#but we are having some great debates about discourse and politics

[echoes-lighthouse]

My primary f/os ranked on how much they care when I infodump about online (and academia) discourse*:

1. Jester: is absolutely here for the gossip and the self-reflection, wants to know all the details (due to fantasy setting, this is 100% academia discourse and she also gets it from Beau and Caleb and then dishes to me)

2. Shigaraki: mostly just gets really upset when something makes me mad, but also enjoys the fighting and discourse when I’m dramatically retelling it and not personally invested

3. Zero: has a lot of opinions and gets pretty wound up about all of it, but we get to yell together and that’s a good time, and we really enjoy getting down to the bottom of the internet discourse and what’s really being debated

4. Jonah: cares about the academia debates but not the internet discourse because he’s openly classist and shames me for being interested in the personal aspects of the political (but does deeply enjoy the philosophical debates if I tell him about discourse in a more abstract way)

5. Dirk: he does care a lot but a lot of the internet discourse is stuff he finds actively triggering so we don’t talk about it a LOT but also he can get in a mood where he really wants to hear about it and talk about it

6. Val: she’s just not very interested in that kind of stuff, she’ll go to bat for her school library when she has to, and she’ll support her students, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of identity politics and university drama she just doesn’t care

7. Toshinori: it makes him really bummed out and even though I’m excited about it he just gets stressed and feels like he has to Solve It All so I’ve learned to infodump about other things instead

*one of my special interests is online and fandom communities, and one of the consequences of that is that I get really interested in internet discourse and how it works: I try not to actually involve myself in the discourse so I compensate by spending a LOT of time rambling to my irl partner and friends about what I think is interesting. Also, as a person who grew up in a University community, academia discourse runs very similarly to internet discourse so I’m just combining them since a lot of my s/is are University professors or students :P

[centrally-unplanned]

Biden age discourse is extremely funny because he is too old to run again. His odds-of-death during his next term would be ludicrously high, and while that isn't some disaster or anything no one wants that, you want to vote for a single candidate who isn't going to have a death transition to deal with. This is completely objective, its obviously true, and not really debatable.

And then you have a ton of people just...trying to pretend it isn't? Because Biden screwed up by deciding to run again, and screwed up by choosing an unpopular VP, so she isn't a great option either. But you cant say that, right? "Well hes an idiot but we aren't gonna primary him because that is also stupid, so what ya gonna do". So instead you get people trying to argue 'voters don't care about his age' (they do, a ton) or 'its really more about the team' (not 100% false but who is president does actually matter and they know this) or other silly ideas. Its a completely fake debate as only politics and the internet provide, there is not actually another side. Just people whose job it is to pretend there is another side because they don't have a choice.

[larrylimericks]

23Mar23

We’re feeling some internal friction At silver screen Louis’ depiction; All the world is a stage But it’s hard to engage When plot lines combine fact and fiction.

I get really rambly below the fold. Proceed with caution if you’re over the discourse already.

I debated seeing All of Those Voices in theaters. I didn’t see either of Harry’s films in theaters — Harries are too much of a wildcard, and I refused to sit through hours of squeals and gasps and reactions, not to the movie but to “omg! Harry’s going down on someone! omg, Harry’s bum!” So I was already tentative about seeing Louis’ film in a shared space, outside the protective silos of tumblr. But I bought a ticket, because I want to support him and because I was genuinely curious what story would be told. Then we got the trailer and I hesitated again, not wanting to watch a propaganda film. But, I’ve lived through all the other Bullshit moments, so I figured I could live through Bullshit on the big screen.

My theater crowd was great — pretty neutral aside from an amusing row of politely excitable Larries I was in secret solidarity with. And I pretty much loved the film. Well, 92% of it. I look forward to watching it again when it streams. I mean, it was an hour and a half of content featuring this fascinating creature we’re all obsessed with. I didn’t want to blink. I hung on his every word (when I could understand them). How cool to get, essentially, a long-form interview, where he’s not promoting an album and we’re not getting the same sound bytes. Louis is wonderfully open and vulnerable, and the story of his life (heh) is inherently compelling. The cinematography is beautiful. The behind-the-scenes are delightful and delicious. I can’t wait for the AOTV gif sets once we have it in high-def.

But it has some plot holes as wide and deep as the ones in Don’t Worry Darling.

First, there’s the confusing (to the uninformed) absence of a love interest. Louis is asexual, as far as the film goes. There’s not even a ghost of Eleanor, with whom he’s cumulatively spent a decade and who is supposed to have inspired so many great love songs and with whom he is supposed to have survived a pandemic. Props to E for living her best life now: going to see Scream on AOTV opening day, enjoying full custody of the pups, publicly supporting her assumed partner — sorry you got Kiki Layned from the film, but I’m guessing you weren’t even written into the script. (It’s not like the film was conveniently re-edited in the months since their break-up. Her stunt tapering was intentional.)

Then there’s the glaring absence of a baby mama (thank god; that family would have been even more insufferable). We’re cruising along for 45 minutes or so and then, wham, Dad!Louis enters the chat with a fully formed 6-year-old child. The kid just magically appears with no backstory — just like in real life ... twice (the first time with the pregnancy announcement and the second time with the revival of Dad!Louis after several years of dormancy, right in time for documentary filming. Just like Harry stunted with his co-star during filming and production, Louis stunted with his.)

The kid is cute, and faultless in this. The scenes are objectively sweet (as they were designed to be). But Louis, who normally keeps things very close to the vest, is all of a sudden an emotional spigot you can’t turn off when it comes to these scenes. It seems quite out of character. Which brings back to mind that this Louis *is* a character. The Freddie scenes just didn’t seem to have a point in the plot other than: Louis is a dad. And that role isn’t integral to the film’s story.

He’s incredibly emotional with Freddie, but the movie doesn’t tell us why. The storytelling gets lazy here. The lad/dad plot seems wedged in. The movie would be perfectly complete without it. I felt like it could have been integrated a few different ways: Louis experienced tragedy after tragedy after tragedy — loses 1D, loses his mum, loses his sister ... and then impending fatherhood either becomes another trial he must reluctantly face (in the surprise pregnancy narrative) or it helps him navigate the grief of losing his sole parent, his closest confidante. OR, Louis, not wanting to be like the absentee father he had, shows up for his own oopsie baby despite the unexpected circumstances. But there’s no exposition or rising action. No footage or photos from the first few years of the kid’s life that we haven’t already seen. Just an immaculate conception.

I think the most compelling narratives of the film are these:

Louis’ overcoming adversity after adversity after adversity. Holy hell. I lived through 1D ending, through the devastating news about Jay (god, I remember the shock and sadness of that day — it was incomprehensible), through the heartbreaking news about Fizzy, and then when you think Louis is gonna get his moment of victory with his first solo world tour, coronavirus pulls the rug out. (That sequence was well done: where we keep seeing the dates get closer and closer to March 2020, and we all know the villain that’s coming, but it’s still such a blow.) I lived through all that in real time, but seeing it in such a concentrated sequence really highlights the shit he’s been dealt, and hearing him open up about so much of it ... that’s the character development relevant to the film’s denouement. And getting to see Louis get what he deserves, finally, and hearing him acknowledge that he deserves it, was a lovely ending.

