#by the way the entire essay point is to pick a piece of media and find political meanings within

[blimbo-buddy]

You know, I would have never, ever thought in my entire life that I would read an essay example for my college English class that delved deep into the political and social meanings behind The Bee Movie and got to the point where the example said that Barry B. Benson was like Karl Marx

[grandhotelabyss]

Thoughts on Trump picking a writer as VP?

I haven't read Vance's book, so I don't know if he's a good writer, but I've heard it's a reasonably effective memoir, written mostly before he had this level of political ambition.

I just read his personal essay about his conversion to Catholicism today. I am cautious around writing that proclaims its humility and thereby forces me to search for its will to power; this is why I proclaim my will to power and allow you, but only if you want, to discover my humility, my debility, my "male vulnerability." Other than that, the essay is most moving and persuasive where it refutes the simplistic materialism of the likes of analytic philosophers and Sam Harris, and where he details his real spiritual experiences (I believe him). His critique of the left's superficially compassionate but actually cruel attitude toward the poor ("like sympathy for a zoo animal") is also exactly right. But I find it overly solemn, anxious, barely concealing the abandonment of his natal Protestantism for its plebeian or peasant quality—no less part of his desire for acceptance by an elite than was his earlier atheism. I was raised in plebeian or peasant Catholicism myself, on the other hand, which has nothing at all to do with the authorities he cites, like René Girard and St. Augustine. I look slightly askance on adult converts drawn in by the theology and morality. It has always seemed to me that the point of Catholicism—and I mean this much more religiously and much less blasphemously than it sounds—is the architecture and the incense, the barely sublimated sex and the eros of death. But I also love, as an outsider, the reckless, almost doom-seeking individualism of certain strains of Protestantism, some of them laundered as atheism. Since these seem to me to be the point of America, I am wary of overly intellectual Catholics and social democrats, their philosophies literally reeking of the over-crowded warrens of 19th-century Europe, moralistically tut-tutting about it. His second long quotation from Augustine gives me a chill, not in a good way. "[I]n his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him," our theologian jeers. Yes, Bishop, that's the American dream. Why not be a climate-doomer de-growther flinging soup in a museum with an attitude like that? The solution to poverty is abundance.

Possibly more significant for practical purposes, however, is Vance's tie to the literary-philosophical network around the Silicon Valley dissidents: Yarvin, BAP, and their associated publications and social media presences. (This is a good time to revisit James Pogue's Vanity Fair piece on the new right from 2022.) As Walter Kirn observed yesterday, that makes this election different from the last two. The last two were organized around the force of Trump's personality as he tried to hold together a fraying and fracturing Republican coalition of "provincial capital" (the proverbial boat dealer), the (mostly but not entirely) white working class, and the old Reagan Republican business constituencies of defense and energy, even as finance defected to the Democrats, while entertainment, academia, and intelligence pursued total war against their almost undefended reactionary enemy. The belligerent entrance of Musk and Andreessen into this election on Trump's side as representatives of big tech, with Vance as the political figurehead of big tech's literary and philosophical vanguard wing, makes it a much more even and generally significant contest: a true class war between incumbent and emergent elites. Literature has played no small part in this class war, as so many now widely-read writers and thinkers, love them or hate them, have resigned from the old left-liberal consensus. I don't mean to sound excessively neutral on the subject, but I belong to neither of the contending classes, and neither is at all democratic. I'm still not totally sure how the emergent elites' values are connected to a downbeat puritanical Augustinian Catholicism either, but since it seems to have everything to do with the aforesaid René Girard, we are still in the realm of literary theory if not literature.

In any case, the service of literature to any political faction or project should be the taming of its worser tendencies and the opening of its members to dialogue, irony, sympathy, and fresh perspectives. I will be told this is too idealistic.

[molluskzone]

the thing that i dont get about digital art / AI comparisons (saying theyre both "cheating" in the same way, which ive seen a few times from both pro-AI and anti-AI people) is that in AI the only input is like... the text. it doesnt just make things easier or faster, it completely removes your creative control over a piece and automates the entire process. it's like... typing your essay out on google docs (easier and faster than writing by hand, you have access to spell check and dont need to erase or scribble out words you want to remove, formatting is much easier, etc) vs just inputting a prompt into chatGPT. do you understand the comparison im making here? it's literally the exact same concept, except i've never seen someone say that typing your essay on a laptop is cheating because "it's easier which makes you lazy and not a REAL writer, you're the same as the people trying to pass of chatGPT as their own writing".

also, if we're going there... all of the "cheats" you can do with digital art are entirely possible in traditional art (minus stuff like animation which are absolute HELL to do traditionally, especially 3d animation, but that's besides the point). so i don't even get the art-purist "you-can't-call-yourself-a-true-artist" pretentious argument here. YES, traditional art takes longer and costs more to make (you can buy a tablet once for 200 dollars, and connect it to a laptop which most people already have (or just use your phone/tablet which is even cheaper), and then have that be your only expense for YEARS except for replacement pen nibs and cables. meanwhile, sketchbooks are expensive and you need to constantly buy them, colored pencils are expensive if you're serious about it because you need a lot of different colors, paintings are on another level when it comes to materials cost, etc). i genuinely respect traditional artists since that shit is tedious. HOWEVER... saying that digital art is "cheating" kind of reveals to me that you're just unaware of all the potential "cheats" in traditional art. yes, theres some skills you need to learn, like coloring evenly with colored pencils or alcohol markers, or learning brush techniques and blending, color mixing, color matching, taking good photos of your art if you are someone who wants to post on social media, but there are ALSO unique skills you need to learn in digital art, such as managing layer types, learning to disconnect your eyes / hand (if you don't have a screen tablet), optimizing the image for digital viewing, color choosing (WAY HARDER TO DO DIGITALLY THAN TRADITIONALLY). they're equivalent in this way.

however... layering? use a light box and separate your sketch and coloring / lineart layers. undo? use a light box. quickly change colors? plan ahead better. physically paint over part of the piece. want to make multiple colored versions of a piece? cut out a lino block and use different colored ink to make prints. scan the drawing, print out more and color over them. tracing? fucking put the piece of paper over your laptop screen and trace it (we were expected to do this for practice in my high school art classes). mirroring / "flipping the canvas"? hold drawing up to mirror. if youre drawing on paper, hold it up to the sun or use a light box and flip it. symmetry? you can buy tools for this in which you hold a physical mirror up to half of your drawing and trace the reflection. we also used these in art class. you can also use tracing paper for this- it's my preferred method for making symmetrical traditional art, and for redrawing parts of a sketch / full piece that i want to move around or replace. color picking? any method you use digitally you can also use traditionally. the only trouble is IMPLEMENTING said colors in a full piece... but you also have to do that digitally. the biggest hurdle in color picking for traditional art is just... not having the resources to create a certain color easily, but that's a "can't afford a lot of paints / colored pencils / markers" issue, not necessarily a skill issue. even photobashing reference images or rearranging a piece is possible traditionally if you like... cut the sketch out and rearrange it physically before tracing over it, or physically making a reference with the same method. it is not hard and i have done this traditionally before. you can also use tracing paper for this. line stabilization is the only thing i've seen that's actually unique to digital art, but you can mimic this in traditional art by just... weighing down your art tool or having to redo the lineart a few times with the light box method (time consuming, yes, but not necessarily skillful. it just takes longer if you're bad at it, but the SAME results are possible). different layer types? just do the "math" in your head and figure it out. ive literally mimicked multiply layers before without actually using a multiply layer just to see if i COULD, and the results were the same. the only fully 100% true comparison i've seen is that stuff like AI-generated coloring and shading applied to digital art are "cheating" but that's... not digital art at that point... you're just making an argument again AI specifically because they are separate... it's closer to someone recreating an AI image themselves, or editing an AI image to make it look more realistic, which are, again, separate topics. also you can literally shade and fix traditional art with AI too if you take good enough photos of your art so this isn't even really a good argument against digital art specifically, it's an AI issue.

the only argument i see that makes sense is that traditional art, digital art, CGI animation, and AI art are all their own mediums that all require different skill sets (though i'd argue that traditional art and digital art are much more similar to each other in what skills you need than any of them are to AI art, but whatever). which i honestly kind of agree with? or i would is AI art was more ethical and not used in really dumb ways. but i personally think the AI slop is ugly, and my main gripe with it is that people try to "trick" others into believing AI art is real art by refusing to label it, or even labeling it maliciously incorrectly by naming fake artists as a credit for the image. you can't really do this with digital art since it's... pretty obvious when someone is creating something digitally. you know exactly what you're getting.

i think its fine if you want to say that traditional art is better or that you respect it more, because you're allowed your own opinion (even if i think you should at least experience drawing digitally before making a snap judgment). but its not "cheating" and its certainly not comparable to AI

[lyxthen]

I feel like I'm the only mf on planet earth who liked the Attack on Titan ending genuinely. Not necessarily from an "I agree with the message it is presenting" standpoint but from a "They actually wrapped up the characters and the themes they were setting up from the very beginning pretty well." Granted, I am an anime only, and I am told that the manga ending was, like, actually fucking terrible (and you know I can't speak on that). But at least the version of aot that I got to experience was not like that, and I am not dissatisfied.

I also feel like I'm the only mf who loves Eren. Not from an apologetic standpoint, but in a "Wow, what a pethetic, childish, ideologically poisoned, evil piece of shit. I want you to die without glory and suffer the worst punishment imaginable (affectionate)" way. I love him, like I love Phillip Wittebane from The Owl House (which thinking about it now, is not an unearned comparason. They are very similar in terms of worldview and motivation). We all know a guy like this, which is indeed very fucking depressing. But it is also not an unfaithful representation of what happenes when you give incredible, unearned power to an idiot like that. What the horrifying ultimate consequences of something like that would be. It ends up tragically for everyone involved, and I like that.

