#but that the backlash against it has been disproportionate

[thyrell]

aaron stated his pronouns were he/him to jounalists and news outlets before his self-immolation. speculating someone else's gender, especially after his death is disrespectful and not your business. even if he went by lilly and used other pronouns, you are essentially trying to out him and disrespecting his wishes. maybe you should do as aaron asked and keep your focus on palestine instead of sending hate to a black trans person on here

im not sending hate to this person, i havent even interacted with him unless those anons were sent by him. i continue to use he/him for aaron bushnell, as per his last public communications, because as per the original post this is about, this is all speculation. i appreciate you coming to me off anon to tell me this, but i want you to think about whether this discussion is genuinely harmful to aaron bushnell's legacy or the palestinian freedom movement as a whole, whether it is just uncomfortable or in poor taste, and most importantly whether it warranted the widespread backlash against trans women on this website that it elicited.

[subbyfoxelf]

today is an extremely bad day for the magic the gathering community.

if you don't play mtg, here's what you need to know: the most popular format by far is actually a fan-created format originally known as elder dragon highlander (edh), and later becoming enshrined as an official format under the name commander. despite its official recognition by wizards of the coast, the commander format was governed by an independent panel known as the rules committee. if my use of the term "was" sounds foreboding... it should.

on september 23rd, this independent rules committee announced the addition of four cards to the format's banned & restricted list. regardless of how you feel about these changes, they were aimed to do the one thing the rules committee cares about: keep the format fun & fair for all players. again, i must stress that this is their only motivation. that's something i'd like everyone to keep in mind before we move on to where we are today.

the rules committee was expecting the backlash to their decisions to be vitriolic. the cards they banned were popular among... a certain segment of players. and more importantly, they were cashcows for joyless collectors and the secondary market. the kinds of people who unironically refer to these little pieces of cardboard as "investments." and yeah, i'm being a little unfair here. i will acknowledge that. but i think it's pretty warranted considering what happened next.

what happened next were death threats. lots & lots of death threats. lots & lots of death threats, a disproportionate number of which were directed at the rules committee's only female member. yeah, shocking. ironically it turned out that she literally voted against the most unpopular changes to the banned & restricted list, not that she needs to have to make this entire thing reprehensible. but it's just... frustrating. all of it is very frustrating.

of course she isn't the only one who received these threats. the rest of the rules committee also received similar harassment, as did plenty of people who weren't even involved with this decision. it's just a very ugly moment for the community.

if you have ever considered sending someone actual, literal death threats over PIECES OF CARDBOARD, please reevaluate your entire life immediately.

and look, there are some extremely reasonable criticisms of the decision and how it was announced. i'm not denying that. and i will fully admit that i had a fairly positive view of the bans compared to the people who were angry. but regardless of how you feel about them, one thing is undeniable: they were made by people whose entire motivation is making the format more fun & fair. that was literally their only motivation. they were not beholden to shareholders or executives or any of the other machinery that makes Line Go Up. they just wanted the game to be as fun as possible.

today, wizards of the coast announced that the commander rules committee is officially handing over management of the format to wizards of the coast. a company who, ever since its aquisition by hasbro, has been nakedly motivated by profit above all else. a company who, even when it was more independent, would have ultimately had that motivation simply by virtue of being, you know, a company.

so tl;dr (too late), good job mtg community. you showed your entire ass to the world by harrassing people off of the internet over fucking pieces of cardboard, and now hasbro fully owns the game's most popular format. i hope you're fucking happy.

[haggishlyhagging]

But what exactly is it about women's equality that even its slightest shadow threatens to erase male identity? What is it about the way we frame manhood that, even today, it still depends so on "feminine" dependence for its survival? A little-noted finding by the Yankelovich Monitor survey, a large nationwide poll that has tracked social attitudes for the last two decades, takes us a good way toward a possible answer. For twenty years, the Monitor's pollsters have asked its subjects to define masculinity. And for twenty years, the leading definition, ahead by a huge margin, has never changed. It isn't being a leader, athlete, lothario, decision maker, or even just being "born male." It is simply this: being a "good provider for his family."

If establishing masculinity depends most of all on succeeding as the prime breadwinner, then it is hard to imagine a force more directly threatening to fragile American manhood than the feminist drive for economic equality. And if supporting a family epitomizes what it means to be a man, then it is little wonder that the backlash erupted when it did—against the backdrop of the '80s economy. In this period, the "traditional" man's real wages shrank dramatically (a 22 percent free-fall in households where white men were the sole breadwinners), and the traditional male breadwinner himself became an endangered species (representing less than 8 percent of all households). That the ruling definition of masculinity remains so economically based helps to explain, too, why the backlash has been voiced most bitterly by two groups of men: blue-collar workers, devastated by the shift to a service economy, and younger baby boomers, denied the comparative riches their fathers and elder brothers enjoyed. The '80s was the decade in which plant closings put blue-collar men out of work by the millions, and only 60 percent found new jobs—about half at lower pay. It was a time when, of all men losing earning power, younger baby-boom men were losing the most. The average man under thirty was earning 25 to 30 percent less than his counterpart in the early '70s. Worst off was the average young man with only a high-school education: he was making only $18,000, half the earnings of his counterpart a decade earlier. Inevitably, these losses in earning power would breed other losses. As pollster Louis Harris observed, economic polarization spawned the most dramatic attitudinal change recorded in the last decade and a half: a spectacular doubling in the proportion of Americans who describe themselves as feeling "powerless."