Louis’ journey to find his footing and his confidence as a solo artist after unfathomable success as part of a group. But, in a sort of plot twist, he’s not really solo, is he? The film gives a lovely introduction to his band now — and in their own words, reveals that they’re not just a backing band, they’re a *band* band. Louis has let them in. He’s forged a new brotherhood. *That*, for me, was the heartwarming story. I loved those scenes, loved seeing Louis in his element, which is in a collective, where he is both king and jester at the same time. (Or perhaps Oli’s the jester. Thank fuck for him, man. Oli is the standout. The breakthrough performance. The comic relief. I want a spinoff series.) It’s easy to miss 1D and glorify those short years and think nothing will ever top it, but Charlie’s storytelling of the LT Band is remarkable. We’re left looking forward, not back.

I know Louis’ dedication to his fans and his fans’ dedication to him is a huge focus, but I don’t really enjoy watching commentaries on fandoms I’m a part of. I’m living it. I don’t need outsider context. And in a fandom as fractured as Louis’ (and 1D’s) there’s not a universal experience. The film depicts dedication as sleeping on streets for rail, hopping from country to country and draining bank accounts — because that’s the kind of “superfandom” that gets easily turned into a marketable freak show. Show me the documentary on the fans who organize the light projects, who run the fashion accounts, who curate livestream sources on show nights, who have turned giffing into an art and science, who help promote Louis in the absence of a competent marketing team, etc., etc. I also thought the interview with the American(?) girls talking about LATAM shows was shortsighted. And showing the rainbow factions but not addressing them? What a missed opportunity to talk about songs like Only the Brave becoming a queer anthem. Straight artists can have gay fans, you know.

But the film doesn’t make the kid relevant to any of those storylines. He could have been worked into the first, but wasn’t. It was like a standalone narrative, with footage from a narrow set of days. I was at both those L.A. shows. The energy was so different from night 1 to 2. And in retrospect it’s clear Louis was performing the first night so Charlie could get the right shots. More like a choreographed play than a rock concert. It makes sense now why the Clarks weren’t in the VIP box with Freddie — couldn’t have them cluttering the frame or distracting the actors. Just, everything about the Freddie scenes is heavy-handed. Make a sign for your dad! Draw his logo in the sand! Fly a kite at sunset! He’s the spitting image of Louis! (Len does all the heavy lifting.) And all the maneuvering it had to take to get all those shots from the L.A. show?! In the VIP box from behind (and from the front, and when he just happens to be mouthing along to Two Of Us), side stage watching Louis end the show, on-stage watching Louis approach Freddie after the show, on-stage catching the moment Louis gives the lad a shout-out ... Charlie had a shot list. But sure, nothing was set up, it was totally organic.

I’m still unsettled by how heavily Charlie laid it on at the first premiere press conference — *he* was the one to bring up the kid, and was weirdly emphatic that nothing was staged, nothing was forced. It had the same energy of the “It’s. Not. Real” thrown baby doll moment, only it’s Charlie insisting that It. Is. Real. Thou dost protest too much, me thinks.

And of course, the lack of interaction between Louis and Harry remains, as ever, the biggest tell. We get poignant post-1D Nouis and Lilo moments in the film, but no Larry. We’re spoon-fed these Very Emotional Moments between father and son (“love you,” “Darling,” mouth kisses), when the real story, the real emotion, the real connection is in just a few seconds of furtive glances between Harry and Louis in the backstage footage of the last 1D performance. Christ, the way Harry’s eyes bore into Louis — chin tilted down, eyes glancing up from beneath a furrowed brow, lips tight, disguising his attentiveness with a hair flip ... they mastered so many forms of silent communication. The quiet call and response, the depths of love and care and concern and protection contained in micro-expressions. Fuck, give me 90 minutes of that. Just a silent film of Louis and Harry looking at each other.

Anyway. Sorry this sounds so grumpy. I did really love most of the movie. But I haven’t made sense of why this film was made. I don’t know its purpose. Maybe the introspection forced by the pandemic lockdown is to credit for this glut of music docs (“docs”) lately. Maybe nine minutes frees him up for nine more months or nine more years. I dunno. He obviously wanted this story told in this way.

Seeing a movie requires the willing suspension of disbelief. You have to ignore critical thinking in order to enjoy the story you’re being told. You tune out your knowledge that everything is fake for the sake of being entertained. We know that Superman can’t actually fly, but we still buy tickets to the cinema. But, a documentary shouldn’t require us to employ this semi-conscious perceiving mode. Yet here we are. I’m just not sure how much more or how much longer we can suspend our disbelief to enjoy fandom.

[young-royals-confessions]

Just pitching in since I see so much discourse about will they or won’t they that I think we kind of lost the essence of the story: I mean yes, Netflix is promoting the whole are they going to be endgame or not, tune in to find out but I think that’s just a generic marketing tactic.I’ve honestly been ignoring it.

Also, Lisa doesn’t strike me as the type of writer that would push only her own personal agenda or politics to a tv show, especially one that has critical acclaim as yr. That’s not what true storytelling is about. Please bear with me (apologies in advance for the long response !) but here’s my v long winded reasoning:

The theme has always been love v. duty & the monarchy is the enemy. Wille is on a Hero’s Journey - he is ultimately the Main Character; the Young Royal. What’s great about The Hero’s Journey is that it’s easy to follow and makes for great storytelling despite its predictability. I think some people here may have touched upon this so I am simply expanding:

As a viewer, we follow Wille and get to know him. He’s a likable character and we easily root for him and feel for him when we learn about the power dynamics in play; specifically how he feels caged as a prince. Then we enter into a Call for Adventure: him falling for Simon and the high stakes he enters when his brother passes and he is now Crown Prince.

This, then, propels the story forward, given the stakes are stacked up and it’s not looking good for Wille, especially after he/we find out August was the offender for sex tape leak.

After that, we enter into The Refuse to Call for Adventure; i.e, the hero (Wille) realizes he must face the challenge. We also step into the Meeting the Mentor, which is Boris, who helps Wille learn how to stand up and ultimately fight for himself (and Simon). While I see others thinking that W might push everyone away, including skipping his appts with Boris, I do not think that’s the case. Boris was set up to be the Mentor that W needs to realize the challenge he’s been facing and we may continue seeing him open up to Boris.

This will then allow W to “Cross the Threshold” and reinforce the central theme and conflict of the story - if W continues to stay with the monarchy and his obligations as Crown Prince, he cannot choose Simon. Love or Duty? Which will prevail?

S3 crosses that threshold and produces tests and obstacles that would make the fight for his relationship w S so much more complicated (basically everything we saw in the trailer). This stage in the Hero’s Journey is meant for the audience to doubt the Hero - Wille. It’s already a testament as we are debating if W is going to denounce his title or not just from the 2 mins of what we saw from the trailer. It’s intentional. We need to doubt in order for the central theme to drive home and also portrays the monarchy to be the overarching enemy of this story, without Lisa forfeiting her own political statement.

We enter the next stage of the Journey - which is the Cave - meaning the Hero and protagonists need to regroup and prepare for a counter attack (generally speaking) because the tension is continuing to rise and there are outside forces that wish to disturb the Journey (in this case, public opinion? paparazzi? Hillerska shutting down?).

Next, we enter the Ordeal - which makes the Hero break down bc he enters a mental barrier and is pushed to a corner. However, the Hero, typically comes out stronger after this stage in storytelling.

Ultimately, we reach the end: The Reward. The Hero makes the “attack” or choice and defeats the enemy/antagonist.