It is not a bad show, in my opinion, but it is definitely the kind of media you have to approach with caution. It's the kind of story where every character is some flavour of selfish asshole and if you don't thread carefully you might end up absorbing all the bleak hopelessness that characterises these kinds edgelord shows. It is intentionally morally murky, at times insensitive, and it will make you uncomfortable (at least I hope it does. I'd be worried if it didn't). But that doesn't take away from how good of a story it is. I'd give it like, 7/10 stars if I was a movie reviewer.

Even though I feel there's many (many) things to critize here, I don't think the finale falling out of line or being dissonant with the rest of the anime is one of them. If you couldn't pick up on the problematic elements since season one, and you only realized they were there after the final arc, maybe you should hone your fascist-adjacent rethoric spotting skills. I don't know. Like, I'm not expert but maybe we shouldn't wait for a character to show overt on-screen genocidal intent to question the glorified militarism present in the rest of the entire show. We can and should do better than that.

I know I may be sounding harsh, but again, I still really liked aot as a whole and I think it has plenty of redeeming qualities that make it worthwhile. I like it like, a lot, and I would probably write a full on essay about it if I could bring myself to finish anything that I write, ever.

I also want Hange Zoe to pin me against the wall and fuck me raw but that's besides the point.

[basil-isk]

Can The Author Be Killed Today?

    The concept of “Death of The Author”, once primarily used by literary critics, has become a common phrase in the online landscape surrounding media criticism of all sorts. Twitter media critics throw around the verbiage recklessly, often times caught up in a cross fire of whether it is morally justifiable to enjoy a piece of media created by someone now seen as “problematic.” But when the scriptor Roland Barthes explained the concept in his famous essay “The Death of The Author” it wasn’t simply about the righteousness of consumption – but rather a critical look on how we criticize literature and writing.

    Barthes provides an argument for why analyzing a narrative should not be about finding the author, but rather about creating a meaning. “In the multiplicity of writing, everything is to be disentangled nothing deciphered;” Reading should be about critically thinking through the complex signs and signifiers one is viewing, and the context they hold through the relation they have with each other. There is no one true meaning to a piece of writing. The meaning of a text has its own standpoint to readers as thinkers, and it should not be our goal to use a narrative to biographically pick apart an Author – but instead to simply pick apart the text which is on the page. Barthes proposes, instead of an Author, a scriptor – whose purpose is to “preform” the concept of a narrative by using an immense knowledge of signs and their cultural significance. A scriptor uses cultural significance to guide, but is not limited by their own world view – thus the reader is not limited by the viewpoint of a specific person, but can be open to a myriad of perspectives being told through the signs on the page.

    Barthes also argues that the idea of the Author is a contemporary one, an idea which has been perpetuated by capitalist desires of Property ownership – which has in turn created Intellectual Property ownership. A scriptor removes this elitist “IP” owner, and instead insists writers to preform narratives in a way that has inherent value –  not just out of a desire for the recognition of being the Author.

    Barthes is proposing not simply returning to a time with no authors - but a way of viewing writers as a consequence of their writing, rather than the opposite. A framework where we know the narrative itself before the creator, and the narrative is not fixed on a right or wrong way to interpret. By removing this fixed interpretation, it is removing the control of a singular entity over an entire concept – and thus killing God in a literary sense.

    So how does this relate to a modern audience, one which is bombarded with a variety of pieces of media which may have many different creators involved.

    I believe what Barthes is somewhat proposing is for writing to be open-source. In the software world, open-source projects are simply tools, lines of code which anyone can propose edits to or use in a way which they see fit. Sometimes open-source requires credit given to the original creator, sometimes it doesn’t, but the point is that there is no one dictating how one person can use the code the original scriptor created – it has been released, free to the public to use or change how they see fit.

    Authorship, creates a proprietary view of a narrative – there is only one way to interpret it (the author's way) and if the narrative is to be transformed by another creator, the original Author must be a guiding hand in the entire process. There is no freedom for creativity, or critical thought, just a simple answer. Barthes also explains that Narratives should distance themselves from having some sort of deeper theological, singular meaning to be deciphered and found. The scriptor is an actor preforming a concept in the best way possible, simply interpreting the abstract script ideas have gifted them and portraying it through language.

    As Barthes alluded to, Capitalism has created a system which perpetuates Authorship. Consuming a narrative isn’t simply consuming a narrative, it can have consequences. Regardless of whether the author exists within the text, you still have to purchase a book to read it (usually) and that money goes to the seller, the publisher, and the author. Those in the modern age have a lot of consideration over where their money, or influence will end up. Consumption of media SHOULD be a neutral act, an act where you can think about the narrative separately from why it exists – by the very act of consuming something tells the endless algorithms to make more of that product. There has been a death of thoughtful media consumption, because media is not created as art, but rather as product.

    While yes, thoughtful reading and watching can still happen, the discussion in the modern age is less about Authorial Intent and about where the money goes and about whether you support the people it goes to.

    The Author is alive and well in the modern age, while reading a text individually it is possible to kill them in your own mind – the modern media consumer is still incredibly focused on who is behind the creation rather than the work itself. Consumers are critical of work before they have even seen it, simply based on who is behind it and how they have branded themselves. Social media has allowed for a closer connection to creators, which has thus influenced the creation of ideas following the names attached to new pieces of work. A complex web of moral considerations, about wanting to support the “right” people rather than interesting concepts, due to a social context where people themselves have become narratives in their own right.

[vonderbarr]

can you tell us more about your midnight cowboy essay?

Sure! I wrote it over 10 years ago and I can't lay my hands on it, but I’ll talk about it a little. For the paper we were supposed to compare a piece of media and its adaptation. It might have been for a History of Film class. There are a lot of differences between the book and the movie, but most of the changes made were to simplify and streamline the story. It's really a great book to movie adaptation. Obviously big spoiler alerts if you haven't seen Midnight Cowboy.

The first thing that came up was the main characters hair colors. In the book their hair colors are actually switched making Ratso Rizzo a blond and Joe Buck a brunet. That's pretty unimportant in the grand scheme, of course, but it's the first thing I noticed. After seeing the movie it was tough to picture Ratso as a blond.

Joe Buck's back story is really streamlined in the movie, but the emotional beats are all there. The book goes a lot into Joe's childhood being raised by a series of blondes, eventually ending up with his grandmother who gets taken out by a lot of younger cowboys who Joe grows up idolizing. His mother also went on a lot of dates with cowboys and it’s suggested that she was a sex worker.

The movie combines two traumatic incidents in Joe's life into one series of flashbacks. In the movie a teenaged Joe is caught with a girl in the backseat of his car and they are both gangraped by a group of men. The viewer learns this via a series of disturbing images and barely there scenes that spells out the situation as clearly and artfully as a 60s film can and, honestly, still hold up pretty well today.

In the book the girl is used by teenagers and young men, they literally line up each night to have a turn. Joe is the only one she has ever enjoyed having sex with and they start up a secret relationship, but her father finds out and has her committed. Later, Joe is living with a male hustler who he finds attractive in a conflicted way. It's been a long time since I've read the book, but at some point Joe is raped by him and, I think, another man. Again, the scene kind of fades out to the point that I can't remember if they drugged Joe before or not. It’s still clear what happens, though.

Ratso's backstory, however, is completely different. In the movie the pair visit Ratso's father's grave and he tells a story about how his father was a shoeshiner. It gave his father back pain and after he died they couldn't get the boot black out from under his nails so they had to bury him in gloves. It's a poignant scene and one I really like, and it's a good, short background that explains why Ratso tries so hard to get ahead and refuses to do work that he feels is beneath him.

In the book, though, Ratso gets lost among the many kids in the Rizzo household. Ratso was born with a club foot and was ignored by his parents to the point that he almost died of pneumonia because no one noticed he was ill. There’s a line about finding him curled up under the stove nearly dead. Every week Ratso’s father would take the family out to eat and they took up the biggest table in the place and his father was so proud of his gigantic family. Slowly all of Ratso’s siblings and his mother either die or leave until it’s just Ratso and his father sitting at a shitty two-top by the kitchen every week. At this point Ratso is his father’s favorite by default, but all his father does is feel sorry for himself instead of trying to have a relationship with his only remaining child.

It could have been done, but I can understand why they cut Ratso’s backstory considering the movie focuses mostly on Joe. Even though the book is from Joe’s pov, Ratso’s childhood takes an entire chapter and I think it would do it a disservice to reduce it to flashbacks. It might also be confusing since all the flashbacks in the story are from Joe, while the only flash-forward fantasy is from Ratso. This makes Joe a reflection of his past and Ratso the forward thinker and planner.

Both the book and movie show Joe’s arc from an idealistic young man who needs to be saved or taken care of to an adult who’s willing to take care of others. The book especially does a good job of this. The relationship between Joe and Ratso in the movie is more homoerotic than in the book. This is partially because near the end of the book as Ratso becomes more helpless and their roles switch, Joe starts to think that he’ll get married to a girl and Ratso will be like their child. In the movie there’s no inner monologue to clarify Joe’s feelings towards Ratso. On set, both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman picked up on the homoerotic subtext in the script and may have played it up. There was an article I read where Dustin Hoffman was talking about how the characters should have been sharing a bed, for example.

This is getting away from me, but I do want to mention a scene that I think was perfectly transferred from book to movie. Joe gets invited to a party by this hippy, Andy Warhol-esque couple and there’s a scene on the stoop in front of the building. Ratso is getting sicker and he’s sweating and most likely feverish, but Joe is super excited to go to this party. On the stoop Ratso gets really self-conscious about how sweaty he is and his general appearance and Joe comforts him. He untucks his shirt and uses it to wipe Ratso’s face and fix him up and Ratso just kind of holds him and leans up against him. It’s exactly like the book and is a great example of adapting a scene from book to film.

