#but in speech i think very few people would take issue with it or interpret it wrong | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ingravinoveritas · 1 year ago

Note

Have you seen his latest tweet? He’s having one of his moments and is blocking people left and right. I got myself blocked for commenting on a comment… TF is this poop? 😒

@phantomstars24 Okay, so...I have seen what's been going on on Twitter with Michael and there is...obviously a lot going on. Let me first put up the screenshots of his other tweets, which followed the initial one in @ourtubahero-blog's screenshot (the first one is most recent):

I think there are a few things (well, a lot of things) that are getting missed in all this, specifically the context for why Michael wrote the original tweet in the first place. It appears that it was meant to be a reaction to this incident, which just occurred today in the UK:

The wording of Michael's tweet was not clear, and I also don't think anyone outside of the UK would readily know what he was reacting to, so straightaway this seemed to lead to a lot of misunderstanding. A large portion of the criticism of that tweet stemmed from people thinking Michael was taking a neutral stance on the situation in Gaza/Israel, which is what then led to him making a clarifying tweet in that regard. For my part, I did not interpret Michael's original tweet as neutral, but rather that he is and does stand with innocent people of every stripe, and wishes for there to be no more bloodshed or further loss of life.

Michael's subsequent tweets only seem to have compounded the problem, as they appear to have been made out of an emotional response on his part, which is not a good thing when it comes across as defensive. Emotions are running incredibly high right now, and sadly that is the time when misunderstandings are most likely to occur. In the interest of clarity, in his second tweet, Michael did not say that he had no time to do research, but rather that he "has no time for people telling him to do research." What I took this to mean is that he already has done research and thought very carefully about this entire situation, and therefore felt slighted at people implying that he had not.

The problem inherent in all of this, however, is that this is an extremely difficult subject to have nuanced conversation about, particularly on social media and especially on Twitter. This then leads us to the issue of blocking. I think what Michael was attempting to say (again, badly worded) in his tweet about blocking people was that he was blocking people due to what he perceived as personal attacks. This would explain people being blocked for saying apparently innocuous things, as Michael was on the defensive and does not really have that button in his brain telling him to stop or back off once he gets going.

It goes without saying that Michael seemingly blocking people indiscriminately is definitely not a good look (though it is not without precedent, as I remember well him doing the exact same thing four years ago, albeit under different circumstances). But what is also not acceptable is people sending him death threats, or tweets such as this falsely accusing him of horrific things. In this instance, it is more than understandable that he would have a strong reaction to being dogpiled and block someone, because no one should have to accept threats to their person on their own social media page.

I think what is also happening is that a lot of fans (not either of you who sent in these asks, for the record) are correlating online activism to activism in real life. Michael has always been about walking the walk and not just talking the talk, to where we know he donated almost all of his money to the Homeless World Cup in 2019. He is also a UNICEF UK ambassador and has visited Lebanon, Chad, and Guatemala to meet and help refugee children. All this to say that we have no idea what he has done outside of social media to assist refugees and victims, or if/how much he has donated to Palestinian charities or other relief funds for victims and their families. And for my part, I would rather Michael be clumsy with his wording on social media (again, not defending the indiscriminate blocking) and taking tangible action in real life than engaging in performative Internet activism that ultimately goes nowhere.

(Also, I cannot help but facepalm at people asking Anna to weigh in, under the assumption that a) She would even care about this; and b) She has any influence whatsoever on Michael's behavior, which it is abundantly clear she does not or else he would have stopped flirting with David years ago. I just really hope people do not tag her or expect her to have the ability to somehow "rein him in," because they will be very disappointed...)

So yes, I think what made Michael make a statement tonight after all this time was the above-mentioned MP. I think his intentions were likely good and that his heart was in the right place--as are all of ours, in wanting to protect innocent civilians and stop the horrific violence that is happening. But I also think that if Michael wasn't prepared to handle certain types of criticism, then it probably would have been better for him to say nothing at all, or at least certainly to not escalate things by continuously tweeting. I am also sorry for the fans who were hurt by his actions, because I know fans who have been there before, and it really sucks.

I am hopeful, however, that we can all step back and breathe once emotions are no longer so heightened and try to find a way to listen to each other and engage meaningfully. Because it is truly disheartening to see how things escalated so quickly tonight, and I want to believe that we as a fandom and as human beings can do so much better. I suppose only time will tell...

#ourtubahero-blog #phantomstars24 #michael sheen #welsh seduction machine #twitter #Michael is a PR nightmare #because any PR person would have advised against this #and yet #i honestly get whiplash reading Michael’s Twitter sometimes #ignoring sometimes really is the best thing you can do #i have learned this from experience #i hope Michael learns it too #for his own mental health and well being #fandom woes #thoughts #discourse

126 notes · View notes

horizon-verizon · 6 months ago

Note

Elizabeth I's equivalences with Rhaenyra and Dany are not 1:1. For example, Elizabeth's success was due in part to her own insight and cunning (Dany) and knowing how to choose good advisors (I think they both chose well with the information they had).

What I find a little strange is the way they are trying to present Elizabeth's level of education. Daenerys has hardly been educated, everything he knows is based on observation and intuition, but like Rhaenyra Elizabeth also received good education.

"Elizabeth did not enjoy a happy family home until her father's sixth and final marriage, in July 1543, to Catherine Parr (ca. 1512-1548), who took charge of the welfare and education of her stepchildren, which for Isabel included the study of French, Italian, Latin and Greek, as well as theology, music, moral philosophy and rhetoric (which would later be useful for her speeches as queen, written by herself)."Mark Cartwright, 2020

She was separated from her during her brother's reign and imprisoned during much of her sister's, yes but it is not fair to Dany to compare her to Elizabeth. because although she was not raised with the intention that she would govern in the future, she had a very, very good foundation.

The glorious thing about Elizabeth's speech is as the other anon pointed out the way she empowers herself, I can think of other women who gave speeches during battles But they were fighting not for themselves but for their fathers or children, because part of their duties was to give these speeches. They may not have been expected to lead on their own, but most expected these women to be eloquent.

Anon talks about this anon/post.

Hmmm, yes this was niggling at my head but I didn't put it into words. Thanks. I wasn't trying to make as if Dany was the exact same sort of person as to Elizabeth, bec as you said, different available resources, diff values even with the a good level of cunning is shared between them. I was thinking more Rhaenyra vs Elizabeth, how Elizabeth follows through with her words through her own actions whereas Rhaenyra "I will have my throne or I will have his head" does not build onto her own words with her own actions. Elizabeth at least presented herself in armor at the back of the battle and stirred her followers. Rhaenyra? As this anon states:

There’s no sense of balance to her, she does basically nothing but the wrong political moves, when she’s supposed to be the protagonist of this story.

And this anon:

GRRM in part wrote Rhaenyra as a litmus test for the readers’s misogyny but in my opinion it falls flat because he gets caught up in doing that and forgets to give Rhaenyra some dignity or respect as an individual character. And it’s honestly the same issue he has in the main series. Pathologizing motherhood in particular, esp. in relation to women who are also in politics while being mothers. Fathers are never “too mad with grief” to rule competently or make good decisions; only mothers are.

And it's GRRM's fault. The presence and loss of kids do not preclude women from militant projects or being, to be repetitive, active in their own campaigns.

So yeah, I don't have or blame people for not liking Rhaenyra even taking into account how F&B is written to discourage female rule. Because even with that being true, we know about histograhpies about Queens (of all kinds) like Olga of Kiev, Urraca of Castile, etc. who were both praised and reviled and had probable truths twisted about them but a few of both interpreters of their lives and actions still included and explained how these women were beginning wars, leading armies, or were heavily involved for their own interests. GRRM definitely could have had an imperfect victim who also did impactful logistical or strategic or tactical moments as she is also having to face the pressures of having her kids killed. They don't even have to always succeed, but be there!

(And some kind of can't bc again Rhaenrya has to die & for it to be a little her own fault [Nettles] for this story to work.)

Letters, journal entries, etc. just as Daemon and Otto did in the Rogue Prince--those letters, or their excerpts rather, were also included/referenced by Gyldayn in F&B. GRRM had his options. He chose otherwise.

#asoiaf asks to me #daenerys stormborn #daenerys targaryen #fiction vs reality #elizabeth i #english history #european history #grrm critical #fire and blood writing #fire and blood characters #fire and blood #asoiaf writing #asoiaf

7 notes · View notes

eliza1911o1 · 10 months ago

Text

More Matt & Foggy in s4

I always find it so interesting how distant Foggy is in the TV show after s1. Though he’s definitely not a perfect friend, he shows a familiarity and loyalty to Matt that is undeniable. I love how s3 began to delve further into Karen and Foggy, but it always sticks out to me how, while Matt is involved in much of Karen’s circumstances, Foggy keeps to himself. It is understandable though since, it’s a sad fact Karen doesn’t really have many people while Foggy has Marco and the extended Nelson brood. However, I feel like it’s been a while since Matt has been there for Foggy and vice versa, especially when Matt acts as Daredevil. Foggy has always been more critical of his nightlife, but Foggy also hasn’t really seen him save others or be saved by them. If you think about, compared the amount of times Karen has witnessed Matt fight, Foggy has never truly experienced it (to our knowledge). It’s hard to reconcile how much Foggy cares for Matt with how little we see him actually have moments with him.