Imo, with how everything is set up, I do think it’s set up for W and S to be together in the end at least the end of the show (everything else after is obviously left for the audience member to interpret).

I have no doubt that W & S are going to come up on top and still be together in the end bc like some people mentioned - what would be the point? It was never a question whether they would end up together. The question is if Wille, our Hero in this story, would make the final choice and choose between love or duty. I think Wille would choose love. What better way of making history, especially with everything that’s been happening in real events, then choosing love? That would make for a strong ending.

[no-psi-nan]

There is really no need to confront people about minor errors in identity politics. In fact, I would say that as long as a person is generally pro LGTBQ+ then we should genuinely just leave em be.

Why?

Because not everyone is going to be up to date on the latest and greatest queer discourse and in this world with a status quo shifting back rapidly to anti-queer, the last fucking thing we need is to alienate people who are still learning about gender and sexuality.

Like if a cis person posts a trans headcanon but uses the word "transexual", you should at MOST drop em a note like "hey, great post! Just wanted to let you know that transgender is the preferred term, love ya!".

In fact, let's go a step further and limit ourselves to a "yes, and" response in these cases. "Yes, your transgender headcanon is so based and here are some ideas for common experiences transgender people have" will open a great conversation that can get this person more involved in queer subjects instead of shutting them down for being mildly wrong on the Internet.

If you don't want to do that, then maybe just ignore the post. Over time, it's highly likely that person will encounter more queer content and learn about the current norms, just as YOU did once upon a time, unless you were lucky enough to be born to extremely based parents.

Because ultimately a person who is misguided but "has the spirit" is your friend in a world where protections for queer people barely exist.

Stop making people feel bad for not having perfect knowledge of stuff that is often still controversial or up to debate within the queer community itself.

Start encouraging cishet people to explore and learn more about queer issues because it might crack a few eggs and even if it doesn't, it will help them support us in the real world.

Once sodomy is no longer a crime anywhere in the world and transing your gender takes a single legal form and a single free visit to the doctor if you want HRT, then you can raise the bar of what is socially acceptable because these topics would be much more widely understood if they were normalized.

[ohsalome]

Hi!

I was wondering.. I've been trying to find books to read on "why communism is shit" to have a more solid foundation to rebuke idiot tankies when they start flapping their mouths.. but Google loves to only return shit like "why Lenín had so many good ideas" and utter garbage about why the Russian empire was great.. but I thought there has to be some Ukrainian authors with thoughts on the subject, and that maybe you'd know of a few?

My kneejerk response was to say "read Communist Manifesto" XD

But hey, that's an interesting question.

I think most of the times, at least in the popular discourse, we in Ukraine go the historic route: focusing on the specific crimes USSR commited against its citizens and explaining how it is connected to its economical/political structure. For example, The Red Famine, although flawed, explains how Holodomor was tied to dekulakization and the plan economy, which are the basic bricks on which the soviet experiment was built. I am currently reading The Hungry Steppe and it has been crazy useful in showcasing how the party has been using hauntingly similar tactics in both of our countries.

Based on the annotations, Stanislav Kulchytsky's "Червоний виклик" sounds like exactly the book you're looking for, but unfortunately, it's only avaliable in Ukrainian, which is an issue you'll probably be often running into...

Intuitively I expect that there is a plenty of professional literature that offers critical approach to communism from the point of view of economics/politology/philosophy... But not being interested in either of those topics, I don't feel confident enough giving out recommendations, since I don't know which works are considered the baseline and which highlight marginal thoughts...

As a guess, I'd try looking into books published by ukrainian diaspora communities, especially in Canada. They have been criticising USSR since forever, and typically have published themselves in English. However, due to the Iron Wall, this school of thought had little impact on the development of ukrainian discourse. (I was looking for works of Peter Baley, who seems to have been writing criticism of marxism from a philosophical standpoint, but all I managed to find online is this magazine from 1979)

If we do not limit ourselves to ukrainian authors, I have found recommendations of Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom by Andrzej Walicki

Though I have to say, with marxism being an economical theory you'd expect that hard-logic economical arguments would be the most persuasive, but in my experience tankies don't understand even the basic concepts of economy, so idk why you'd bother trying to play on their ground. I'll give you credit that learning new information and practicing debate are excellent brain food; but ideology is an emotional beast, and there is close to a zero chance deradicalizing somebody through an argument. Hope you have fun tho!

Also leaving an open request for anyone who can suggest good literature on the topic

[frostyyyroyalmilktea]

Why Vesna’s “My sister’s crown” in no feminist anthem but a Trojan horse filled with pro-russian messaging

My thoughts as a Ukrainian with a poli-sci degree.

I was debating whether to write this post but as the discourse around this song grows, I want to give people from other countries some context on the messaging used in the song and why Ukrainians are grossed out by it.

While I was writing it this post grew a mind of its own and I even ended up adding pictures so I'll fold the post here in case you don't care and just want to scroll through quickly.

First of all, it’s worth mentioning that this song attracted so much attention from Ukrainians because they use UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE in the chorus. It’s an important detail seeing how one of the singers is russian. A lot of Ukrainians share the opinion that letting a russian woman sing in our language is a completely vile thing to do to our culture. I agree with it too. But the abuse of our culture doesn’t stop there.

See this shot? This is supposed to be Borsch, a traditional Ukrainian dish. It’s worth mentioning that russia tried to appropriate this dish and in 2022 we fought tooth and nail to have UNESCO protect it as part of Ukrainian heritage. But back to the shot. The letters around it are supposed to symbolize russian propaganda. Great start🙄

But it gets better, lads. They start “feeding the propaganda” to the girl that —judging by stylistic choices as well as matryoshka makeup—  is supposed to represent russian people.

Right, so they *checks notes* use Ukrainian cultural dish —that russians almost succeeded in stealing from us— to show… what exactly? “Poor russians🥺 uwu” getting brainwashed? Oh, then let me grab my handkerchief. This is so so sad I think I’m about to cry😶😶😶

I mean, just a thought but if they wanted to show how shitty russian government treats its people, they could’ve recreated the historically accurate moment when russian tzar Ivan the Terrible shoved his underling’s face into a boiling soup. What does Ukraine and our long-suffering dish has to do with all this bs???

Now let’s talk about that “Crown”, that is supposed to belong to the sister (aka Ukraine). To me, as a poli-sci major, this is so stupid I don’t even know whether to laugh or cry. From the words of the band themself, where they explain —quite poorly might I say— the meaning of their song, we learn that “Crown” symbolizes the sovereignty of the 13 Eastern-European countries. Sounds perfectly valid. Here's a few random countries that I can remember from the top of my head in no particular order that have crowns in their symbols:

Coat of arms of the Czech Republic, Coat of arms of Serbia, Flag of Poland and Flag of Croatia

I actually decided that I don't want to have russian flag and emblem in this post because I don't want to look at it every time I scroll through, but you can go google it if you want, they have not one but two crowns on their emblem actually.