Like I said, it’s been about 10 years since I read the book and wrote the essay and a few years since I’ve seen the movie so bear with me on my memory here. The essay was, I think, 5 to 10 pages and I have no idea where it might be, but this is just a little bit of overview/what I remember.

Fun Facts! Dustin Hoffman put rocks in his shoes to get Ratso’s limp right and in one take coughed so forcefully that he vomited on Jon Voight’s shoes. They obviously didn’t use the take, but it’s the scene where they’re crossing a bridge in profile.

I think most people know that “I’m walkin’ here!” is an adlib because they didn’t have money to shut down the street for filming and that taxi really almost hit Hoffman. I think most people don’t know that the suit he’s wearing was found in a dumpster by the costume designer.

[aspoopalypse]

theres a real problem imo in how we present a lot of academic subjects through pop science/sharticles/youtube essays/etc, and how that warps peoples judgements with regards to their own understanding of subjects, as well as a sort of latent anti intellectualism in how it reduces the complexity of the subjects at hand. its not unlike how every true crime nerd acts as some armchair psychologist armed with buzzwords and snappy synopses using layman definitions of terms with real significance and weight with full confidence they know everything there is to know. its like an insipid pseudoscience built off the impressions of actual science in that its presenting people with real facts in such a simplistic and dead end fashion that is presents them as bulletproof, and by extension the understanding the viewer is left with is equally invulnerable, creating a state where you know true facts in an entirely false fashion. then from this people start to think that not only is their knowledge of the matter sound but so is the science, yet their view of it is so simplified and sanitized for consumption that they practically know less than they did before by virtue of being so wrong in what they know. like you could make a 30 second infographic and reduce the average internet user’s knowledge of a given subject by a non insignificant factor. this kind of content feels like giving just enough knowledge to hang oneself with, and its all sort of by virtue of the nature of the content. like in trying to make a mass market approachable piece of media you have to oversimplify and pave over the actual information and impart an incomplete picture, one that ideally would be taken with a handful of salt - which hinges upon the viewer knowing how much is or at least may be being omitted, running counter to the intended audience of the video, and never presenting the information given as incomplete or flawed by the demands imposed to appeal to said audience, leaving them with an image painted as complete and issued from a position of relative authority on the subject and without the knowledge to question nor expand upon the information given. this then of course has insufferable knock on effects of people acting as authorities on things they know next to nothing about and spreading through word of mouth and similar the same half truths, granting them an intellectual inertia what must be overcome to have any fruitful discussion on the topic. in a similar vein this sort of dead end knowledge is anecdotally inclined, lending itself to being used to make a point in the abstract rather than the specific context within its meant to exist, often overstating what was a facsimile or thought experiment regarding the original topic and understating the scientific context from which it is meant to exist, and ascribing some sort of academic weight to what amounts to them talking out of their ass. it also just kinda suggests that all science can be boiled down to entirely non academic contexts in a way that can make sense on a level anyone can pick up which is patently false.

[cruelfeline]

Anyone who hangs about Twitter potentially saw an unfortunate Hordak take cross their timelines today. 

As is custom on this blog, I’ll be taking it apart for my own personal amusement (and for the amusement of any of y’all who like to watch me do so). I doubt the poster will see this, as they’re on Twitter and not apparently on here, but in case they do: this is for my own enjoyment and the enjoyment of followers; it absolutely does not need to be responded to if that’s not your cup of tea. 

So, that little disclaimer in place, let’s see what we can make of this! Because this is on Medium, I’ll be using screenshots as quotes; just a heads-up.

So... this first bit isn’t really anything Hordak-related. It’s more... fandom drama, I suppose? Not really something I can pick apart. I can, however, give my own personal opinion on this sort of thing, for what it’s worth.

It’s true that people can and should be able to feel whichever way they wish about a character. And to talk about that character. 

However: it is also true that people who dislike Hordak can be very unpleasant in making that known to those of us who enjoy him. Including descending into personal insults for no discernible reason. Add to that the fact that his character means a great deal to some fans for intensely personal reasons, and it is not difficult to see why some fans aren’t keen to see anti-Hordak content on their timelines, in their mentions, etc.

Censoring character hate isn’t a requirement, but in some circumstances, it can simply be a polite thing to do. It doesn’t take great effort, and it prevents people from experiencing just another bit of unpleasantness on their social media. And if you don’t want to do it? Well, that’s your right; but don’t be shocked when people voice their displeasure by replying to your words. Because that is their right.

And that’s all I really have to say about that. 

Odd way to phrase things, really. These aren’t “reasons to forgive.” The first two scenes involve Catra’s asphyxiations and are things that would need to be forgiven, not things to forgive.

Though, y’know, I really only apply that to the first scene, where he assaults her without her necessarily doing anything wrong. Mind you, I believe he does it out of a combination of needing to maintain a hierarchy for safety purposes (this is a man who needs people to be afraid of him to maintain his own safety) and poor leadership skills mimicked from a narcissist, but it’s still a terrible thing.

However! The second time? After he asks her about Shadow Weaver? This isn’t torture-fun-times. This is Hordak neutralizing a threat to the entire Horde. Because that is what Catra is in this moment: a threat to the security and wellbeing of him and the entirety of the Fright Zone. She lies about a critical mistake. She proves herself to not only have poor judgment in serious matters, but to be very willing to lie about it in order to guard her own selfish motives. While I can’t condone the method Hordak uses, I do wish people would stop using this second instance of punishment as some sort of proof-of-torture. He does not do this for no reason. He does it because Catra released a dangerous prisoner into the wild and lied about it. And his concerns over it ultimately prove correct.

This entire qualification doesn’t have much to do with whether he deserves forgiveness or not, but it���s a point I want to make because it combats this idea that Hordak did this to an innocent girl “for no reason” or “just to be cruel.” That’s simply not the case; no matter how unpleasant the method, Hordak is a military leader punishing a subordinate for seriously endangering him and everyone else in the organization. Badly. I don’t know what the equivalent would be in modern military, but Catra’s error is massive. It doesn’t make what Hordak does right, but it does give a reason other than a simple “he’s a bad, bad man.” So.

Adding this scene is... actually kind of odd because he doesn’t really do anything to Adora here. And also: this scene is... what’s the word... meaningful-in-hindsight, so to speak. Essentially: in this scene, Adora is claiming that Hordak is responsible for stealing her, for robbing her of a peaceful life with her family. And Hordak is claiming that he neither knows nor cares who she is, and that she does not matter to him. 

The interesting aspect of this scene, and something that OP fails to acknowledge at all, is that both Adora and Hordak are wrong.

let’s see if I can talk about this without crying... nope, already starting to tear up

Hordak never stole Adora; Light Hope did. Hordak did not orchestrate this unfortunate life for her. Rather, Hordak, a lost clone dealing with his own insecurities and fears and problems, found an equally lost infant in a field and gave her the only home he really knew how to create (and one that, for its flaws, was still better than the absolute nightmare he was “raised” in). In all likelihood, given Light Hope’s lack of understanding of infants, he probably saved Adora’s life by doing this: without him, she may well have perished alone in that field.

Hordak likewise does remember her, eventually. And she is not inconsequential to him: by saving her, he ends up saving himself, and all of his brothers. By forging this near-unknown bond with her all those years ago, by choosing to take in an infant rather than letting her die, he plays a key role in deciding the fate of the universe. 

This scene that OP sarcastically claims is a reason Hordak shouldn’t be forgiven has a sibling:

The fact that OP apparently fails to recognize this and realize that these are the only two moments in the series during which Adora and Hordak directly interact, that they’re a pair, means that OP misses the connection between the two and the significance of how they misjudge one another initially. It indicates a lack of understanding of the themes of the show: themes centered around connections with other people, love, and forgiveness. Which, given the contents of this essay, is unsurprising.

Moving on!

Y’know, whether or not one believes, in terms of definition, that Hordak is a colonizer (I personally don’t for pedantic and clone-cult reasons, but that’s not really relevant to this post), it’s interesting that OP notes how Stevenson confirms that he is... but conveniently leaves out the part where she confirms that he did it because he was brainwashed.

That’s... an important piece of information to leave out when discussing whether Hordak should be forgiven or not. A very important piece.

And it doesn’t really matter whether he’s a colonizer or a conqueror; the reason it comes up is because people seem very stuck in the mindset of “if it’s a colonizer, it must die” without acknowledging any sort of nuance. There’s also the question of whether what Hordak did actually caused the same sort of upheaval and lasting damage we see resulting from legitimate colonization, and all of the implications of that, but this isn’t really the place to go into that. Honestly, I don’t really think SPoP as a whole is the place to go into that.

No. Hordak is not the person who taught her all of these things. 

Shadow Weaver is.

Hordak did not personally teach her that Princesses are evil. He did not teach her that wanton cruelty is fine in getting one’s own way. He did not feed her propaganda. 

Actually, as an aside: can we even confirm that Catra ever thought that Princesses where evil? I mean... she works with Scorpia, and she has no apparent morals to speak of. She does as she wishes for her own personal gain, not because she displays any sense of “fighting the evil Princesses.” And in terms of disposing of Entrapta because she was “manipulated” into viewing Princesses as evil: Catra disposes of everyone. She manipulates and uses everyone. That is one of the key aspects of her arc: she uses and abuses people for personal gain. She does this whether they are Princesses or not: just see Lonnie, Rogelio, and Kyle. Add to this the fact that Catra, from the first season, knows that she and Adora have been lied to, manipulated, and that the Horde is in fact evil, and... this entire line of reasoning falls apart. 

