seeing a lot of infighting over whether planned marches are a good idea, whether they are “false flag” events or traps or whether they should be armed. There just seems to be this heightened anxiety as they draw closer to an inevitable line that they can’t come back from: Biden’s inauguration.

sarahf: That’s a super important point, Kaleigh, on how different extremist groups have rallied behind this. But given how much Trump has directly spoken to right-wing extremists, as Amelia mentioned up top, can we drill in on the violence, as well? It’s not just that different factions have united or that these views have mainstreamed under Trump, but also that there’s been an actual uptick in violence, too, right?

ameliatd: One thing Maggie and I heard from experts on the modern militia movement is that these groups’ activity levels depend on the political context. The uptick in violence under Trump is real, but it’s not something that’s only happened under Trump. There was a surge in militia activity early in Obama’s presidency, too, for example.

maggie.koerth: Very much so, Amelia. The reality is that the right-wing extremism we’re seeing now is a symptom of long-running trends in American society, including white resentment and racial animus. And on top of that, you have these trends interacting with partisan polarization, which means the political left and right (which used to have fairly similar levels of white racial resentment) began to diverge on measures of racial resentment in the late 1980s and now differ greatly.

Kaleigh: Exactly, Maggie. That’s also why the FBI and other experts are particularly concerned about planned militia marches ahead of the inauguration. These groups tend to be much more organized and deliberate in their actions than the mob we saw last week. And because of that, they’re even more dangerous.

ameliatd: Right, so this violence isn’t new. But I do think it’s fair to say that Trump has raised the stakes so dramatically for right-wing extremists that we’d see a throng of them storming the Capitol. A lot of them see him as their guy in the White House!

So when he says, look, this election is being stolen from me, and you’ve got to do something about it, they listen.

jennifer.chudy: That’s true, Amelia, but work in political science shows just how much of this change was afoot prior to Trump’s election. Some tie it to Hillary Clinton talking too much about race during the 2016 election — they argue that this drove away some white voters who had previously voted Democratic (and could do so in 2008 and ‘12 because Obama, despite being Black, did not mention race much during his candidacy). But Clare Malone’s article for FiveThirtyEight on how Republicans have spent decades prioritizing white people’s interests does a great job of tracing these roots even further back.

maggie.koerth: Yeah, I’m really leery of the tendency I’ve seen in the media to act like this is something that started with Trump, or even that started post-Obama. Most of the experts I’ve spoken with have framed this more like … Trump’s escalation of these dangerous trends is a symptom of the trends. We’re talking about a lot of indicators that have been going in this direction since at least the 1980s.

jennifer.chudy: True, Maggie, from the beginning of the Republic, I might argue! But one reason the tie to Trump and Obama is so interesting is that Trump’s baseless claims around Obama’s birth certificate correspond with his debut on the national political stage. So even as there is a long thread of white supremacy throughout American history that has facilitated Trump’s ascension, there may also be a more proximate connection to recent elections, too.

ameliatd: Ashley Jardina, a political scientist at Duke University, has done some really compelling research on white identity politics — specifically how the country’s diversification has created a kind of “white awareness” among white Americans who are essentially afraid of losing their cultural status and power.

This is a complicated force — she’s clear that it’s not exactly the same thing as racial prejudice — but the result is that many white people have a sense that the hierarchy in which they’ve been privileged is being upset, and they want things to return to the old status quo, which of course was racist. And the Republican Party has been tapping into that sense of fear for a while. Trump’s departure was that he started doing it much more explicitly than previous Republican politicians had mostly done.

So yes, Maggie, you’re absolutely right that it’s not like Trump came on the scene and suddenly right-wing extremism or white supremacist violence became a part of our mjui78 political landscape. Or partisan hatred, for that matter! FiveThirtyEight contributor Lee Drutman has written about the effect of political polarization and how it’s created intense loathing of the other party, and he’s clear that it’s been a long time coming. It didn’t just emerge out of nowhere in 2016, as you can see in the chart below.

On the other hand, though, it’s hard to imagine the events of last week without four years of Trump fanning the flames.

maggie.koerth: Right, Amelia. Trump is a symptom AND he’s making it worse. At the same time.

