#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.

[pjharvey]

salt lake city has apparently the seventh largest lgbt population of any of the top 50 major cities in the united states and i think the main reason for this is that a lot of people here are essentially like me and multiple of my friends where they've moved to salt lake city because the homophobia in other parts of utah made life unbearable. like utah is one of the worst states in the country to be an LGBT youth specifically a trans youth, but salt lake city at least for its size and the state it unfortunately happens to be in is a pretty good place to be an LGBT adult. then as soon as you leave salt lake city people give you weird looks in public because you have a gay haircut. very interesting thing happening here

[grantmentis]

It has become abundantly clear that the PWHL is intent to just be as vague as possible on trans issues and hope they don’t piss anyone off in order to get everyone’s money.

Despite journalists asking monthly, they still have not created a gender inclusion policy. After the incident with Curl, the league made sure to never say anything explicitly against transphobia but just make general statements about the league being an ~inclusive environment. The PA has also never made an explicit statement supporting trans athletes (but have made general support of pride month and gone to Pride events, and past and present players have individually expressed support)

This is not unique to the PWHL, most other sports leagues are in the same boat. A lot of the mainstream majority men’s leagues rarely even can muster up any support for general pride initiatives (and when they do it’s usually led by individual players), where as majority women’s leagues usually do embrace LGBT+ initiatives but leave support for trans people and trans right initiatives purposefully vague. This is, however, ultimately a PWHL blog so I’m going to focus on them here.

if we understand the role the PWHL plays as role models and spokespeople for women’s hockey - something the league and the PA has embraced and marketed themselves as - then we can understand why it sucks that the league and many of its leading voices refuse to lend more explicit support. PWHL players are also in a unique position where quite a few of them actually have played with a trans woman in the cwhl/pwhpa, many played with a trans man in the phf, and they have an active nonbinary player now.

Affirming support of trans people through both clear words and actions is a necessity, first and foremost, because we have a responsibility protecting the most vulnerable members of our communities from injustice and violence. But it’s also important to point out that trying to be vague in order to avoid backlash from conservatives is not going to work, because the inevitable endpoint of this rhetoric is that athletic excellence is outside the realm of possibility for women as a whole and that any woman who is a great athlete is not actually a woman, which we’ve seen time and time again now. This is not to say that everyone is equally in danger to this, nor that the act of protecting trans people isn’t a necessary action on its own, rather i am just addressing what the scope of this really is. We’ve already seen multiple Olympians and other professional athletes get “transvestigated” and experience harassment campaigns (disproportionately, these have been Black athletes) and shady sports organizations use hormone level tests to try to bar athletes they don’t like from competing. The fight for the inclusion for trans people in sport is ultimately a fight for human rights, for bodily autonomy, for labor rights, and for gender equity and participation in sports

[witchyfoxelf]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[usapronews]

The Ongoing Debate Over the Travel Ban and Its Impact

The Muslim ban has been a controversial topic in U.S. politics for years, sparking intense debates over national security, immigration policies, and civil rights. Introduced in 2017, the travel ban initially restricted entry from several predominantly Muslim-majority countries, leading to widespread criticism and legal challenges. While later revisions altered the original scope, its effects continue to influence global travel and diplomatic relations.

Origins and Evolution of the Policy

The policy was first introduced through an executive order, which led to immediate backlash from civil rights organizations and immigration advocates. Many argued that the restrictions unfairly targeted Muslim-majority nations, labeling it a Muslim ban rather than a legitimate national security measure. After multiple legal battles, the administration revised the travel ban to include additional countries, adjusting the criteria to address concerns about discrimination. However, critics continued to challenge its fairness and effectiveness.

Legal and Social Repercussions

One of the most significant aspects of this policy was its impact on families and individuals with ties to the affected countries. Many people found themselves stranded, unable to reunite with loved ones or continue their studies and careers in the United States. Lawsuits filed against the policy highlighted the difficulties faced by travelers, emphasizing the need for a more transparent and just immigration system.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld a modified version of the travel ban, reinforcing the authority of the executive branch to regulate national security matters. However, the ruling did not end the debate. Advocacy groups continued pushing for reforms, arguing that national security policies should not disproportionately target specific religious or ethnic groups.