None of this is an attempt to “absolve Hordak of blame.” Hordak just... legitimately had no hand in raising any of the children. That was not his role (and while I know that this was confirmed by Stevenson at some point, I don’t have memory of where; potentially the last podcast?). And Catra did not operate on any sort of propaganda that she actually believed in: she simply used and disposed of people as she saw fit because she cared more about her own rise to power than she did about those around her. This was one of her major character flaws, and really? Trying to pin this on Hordak, or even fully pin it on Shadow Weaver? It absolves Catra of the blame, of the intentional bad choices she made (as emphasized by Adora) and thus weakens her entire arc.

All in all: Hordak may have created a poor environment for the raising of children, but of note is the fact that only Catra turns out this way. The other kids, whatever their problems, are not in the habit of manipulating friends, lying to them, using them, and then tossing them aside. That is a Catra Problem. Part of this can be attributed to Shadow Weaver (who only treated Catra in the poorest way), and part of it is just... Catra being not-the-best.

All right. Now we get to the really disingenuous portion of the essay.

First, as just stated: Hordak is not Catra’s abuser. Shadow Weaver is. Hordak had no hand in raising her. Hordak did not direct Shadow Weaver to abuse her. Hordak did not personally feed Catra anti-Princess propaganda, and even if he had, we know by the first season that Catra sees through whatever propaganda she was exposed to and has no actual moral objections to Princesses. But that’s not the main aspect of this portion that irks me. 

The main aspect that irks me is that this is not the scene Hordak stans mark as abusive. And I cannot imagine that OP does not know this.

But let’s talk about this scene, for a moment, before getting to the actual, legitimate abuse.

OP talks about his scene almost flippantly: “Hordak finds out Catra lied about Entrapta, he becomes angry and attacks her with a clear plan to kill her.”

Yes. Yes, he "becomes angry.” He becomes angry and attacks because as far as he knows, Catra killed Entrapta. This isn’t some annoyed “you lied to me!” moment. He legitimately thinks Entrapta is dead because Catra sent her to Beast Island. OP just blissfully glosses over the fact that Hordak is attacking Catra in rage and grief because Catra, as far as either of them know, killed his only friend and then lied about it for approximately a year. Like... how do you gloss over that in discussing this scene? How do you gloss over the enormity of what Catra did, and the unimaginable pain Hordak experiences when finding out?

So. The writeup of this scene is poor. It misses all of the emotion, all of the reality of what Catra did and what Hordak felt. But! That’s not even the unfortunate part of this portion. Let’s get to the real disingenuity.

This is the abusive scene. This is that stomach-turning moment when Catra removes a disabled man’s ability to move with dignity and without pain solely to force him to escalate a war for her own personal benefit.

Hordak is not a danger to her here. Hordak has not been a danger to her for a while because he has been holed up in his private quarters, trying to deal with the emotional fallout of Entrapta supposedly betraying him. He wants nothing to do with Catra. He wants to lick his wounds and gather himself and somehow heal from this deep personal pain that’s been inflicted upon him.

And that’s a problem for Catra because it stands in the way of her using the war as a way to best Adora.

So Catra identifies Hordak’s physical weakness and exploits it for the purpose of spiting her ex.

The fact that OP completely fails to acknowledge any of this is... well. Disingenuous. Absolutely so.

The next portion of the essay talks about people feeling that Catra was too easily forgiven and isn’t really Hordak-centric; I won’t really go into it here. Moving forward:

Ah, one of the most annoying questions I see asked. Let’s, again, acknowledge and move past the fact that Hordak was not actually Catra’s abuser...

When, pray tell, was Hordak supposed to show this remorse? When? While he was serving on Prime’s ship, trying to forget the pain of losing Entrapta, of failing to prove himself, of losing everything? Should he have done it while screaming in agony in the purification pool? Should he have done so while alone on Prime’s ship, trying to serve quietly while piecing together his memories?

Not only was Hordak simply not in a position, narratively, to go into a whole remorse bit, but he had other problems. Like, life-endangering problems. 

The appropriate time to go into his feelings on Etheria and the Princesses and All of That would have been after Prime’s defeat, upon Hordak’s re-introduction to Etheria... but then the show ended. So.

Agh, vulgar. Taking a brainwashed, conditioned slave and bastardizing his triumph at finally seeing himself as a real person, instead claiming that his intent was to glorify his own misdeeds. No. Just... no.

Again: this is not the time for guilt. And it is a demonstration of why guilt and remorse were not front-and-center in Hordak’s arc during season five: his arc was about finally realizing that he was his own person, a person worthy of identity and love and care and freedom. And this arc culminated in him separating himself from his abuser and declaring his personhood. 

That is what this scene is: not Hordak reveling in his makeshift empire, or in the terrible deeds he’d committed, but in declaring himself his own person. 

I should hope that he is proud of doing that. I’m proud of him for doing that daunting feat, of defeating his abuser and defying his god and recognizing that he is worthy of more than what Prime thought of him. And I recognize Entrapta’s role in it: not as the sole inspiration for his change, but as someone who showed him a foundation of love and acceptance, someone who introduced him to the idea that he was worthy of care and happiness and affection simply because he was a living being, no strings attached.

Trying to shoehorn in some sort of claim that this is about pride in his misdeeds, rather than joy at finally accepting his own sense of self is a massive misinterpretation of this scene, a misunderstanding of Entrapta’s role in Hordak’s arc, and... can I say it’s disingenuous again? Because I’m going to: it’s disingenuous.

All right; we’re at the end. And while the first sentence here is something I absolutely agree with - the decision to forgive Hordak is personal and subjective both for viewers and for in-show characters - the whole conclusion falls apart from there.

It highlights another glaring omission from OP’s arguments: the fact that Hordak is a brainwashed clone slave.

Hordak did not choose to “spend his life trying to prove his worth to Horde Prime.” He did not choose the method of said proving: that Prime would look kindly upon conquering rather than some other task. And he did not choose to have certain concepts and ideas (all beings must suffer to become pure; all creatures, no matter how small, have a place in service of Horde Prime; failure is when something ceases to serve a purpose) conditioned into him.

Hordak was manufactured as a cultist slave. He was “born” with hardware implanted into his body against his will to better control him. He was indoctrinated and brainwashed to the point that he believed that Horde Prime was his literal god - and in a way, Prime was, because he could mentally invade and possess and physically control the clones whenever he wished. 

Hordak was not allowed to have a sense of self. He was not allowed to have a name. He was not allowed to express emotions. He was not allowed to live without that life serving to glorify Horde Prime. Hordak was so absolutely sick with this mentality that he saw himself as a failure due to physical disability and assumed it was his responsibility to fix that. 

The idea that Hordak simply chose to do what he did, that he had the same foundational morality and mindset as any “normal” person might, shows a glaring lack of understanding even the basics of his narrative. 

Yes: Hordak did bad things. But he did them for legitimately tragic, nigh-horrifying reasons that this essay just ignores for the sake of... I don’t know? Trying to justify OP’s distaste for the character? I am uncertain. But it’s a mark of a poor essay, of a poor understanding of the character, and is honestly just disappointing to read when the show itself tries so hard to drive home its wonderful, hopeful themes through Hordak’s story.

Whether one forgives Hordak or not is one’s personal choice, but I certainly hope one makes said choice with better insight into his character than this essay provides.

[absolutepx]

So I've been playing Death Stranding lately. Wait, that's not what this post is about. Well, it kind of is. Hang on. What is Death Stranding about?

A: Norman Reedus getting bare ass naked B. Sneaking around ghosts with the help of your sidekick, an actual baby C: Carrying 50 Amazon packages up a hill while trying to not topple over D: Waking up in the morning and drinking 5 Monster Energy™ for breakfast

For those following along at home, the answer is actually none of the above. Despite the set dressing being bizarre to the point of near absurdity, what the game is actually about, like thematically, is actually really simple.

See, the development of Death Stranding was actually quite a trip. Hideo Kojima is the video game world's equivalent of an auteur director. He has a very recognizable personal style. It's thoroughly horny – he caught a bunch of shit for the design of Quiet in MGSV, but like, a lot of Kojima characters are just -like that-, including the dudes. Also, this is going to possibly be important later.

Anyway, so Kojima was going to do a rebootmakequel of Silent Hill, and the demo actually made it to the PS store and I could actually write a whole side essay about why P.T. (it was called P.T. for some reason btw) was brilliant game design for how it used the same hallway over and over and it was somehow beneficial to the overall feeling of horror. So Konami it turns out kinda sucks nowadays and they like, fired Kojima (they were huge dicks about it behind closed doors, too) and scrapped the project and kicked him out on the street and kept the Metal Gear series which was his baby (literally the baby in the sink in P.T., he snuck a bunch of messaging about the Konami situation into the demo like a breakup album) and Kojima would go on to form his own studio and poach some of the people who worked with him to boot. So the thing about Kojima is this: he's got a reputation for already putting some wild shit in his games, like a ladder that takes like 10 real time minutes to climb in MGS3 for dramatic effect, and a boss in MGS3 that summons the ghosts of all the people you were too lazy to stealth past and killed, or a sniper battle with a really old guy that he wanted to have last two weeks or some shit until he died of old age but he was "told that "this was impossible and not recommended." That is a real quote I just looked up. So he's coming off the heels of making this hugely successful game with MGSV and the hype of the P.T. Demo and he fucking, he like took all the people that were going to be working on P.T. Along like Guillermo Del Toro was going to co-write it and Norman Reedus was going to star in it, and he's like, I'm going to make this game called Death Stranding. And the first trailer comes out for it and it's completely nuts. Norman Reedus wakes up naked on a beach crying with a baby and there are floating people in the sky? So we're all like hooooooly shit, there's no one to tell him "this is impossible and not recommended" anymore. What's he going to make now!?

So the whole time the game is in development I keep seeing these tweets where it'll be like, Kojima and one of his homies smiling with some saccharine message about being spiritual warriors and changing the world. And not just Del Toro and Reedus, there was Mads Mikkelsen (another guy Kojima puts in the game just because he apparently loves him), and the band Chvches, and also like, Keanu Reeves at one point? You know how everyone has just kind of accepted that Keanu is a being of light? Here he was endorsing Kojima. The hype was pretty confused and frantic.