When analysts at Yankelovich reviewed the Monitor survey's annual attitudinal data in 1986, they had to create a new category to describe a large segment of the population that had suddenly emerged, espousing a distinct set of values. This segment, now representing a remarkable one-fifth of the study's national sample, was dominated by young men, median age thirty-three, disproportionately single, who were slipping down the income ladder—and furious about it. They were the younger, poorer brothers of the baby boom, the ones who weren't so celebrated in '80s media and advertising tributes to that generation. The Yankelovich report assigned the angry young men the euphemistic label of "the Contenders."

The men who belonged to this group had one other distinguishing trait: they feared and reviled feminism. "It's these downscale men, the ones who can't earn as much as their fathers, who we find are the most threatened by the women's movement." Susan Hayward, senior vice president at Yankelovich, observes. "They represent 20 percent of the population that cannot handle the changes in women's roles. They were not well employed, they were the first ones laid off, they had no savings and not very much in the way of prospects for the future." Other surveys would reinforce this observation. By the late '80s, the American Male Opinion Index found that the largest of its seven demographic groups was now the "Change Resisters," a 24 percent segment of the population that was disproportionately underemployed, "resentful," convinced that they were "being left behind" by a changing society, and most hostile to feminism.

To single out these men alone for blame, however, would be unfair. The backlash's public agenda has been framed and promoted by men of far more affluence and influence than the Contenders, men at the helm in the media, business, and politics. Poorer or less-educated men have not so much been the creators of the antifeminist thesis as its receptors. Most vulnerable to its message, they have picked up and played back the backlash at distortingly high volume. The Contenders have dominated the ranks of the militant wing of the '80s antiabortion movement, the list of plaintiffs filing reverse-discrimination and "men's rights" lawsuits, the steadily mounting police rolls of rapists and sexual assailants.

-Susan Faludi, Backlash: the Undeclared War Against American Women

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Robert Reich:

Friends, I’ve been spending the last several weeks trying to find out what’s really going on with the campus protests. I’ve met with students at Berkeley, visited with faculty at Columbia University, and talked with young people and faculty at many other universities.

My conclusion: While protest movements are often ignited by many different things and attract an assortment of people with a range of motives, this one is centered on one thing: moral outrage at the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people — most of them women and children — in Gaza. To interpret these protests as anything else — as antisemitic or anti-Zionist or anti-American or pro-Palestinian — is to miss the essence of what’s going on and why. Most of the students and faculty I’ve spoken with found Hamas’s attack on October 7 odious. They also find Israel’s current government morally bankrupt, in that its response to Hamas’s attack has been disproportionate. They do not support Palestine as such; most do not know enough about the history of Israel and Palestine to pass moral judgment. But they have a deep and abiding sense that what is happening in Gaza is morally wrong, and that the United States is complicit in that immorality. Unfortunately, many tell me they are planning not to vote this coming November — a clear danger to Biden’s reelection campaign.

Robert Reich explains succinctly what is motivating the campus protests against Israel's genocide in Gaza and the backlash against such protests.

[425599167]

Have you been keeping up with the Acolyte at all? I've been watching it and it's mostly been mediocre - definitely flawed - but the fan backlash against it felt disproportionate. I didn't see it being any worse than Book of Boba Fett or Kenobi or the last two seasons of Mandalorian. That being said, this latest episode - Ep. 5, Night - struck me as surprisingly good, at least by Disneyplus Star Wars standards. A villain that finally had some weight to them, actual deaths and consequences, suspense throughout, hinting at the Jedi having done a terrible event in the past, etc, etc. It's not perfect by any means, and I suspect it'll be too little, too late in the eyes of many fans, but at least for me it felt like it was operating at a higher level than the show has been thus far. I'm curious to hear if you have any thoughts on it.

My biggest criticism is the dialogue sounding pretty stiff, but I've sat through worse. The fan backlash is definitely disproportionate, and it's definitely due to racism and sexism.

Generally, I enjoyed it. The first few episodes built up tension with the question of Mae's motivation and the full story of the fire without resorting to methods I think are contrived. For example, I knew the killer was Osha's twin the second it was mentioned she had a sister, but the characters also realized it quickly without dragging it out. Or Sol quickly, successfully coming to Osha's defense when things didn't add up. Or how Osha stupidly handled the emptied poison vial and incriminated herself in front of everyone, then Yord vouches for her despite being the most skeptical of her, which also made my like Yord a lot more.

I'm curious how this will end given later events. A Sith has revealed himself to a bunch of Jedi. One way or another, they do not report their findings. The grimmest, most tragic option would be Osha taking Mae's place as the new acolyte and Sol being the Jedi killed without using a weapon. It looks like Qimir is aiming for that outcome.

edit: Well damn, I got it in one.

[creekfiend]

Just wanted to say thanks for "people from culturally Christian backgrounds" because that seems like a good way to phrase it, and I'm going to try to remember to use it when I'm talking about this sort of thing. (I try to not be a dick to people, when possible, and trauma's messy and complicated.) I'm sorry that some people are being horrible in this whole discussion, and I hope you are doing okay.

I'm doing fine! I really sympathize with most of the people involved in this tbh (except the outright antisemites of course lol) bc like I HAVE seen a lot of reactive and reductive and unkind blanket statements about this by some jumblr people in which they are condescendingly explaining other people's realities to them. Which is my LEAST favorite thing. Jumblr can also be really... umm, dog pile-y in a way that I find frustrating and unproductive. However. I think it's also fairly obvious that most of these reactions are trauma responses, and while that isn't an excuse it is an explanation and provides additional context that I do not feel is irrelevant. For jews we have constantly been told 'well simply stop being jewish' like all the time by everybody, often at gunpoint. So like, when I see nonjewish atheists assert that stuff jews are TELLING you they have gone through "literally never happens" that ALSO REALLY SUCKS. like so so bad. Cannot overstate how much that sucks. Cannot overstate how much it sucks to see ppl I sympathize with deeply wrt their mistrust and hatred of like, organized religious authority, align themselves with people who refer to jewish atheists as "religious nationalists" for refusing to divorce themselves from their ethnic backgrounds/culture/community/traditions. That rhetoric is Just antisemitism in a form that has been used to cause real and violent harm to us in living memory.