Of course, I’m not saying Foggy doesn’t care or hasn’t been there for him; he has always given everything to protect his friend, but there have not been many scenes where the two truly connect on a deeper level and develop their understanding of the other, like we see happen with Matt and Karen. I believe it’s worth noting how much more stoic Foggy becomes as the seasons progress, as well. Unlike in s1, where he’s open and emotive, making jokes and crying for those who are being harmed, there are few times we see Foggy visibly shaken in s3 (though most pertain to Matt, such as his nightmares, aftermath of The Bulletin). There are probably correlations between his attitude, new high-profile lifestyle, and change in relationship with Matt, but as most identify him as the heart of the group, it’s interesting how closed-off he becomes. We witness Matt slowly act more comfortable with him and Karen as well, less polite/careful in his actions (I’m citing his behavior at Fogwell’s when they bring in Nadeem and Towers, which always feels reminiscent of his physicality in the presence of Elektra) and more open with both of him as times goes on, though this is rare in s2 and takes almost all of s3.

Considering how little Foggy knows of the current Matt, including how little he’s wanted to know since he found out about Daredevil, I am desperately hoping they explore this in s4. S3 focused a lot on advancing the relationship between Karen and Matt (which I thought was done pretty well in the way it could be interpreted as romantic or platonic), but Foggy and Matt haven’t really addressed their relationship since their lukewarm conversation in s2 and quick exchange in The Defenders. It would feel right to take this on more, especially in priority over introducing a new love interest… clearly, Matt still has a LOT of issues to address after Midland Circle and the events of s3, so I think having him work through this with people who have been there for him and continue to to do seems much more meaningful. This is Matt’s best friend, one of the few people he has left, and one of the very few people he can fully trust, so although they both have their own lives, it’d be nice to see them making space for each other again

((also, Matt’s best man speech at Foggy’s wedding when))

#daredevil #daredevil charlie cox #daredevil meta #matt murdock #foggy nelson #karen page #daredevil show #netflix daredevil

9 notes · View notes

genderkoolaid · 1 year ago

Note

weighing in on the "discussing antisemitism" post, i think there are a few opportunities for clarification.

first of all, on nuance. i think, although can't say for certain, that op was not asking for nuance on "should nazis be punched/ousted/otherwise experience consequences of their actions" but more "should i personally literally punch a nazi in this situation and would it make things more or less safe for the people im trying to help". i say this because while i don't have moral ocd, i do have some similar (subclinical) anxieties and can say from experience that one of the hardest parts of dealing with them irl is sorting out figures of speech from literal imperative. i don't know that they were right to put the responsibility onto others' shoulders, but the discussion is being had now and what's done is done.

second, on bad faith. i don't think it's fair that jewish bloggers' replies are being treated as bad faith. there is a gray area between engaging in bad faith and failing to assume good faith from another. while im all for assuming good faith, it does put the burden on (in this case) jews to accept quite a bit of risk. it may feel low-stakes in an internet discussion, but it has tangible consequences in terms of the assumptions gentiles bring to irl situations. i would challenge genderkoolaid and the original asker to take on the risk of engaging with those replies on an assumption of good faith.

finally, on tagging. i agree with the various folks who have said that 'black and white thinking' is not constructive. i think in this case some variation on 'imperative' or 'imperative statement' or 'instruction' could be more constructive. it's not tagging for tone (and therefore doesn't run the same risk of tone policing). rather it communicates that 'there is a statement in this chain that could be interpreted as an imperative/instruction to take a specific action,' which does seem to be the original issue.

anyway i am jewish but im somewhat uncomfortable with sharing that because i don't want to be interpreted as an authority. im very much not and would ask that anyone reading this (whether it be genderkoolaid or the original asker or another tumblr user) to go back and sit with the jewish responses on the original post for a while (as well as any new ones on this ask, should it be published).

Thank you for your input.

I'm not gonna add on to this a lot but I think its good you pointed out the nuance thing, because I think that might be a miscommunication I missed? I also don't think she was asking for nuance about nazi-punching (like whether or not its good), but about the way people were talking about allyship (which, again, I don't think we need those statements to be written in a certain way to be listened to). Thank you for bringing that up, I'm sorry for missing that.

#m.#ask box

32 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 9 months ago

Text

By: Erec Smith

Published: Jan 31, 2024

The historic Supreme Court ruling to end affirmative action in college admissions was one of the biggest events of 2023, but few acknowledged the ruling's inapplicability to military academies and, by extension, military recruitment strategies. Unlike public civilian institutions, military academies still face scrutiny for imposing quotas and skirting merit as a primary factor in admissions and recruiting. But affirmative action is only part of the problem.

As with other institutions, DEI—Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—is a volatile point of contention in the military. In fact, prominent figures in and around the military insist that DEI threatens national security. The issue is bigger than unequal admissions and recruitment. DEI writ large is eroding the integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces from the inside out.

Before I go any further, I need to clarify that I am not against diversity, equity, or inclusion in their original meanings. As a black man whose father has shared stories about racism in the Army during his 22 years of service (including two tours in Vietnam), I would like nothing more than to improve race relations in the military.

But the words "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion" have gone from obvious American virtues to vices in recent years, not because Americans have soured on racial equality, but because those words have taken on meanings that actually oppose their common interpretations. This new DEI, backed by an ideology of critical social justice, is the very opposite of the social justice values espoused by the civil rights movement.

To be clear, the ideology of critical social justice is not Martin Luther King's civil rights. King highlighted character, open-mindedness, and equality. Sadly, the critical social justice variety of DEI (Let's call it "CSJ-DEI") is about the primacy of skin color, intolerance of opposing viewpoints, and the inherent inequality between white people (fundamentally considered oppressors) and non-white people (fundamentally considered oppressed).

Former King speechwriter Clarence Jones agrees, insisting this ideology "would violate everything that Martin King and I worked for." In fact, because of the divisive and meritless nature of CSJ-DEI, the 93-year-old has said, "I am damn sure, at this time in my life, I'm not going to turn my back. This time is more urgent than ever."

[ WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 12: U.S. Sailors with the U.S. Navy Ceremonial Color Guard present the colors during a ceremonial wreath laying at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on January 12, 2024 in Washington, DC. The ceremony is being held ahead of Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday, January 15, 2024, to honor the civil rights leader on the anniversary of his birthday. ]

Righting the wrongs of the past does not necessitate new wrongs in the present. The systemically discriminatory U.S. Army of the past is gone, but contemporary DEI initiatives could do more to reintroduce differential treatment than end it for good.

CSJ-DEI is bad for everyone, especially in the military. It is notoriously divisive; but what is a national military without unity? It demonizes the virtues a well-functioning military cannot do without: hard work, action orientation, rational thinking, discipline, etc. Why? They are considered "aspects of whiteness."

So where do we go from here? How can we protect our military from CSJ-DEI while still embracing traditional civil rights? That is, how do we make sure DEI initiatives in the military are the kind that promote equality, merit, free speech, and, of course, unity?

Fortunately, members of Congress are starting to listen, and some are taking action. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) included an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act to put a hiring freeze on CSJ-DEI initiatives in the military so that the Government Accountability Office can conduct an audit of federal DEI-related employees to ensure that any initiative to improve race relations is done productively.

Sen. Schmitt's plan is simple: look and see for ourselves. "Every branch of our military has a duty to promote and exemplify cohesiveness within a unit, branch, and fighting force as a whole," Schmitt told the Washington Examiner. "Driving wedges between soldiers with DEI initiatives undermines the military's main purpose: ensuring the United States remain ready to confront adversaries with overwhelming force wherever they may arise."

Senator Schmitt is onto something. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; an audit could help determine which initiatives are or are not good for the overall functioning of the U.S. Armed Forces. No one is against diversity, equity, and inclusion in the original senses of those terms, but it looks like contemporary DEI training flies in the face of American values like merit, unity, and, most ironically, equality.

Erec Smith is a Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and Associate Professor of Rhetoric at York College of Pennsylvania.

#Erec Smith #diversity equity and inclusion #diversity #equity #inclusion #DEI #DEI bureaucracy #US military #religion is a mental illness

3 notes · View notes

susansontag · 2 years ago

Note

it's true that a lot of people online give themselves permission to say "dramatic" things about strangers because it's sadly very normalized here. but i don't think we necessarily need to swoop on the lowest level attainable and choose between different forms of violent speech every time we are really angry about something, emotionally mature people are capable of expressing strong opinions without wishing violence on the person they disagree with. instead of diverting with the whataboutism, you could just answer the question if you really care so much. what did you mean by what you wrote and if you didn't mean it at all then why not admit that you misspoke? what could the consequences possibly be?