The game eventually comes out. A lot of game journos hate it because I think there was this expectation it was going to be, you know, less weird and have more of the conventional structure of a video game. That's not to say the average gamer wasn't also dismissive of it, but I think on the ground level there was more of an understanding that like, yeah, Kojima just be like that sometimes.

Because the game was a timed console exclusive and your homie don't play like that, I spent the first year or so cautiously viewing Death Stranding from a distance. I wasn't sure I was going to like it – except for being really impressed with P.T., I wasn't actually a big fan of Kojima's games as games – but I -was- sure that I was going to buy it, because of the way Konami fucked him over, just out of support. And the shit I was hearing was really out there. The primary mode of gameplay is just delivery packages. You collect Norman Reedus' bathwater and pee and use it as grenades. You get a motorcycle that looks like the one from AMC's The Ride with Norman Reedus, and when you sit on it, his character in the game says "Wow, this thing is like the one from AMC's The Ride with Norman Reedus!"

But I didn't really want to know that much about it. Something has that much fucking crazy person energy, you want to go in mostly blind, right? So maybe people just weren't talking about this, or maybe I wasn't seeing it, but then I watched Girlfriend Reviews' video about it and they came right out and said it (link provided if you want to hear Shelby say it more articulately than me):

Death Stranding is basically about the exact opposite of Twitter. It's about remembering how to be kind to each other, how to reconnect in a world where people are so often hostile to each other by default. Prophetically, it's about a world where people are afraid to go outside or touch other people and how damaging that is. It's not a game about carrying packages, it's a game about helping people by being brave enough to walk through a wasteland carrying their burdens because they can't. It's about rebuilding the lost connections between people, about restoring roads and giving people hope. I bet, for Kojima and the people close to him, it's about how to answer hostility with compassion. You can't kill people in Death Stranding. You can and are absolutely encouraged to fucking throw hands with people sometimes, but all the tools and weapons are nonlethal. So I think Kojima took all the Twitter heat he got over the Quiet nontroversy, and all the feelings of isolation he had from Konami separating him from his team during the end of the development of MGSV, and all the support and encouragement he got from his bros Del Toro and Mads and the rest, and decided to channel that into making a game that was a statement about all of it. And sure, it's a little heavy handed, and sure, it's a little saccharine, and sure, the gameplay sometimes borders on miserable in service of creating emotional payoffs. For me, especially in 2020, this message is a huge success. Social media should be an opportunity for all of us to feel more connected to each other, yet primarily it feels like one of the main forces driving people apart. Why is that? Why is the internet of today such a hostile place? I'm old enough to remember web 1.0: I can haz cheezburger memes; YTMND; the early wild west days of Youtube... What happened to us? I've thrown the blame at Twitter in the past, and I think the architecture of the user experience on Twitter is absolutely a big piece of the puzzle, because it fosters negative interactions. But in terms of the behavior, people have observed that 2018 Twitter was actually almost exactly like 2014 Tumblr. (For the record, Tumblr is now one of the chillest places left on the internet, because so few fucks are left to give.)

I think part of it is the anonymity. The dehumanizing disconnection of the separation of screens and miles. Louis CK, before he was cancelled, had a great point about cyberbullying, and why it's so much more savage than kids are IRL. When you pick on someone in person and you are confronted with seeing the pain you caused them, for most sane people it causes negative feedback and you become disgusted with your actions and eventually learn to stop being a shithead. Online, at best you can "break the wrist, walk away".

At worst, you can become addicted to "clout chasing" and the psychological thrill of being cheered on by your social ingroup. It's even worse if you feel like it's not bullying and your actions are justified because whoever you've targeted is a bad person so you don't have to feel bad about what you do to them. This is where reductive, unhelpful catchphrases like "punch a nazi" come in. For every argument, one or both sides have convinced themselves that the other side is subhuman because their beliefs are so disgusting. And sometimes it's even true! A lot of times, especially these days, people really are acting like animals or worse online. Entire disinformation engines are roaring day and night, churning out garbage and cluttering the social consciousness. (Kojima talked about this bit, too, way back in MGS2. As if I wasn't already in danger of losing my thread through this.)

The human brain was not built to live like this. You can't wake up every morning, roll over and open your phone, and be immediately faced with a tidal wave of anger and indignity. It wasn't built to be aware of fully how horrible the world is at any moment ALL AT ONCE, ALL THE TIME. And you will be. Because of another way that our brain works – the way we are more likely to share negative opinions. And because of the cottage industry built on farming outrage clicks, and because of constant performative activism.

It's not that I don't agree that being informed is important.

It's not that I don't agree that the causes people get riled up about are important.

They are. They absolutely are.

But we can't keep living like this. The constant, unending flood of tragedy, arguments, and hot takes. How much of the negativity we associate with online culture is the product of this feedback loop? What if the rise of doomer culture has been, if not entirely created by, has been nourished and exacerbated by our hostile attitudes toward each other?  Incels and TERFs, white supremacists, radfems, tankies and Trumpers – it seems like on every side of every issue, there are people simultaneously getting it wrong in multiple directions at once and there are more being radicalized every day. They are the toxic waste left behind by the state of discourse. And any hill is a hill worth dying on.

So what am I actually advocating? I don't know. There are a lot of fights going on right now that are important and we can't just climb into bunkers and ignore our problems hoping that Norman Reedus and his fine ass are going to leave the shit we need on our doorsteps. We need to find the strength to carry those hypothetical packages for ourselves sometimes - and hopefully, for others as well. Humans are social creatures. We need interaction and enrichment.

We need love.

So just try to remember the connections between humanity. Try to put more good stuff into the world when you can. Share more shitposts and memes. Tell your friends and family that you love them. Share good news when you hear it. Go on a weird fucking tangent about Death Stranding. Find a way to "be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes."

[thebeltanequeen]

The (Blurred? Nonexistent? Inconsequential?) Line Between Canon and Fanon: An Impromtu Essay by Me

I’m currently have an existential crisis. An absolute, balls to the walls, pull my hair out, stare at the walls wondering what the meaning of existence is, kind of existential crisis. Why, you may ask? Because the older I have gotten, the more Fanfiction I have read. That’s normal. Millions of other people read fanfic like me. Well, in the past few years, I have also realized that the more fanfiction I have read, the less shits I give about the actual canon of the media I love. I care less and less about what “actually” happened, and delve into fanon instead. It’s as if the two have SWITCHED ROLES in my brain. The canon is the lie, and the fanon is the truth. This used to not be the case though, so how did we get here? And why… why is this realization sending me into an absolute spiral of insanity? Why do I feel like I have been sucker punched in the jaw? Let me explain.

I’ve been reading and dabbling in writing my own fanfiction for over twelve years. It used to be an escape, a way to further delve into my latest obsessions and become consumed by them. I have this annoying habit of also picking ships that do NOT become endgame, so I’ve always sought out fanfiction as a balm for my shipper’s soul as well. I still read fanfiction as if my life depends on it… but now it’s at the expense of reading new books. Watching new media. When I do eventually dip my toes into a new fandom, I either reject it quickly or become consumed again and make a grab for fanfiction… but in the past few years, something in not only me, but in fandoms in general has shifted.

The difference between me now, and me back then is this… I used to uphold the canon as sacred. Untouchable. Set in stone. The only credible source for the media I consume. All of the fanfiction I read was just beautiful window dressing. A lovely past time to further increase my dopamine intake.

This is no longer the case.

Now, when I read and write fanfiction, it’s as if it is an act of protest. I am actively seeking to reform the narrative. It’s to “take back” the story, the characters, EVERYTHING, for myself. To make it anew. To make it perfect. I’m not alone either. I see you. I see all of you. Now more than ever, I see more and more of us doing this exact same thing.

THIS is why I am having an existential crisis. I have just realized that I will no longer be content with the canon. Ever. Even the canon of my favorite media. It’s not enough. It’s no longer enough. It won’t ever be enough again. Why? Because there will always be places where the canon is falliable. The authors of the canon, are falliable. As an author myself, this is at once an alarming yet powerful realization.

I went to college for creative writing. At the beginning of my academic career, I thought of fanfiction as a beautiful fairytale world. It was glorious, but it was other. Separate. Not as credible as canon. Had I read fanfiction better than the media it was based on before I entered college? Absolutely, but in my head it still didn’t matter because the canon was the word. The canon was the law. As a writer, I held the power of the author (and by extension the power of myself) as sacred. By the end of college, that began to change.

The more I was taught about writing, the more I came to realize that sometimes, authors are just straight up WRONG. Sometimes, there’s soooooo much potential… AND THEY JUST FUCK IT UP!!!!!!! The bones are incredible, but the canon is weak, the logic is lacking, the story makes no sense, the characters don’t reach their full potential and you know what? I’m tired. I’m tired of it. This is why fanon is canon’s salvation. Fanon makes canon look pathetic. But… if I accept the fanon as the reality, and make the canon the lie, does that still make it fanon? No. I don’t think it does. I think fanon has become something other. Something greater.

I have become disillusion by “published” or “credible” books. 95% of the novels I actually buy at the store today are garbage. Trash. Half written nonsense that only serves the purpose of paying people. I’m TIRED OF IT. I’ve become disillusioned by the “power” of the author. I have become disillusioned by canon. FUCK canon, quite frankly. Rip it apart. Dissect it. Take out it’s beating heart and transplant it into a new body. Give it the soul that the narrative was begging for. REVIVE IT. LET YOUR OWN IMAGINATION MAKE IT ANEW. Characters mean too much to people. Fiction means too much to people. Stories mean too much to people for anything less. Only then will you or I be satisfied.

