#but still kinda hate me for being a jew its whatever at this point the stakes are too high

[woman-respecter]

seeing people who followed me bc i spoke out against antisemitism unfollow, block, and vague me because i’m being too feminist now, while watching people with mildly antisemitic posts follow me for my feminist content who will inevitably turn on me when i start being too jewish again…and this cycle will go on forever until everyone learns to respect women and jews.

[the-rainbow-lesbian]

I relate so much to your reaction to Oct 7 and radblr. People were normal for like a day and then I started seeing posts basically going "well the murdering kids and raping was bad, but when you think about it don't the Israelis kinda deserve it for being colonizers?" Ever since then so many people who I thought were reasonable have been going full bore with the most insane antisemitic conspiracy theories. It makes me feel like I'm going crazy to see feminists reblogging posts about how Israel controls the media, Netanyahu literally is worse than Hitler, Israel is stealing blonde Palestinian children, and tryign to call it anti Zionism! Yeah, sure you don't hate Jews, you just think that all the Jews in Israel should be driven out of the country or murdered and any Jews outside Israel need to be interrogated for suspicious pro Israel beliefs. It's so fucking crazy and I don't get how people excusing the antisemitism or acting like antisemitism is necessary to support Palestine.

Sorry for going off in your inbox like this but its been making me so angry for almost 7 months now.

no that's okay I totally understand you're welcome to vent at any time.

I was just baffled on how and why they went full force on the propaganda and politics of it, I feel like as radfems or just feminists in general we should always put women first, you don't need to know the nationality and politics of a woman to care about her suffering, I saw a radfem (I am still trying to find that post again) basically saying under a post describing the rape of Israeli women "well what did they expect would happen when they live on occupied land?" I was speechless??

when October 7th happened and I saw that video of Shani Louk I felt sick, like up to that point I did believe what people said about Israel but at the same time I thought people were hypocrites specially if they live on lands that were colonized, sure the Israeli government might be bad like many governments but I am sure the citizens have nothing to do with it, and whatever happened is none of my business anyways, I am not researching every conflict that happened ever, this one just seems to get a lot of attention for some reason, but after October 7th I did learn more about it and here we are.

I think if people are so comfortable saying and doing antisemitic things it means they always had those beliefs and never challenged them because how are you comfortable doing and saying that stuff instantly you know? the propagandists don't even have to try hard when people are this dumb.

[mcustorm]

In Defense of a Black Cyclops

In case my username didn’t make it clear, the single most anticipated visual project for me is the MCU’s interpretation of the X-Men, which hasn’t even been announced yet [officially]. And ladies and gents, I have found your Cyclops:

Good ol’ Alfred Enoch, who we all know from Harry Potter and How to Get Away With Murder. If you’re not familiar with HTGAWM, know that his character goes from the de facto leader of the ragtag (murderers) and most cherished protege of Viola Davis’ Professor X to taking more of a grimdark turn after his girlfriend’s death. Sound at least somewhat familiar?

Enoch also embodies the physicality of the character well, seeing as to how he’s “slim”, 6′4(!!), black, and notoriously lanky. Wait, one of these isn’t like the others.

In general I hate fancasting. Everyone generally picks from the same pool of about 30 actors (Peeps, neither Taron nor Daniel is a good Wolverine choice. Argue with your mother!), and most all of it is based on physicality, except when it absolutely should be (like say, choosing a ~5′10 dark-skinned black woman for Storm).

And I think there’s some malarkey afoot. I think there needs to be some serious consideration on part of fancasters and actual casting agents alike to rethink race when it comes to the [white] X-Men, especially since they’re the X-Men of all teams. So I’ll make the case for a black Cyclops: 

1. There is no quota on Black X-Men: There’s a bug in your ear that’s been whispering lies to you for years, it says something to the effect of “We need a black person on the team for diversity. How bout Storm?” And you’ve gotten complacent. Storm does not have to be the only black person on your X-Men roster.

2. The X-Men represent diversity: Iceman is gay, Cyclops and Prof. X are disabled (sorta), there are plenty of women, oh and everybody except Storm is white. Of the A-List X-Men, there is only *one* POC character. I’d argue that an MCU X-Men needs to champion diversity like never before.

3. The X-Men represent minority struggle while being mostly white: There’s a cognitive dissonance in the metaphor that has always been there, and for the most part, nobody cares. To appeal to the white readers of the 60′s, the X-Men were all initially white. That way, the message of the mutants could be related to the audience with a familiar face. We don’t need to approach the problem that way in 202?

4. Just because that’s the way it’s always been, doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be: The first line of defense. Sorry, that will never be a good justification for literally any idea. It’s time for some more critical thinking.

5. We don’t all want to be Bishop: So say you’re white and you have a kid who for his birthday having a costume party. You’ve bought some X-Men costumes and you want each kid to pick one. 9 white kids and one black kid show up to your house. As the kids deliberate who gets what costume, be it Cyke or Wolvie or whatever, you yell at everybody to “STOP!”, point to the one black kid and tell him “You’re gonna be Bishop. That’s it, end of story!” 

We don’t all want to be Bishop. The black child could have the best Cyclops interpretation within him, but you’ll never know if you don’t let him try. And that’s no different from the Black actors of Hollywood. There’s no reason why all of the black talent should *have* to compete for the role of Bishop or Storm, which I’ve discussed, while Joe Schmo can walk up and audition for literally anybody he wants.          

Jharrel Jerome is 23 and has an Emmy to his name. He needs to be in the MCU in some capacity, period. Stephan James is another. How bout Damson Idris. Ashton Sanders. But no, no, let’s fancast Dacre Montgomery or Ansel or Joe Keery again as [Human Torch, Wolverine, Iceman, Angel, I’ve literally seen it all.]

6. Nobody wants to see the B-team if it comes down to it. The next line of defense from your racebending naysayers after “That’s the way it’s always been!” is “Well, what about Psylocke, Bishop, Forge and Jubilee?” who are otherwise known as B-tier X-Men. The problem is, we’ve got limited time and limited spots.

So since the X-Men is all about wonky metaphors that make half sense, let me give you another: Let’s say somebody approaches you and says “Hey buddy, I got two free concert tickets for ya! You can either see Michael Jackson Sings the Blues, or you can go see Justin Timberlake. Free of charge!”

Now, are you used to MJ singing the blues? No! Do you have a problem with going to see Justin Timberlake? No, he’s fine on a Wednesday! He had that one little diddy we liked that one time. We’d love to see him eventually! But are you gonna say, “fuck that, I’m going to see MJ Sings the Blues” regardless? Hell yes, because that’s still Michael Jackson. He’s gonna give the same amazing performance he always does, it’s just gonna be the blues. And speaking of blues...

7. Black is not Blue, Brown is not Blue: Raise your hand if you’ve ever heard this one: “I don’t care if you’re black, white, purple, or green, I’m going to treat you all the same!” I will not say all have this intention, but some fancasters have noticed that the racial diversity is kinda low within the A-List X-Men, so they oh-so-generously give the following roles to a black or brown person: Iceman, Nightcrawler, Beast. 

Notice the pattern? It’s a microaggression, and it’s bullshit. What these fancasters are implicitly telling you is that, yes the actors will be black or brown, but when the action starts we can ignore that. They’ll be blue by then. In other words, you in fact do care if they’re purple or green. Nobody will cry foul if Dev Patel gets to play Nightcrawler (because that’s a common one I see), but should Anna Diop be Starfire or Michael B. Jordan be Human Torch, I bet there’d be backlash. Oh wait. If that’s you, please stop acting like you actually value diversity. You don’t want to see black or brown skin, period. Unless of course, it’s Storm (refer to point #1).

But wait, there’s more! When brown characters get whitewashed in these movies, it’s crickets! So eventually it’s revealed implicitly that proclaimers of point #4 only care about it one way.

8. Professor X should not be black if you’re not willing to change anyone else: The next line of defense is that some people say the professor should be black, if anybody HAS to be racebent. Something something MLK Jr., Civil Rights or some shit. Number one, I’m not reducing Professor X to being a magical negro for 9 white people (and Storm!) who for all intents and purposes get to have all the action. Number 2, the Professor X/MLK/Magneto/Malcolm X comparison is an oversimplifying disservice to ALL FOUR of those people. I hate that line whenever I see it, please watch a documentary my friends. 

9. The Candidates for Racebending: For me, the A-List X-Men are Cyclops, Jean Grey, Iceman, Angel, Beast, Wolverine, Storm, Gambit, Rogue, Colossus, Nightcrawler, and Kitty Pryde. Now, who should be exempt from the racebending? Storm, she’s our designated minority. Gambit, he’s Cajun and they’re white (generally speaking, that’s a fun bit of research). Wolverine, Colossus, and Nightcrawler, because their nationality/ethnicity was the whole point of the Giant-Size premise in the first place. Angel, because his character embodies a privileged white male. Beast and Iceman, I don’t care one way or another (Point #7).

That leaves Cyclops, Rogue, Jean Grey, and Kitty Pryde. Now Jean Grey is a redhead, and we all know that every time a redhead is racebent people sharpen their pitchforks (Mary Jane, Wally West, Iris West), so I will cede the ground on Jean if only so that my ginger friends can get their rep. Kitty Pryde is Jewish, but Jews of color exist. Rogue is from the South. And Cyclops is, well, just Cyclops. That makes those three characters good options for more diversity. But allow me to make the case for Cyclops, specifically.

10. It’s not just diversity for diversity’s sake: If you had to pick who the main character of the X-Men is supposed to be, most would say Cyclops. And so in a series that highlights racial discrimination in society, it makes sense that our main character be black. While changing Cyclops’ skin color should not change who he is as a character, it *should* recontextualize it. Now, as an eventual increasingly radical leader of the X-Men, Cyclops would evoke real life figures such as Colin Kaepernick or, shall I say, Martin Luther King, Jr.

Not that most X-Men fans and writers truly think about what it means to be black anyways. Storm’s minority status is almost always put through the lens of her being a mutant and not her being a black woman. In other words, you can’t argue that making a character black will fundamentally change his or her character when you haven’t even analyzed the racial context of the black character(s) you already have. Another concept that the MCU X-Men should tackle: intersectionality.

11. Representation matters: I have to say it: Chadwick Boseman’s Black Panther hit different. And now he is tragically gone. At the end of the day, the MCU moving forward is down its most prominent black male superhero. Which has implications beyond just the movies themselves.

The women are in good hands. Shuri, Okoye, and Nakia are badasses in Wakanda, Valkyrie is ruling Asgard, Storm is almost assuredly on the way, RiRi Williams has already been cast, and Monica Rambeau is here and she’s not even at her most glorious yet. That doesn’t even include variable Δ, or the number of characters who can and will be racebent. And I’ll note again that to me, Gamora doesn’t count, because she’s green (#7 really pisses me off because it’s so blatant. I hate it). Of course from a behind the camera perspective we love black women getting work.