I can see you're really clinging to this and I understand because I've done this before with bloggers on here too especially women. but I was not saying dramatic things about any targeted stranger, I was introducing a hypothetical and then giving an example of the kind of - imo - unhinged behaviour I meant. it must be kept in mind this was a throwaway joke post, made in about a few minutes or so

this is a very personal admission and shouldn't be taken as anything more than musing, but I actually have a type of obsessive compulsive disorder that used to make me feel very, strongly guilty about even saying 'I want this person to die' (and I could be talking about a world leader whose policies are responsible for killing millions of people!). I avoided any sense of moral ambiguity in anything I said because I was truly terrified this meant I was a 'bad person' who 'condoned violence' etc. but the truth is, I've given myself the permission that other ordinary people allow themselves all the time, to just say whatever it is I think, no matter if it's a bit silly, or hyperbolic, or whatever; because I should be allowed the grace in interpretation that other people are afforded when they say throwaway comments like this, too. from others (though you don't always get it, which is fine), but also from myself. the reason being is that it's not actually a huge deal or something to get so hung up on

so yes, like you, I have certain standards of conduct; I rarely (or perhaps nowadays never?) say people should 'kill themselves', for example, because this feels personal to me as someone with mental health issues who cares deeply about these topics. I can assure you, if I had even remotely been alluding to domestic violence against women when I quipped 'should be slapped', it would not have been written. I would have deleted it and written something else. this, of course, doesn't insulate me from the interpretations of others who take it a different way, either maliciously assigning significance to it that wasn't there to try and get the upper hand in an argument, or because they truly misread me and are perhaps upset I used language like that. I hope, at least, I've been able to clear up my intentions here

that said, I won't be apologising for the throwaway comment. I have considered it in writing this post and have written nothing that troubles me or my values. I'm sorry we disagree, but I still don't believe it's a big deal. you ofc don't have to accept that and can hold yourself to whatever standards of, well, discussion, posting, articulating yourself, idk, that you like. but you can't get someone else to repent for misbehaviour just because you wouldn't allow yourself it or dislike it. there was no literal person or even a concrete group against which I was threatening an actual act of violence; it was purely hypothetical to get a point across about how silly and ridiculous I find something. I believe to most people this came across loud and clear

#no more responses after this I'm afraid #now we're done w the craziness btw mutuals!!#asks #anon

5 notes · View notes

weird-and-unwell · 3 months ago

Text

Needing advice. Long post. But I'm kinda desperate. TW psychosis and self harm:

Background info: I've had a fair amount of experiences in the last few years that basically everyone thinks is psychosis. Prominent examples:

The devil is out to get me, he's possessing my neighbours, doctors and loved ones with the intent of killing me. Also Jesus and angels are talking to me and they basically say I'm the next Jesus and need to kill myself. Cue self harm to try placate them. It was all very confusing and distressing and I had to drop a fair amount of hours from work as a result.

A mix of more religious stuff wherein I was an angel, but also I had magic powers and the government were hunting me down to try experiment on me and shit. Also doctors were trying to kill me? It was again very intense and bad. Spent a lot of time wandering the streets at night escaping monsters and the government and looking for angels. Would have lost my job if not for luckily getting physically ill and needing a few weeks off.

Slightly less bad one in which I was having my life broadcast on live television and also being poisoned. Very distressing again. I stopped eating for a while because of it. Miraculously kept working through this one. I think I was trying to "act normal" so "they" wouldn't realise I knew what was going on. I did not do a good job but hey, kept my job.

You get the gist.

Anyways I've started noticing the beginnings of it. Prior to the really bad ones I've had:

Sudden feeling of impending doom lasting a few days to a week.

Difficulty just...doing things. I have episodes of getting super excited and doing all the things!!! But then although I'm, say, repainting and rearranging all my furniture, I'm also not showering or brushing my hair or generally looking after myself. I get flare ups of my eating issues (not like weight based, I just return to only eating potatoes and bread)

"Signs". Cloud formations show me messages from God. Spots on my keyboard mean something and I don't know what. Messages from celebrities who seemingly take on god-like aspects. Just normal things happen that I interpret in increasingly weird ways.

Increasing speech problems. Sometimes it takes the form of talking fast, stumbling over words, repeating words or phrases...other times the wrong words come out or I find it hard to talk or I say things that make sense to me but not others.

Minor hallucinations. Usually visual and whispers. Full auditory ones less common but never fun. It triggered my OCD once after I started seeing bugs everywhere.

Increasing paranoia. I think people are talking about me behind my back, that people are going to hurt me...it often gets more and more specific as I get closer to full delusional but the vagueness remains.

Then everything gets worse and worse until it becomes a full episode. Everything gets fuzzy at that point so I can't pinpoint the tipping point.

Problem is that doctors are being wildly unhelpful. Various issues:

They don't see me when "like this" because I cease having insight and get paranoid so refuse to see them.

When I ask to see them more often so they can see it, they sigh and say it's not possible and I'll be fine.

When I explain it, they think I mean anxiety. I do not. I know anxiety. Anxiety can be so freaking bad but this is me being stuck in a whole different reality to everyone else where I struggle to work and look after myself and get increasingly terrified by what is, to me, objectively going on.

Doctors that do see it seem to think I'm being silly or overreacting or something? Eg I called up the crisis team in a panic over Jesus telling me to kill myself. Got told I'd feel better if I watched a movie. Meanwhile I'm there sobbing about how I'm going to die one way or the other because either Jesus makes me kill myself or the devil makes someone else kill me.

The very helpful doctor (sarcasm) who told me she "didn't think (I'd) completely lost it) when I explained I couldn't look after myself, was being followed around by paid actors and was hearing voices.

As a result I am not medicated or recieving any sort of help, unless you count fortnightly CBT that is aimed at my "medical anxiety" aka ptsd. My family is trying very hard to help me but ultimately I need more support for my own safety and wellbeing.

So the advice needed part:

I'm going to have another episode. About two months ago I got my impending doom feeling again. I'm seeing things. I'm not looking after myself. I'm paranoid and seeing signs everywhere. Impulsively bought a bible? My speech is apparently not always making sense to others. I know by now this is me being a ticking time bomb. I don't know when it'll fully tip over but it will and everyone around me knows it.

How do I make this less bad of an episode?? Is there a way to get help when doctors don't believe you?? I don't know what to do anymore and I'm scared of getting hurt, or of hurting others.

#actually psychotic #psychosis #actually psychosis

0 notes

ai4cf23 · 1 year ago

Text

mixed feelings (assignment 1)

When people think of writing, it doesn’t always occur to them that it can be a collaborative process. Why would it be? It’s an incredibly intimate art form that has no visual imagery beyond words on a page. The job of a writer is to evoke emotions through these words, to take ideas and somehow formulate them into a unique amalgamation that both encapsulates and explores the human psyche. So how, exactly, would someone (or something) fit into that?

In my own experience, I have found that sharing my writing is deeply terrifying. Coincidentally (and perhaps unfortunately), it is also very, very helpful—given the right group of people. A proper workshop can be extremely productive; having other writers read and give feedback on your work is probably one of the best things you can do for yourself. There are a few objective errors they might be able to catch: plot holes, grammatical mistakes, formatting issues. But the value in workshop lies mostly in the subjective interpretation of your work. Does it flow properly? Does the conclusion feel satisfying? Do you relate to the characters? Is the dialogue natural? What does natural dialogue even mean? Given that there’s no solid answer to any of these questions, I have doubts as to whether or not AI could be helpful in this way. If we take, for example, the concept of dialogue: it’s an active struggle for many to capture the “humanness” and verisimilitude of what good dialogue should be. If a real, living, breathing person cannot translate the very experience of conversation, then what hope does an AI have? I don’t say this merely out of skepticism either, because I’ve tried. Below is an example of a scene produced by ChatGPT after I provided it with the prompt: “can you write a scene between two characters arguing about where they should go for spring break?”

Despite its ability to produce…something, the dialogue itself is very cluttered. People don’t talk like this. For attempt no. 2, I ask it to make the dialogue more natural.

Still a no go. It interprets "natural" as more "colloquial", which, while true, doesn't work if it doesn't have an understanding of what colloquial speech entails.

“Sarah, Miami is so mainstream. I was thinking something more off the beaten path, like the Grand Canyon,” is giving sit-com. If ChatGPT were writing for a Disney channel show, then maybe this would be acceptable. But in a work of prose? No dice.

Okay. Let’s try something new. This time I ask if it can produce a work about adjusting to life in the city in the style of Lorie Moore’s How to Be a Writer, a notable and more importantly, distinct example of prose written in second person. Her writing is wonderfully whimsical and is not entirely linear. The first attachment below is an excerpt from Moore, followed by ChatGPT's output.

Here, it’s nailed the style…sort of. The basic structure is there. But the diction is slightly off and the prose is awkward in a way I can’t quite articulate. It doesn’t “flow.” It is also obsessively literal in a way that feels strangely shallow. No one thinks of the subway in a way that is nearly as romantic as "underground chariot." Some other parts have potential: the phrase "tetris-like living" is interesting, but it's still wordy and unrefined. What is most glaringly obvious, however, is that it lacks imagination. Could ChatGPT have come up with something as randomly clever as "a short story about an elderly man and woman who accidentally shot each other in the head, the result of an inexplicable malfunction of a shotgun which appears mysteriously in their living room one night"? Would it occur to an AI to call Mr. Killian pore-face?