Global Reaction and Diplomatic Challenges

Internationally, the policy strained relations between the U.S. and several nations. Many viewed it as an unjust restriction on mobility, leading to retaliatory measures from some governments. Countries affected by the ban sought diplomatic negotiations, urging U.S. officials to reconsider the restrictions. At the same time, global organizations called for greater fairness in immigration policies, emphasizing the importance of diversity and inclusion.

The Future of U.S. Travel Policies

With changes in administration, the approach to immigration policies has evolved. New leadership has taken steps to revise previous travel restrictions, aiming to balance security with humanitarian concerns. While the formal reversal of certain bans has provided relief to many affected individuals, the conversation about fair and effective immigration policies remains ongoing.

Moving forward, policymakers continue to evaluate security concerns while addressing the broader implications of immigration restrictions. As debates over national security and human rights persist, the legacy of the Muslim ban and its impact on global travel will remain a key issue in U.S. immigration policy discussions.

[jewy-gum]

🌐 Week 10: Digital Citizenship and Conflict – Social Media Governance 🔍

This week’s theme dives into the power plays and complexities of social media governance - where freedom of expression, user safety, and community values collide. Social media isn’t just a digital playground; it’s a space where the rules we follow (or break) shape our experience, and sometimes, our real-world identities. Let’s explore why it’s so crucial for us to navigate these waters carefully and demand better governance from the platforms we use daily.

💥 Online Harassment: An Unseen Threat to Digital Citizenship

Ever felt the urge to delete a post or stay silent on an issue because you feared backlash? You’re not alone. Research shows that online harassment disproportionately targets women and marginalized groups, often silencing voices that challenge the status quo (Haslop et al. 2021). For many, logging in means risking exposure to abuse, trolls, and coordinated attacks that are more than just “words on a screen.” They are reminders of the deep-rooted biases that our digital spaces reflect - and amplify.

Watching comedians like Hannah Gadsby and Amy Schumer tackle online harassment through humor has been inspiring. It’s a powerful reminder that even in conflict, there are ways to reclaim the narrative and demand change. Their standup routines highlight an essential truth: social media governance shouldn’t be left to algorithms and vague community guidelines alone. It’s personal, it’s political, and it’s urgent.

🛡️ Social Media Governance: Who’s Responsible for Our Safety?

Platforms like Twitter and Instagram often claim to have our safety in mind, but are their efforts enough? Recent laws, such as Australia’s Online Safety Act, attempt to enforce accountability by mandating the removal of harmful content within 24 hours. However, enforcement is tricky - how do we ensure these measures protect us without infringing on freedom of expression? And how do platforms address the sheer volume of content they moderate daily?

This week, I found myself reflecting on the role of brands in supporting online safety. Tamara Littleton, CEO of The Social Element, advocates for brands to actively protect and support creators against harassment. When brands take a stand and back up creators, it sends a powerful message that online abuse is unacceptable, reinforcing that social responsibility is a shared duty across users, creators, and corporations.

Link to "Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act 2021":

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/online-safety-act-2021-review-issues-paper-26-april-2024.pdf

🌐 Digital Citizenship: Our Role in Shaping the Internet We Want

As digital citizens, we have a role beyond just being consumers - we’re the ones who shape the culture and tone of these platforms. That means calling out harmful behavior, supporting each other, and pushing back against a culture that normalizes harassment. If we want social media to be a safe space, it requires active participation and responsibility from all of us.

References

Australian Government 2022, Online Safety Act, Australian Human Rights Commission, viewed 5 November 2024, <https://www.legislation.gov.au>.

Haslop, C, O’Rourke, F & Southern, R 2021, ‘#NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1418-1438.

Pew Research 2021, Public Attitudes Towards Social Media Harassment, viewed 5 November 2024, <https://www.pewresearch.org/>.

[atliqai]

AI Ethics and Regulation: The need for responsible AI development and deployment.