Kaleigh: What you said, Amelia, also speaks to just how many Trump supporters don’t consider themselves racist and find it insulting to be called so. A lot of Trump supporters think Democrats are obsessed with race and identity politics, and think racism isn’t as systemic of a problem as it is. There are also, of course, nonwhite Trump supporters, which complicates the image that only white working-class Americans feel threatened by efforts to create racial equality.

ameliatd: That’s right, Kaleigh. We haven’t talked about the protests against police brutality and misconduct this summer, but I think that’s a big factor here as well — politicians like Biden saying that we have to deal with systemic racism is itself threatening to a lot of people.

sarahf: It does seem as if we’re in this gray zone, where so much of this predates Trump, and yet Trump has activated underlying sentiments that were perhaps dormant for at least a little while. Any child of the 1990s remembers, for instance, the Oklahoma City bombing and Timothy McVeigh, who held a number of extreme, anti-government views, or the deadly standoff between federal law enforcement officials and right-wing fundamentalists at Ruby Ridge.

And as Jennifer pointed out with Malone’s piece, the thread runs even further back. It’s almost as if it’s always been part of the U.S. but maybe not as omnipresent. That’s also possibly naive, but I’m curious to hear where you all think we go from here — in how does President Biden start to move the U.S. forward?

maggie.koerth: Honestly, that’s the scary part for me, Sarah. Because I don’t really think he can. Everything we know about how you change deeply held beliefs that have to do with identity suggests that the appeals of outsiders doesn’t work.

jennifer.chudy: Yes — one would think that a common formidable challenge, like COVID-19, would help unite different political factions. But if you look at the last few months, that’s not what we see.

maggie.koerth: Even Republican elites who they push back on this stuff get branded as apostates.

ameliatd: And there’s evidence that when Republican elites are perceived as apostates, they may also become targets for violence.

Kaleigh: But we also know that deplatforming agitators helps reduce the spread of their ideas and how much people are exposed to/talk about them. Losing the presidency is kind of the ultimate deplatforming, no?

jennifer.chudy: Is it deplatforming, though? Or is it just moving the platform to a different setting? I don’t know the ins and outs of the technology, but it seems like the message has become dispersed but maybe not extinguished.

sarahf: That’s a good point, Jennifer, and something I think Kaleigh hits on in her article — that is, this question of … was it too little, too late?

maggie.koerth: I think it has been a deplatforming, Jennifer. If for no other reason than it’s removed Trump’s ability to viscerally respond to millions of people immediately. And you see some really big differences between the things he said on Twitter about these extremists last week and the statements he’s made this week, which have had to go through other people.

It’s not so much taken away from his ability to speak, but it does seem to have affected his ability to speak without somebody thinking about the consequences first.

ameliatd: There is an argument that Trump’s presidency and the violence he’s spurred is making the underlying problems impossible to ignore. I’m not sure whether that makes it easier for Biden to deal with them, but it does make it harder for him to just say, ‘Okay, let’s move past this.’

Lilliana Mason, a professor at the University of Maryland who’s written extensively about partisan discord and political violence, told me in a recent interview that while someone like Biden shouldn’t be afraid to push back against Trump or his followers because it will lead to more violence (an argument against impeachment that’s circulated in the past week), she does think pushing back against Trump and his followers probably will result in more violence.

So that leaves us, and Biden, in a pretty scary place.

Republicans are in a bind, too. Electorally, many of them depend on a system where certain voters — white voters, rural voters, etc. — do have more power. So yeah, Sarah, that doesn’t make me especially optimistic about a big Republican elite turnaround on Trumpism, separate from the question of whether that would actually diffuse some of these tensions.

sarahf: One silver lining in all this is we don’t yet know the full extent to which Trump and Trumpism has taken a hit. That is, plenty of Republicans still support him, but his approval rating has taken a pretty big hit, the biggest since his first few months in office in 2017 — that’s atypical for a president on his way out the door. More Republicans also support impeachment of Trump this time around.

There is a radicalized element here in American politics — and as you’ve all said — it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, but I do wonder if we still don’t fully understand where this goes next.

Kaleigh: What gives me some peace in this time is looking back at history. America has dealt with far-right extremists before. It has dealt with violent insurrectionists before. We have continued, however slowly, to make progress. Sometimes the only way out is through.