Evidently ChatGPT is capable of mimicking specific works, but it doesn’t really know how to produce content of a certain caliber. While I don’t ever intend to use AI to actually write in my stead, this severely undercuts any hopes I had for it being helpful in a collaborative/workshop capacity. I admittedly have not plugged any of my own work into ChatGPT just because it feels…sacrilegious? In a way? It’s a little unsettling knowing that my writing could be used to train it.

However! Back to the point. Where does this lead us now?

For me, the question of AI in its current iteration (or, at least, the version of ChatGPT that I have access to) is whether or not it can learn how to think abstractly in the way that is required of objectively “good” writers. Although it can try to mimic specific writing styles, that doesn’t mean it can achieve the same quality of work or produce something that is artistically sound. I think AI has a long, long way to go before it can begin to replicate the humanity that is required of prose fiction. That being said, it also makes me deeply uncomfortable that AI could ever potentially reach that level of sophistication. Writing is ultimately a form meant to capture the human experience. If a machine can somehow learn to accomplish something similar, then what does that mean for us?

For reference, I’ve also attached an excerpt of my own writing about living life in the city, loosely inspired by How to Be a Writer (this is also why I plugged that specific prompt into ChatGPT). This was written half a year before its release.

#assignment

0 notes

just-another-frender-blog · 2 years ago

Text

I find your perspective interesting, as well as your interpretations of these characters. I’m confused about your reasoning as to why people should be concerned if they relate to a particular character. The biggest issue I take with this is that you are assuming a lot of things about a group of people just because they relate to a fictional character.

I’ve seen many different reasons and takes as to why people love this character and find him relatable. And some of them are reasons I relate to him, some of them aren’t, but all of them are valid. All of them are going to be incredibly personal based on the individual. The reasons I find Fry relatable don’t have much to do with what you spoke about.

Here are just a few:

I’m a woman, but my gender presentation is more similar to Fry’s than the female characters in this show. Fry isn’t very masculine which makes it easy to relate to him personally.

Fry’s way of speaking often has a lot to do with him trying to say one thing, but the words coming out of his mouth incorrectly. Awkward speech is something I’ve struggled with my entire life. His speech is funny to me, but I hear it and think “I do that too.”

Fry’s rocky, but close relationship with his brother is not only relatable to me, it’s also accurate to a lot of sibling relationships irl.

The idea that Fry’s brain functions a lot differently from everyone else’s, which can hinder him. But it also helps him as well. That aspect is relatable to a lot of neurodivergent fans (including myself).

As someone who has a girlfriend they love dearly, I relate to Fry’s devotion to Leela (and Bender as well tbh).

These reasons are very personal to me, and another person could have completely different reasons for relating to this character. I’m not trying to accuse you of anything OP, but I have noticed a trend of assuming things about people based on what media they like, what characters they like, what tropes they like, etc. I apologize if that’s not your intentions, but that’s the read I got from your response.

There is such a thing as getting unhealthily attached to characters in fandom (you can see this with kinning). It’s dangerous to only like characters if you relate to them, equate relatability to quality, and to try to fit your entire personality around a character. However, that’s not always the case when people relate to or connect with a character.

As for relating to Fry’s inadequacy? I do have insecurities, which are tied to personal reasons I would rather not speak about. Everyone has their personal struggles for different reasons. And everyone is going to try to work through them in different ways. For some of us, it’s a very slow process, but that doesn’t mean we want to leave them unaddressed.

I adore Fry as a character, but when people say he’s “relatable” it does make me worried about them

#futurama #reblog #long post

20 notes · View notes

nanabansama · 2 years ago

Text

"Of Course!"

Hello, followers! Today I wanted to take another look at this scene, because I personally find it fascinating.

Obviously, you might immediately be saying... "hey! Why are you using that screenshot!? That's a mistranslation!"

To which I would say... m'yeah kinda.

Actually, this scene has perplexed a few people, including myself. The issue being Tsukasa's later line, seen here:

Which is... absolutely mind-boggling! To reach this conclusion truly makes Tsukasa one of the most sensitive babies in the manga.

But... I think he actually has a point!

But I wanted to examine this phrase: "Of course"...

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

Some are quick to point out that Amane doesn't actually say the word "love" in Japanese. And I do think that has relevancy. "Of Course" is not "I Love You", and there's an important distinction between the two!

You may remember that I once analyzed his line in Japanese, 「あたりまえじゃん！」 as being similar to "duh." "Draw your own conclusions, Tsukasa!" But I actually want to go back on that a little.

Much like "of course," the phrase あたりまえ is used to emphasize that something is true. So true that you don't even have to think about it. There's no befuddlement here: the answer is obvious, and Amane does love Tsukasa.

...but the question really is, WHY does he love him?

I don't think Amane, age 4, has put any thought into this at all. (I mean just look at him, with his stupid round little eyes and his gaping mouth... he has thought about nothing ever in his life. He is 4.)

Tsukasa is Amane's younger brother. Tsukasa is Amane's family member. These are both things people are supposed to "love." You are born into this world, loved by your mother, and you are to love her back. I believe Amane's reply to Tsukasa encompasses this idea.

There is no grand reason for loving Tsukasa here. There is no easy admittance of love, there is no speech listing out what he likes about Tsukasa. There is just inevitability: an older brother would love his younger brother, there is no other "course" you can take.

And, well... considering the circumstances of the Yugi family, I think you could see why an idea like that doesn't hold much weight.

I realize I might be describing Amane like some kind of unfeeling 4-year-old monster here, but that is not the case!!! I think he does truly love Tsukasa, but I think this line from him lacks any real weight. It’s a vapid confirmation. “Why is the sky blue?” “I dunno, it’s just blue!!”

And I do not fault him for that, need I remind you again that he is 4?

I think Amane found his reply to Tsukasa satisfactory to himself. I think he thought it was silly to even imagine he wouldn't like Tsukasa, but this love is ultimately a shallow one. He hasn't poured enough water into the love bathtub yet. He is splishing around in a shallow love kiddy pool.

(It goes without saying, I think, that he has since matured, and is now drowning in a love ocean.)

While 4-year-old Amane's love hadn't matured, though, I think Tsukasa's had. His love was more developed love than Amane's at that point, and I think learning that Amane didn't feel the same really hurt.

Do I think “hate” is dramatic? Maybe. But when his older brother pushed him on the floor a few days before, and essentially said he didn’t care about Tsukasa, how can you really blame him?

In the end, maybe Tsukasa is still a sensitive baby, but I think he's got a very mature definition of love! Who knew the guy who later force-feeds Mitsuba a chicken heart would be such a softie...?

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

Anyways, thanks for reading!

This is just one way to interpret the scene, and maybe I'm wrong, but I like the message this interpretation of the events sends. It's a very deep thing to define different kinds of "love", and I think it makes Tsukasa look a little more reasonable to look at things from this perspective.

#jshk #tsukasa yugi #amane yugi #yugi twins #analysis #japanese #地縛少年花子くん #tbhk #tbhk spoilers

135 notes · View notes

potteresque-ire · 4 years ago

Text

More ask answer about Word of Honour (山河令, WoH) and the so-called “Dangai 101 phenomenon” under the cut ~ with all the M/M relationships shown on screen, does it mean improved acceptance / safety for the c-queer community?

Due to its length (sorry!), I’ve divided the answer into 3 parts: 1) Background 2) Excerpts from the op-eds 3) Thoughts This post is PART 1 ❤️. As usual, please consider the opinions expressed as your local friendly fandomer sharing what they’ve learned, and should, in no ways, be viewed as necessarily true. :)

(TW: homophobic, hateful speech quoted)

After WoH had started airing, I had waited for one of China’s state-controlled media to publish opinion pieces about the show. Specifically, I’d like to know ~ what is the administration’s current take on Dangai (耽改), as a genre? How does it characterise the closeness of the same-sex leads—the closeness that is suppressed when the original IP, of the genre Danmei (耽美) was converted for visual media presentation?

This is important, as China is a country where the government’s attitude becomes the official public attitude. The state opinion pieces will be quoted and parroted, especially if they come from heavy-weight sources (state-controlled media also have their importance/influence hierarchy). Production of the upcoming Dangai dramas will adjust their scripts accordingly. Marketing tactics will also adjust, make sure it doesn’t spread “the wrong message”; Dangai and Danmei dramas have both been pulled off shelves during or immediately after its airing before (Addicted 上癮 and Guardian 鎮魂, respectively), despite having already passing the censorship board.

If a heavy-weight state opinion piece pans the one-lead-fawning-over-the-other scenes in WoH (there are a few of them), for example, scenes / lines of such suggestive nature will likely disappear from the upcoming Dangai dramas for at least a year or two. If the critique spills over to a harsh stance against the presence of queers in Chinese media, all future Dangai dramas can become strict “socialist-brotherhood” stories, their “no homo” message reinforced by, for example, by inserting a female lead (or changing one of the leads to female).