In recent months, the spotlight has been on AI's remarkable capabilities and its equally daunting consequences. For instance, in August 2024, a groundbreaking AI-powered diagnostic tool was credited with identifying a rare, life-threatening disease in patients months before traditional methods could. This early detection has the potential to save countless lives and revolutionize the field of healthcare. Yet, as we celebrate these incredible advancements, we are also reminded of the darker side of AI's rapid evolution. Just weeks later, a leading tech company faced a massive backlash after its new AI-driven recruitment system was found to disproportionately disadvantage candidates from underrepresented backgrounds. This incident underscored the critical need for responsible AI development and deployment.

These contrasting stories highlight a crucial reality: while AI holds transformative potential, it also presents significant ethical and regulatory challenges. As we continue to integrate AI into various aspects of our lives, the imperative for ethical standards and robust regulations becomes ever clearer. This blog explores the pressing need for responsible AI practices to ensure that technology serves humanity in a fair, transparent, and accountable manner.

The Role of AI in Society

AI is revolutionizing multiple sectors, including healthcare, finance, and transportation. In healthcare, AI enhances diagnostic accuracy and personalizes treatments. In finance, it streamlines fraud detection and optimizes investments. In transportation, AI advances autonomous vehicles and improves traffic management. This broad range of applications underscores AI's transformative impact across industries.

Benefits Of Artificial Intelligence 

Healthcare: AI improves diagnostic precision and enables early detection of diseases, potentially saving lives and improving treatment outcomes.

Finance: AI enhances fraud detection, automates trading, and optimizes investment strategies, leading to more efficient financial operations.

Transportation: Autonomous vehicles reduce accidents and optimize travel routes, while AI improves public transport scheduling and resource management.

Challenges Of Artificial Intelligence

Bias and Fairness: AI can perpetuate existing biases if trained on flawed data, leading to unfair outcomes in areas like hiring or law enforcement.

Privacy Concerns: The extensive data collection required by AI systems raises significant privacy issues, necessitating strong safeguards to protect user information.

Job Displacement: Automation driven by AI can lead to job losses, requiring workers to adapt and acquire new skills to stay relevant in the changing job market.

Ethical Considerations in AI

Bias and Fairness: AI systems can perpetuate biases if trained on flawed data, impacting areas like hiring and law enforcement. For example, biased training data can lead to discriminatory outcomes against certain groups. Addressing this requires diverse data and ongoing monitoring to ensure fairness.

Transparency: Many AI systems operate as "black boxes," making their decision-making processes opaque. Ensuring transparency involves designing AI to be understandable and explainable, so users and stakeholders can grasp how decisions are made and hold systems accountable.

Accountability: When AI systems cause harm or errors, it’s crucial to determine who is responsible—whether it's the developers, the deploying organization, or the AI itself. Clear accountability structures and governance are needed to manage and rectify issues effectively.

Privacy: AI often requires extensive personal data, raising privacy concerns. To protect user privacy, data should be anonymized, securely stored, and used transparently. Users should have control over their data and understand how it is used to prevent misuse and unauthorized surveillance.

In summary, addressing these ethical issues is vital to ensure AI technologies are used responsibly and equitably.

Current AI Regulations and Frameworks

Several key regulations and frameworks govern AI, reflecting varying approaches to managing its risks:

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Enforced by the European Union, GDPR addresses data protection and privacy. It includes provisions relevant to AI, such as the right to explanation, which allows individuals to understand automated decisions affecting them.

AI Act (EU): The EU’s AI Act, expected to come into effect in 2024, classifies AI systems by risk and imposes stringent requirements on high-risk applications. It aims to ensure AI is safe and respects fundamental rights.

Algorithmic Accountability Act (US): This proposed U.S. legislation seeks to increase transparency and accountability in AI systems, particularly those used in critical areas like employment and criminal justice.

The Need for Enhanced AI Regulation

Gaps in Current Regulations

Lack of Specificity: Existing regulations like GDPR provide broad data privacy protections but lack detailed guidelines for addressing AI-specific issues such as algorithmic bias and decision-making transparency.

Rapid Technological Evolution: Regulations can struggle to keep pace with the rapid advancements in AI technology, leading to outdated or inadequate frameworks.

Inconsistent Global Standards: Different countries have varied approaches to AI regulation, creating a fragmented global landscape that complicates compliance for international businesses.

Limited Scope for Ethical Concerns: Many regulations focus primarily on data protection and safety but may not fully address ethical considerations, such as fairness and accountability in AI systems.