Now, even an impromptu, unedited, gibberish essay is not complete without examples. I’ll start with one that you probably thought of while reading this. Game of Thrones. I think that two years ago, the ending of the most influential show of the entire decade, is where my subconscious began to shift in this direction. Now, I doubt my opionions about GoT are the same as yours, but you know what? It DOESN’T MATTER because FANON CAN FIX THE CANON. The stories that meant so much to millions can be fixed by accepting the fact that THE CANON ISN’T THE LAW! IT FUCKED UP!!!! CANON DOESN’T DESERVE TO SPEAK ANYMORE!!!! TAKE BACK THE STORY AND TRANSFORM IT INTO A VERSION TRULY WORTHY OF THE GLORIOUS BONES IT HAS!!!!!

We also can’t ignore the role that monetization plays in the media we consume. Why leave our fiction in the hands of just the big names? Why let money dictate what is real and not real? WHY SETTLE FOR MEDIOCRE STORYTELLING JUST BECAUSE IT WAS SOLD TO YOU AND THEREFORE IT’S “LEGIT CANON”??? FANFICTION IS FREE, AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PIECES OF WRITING I’VE EVER READ WERE WRITTEN BY FANFIC AUTHORS WHO DID IT FOR THE STORY. WHO DID IT FOR THE ART. WHO ACTUALLY DID IT JUSTICE. FUCK THE CONCEPT OF FANON AND CANON. THE STORY WE WANT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. GET MONEY OUT OF HERE.

Ahem. To avoid going on even more of a tangent, I’ll move on and give the example that triggered my existential crisis in the first place. Sailor Moon. To give some background, Sailor Moon is it for me. I have grown up with it. I’ve watched it my entire life. As a child, I ran around with my toy moon rod and desperately wanted to be Usagi. Ironically, I grew up to be quite a bit like her (but with Rei’s temper admittedly). It is my comfort show, my happiness. It makes me laugh, it makes me cry. I never tire of it. It makes my heart swell. I have never, nor will I ever, love any piece of media the way I love Sailor Moon. Flash forward to today, I watched Sailor Moon Eternal, the two new movie adaptations of the Dream arc in the manga (stick with me non-manga and anime lovers). I liked the films, but I was left with a deep, disatisfied yearning. I want back the feeling of complete bliss I experienced while watching the 90’s anime as a child. The problem with this? I’ll never get it back. I’ve just realized this. I’ll NEVER get it back. Why? Because it’s no longer the perfect version of Sailor Moon that it was to my young eyes. Crystal, while good, is also not the perfected version I seek in my adulthood, and Eternal has not scratched my insatiable itch. I am heartbroken because I’ve realized that Sailor Moon in its perfect form doesn’t exist anymore. If I held any canon sacred, it was this. But the story is flawed. The manga is flawed. The anime is flawed. It’s not infallible, as much as it truly, deeply hurts me to admit to the world and to myself. The only perfect version of Sailor Moon is the one in my heart. It’s the one I choose to piece together for myself with the building blocks that others who came before me have handed over.

Another, more recent example of falliable canon is The Grisha Verse. More specifically, the Shadow and Bone trilogy. I was brought in to the fandom by Ben Barnes’ depthless eyes and magnificent scruff. And you know what? I liked the story, but I stayed for Ben Barnes. I liked the Darkling so much that I bought the entire grisha verse books. It was a premature decision. I’ve only made it halfway through Storm and Seige, and you know what? I’m tired of the canon already. It’s not that great. The bones are there, but it could be SO. MUCH. MORE. I haven’t read the crow books yet, and by all accounts Leigh Bardugo has improved tremendously as a writer. Which incidentally proves my point. Authors are falliable. Ergo, the canon is falliable. I can’t help but think while I read these books, “Damn. I could write this better.” and you know what? I’ve read fanfics that HAVE written it better.

Am I saying this to trash Bardugo? Or even GRRM? (Yes I admit to trashing D&D but that’s beside the point ahem…). NO. I am NOT trashing the writers. I’M A WRITER. I GET IT. YOUR STORY IS YOUR BABY. I G E T I T . But I’ve realized, and what I think future authors will also have to realize, is that fiction doesn’t belong to anyone. As soon as it’s out the door, the fiction no longer belongs to the author. It belongs to us. The people. That’s what is beautiful about fanfiction. It’s not here for the money. It’s not here for the clout. It’s here for the fiction itself. Plain and simple. It belongs to no one and everyone.

In the past, I would have fought this. I would have wanted my work’s canon to be law. To be the word, the truth, the way etc. Now? I can’t be a hypocrite. I can’t be selfish. It isn’t about the author. It’s about the vision. It’s about the story, the narrative, the characters. It’s about art. And sometimes, the authors give birth to the idea (and they deserve credit for that without a doubt), but it’s also true that sometimes, someone else just writes it better. Someone else quite simply saw the vision, the story, the characters, more clearly than the author did. I make this vow now, as an author, to strive for the vision. If someone takes my vision and does it better than me, that only improves my perspective of my own story. It improves the world of fiction as a whole. It makes me better.

So, canon? Fuck the canon. Take back the story. Take back the characters. Take back the art. Fiction is ours. It belongs to us, and we can do with it what we please. Let’s strive for OUR OWN perfected version of the media we love. Canon doesn’t truly exist. The concept of Fanon doesn’t even exist anymore in the way we used to think of it. The author’s version of events is their own Fanon of the story. Canon is meaningless now. There is only the story that you accept in your own mind. There is only the story that I accept in my own mind, no matter how different it is from yours. There is only the art. There is only the limitless potential of countless people’s imaginations. Let’s continue to collaborate and celebrate beautiful stories together, in any conceivable way, over and over and over again, until the end of time.

Fin

[cynical-amphisbaenia]

hello! this is going to be kind of long, so i apologize in advance! i’ve been trying to find my class & aspect for years now since i got into homestuck. for reference, i’m an enfp & an enneagram 6w7 (tritype 6-4-1/6-4-9, can’t decide which one fits me more). i’m also a gemini sun, cancer moon, & gemini rising. while i’m not the biggest fan of harry potter my hogwarts house is ravenclaw.

a bit about me:

i’ve never understood the dichotomy of “science versus art” because in my opinion both are so deeply intertwined and both are a huge part of my life! i enjoy both the sciences (specifically biology, ornithology, and natural sciences) and the humanities (history, art, literature culture, etc) i love gathering information, learning new things, and sharing it with others. since i was a kid i enjoyed classifying animals (specifically birds), plants, and to this day i consider myself a hobbyist bird watcher.

some of my other interests are tolkien (lotr, the silmarillion, & the hobbit, as well as tolkien lore in general), star wars, jojo’s bizarre adventure, the MCU, demon slayer, theatre, stufio ghibli, pokémon, and fashion history/design history. whenever i get into a piece of media that i care about, i want to learn as much about it as i can! in the past as a kid i would get super obsessive about my newest interest. i also love to draw, sew, paint, cosplay, write, dabble in animating, study art history movements, train my pet parrot, and just be creative in general. i also did martial arts and theatre in middle school and high school. i guess you could describe me as a generalist or a jack of-all-trades? i want to know everything there is to know about things i’m interested in. and i’m always working on side projects, creating stuff, and just putting my ideas into action.

because of my vast amount of interests i’m able to easily relate to other people and form acquaintances and friends but i only have a few very deep, very close friendships. like, i’m very social and make friends easily but while i have a big circle of people i know there’s like >5 people who i consider to be my best friends.

despite being outgoing and extroverted i am also a very analytical and inquisitive person. researching, overthinking, and overanalyzing is my jam. i’m not afraid to confront harsh realities and discuss solutions to social issues, how to make a project more efficient, or doing copious amounts of research when writing essays/reports. people who are just meeting me perceive as being a friendly, fun, extroverted person and nothing more, but there’s more than what meets the eye. people who know me better know that i love to pick apart huge concepts like ethics, philosophy, etc. and tend think about “the big picture.” while having a type B personality i’m a high-achieving student with clear set goals for my future. if i care about a topic i’ll write an essay about it for fun XD

Looking back, a “character arc” i’ve gone through in the past is developing maturity. i was kind of a late bloomer in middle school and high school so it took me a while to start really “acting my age.” it might be due to undiagnosed ADHD (considering getting tested for it) but it took me a bit longer than my peers to “grow up,” if that makes any sense. i had to learn to become more open to change and realize that growing and changing is good and important.

so i guess the reason why i’ve struggled to find my aspect is that i see myself equally creative and equally analytical. i enjoy creating things as much as i enjoy learning new things, & i would consider myself as both a creative and a scholar.

i have no idea what aspect i could be. maybe light or space? but it might be something else entirely. XD

as for classes i haven’t the foggiest either. i’ve juggled around sylph, seer, and even knight at one point in the past but i still don’t know lol.

as for blood color, bc of my zodiac i’m a goldblood, but i’m curious what alternative hemotype i’d get based on my personality!

lastly, i have no idea what my lunar sway is bc i have gotten both derse and prospit different times in quizzes.

again, apologize for the length of this message. thank you so much! :) 🤍🤍🤍

Your most likely classpect appears to be a Seer of Space - your class reflects your desire for knowledge and researching, whereas your aspect covers your creativity, focus on the big picture and the main sciences you enjoy also fit into it (especially as it relates to nature). Overall you appear to be searching to know and understand Space. In some ways your focus on knowledge does suit Light and your focus on interests suits Heart, but as these easily fall under Space they are less likely.

If you think your aspect is Light instead, you may want to consider Heir rather than Seer - it would better describe how it surrounds you and why your interaction with it may make it seem like another aspect at times. However, considering that you do consider Space as a possible aspect for yourself you probably don't need to consider this. Feel free to ask me questions about it if you are uncertain though.