Also really alienated by the idea that one must be This Vitriolically Angry About Religion to "count" as an atheist. Like what? That is bonkers. I do not understand why the people making seemingly reasonable posts about "actually here's some interesting writings by people from Islamic cultures or majority Hindu cultures or orthodox jewish cultures outlining the ways that the authorities in these societies have used religion to cause harm on a systemic level" (objectively true) seem to be aligning themselves with people who are doing the SAME THING TO JEWS that they resent being done to them -- e.g. condescendingly explaining to us that our negative experiences with a certain type of atheists Don't Exist or Don't Count or cannot possibly be rooted in antisemitism.

I find the whole thing depressing and troubling. I don't tend to follow jumblr because of the aforementioned issues I have w it but this backlash seems to me to be disproportionate and really hateful in a way that... combines poorly with the increased antisemitic sentiments being lobbed at jews from all ideological sides recently. I wish we could all be more congizent of 1. the role trauma is playing here for everyone and 2. the inherent lack of productive discussion that can be had when two parties are simply Trauma Responsing at each other back and forth endlessly.

Then there's the people who just get super aggressive about people "believing fake things" but I'm not sure there's any help for them. Sure wish that the nonjewish atheists who are not like that would disavow them though! I certainly am more than happy to say "acknowledging a cultural/societal dynamic that privileges one religion and culture as default and that existing in thay culture might cause people to have unexamined assumptions about other religions and cultures" should not be weaponized against individual people in order to bully them by insisting they are a thing that they manifestly are not (atheists aren't Christians. The fact that atheists from Jewish backgrounds will have Jewishness shackled to them regardless of their degree of identification with Being A Jew is actually bad and a function of antisemitism; it is not an aspirational dynamic we should be applying to other people simply because their cultural background is privileged over our own in our society.)

Like can we stop talking past each other and try to understand where people are coming from

People are expressing a lot of hurt and anger about atrocities and systems of oppression that I ultimately feel are totally interconnected. Because of this hurt and anger most people are not being precise in their language or prioritizing connecting or actual dialogue about this and instead focusing on dogpiling and gotchas. It's discouraging.

I'm a secular humanist jew with complex feelings towards both jewishness and atheism as concepts and movements. I want to understand and connect with people based on our common ground.

This is I guess all me being a big baby who is unsuited to internet fights but this one specifically feels really hurtful to me because I feel like my reality is being ignored and denied. I suspect a lot of people are also feeling that way. Which might be a good place to START the discussion to be honest.

[chalkrevelations]

Listen, I know I have ptsd from 813, and I actively try to limit my ability to see conspiracies around a lot of corners, but you know what? Fuck it. I’m going to go ahead and finally say this publicly:

Given the sheer speed, size and scope of the backlash against Build - both during Poi’s initial broadside and from the latest leaks - given the utterly disproportionate response, including the effort to completely drive him from public life; given the constant and on-going barrage of harassment that seems particularly tied to any indication that he’s making an attempt at regaining a career; given the actual lies and legally actionable slander that have been blithely spread across a massive amount of the fanbase, and the way they succeeded in poisoning discourse around him ...

Has anyone considered or discussed the possibility of an organized - if not paid - smear campaign as a factor?

Because this is NOT normal behavior. And it all looks kind of familiar.

[dweemeister]

Devi (1960, India)

One year following his stunning Apur Sansar (The World of Apu) (1959), director Satyajit Ray reunited actors Sharmila Tagore and Soumitra Chatterjee. By this point, Ray was no longer the studious yet inexperienced hand that shepherded the Apu trilogy to its conclusion. But his lead actors were still only starring in their second-ever film. Bengali cinema (Tollywood, based in West Bengal) had a proud history before Ray’s Apu trilogy (1955-1959), but now had caught the attention of audiences beyond India – disproportionately so, as Bollywood (Hindi cinema, based in Mumbai) has always been the largest part of the nation’s film industry. Unlike some of the most popular Tollywood and Bollywood films of the time (and now), Ray never showed interest in romantic-musical escapism and instead dared to make films challenging India’s caste system, sexism, and religious fanaticism.

In his first work addressing religious fanaticism (and arguably his first truly political film) comes Devi, also known by its English-language title as The Goddess. Unlike 1965’s Mahapurush (The Holy Man), which also covers the same topic, Devi is thoroughly a drama, with no hint of comedy or satire. The film’s somber tone did not sit well with general Indian audiences used to lighter fare, and its willingness to criticize the extremes of Hindu religiosity saw the film’s harshest critics deem it (and Ray) as anti-Hindu. If released today, Devi almost certainly would receive a similar, if not more intense, backlash from groups and individuals in India criticizing it out of bad faith.