The men are a completely different story. Imma just go out and say it, I can’t stand Falcon and War Machine [in the MCU] because they’re not characters, they’re just two of a slew of MCU minority sidekicks who have essentially been at the beck and call of Captain America and Iron Man, respectively. You cannot tell Falcon’s story without mentioning Cap. The reverse is not true. There’s a whole essay that could be and have been written on “Minorities in the MCU, pre-Black Panther”. Remember, there’s a reason BP made so much noise in the first place.

So excluding those two we have, let’s see, M’Baku, Blade, and Fury who aren’t exactly the most superheroic superheroes, Eli Bradley is proooobably coming, I doubt Miles Morales is coming (because he’s just Peter Parker in the MCU), Luke Cage(?) Bishop(??), Sunspot(???), Blue Marvel(????). Not only are they not A-List, I would not put money on any of them being in the MCU any time soon.

Cyclops is thee Captain America of the X-Men. He’s the frontman. He’s the poster boy. He’s the “boy scout”, which in other words means he’s the hero, if there has to be one. It would mean a lot right now, and specifically *right now*, if he were to be black. The MCU needs it. It NEEDS it.

12. The X-Men is the Summers Story: I’ll even make the case that if just one character needs to racebent, then it should be Cyclops, because that of course implies that other related characters need to be black because half of the X-Men universe is in fact a part of the Summers family. 

So now Cable is black. Corsair is black. Havok is black. And one of the most central stories in the X-Men mythos, the Summers family drama, is now a black family drama set in space or the future or where the fuck ever. The concept is boundary pushing. When white families have drama in the media, it gets to be Game of Thrones or Star Wars, while when black families have drama in the media, it has to be black people arguing in a kitchen or living room about their various earthly traumas (I’m @’ing you, Mr. Perry). I mean, that’s all fine and good often times, but I want my black family drama in space, dammit.

And again, this is the X-Men, the series that’s all about *minorities* and their struggle, so again, why not?

Oh, and I’ll even throw out a Havok fancast for you: How bout Jharrel Jerome?

[petewentzisblack1312]

hey dils!! was listening to sunshine riptide and thought of u so i wanted to say i hope ur taking care and also ask if u have any favorite fob videos/interviews?? lately i have been obsessed w the promo video patrick did for the honda civic tour where he drove around LA and said the only reason they got the tour was because he already drove a civic ahsjdbd

first of all it is SO flattering that listening to sunshine riptide made you think of me ��

secondly i was molded out of clay to answer this question, 100% i have a lot that i think about like way too often

the one where petes giving a tour of his parents house where he lived at the time and was showing off his stuff and was particularly very excited about the fact that his band was turned into action figures and then half way through andy shows up and is like "were best friends forever!" and petes like "yeah andy comes over for sleepovers a lot, we hang out in my basement and make zines and stuff" and then at the end he gets all excited cuz he hears his moms car pull up and he goes out and shes coming out of the car and then patrick gets out of the car carrying groceries and petes like "here mom me and patrick can put the groceries away you finish the interview" and shes like "no- pete i just got home from work im a mess" and hes like "what? no! no mom you look great, you can finish the interview well take in the groceries" and then she did and the camera crew came back to the two of them messing around and putting groceries away.

"pete wentz is honestly the only way to describe pete wentz. hes the most complicated guy i know." [cut to] "if anyone can make a strike without touching the lane i will pay you $300" *throws bowling balls straight into the air* *runs down the lane*

ok but in all seriousness i love that interview not only for that iconic moment but because later the footage is like blaring i dont care and pete goes and grabs a stuffed giraffe out of the prize thingie and hes like "what do you mean :)? we bought this with our tickets!!" and the editors are very much trying to make it a bad boy rebel without a cause moment except if you looked the woman behind the counter had a smile on her face and was laughing and then afterwards he gave it back and said "we werent really gonna steal it" but it really seemed like she knew that already

and then at a different point a couple fans showed up and they were all shy and excited to meet him and he was just like "hey are you guys coming to the show later" and they were like "yeah" and he was like "cool! thanks for coming out :) do you want a picture?" and they took a picture and it seemed like he was still kinda excited that people were excited to meet him. marcus (their bodyguard) was like trailing behind him and smiling and laughing throughout most of these antics and i just think thats sweet.

later in this same interview once again as they were on the ride back to their hotel or whatever theyd brought back a fake moustache and patrick put it on and did a bunch of dumb impressions.

patrick: if i wasnt doing music i think id be like a music critic or music journalist or something

andy:...i thought you said youd work at walmart

theres this one srar era interview thats just joe and patrick riffing for like 15 minutes. like it looks like they just straight up forgot the interviewer was there its so funny theyre such good friends.

this one joe and pete interview where i dont even really remember what they were talking about but theres a moment where joes talking about music with this intense passion and pete just kinda looks at him with this level of brotherly pride that keeps me going

this one andy and pete interview where 1) there were waterfowl chillin behind them which was deeply fascinating to andy and 2) they took a moment to swivel their chairs and hug each other bc theyre besties

band superlatives, specifically the moment where theyre all separately like "technically marcus isnt in the band but like. its marcus." bc that was sweet, unofficial 5th member of fob. and also "whos the most talented" "patrick. patrick. its patrick, hands down." "hm. petes like a really good soccer player" like thats a moment out of a fucking sitcom

halloween asmr with pete wentz. the man cant act but god can he commit to a bit.

there was this like live text chat that they all were in with fans on some radio station website. there were a lot of very fun moments, including joe saying "this is very current technology." as a comment on how very dated the live chat was and andy being like "can we set an icon i wanna change mine to an XVX" and pete and joe being like "oh are you vegan straight edge? we had no idea." and then pete was like "actually i wanna change my icon to andy hurley" and andy was like "no pete im not gonna send you a picture of me" and he was like :( and then a minute later he changed it to andy and he was like, and i swear this is almost a direct quote "BOOM! i love my life haha" and andy was like "goddammit" like i have no idea where to find this but it was so good.

theres this one "this or that" interview with joe and andy wherein the interviewer was a woman and like she seemed pretty at ease around them and got to the last question and imo seemed kinda uncomfortable and kind of established (in a way that seemed like she didnt usually do that) that it was a gross question, which was "would you have sex with a super hot celebrity but shes just died" and both of them were like "hey. what the fuck. absolutely not." and shes like "oh thats a first" and they are both like "do people say yes to that????????" and shes like "youre literally the first people to say no haha" in a way that made it seem that she did not find it funny and i just find that to be an interesting moment and i hope shes doing well and has a better producer now.

theres this one interview w andy on a hardcore podcast where the interviewer asks andy "do you every wish fall out boy were more political?" and he said (paraphrasing) "fall out boy is political, in its own way. we may not be as explicit with our politics as my other stuff, but kids find fall out boy, and through me, with all my other bands, or through joe, since he does a lot of metal, find heavier stuff, and are introduced to this stuff and to being vegan straight edge or anarchist or just more radical politics, and i dont think that just because we arent being super political in our music we arent a political band" which was really something to me bc i had just been thinking about that as a concept i call "gateway punk"

theres this one interview i recently found of a very small chicago music news outlet where a young lady interviewed pete and asked far more interesting questions than any other interviewer id ever seen and one such question was how he felt about the legalization of marijuana in illinois and he said that it was cool that it was legal but everyone locked up for it right now should be released and i like that he got to be political

theres a moment on the badass jew podcast episode joe was on where the interviewer whomst i do not recall was espousing some veiled antiblack sentiments wrt some antisemitic comments some famous black people had made and joe just completely rebutted it immediately and pointed out that black people not only are not a monolith bht are at a greater disadvantage

and also he made a joke that i could never make and cant fully get bc im not jewish but it was very funny and i love hearing people make jokes that arent for me.

this one interview before patrick had kids where he was saying how everyone kept asking him and elisa when theyd have kids and he was like "you cant just make that happen yknow? how do you just do that?" and pete immediately grinned and leaned over and mock whispered "you have sex" and patrick punched the air and was like "i hate you so much"

that one interview about abap where pete was like "we actually got the guy who did the whistles on patience by guns n roses to do it on this" and then he looks over at patrick and patrick shakes his head and petes like "you couldnt let me have this?" and he was like "i was gonna but then you looked at me and i just couldnt."

"whats the most important thing to you right now?"

patrick: star wars

joe: my daughter.

patrick: ...my son?

the puppy interview. everyone involved including the puppies was having the time of their goddamn life.

i have to stop this is too much its been like an hour

[konaizumi]

Gen Y ep 11 thoughts/reaction

- yeees, make thanuwayu canon!

- i literally just want wayu to be happy

- one of my favorite things about this show is how mature the characters feel, like a majority of the conflicts are caused by the characters being confused or unsure of their feelings and trying to take time to work through them and this unintentionally hurts other characters, but this feels more genuine than a bunch of drama created by stupid misunderstandings and characters being petty, and yes, communication would help a lot of these problems, but it never feels like the writers are just adding things in for no other reason than ‘drama’

- anyways, back to thanuwayu and that beautiful hug and wayu’s precious smile

- that brief flash of thanu’s smile, looking so genuinely happy to have wayu in his arms

- poor phai tho, I don’t want any of my babies getting hurt

- anybody else freak out for a second when he took off his shirt in the mirror and worry that he had gotten the tattoo then were immediately relieved when his back was still bare? just me?

- i tend to prefer college shows rather than high school ones, but my favorite thing about high school thai bls is how accurately they portray high school boys, just boys goofing off, showing their sexy hips

- pls poktong just kiss and make up already, i liked you a lot better when your genre was fluff

- watching pok being all flirty and douchy just seems out of character

- 15 min in and still no markkit

- i’m glad the whole blackmailing plot has now been fully explained, but seeing sandee suddenly smirking and being an asshole is giving me the same feelings as when poktong got weirdly aggressive last ep (by feelings i mean confusion and dislike)

- i wanted phai to end up with sandee bc sandee was so cute and sweet but i don’t know if i want that anymore

- also i forgive tong a little bit for what he did (getting pok beat up not switching the test scores) knowing that he had good(ish) intentions, he still fucked up tho and did a bad thing

- i’m calling it now, either next ep or next season, right when poktong is finally making progress, pok will find out about the switched scores and bam, drama

- pls poktong just kiss and make up already

- i know this scene is supposed to be romantic and all but i can’t stop cringing at the placement of the kisses, like next to the mouth but not quite the cheek? the chin??