Whether the official public opinion equates the true public opinion or not, public behaviour in China is quickly driven by the official public opinion. Example: the Xi regime’s conservative stance on queer issues has already translated to a quick deterioration of queer tolerance in China; open expressions that were tolerated, even welcomed, just several years ago are now met with significant hostility in the public.

This is a reflection of the nature of their government. A quick thought experiment may explain this. Take … jaywalking. It’s probably fair to say we’ve all committed this “crime” before?

Will you still jaywalk if your government declares it immoral to do so? Where I am, in the United States, the answer is definitely a no. The public will probably laugh at (and make memes about) the poor official who made the declaration, kindly ask the government to do something useful for once (f*** off), and keep jaywalking.

Now, what if the declaration comes with a law that includes a one-year prison term + lifelong criminal record for jaywalking? Let’s say this law is fully executable and irreversible, given this being a thought experiment—nothing you, or the public, can say or do can contest it.

Will you still jaywalk, even if you disagree with government’s stance that the act is immoral? You’ve got a neighbour who continues to defy the law. Will you think twice before letting your young loved ones go out with them?

Very soon, jaywalking becomes “bad”—even though such “badness” had little moral basis at its origin. It is bad because the government has “characterised” it to be so—an authoritarian government that doesn’t allow challenge of the characterisation.

The retention of queer elements in Dangai is the jaywalking in the example. The Chinese government stepping in to characterise (定性) an event, a phenomenon etc is common, and the people know the drill well that they fall in line quickly.

If a powerful state-controlled media publish a negative opinion piece on the queer elements in Dangai / Danmei, therefore, those elements can disappear overnight.

My question had been: will the state do it? The Xi regime has made its distaste for LGBT+ representation in visual media abundantly clear with its NRTA directives. However, while the Chinese government typically puts ideology (意識型態) as its Guiding Principle, exceptions have always been made for one reason. One word.

Money.

TU is a legendary financial success story every production company (Tencent itself included) wants to replicate. As a result, there are ~ 60 Danmei IPs (book canon) with their copyright sold for Dangai dramas; this long line of Danmei dramas in the horizon has been nicknamed “Dangai 101”, after the name of the show “Produce 101” Dd was dance instructor in. These dramas are all competing to be the next TU by profit.

Adoration from fans is nice, but money is what matters.

C-ent is currently in a financial bleak winter. The anti-corruption, anti-tax-fraud campaign started by the Xi regime in 2018, which cumulated to a sudden (and unofficial) collection of 3 years of back-taxes from studios and stars, has drained a significant amount of its capital; the number of new TV dramas being filmed fell 45% between 2018 and 2019, and production companies have been closing by the tens of thousands. The tightening of censorship rules also means production is associated with more risk. The commercial sector outside c-ent is also eager for replications of TU’s success—they need more “top traffic” (頂流) idols like Gg and Dd whose fans are sufficiently devoted to drive the sales of their products. Such “fan economy” would benefit the government, even if it doesn’t have direct stakes in the companies in and outside c-ent. People’s Daily, the Official State Newspaper, previously published a positive opinion piece on fan economy in 2019, estimating its worth at 90 billion RMB (~13.7 billion USD) per year.

But if the state allows the queer elements in Dangai’s to pass the censorship board (NRTA) for profit, how can it do so with the current “No homo” directive in place? From previous experience (scarce as it may be), the queerness has to be sufficiently obvious for the shows to make the profit everyone is wishing for. Dangai dramas in which the leads’ romantic relationship remains subtle have not sold the way TU does, even if they are well-reviewed and feature famous, skilled actors (as Winter Begonia 鬓边不是海棠红 last year.)

NRTA, and the government behind it, can’t just say I’m turning a blind eye to the flirting and touching for the money. What can it say then?

Here’s what I’d thought—what it can say, or do, is to “characterise” these Dangai dramas in a way that leave out its queerness. It did so for TU. TU’s review by the overseas version of People’s Daily devoted a grand total of two characters to describe WWX and LWJ’s relationship—摯友 (“close friend”). The rest of the article was devoted to the drama’s aesthetics, its cultural roots. (The title of the article: 《陳情令》：書寫國風之美 Chen Qing Ling: Writing the Beauty of National Customs).

How could it do that? The State’s power ensuring few questioning voices aside, I’ve been also thinking about the history and definition of Danmei (耽美)—Dangai’s parent genre as the causes. Based on the history and definition, I can think of 3 ways the queer elements in Danmei (耽美) can be characterised by the state, 2 of which provide it with the wiggle room, the movable goalposts it needs should it choose to want to overlook the queerness in Dangai.

The 3 characterisations I’ve thought of, based on the history and definition of Danmei (耽美) are:

1) The queer characterisation, which focuses on its homoerotic element. * Summary of the characterization: Danmei is gay.

2) The “traditional BL” characterisation, which focuses on BL’s historic origin as a “by women, for women” genre. The M/M setup is viewed as an escapist protest against the patriarchy, a rejection of traditional gender roles; displays of M/M closeness are often “candies” for the female gaze. * Summary of the characterization: Danmei is women’s fantasy.

3) The aesthetic characterisation, which focuses on beauty—from the beauty of the characters, the beauty of a world without harm to the romance. * Summary for the characterization: Danmei is pretty.

The queer characterisation (1) is well-understood, and likely the default characterisation if it is to be made by the fraction of i-fandom I’m familiar with. Most i-fans I’ve met, myself included, would likely and automatically associate the M/M relationships in The Untamed (TU) and WoH with queerness.

The “traditional BL” characterisation (2), meanwhile, equates Danmei with BL as the genre of homoerotic works developed in 1970’s Japan for women comic readers, and has been widely interpreted from a feminist point of view.

Under such interpretation of “traditional BL” works, the double male lead setup wasn’t meant to be an accurate depiction of homosexuality. It wasn’t about homosexuality at all. Rather, it was about the removal of women and along with it, the rage, the eye-rolling, the unease women readers had often felt when attempting to interact with mainstream romance novels of the time, in which the female leads had mostly been confined to traditional women roles, and their virtue, their traditional feminine traits.

The M/M setup therefore acted as a “shell” for a het relationship that allowed removal of such social constraints placed on women. The lead with whom the woman audience identified was no longer bound to the traditional role of women, such as being the caregiver of the family. The lead could instead chase their dreams and roam the world, as many contemporary women already did or aspired to do; they were no longer limited to playing the passive party in life and in the relationship—and they enjoyed such freedom without risking the love, the respect the other male protagonist felt for them.

BL, in this traditional sense, has therefore been interpreted as an answer for, and a protest against the heteropatriarchal gender norm still dominant in societies deeply influenced by Confucianism, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China. The M/M setup is, at heart, (het) women’s fantasy. The inclusion of two young-and-beautiful male leads also satisfy “the female gaze” ~ the popularity of BL among het women has therefore been compared to the popularity of lesbian porn among het men. In both cases, the audience is drawn not for the homosexual element but by the presence of double doses of sexual attraction.

(Please forgive me if any of my wording comes as disrespectful! I’m not used to talking about these topics.)

The availability of the “traditional BL” characterisation (2) is key to bypassing queerness as a topic in the discussions of Danmei (耽美).

The aesthetic characterisation (3) is very closely related to 2) in origin, but deserves its own point as a characterisation that can stand on its own, and may be more obscure to the English-speaking fandom given the common English translation of Danmei (耽美) as Boy’s Love.

Boy’s Love, as a name, amplifies the queer characterisation (1) and de-emphasises the aesthetic characterisation (3); Danmei (耽美), meanwhile, does the reverse.

Where does the name Danmei come from?

When BL was first developed in Japan, it used to have a now out-of-fashion genre name: Tanbi. Tanbi was borrowed from same name describing a late 19th century / early 20th century Japanese literary movement, known as Tanbi-ha and was inspired by Aestheticism in England. Aestheticism “centered around the doctrine that art exists for the sake of its beauty alone, and that it need serve no political, didactic, or other purpose”. Along the same line, the core belief of authors of Tanbi-ha was that art should celebrate beauty and reject the portrayal of ugliness in human nature, the darkness of reality:

…Tanbi writers argued that the ideas of naturalism writers such as “objectivism,” “truth is more important than beauty” and so on would “oppress human beings’ desire” so as to “lose beauty and human nature.” Accordingly, they insisted on “acute mental and emotional sensibility” [Ye, 2009].

(Source, with more details on Tanbi.)

Neither romance nor homosexuality were requirements for works in the original Tanbi-ha genre. BL borrowed the name Tanbi because its early authors saw their work created under the same principles: the emphasis on the beauty of their characters, their love (romantic and platonic), in a world that was also beautiful and untouched by ugliness such as sexism and homophobia.

The stubborn persistence on keeping one’s eyes trained on the beautiful, the willingness to turn a blind eye to reality for the sake of the beauty is built-in in the genre’s name. Tanbi meant more than beauty, aesthetics; its kanji form was written as 耽美; 耽 = to sink, drown in, to over-indulge in; 美 = beauty.

Tanbi, therefore, literally means to drown in, to over-indulge in beauty.