As for blood colour, you haven't given me enough information based on what I use to determine it to be certain. However, considering enneagram can reflect your desires I'll make some suggestions based on that: Bronze (craves support and safety), Olive (values familiarity and others) and Indigo (suits the inward energy of 6 and outward energy of 7).

You could be a dual dreamer, but it's also likely that your class or aspect is skewing it. Based on what you've stated here, it's likely class is affecting it and you are a Prospit dreamer. Asides from a couple of things like being analytical, you do consistently suit Prospit and even how you act as a Seer mirrors a Prospit Seer rather than a Derse Seer.

[dreamcatcherfication]

Caught in a Lie

I know this fic was meant to be angsty, but I didn’t mean for it to get this angsty.

Hello and welcome! Today’s fic is based off a request you can find here, or you can just read on and be surprised. I realized that I write most of my Cathy/Kat interactions as them fighting or being really emotional, so please ignore me reusing that dynamic. I didn’t really get to edit this, so please ignore any incoherency, I’ll try to go back soon and fix everything. I don’t have much else to say except watch out for the trigger warnings this time around and please enjoy the fic! Sorry for any spelling/grammatical errors, my nuerological processing unit is broken. 

Writing Masterpost

If you want to send a request or a prompt, my inbox is always open! I publish a story at 8:00 AM PST everyday, so I’m always in need of new ideas. If you want to be tagged in my works, just let me know and I’ll be sure to tag you!

Prompts | More Prompts | The Trifecta of Prompts | Original Prompts

Trigger Warnings: Blunt talk of sexual abuse, mentions of sexual abuse, mentions of assisting sexual abuse, just a lot of talk about sexual abuse

Ever since starting their show and appearing in public, the queens had become used to historians’ obsessions with them. Most wanted to know how they came back and if there would be others. A good amount were more interested in the truth of what happened during their first lives. But a few of them were intent on tearing the queens apart. Many historians were confused as to why the queens got along, and they didn’t like it. How could it make sense that the six widows of the same man would become their own family?

For almost a year now, Cathy Parr had been keeping a secret from her predecessor. It wasn’t meant to be anything notable, simply an action she was taking to ensure Kat’s safety. The same historians who picked and prodded for any piece of information they could get would come after the survivor for her knowledge. How did she get along so well with Kat when she allowed Elizabeth to be sexually abused? How did the queens think so highly of her when she was anything but perfect? Why did Kat act the way she did around the other queens?

They weren’t questions Cathy should be answering, but she also didn’t want the historians to move on and start asking Kat. So she answered the questions as vaguely as possible while also making sure Kat learned nothing about what was going on. The teen wouldn’t be able to handle it, Cathy knew, so she made her decision to keep things a secret. 

That’s how things went for a long time, and there was nothing remarkable about it. Cathy lied to Kat to keep her safe, and Kat went about living her life. The world was in a perfect balance, and each queen was living her life the best she could.

But these things were not built to last, and it was Kat who would learn that the hard way. She hadn’t been expecting it, much less prepared for it, but there was nothing she could do to stop it. It started with a message on her social media that attracted her attention. Kat should’ve known to ignore it, but she couldn’t help her curiosity as to why someone was messaging her what looked like an entire essay.

Skimming the essay, Kat missed some of the padding from the person who wrote it - a historian, Kat deduced - and skipped right to the point of their message. We’ve been talking with Katheryn Parr, Kat noticed how they used the old spelling of her name, about your past with sexual abusers. Kat’s breath hitched, but she moved forward, ignoring the pit of dread settling in her stomach. 

It seemed so implausible that you two could hold a strong relationship after her marriage with Thomas Seymour and assistance with his abuse of Queen Elizabeth. It’s even stranger her friendship with Anne Boleyn, but both of them have confirmed that the past has been resolved. Kat adjusted her grip on her phone and kept scrolling. Miss Parr has told us multiple times that you know about the questions we ask her, but you do not wish to speak with us. I don’t quite believe a woman like her, so I’m reaching out to you directly so that you, Miss Howard, are fully informed on the events going down. Katheryn Parr is claiming that you are uncomfortable speaking to us about your past, but I would like to fact check that with you Miss Howard. Please respond to me -

The message went on, but Kat had lost interest in what the historian had to say. Cathy had been talking to historians about her? Kat hadn’t heard anything from Cathy… “It’s probably just a misunderstanding,” Kat mumbled to herself, tucking her phone in her pocket. She’d go clear it up right then with Cathy, who was in the room next to hers.

Walking to Cathy’s door, Kat prepared her words. She wasn’t going to believe a historian over her friend, but she wouldn’t let herself be surprised by anything. Slowly pushing the door open, Kat peeked her head inside. Cathy was on her bed, sorting through a mess of papers. “Hello Kat,” she greeted amiably and returned to her sorting.

“Can I talk to you about something?” Kat started, making her way inside the room.

“Sure,” Cathy shrugged. She took a break in sorting her papers and looked up. “What’s the problem?”

Sitting down on the bed, Kat made eye contact with Cathy, watching her. “A historian messaged me on Instagram today.”

Cathy groaned, “That’s a tactic they haven’t tried before.”

“Yeah,” Kat muttered. “They were saying a lot of weird stuff. That you were speaking in my place during interviews and saying that I didn’t want to talk about my past. Weird, right?” Kat asked hopefully. She saw the hesitation in Cathy’s eyes and her heart dropped. “Right?”

Opening her mouth, Cathy sat silently for a couple seconds. “Kat - I.” She went silent again. “It was for your own good.” She reached her hand out, but Kat pulled back.

“What do you mean, ‘for my own good?’” Kat scrunched her nose.

Taking the hint, Cathy leaned away from Kat. “They were asking invasive questions. How could you stand being around me after… what happened in your childhood,” the writer explained.

“I was sexually abused,” Kat stated bluntly, “You can say it out loud.”

Cathy awkwardly laughed without humor. “I know, I just thought you would prefer -”

“I don’t,” Kat stood up. “Our show is about telling our stories, if I didn’t want to tell it, I wouldn’t be on stage every night. Please don’t make decisions for me Cathy.”

Looking down, Cathy sighed. “It’s for the best Kat. They weren’t nice people, they would’ve hurt you.”

“Then they would’ve hurt me,” Kat shot back defiantly. “It’s not up to you to decide whether or not I face these people. I’ve been hurt before, and I’m still here.”

Still, there was a cloudiness in Cathy’s eyes that told Kat she simply didn’t believe her. “I know you’re strong, I do Kat, but you have to understand I was only doing it to make things easier for you.”

Holding herself back from stomping her foot, Kat felt her nostrils flair. “Nothing is ever easy for me. But you know what Cathy? I learned to live with it. So don’t control my life just because you think it’s the right thing to do.”

“I’m only -” “No.” Kat turned away from Cathy. “You’ve been lying to me. I believed you over that historian, but it turns out they were right.”

Letting her eyes drop, Cathy murmured, “I wanted to help you.”

Spinning around, Kat glared at Cathy. “You help me by talking to me, not by lying to me.”

Kat waited, her eyes boring into Cathy’s skull until the other queen looked up and their eyes connected. There was hurt in Cathy’s eyes, but she was trying to hide it. Kat couldn’t find any pity in herself for her fellow queen. “I’m sorry Kat. I won’t do it again.”

“You won’t be coming anywhere near my life any time soon,” Kat spit, turning heel.

“What?” Cathy jumped out of her bed and followed Kat to the door.

Stepping into the hallway, Kat faced Cathy one last time. “You’ve been lying to me long enough. I’m not giving you the opportunity to do that again.” She was about to leave before pausing, eyes settling on Cathy’s face, growing more pale by the second. “And for the record, I would have told them it was because I trusted you.” 

With that, Kat was gone, out of the hallway and disappearing to her own room. Frozen in her doorway, Cathy’s hands slowly fell to her side. She wanted to give Kat another apology, but it wouldn’t come out of her mouth. She should’ve seen it from the start. She was just trying to help her friend. And now she had ruined everything.

Pacing in her room, Kat had to dig her fingernails in her palms in order to restrain her urge to lash out. It wasn’t common for her to get angry, but this was an exception. Kat hated being coddled, treated like a little kid. She was more than that, and she could handle herself.

Stopping her pacing, Kat’s gaze drifted to her phone, still lying on her bedside table. Approaching it, Kat picked up the dark screen and turned it on. Going back to her social media, she reread the message. It only made the rage in her chest burn brighter, a reminder that some random historian was more honest with her than one of her closest friends.

In a moment of anger, Kat pulled up a note and started furiously typing.

For years I have had to live with what people have done to be. I was sexually abused as a child and people like to avoid talking about it. They use filler words, thinking it will make me feel better. It doesn’t. It only makes you feel better. I experienced it, I lived it, and a few pretty words aren’t going to protect me.

I learned recently that people have been trying to reach out to me in order to understand my feelings on what happened. Obviously I don’t like talking about my abuse, but it’s still a reality I lived through. Historians had been blocked from reaching me by Catherine Parr, who took it upon herself to protect me.

I have been lied to for longer than I know, and it’s because of Catherine Parr. She thought that she could make decisions for me and that I would be okay with it. Out of the goodness of her heart, she betrayed my trust and completely ignored the point of our show. I tell my story every night on stage. But when someone wants to approach me personally, she believes it’s her duty to make sure I won’t get hurt. Catherine? I’ve already been hurt. You can’t do anything to change that, so stop acting like you’re allowed to be the angel who saved me from everything bad. You’re not. You’re a liar.

Everyone knows about what happened with Thomas Seymour and Elizabeth. You watched on silently as he sexually abused her. And despite all the pain that came with confronting that, Anne and I forgave you. I would think you learned that this isn’t your story to tell. You did nothing then, and you think doing something now will make up for it. It won’t, and I don’t want it to. I wanted to move on from everything, but clearly you aren’t ready.