Proposed Solutions

Develop AI-Specific Guidelines: Create regulations that address AI-specific challenges, including detailed requirements for transparency, bias mitigation, and explainability of algorithms.

Regular Updates and Flexibility: Implement adaptive regulatory frameworks that can evolve with technological advancements to ensure ongoing relevance and effectiveness.

Global Cooperation: Promote international collaboration to harmonize AI standards and regulations, reducing fragmentation and facilitating global compliance.

Ethical Frameworks: Introduce comprehensive ethical guidelines beyond data protection to cover broader issues like fairness, accountability, and societal impact.

In summary, enhancing AI regulation requires addressing gaps in current frameworks, implementing AI-specific guidelines, and fostering industry standards and self-regulation. These steps are essential to ensure that AI technology is developed and deployed responsibly and ethically.

Future Trends in AI Ethics and Regulation

Emerging Trends: Upcoming trends in AI ethics and regulation include a focus on ethical AI design with built-in fairness and transparency and the development of AI governance frameworks for structured oversight. There is also a growing need for sector-specific regulations as AI impacts critical fields like healthcare and finance.

Innovative Solutions: Innovative approaches to current challenges involve real-time AI bias detection tools, advancements in explainable AI for greater transparency, and the use of blockchain technology for enhanced accountability. These solutions aim to improve trust and fairness in AI systems.

Role of Technology: Future advancements in AI will impact ethical considerations and regulations. Enhanced bias detection, automated compliance systems, and improved machine learning tools will aid in managing ethical risks and ensuring responsible AI practices. Regulatory frameworks will need to evolve to incorporate these technological advancements.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant ethical challenges. As AI systems increasingly influence various aspects of our lives, we must address these challenges through responsible development and deployment practices. From ensuring diverse and inclusive data sets to enhancing transparency and accountability, our approach to AI must prioritize ethical considerations at every stage.

Looking ahead, the role of technology in shaping future ethical standards and regulatory frameworks cannot be underestimated. By staying ahead of technological advancements and embracing interdisciplinary collaboration, we can build AI systems that not only advance innovation but also uphold fairness, privacy, and accountability.

In summary, the need for responsible AI development and deployment is clear. As we move forward, a collective commitment to ethical principles, proactive regulation, and continuous improvement will be essential to ensuring that AI benefits all of society while minimizing risks and fostering trust.

[warningsine]

On Aug. 28, Amandla Stenberg, the lead of the “Star Wars” series “The Acolyte,” posted an eight-and-a-half-minute video to her Instagram Stories about Lucasfilm’s abrupt decision not to pick up the show for a second season just a month after the Season 1 finale streamed on Disney+. 

“It’s not a huge shock for me,” Stenberg said. Since the series was announced in 2020, she continued, “we started experiencing a rampage of, I would say, hyper-conservative bigotry and vitriol, prejudice, hatred and hateful language towards us.” (Stenberg was unavailable to comment for this story.)

In other words, “The Acolyte” was the latest high-profile target of “toxic fandom,” the catchall term for when fan criticism curdles from good-faith dissatisfaction into a relentlessly negative, often bigoted online campaign against either the project or its stars or creative leaders. In a franchise economy increasingly dependent upon established audience devotion to drive the bottom line, the threat of toxic fandoms poisoning that enthusiasm has become a seemingly intractable headache for almost every studio. And it’s only getting worse.

“It comes with the territory, but it’s gotten incredibly loud in the last couple years,” says a veteran marketing executive at a major studio. “People are just out for blood, regardless. They think the purity of the first version will never be replaced, or you’ve done something to upset the canon of a beloved franchise, and they’re going to take you down for doing so.”

Sometimes, toxic fandoms behave reactively. A “House of the Dragon” episode featuring two female characters kissing and an episode of “The Last of Us” focusing on a gay couple were both review bombed — the practice of mobbing sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb with negative user reviews, which gained mainstream attention following the premiere of 2017’s “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” And an entire YouTube ecosystem is devoted to declaring projects like “The Marvels” and “The Boys” “woke garbage” (among other pungent sobriquets).