So what am I leading up to with all this flag-talk, you might ask. Well, the kicker is that THIS ⬇️ is Ukrainian emblem:

Not a crown in sight as you can see. I guess as a nation that was constantly fighting against imperial colonisation we’re not very fond of those. Who could’ve guessed🤷‍♀️

But the aforementioned two points are pretty circumstantial and in the grand scheme of things are not particularly significant. I felt compelled to point them out first to give people from other countries a bit of insight into the music video's visual. You are free to disagree with me on those. The main problem that triggers the majority of Ukrainians is the use of the word "sister". Listen, I know you don’t want to read a lecture on the nuance of Slav politics and I don’t really want to write it, I know you know how to google. So here’s the gist:

One of the BIGGEST narratives that russia is pushing in its export propaganda (aside from their go-to claim that all ukrainians are nazis) is that Slavs are all a family. Talk about shitty relatives, eh? But basically, it’s a lingering thing from USSR where russia exploited a bunch of neighboring countries and called this shit a “Union” (while convincing the rest of the world that those countries entered that union willingly and not under threats —or as a result of— hostile invasions, but I digress). So the way russia frames it is that russia is this big brother that "takes care of other little siblings”. Even writing it down made me want to barf🤢🤢🤢. This narrative was specifically very actively weaponized against Ukraine before the 2022 invasion. Its goal is to infantilize Ukraine as if we're not a whole-ass independent country, but a little sibling that doesn't know how to wipe their own ass. And that we just need good ol’ russia to come and save us from our own stupidity. I hope I shed some light on why this word specifically triggers us so much and why I think that this song has 0 to do with solidarity and overall is complete populistic bs with a generous dash of russian propaganda.

I want to emphasize that I didn’t make this post to fight or argue with anyone  but to give people another perspective if you’re interested in it from my pov as a Ukrainian. If you have other takes on it, I’d love to read them in the comments. Just please be respectful or I won’t interact.

This is all I have to say for today. Love, love, peace, peace, my dudes.

[battyblog]

Feminism is not a genre of film!

Does anyone else feel like cinema is kind of popping off in 2024 so far? Watching films has become my coping mechanism for winter. Recently, I watched the film Poor Things which has taken the world by storm; with ‘Best picture’ and multiple other Oscar nominations to prove it. Aside from the gorgeous aesthetics of Poor Things, the film’s story has fuelled the fire for the current feminism in film debate. For anyone who hasn’t seen the film, this post will contain spoilers and I really do recommend you watch it! Poor Things is the story of Bella Baxter, a female lead who’s journey to mental maturation is a key aspect of the film. We follow Bella who is revealed to be an amalgamation of mother and child, the mother’s body with the brain of her infant child (An aspect of the film which receives NOT enough attention). What the film does focus on is how her brain develops and how the young brain being treated as the adult shell affects Bella’s view and experiences of the world. The film covers topics of the 20th Century society, and how women were treated within it, prostitution, marriage, manipulation and suicide.  

Is Poor Things a feminist film? Seems to be a key question in the discourse. But I think that we need to take a moment to question what this concept actually means, what is a feminist film? Whilst there are many great smaller films that cover feminist topics well, I want to focus on these big blockbusters as these moneymakers allow us to also think about the role capitalism plays in this debate. Film is an industry after all. A common theme in these female-led Oscar noms is that none of them are labelled as ‘feminist’ in their promotional materials. Feminism is still a divisive term, and in the pursuit of profit, it can be risky to give a film such a label. ‘Feminist’ is a label that is both given and taken away by the media and discourse surrounding a film.  it is an umbrella term for various socio-political movements, it is a lens in which to view the world and a standard to hold things to. How could this be encapsulated within a film? Within Feminism itself there are internal arguments, one person's feminism may look completely different to someone else's. 

Take a look at Barbie, celebrated by some as a feminist classic, but belittled by others as not being feminist enough. How could Barbie be a perfect feminist film? In 90 minutes could the film have covered aspects of a movement that’s history varies so hugely from country to country. There wouldn’t be time to then expand into intersectionality*, would Warner Bro’s dare discuss abortion issues, Barbie meets a TERF? By putting both Barbie and Poor things up to this impossible feminist standard it leads to them being torn down by an angry mob. It is important to view film critically, especially when these topics are covered, but when these films face so much backlash it can have knock on effects and scare filmmakers from attempting to cover women’s issues in their projects. Barbie is a film that set out to make money, it’s based on a bloody toy! While we can acknowledge that there were issues with the topics covered, it is important to also be grateful that a film like this exists, made so much money and definitely introduced or expanded upon feminist topics to the audience. 

This leads me to ask, where is this energy for films without a male lead? Feminism can be a critique applied to all films yet seems to only be extended to those with a female lead. Just because a film has a female lead doesn’t mean it is feminist. I think this echoes the emotional labour that society puts on women to represent feminism and fight for respect for themselves and other women. Do we all lack the object permanence to remember feminism unless we’re directly gazing upon a woman? In order to be successful, feminist practices need to be adopted in all aspects of a film, yes with female characters, but also behind the screen. A role can be written and directed by a man, just because it is played by a woman does not mean it is feminist or not exploitative.  

Capitalism wants to sell us feminism as this neat little package, it wants us to buy into it and forget that there is no way to price an ideology. Poor Things is a fantasy film, not a feminist film, feminism is not a genre. Yes, there are Feminist themes, but there are also prominent themes of class issues, yet no one is rushing to label it as a communist film. If we cannot decide a set framework or criteria for a feminist film, we need to stop trying to use that label. Feminism is a critique that can be applied to all media, and feminist debate surrounding film needs to also expand to cover those behind the scenes. Let’s just enjoy some cinema and accept that it cannot fit into the high standard, but by sparking a conversation it can do more and still be used to educate people. 

*Hey, don’t know about intersectionality? Thats cool, but you should acquaint yourself. Intersectionality in feminism is an acknowledgement that gender based oppression isn’t one size fits all and that other factors such as class and race can have a huge effect. Read up 

[a-slut-for-vegaspete]

Playboyy – Porn without Plot?

Initial Thoughts on/ Reaction to Playboyy Episode One

As someone who loves to study (quite literally; I’m currently pursuing a MA degree in cultural studies) and investigate depictions of sex and sexuality in media, Playboyy has been one of my most anticipated releases of 2023 and it’s easier for me to work through my issues with a piece of media when I put my thoughts on paper or in a word document; so this post is primarily for myself.

Sex is sometimes presented as a personal, individual matter but in reality, our thoughts on sex, our dislikes and likes are a product or, at the very least, are shaped by, and of course in term can also influence, existing, dominant discourses on sex(uality), gender, class, race etc. One example of this – one most BL viewers/ queer individuals will recognise  – would of course be sex between queer individuals; an issue that remains highly debated. Some people/governments to this day like to think that they have the right to dictate who is allowed to have sex with whom and what sexual practices people can engage in without facing societal/legal punishment. So sex is never just about sex but is always also political; it’s just that this is more obvious to people who are part of a (or multiple) marginalised group(s). Sex is an entangled, complex phenomenon that always needs to be understood in relation to other discourses on e.g. (normative) femininity/masculinity, national identity etc. So any sexual act (on screen/irl), whether intended or not, engages with these discourses, subverts them and/or reaffirms them.

Regardless of whether the creators of Playboyy – or any piece of media for that matter – have meant for this series to serve as a critique or subversion of certain ideas surrounding sex and sexuality, the series (un)intentionally presents us with certain performances of sex and in doing so adds to, intervenes in and shapes existing discourses on sexuality and influences how topics such as kink, queerness, sex work (to name a few) are understood and talked about. 