- back to my preferred high school babies

- i can’t stop laughing at how they all got the coming of age parted bangs hairstyle to symbolize that they’re in college now

- all the high school babies look good except for pok who now has too much forehead, not that his style before was great but it was better

- thanu is such boyfriend material

- that phaiwayu hug hurts my soul, wayu looks so happy, i just want them both to be happy and not get hurt

- Finally!! 25 min in and finally we get markkit

- i want more of this thanu, thanu with a smile and joking around with his friends

- I really want jiw’s butterfly shirt

- jack and jew kidknapping mark like that was prob my favorite moment of the whole episode, that gif is now my header

- alright, padbok is back, still waiting for their story, but i kinda hope their resolution waits till season 2 bc i want character development for padbok and there’s already so much that needs to happen next ep that i think his story would only be rushed and somewhat glossed over

- i know some people hate padbok, and i also find him annoying, but ever since they dropped the idea of padbok x sab in an earlier ep, all i want is padbok redemption ark

- i guess thanu is somehow going to feature in the poktong story

- i absolutely love sab and klui, they are my favorites of the high school babies

- i guess i can’t call them high school babies anymore

- jackkoh, just admit your feelings for each other already

- aww, markkitwayu choosing custody over the babies, mark wants to be a good senior so badly

- soon as kit said they hadn’t picked a medicine beau, i was like, it’s going to be tong, and i was right, it’s ittpai all over again, but whether it’s better or worse remains to be seen

- kit really does attract the beau’s doesn’t he

- don’t worry mark, you’re much prettier than pok

- pls give me more kitwayu bonding and helping each other heal from pha

- damn kit, you were so close to getting phai to spill

- yes phai, make kit move in with mark

- i absolutely need to know what kit’s test is for phai’s suitors

- i would just like to admire dun’s ability to look so completely lovestruck, like his gaze is just so full of love and it’s so sweet

- that kiss was so cute, i’m sorry i ever doubted you thanuwayu

- that’s pha’s car isn’t it? he’s watching them? I thought he would come back this ep and cause some drama, but he didn’t so he has to come back next ep right?

- i like that they’ve softened poktong bc i like them much better as friends to lovers rather than enemies to lovers

- honestly, their story has a lot of potential but something about it is just really not working well for me and i think its the weird aggression bc they don’t annoy me when their being sweet and smiling. I think if pok had more of a bad boy vibe originally it would’ve been better bc the aggression wouldn’t seem so ooc and the conflict would feel a bit more natural

- their story also has a ton of parallels to ittpai (my gear your gown), so im interested how it’s going to go bc i did like ittpai despite the narrative issues of that show

- poktong: *doing whatever tf they’re doing*

  mark: tf did i just step in

- i really appreciate thanu just saying straight out that he has feelings for wayu, i know he struggled with it, but i like him coming to this point that’s like yes, he feels an attraction to phai, he feels drawn to him and he’s seen their poential future, but right now he has actual, solid feelings for wayu built up from their interactions over months

- what he has with phai isn’t real--it could be real, if he went down that path and choose to get closer to phai, but right now his feelings for wayu are real, so that’s what he’s choosing

- him saying they should never meet again was a little tho, spare my poor baby phai at least a little bit

- i get a dose of serotonin every time i see kit wearing mark’s gear

- the markkit is lacking this ep but they are trying to make up for it with all this good good thanuwayu content

- i’m torn between wanting and not wanting thanu to tell wayu about phai bc it will hurt wayu if he does but it’s gonna hurt more later on when wayu finds out on his own

- I can’t tell if wayu has a suspicion about phai, like he def senses there’s another person but I can’t tell if he knows it’s phai

- okay but thanuwayu are so cute and sweet together

- pls let my babies kiss, i couldn’t appreciate their first kiss bc i didn’t ship them then and wayu thought it was pha so pls let them have a do over

- you know what, i like thanuwayu having visions like thanuphai. I can’t quite tell if that was the writers’ intention, but i hope it is bc that would imply that thanuphai aren’t actually soulmates and that what they see is just a potential future, like they could be happy together, but there are also other people who they can be happy with

- i’m not super crazy about this whole ‘let’s rewrite my memories of pha with memories of you’ bc that doesn’t seem like the healthiest way to move on from pha or to start a new relationship but whatever makes wayu happy i guess

- however i do like how it ties into the whole ‘no predetermined fate’ thing and shows how life is shaped by choices and chance

- pls let my babies kiss tho

- hey so i am not liking this preview of the next ep

- anyways, so i’m liking how their handling the thanuwayuphai thing so far, but it is going to be bad next ep as im assuming the envelope that has phai’s picture is probably phai returning the picture to cut ties but obvi wayu is going to find out about their relationship

- still not sure how i feel about poktong, its better than last ep which i did not like and def shows more potential, but i think we’re gonna have to wait and see, don’t like the direction they’re taking with sandee tho

- also whoops, this got really long but i have a lot of feelings about this show

- fingers crossed for actual markkit content next ep

[godsofhumanity]

GODHUNTER by AMY SUMIDA | REVIEW

okiee this was recommended to me by @inkleaves ^-^ uhmm so i have a LOT to say about this book. spoilers under cut.

OVERVIEW: “Godhunter” is the epithet given to a young woman named Vervain who uses witchcraft and magic to go around committing deicide in order to save humanity from gods who drain their energy to gain immortality and other godly attributes. However, when Vervain is recruited by the Norse god Thor, she finds herself in an alliance with the people she originally considered her enemies, as they work together to save the world from the maliciousness of the Aztec god, Huitzilopochtli.

RATING: 2/10. i’m giving it a low rating because it doesn’t really have too much to do with mythology, but i did like its general portrayal of most deities even though this book was insanely cringey and dumb.. now, even though under the cut, i’ve kinda bashed the book quite a bit, i still have to admit that i’d be lying if i said i didn’t have fun reading it. i stayed up to 1 AM trying to finish it because i had to find out what the protag’s next stupid decision would be,, all in all, if you like trash/cringe fiction- this is for you.

WARNING: even though this book is a YA novel, I’d say there’s a definite emphasis on the adult part of “young adult”... Certain scenes and themes are inappropriate for minors.

AVAILABLE ON: pdf link here ^-^ ((i think it downloads immediately if you click))

THINGS I LIKED:

the book is cringe.

great diversity in terms of the god cast. i learned about some new deities that i was previously unfamiliar with, so that was cool

Brahma (Hindu deity) wears a Gucci belt as part of his attire ^-^

whatever Estsanatlehi and Tsohanoai (Native American deities) had going on.... they were really cute and wholesome

THOR-HORUS BROTP AGENDA!!!!!!!! everyone who follows me already knows how keen i am about this idea of all the war deities hanging out together (fite club), and this novel served up exactly that. disappointing that Huitzilopochtli wasn’t a part of it, but i am settling for Thor and Horus’ several centuries old friendship.

Horus’ falcon tattoo detail.. i LOVE the idea of the gods having their sacred animals tattooed,, it’s so awesome!!!

Pan... i liked the way he still had his little horns, and he was kinda chaotic and fun.

in general, the descriptions of the gods were so pleasant and so cool.. i really liked the way that pretty much all the gods were beautiful,, this is very much in line with my own idea of how the gods look, and i think it makes sense, because they’re meant to be charismatic, compelling beings- beings that you worship, beings that you praise- why would they be anything but beautiful? and even if they were considered ugly by other gods, that’s only in comparison to other deities.. from a human perspective,, i just can’t see how any mortal could consider a god to be anything less than perfection,, idk

in particular- i really enjoyed the descriptions of Huitzilopochtli in his debut. i know he’s a piece of shit in the novel, but i LOVED the way he was described with his war-frenzy being triggered by blood, and the way, as god of the sun, his body almost glows, and heats up as though you’re looking into the sun itself, and the only way he can cool it down is by bathing in blood... WOWOWOWOW it’s just such a neat and fantastic visual description. his physical appearance really paid tribute to Huitzilopochtli’s original domain and attributes.

i also liked the linking between Huitzilopochtli being the Father of Vampires.. links between Aztec culture and vampirism is a trope that i didn’t originally suspect, but have become exposed to quite a bit as of late,, and i think that it’s quite a clever little plot. i liked that Huitzilopochtli also debunks superstitions about the sun, garlic, crosses, holy water etc.

Huitzilopochtli as the villain. the man makes a BRILLIANT villain- his motives are very clear and also, i thought, justified, albeit unoriginal. his presence is quite terrifying, and the reader does worry for Vervain’s safety whenever she’s with him- which is good! this means that he fills out his role as a villain well. tbh,, i did love Huitzilopochtli from the moment of his debut, but he got knocked out of my books during a certain temple scene and i have some thoughts about that in the next section.

when Vervain wakes up after the temple dream with Huitzilo, and she relaxes because it was just a dream, but then she looks into the mirror and sees bite marks on her neck!!! CHILLS! now THAT was good writing- it was unexpected, and served well to navigate into the next part of the plot.

Odin and Huitzilopochtli holding a ted talk on “how to create panic and discord among the humans”, and the gods having to bring certain meals depending on what the first letter of their names were.

Vervain’s pop-culture references, and her weaponry- especially the gloves that have blades in them that get released when she swings her hand downwards. very cool, i want them.

casual appearances from Vladimir Putin (yes, i said Vladimir Putin)... i couldn’t stop laughing when i read that Huitzilo was trying to kill Putin’s daughter to instigate a war...... asdhshajdhasdjfhjdhf insane

also i know Vervain was trying to mock Huitzilo when she nicknamed him “Blue”,, but like.. that’s a really cute name and it wasn’t even insulting.. yeah, that one backfired on you Vervain... if anything, that just made it seem like she actually had affections for him and i feel like probably in part is the reason why he felt encouraged to pursue her.

THINGS I DIDN’T LIKE/THINGS THAT DIDN’T MAKE SENSE AND/OR CONFUSED ME:

the book is cringe.

it reads like a 15 year old’s fantasy AU where she’s a humble young woman, unextraordinary- yet somehow, she is the muse of every man’s desire. handsome, ripped gods who never wear clothes are laying themselves down at her feet,, and she is just overwhelmed by the choices before her; and all the while, she has to balance a complicated love life with her duty to save the world (since she’s the only one who can).