Just as frequently, the backlash begins before the project has seen the light of day: a Reddit mega-thread dedicated to outrage over “Bridgerton” casting a Black woman (Masali Baduza) as the love interest for Francesca (Hannah Dodd); social media epithets directed at the actors of color cast as elves and dwarves in “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power”; death threats aimed at Leslie Jones during the press tour for 2016’s “Ghostbusters.”

Perhaps the greatest irony of this phenomenon is the disproportionate impact these toxic fandoms have relative to their actual number. 

“The vast majority of any fandom are casual fans,” says John Van Citters, VP of Star Trek brand development, who has been with the storied franchise since the 1990s. “The number of people who live and die on their franchises are very, very few, and then those who come after things that they espouse to love with venom are a really, really tiny subset of that already smaller subset of fandom. It’s just much easier to see it now. I don’t know that it’s really that much broader than where things were in 1995 — it’s just that the bullhorn wasn’t there.”

For some, combating that bullhorn amounts to acting as if they can’t hear it. “Particularly when it’s a negative, toxic conversation, we don’t even engage,” says a TV marketing executive. “Like with toxic people, you try to not give it too much oxygen.” One principal concern is that reacting to these kinds of attacks risks alienating fans who are unhappy with creative choices about a franchise but haven’t tipped over into abusive behavior. So a studio may attempt to amplify friendlier voices instead. “We’ll reply to comments that are positive and elevate those things,” says the TV exec.

Still, toxic fandoms have grown so pernicious that they’ve become a fact of life for many — and so powerful that while talent, executives and publicists will privately bemoan the issue, fear of inadvertently triggering another backlash kept several studios from speaking for this story even on background. (As one rep put it, “It’s just a lose-lose.”)

Those who did talk with Variety all agreed that the best defense is to avoid provoking fandoms in the first place. In addition to standard focus group testing, studios will assemble a specialized cluster of superfans to assess possible marketing materials for a major franchise project.

“They’re very vocal,” says the studio exec. “They will just tell us, ‘If you do that, fans are going to retaliate.’” These groups have even led studios to alter the projects: “If it’s early enough and the movie isn’t finished yet, we can make those kinds of changes.”

Several studio insiders say they often put their talent through a social media boot camp; in some cases, when a character is intentionally challenging a franchise’s status quo, studios will, with the actor’s permission, take over their social media accounts entirely. When things get really bad — especially involving threats of violence — security firms will scrub talent information from the internet to protect them from doxxing.

In some particularly egregious cases, a direct response has been necessary. In 2022, after “Obi-Wan Kenobi” actor Moses Ingram denounced the “hundreds” of racist messages sent to her about her role — “There’s nothing anybody can do about this. There’s nothing anybody can do to stop this hate,” she said — Lucasfilm posted a statement to its Star Wars social media accounts that read, in part, “There are more than 20 million sentient species in the Star Wars galaxy, don’t choose to be a racist.” The Star Wars accounts also shared a video of “Obi-Wan” star Ewan McGregor saying the abuse made him “sick to my stomach” and that “if you’re sending her bullying messages, you’re no ‘Star Wars’ fan in my mind.” 

Later that year, the cast of “The Rings of Power” condemned “the relentless racism, threats, harassment, and abuse some of our castmates of color are being subjected to on a daily basis,” and actors from the “Lord of the Rings” film trilogy posted photos of themselves wearing clothing featuring the ears of Middle-earth creatures in multiple skin tones underneath the message “you are all welcome here” written in Elvish. Those efforts may have had an effect. In an August interview with Amazon MGM Studios TV chief Vernon Sanders about “The Rings of Power,” the executive said the show hadn’t experienced the same racist hostility in advance of Season 2 that had greeted its 2022 debut. “People have had a chance to actually engage with the show,” he said. “Overwhelmingly, what we’ve seen is that folks who came with an open mind can discuss and debate their favorite things — which takes you out of the place of that ugly conversation that happened with some folks who may have been infused with an agenda that’s separate from the show itself.”

There is one other way to handle toxic fans on the internet: Stay off it. “I’m not online, so I’m protected,” says frequent Marvel star Elizabeth Olsen (“WandaVision”). “Generally, it’s a lot of positive experiences of making kids happy. I ignore the other stuff.”