Over time, as the genre expanded its writing style, Tanbi eventually fell out of favour as BL’s genre name in Japan. However, as it gained popularity in the Sinosphere in the 1990s, starting with Taiwan and Hong Kong, the kanji of Tanbi was retained as the Chinese name of the genre.

In Mandarin Chinese, 耽美 is pronounced Danmei. A hyperfocus on the aesthetics, the utopian aspects of traditional BL is therefore retained in Danmei by its name. People’s Daily could therefore devote its review of TU on its aesthetics. Realism, including politics and all discussions of social issues, can therefore be swept aside in the name of respecting the genre’s tradition.

I’ve mostly been reading about and observing c-fandom, and I believe these 3 characterisations have all attracted its own kind of fans. Fans who care and talk about queer issues even when it isn’t encouraged by their sociopolitical environment, who shine a light upon these issues in their fan works. Fans who treat the M/M leads as if they were a traditional cishet couple, such as calling one of the leads 老婆 (wife) and assigning him biologically female functions when needed (via, for example, the ABO trope). Fans who insist the works must meet their beauty standards, rejecting those that fail (for example, if the leads are not good looking enough) by claiming they’re there for Danmei, not Danchou (耽醜, “over-indulgence on ugliness”). Fans who are drawn to the genre by a combination of these characterisations.

By the history and definition of the genre, all the above reasons for fanning Danmei are as valid, as legitimate as one another.

I thought about this related question then: are c-fans of the second (traditional BL characterisation) and third (aesthetic characterisation) groups homophobic? When I first asked this question, I—a fan whose fandom experience had been entirely in English-speaking communities—assume the answer was yes. I thought, in particular, the insistence of treating Danmei’s M/M couples as cishet couples in a homosexual shell had to be conscious queer erasure. How can anyone ignore the same-sexness of the leads? How can anyone talk about Danmei without associating it with homosexuality?

However, as I read more—again, specifically about c-fandom, and in Chinese—I realised the answer may be a little more complex.

Previously, I had largely thought about homophobia in terms of individual attitudes. This has to do with my current environment (liberal parts of the United States), in which the choice to accept or reject the queer community has become a close to personal choice. Pride flags fly all over the city, including the city hall, every summer, and most churches welcome the LGBT+ community. I hadn’t considered how an environment in which queers have never enjoyed full social exposure, in which education of related topics is sorely lacking, would affect Danmei’s development as a genre.

In such an environment, it is difficult for Danmei to evolve and incorporate up-to-date understanding of RL queerness.

The consequence I can see is this: Danmei is more likely to be “stuck” in its historical characterisation as (het) women’s fantasy inside than outside the Great Firewall, with its queerness de-emphasised if not erased—and it draws fans who are attracted to this kind of characterisation accordingly. This is, perhaps, reflected by the fact that the (het) women-to-queer ratio of Danmei / BL fans is significantly higher in China than in the West (Table 1 in this article summarises how Danmei / BL fans have split between different genders and sexual orientation in the Sinosphere vs the West in different research studies).

Another driving force I can see for Danmei to retain BL’s traditional feminist and aesthetic characterisations: women in China are not free from the social pressure that led to the birth of BL in 1970’s Japan. While many of them have achieved financial freedom through work and have high education, the young and educated have been subjected to immense pressure to get married and have children especially in the past decade.

In 2007, the China’s state feminist agency, the All-China Women’s Federation (中華全國婦女聯合會), coined the term 剩女 (literally, “leftover women”) for unmarried, urban women over 27 years old. The government started a campaign that, among other things, associated women’s education level with ugliness, and their unmarried status with pickiness, moral degeneracy. The reason behind the campaign: birth rates are plummeting and the state wants educated women, in particular, to nurture a high quality, next generation workforce. More importantly, the government sees a threat in the M/F sex imbalance (high M, low F) that has commonly been attributed to the country’s “one child policy” between 1979-2015, which encouraged female infanticide / abortion of female foetuses in a culture that favours surname-carrying boys. The state fears the unmarried men will become violent and/or gay, leading to “social instability and insecurity”. Therefore, it wants all women, in particular those who are educated, to enter the “wife pool” for these unmarried men. (Source 1, Source 2: Source 2 is a short, recommended read).

For Chinese women, therefore, patriarchy and sexism is far from over. Escapist fantasies where sexism is removed—by removing women from the picture—are therefore here to stay.

Danmei is therefore not queer literature (同志文學). The difference between Danmei and queer literature is highlighted by this reportedly popular saying (and its similar variations) in some Danmei communities:

異性戀只是傳宗接代，同性戀才是真愛 Heterosexuality is only for reproduction. Only homosexuality is true love.

The attitude towards heterosexuality is one of distaste, viewed as a means to an end the speaker has no interest in. On the contrary, homosexuality is idealised, reflecting the disregard / lack of understanding of some Danmei fans have towards the RL hardships of c-queers. The ignorance may be further propagated by gate-keeping by some Danmei fans for safety reasons, keeping queer discussions away from their communities for fear that their favourite hangouts would meet the same uncertain fate of other communities that previously held open queer discussions, such as the Weibo gay and lesbian supertopics. Such gatekeeping can, again, be easily enforced using tradition as argument: the beauty 美 is Tanbi and Danmei (耽美), remember, includes the beauty of utopia, where ugly truths such as discrimination do not enter the picture. A Danmei that explores, for example, the difficulty of coming out of the closet is no longer Danmei, by its historical, aesthetic definition.

[I’ve therefore read about c-queers viewing Danmei with suspicion, if not downright hostility; they believe the genre, by ignoring their RL challenges and casting them as beautiful, even perfect individuals, and in some cases, by fetishising them and their relationships, only leads to more misconceptions about the queer community. Dangai, meanwhile, has been viewed with even more distaste as potential weapons by the state to keep gays in the closet; if the government can shove the Danmei characters into the “socialist brotherhood” closet, it can shove them as well.

I haven’t yet, however, been able to tease out the approximate fraction of c-queers whose views of Danmei and Dangai is negative. The opposing, positive view of the genres is this: they still provide LGBT+ visibility, which is better than none and it would’ve been close to none without Danmei and Dangai; while Danmei may skim over the hardships of being queer, fan works of Danmei are free to explore them—and they have.

This article provides insights on this issue. @peekbackstage’s conversation with a Chinese film/TV director in Clubhouse is also well worth a read.]

That said, Danmei can only be dissociated from the queer characterisation if there’s a way to talk about the genre without evoking words and phrases that suggest homosexuality—something that is difficult to do with English. Is there?

In Chinese, I’d venture to say … almost. There’s almost a way. Close enough to pass.

The fact that M/M in traditional BL has been developed and viewed not as queer but as a removal of F also means this: queerness isn’t “built-in” into the language of Danmei. The name Danmei itself already bypasses a major “queer checkpoint”: it’s impossible to refer to a genre called Boy’s Love and not think about homosexuality.

Here’s one more important example of such bypass. Please let me, as an excuse to put these beautiful smiles in my blog, show this classic moment from TU; this can be any gif in which the leads are performing such suggestive romantic gestures:

How can I describe this succinctly? In English?

Two men acting in love? Er. That’s… the definition of gay, almost.

Two men acting gay? Well. GAY.

Right. Fine. Let’s go negative. Queerbaiting? … Still gay, because the word “queer” is in there.

[Pie note: for the record, I don’t think TU or WoH is queer-baiting.]

Personally, I find it impossible to describe the GIF above in English that I do not automatically associate with RL romantic love between two men, with homosexuality. But can I do it in Chinese?

… Yes.

There’s a term, 賣腐 (pronounced “maifu”), literally, “selling 賣 the rot 腐”, derived from the term known among i-fans as fujoshi and written, in kanji, as 腐女. Fujoshi, or 腐 (“rot”) 女 (“women”), describes the largely (het) female audience of the Japanese BL genre (>80%, according to Wikipedia). Originated as a misogynistic insult towards female Japanese BL fans in the 2000s, fujoshi was later reclaimed by the same female BL fans who now use the self-depreciative term as acknowledgement of their interest being “rotten”, for BL’s disregard of the society’s traditional expectations on women.

賣腐 is therefore to “sell the rot” to the rotten women; ie. the suggestive romantic gestures, exemplified by the GIF above, between the M/M leads are catering, performing fan service to their target audience.

[賣腐 is also a term one will see in the state opinion pieces.]

There’s nothing gay about this term.

I’ve therefore found it possible to talk and think in Chinese about Danmei while giving little thought to queerness. The history and definition of Danmei allow that.

Again, I’m not saying any of this to excuse homophobia among in Danmei and Dangai fandoms. The point I’m trying to make is this — given that Danmei has three potential characterisations, two of which can be discussed without abundantly evoking queer concepts and vocabularies, given that history of Danmei, as a genre, already favoured characterisation 2 (traditional BL), the government addressing homosexuality in its opinions on Danmei and Dangai is far from a given.

By extension, the popularity of Dangai may mean a lot or little to c-queers; by extension, the state can approve / disapprove of Danmei and Dangai in a manner independent of its stance on homosexuality, which is itself inconsistent and at times, logic-deying (example to come…).