Vervain as a protagonist. idk how old she’s meant to be, but since the book is in first-person, and the reader is exposed to her innermost thoughts,, i’ve gotta say- she’s incredibly immature. as a protagonist, i just feel like she’s rude, pretentious, snobby.. she has no idea what “respect” even means. in every scene, she’s either fighting someone, or lusting after them (when Teharon told her off for having lascivious thoughts about him, and she simply responded with “well stop being so sexy then” i wanted to die.... WHAT is wrong with her)

i hate the way she looks down on the gods- even if you didn’t worship them, or even believed in their existence, surely you wouldn’t have the gall to lecture Hades and Persephone on how to be a good couple (especially when your advice is shit). surely you wouldn’t have the gall to say to Thor what Vervain says to him on pg 227, 4th line from the bottom, that i will not repeat here. Vervain is just too self-absorbed. i don’t hate her, but i definitely think her character is a bit,,, iffy.

relating to Vervain as the protagonist- everything just seems to happen to her.. and i know that she’s the protag, and things are meant to happen to her, but it all happens to her one after the other in succession, no breaks. it’s so easy for her... oh? Huitzilopochtli is going to kill Putin’s daughter? no worries, Vervain can read Huitzilopochtli’s thoughts! oh? the gods have never been able to transform more than half their body into their animal form? no worries, Vervain is so powerful she can force a god to change against their will! oh? Vervain is being attacked by blood-thirsty wolves? no worries, she saved the life of one werewolf and now he’s indebted to her and will literally kill himself in order to protect her! everything is easy, and nothing is a problem.

the way every male deity ever sees Vervain once and immediately wants to take her to bed. why was that a necessary aspect of her character? and also, why are the gods portrayed as such lustful beings?? it really wasn’t necessary.

Horus throwing a fit about how December 25 is his birthday and that it was stolen from him by Jesus... to quote:

“No big deal?” Horus puffed up. “I was called the Lamb of God. I had twelve apostles, and my myths spoke of my crucifixion and consequent resurrection in three days. His stories were my stories first!”

it’s fine that Horus is angry about his birthday which was i think, historically celebrated around this date- but the rest of it isn’t even true???? Horus didn’t have 12 apostles, i’m pretty sure he was also not called “Lamb of God”, and he wasn’t crucified!!! aghhhh even Thor says “It’s been so long that even you don’t remember things accurately.”

anyways.. my beef with this is the way it’s phrased so as to imply that “oh christianity just stole everything from the pagans” when this is so incredibly false and sounds like something an ill-informed person would say. you can read more about christianity, paganism and christmas here

kinda related to the previous point- the jokes about Jesus’ skin colour. i quote:

“... when Christ first became a god, he looked Jewish because those were the people he chose to align himself with. However, the Jews didn’t want him, and when Christianity spread, the white people wanted Jesus to look more like them. With the change in belief, Christ’s appearance changed. ... We used to tease him about how he looked whiter every time we saw him... Kind of like Michael Jackson...”

what the FUCK??????? seems like Sumida doesn’t understand that various ethnic groups illustrate Jesus as appearing as the local people do. Yes, obviously in a Western country, Jesus is going to look European, he’s going to look white. If you go to Japan, you will see Jesus and the rest of the gang looking pretty fucking Japanese. the point of this is NOT to erase Jesus’ Jewish ethnicity, and it is certainly not because of something like “the Jews didn’t want him”- it is because it is a way for followers to better relate to the Divine. including Christ in this story isn’t the problem- i’ve seen others do it very well. the problem is how uneducated her writing comes across.

all the gods have human jobs so that they can earn money and stuff,, which is fine- Thor, for example, owns a line of boats, which makes sense. but Pan? his job is making p*rn. now even though it’s true that everyone associates Pan with sexuality and stuff,,, this isn’t his primary role, and making Pan out to be just a playboy who has his mind in the gutter 24/7 i think is a bit of a mockery. Pan is, first and foremost, a god of the Wild. why Sumida elected to make him a p*rn manufacturer and not a wildlife conservationist is beyond me... i’m not even pagan, and i thought this creative decision was distasteful and stupid, especially because his character is actually quite light-hearted and cool.

the temple scene with Huitzilopochtli and Vervain. as i said previously, i really really liked Huitzilo’s character. he made an excellent villain. but this part?? i understand why��it was done, but i HATED that it had to happen... not just because it was horrible for Vervain, but Huitzilo seemed so powerful and godly right up to that point- after which he seemed pretty pathetic- going back after Vervain after she’s rejected him countless times. she is JUST a mortal!!! c’mon Huitzilo, give it up!!! you are degrading yourself at the expense of achieving one mortal’s “love”.. the fact that he had to hypnotise her to get what he wanted AND had to achieve it through her dreams (when’s she can’t protect herself) was sooooo pathetic and disgraceful.. IMO, he committed the worst sin any person could ever commit and i just... AGHHHHHHHHH SMH WHY?!

speaking of morons- Thor. Thor just comes across to me as extremely possessive, and over-protective,, and idk how Vervain was NOT creeped out by the fact that Thor had literally been stalking her for two years before she even met him. wtf? god or not- that’s creepy. actually, i think it’s creepier because he is a god. 

Sif. i am still waiting for good media representation of thunder god Thor and his beautiful golden-haired wife Sif- i want them to be HAPPY, and i want them to be in love the way they should be! 

Persephone. i like the idea of Persephone being sweet-tempered, and kind- but in this book, she’s such a wimp??????? she totally just lets Vervain be rude to her, a goddess who’s name means “Bringer of Destruction”. also- her relationship with Hades seems toxic.. i mean,, he like tracks her? she starts stuttering when she talks to him, and gets nervous when people so much as mention his name. not to mention the fact that Persephone says that when she does go back to him, all he demands from her is a certain horizontal dance so much so that she is “sore” (<- quoting from the book here) every time she returns??????? WHAT IS HAPPENING?????????? and no one even questions it. Vervain doesn’t even question it! instead she suggests that Persephone MOVES IN with Hades permanently???? and that Hades should just start verbally saying how much he loves Persephone instead of “showing” her how much he “loves” her.....??? there are SO many issues with this.. i can’t even- *screams*

the Aphrodite-is-madly-in-love-with-Huitzilopochtli side plot. it could have been really good, but then it ends so abruptly,,, i mean.. why’d Aphrodite get done so dirty like that? Also summary of Hephaestus’ first and final scenes:

Hephaestus, entering the room: Right, what’s all this then? Vervain: Your wife is cheating on you (again) Hephaestus: Aight, i’m out *leaves and never comes back for the rest of the book*

what the HECK was the ending with Trevor?? i hate Vervain so much i can’t... okay first of all- WHY did Trevor decide to have a wolf-marriage with Vervain?? he kept on going on about how she’s so beautiful, and kind, and caring... NO SHE ISN’T TREVOR!!! i’m so mad that he would pledge himself for all eternity to this girl who doesn’t even like him in that way!!! you played yourself son

also- Thor accepts the fact that Trevor is going to have to be close by to Vervain because the terms of the marriage state that Trevor will literally die without her touch, which is VERY GENEROUS of Thor... but Vervain?? ooooh i HATE her.. she has the audacity to look at Trevor with her lecherous eyes thinking about lustful things IN THOR’S OWN BED!!!!! and then she thinks to herself “oh whoops i shouldn’t be thinking that”- yeah you’re darn right you shouldn’t be thinking that!!!! whatttt is wrong with her............. 

also- where tf did Huitzilo go??? he just gave up on trying to instigate a war and vanished?? the plot was so unresolved?????? AGH!

[innuendostudios]

New video essay! Internet reactionaries argue as though they have no core beliefs at all, and will just say anything to own the libs. So are they nihilists, or is there more going on?

You can ensure this series continues by backing me on Patreon.

Transcript below the cut.

Say, for the sake of argument, you’re online blogging about a Black journalist’s commentary on marketing trends in video games, movies, and comic books, and you’re saying how the vitriol in response to her fairly benign opinions reveals the deep-seated racism and misogyny in a number of fan communities, most especially those that lean right, when a right-leaning commenter pops in to say, “Or maybe they just actually disagree with her about marketing trends! For Christ’s sake, there’s no mystery here. People aren’t aren’t speaking in coded language. They are telling you what they believe. She had a bad opinion; why do you have to make it bigger than that? Why can’t you ever take people at their word?”

You pause and ponder for a moment. Mmm… Aw heck with it, you’re in a discoursing mood. Let’s do this.

“Mr. Conservative, in order for me to take you at your word, your words would have to show some consistency. Let me just lightning round a few questions about the reactionary web’s positions on marketing trends: Do you believe that having the option to romance same-sex characters in an RPG turns the game into queer propaganda, or do you believe that killing strippers in an action game can’t be sexist since no one’s making you do it? Do you believe that the pervasiveness of sexualized young women in pop culture is just there because it sells and that’s capitalism and we all need to deal with it, or do you believe that a franchise has an obligation to cater to its core audience even if diversifying beyond that audience is more profitable? Do you think words are inherently harmless and only oversensitive snowflakes would care about racialized language, or do you think it’s racist if someone calls you mayonnaise boy? As long as I’ve got your ear: Are you the Party that believes in the right to keep and bear arms because you’re distrustful of all authority and what if we need to overthrow the government someday, or do you believe that cops are civil servants and we should trust their account of events whenever they shoot a Black man for looking like he might have a gun?

“Does optional content reveal a game’s ideology, or doesn’t it? Is capitalism a defense for decisions you don’t agree with, or isn’t it? Is language harmful, or not? Do you hate authority, or love cops and the troops?

Alright, alright, ease off. Add some nuance.     “Now, I know the Right is not a monolith, and maybe these arguments are contradictory because they’re coming from different people. We’ll call them Engelbert and Charlemagne. Maybe Engelbert’s the one who thinks any institution funded by tax money is socialist and therefore bad and Charlemagne’s the one who says we should dump even more tax money into the military and thinking otherwise is un-American. But here’s the thing: Y’all have very fundamentally different beliefs, and you’re so passionate about them that you enter search terms into Twitter to find people you don’t even follow and aggressively disagree with them, and, yet, you’re always yelling at me and never yelling at each other. What’s that about?

“And I can’t say how often it happens, but I know, if I let Engelbert go on long enough, he sometimes makes a Charlemagne argument. And vice versa.

“And, I see you getting ready to say, ‘The Left does the same thing,’ but ba ba ba ba ba, don’t change the subject. That’s an extremely false equivalence, but, more importantly, it doesn’t answer my question. What do you actually believe, and why are you so capable of respecting disagreement between each other, yet so incapable of respecting me - or, for that matter, a Black woman?

“See, I don’t take you at your word because I cannot form a coherent worldview out of the things you say. So, forgive me if, when you tell me what you believe, I don’t think you’re being candid with me. It kinda seems like you’re playing games, and I’m the opposing team, and anyone who’s against me is your ally. And you’re not really taking a position, but claiming to believe in whatever would need to be true to score points against me, like we’re in that one episode of Seinfeld.” [Card Says Moops clip.]

(This is borrowed observation #1, link in the down-there part.)

Hoo, it feels good calling people hypocrites! Person says B when earlier they said A and you point out the contradiction! You don’t take a position on A or B, and you still “win”! I see why Republicans like this so much.

But that’s the kind of point-scoring we’re here to deconstruct, so let’s get analytical.