Somewhere in a rural town in nineteenth century Bengal, younger brother Umaprasad (Soumitra Chatterjee) is ready to depart for Kolkata for university and to study English. Umaprasad’s family is wealthy, with numerous servants tending to their multistory mansion. All is well in their richly-furnished, well-kempt home as he leaves his teenage* wife Dayamayee‡ (Sharmila Tagore) to take of his aging father/her father-in-law Kalikinkar Choudhuri (Chhabi Biswas). One night, Kalinikar awakens from a marvelous dream. An adherent of the goddess Kali, his visions lead him to believe that his daughter-in-law is Kali’s physical incarnation. Upon awakening, he rushes to Dayamayee and falls to his feet in worship. Dayamayee’s life as Umaprasad’s wife has ended. Against her will, she becomes an object of religious devotion as word spreads of Kalikinkar’s dream and a supposed miracle shortly thereafter.

Devi also stars Purnendu Mukherjee as Umaprasad’s brother, Taraprasad; Karuna Banerjee as Harasundari, Taraprasad’s wife; and Arpan Chowdhury as Taraprasad and Harasundari’s son (Dayamayee’s nephew).

Where a year prior Apur Sansar was Soumitra Chatterjee’s movie, Devi is likewise Sharmila Tagore’s. Tagore, sixteen years old upon the film’s release year, again finds herself in a role with little dialogue, even less than her supporting role in Apur Sansar. The moment Tagore’s Dayamayee becomes a devotional figure, her dialogue and ability to exert her own agency disappears. Until Umaprasad returns home shortly after the halfway mark, so much of Tagore’s performance before and after seems spliced from a great silent film. Perched on a small block, a pedestal if you will, she almost never looks at the camera or those intoning “Mā” (“Mother” in Bengali; Kali is the avatar of Durga, and both are forms of the Mother Goddess, Devi) as men and women pray and prostrate themselves in front of her. At times, Dayamayee’s mental and physical exhaustion is clear, even if she is looking sideways or into the ground, as she sits in place for several hours at a time. Is there any one there to make sure that this “goddess” is properly being taken care of? It seems doubtful.

It is unclear how long it takes for word to reach Umaprasad in order for him to return home to see the daily scenes at his family’s residence. Even for less than a day, this whole situation is intolerable to Dayamayee. Her resignation is evident in her slightly hunched back, unable to find a psychological or physical escape. The scene where Umaprasad returns home to see Dayamayee venerated as a goddess contains striking facial acting from both Tagore and Chatterjee. In Chatterjee, we see Umaprasad comprehending the situation in real time, as his horror renders him almost speechless. In Tagore, Dayamayee looks up, and in a figment of hope, there is utter heartbreak. These long days of adoration and miracle-seeking pilgrims have even shaken her sense of reality, as almost all vestiges of her past life wither away. In a rare private moment with Umaprasad, she questions her very being: “But what if I am a goddess?”

Satyajit Ray, who also wrote this screenplay based on the 1899 Bengali short story of the same name by Prabhat Kumar Mukhopadhyay, was part of the Brahmo Samaj movement, which advocates for a monotheistic interpretation of Hinduism. Brahmos, crucially, reject the caste system and avatars/incarnations of gods and goddesses. Ray’s adherence to the reforms of Brahmo Samaj color his filmography more obviously as his career progresses (I have not seen too much of Ray’s work, but I have not yet encountered a film of his that inelegantly portrayed his beliefs). Ray’s reformist and Western-leaning stances are embodied by Chatterjee’s Umaprasad, who we see clash with his more traditional father over social mores (the latter is distrustful of his son’s education, and derides his son for supposedly espousing Christian beliefs). Except for the scenes of a religious procession immediately after the opening credits, at no point does Ray imbue any of the religious images with any sense of glory, wonder, or veneration. Cinematographer Subrata Mitra (the Apu trilogy, 1966’s Nayak) dispenses of any ethereal lighting until the closing seconds, and his medium to close shots capture the uncomfortable anguish on both sides – Dayamayee’s alternating ambivalence and despair, the worshippers’ desire for comfort, deliverance, and the miraculous.

Like in several of Ray’s films including Mahapurush and Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People) (1989), Devi rejects dogmatism, miracles, superstitions, and anything that cannot have a rational or scientific explanation. Simultaneously, Ray realizes that most Indians, in the face of events profound and improbable, find science and rationality cold, confusing, and unsatisfying. Faith endows meaning to such moments. Faith ascribes purpose to happiness and suffering – something rationalism cannot provide. The unsuitability of both to provide a solution in Devi is the film’s secondary tragedy, as belief systems confront a scenario where a middle ground is impossible.

Devi’s principal tragedy is the religious objectification of Dayamayee. Of all of Ray’s female protagonists from Pather Panchali (1955) to this point, none of them are as constrained as Tagore’s Dayamayee. She may not live in poverty like Apu’s sister and mother in the Apu trilogy, nor is she the wife of an indulgent husband (1958’s Jalsāghar or The Music Room). And though she is not bound by shackles or subject to physical or sexual abuse, Dayamayee is nevertheless a victim of the unpredictable whims of men (and it is almost entirely men who worship her). Her portrayal is nuanced: she does not succumb entirely to self-pity, nor does she possess the strength to tell her father-in-law and his fellow worshippers to halt their devotional displays. She is aware of the communal damage she will cause if she so much renounces her unwanted divinity. At the same time, she cannot help but yearn for freedom, for others to speak to her like a human again – complete with aspirations, desires, and fears that no one can associate with a god.

Too often in cinema – wherever and whenever it hails from, including midcentury India – women play simplistic roles: the lover, the damsel in distress, the spurned wife. Where numerous filmmakers and actresses in the Hollywood Studio System were actively working to dismantle this element of patriarchy, I do not detect a similar level of rebellion in mainstream Indian cinema in the 1950s and 1960s (and, to some extent, this remains true). Ray did not stand alone in attempting to endow female characters with complexity (within and outside Bengali cinema), but his contributions to this development within the context of midcentury Indian cinema are crucial. Many of his films attempt a cinematic dialogue that critiqued patriarchal abuses with subtlety and bluntness – often to the chagrin of the public and government officials. The public outrage following Devi’s initial domestic release saw the film banned from seeking international distribution. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru intervened and reversed that decision.