Since only one episode has been released so far, and since I don't know what goes on in the writers’ minds, I, of course, can’t say for certain whether Playboyy is intended to engage with the political and social aspects of sex. However, I do think that Denice’s Twitter accounts (he is one of the writers (@ VivienneActing)) can provide us with insights into the writers’ intentions behind creating this show. In addition, the opening scene of episode one makes it clear that this piece of media, in some capacity at least, serves as a social commentary on the construction of sexual practices and sexual identities (in Thailand). The viewer is seemingly directly addressed, questions regarding sex are posed and the statement that “sex has many forms and careers in many places with many preferences” is made, which leads me to think that the creators have thought about and want the audience to critically think about how sex is often presented and talked about within dominant discourses. The character goes on to say that “it would be great if we could stop faking it and be frank about it”, which implies that the way we currently talk about sex is dissatisfactory to the character in the show/the creators of the show and that this series intends to present their own – potentially non-normative – views on sex. Especially the comment that “it’s a shame that we can’t be that free in this country” functions as a critique of how sex and the sex industry are frequently conceptualised in Thailand. (And when I say ‘Thailand’ here I of course don’t mean the entire country; I’m specifically referring to people/institutions/political parties that uphold and propagate conservative beliefs on and attitudes regarding sex. And I think this is the part of Thailand the series is critical of here as well).

However, I also don’t want to place too much importance on the intentions of the creators (in part, bc as I have said before, unless we are told specifically we can only speculate about their motives). I for one am also very interested in how I myself (and other viewers) read and interpret the narratives the series presents us with.

Little disclaimer: I watched episode 1 last night, half asleep, I don’t have the best memory and since the story has literally just begun (and there are so many ways this could pan out), my stance on these issues will probably change with the release of future episodes. So my ramblings have their limitations. In addition, I’ve grown up in the West, which influences how I conceptualise sex(uality) and gender; which is definitely something to be wary of and to be critical of, as well. 

As of right now, I’m the most intrigued by Zouey and by how he navigates sex and how he expresses himself sexually. What I find so interesting about his character is his non-normative approach to sex. While he is introduced as someone who apparently hasn't slept with anyone yet, we also see that he has sexual needs and desires. I love that the show does not limit sexual expression to intimate relations between two or more people but also showcases the possibility of exploring it on your own. 

I’m fascinated by people’s initial reactions to Zouey and what people make of his character; in particular people’s thoughts on the scene where he is in a dark room masturbating to a painting. I do wonder how much the colour grading (quite dark and gloomy) and the music (somewhat ominous) might influence or shape viewers’ perceptions of this scene and their conceptualisation of Zouey, and more broadly speaking their reception of expressions of non-normative sexual acts (in media).

The way Zoey negotiates his boundaries regarding sex is so interesting to me, as he clearly feels sexual attraction but does not feel comfortable being touched sexually. (I do wonder if there is a reason for this. Not saying that there needs to be a particular reason; I’m genuinely just curious if we might find out more in future episodes). I personally love how that doesn’t stop him from blowing Teena (twice if I remember correctly). I think his performance disrupts the normative script of sex, (or one of the normative scripts. To say that there is only one normative way to have sex would be incorrect I guess). He definitely doesn't adhere to this script/these scripts, and this seems to have created discomfort/confusion for some viewers, while others seem to really appreciate it. 

Also a little side note: the way Zouey does or doesn’t have sex can also lead us to posing the question of what counts as sex. Only penetrative sex? That seems like a somewhat outdated and not exactly queer-friendly definition of sex, right? And what even is virginity? Is Zouey still a virgin or not by the end of the episode?

I think the first episode already touches on so many different issues and I love it. People have pointed out the different social statuses of First and Soong, so we already have a storyline that highlights how sex and class are interconnected issues. We have seen a fair amount of kinky sexual practices, and sex workers have also made an appearance. So to come back to my initial question, is Playboyy porn without plot? Personally, I wouldn’t classify it as such. In my opinion, while the first episode does heavily focus on sex, sex is used as a tool for storytelling and the creators have taken the unique approach of introducing the viewers to the characters via sex. Plus, there is the mysterious disappearance of Nun/Nant(?). But also to me, it doesn’t really matter whether this is porn without plot or not. Firstly, because I think that sometimes (emphasis on ‘sometimes’, okay?) when something is labelled as porn without plot this is done to discredit a particular piece of media and to paint it as something that is inherently ‘less’ (less serious, less valuable etc.) and I don’t agree with this particular conceptualisation of plot without porn because I think it fails to recognise the value of such stories, not just for people’s own enjoyment but also in regards to academic analysis. And secondly, because I am more interested in how the series is situated (and maybe even actively positions itself) in relation to broader discourses such as (non-normative) sexualities, kink, sex work (in Thailand) etc. and for this we don’t necessarily need a “good” plot structure. So I, for one, am I excited to watch (and analyse) the rest of the show. 

[centrally-unplanned]

Saw some discussions of people "taking down" Karl Polanyi's 1944 The Great Transformation in response to some other articles mentioning it, which is always amusing to me because its a very dead horse to beat. In short, Polanyi was the founder of the "markets-as-modernity" idea, where before the modern era states and economies did not function on supply and demand, but instead on things like gift and reciprocity. It was never a very coherent idea (Supply and demand is an inherent aggregating feature of human society) but direct evidence has compounded with logic to relegate it into the past. His ideas that say ancient Babylon had centralized prices built around temple donations has been set aside in the face of the evidence of incredibly complex exchange economies that ran through Mesopotamia - we even see things like derivative contracts! Because of course you do, financial risk is inherent to economics, so societies will experiment around mitigating it.

There is a perfectly coherent "steelmanned" version of this idea that is quite robust today - markets are always with us and were never invented, but they are also socially constructed and their scope changes based on context, with a large modern expansion. Did the Roman Empire have a market for wages, alongside goods? Yes, of course it did - but that market was quite "distorted" by the mass-scale slavery endemic to the economy. Slave vs free labor economies both have "markets" and function alongside them, but for the actual lived human experience these are night and day systems, and based on deep social institutions, not at all "inherent abstract forces". Lots of societies had differences like this - sometimes ancient governments did try to dictate prices! They failed, but they tried, its a difference.

And more broadly under low-productivity systems most people engaged in subsistence farming, and interacted minimally with trade systems. If most of your economic "units" don't engage in trade, the markets don't matter as much, but over time this changed, and as more and more people "entered" the market that is both a change in itself and created knock-on effects in urbanization, specialization, financial institutions, etc, that is totally fair to describe as a "transformation". Starting in the 18th century its very clear the world began a rapid shift to specialization & wage labor in a way never seen before, its a new society in many ways.

Problem is none of this steelman is anywhere close to what Polanyi was saying. He was definitely claiming that market exchanges and supply and demand price shifting and all that were optional, and could be (and historically were) replaced by gifts or redistribution policies or the like. He is just wrong about this and there is no reason to bother trying to rehabilitate it. Doesn't make him wrong about everything! States definitely also "constructed" markets and put a lot of work into that, for example, a big point of his. But you see the "pre-market era of history" pop up in discourse, journalism, politics, etc from time to time, and as an economic historian its always a groan moment. No one is debating this anymore.

[rametarin]

Discourse in a world without internet.

I'm actually glad that, "kids today don't know what it was like" exists when it comes to social and political discourse. Because a great deal of manufactured ignorance hinged on the idea that the vast majority of us didn't have access to information, we were gatekept out by simply not having access to people in our social networks that knew certain information, and those that did know it, had next to zero chance to meet and interact with anyone that actually knows that information.