There’s a certain Beat-You-At-Your-Own-Gaminess to the Card Says Moops maneuver. “Safe spaces are bullshit, but, if you get one, I get one too.” “There’s no such thing as systemic oppression, but, if there were, I’d be oppressed.” It’s dismissing the rhetoric of social justice while also trying to use it against you. Claiming “the Card Says Moops” does not, so much, mean, “I believe the people who invaded Spain in the 8th Century were literally called The Moops,” but, rather, “You can’t prove I don’t believe it.” Not a statement of sincere belief, simply moving a piece across the board. All in the game, yo.

If they could be so nakedly honest with you and themselves to answer “what do you actually believe” truthfully, one suspects the answer would be, “What difference does it make? We’re right either way.”

This has come to be known as “postmodern conservatism,” a fact I find hilarious, because, in The Discourse, “postmodernism” is a dogwhistle for everything the Right hates about the Left. (...it also means “Jews.”) Postmodern conservatism is the thinking that, at least for the purpose of argument, the truth of who invaded Spain is immaterial. You have your facts, I have alternative facts. What is true? Who’s to say?

Regardless of what you actually believe - what you believe serving no rhetorical purpose - you are at least arguing from the position that material truth does not exist. Truth is a democracy. Whoever who wins the argument decides who invaded Spain.

It would be reductive to blame this pattern of thought on the internet, but its recent proliferation isn’t really extricable from the rise of chan culture (this is borrowed observation #2, link in the down there part). 4chan didn’t cause this thinking, but sites like 4chan reveal it in its most concentrated form.

The two most common properties of a chan board will be anonymity and lack of moderation, which means, among other things, that you can say whatever you want with no systemic or social repercussions. People may disagree with you, but it carries no weight. You won’t be banned, you won’t have your comments deleted, and, because there’s no way to know whether any two posts are made by the same person, you won’t even get a reputation as “the person with the bad opinion.”

The effect this has on the community is that there is no expectation, in any given moment, that the person on the other end of a conversation isn’t messing with you. You can’t know whether they mean what they say or are only arguing as though they mean what they say. And entire debates may just be a single person stirring the pot. Such a community will naturally attract people who enjoy argument for its own sake, and will naturally trend towards the most extreme version of any opinion.

In short, this is the Free Marketplace of Ideas. No code of ethics, no social mores, no accountability. A Darwinist petri dish where ideas roam free and only the strong ones survive. If the community agrees Bebop is better than Eva, well, then I guess Bebop is better than Eva, because there wasn’t any outside influence polluting the discourse. Granted, it could just be a lot of people thought it was funny to shit on Eva, but it’s what the community has decided, so it will at least be treated as truth.

This demands that one both be highly opinionated and to assume opinions are bullshit, to place a high premium on consensus and be intensely distrustful of groupthink.

A common means of straddling these lines is what I call the Stanislavski Opinion: the opinion you entertain so completely that you functionally believe it while you express it, no matter the possibility that you will express - and, to an extent, believe - an opposite opinion later. Most of us go through a phase in our youths where we’re online and like the idea of believing in something, but don’t know what to believe just yet, so we pick a position and find out if we believe it by defending it. We try on ideologies like sunglasses off a rack. Most of us will eventually settle on a belief system, and this will usually involve some apologies and some comments we wish we could scrub from the internet, but it’s an important stage of growing up.

But some percentage of people will seek out a space where there is no embarrassment, the comments scrub themselves, and never growing out of the Stanislavski Opinion is actively rewarded. There, figuring out what you believe would make your ability to argue less flexible, and, besides, if you believed anything unironically, much of the community would still assume you’re trolling. Where no one is bound by their word, what, really, is the difference between appearing to have an opinion and having one?

Sincerity is unprovable and open to interpretation. Decide someone is sincere if you want to make fun of them, decide they’re trolling if you want to make fun of someone else. What is true? What do you want to be true? It’s easy enough to start thinking of one’s own opinions the same way: What do I believe? What is it advantageous to believe? Your answer isn’t binding. You’ll change it later if you need to.

The person I’m describing, you spend time online, you’ll meet him a lot. His name is Schrodinger’s Douchebag (borrowed observation #3, link in the down there part): A guy who says offensive things & decides whether he was joking based on the reaction of people around him. Any website that lacks effective moderation and allows some level of anonymity will, to varying degrees, approximate 4chan, and be overrun with Schrodinger’s Douchebag.

When this type of person defends rape jokes by saying all humor is inherently punching down because there must be a butt to every joke, he hasn’t thought about it. He assumes it’s true, because he figures he’s a smart guy and whatever he assumes is probably right, but he’s unfazed if you prove otherwise; there’s no shortage of dodgy reasons he might be right and you wrong. He’ll just pick another one. What matters is that the game continues.

The thing is, Bob, it’s not that they’re lying, it’s that they just don’t care. I’ll say that again for the cheap seats: When they make these kinds of arguments, they legitimately do not care whether the words coming out of their mouths are true. It is a deeply held belief for precisely as long as it wins arguments.

So it’s kinda funny, right, how many of these folks self-identify as “rationalists?” I mean, typical rational thinking would say: If I am presented with the truth, I will believe it, and, once I believe it, I will defend it in argument. This? This is not that! This is a different idea of “rationality” that views it not as a practice but as an innate quality one either possesses or lacks, like being blond or left-handed: If I’m arguing it, I must believe it, because I’m a rational person, and, if I believe it, because I’m a rational person, it must be true. You speak assuming you’re right, and, should you take a new position, this telescopes out into a whole new set of beliefs with barely a thought. Stay focused on the argument, and you won’t even notice it’s happening.

You might now conclude the internet reactionary believes in nothing except winning arguments with liberals. And, like Newtonian physics, if you assume this framing, you will get highly useful results. If you enter conversation with Engelbert and Charlemagne believing they do not mean what they say, they are only entertaining notions, and, on a long enough timeline, they will eventually defend a position fundamentally incompatible with the one they defended earlier in the same argument, you will navigate that conversation much more effectively!

But, like Newtonian physics, this framing is lowercase-a accurate without being capital-T True.

In reality, nihilism isn’t that popular. People will tell you, “I don’t care about anything, I just like triggering the libs,” but why is it always libs? It is piss easy (and also hilarious) to upset conservatives, why only go after the SJWs? The easy answer is, well, if you upset a feminist, you might make her cry; if you upset a Nazi, he might stab you, and that has a cooling effect. But the more obvious answer is that they actually agree with the racist, MRA, and TERF talking points they repeat, but would rather not think about it.

So much of conservative rhetoric is about maintaining ignorance of one’s own beliefs. To uphold the institution of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy while thinking you are none of those things. (Well, OK, knowing you’re a capitalist, but thinking it’s a good thing.) Most people have a baseline of fairly conventional, kindergarten morality, and conservatism often clashes with it. You can rationalize these contradictions - “I’m not a bigot, I just believe in states’ rights” - but, as American conservatism gets more radical, it gets harder to square one’s politics with what one assumes to be one’s beliefs. So you learn, when someone challenges you, to cycle through beliefs until something sticks, just play your hand and trust that you’re right, or, in extreme cases, insist you have no beliefs at all, you’re just here to watch the world burn.

But they’re not. They are willing participants in the burning of only certain parts. They don’t care what they believe, but they know what they hate, and they don’t want to think about why they hate it. On paper, they believe in freedom of religion and freedom of expression, but they also hang out in communities where Muslims and trans women are punching bags. And, like a sixth grader who believes one thing in Sunday school and another thing in biology class, they believe different things at different times.

This thinking is fertile ground for Far Right recruitment. I’d say the jury is out on whether chan boards attract Far Right extremists or are built to attract Far Right extremists, but they’re where extremists congregate and organize because they’re where extremists are tolerated, and where they blend in with the locals. They learn the lingua franca of performative irony: Say what you mean in such a way that people who disagree think you’re kidding and people who agree think you’re serious. People who don’t know what they believe but clearly have some fascist leanings don’t need to be convinced of Nazi rhetoric, they just need to be submerged in it and encouraged to hate liberals. They’ll make their way Right on their own. Folks start using extremist rhetoric because it wins arguments with SJWs - usually because that’s the moment SJWs decide it’s not fruitful and possibly unsafe talking to you - and this creates the appearance that, if it keeps winning arguments, there must be something to it. The Far Right literally has handbooks on how to do this.

Those who never consciously embrace the ideology - who don’t transition from participating to getting recruited - are still useful. They spread the rhetoric, they pad the numbers, and often participate in harassment and sometimes even violence.

There’s a twisted elegance to all this. Think about it: If you operate as though there is no truth, just competing opinions, and as though opinions aren’t sincere, just tools to be picked up and dropped depending on their utility, then what are you operating under? Self-interest. The desire to win. You’ll defend the Holocaust just to feel smarter than someone, superior. Think about how beautifully that maps onto the in-group/out-group mentality of dominance and bigotry. Think how incompatible it is with liberal ideas of tolerance. I think this is why we don’t see a lot of these “I’m just here to fuck shit up” types on the Left. Don’t get me wrong, the Left has gotten on some bullshit, but (excepting politicians, whom you should never assume to mean anything they say) it’s sincerely-believed bullshit! We don’t build identities around saying things just to piss people off.

The takeaway from all this is not only that you can’t tell the difference between a bigot who doesn’t know they’re a bigot and a bigot who knows but won’t tell you, but that there is no line dividing the two. When some guy, in the middle of a harassment campaign, says the victims should be nicer to their harassers because that will “mend the rift,” I don’t know if he believes it. But, in that moment, he believes he believes it. And that scares the shit out of me. But, if you’re asking how many layers of irony he’s on as compared with the harassers, nine times out of ten it doesn’t matter.

Borrowed observation #4 is: “We are what we pretend to be.”

[hockey-jews]

For anyone who wants to learn more about Judaism! Also, kind of a post about how to deal with some Things and Stuff. This is a long post so I’ll put it under a read more for those interested:

This is really for an anonymous message I got that described struggles with things that I think many of us struggle with or have in the past: not being “Jewish enough” in the eyes of other Jews due to your heritage being on the “wrong” side (read; on your father’s side), yet still experiencing antisemitism from goyim. Not learning very much, if anything, about Judaism as a child but wanting to learn more as an adult. Not being comfortable with some traditions or laws of Judaism because you are a) a feminist b) LGBT c) an atheist. Living in a place with few to no Jewish spaces. Not feeling welcome in the Jewish community due to any or all of these things. 

Book recs!