This is both good and bad, from the perspective of both the government and the c-queer community.

For the government: as discussed, the “triality” of Danmei allows the state to “move the goalpost” depending on what it tries to achieve. It has characterisations 2 (the traditional BL characterisation) and 3 (the aesthetic characterisation) as excuses to let Dangai dramas pass the censorship board should it want their profit and also, their promise of expanding the country’s soft power overseas by drawing an international audience. These characterisations also allow the state to throw cold water on the popularity of Danmei / Dangai should it desire, for reasons other than its queer suggestions—despite the Xi regime’s push against open expressions of queerness (including by activism, in media), it has also been careful about not demonising c-queers in words, and has countered other people’s attempts to do so.

Why may the government want to throw cold water on Danmei and Dangai? They are still subculture, which the state has also viewed with suspicion. In 2018, a NRTA directive explicitly requested that “c-ent programmes should not use entertainers with tattoos; (those associated with) hip-hop culture, sub-cultures (non-mainstream cultures), decadent cultures.” (”另外，总局明确要求节目中纹身艺人、嘻哈文化、亚文化（非主流文化）、丧文化（颓废文化）不用。”).

Subculture isn’t “core socialist values”. More importantly, it’s difficult to keep up with and control subculture. 環球網, the website co-owned by People’s Daily and Global Times (環球時報), ie, The State Newspaper and The State Tabloid, famously said this on its Weibo, on 2020/03/04, re: 227:

老了，没看懂为什么战。晚安。 Getting old. Can’t figure out what the war is about. Good night.

The State also cannot stop subculture from happening. It doesn’t have the resources to quell every single thing that become popular among its population of 1.4 billion. What it can do to make sure these subcultures stay subcultures, kept out of sight and mind of the general public.

Characterisation 1 (the queer characterisation), meanwhile, remains available to the state should it wish to drop the axe on Dangai for its queer elements. I’m including, as “queer elements”, presentation of men as too “feminine” for the state—which has remained a sore point for the government. This axe have a reason to drop in the upcoming months: July 23rd, 2021 will be the 100th birthday of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the state may desire to have only uniformed forces and muscled, gun-toting “masculine” men gracing the screens.

What about for c-queers and their supporters (including group I fans)? What good and bad can the multiple characterisations of the genres do for them?

For c-queers and their supporters (including group I fans), their acceptance and safety are helped by the Dangai genre, by the Dangai 101 phenomenon, if and only if the state both characterises the queer elements in these dramas as queer (characterisation 1) AND their opinions of them are positive.

Personally, I had viewed this to be unlikely from the start, because a queer characterisation would mean the censorship board has failed to do its job, which is embarrassing for the Chinese government.

Characterisations 2) and 3) are not bad for c-queers and their supporters, however, and definitely not “enemies” of Characterisation 1); they can not only serve as covers for the queer elements in Dangai to reach their audience, but also, they can act as protective padding for the LGBT+ community if the content or (very aggressive) marketing of the Dangai dramas displease the government — with the understanding, again, that the “traditional BL” arm of the Danmei community is itself also highly vulnerable by being a subculture, and so its padding effect is limited and it also deserves protection.

The downside to achieving LGBT+ visibility through Dangai is, of course and as mentioned, that these dramas are, ultimately, deeply unrealistic depictions of the c-queers. The promotion of these dramas, which has focused on physical interactions between the male leads for “candies”, can encourage even more fetishising of queers and queer relationships. The associated (character) CP culture that makes and breaks CPs based on the dramas’ airing cycle may also fuel negative perception of queer relationships as attention-seeking behaviour, something that can be initiated and terminated at will and for the right price.

Finally, with all this said, which characterisation(s) have the government taken re: Dangai and/or WOH? And what opinions has it given to its characterisations?

PART 1 <-- YOU ARE HERE PART 2 PART 3

#pie metas #yizhan #bjyx

366 notes · View notes

makeste · 4 years ago

Text

regarding Best Jeanist, Dabi, and all of that

@kaleswagdragon I hope you don’t mind me posting this comment and my response as its own post, seeing as it quickly got out of hand and sort of morphed into a whole entire essay.

anyway, so! you say that it’s a mischaracterization, but it’s really not, though. I mean, props for bringing up the cultural context of Japan, in which the honne-tatemae culture of covering up anything that might lead to any sort of conflict -- even if it means harming an innocent victim in the process -- is a very real issue. so given that, I understand why so many people are interpreting Jeanist’s statement in a “how dare you bring this family shame to light” sort of way. and Caleb’s “dirty laundry” translation doesn’t help, given the “we’re more embarrassed than actually concerned about this” feel of that particular phrase, which he apparently chose just because of the clothing pun without really giving much thought to any other implications.

but in the actual Japanese, the meaning/context is somewhat different. here’s a link to a twitter thread clarifying the original spoiler translation, and breaking down the actual Japanese dialogue.

I think the meaning here is very clearly “you waited until the public’s faith in heroes was already wavering to bring this down on them as a final blow.” if he was simply criticizing Dabi for publicizing the Todoroki family drama, he would have stopped with that first sentence. the two sentences afterward (“you waited until everyone’s faith in heroes was wavering, when the damage would be too great to handle”) make it clear that what he’s actually calling Dabi out for is the way that he basically weaponizes his story into the perfect political tool to finally take down the heroes. which is an observation that we as the readers can verify for ourselves as being true. look at how he so carefully edited the footage of Twice’s death. look at the contrast between the way he acts in the video, compared with the homicidal glee we see from the actual Dabi in real time.

Jeanist is notably the only one who is able to get the same perspective as the readers here, since he’s the only person who’s physically present in Jakku with the real Dabi, but is also able to hear the video being broadcast. meaning that he’s able to hear both video!Dabi’s calm, prerecorded “I’m just a concerned citizen trying to look out for a society being taken advantage of by the ones charged with protecting it” speech, and actual!Dabi’s “hahaha fuck you Endeavor I’m bringing the whole country down even as we speak, well anyway time to kill you all” reality. he alone can see that stark contrast between the concerned whistleblower act Dabi is putting onscreen, versus his true attitude of “I don’t actually give a fuck, I just want to eradicate the heroes and make my dad suffer.” basically, Jeanist is the only one who can see that juxtaposition, and see Dabi’s reveal for what it really is, seeing as Dabi literally spelled it out for Endeavor and the others. and so he’s calling him out on that.

and he’s not wrong to do so. it’s clear that a lot of fans vehemently disagree with this, but being an abuse survivor doesn’t excuse you from having the same obligation as every other human being on the planet to try your best to be a decent person, which at minimum means not going out of your way to hurt other people. I say this as someone who’s experienced abuse, which shouldn’t need to be a disclaimer honestly, but I guess that’s how it is these days. anyways, though, I have, and I know a lot of other people who have as well. it’s a terrible, awful, exceptionally shitty thing to experience, and it affects everyone in different ways. and every single person who goes through something like that deserves help and support and time to heal, and it’s a tragedy and an injustice that Dabi, from what we have seen, never got any of that.

but that doesn’t excuse him from still being held to the same basic standard of “hurting other people is shitty” as everyone else. it doesn’t mean he gets a free pass. it doesn’t mean that anyone who says “hey, Dabi using his trauma as an excuse to murder people is kind of fucked up” is an abuse apologist. and it doesn’t mean Horikoshi is an abuse apologist for writing him that way, for that matter, because guess what? sometimes people who are abused grow up to become abusers. that’s just a fucked-up thing that happens sometimes. and pretending like it doesn’t is ironically not all that different from that whole “sweeping things under the rug” concept you mentioned earlier. it does happen, and I think it’s important to acknowledge that, because acknowledging it is one of the necessary steps to take in fixing it.

this attitude of “if someone was abused they should be absolved of responsibility for their actions” that I’ve seen in some posts is taking the concept of “abuse often has a profound impact on people’s mental health, and that should be taken into consideration before judging them too harshly for behavior that they can’t always necessarily control”, and twisting it into this nice little loophole that people can use to duck accountability whenever it’s convenient. but being abused doesn’t give you the right to abuse other people, is my point. nothing gives somebody the right to do that.

and Dabi is hurting other people. he waited ten years to tell his story specifically because he wanted to use it to make others suffer. and, putting aside the part where he’s trying to engineer the downfall of society as a precursor to the mass destruction he and his pals have planned, he also broadcast the story nationwide without the consent of the other abused parties involved. which I’m not saying he didn’t have the right to do, mind you, because it’s his story as well as theirs, and he has the right to tell it. and the right to make his abuser’s crimes as public as he wants, if that’s what he decides. but it also ignores the question of what his mother and siblings might want, and the fact is that they’re also survivors, and so in theory should have the same right as Dabi to choose their own healing process, and decide exactly how they want their abuser, who like so many abusers is also a close family member, to be held accountable. anyway, but all of that is obviously very, very complicated and I don’t think there’s a clear right or wrong side as far as this part of it all. it’s not a situation where everyone can be happy, which unfortunately is often how it goes.

anyway, I’ve kind of meandered pretty far from my original point now, so my bad. my points are, basically,

(a) I think the linked explanation does show that Jeanist is chiding Dabi for using his trauma in this specifically scheming and destructive way, as opposed to saying “shame on you for not being a good little victim and staying quiet”, which would be a ridiculous thing for Horikoshi, who’s explored the topic of abuse more thoughtfully than any other mangaka I’ve read, to randomly have one of his protagonists say.

and (b) the people calling Dabi out on his shit aren’t all smug victim-blamers who have no sympathy for what he has been through. the latter point (and a lot of this post, actually) isn’t particularly directed at you btw; it’s more of just a general statement brought on by some of the discussion that’s been going on these past few days.

anyways, I actually like that the fandom is talking about all of this! I just think it’s a very complex subject, and an even more complex situation currently in the manga. and ideally, people would try to acknowledge that complexity when discussing it, rather than simply picking a side and doubling down on it no matter what, or shooting down the whole thing as problematic writing just because isn’t a neat and tidy situation where you can simply say “oh, person A is right and person B is wrong, that’s it, end of story.” it’s not, unfortunately. it’s a messy clusterfuck of a topic that’s only going to get messier as this plot continues, so hopefully we can all just sort of brace ourselves for that lol. this is really just the tip of the iceberg, I think.