So they would be free to declare stuff with confidence and authority on the subjects of, say, rape statistics, and TERFs would spin that into a feminist narrative about how all men are evil, vile monsters who were bad just because of their Y chromosome, as well as say that creatured a bad nurture culture of patriarchy. And unless you were a statistician with degrees, even if you did the laymans thing, did your own research, they'd disregard any dissent you had for that based purely on the fact you didn't make statistics your life's work.

So pre-internet, we were forced to live in a world where you were limited first by what you could conclude in your own head, next by what was already written down and had to conveniently be around you and thus your resources to know were limited to what was conveniently stockpiled around you (source to bias of the book buyer and creators of said books) and you were like an indigenous island bird being attacked by a foreign feral cat when it came to social or political discourse you were unprepared for.

And some of these people really capitalized on that islandization effect in order to spin yarns of bullshit. Even considering political or social discourse or trying to engage in debate with people that were programmed with conspiracy to "spread awareness" and make assertions that were so hard to determine one way or another from a critique standpoint that they needed refutation by someone in the peer group with the sense or the education, and if you didn't have that guy in your peer group, you might get strongarmed and socially pressured into conformity for this assumed truth.

The internet has changed ALL of that.

I think back to the era when Ninja Turtles and shit were all the rage and everybody was doing wuxi kung fu (tautology lol) nonsense on the playground, and once in a while you'd have a budding feminist get on her soapbox and declare doing that to be orientalist and racist towards Asian people and culture, lettng you know she wasn't going to tolerate even witnessing that without alerting the other girls you were Committing a Racism(tm) and that you were a horrible person for it. And you know what that means; get declared a badthinker, the other girls feel pressured to reject you, or face criticism and rejection themselves from the Girl Squad for enabling you or tolerating your bad behavior.

That was the kind of peer group crybullying/conscientous bullying you could get away with as a white girl among majority white populations, back in the day. What were you going to do? Side with the racists and let her delusions that she lived in a 1940s/1950s white supremacist den go unchallenged, or make an effort to disprove the dour view she had of the world was fake by disproving it?

But in the back of your mind, you knew, "If only some of the neighbor kids we play make believe with were actually Asian; they'd tell this uppity bitch that kids in Asia also do this make believe bullshit and it doesn't make us Orientalist to do this, just because we're white.." But because the populations, at the time, were largely white European, that sort of thing never happened. There was no convenient Asian Friend to pipe up and go, "Chill, it's.. fucking Ninja Turtles, sis. It's stupid kid make believe games. It's cool. It's okay. It's fine. You're not racist for playing a ninja."

Now adays? Some soapbox standing asshole SJW bitch decides to preen and strut about talking about how western society trivializes Asian culture by buying and reading Naruto, some English speaking Japanese superfan will appear out from under a forum ROCK and go, "Shut up. It's okay to enjoy manga and anime and not be Japanese. Don't speak for me. You're ridiculous."

Do you know what we would've given for that kind of backup as kids in those situations?

And this is made more complicated. Some girls that were driven and indoctrinated to behave and act like that did so genuinely because they felt everything that was said was true, with no ulterior motive, looked through rose tinted glasses and wanted to improve society. Because they thought the only reason racism and such existed was because either nobody cared to critically assess their own actions or thoughts, or they were maliciously bigoted. It wasn't a very big brain mentality and largely accepted by either gullible people, or sycophants that will believe anything if it keeps them out of social trouble.

And then there were the girls that would stick to the idea they needed to "improve society(tm)" by "Starting conversations." So they would out and out lie to you about things like that and try to convey that Asians universally despised when non-Asians played around with some things like action figures and wuxi things the way they would western army men and superheroes, and such things were thoughtless exploitation. While knowing such things weren't true, but wanting to get people underexposed to the conversations or reality to accept this false reality was true, and act accordingly.

Some of them were so deliberately disingenuous that they'd feign not understanding what they believed was untrue, even when, for example, an Asian person would swing into the conversation the SJW girl was having with people that didn't know better, and explain, "this thing you're saying is a problematic behavior is not a problem, actually, they're not being bigots. It's fine." The girl may apologize, feign knowing better now and to not make that mistake again, and then go to ANOTHER group of people in the absence of the dissenting Asian person to correct the record, and tell that group that whole spiel over again about how white people playing ninja or whatever is bigotry, to try and make them believe something that wasn't true.

But if you didn't have a Mysteriously Materializing Person to correct the record on any given social or political topic being exploited by these people, then you were a very vulnerable target for misinformation in the name of progress. And there was nothing you could do about it, as a layman, but either go to college for the explicit purpose of disproving a water cooler statement someone made one day at lunch, or just dismiss it and get on with your life. Research meant investment in money and time and dedicating your life to that specific thing, just on the offchance to tell someone that either didn't know better, or did and still lied, they weren't telling the truth to a group of people they were trying to educate.

And that back and forth used to happen over MONTHS to YEARS as sources updated and the grapevine spoke and arguments were had.

Just oh my fucking god. The internet has streamlined that miserable back and forth shit so much. And I thank English Second Language people across the world for voluntarily swinging in like wrecking balls, whatever side you're on, because the language and regional barrier used to give these charlatans license to speak on your behalf.

[andypantsx3]

Hi Andie, I've been reading your fics since your first one savvy 3 years ago. Your fics have been a great source of comfort for me and I'd like to thank you for that. I'm writing to you anonymously so I know you can't answer me privately, you don't need to answer or publish this ask at all as I don't wish to stir discourse on your blog or put you in an uncomfortable situation. I've really been debating on sending this to you because I don't want you to feel like I'm guilt tripping you or expecting something from you, because I'm really not.

A lot of people at this time are posting about the situation right now in Israel with Gaza. They are doing it out of empathy and I'm sure you are too. I live in Israel and in the past 2 weeks I've been in and out of our bomb shelter with rockets falling in our area every day. 4 people I know have been murdered by Hamas, I went to their funerals. 2 of them were my classmates - one was at the music festival, she was hiding in a bomb shelter that the murderers threw a grenade into. She was supposed to get married this week. One was guarding one of the towns that were infiltrated. One was my schoolmate's father who was biking in the area. And one was my neighbor's 19 year old cousin. I just want you to know that we've been hurt too. 1300 people have died and 200 are still kidnapped within Gaza. Women were raped and children were killed. This is not propaganda, I know those people. It IS a war, and I really wish it was over. I wish none of it ever happened. I've been reading your fics and following your blog in this nightmare situation, just trying to distract myself. Israeli people are not cartoon villains, not even the ones who are 'zionists'. We're all just afraid of being hurt. I'm just a normal woman, around your age... I guess it just made my heart sink to think that if you knew I was reading your fics you would think of me, my friends and my family as murderers or something. Everyone I know is scared out of their minds. Almost all reservists were conscripted and nobody wants them to go because we know some of them won't come back. Everyone just wants their loved ones to be safe and healthy. I just wish people saw us too. I've been on the left leaning side of the political map my whole life and I still am, the entire country is so livid with our government because we know this is their fault. But I just feel so torn between what I see online and my lived experience in this moment. I don't want anymore people to be hurt anymore anywhere.

I will continue to silently follow your wonderful writing and blog, and I wish you well.