If you’re the kind of person who enjoys reading (or can at least tolerate it) I highly recommend these books! They’re all books that I have either read/started reading/or plan on reading. (Please keep in mind that none of these are Jewish texts such as the Torah or the Talmud and that I do understand the importance of such religious texts but am not recommending them because I feel those are obvious sources of information)

A Bride for One Night if you aren’t familiar with the Talmud, it’s a collection of writings and explanations of Jewish laws and traditions and it’s old as balls. The author of this book, Ruth Calderon, takes a bunch of Talmudic stories and makes them into these wonderful beautiful stories that are easier to read than the original ones from the 3rd and 6th centuries. Even if you don’t know anything about the Talmud this book is so fascinating and fun to read. 

The G-d Who Hates Lies is literally perfect for you if you have issues with how women are viewed and treated in the most traditional sense of Judaism. It’s a really great criticism by people who are extremely qualified to make those criticisms (both are rabbi’s and I think they both have doctorates in theology, specifically Modern Orthodox Judaism, which makes for a really cool viewpoint). I can’t find anything about the third author of this book, who is a woman, but it’s comforting to know that a woman had a part in this as well. Obviously these people love Judaism, they just want to see it adapt to modernity. Just in general it’s a really thoughtful book that challenges dogma. 

Jewish Literacy was recommended by an anon (thank you!) The rest of the title is “The Most Important Things to Know about The Jewish Religion, Its People and Its History” so like. Ya get what ya see here folks. HOWEVER I did see a review that mentions there is some Islamophobia and hostility towards Jews who are antizionist. It does genuinely look informative and I haven’t read it myself so I can’t attune to whether or not that review is accurate, but maybe be cautious if you read this in knowing that the author may not be objective. 

Book of Mercy made me openly weep and feel something tender and weird in my heart and like. Okay so it’s not informative so much as it’s a book of poetry by Leonard Cohen (he was Jewish if you didn’t know!) He calls his poems “modern psalms” and honestly this would be a good read even if you aren’t religious at all because his writing is just so gorgeous. But it does have references to Judaism and his identity as a Jew 

Understanding Judaism is really a “building blocks” kind of book to me, if that makes sense? It’s really informative but also really basic and is fantastic for people who know very little about Judaism or just want a well presented understanding of the core aspects of the Jewish religion. Even if you aren’t a Jew who’s looking to learn or someone who is considering conversion it’s still a good book if you’re interested in world religions regardless of your faith or lack thereof. (man I’m starting to sound pretentious lmao I just mean like, if you’re an atheist or Catholic or whatever, it’s pretty interesting and also this guy is kinda dorky-funny so it makes for an easier read than some other books about religion)

Shmooze I think this is meant to be more for a group to read an discuss, and like, also maybe meant for a younger audience (I’m talking about teenagers so not really that young, but if you’ve been reading dull infodumps by 90 y/o Jewish rabbis with doctorate degrees this is gonna be a change of pace lmao) I should mention that I’ve only read like two pages of this book because I saw it at Barnes and Noble and just kinda briefly checked it out so I don’t know a ton about it but it stuck in my head and the reviews look positive so 

Obvious I don’t think you have to read all of those because I haven’t even read all of those so maybe just check one of them out if it seems like it could be helpful to you. 

Judaism here on tumblr dot com:

Okay so like. This is really my personal diced onion so take it however you will but keep in mind that this really only reflects things I’ve come across and how I feel. 

Obviously there are a lot of really great blogs about Judaism but I don’t have any specific ones to recommend I’m sorry :O I really really hate ~Discourse~ and like, in-depth arguments about the Holocaust because I get so wrapped up in it and let’s be honest, tumblr is all about the discourse and ignorance. That being said, I like to follow other people who are Jewish and blog about whatever because that usually leads to safer discussions and also is a great way to find really helpful thoughts and discussions by other Jews about topics like being LGBT, being a woman, being an atheist, etc. These are just nice to read and also if you aren’t familiar with certain Yiddish or Hebrew terms that are commonly used it’s a good way to see how and when they’re used in certain contexts. 

I’m going to tag anything like this that I post here as “good info” just so me and anyone who wants can find this stuff easier. No they won’t necessarily have anything to do with hockey. 

Also please be very careful when you’re reading a post that is presenting certain things as facts, always double check what someone is saying because misinformation is spread so quickly, and it’s almost always unintentional. The things that I find genuinely helpful/safe/fun involve opinions, common feelings and experiences, little personal stories and jokes, cool stuff like that. 

I’m Jewish on my father’s side :0

Me too boo. Unfortunately that’s an unending discussion, and one that is often held by matrilineal Jews and doesn’t actually include patrilineal Jews, nor does it consider our thoughts/feelings/experiences. Without sounding like an idiot, it is absolutely buckwild to me that there are people who have been raised Jewish, have never known anything other than Jewish tradition, have been subject to antisemitism, but still aren’t considered Jewish. 

And then this is where I see matrilineal Jews who hold this viewpoint bring up Reform Judaism, which is one of the three main branches of Judaism and does recognize patrilineall Jews as Jews. I’ve seen some discrepancy as to whether or not patrilineal Jews had to have been raised Jewish in order to be considered Jewish. This is all well and good for Jews like me whose family practices Reform Judaism, but for patrilineal Jews who wish to practice in an Orthodox or Conservative synagogue, it gets tricky. 

Basically, yes this is a huge topic that inspires a lot of disagreement, and that sucks, but here’s what it comes down to. No one else is allowed to make you feel inferior because of your heritage. So many people, even modern Orthodox Jews, recognize that certain aspects of Judaism need to adapt to today’s society. I don’t want to offend anyone here, but I really do feel that most matrilineal Jews who don’t consider us Jewish are extremely hypocritical (for a lot of reasons but mostly like...y’all really follow every aspect of Jewish Law? Like do you really? All of it? Girl do u? Or are you maybe just being elitist). Learning about your heritage, talking about shared experiences, combating antisemitism, these are all things that are fair game for you (especially for the anon who said they were atheist) and going to Shabbat services, praying, participating in holy days. That’s all yours if you want it, bubbeleh. 

Can I be an atheist Jew?

Sure you can! I, personally, am not an atheist so I wasn’t comfortable finding specific resources about this because I don’t really know much about it? It’s fine with me if you’re atheist that’s none of my business, I just don’t want to direct you to a bad source. But yes, many Jews are atheist, many are secular, I’m sure there are many here on tumblr. It’s absolutely okay, Judaism is an ethnoreligion, and while you may experience Judaism different than the rest of us, you’re still a Jew and still belong. 

Here’s an excerpt from a short lil synopsis of Judaism:

These three connotations of Judaism as a monotheistic system, as a literary tradition, and as a historical culture are sometimes viewed separately. For example, there are Jews who see themselves as culturally Jewish, but who are also non-religious or atheist, often identifying more strongly with Jewish “peoplehood” than with traditional understandings of God and Torah. Even so, all Jews would recognize that these three points of reference have shaped and guided Jewish experience through the ages.

Jewish “peoplehood” that they talk about is like. Culture, customs, food, art, history, etc. 

One last little note on this, you’ll hear a lot that Judaism focuses more on actions than on beliefs. This is an excellent article that is pretty short and worth reading that I want to include because I think that even if you don’t believe in G-d or even if you are seriously questioning, the focus on just. Doing good. Actively doing good things and trying to be a good person (I know that’s objective but bear with me) is a such a huge part of Judaism that you can try to incorporate into your life without having to subscribe to any sort of dogma or beliefs that you don’t hold. “Judaism is certainly a faith-based tradition. Belief in G-d is central to our religion. It just isn’t a prerequisite. If you are Jewish, you are so regardless of belief.” 

But I’m a feminist....

As you should be. This is probably another personal statement you gon’ wanna take with a grain of salt, but I think Judaism, especially in the last 50 years or so, has made huge strides in this. Especially Reform Judaism, but that kind of goes without saying. 

Example, my synagogue was founded as a Conservative synagogue. Our website still says we are. I’m not actually sure tbqh, like I said, my family are Reform Jews, and so are most other families in our congregation I think but this is literally the only synagoge for like hundreds of miles so. Anyways our rabbi is female (Rabbi Shaina!) and she does great work, we all love her. She’s really adament on teaching kids that gender shouldn’t keep you from anything, that Judaism is for all Jews, that it should enhance our lives. She wears a tallis, lays her tefillin, and reads from the Torah. 

My point here is that while this isn’t like, the end of misogyny in Judaism as we know it, it’s still a big deal in most religions to have a woman as their religious leader, essentially a position of religious power. For men to accept a woman as a religious leader is not something that is super common in most religions. And we’re like, a tiny congregation over a hundred miles away from anyone else, technically a Conservative synagogue, that’s super loving and accepting of a feminist running our shit... female rabbis are super common and I think it speaks a lot to how we’re progressing as a religion. Reform Judaism is going to be your best bet when it comes to tolerance but knowing that all three of the main branches are progressing, at least with this, is really comforting to me. 

However, that’s an extremely one sided view and doesn’t really show the issue as a whole. This super short article (? not sure) is a bit pessimistic in my mind but presents the other side of things and gives a good explanation of the traditional sources of misogyny in Judaism, so this could further your understanding as well. 

By no means are we perfect but we’re workin on it. Look into Jewish Feminism though, if you have the time. That article is just a lil intro to the topic. 

I’m Q*eer/LGBT and I’m not sure y’all are gonna be cool with that...

Well this one’s a doozy. 

I’ll kick this right off by presenting an article that is objective and does not reflect the author’s opinion, just lays out the issues at hand. It also has some links to other good pieces, including one cool story about a transgender man, Rafi Daugherty, embracing his role as a father and details his experience with pregnancy and giving birth. I should mention that I am cisgender so I’m interpreting this article through a different point of view, but it really does make a point of celebrating Rafi and his daughter and sharing their story. It does include a little cultural background context, but this is a positive story that I think deserves to be shared :) 

Then there’s this statement from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism that confirms its absolute acceptance and support of LGBT Jews. 

On the other side of things, there are still homophobic and intolerant Jews. Conversion camps were not just a Christian thing, there were Jewish conversion camps as well, which is horrific. Idk what to say because I think homophobia and transphobia in Judaism is really similar to what you would find in Christian settings. 

I’m bisexual and I feel completely welcomed by other Jews who know this about me, and I certainly don’t feel any less Jewish because of it. 

I live in a place where Jewish spaces are rare.

I really hate to disappoint with this one but I don’t have any specific sources or anything like that. Alls I got to say is that’s why the internet is so great? I really don’t feel like that’s helpful at all, but I think for the most part, the Jewish side of tumblr is pretty accepting and welcoming. Obviously that’s not always gonna be true though idkdjaskfl;dj

I spose with this one I wanna encourage anyone who has any good resources for involvement or something like that to reply to this post or drop by my inbox and let me know! Or maybe just your thoughts on some Jewish spaces you’ve encountered? 