Nevertheless, consider some of the works in Ray’s first decade as a filmmaker: The Apu trilogy, Devi, Teen Kanya (1961), The Big City (1963), and Charulata (1964). Together, all seven of those films reveal a filmmaker willing to take mainstream Indian filmmaking to task for regressive and simplistic portrayals of women, whether in lead or supporting roles. Devi might be the most shattering of that collection, caught between human weakness and the unknowability of the divine.

My rating: 8.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog. Half-points are always rounded down.

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

* There were no child marriage laws in India in the nineteenth century, when this film is set. Child marriage remains prevalent in India, despite loophole-filled laws and a lack of enforcement.

‡ Multiple spellings of the protagonist's name are out there from reputable sources. I am using either the most or second-most common spelling here.

[tieflingkisser]

Backlash to affirmative action hits pioneering maternal health program for Black women

Conservative groups have sued to shut down the Abundant Birth Project, part of a national backlash against affirmative action in health care.

For Briana Jones, a young Black mother in San Francisco, a city program called the Abundant Birth Project has been a godsend. Designed to counter the “obstetric racism” that researchers say leads a disproportionate number of African American people to die from childbirth, the project has provided 150 pregnant Black and Pacific Islander San Franciscans a $1,000 monthly stipend. The money enabled Jones, 20, to pay for gas to drive to prenatal clinics, buy fresh fruits and vegetables for her toddler son and herself, and remain healthy as she prepared for the birth of her second child last year. But the future of the Abundant Birth Project is clouded by a lawsuit alleging that the program, the first of its kind in the nation, illegally discriminates by giving the stipend only to people of a specific race. The lawsuit also targets San Francisco guaranteed-income programs serving artists, transgender people and Black young adults. The litigation is part of a growing national effort by conservative groups to eliminate racial preferences in a wide range of institutions following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found race-conscious admissions to colleges and universities to be unconstitutional.

[thatstormygeek]

First, these are examples of backlash, of a post George Floyd politics. After the outrage associated with the death of Floyd, it seemed for a passing moment that American institutions in government, business and academia were paying real attention to historical problems. The most meaningful policy result, however, has been to mobilize the right wing to both mischaracterize such efforts and go after institutional nods to fairness they previously saw as unattainable, such as DEI offices. Contrary to what you have been told about wokeness run amok on campus, it is now much more professionally risky for scholars to study topics related to race, or to be public facing scholars if they do so, than it was before 2020. Second, the goal is to feed a culture of fear within research institutions. Knowing that you are going to be placed in the crosshairs by a bad faith antagonist is intimidating. Rufo published his accusations against Gay, and then Cross, in City Journal, a media outlet of the right wing Manhattan Institute. This tactic reflects an ongoing pattern of a new right wing media seeking to intimidate and cancel scholars that do not share their views, and especially those who study race. If you do not study this topic, or are not a scholar of color, or are not critical of right wing ideas, you can stay safe in the academic cocoon. Which is what they want.

Third, the message is that the topic of race, and the Black scholars that disproportionately pursue the topic, simply do not belong in elite institutions. The mode and nature of the targeting feeds into prejudices, clearly felt by those doing the targeting. On BlueSky, Jamelle Bouie wrote “the key thing here is that "plagiarism" here means "being a black person in a prestigious position"" The mere presence of scholars of color is taken as clear evidence of a sign a decline of institutional merit (compared to the good old days, when you could get a job based on the strength of a letter of recommendation from a mentor at an elite institution).

[beardedmrbean]

Farmers in Spain have joined their European counterparts in staging protests across the country.

Like farmers elsewhere, they demand more flexibility from the European Union, tighter controls on the produce of non-EU countries and more help from their government.

In several regions, they blocked roads and caused severe disruption to motorists.

A large demonstration in central Madrid is planned for later this month.

On Tuesday, farmers took to the streets of agricultural areas in Spain's northern interior, driving tractors in convoys, beeping horns, waving Spanish flags and brandishing placards.

They also protested in the north-eastern region of Catalonia, the southern region of Andalusia and Extremadura in the west.

Spain's farmers have similar grievances to their counterparts in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and other countries that have been protesting recently.

They say that regulations which form part of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), along with high fuel and energy costs, make it difficult for them to make a profit.

"The costs, when it comes to producing wheat and barley, are very high," said Esteban, a cereal farmer who preferred not to give his surname who was protesting in Aranda de Duero. "You've got to pay for fertiliser, pesticides, fuel - it's killing us. We have to pay very high prices and yet we sell at low prices."

Protesting French farmers accused Spanish producers of undercutting them by not fully observing EU rules. Last week, French former minister Ségolène Royal triggered controversy by claiming that Spanish organic tomatoes were "false organic". Amid an angry backlash from the Spanish food and farming industry, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez invited Ms Royal to try a Spanish tomato.

However, Spain's agricultural sector in turn levels similar criticism at non-EU countries, such as its southern neighbour, Morocco, which it claims is not subject to the same environmental and sanitary regulations as European producers, allowing it to sell cheaper produce.

"We have to undergo a lot of controls, a lot of sanitary regulations which products from [non-EU countries] are not subject to," said Estrella Pérez, who farms livestock and cereal.

"We just want a future for farming and right now, we don't see it."