#bnha 292 #best jeanist #dabi #todoroki touya #bnha meta #bnha #boku no hero academia #bnha spoilers #mha spoilers #bnha manga spoilers #makeste reads bnha #long post #I mean we always knew the todoroki plot was going to be like this though #and jeanist had to go and open his big mouth #you brought this on yourself really my man #and now we're dealing with all this discourse I hope you're happy #do us a favor and find out kacchan's hero name for us asap so we can put this all behind us and move on to new discourse my denim friend

442 notes · View notes

frevandrest · 4 years ago

Text

Everything Wrong with Saint-Just's Introductory Scene in La Révolution française (1989)

As promised, here is an analysis of Saint-Just’s first scene from La Révolution française (1989). You can watch the scene (with English subtitles) here. It sadly misses the dramatic entrance part, but everything else is there. SPOILER: This analysis will not, in fact, cover everything wrong because there’s so much trash you can’t adequately address it in only 1000 words.

In the scene, we see a young man with that hair rushing down the steps of the Convention (in what will be his signature dramatic! style). He pushes people way without even looking at them. There is someone at the rostrum, and many people wait to address the Convention. Saint-Just doesn’t give a fuck. “I demand to speak.” Some deputies murmur a weak protest, but they are shit out of luck because it’s time to introduce a new character, and we need to know what a jerk he is. So of course he’s granted the word.

At first, nobody pays attention, but “just like you, I would die for this Republic”, seems to work. He delivers the speech (which contains maybe two lines from the actual one), and by the end, Marat claps, the Convention claps, Danton and Girondins are suspicious; Robespierre is in love. Camille, oh Camille, does he know he’s just been replaced? Saint-Just pouts slightly (my interpretation) but doesn’t show much emotion. Next scene: Louis receives news that he’s being put on trial. Good job, new boy.

As first scenes go, this is a good introduction to Saint-Just as depicted in the film. But it’s also very wrong for SJ as a historical personality (what we know of him). Which sucks, because it’s not like it’s impossible to make an unsympathetic yet historically accurate SJ, if one wants to go that route. See, Saint-Just in La Révolution française is a prop; he’s not a character with his own complexities, goals or motivations. He is just there to be pretty and evil, and to take Robespierre away from Camille.

So, why is this introduction wrong?

Let us remember that this was Saint-Just’s very first speech at the Convention. He got elected days after his 25th birthday; he was the youngest out there. Also, even with Robespierre’s support (that some claim he already enjoyed), he was an unknown; a peasant provincial from Picardie barely out of his adolescence. He wanted to prove himself and demonstrate that he was a worthy representative. Being rude and pushing people away is not really a good way to achieve that.

Here’s the thing about Saint-Just: despite all stereotypes of the contrary, he respected authority. However, he only respected authority that he felt deserved to be respected. In 1792, “monarchy” was not it. But National Convention? Revolutionary government? Of course he respected it. He fought so much to get there, and he respected the place he was given.

Throwing his weight around, pushing people away, demanding to speak when someone else is at the rostrum, disobeying order... It was really not Saint-Just. He hated commotion and fights that happened so often at the Jacobin club. Even on 9 Thermidor, when Tallien interrupted him and shit hit the fan, he continued to attempt to deliver the speech. They pushed him, and he kept trying to speak, without, I don’t know, punching someone in the face (La Révolution française Saint-Just totally would, which is, admittedly, one of the many, many many reasons why it sucks that they shortened and condensed Thermidor).

The film uses “blame Saint-Just for Robespierre’s turn to darkness” approach. SJ is there to encourage Robespierre into cruelty and cold violence, and, if Robespierre starts to doubt even for a moment, to reassure him that yes, this is how things should be done, you are right Max, let’s kill them all, but particularly Camille; I can’t stand that guy for having you first ridiculing my poetry (wait... SJ’s poetry wasn’t in the film. Why does he hate Camille, again?) Who knows. The only explanation the film provides is that Camille is Good and Saint-Just is Evil, so of course he’d want to get rid of him.

Now, let us see about the speech itself.

The Speech

The speech Saint-Just delivers in the film contains maybe a few lines from the actual speech (notably: “this man should reign, or die”). I don’t have a problem with them not replicating the speech word for word because it followed on what other deputies talked about (which we didn’t hear)*, and because nobody has time for Antoine’s ramblings about antiquity. (And it would take around 10 minutes to act, which would probably provide us with more glorious shots of Robespierre falling in love being impressed, but it would take too much of the running time. I get that.)

So, in theory, I am fine with shortening the speech and paraphrasing, as long as the meaning and content is there. Which... it did on a surface level while also missing the point substantially.

*Not showing SJ addressing what others said before him was understandable (condensing runtime), but it’s another thing that made it seem like he didn’t listen nor paid attention what others were doing. Also, it’s a missed opportunity to characterize him as a jerk full of himself, since his real speech basically opened with: “all that the previous guy said is bullshit, and here’s why”.

Speech in the film: I would die for the Republic and I would fight the enemies of the Republic. We all know the name of the enemy, and I, like none here, am ready to fight against this enemy. Louis is a symbol of traitors among us. We should not hesitate; the king is an usurper.

In short, speech in the film is, kind of, less about Louis and more about what SJ will be important later: his own sense of revolutionary righteousness and for weeding out “traitors” from the Convention.

Another issue with the speech is that it wasn’t just about the speech - it was part of Saint-Just’s introductory scene, so we had to learn about his character through the speech. In the film, SJ is rude, cruel and cares only about... well, we are not sure, because there are no motivations whatsoever, but he is there to push Max when something bad needs to be done. I feel that his rudeness during the introductory scene and the way the speech was delivered fulfil this purpose nicely. However, I am not sure that we actually understand what Saint-Just’s speech was about, except vague “we must kill the king” vibe.

The Aftermath

The scene following Saint-Just’s speech is that of Louis, a doting father, reading a book to his son. Men come and rudely tell him to send the child away. He is to be put on trial. The implication? Saint-Just’s speech won the crowd over and they decided to kill Louis, or at least put him on trial.

In reality, while Saint-Just’s speech was highly noticed (his real-life dramatic entrance into Convention), the deputies did NOT listen to him. The whole point of the speech was that Louis should not be put on trial - trials are for the citizens, which he is not. Louis’ crime is not treason - the monarchy is a crime in itself. Saint-Just argued against the trial. Yes, his speech was highly influential but presenting it in this way puts way too much weight on this newcomer’s words and implies he was the key factor behind the trial.

Other Observations

- There is a long debate among historians whether Robespierre was present for Saint-Just’s first speech on 13 November 1792. (I think the conclusion is “probably not”.) But I don’t mind this change, if nothing else, for those glorious shots of Robespierre’s heart eyes and Camille’s “wtf did this guy come from and why is Max looking at him like that?”

- Marat. It is true that he generally praised Saint-Just as an orator, but he disagreed with this speech (Marat was for trial).

- The reason why this post is dedicated to SJ’s first scene is because I was asked/challenged to write about it. It doesn’t mean that his other scenes were any better (I’d say they were worse). In fact, the entire SJ’s character was a Thermidorized mess.

- That being said, I don’t hate this SJ. I cannot; LRF was my introduction to the whole Frev thing and will always have a special place. Christopher Thompson was ok, particularly in some aspects of SJ. However, the whole thing was a mess and it should be criticized.

- Hair. I promised to dedicate one full paragraph to SJ’s hair, but I... can’t. I simply cannot. I am sorry. I tried, but the words failed me.

- This was more fun that it should have been and there are so many things I didn’t get to say (the entire performance and what this scene means for SJ as a character in the film, a more detailed analysis of the speech and comparison with the real one, etc.) But it did show that I can still vomit write 1000+ words about anything that I have any interest in, which is... good to know, I guess? (Let’s just say that I won’t be winning any SJ contest prizes for laconicism).

#la revolution francaise #saint-just #french revolution #frev #saint just #movies

187 notes · View notes