I hope this was helpful

In conclusion, don’t let anyone make you feel less Jewish. Your sexual identity, gender identity, and even your belief in G-d doesn’t take away from your Jewishness. I’d like to say that since I started delving into Judaism a little more I’ve found a lot of peace. And yeah that sounds cliche and also vague but it’s really a breath of fresh air to learn about my family and know more about this community. Also if you’re comfortable with or willing to try prayer, even if you’re atheist, it can be a good way to decompress sometimes, a really therapeutic kind of way to voice your thoughts and feelings and reflect on them. 

There’s so much information and culture to delve into but it’s so so worth it to learn and I’m really happy for you that you’re interested in getting more in touch with your Jewish roots. 

If any of these links don’t work and you’d like to see them let me know!

[suthnmeh]

22, 26, 30 :)

22. what makes you proud about your country? what makes you ashamed?

I’ll start with the bad, cuz…

I’m embarrassed for Franco’s dictatorship and what that entailed, and that some people still somehow miss him for some fucking reason. I’m embarrassed about the more nationalist, conservative, close-minded part of our culture. 

Our politicians suck, and are just a reflection of our greedy individualistic society. We call it Picaresca, and it’s basically the “take whatever isn’t bolted to the floor” principle. 

I hate that the different regions can’t get along, and know only to point fingers. I am VERY embarrassed about the whole bullfighting “tradition” that is still defended as being “art” by a bunch. And it is kinda weird that Spain still takes credit for “discovering” America, and being a huge empire in its Golden Age. The Empire Where the Sun Never Set.

I’m sure there’s more, but let’s move on to the good now!

I’m super proud of our curse words. XD 

Ok seriously. Me working in the animation industry, I realize there’s a TON of amazing Spanish artists, but usually they have to migrate in search of jobs because producers don’t believe in the industry. 

I’m proud of the Spanish kindness and general open-ness of its people, and I’m proud that things like religious and sexual freedoms are mostly accepted as rights. I’m proud that there was a couple of young boys kissing on the bus and nobody gave a damn. Oh and I’m very proud Spanish culture is one of the very few in which a woman won’t lose her last name to her husband, and their children inherit both last names!

I’m very proud of our multi-cultural and multi-racial heritage, from the Romans, and the Goths, and the Celts, to the Arabs and Jews. And now with these new generations of Spanish born Chinese, and Africans, and Romanians, and what have you, our genetic pool is going to be UNSTOPPABLEEEE.

I worship no flag, but I do love Spain^^

THIS WAS LONG! Cookie to whoever read it all!

[liskantope]

I think this discussion of what stigmatization means is very interesting all on its own, separate from the topic of FdB, and you've made some points that are making me think about it more carefully and fully. But I'm still not quite on the same page as you here.

[Warning: fairly long-winded, with darker discussion of bigotry than my usual, below the cut. This is unwieldy and I'm not sure it argues anything coherently, but I'm tired and keeping it and probably won't contribute to this discussion further after this.]

This may sound like I'm moving the goalposts or something, but I never meant to say that stigma is the view of a certain trait as being inherently negative with absolutely no concrete (supposed) justification. Basically pretty much nobody considers it okay to dislike some other type of person for absolutely no rational reason. In the same vein, hatred is looked down upon when it appears gratuitous (see "Fear Trumps Hate", one of my favorite Tumblr posts of all time).

So what do people generally do? They come up with rationalizations, at least very vague rationalizations, about why they don't like people in group X, or think in principle they're not actually bad but really kinda don't want them around, or whatever. A very extreme version of this is in the KKK article you linked to, which is transparent garbage: "Hate? Oh no, not us! All we have is love in our hearts, love for our people, and the only problem with those other people is that they're big and scary and powerful and threatening us!" Hatred is thickly dripping from every paragraph, but nobody makes themself look good by acknowledging that they're driven by hatred, so these KKK people make a pretense of being all about love instead. They may claim to be opposed to the "direct disvaluing" version of stigmatization, but they do not come across as remotely sincere.

(As for your other link from Stormfront, I'm not sure what you were trying to show with it? I wasn't up for looking past the first page, but it's full of replies like "[Jews] do both disgust and fascinate me at the same time"; "I didnt really hate [the one Jew I've met in my whole life], he was just very trashy and got on everyones nerves" from people who deny they hate Jews. That's still pretty much an "ew yuck" reaction if I ever saw one, and the epitome of stigmatization.)

(Also, I'm not sure that the worst manifestations of bigotry necessarily have to fall under the specific criteria of "stigmatization"? At least it never occurred to me that they had to. I don't know.)

So yeah, if you're encountering people who insist that stigmatization means disliking some trait for no purported reason whatsoever, then yeah, I agree with you that those people aren't really thinking through the behavior properly.

But sometimes the "purported reason" is so incredibly vague that people don't bother trying to put it into words, not even when justifying it to themselves. We've seen a lot of this in our lifetimes with various forms of homophobia and transphobia/transvestism. The legality of same-sex marriage devalues our opposite-sex marriage somehow; heck, having a gay person play a role in our straight wedding tarnishes it somehow; a man wearing women's clothing is just kind of, eww whatever it's a free country but I don't want to see that and don't want my kids exposed to it. The most recent time I ever talked face to face with someone who opposed gay rights, he said straight-up, "At the bottom of it, I really just think that what they do is gross and feel like it's not okay with me." This is really the first kind of thing I think of when the concept of stigmatization comes up.

Surely if you press these people hard enough for justifications, they'll come up with something: gay and gender-nonconforming people are pedophiles, anal sex is dangerous to health, (from the homophobe I met, who was unsurprisingly a conservative Christian) my gut reaction to finding gay behavior gross is that it goes against how God intended us to behave, etc. But these are, to most of our views, objectively flimsy excuses, probably ultimately invented as rationalizations for completely irrational "eww yuck" gut responses to things that feel too different, which is pretty "direct disvaluing".

Someone could disagree and say the justifications are sound, and then I guess they'd disagree with me that these are examples of stigmatization. Fine. So we can't all agree on what is stigmatization and what isn't in every case through a definition that doesn't depend on our assessments of issues surrounding the case. What we can objectively agree on, however, is whether someone with trait X has actually done something bad in a context viewable and acknowledged by everyone. Your three bulletpointed examples all fail that test, but the FdB situation passes it.

People have these reactions left and right with regard to mental illness and neurodivergence as well, of course (your point that their actual behaviors must be part of the issue because otherwise how would others even know they're disabled is an excellent one). And the line between stigmatization and actually justified reasons to shun certain characteristics from one's life/space/etc. can get blurry (I've struggled with it myself in certain contexts), but I think we can agree that shunning someone because of hand-flapping or getting unusually fixated on things or having an atypical speaking voice or whatever firmly falls into the camp of "flimsy justification" which most likely is covering up a general "eww yuck" reaction to something that feels unpleasantly different from what one is used to. A type of stigmatization that comes closer to that line is something like "I don't want person with mental illness/disorder X as my roommate / in my workspace... because [vague reasons that may not quite hold up]". But none of these are anywhere close to "I don't want to hire this person because they have a proved history of harrassing, stalking, making genuine death threats, and publicly making deliberately false rape allegations" which seems not even in the same ballpark.

Again, my assumption of how FdB interprets complaints about stigmatization is that they are about someone getting passed over professionally, socially, etc. for having a mental illness/disorder based on a either a vague "eww yuck" gut reaction or a sort of prejudice -- "people with X are more likely to do A and/or B, and that's dangerous" -- rather than getting passed over for things they actually did (possibly not even understood to be connected to a mental illness). Now I'm not saying that hiring searches were right to not allow FdB a job under the circumstances: perhaps they should have researched his psychosis better, come to understand it, and had faith in him now that he was medicated. If your application of "stigmatization" here is to the fact that FdB's would-be employers didn't bother to be understanding or well-researched enough about his psychosis or something along those lines, connected to the fact that mental illnesses are understood too little in general or something, then I can potentially agree that stigmatization almost forced him into unemployment I suppose.

But I guess my thesis is this: stigmatization indeed comes with supposed justifications, but those justifications can be (and often are) as weak as "my gut tells me it doesn't feel right to be too close to someone with X because it's kind of eww" or speculative conspiracy theory -type nonsense, and there's a very long way from that to wanting to avoid a very bad thing that everyone agrees is very bad and everyone agrees is something the person has actually already done. And I'm really doubtful that the latter can rightly be called stigmatization.

It's interesting to see Freddie deBoer and Scott Alexander's recent interactions in the discourse on severe mental disorders. It feels like somewhat of a reverse of their temperaments on some other issues in the realm of feminism: Scott showed signs of pretty serious trauma around early-to-mid-2010's pop feminism and criticisms of nerd culture and had trouble talking about it in an evenhanded way, while Freddie (as far as I can recall) was much calmer on these topics; now Freddie clearly and for very obvious reasons has severe trauma around the topic of psychotic disorders and has trouble talking about it in an evenhanded way, while Scott is playing the role of calmly steelmanning each side.

Which is not to say that I didn't have pretty strong sympathies with Scott's reaction to mid-2010's feminist rhetoric or don't feel very sympathetic to Freddie's reaction to the movement towards anti-medication normalization of psychosis. But both are cases of someone stating their case in excessively strong language, in an absolutist way which doesn't sufficiently consider the spectrum of experiences of similar people on the issue that are different from their own. (In Freddie's case, statements like, "Stigma isn't even in the top 50 problems I've had to deal with because of my disorder" may be true when applied to himself, but I'm pretty sure there are hordes of people with serious but somewhat less severe psychotic disorders for whom stigma is somewhere in like the top 3 problems it's brought into their lives -- not the only or primary reason their psychosis is bad, but a pretty serious consequence for them.)

[issayemme]

about this generation being over sensitive

aight, i dont really just voice my opinion anytime i feel like it but honestly i’m fed up. I used to like, be one of those SJW’s and go like hey this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong. Most of them were wrong tbh, and i totally get the thing about “normalizing”. We shouldnt normalize hate, we shouldnt normalize discrimination and we shouldnt normalize anything negative, ever.

But i feel like, after a couple of years being exposed to nothing but negativity i’m finally #sick and #tired of it. I understand it by the way, why we have to call something out if it’s wrong cause this is how we fix things but i feel like recently the world is becoming a little bit too sensitive.

I realized this with the whole controversy about Pewdiepie and Gigi Hadid and everything. Especially Pewdiepie. 

Like i dont even live in the US, not from there. I’m from Turkey, i’m studying advertising. And i wanna pursue my career in digital marketing so this whole thing is gonna be my field. This whole shitstorm is gonna be my audience and i’ll try to engage with you. Which frustrates me the most, cause i have to deal with this bullshit.