Hey! I appreciate you looking out for me and saying I don't need to publish this but after reading, I wanted to make sure there was space for your voice on my blog too.

I think at least I personally am appalled at the generational, systematic genocide of the Palestinian people and I become more livid the more I learn about it. But at the same time, I have a fair few Israeli friends and know that the hard right Israeli government does not represent all, or even most, of Israeli citizens, and that you guys are hurting too, beyond imagination.

I am sorry if any of my posting has given that impression; I would absolutely never think that of Israelis on an individual level.

One thing I have not at all liked about the discourse I have seen in leftist spaces is the flattening of this war. You can hold two ideas in your head at the same time, the idea that Israel has oppressed Palestine for generations (with the full unwavering support and military funding of my American government, might I add) and the idea that the people who were hurt in the Hamas terrorist attacks, many of them children, deserved absolutely none of what happened to them. You are right to be shaken and hurt and terrified. I am so so sorry for your losses too.

I have been posting what I have because I am particularly terrified for Palestinian citizens, as I see how neatly Israel's response mirrors the US's outsized response after the 9/11 attacks. We were responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, just as Israel has been killing Palestinians who had nothing to do with Hamas. So as an American, this aspect has been particularly haunting for me.

But my thoughts are with you and your family and your friends too, and if you ever want to talk about anything with me you are absolutely welcome to do so. I want you and your loved ones safe and healthy as much as I want that for the people of Palestine. Please, please, please stay safe.

[odinsblog]

how do you avoid right wingers (& centrists that use slurs) when making political posts? i want to be able to help inform other people but the nastiness i’ve received makes me want to give up. i understand why some people avoid politics entirely

Hello there, @land-shark-is-here

Honestly, I don’t avoid them. What I mean is, you can’t avoid them.

They drop into my asks just to sling the n-word at me and then they just keep strolling by like nothing happened

They’re literally out there by the tens of thousands, and they’re loud

After a while I’ve learned that instead of internalizing their vitriol or letting them get me down, the best I can really do is delete their comments and then block them (in that order - it matters). Most of these trolls are looking to ride the coattails of your posts to gain the visibility that they cannot get on their own — unless you can crush their foolishness with a particularly witty or devastatingly insightful comeback, deny them that visibility. Don’t, as they say, feed the trolls

(please see also: x, y, and z)

And even when comments and reblogs by other trolls might make it *appear* that dozens and dozens of other bloggers are expressing agreement with a troll, that is almost always an illusion. Online trolls travel in packs. Seriously. If you visit a comment troll’s blog, you will probably see the following things: their blog is almost exclusively nothing but them shitting on someone else’s posts, or they are in constant communication with other comment trolls who do the same thing, or they’re just bored conservative porn bloggers. Anyway, when a comment troll sees one of their ilk latch onto a post, they dog pile it. I have witnessed this repeatedly with pro-gun bloggers and anti-choice bloggers. I’ve seen them force some bloggers to delete some really great posts over the years, because the person felt overwhelmed and outnumbered due to being ganged up on

And learn to spot sea lions - they’re the disingenuous trolls who always seem to be interested in genuine discourse, but no matter how many times you answer their questions, somehow it’s never quite enough—that’s because their true goal is to keep peppering you with “simple” questions that require a ton of thought on your part. They could care less about your answers. Their mission is to wear you out. Death by a thousand cuts, so to speak. Their job is to remain unconvinced, no matter how much sense your replies might make. Please understand: they want you to get discouraged and give up. Because as you and others like you quit, their version of reality becomes more accepted, and they gain control of the narrative, and they eventually become the “common sense” gatekeepers, and ultimately their way of thinking will shift the Overton window ever rightwards. If we let that happen

Look, on the other hand it’s always a good idea to open ourselves to the possibility that we might be wrong. There is nothing wrong with honest and respectful debate, if that’s how you want to spend your time. No one is right all of the time. No one is wrong all of the time. We’re human. So sometimes we do need to hear what those who disagree with us are thinking. (Within reason, ofc. I’m not talking about Nazis or people who think Black people and/or LGBTQ, etc people are second class and less than human - fuck those so called “viewpoints”) If nothing else, we learn how to retort their disingenuous arguments—but that has its limits. You are not a doormat for trolls to amuse themselves

But if you dO decide to engage the trolls, it’s never a bad idea to invest in learning logical fallacies and how to debate, so that you have the skills to thoroughly deconstruct a troll’s specious arguments (and honestly I need to take my own advice here)

So unless you genuinely want to enlighten an audience with your response to a troll, my advice is to go heavy on blocking. It may take a while, but just like tending a garden, eventually you will see your online space become more de-trolled. It’s self care. It’s not living in a bubble or being a snowflake. If you spend a significant portion of your time online, please remember that you deserve some peace of mind, even in online spaces

I hope you found this helpful

Good luck

[dailyanarchistposts]

After the Storm

May Day 2018 was a special day on several different levels. First, fully 14,500 people joined the non-affiliated march, demonstrating behind or alongside a black bloc of 1200. These are the figures provided by authorities. That means that about half the people who attended the May Day demonstration decided to abandon the traditional political marches. We saw the first signs of this in 2016. It reveals a deep change in terms of political traditions. It seems that more and more people are searching for something more in their activism while losing faith in trade unions and political parties. We are glad to see that this is continuing to spread. To illustrate this phenomenon, here is a translated extract of a personal account written after May Day 2018. The authors explain why they decided to join the leading procession despite their “non-violent” moral stand:

“[…] We recognize that we might have come to the head of the procession because we are attracted by the smell of powder, with the feeling that ‘this is where things happen.’ All this precisely because elsewhere, there is not much going on. The rest of the march is nothing but a deadly boredom, both politically and philosophically. The trade union processions are saturated with trucks, sound systems, a technical power that crushes all life and reduces demonstrations to, at best, a nice walk, at worst, a funeral march. These regulated parades do not disturb anyone and always end with the ritual discussions about figures. The human reduced to numbers: beautiful result!”

The great number of radicals present during May Day—the largest black bloc constituted in Paris so far—along with the intensity of the attacks (31 stores attacked and 16 cars damaged) and our mobility and determination not to be separated from the rest of the leading procession: together, these created difficulties for the authorities. Because the police decided to avoid direct confrontations with demonstrators in favor of maintaining a security perimeter from a distance, they were not able to contain us or track all of our movements once we had no option other than to retreat. Because of the chaotic situation, the Police Prefecture of Paris, with the agreement of trade union leaders, decided to simply cancel the May Day procession. A surprising decision, when we bear in mind that beforehand, the Prefecture had discussed an alternative route with trade union leaders in case violence occurred during the march. It is always instructive to see the masks of trade union leaders fall, revealing how superficial their convictions are.

Later that night, authorities, politicians, trade union leaders, journalists, and “specialists” of all kinds continued to argue over the events of the day and the tactics used by police against the black bloc. Journalists and politicians are still having a great deal of trouble understanding that the “black bloc” is not a specific entity but a street tactic; the black bloc was blamed not only for the cancellation of the May Day procession, but also for all the evils of our modern world. As usual, the same old patronizing discourse distinguishing “good demonstrators” from “violent thugs” returned to center stage in these debates. What irony, to see self-proclaimed leaders celebrating May 1968 one day, then denouncing demonstrators the next day on account of some of the same confrontational tactics.