The plight of Spanish farmers has been compounded by drought. Many areas of the country have not seen normal levels of rain in recent months which is affecting harvests. Spain is the world's biggest olive oil producer, but prices have been pushed up by low production. Last week, Catalonia declared a state of emergency due to a three-year drought, the longest on record.

Elsewhere, Italian farmers have been gathering from north to south for a week, also protesting against EU regulations and red tape. They are planning to converge on Rome at the end of this week.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has backed them, saying that the EU's Green Deal will hit farmers' lives disproportionately. But farmers are also concerned about government plans to end tax subsidies for the agricultural sector.

On Tuesday, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced she wants to withdraw a plan to slash the use of pesticides, describing it as "a symbol of polarisation".

Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo welcomed the announcement, saying it was "crucial we keep our farmers on board to a more sustainable future of farming, as part of our determination to get the Green Deal done".

[solarwynd]

armys have been dragging bp for payola and never write their songs and have english album, and they now have jk with 41 songwriters for jk and english album, and worse payola than bp

armys called olivia industry plant only to get industry forest not even a year later lmao

armys call taylor fraudulent for releasing album versions only to get more album versions and remixes

all the drags are back to them but 10 times worse I'm laughing

it’s terrible for them out here.

armys aside though, you also have to look at jk too because to their credit, they didn’t know any of this would go down. I mean I certainly didn’t. joon has been the spokesperson for the group. he always said he doesn’t want to speak for the rest of the members, but I still believed the core value of not taking the easy road was just something they all agreed on. (taehyung said the same about people offering ways to get ahead and them declining) so for jk to come out and do everything I thought he’d be against was disappointing.

maybe that was on me being naive and believing that they all shared that value or on me thinking that I knew these men. well at least where artistic integrity is concerned anyway. armys are still absolutely hypocrites though because if all it took was for a member to do everything y’all said you were openly against to go back on your stance about industry manipulation, then y’all were never really against it in the first place.

mentioning olivia, because I was here for that g4u and butter head butt, the label aid that she got wasn’t even anything absurd? the dragging she got was real disproportionate. not going back on her starting off as an industry plant, because she was, but she puts in the work. she writes her songs and I think guts is a really solid sophomore album.

album versions were never the issue, it’s just when people release an exorbitant amount that’s obviously just geared for charting is when it gets ridiculous. taylor only has 3 for that re-record I think. personally, 4 for me is the max before it feels like someone is doing too much. jk had 11 plus how ever many exclusives he has in stores. but the remixes are the most irritating thing for me though, because the crucifying jimin went through for just 2, jk received no where near the same backlash from other solos or antis for his going on 30.

[russilton]

Hi, I hope this isn't weird, but as I see this kind of discourse from one of my favourite author I just wanted to check in if that's a kind of thing you're dealing with too. Without any judgement to anyone. Is it really that important to you guys that we leave comments? Aren't kudos enough? And do you agree that writers have to answer to comments?

It’s alright anon I figured I might get a message like this and I do appreciate having the chance to share my piece because I utterly agree with Susi on every part.

Something that’s worth understanding is I do not have a single artist or writer friend who doesn’t face this issue. Every single one one them, without fail, puts their heart on the line to create and share fan work, and all of them, myself included, struggle with a lack of response. Every gif maker, writer, artist, edit crafter, web weaver, all of them live for the positive comments we receive, the praise. I don’t know a creative without a praise kink, frankly.

This has been true for every fandom I’ve been in since I started posting art online in 2011, and fic in 2017, but it is ESPECIALLY present in F1 RPF because the space is so small, and usually people are so used to clinging to anonymity that the space feels even smaller.

Long discussion under the cut, because I wanted to try and honestly explain the mental process behind why authors and artists ask for a comment.

Speaking from my own experience now (that I’d still put money on being a similar experience for others), posting work of any kind online is a bargain. Yes you do it for yourself in part, but if it was just for myself I wouldn’t post it. When you post, you make the mental deal of “am I willing to accept potential hate or disinterest in this, for the chance to receive love and praise on it”. If you’ve been here a while you’ve seen the anons I’ve received at times; transphobic, homophobic, or just plain hateful. Some were too hateful to even post. I have had an Instagram page make a collage of my art just to laugh at it. But I keep posting, because for me, the joy and community I receive from comments and tags on my work make it worth that bargain. There’s some work that isn’t worth the potential backlash to post. That’s why any of the nsfw art I draw never leaves my close mutuals. I’m not willing to share it online when the result of it would pale against the risk.

Creative work is a deeply personal and heart baring process. It cannot be done easily some days. Yes it’s fun and funny and entertaining at times, but most times when I’m writing, I end up stood utterly alone in my own mind with myself. I cant write if I’m too depressed, because that experience of being alone with myself is too painful. Even on a good day it can be hard. So when I choose to go to that place, remain alone to pour my mind into something I write or draw, it is an exhausting labour of love. It takes hours, I’m not a fast worker, some people are faster than me, some are even slower. I’m alone for all of it.

And so when you put that all together. The work, the creative process, the editing, the cleaning, the preparing for posting, the process of tagging and sorting work so it’ll be seen, then self promoting… the least we can ask for in return is a comment?

You have to understand, kudos or likes are great, but it’s a hand sticking out of the void and giving you a thumbs up. It’s silent, faceless, impression-less. Imagine sending your family a deeply personal message and the response you get is just “👍”. Yeah it’s technically a response, but it’s disproportionate to the Labour afforded beforehand. People posting online are seeking a human connection, that little snap of closeness all human beings through history have craved. A kudos doesn’t really satisfy that craving. I would rather get 20 kudos on fic, but every single one has a comment, than 1000 silent ones. It’s just a number, it takes half a second to press that button and move on. It makes you feel like a cheap commodity that’s consumed and spat out, and that doesn’t even speak for the shame of a thousand eyes looking at your work and saying nothing at all.