To start off, i know Pewdiepie did something not-so-okay. I did watch his channel every now and then and i remember telling my boyfriend, “eh, he’s doing whatever he wants lately. I’m not that into it anymore, he used the N word and stuff.” and i just stopped watching his videos and thats like a buck less for him. I did my part. I’m not gonna like go online and bash him or anything cause like fine okay he used the n word but the world has some bigger problems right now like the bees are going extinct. For those who dont know he made like.. there’s this site called Fiverr, you pay them 5 bucks and they do something for ya like this girl does your homework and whatever. Felix payed 2 guys (dont know their nationality) to write “Death to all jews, subscribe to markiplier” on a piece of paper and they did, later he commented on how people do whatever you want them to as long as youre paying them. Which is a good point in my opinion. And the whole point of this shitstorm also. 

And Wall Street Journal went up to Disney and they like.. snitched. like 5 year olds. i cant this is just too funny. And they took everything out of context, used a random image of him raising his hand and portrayed it as a nazi salute (If ya gonna go there you can find like even jews doing a nazi salute. HELLO COMMON SENSE?) Anyhow, Disney was like yah this is gonna hurt my image as butterflies and rainbows, occasional unicorns and shitty costume designing so cut ties with him or whatever. But there is like 2 sides to every story so i wish they would take a milisecond and contact Felix but fuck that am i right Disney which is the company that displayed Donald Duck in a Nazi outfit so like whats up

And then, this afternoon i spent my entire time reading articles about how Pewdiepie is the source of all evil, how he is summoning satan with a single look and how he is destroying worlds.  He always said mainstream media is hating on him but i’ve never realized it was this big of an issue. Jesus they were like vultures. The verge even went as far as comparing him to Donald Trump. Like.. Pewdiepie does a 24 hour live stream to raise like what.. over a milion dollars for charity and its like dead quiet but Wall Street Journal runs out of money so they go like “oh pewdiepie draws money lol ok.. guys here’s the thing.” Is every news outlet TMZ now? is this it

And i knew tumblr of course would be on fire. I’m actually glad to see some reasonable people defending pewdiepie because that’s what’s right. Some girl here is like “um im jewish and OUT OF ALL WORDS why would you pick death to all jews? like it has been said before. ermigird get my trigger gloves.” Like hello everyone knows it’s not an okay thing to say, that’s why he used it. To prove a point. It’s kinda amazing to see how people are hovering 100 miles over the point. good job keep it up everyone it’ll get you places in life

The truth is, this kind of all comes back to my major. Newspapers are dying, because noone buys them anymore. They need money to survive as we all do, but we are all on digital surfaces now. But we dont pay for news anymore. so the news outlets are doing everything they can to survive and it gets petty like you’ve been seeing these days. Clickbait is a real thing cause it’s not enough if you see their post on Facebook, they need you to go on their website, see the ads so they can get the ad revenue. It keeps the advertisers, advertising and the platforms alive. Scandal always gets you paid. What i’m sad about is as a generation we’re paying these guys. They dont care really, if pewdiepie is racist or not. Which he isnt by the way. Pewdiepie and his growth is so organic. He’s a goldmine for brands. Verge cant supply content like that, so they kind of shit on whoever does. I’m saying verge but like mashable, the wired.. verge is the pettiest tho. Business insider was kind of more toned down so kudos to them I GUESS.. 

My point being.. like they see we go crazy about social justice and they see the tiniest thing and they make a big deal out of it. We as a generation shouldnt be these idiot’s income. I refuse to be the reason to put money on some 40 year old idiot who has no sign of a backbone. There are things that matter. I’m sick of getting butthurt by everything. Yes some feminists are extreme. Denying it will not get you anywhere. We all believe in equality. If you are calling out Pewdiepie, which again i agree he fucked up but it wasnt like a total fuck up you know. So context matters. Just because something happened, doesnt mean we have to make a big deal out of it every time. Wrongdoing should be punished but not to extremes. Dont get offended on behalf of other people. I live in a Muslim country. And dont you dare get offended on my behalf when Trump says something about our religion. Let me speak first. Let me read the context first. Everyone is constantly in panic to defend someone, they just miss a lot of things. So just take time to evaluate before speaking your mind.  About Gigi’s face too.. Like gosh she wasnt trying to actually hurt someone. People are still trying to call Karlie Kloss out after she acknowledged and apologized  LIKE WHAT DO YOU WANT DID YOUR PARENTS NOT LOVE YOU? DO YOU HAVE A LOT OF FREE TIME? PLEASE JUST GET A LIFE. PET A DOG. We should stop bashing people after they acknowledge something was wrong. Like. Chill, seriously. go suck a dick get a life ffs

JERK OFF IDK WHAT RELAXES YOU

dont let people take advantage of you trying to do something right 

[drumpfwatch]

The Parasite is Now the Host

When I first started this insanity, one of the first articles I wrote was about those who would stay behind Trump. I basically said that people who supported Trump in the election - and really, Republicans as a whole - were left with a choice. Reject Trump, or become a party to his bad nature.

It’s been two, maybe three years now. I think it’s time I come back to that, especially because I now get to give a nice and fun “HA HA HA I WAS RIGHT”.

Who knew we’d end up here, in this crazy upside down world where the insane has become mundane. There are so many ways to explore that, but I think my favorite is the revelation from twitter on why it isn’t using its tech to block white Supremacists. 

For those of you who are unfamiliar with what I’m talking about, a bit of backstory. Twitter is a company, and as a company they have a certain desire to prevent their platform from being used for hate speech. Part of their commitment to this is an algorithm they invented, the sole purpose of which is to check tweets for certain patterns of speech. Specifically, it looks for buzzwords, statistics, and phrases that are used by a certain group, and if it finds YOU using them, it will more or less auto-decide that you need to be banned. This technology is used to monitor say, Desh fighters, who are spreading their hateful messages and threats on the platform and to keep them under control.

So, someone had the bright idea to ask “Hey, if you have this technology, why aren’t you using it to curtail white supremecist speech on your platform?” Twitter’s response was that there are too many important people in high levels of government who would be affected by it. That it would essentially silence the free speech and communication network between actual officials who are literally employed by the United States and their constituents.

Let’s, for the moment, ignore the fact this is a total freaking mess of ethics. We’ll get back to that. I want to focus right now on the revelation itself.

Think about this for a moment. Twitter has basically said that algorithmically banning white supremacists isn’t an option. The signs that would be used to tell if someone is a Neo-Nazi - the banter, the subtle winks and nods, the talking points - are so prevelant among the Right at the moment that a computer program would be taking down enough politicans that it would cause Twitter some concern.

Now, to be fair. It is possible the problem isn’t as big as Twitter is saying. It’s possible that the person interviewed misrepresented the situation - though I doubt it. It’s also possible that Twitter is also run by Nazis and this is their secret way of letting their message slip through the cracks. I doubt that as well. Mostly because I’ve actually seen this. I have seen right wing politicians blowing Racist Dog Whistles, whether or not they actually believe in them for “legitimate reasons” or the actual ones. Frankly, this is a thing that’s been going on for a long goddamn time now, so it really shouldn’t be that much of a surprise.

Why it matters - why I keep bringing it up - is because that’s how we know this party has been taken over. Like a strain of cordyceps that infected an ant and managed to burst in the hive, the disease has spread and the uninfected now have important decisions to make.

And that brings us back to the metaphorical Republican to whom the first article was addressed. What was once the noble Party of Lincoln has become a part of racists and fools. People who don’t understand the difference between socialism and communism and who, frankly, don’t care to learn it. They treat words in and of themselves as bad, without consideration for context, and almost revel in their ignorance.

Regardless of whether or not you personally are aligned with the hate, regardless of whether or not you personally believe it, if you are Republican, you now are faced with the uncomfortable truth: The infection of white supremicists that wormed its way into your party is now the party. The parasite is now the host. Fear not though, loyal Lincolnite...or Reganite, if you still think that’s a good thing. You have some choices.

The first is to, of course, abandon the party. Leave the Republican party. Go somewhere else - not the democratic party even, just somewhere else. Do what the Whigs did in the first place to make the Republican party and make your own god damned party. I’m sure there are enough of you sane republicans out there that the ensuing upset would at least get some attention and could spiral out from there. I already know a good number of Republicans who have left the GoP because of Trump and what his cronies have done. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the Tea Party became the sane one while the Republican party became the broken one?

Another idea is to rebuild the party from the ground up. Start over completely new, and then see how many of the racists want to hang on - or are even able to.

Finally, you could also try and take out the trash. Kick all of the racists and filth out of your party. That way they won’t get their voices out there and you guys can have your party back. And that actually leads me to the last point.

Twitter doing this. I said before it was an ethical nightmare, and it kinda is. It is absolutely true that Freedom of Speech is a right guaranteed in the United States of America, but a lot of people misunderstand what that means. Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean you can just say whatever you want, without consequence or recourse. Freedom of Speech means the government cannot stop you from saying what you want. It doesn’t mean that the person across the street can’t call you out for your racism, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the company Twitter is not entitled to put conduct codes in its EULA that mean if you say certain things that can get your ass booted out.

Let’s also remember that the government has put limits on free speech before. The most famous example is not being allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded building. It was decided that the damage caused by that action far, FAR outweighed the weight of the speech in and of itself being censored.

So that’s the question we have to ask ourselves, and Twitter had to ask itself. Is it ethical to bring down the hammer of censorship on actual politicians, and frankly, is it even legal?

I can’t blame Twitter for the decision it made. One possible way to interpret banning politicians from the platform is political censorship - a company attempting to squelch political views it doesn’t like. That’s both illegal and very easy to dislike. 

That said, I personally am for the utter and complete deplatforming of any Neo-Nazi. Not that I think they should be legally punished whenever they say Neo-Nazi things, or should not be allowed to assemble. But there should be no body in this country that should allow them to speak. Nazis get their power by pretending to be for free speech and “open debate” and then immediately silencing anyone who would try and stop them with threats and actual physical violence. They pretend to be interested in debate but to them, debate is simply a tool to spread their propaganda. They have already decided that Jews and Blacks and Latinos and others are bad people and must be eliminated and they will never be convinced to the contrary, so debating them is pointless and letting them speak only serves to incite more violence. 

And that’s the clincher. That’s why I personally may not have done it if I were in charge of the Twitter, and why I believe punching Nazis is self defense. No matter what I do or say, these cowards will call me a bad person regardless and demand I leave or die. They incite violence with their words, and the only conclusion of their ideology is my death. 

That said, I understand the complexities of the situation. Silencing honest to god seated politicians would cause ethical and legal problems that we could spend all day arguing about and I can see both sides. Frankly, though they’re secondary. As I said before, my primary concern is that the Republican Party has people who use enough Nazi buzzwords among them that a computer would identify them as Nazis and ban them.

That should be concerning to every single one of you, unless you’re a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.