Due to intensifying polemics regarding the tactics used by law enforcement during the afternoon, the Prefect of Paris had to improvise a press conference to explain why the police did not simply charge the crowd to put a stop to the vandalism. The Prefect explained that the results of the day were extremely positive in that, despite the property damage, only one policeman had been lightly injured and the police had carried out numerous arrests. On our side, we don’t know how many people were injured during the confrontations.

The trap the authorities had set for May Day 2018 ended up being more effective than we expected: afterwards, we learned that over 250 people had been arrested during the day. That night, the authorities announced that more than 100 had been taken into custody, and that the first court appearances were already scheduled for the end of the week.

On Thursday, May 3, six individuals went to court; all of them refused immediate appearance. Their trials will be held at the end of May and in mid-June. In the meantime, two friends were put in pre-trial custody and three under judicial control. On May 4, seven individuals were indicted, two were convoked later, and thirteen just received reminders of the law. Three defendants accepted immediate appearances: two were discharged, and the last one received a 1000-euro fine for carrying a smoke bomb and spray-paint cans. The others will be tried later. Two more people were put in pre-trial custody and others under judicial control. We send our love and support to everyone arrested on May Day—not only in Paris, but everywhere. For those seeking more details about the several days of hearings concerning the events of May Day in Paris, we recommend this report by the Parisian legal team.

Even if this massive wave of arrests ends up being simply a symbolic gesture orchestrated by the government and the Police Prefecture of Paris, the number of individuals held in custody shows their determination to increase repression towards anyone suspected of belonging to the leading procession—even simply on account of clothes, accessories, or medical supplies. By spreading fear of being arrested for “participating in a group formed in order to commit vandalism or violence,” the authorities aim to discourage demonstrators from the practices of the leading procession, and to compel everyone else to dissociate from us. History will show whether we can avoid this trap.

[alatismeni-theitsa]

Some mention how they didn't race swaped Triton as well in the little mermaid...

Can i remind you that Triton was the son of Poseidon and Amphitrite?? The literal Gods of the sea in Greek mythology? Race swapping him too would be too much and would only add fuel to the fire.

It's too bad Disney instead of casting Halle as an different heroine with her own story they again used a beloved classic to create controversy and political debate over skin colour.

It's quite good they cast a Mediterranean actor for the role of Triton! It's... an improvement even - which I think happened accidentally 😂 They wanted to make a fictional Carribbean (from what I've seen) and so the Spanish-French type could have matched their vision. I....can see their reasoning but I find it really odd.

Also, regional gods and heroes are immersed in the culture and people who formed their worship. Triton is the same case. (And even his name is Greek, obviously). That's the reason you look for a Chinese person to play a Chinese god or warrior. (Or at least an East Asian person who looks like they could've come from China).

If your reasoning starts and ends with what needs to be represented in Hollywood, then you are not actually respectful of that foreign culture. With that reasoning, if in 100 years there's an abundant of Chinese people in the US media, they "should" start casting other races to play the Chinese deities. That's not how it freaking works 🙄

As for the changes of old characters... it's just weird, man. I absolutely do not mind seeing minorites excelling on screen. What is weird is how they re-skin old stuff all the time "but make it diverse". It's not the end of the world but it's obviously a thing we can talk about. And big companies use this discourse and discord as marketing often so it's not unreasonable to accuse them of pandering and using minorities as fame tokens.

Would I love to see more women on Greek TV? Yes! Will I cringe with a Greek show that makes Karaiskakis or Erotokritos women and that claims to "correct" history and bring modernity? 100% yes. Greeks are also a cultural and racial minority in many countries worldwide. That doesn't mean I want to see them replacing other minorities in media if they don't look the part. (Other minorities have played Greeks because they looked the part. Hell, now Javier Bardem plays a Greek deity and it's...mostly fine)

Just... please make new stories with great diverse characters and with plots and character arcs that make sense!

[saymoretv]

I read something recently that suggested the idea of 'selling out' doesn't exist in culture today. My first thought was, 'I'm not sure about that'. You can still see people having some of the same debates that connect with this idea; whether that's in people 'gatekeeping' genres, artists watering down or changing their sound, or bands getting getting backlash for working with big corporate sponsors. However, from my vantage point at least, 'selling out' certainly does seems to be a much lesser point consideration or judgement when it comes to conversations around music, art, commerce, identity, etc. and that certainly is to do with the new ways we consume and access music, art, as well as the re-formation of the music industry in the streaming era.

It got me thinking also about a book I about Jawbreaker read recently. The format of the book and the series its published as part of, is notionally a long-form close read / deep listen on a culturally important album by a band, but in actual fact it's basically a biography that takes 24 Hour Revenge Therapy as its central focus by which to tell the story of the band. So even though I would have been happy with someone waxing very lyrical about why they love each element of each song on the record, in hindsight a wider story about who the band where, and their journey along the way probably did make for a better read overall.

Perhaps the most interesting theme within the book is the idea of 'selling out' and how this coloured so much of the bands' legacy and story. Internally it seemed to it seemed central to the decisions and the arc of the 'career' of the band, Such as their initial refuting of the possibility of ever 'selling out' to a major label, and then eventually doing so. And externally, it seemed to colour so much of how they were viewed by their fans and the punk / underground or DIY music communities the band had its roots in, such as the band going from the admiration and adoration they got for being underground heroes of the Gilman Scene, and then the backlash that followed for supporting Nirvana and then signing to Geffen. Boxcar, like no other song in the Jawbreaker discography best encapsulates the way this discourse around 'selling out' is attached to the band.

It's hard not to hear "I was passing out when you were you were passing out your rules" and not regard it as one of the punkest lyrics of all time, but the rules aren't societies rules that say UK82 punks were railing against but the scene politics of the day, and who or what does and doesn't get to be ascribed or as 'punk'. Jawbreaker and Blake are pretty unequivocal: "I never was one". So, maybe fans shouldn't have been so surprised when they signed to a major after all.

That said, for all the bands protestations about not being punks - the visuals tell a different story. Gritty Super 8 B+W footage, gear being loaded into tour vans, and candid band footage shot in and out of the tour bus. I mean all it's missing is some gnarly live footage and a stage dive and all the punk music video boxes are ticked!

Also, it's interesting to note that the band only have two music videos, to my knowledge. The raw, B+W Boxcar video and the glossy Fireman video where they appear in yellow suits (!). Both great songs, but again it definitely highlight this idea of the band Pre and Post 'selling out'.

For me, as much as I love their music, I get a certain 'cakeism' when it came to their relationship with the punk / DIY scene. They got so much affirmation and a sense of community from it, whilst also feeling held back by it's conformity and the policing of behaviours and practice. They both needed the scene and wanted to transcend above it. A song like Boxcar is emblematic of this in that: it takes being part of or close to the punk scene to have the context to reject or even reference what Blake is rejecting. It's the things that are closest to home that often wind us up the most after all.

But this is all to say that these considerations of selling out which were so central to the story of Jawbreaker feel somewhat anachronistic in today's world. Maybe this is because the importance or regard people in bands and fans give to 'selling out' has lessened over the years due to the fact that the stakes are a lot lower. There's less money to go around. Jawbreaker may not have been in line for millions when they released Dear You but they might have gotten rich, but now only a select few (and not many guitar bands I would imagine) will ever get 'rich' by virtue of their music. It's hard to sell out if no one's buying I suppose.