When you comment or leave a tag, it shows me you took a second to absorb what I’ve showed you. It slowed you down, made you pause or take a breath, it DID something to you, just like it did something to me to make it. That’s a connection, that snap of a bond. Myself and that commenter now share something, and usually it’s a simple act of gratitude that you see all the work I’ve done to give you something, even if the comment is just “I really liked this!thank you for writing it”. It’s a paltry amount of work compared to what happened to get us there. But I feel less alone for just a little while, just like that fic did for you.

I understand that is still hard to do on occasion. You may be tired, you may feel over exposed or sick, but again you have to remember how hard that creative worked to give you something. On tumblr at least you can still reblog without a comment and increase the chance of someone else doing so. Ao3 doesn’t have that. Even when people filter by kudos they still have to be looking to read something with those tags. It doesn’t do much for the author who is sat faced with numbers. Their work made you feel, think, or just escape your own mind, by commenting, you are giving them the chance to have a moment of the same.

I have a screenshot folder full of comments that have made my day. It’s packed with the words that kept me going, when I doubted I could write at all, when I wondered if my art was good enough. They make a meaningful impact on my life the way I hope my work does for others.

And then you have to understand how… ungrateful it seems, to have people go “well you don’t reply fast enough, so I’m not going to comment.” I understand we all want that connection again, of a reply, and that’s why most authors TRY to do so!

But that author or artist has spent hours creating something for you, they have emotionally laboured and worked and bared themselves, asked you just to say something as your payment, and then you have asked to be paid for that honour? That’s like going into a store, paying for something, and then going “because you didn’t give me an extra gift for paying rather than stealing, I shall simply steal it in future”. That’s kind of insane right? Especially when the work you receive was hand made with love by the person sat in front of you.

I don’t know a single creative person on f1blr I haven’t seen go “I don’t know if posting this is worth it”. And that should worry people. If you come online and devour content without return, you are going to see people stop posting and walk away. I’ve seen it happen over and over and over. This isn’t the hungry hungry caterpillar, you aren’t 5, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too if you don’t pay the baker who made it. In this case nobody in fandom has the incentive of making a living to continue. I can’t buy things for myself with comments. We don’t get paid. Instead they’re just going to stop sharing and return to only giving cake to people who respond. I’ve got art and fic I wrote only for my friends, because I wanted a reaction and giving it to them was a sure fire way to get it, because I trusted them.

If it becomes more effort to post than it does the return, I simply just won’t. I owe nothing to a faceless void, and so said void should try being less faceless. That’s all people are asking for.

[ingek73]

We didn’t ask for Lady Hussey to resign. But, really, the monarchy must do better on race

Mandu Reid

I witnessed the racist remarks, but blaming one person alone distracts from the depth and breadth of racism in that institution

Published: 19:31 Thursday, 01 December 2022

I generally avoid news about the royals. So it was a real eye-opener to find myself at the centre of a royal story. At a reception on Tuesday to honour those working to end violence against women and girls, I witnessed racist remarks from a member of the royal household directed at my friend and fellow activist, Ngozi Fulani. Lady Hussey’s prolonged interrogation about where Ngozi was really from, what her nationality was and where her people were from, was not – as many people have insisted to me over the past 24 hours – the kind of well-meaning curiosity that all of us experience from time to time (though it’s possible that Hussey believed that it was).

“Hackney” was Ngozi’s answer, but Hussey refused to accept this. Her response implied that Black and brown people couldn’t really be British. It implied that we were trespassing – and it made me reflect on the increasingly hostile environment of this disunited kingdom.

Even so, the media furore feels disproportionate, given the avalanche of huge stories you might expect to be dominating the news cycle. It’s not that this one isn’t serious. Racism always is, which is why I’ve spoken out. But something about this media frenzy feels … off. Even as I write this, interview requests are coming in faster than I can say no to (in one case my refusal was countered with the offer of a huge fee). If you have seen the emergency appeal that the Women’s Equality party launched this week, you will understand how hard that particular refusal was, though it confirmed why my decision had been right in the first place.

The initial calls I received were from journalists not looking for my account, but my corroboration. It took some time to realise that it was the very fact that the incident had been “witnessed” that made it significant, and forced the palace to respond swiftly (and in my view, unsatisfactorily). Unlike when the Duchess of Sussex made her accounts of royal racism, such as the “concerns” that were expressed over how dark her son’s skin might be, the palace wasn’t able to deny or deflect this time. It couldn’t rerun the famous line that “recollections may vary”, because three of us have identical, and identically uncomfortable, recollections of that encounter.

Soon after the first media reports were published, the palace announced that Hussey had resigned. This is a gambit that I have become increasingly familiar with since the Women’s Equality party started campaigning against police misogyny. What I’ve learned is that the “bad apple” narrative is potent not only because it masquerades as taking responsibility without the institution having to do any such thing, but also because it often helps drive a backlash against the “woke brigade” for cancelling yet another innocent. I see that “She’s 83” is now trending on Twitter, imploring us to leave this nice old lady alone, a stance that adds a dash of ageism to the racism that has pervaded much of the commentary.

The funny thing is, neither Ngozi nor I wanted Hussey to receive the grand order of the boot. Ngozi didn’t even name her publicly; it was social media that did this, immediately seizing on the story as another chance to form into polarised rival camps. Instead of stepping down, Hussey should be encouraged to step up, along with senior members of the royal household. This is much bigger than one individual: blaming Hussey risks minimising and distracting from the depth and breadth of racism that is enshrined in an institution that carries the heritage of empire, slavery and inequality (we are their subjects, after all).

Buckingham Palace trumpets its commitment to diversity and inclusion on its website. In a statement on Wednesday, it promised to remind staff of its policies. That’s a big ask when its own annual reports show a lack of diversity among the upper echelons of its staff. The palace’s history is dotted with failures of inclusion. Still, it’s not the worst of the royal courts. Anecdotal evidence suggests that honour falls to Kensington Palace, which didn’t even release this data in its last annual report.

Perhaps a starting point for an institution where staff think it’s OK to touch a Black woman’s hair or question her belonging would be signing up to cultural competence training. I know just the organisation to provide that. Sistah Space, the charity Ngozi runs to support African and Caribbean heritage women affected by domestic and sexual abuse, offers such courses to institutions that don’t know where to begin.

Wouldn’t it be something if Buckingham Palace asked for their help? It would certainly chime with the Queen Consort’s speech at the reception, in which she said that the starting point for responding to survivors of abuse was listening to them and believing them. Perhaps, one day, that principle could extend to Meghan too.

Mandu Reid is leader of the Women’s Equality party

[mariacallous]

I generally avoid news about the royals. So it was a real eye-opener to find myself at the centre of a royal story. At a reception on Tuesday to honour those working to end violence against women and girls, I witnessed racist remarks from a member of the royal household directed at my friend and fellow activist, Ngozi Fulani. Lady Hussey’s prolonged interrogation about where Ngozi was really from, what her nationality was and where her people were from, was not – as many people have insisted to me over the past 24 hours – the kind of well-meaning curiosity that all of us experience from time to time (though it’s possible that Hussey believed that it was).

“Hackney” was Ngozi’s answer, but Hussey refused to accept this. Her response implied that Black and brown people couldn’t really be British. It implied that we were trespassing – and it made me reflect on the increasingly hostile environment of this disunited kingdom.

Even so, the media furore feels disproportionate, given the avalanche of huge stories you might expect to be dominating the news cycle. It’s not that this one isn’t serious. Racism always is, which is why I’ve spoken out. But something about this media frenzy feels … off. Even as I write this, interview requests are coming in faster than I can say no to (in one case my refusal was countered with the offer of a huge fee). If you have seen the emergency appeal that the Women’s Equality party launched this week, you will understand how hard that particular refusal was, though it confirmed why my decision had been right in the first place.

The initial calls I received were from journalists not looking for my account, but my corroboration. It took some time to realise that it was the very fact that the incident had been “witnessed” that made it significant, and forced the palace to respond swiftly (and in my view, unsatisfactorily). Unlike when the Duchess of Sussex made her accounts of royal racism, such as the “concerns” that were expressed over how dark her son’s skin might be, the palace wasn’t able to deny or deflect this time. It couldn’t rerun the famous line that “recollections may vary”, because three of us have identical, and identically uncomfortable, recollections of that encounter.

Soon after the first media reports were published, the palace announced that Hussey had resigned. This is a gambit that I have become increasingly familiar with since the Women’s Equality party started campaigning against police misogyny. What I’ve learned is that the “bad apple” narrative is potent not only because it masquerades as taking responsibility without the institution having to do any such thing, but also because it often helps drive a backlash against the “woke brigade” for cancelling yet another innocent. I see that “She’s 83” is now trending on Twitter, imploring us to leave this nice old lady alone, a stance that adds a dash of ageism to the racism that has pervaded much of the commentary.

The funny thing is, neither Ngozi nor I wanted Hussey to receive the grand order of the boot. Ngozi didn’t even name her publicly; it was social media that did this, immediately seizing on the story as another chance to form into polarised rival camps. Instead of stepping down, Hussey should be encouraged to step up, along with senior members of the royal household. This is much bigger than one individual: blaming Hussey risks minimising and distracting from the depth and breadth of racism that is enshrined in an institution that carries the heritage of empire, slavery and inequality (we are their subjects, after all).

Buckingham Palace trumpets its commitment to diversity and inclusion on its website. In a statement on Wednesday, it promised to remind staff of its policies. That’s a big ask when its own annual reports show a lack of diversity among the upper echelons of its staff. The palace’s history is dotted with failures of inclusion. Still, it’s not the worst of the royal courts. Anecdotal evidence suggests that honour falls to Kensington Palace, which didn’t even release this data in its last annual report.

Perhaps a starting point for an institution where staff think it’s OK to touch a Black woman’s hair or question her belonging would be signing up to cultural competence training. I know just the organisation to provide that. Sistah Space, the charity Ngozi runs to support African and Caribbean heritage women affected by domestic and sexual abuse, offers such courses to institutions that don’t know where to begin.

Wouldn’t it be something if Buckingham Palace asked for their help? It would certainly chime with the Queen Consort’s speech at the reception, in which she said that the starting point for responding to survivors of abuse was listening to them and believing them. Perhaps, one day, that principle could extend to Meghan too.

[commandtower-solring-go]

Hey you wanna learn something insane?

Unalive has been used and popularised by creators of colour who were being disproportionately banned and removed from Tiktok for using terms like 'kill'. Hollistically, those who use it resent having to use it, but they are forced to in order to not have the rug pulled out from beneath them.

This was most recently shown to be true when Hank Green pushed back against the term, and received a lot of backlash from creators of colour who mirrored his opinions but explained they were forced to speak in euphamism.

"Un-uhlaive? UN-UHLAIVE? Ma'am, that man has been killed. He has been MUHDUHED. To DEATH."