So fine. If that’s how it’ll be, then fine. Catherine Parr, I don’t want to see you or hear from you. If any interviewer wants to talk to me, they come to me and not Catherine Parr. She holds no say in my life, and I’d like to keep it that way. Because Catherine Parr is a liar. And I’m sick of people lying to me.

Setting her phone down, Kat let out a sigh of relief. She didn’t intend on publishing the rant, but she needed to get it out. Her words were harsh and came from somewhere deep within her, but she didn’t want anyone to see them. She was going to keep playing the role of the charming girl with the bad past, not the young woman who was done with being coddled.

Collapsing onto the bed, Kat closed her eyes. She was about to let the tension leave her body when a short smacking sound caught her attention. Sitting up, Kat looked around until she spotted her phone on the floor. Picking it up, Kat went to turn it off when she noticed a small mark on the corner of her note. Posted, it read in small italics.

Hands starting to shake, Kat dropped her phone on the bed. What had she done? What had she done? The post was online, and people were going to see it. No one was meant to see it, but now it would be online forever. Even if she figured out how to delete the post, people were probably taking screenshots the second it appeared.

Curling into a ball, Kat hid her face. This was a mistake, a big, big mistake that was going to cause so many problems. If Cathy had lost her trust, then all the queens would lose trust in Kat. In one moment, Kat had managed to tear them apart unknowingly.

On cue there was a shout from the queens’ living room. “Katherine Howard, explain this right now!”

Gulping, Kat glanced down at her phone. Kat closed her eyes, and for the first time in 500 years, she prayed.

---------------------------------------------

Tag List:

@radcowboyalmondtree @boleynhowards @annabanana2401 @babeebobo @dont-lose-your-queerhead @everything-insanity @mindless-pidgeon @i-wanna-dance-and-sing-six @thenicestnonbinary @its-totes-gods-will @thatbolxyngirl @thenameisnoone @sixqueendom @frogs-in-clogs @timetoriseabove

[amphtaminedreams]

J.K Rowling & The Echo Chamber of TERFs: Why Nobody Wants your Transphobic “Opinion”

TW// Discussion of Sexual Assault and Transphobia

SO...

I’ve seen the term “allyship fatigue” going round a lot lately on Twitter, since the issues of police brutality, institutional racism, and now transphobia have taken central stage.

And it’s weird. To be honest, hearing other white cis people calling themselves “allies” has always sounded kinda self-congratulatory. Taking this to the level of martyrdom that the phrase “allyship fatigue” evokes makes me want to heave. It’s shit that anyone even has to be saying Black Lives STILL Matter, but it does seem to unfortunately be the case that every time there is a highly publicised murder of a black individual by police, the explosion of us white people calling ourselves allies and retweeting and reblogging statements of solidarity only lasts so long before half revert back to being complacent with and uncritical of a world seeped with casual racism. Is that what “allyship fatigue” is? The excuse for that? Not only does the term take the focus off of the marginalised group the movement is centred around but it makes supporting equal rights sound like some kind of heroic burden we’ve chosen to take on rather than addressing a debt we owe and being not even good but just plain decent human beings. WE are not the ones shouldering the weight here, and if your mental health is suffering, that is not the fault of the people asking for their rights. Log off. We have the privilege to do that. It just doesn’t need to be a spectacle.

At the same time, this public onslaught of ignorance and hatred that the coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement has triggered (that let me again emphasise, black people have had to involuntarily be on the receiving end of their whole lives) and the frustration and anger that comes from seeing these absolute trash takes from people with no research into the subject who build their argument purely on “what about”isms is do-I-even-want-to-bring-children-into-this-fucking-world levels of miserable. In terms of earth beginning to look more and more like the prequel describing the events which lead up to a dystopian novel, the chaos of the last 4 weeks or so (2020 has not only shattered the illusion of time but also danced on the shards, I know) is the tip of the iceberg. I saw a thread about what’s going on in Yemen at the moment, which I had no idea about, and immediately felt consumed by guilt that I didn’t know. With the advent of social media, there’s been this sudden evolutionary shift where we’re almost required and expected to know about, have an opinion on, and be empathetic with every humanitarian crisis at once. I think young people feel this especially, which is why I say that sometimes it’s worth talking to an older person before you brush them off as a racist or a homophobe and see if they’re open to hearing different opinions-in general, I think we’re a generation that is used to being expected to consume a huge amount of information at once. They are not. For a lot (NOT all) of the older, middle-class, white population, ignorance isn’t a conscious choice, it is the natural way of life. The parameters of empathy until very recently have only had to extend just past your closest circle of friends to encompass people you “relate to”. That doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of caring about other things, and sometimes we owe them a chance to change their perspective first, if for no reason other than to advance the cause of, well, basic human rights for all.

So where does J.K Rowling come into all this? I hear you ask. Why doesn’t she just stop rambling? You potentially wonder. Well, I’m getting to it. 

J.K Rowling isn’t an unconsciously ignorant people. She is what I would call consciously ignorant. And of all weeks to flaunt this ignorance, she chose a time when people are already drowning in a cesspit of hatred. The woman whose whole book series supposedly revolves around the battle between good and evil didn’t even try to drain the swamp. She instead added a bucket of her transphobic vitriol into it. 

Let me preface this by saying that I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the Sun. What they did with the statement she made regarding her previous abusive relationship, seeking out said abusive partner for an interview and putting it on the front page with the headline “I slapped J.K”, whilst expected from the bunch of cretinous bottom feeders who work there, is disgusting. That being said, the pattern of behaviour J.K Rowling has exhibited since she first became an online presence is equally disgusting, and just because the Sun have been their usual shithead selves, doesn’t mean we should forget the issue at hand, that issue being her ongoing transphobia and erasure of trans women from women’s rights.

As I’m sure is the case for many people on Tumblr, J.K Rowling has always been such a huge inspiration for me, and Harry Potter was my entire childhood. My obsession with it continued until I was at least 16 and is what got me through the very shit years of being a teenager, and that will forever be the case. I’m not here to discuss the whole separation of the art from the artist thing because whilst I ordinarily don’t think that’s really possible, at this point the “Harry Potter universe” has become much bigger than J.K herself. I was so pleased to see Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint all affirm their support for trans rights-I was raised on the films up until the 4th one which I wasn’t old enough to see at the cinema, and the DVD was at the top of my Christmas list. They were always my Harry, Hermione and Ron. It was only between the fourth and fifth films that I started to read the books to fill that gaping in-between-movies hole, but as I grew up, I read them over and over and over again. Any of the subtext that people are talking about now in light of her antisemitism and transphobia went completely over my head, though who knows, whilst I can sit here and write that I’m certain I didn’t, maybe I did pick up some unconscious biases along the way? The art/artist discussion is a complex one and I don’t know if I’ll ever read the books again at this point.

There was absolutely no subtext, however, in the “think piece” on J.K’s website addressing the response to her transphobic tweets. There wasn’t all that much to unpack in the first tirade, they were quite openly dismissive-first that womanhood is defined by whether or not one experiences menstruation (I currently don’t due to health issues but I’m betting this wouldn’t make me any less woman in her eyes), and second, regurgitating an article which furthers the fallacy that trans women simply existing erases the existence of cisgender lesbian women. Rowling’s initial response to the backlash was to blame it on a glass of red wine, I think? Which is such a weird go-to excuse for celebrities because not once have I ever got drunk and completely changed my belief system. If you’re not transphobic sober, you don’t suddenly become transphobic drunk. What you are saying is that you’re not usually publicly transphobic (which isn’t even the case with Rowling because this is hardly her first flirtation with bigotry via social media) but that whoopsies! You drank some wine and suddenly thought it was acceptable!

Now what is her excuse for the formal response she wrote to the backlash, dripping with transphobic dog whistles and straight up misinformation (UPDATE: and as of yesterday, blocking Stephen King quite literally for replying to her with the tweet “trans women are women”, in case you thought that this whole thing was a case of her intentions being misconstrued)? Drunk tweets are one thing but if she managed to write a whole fucking essay whilst pissed I imagine there’s a lot of university students out there who’d pay her good money to learn that skill.

Here is the bottom line. TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN. There is no discussion around that. And if you don’t understand why, at the very least, you can be respectful of the way a person chooses to identify, especially when that person is an already targeted minority.

Obviously, sex and gender are complex things. Based on the fact that we don’t walk around with our nether-regions out, we generally navigate our way through the world using our gender and the way we present our gender. Gender of course means many different things to many different people; some see it as a sliding scale kind of thing whereas some people can’t see themselves on the scale at all, and choose to use terms other than man or woman to express how they identify. But, whatever gender one chooses to identify as, we live in a modern world-with all the scientific advancements we’ve made and all that we now know about the brain, using what is between people’s legs to define them is an ignorant, outdated copout. You’ll find that a lot of transphobes can live in harmony with trans women who conform, who have classically feminine features, maybe facial feminisation surgery, trans women who keep quiet about how they’re seen by cis women and don’t kick up “too much of a fuss” (which is in itself still a perfectly valid, brave and understandable way to live your life after years of feeling like you don’t fit in btw). The trans women that Joanne and her friends take the most issue with is the ones who want to expand what womanhood means and stretch the boundaries of what is and isn’t acceptable, destroying the confines of simplistic model that TERFs feel comfortable operating within. The ones who fight to be recognised as no “lesser” than cis women. Calling a person a TERF is quite literally just asserting that they are someone who wants to exclude trans women from their definition of womanhood, or in other words wants to cling to the old, obsolete model. If J.K Rowling cannot let the statement “trans women are women” go unchallenged (which we’ve seen from her response to Stephen King’s tweet she cannot), then she is by definition a TERF. It’s not a slur. It’s a descriptor indicating the movement she has chosen to associate herself with. Associating the descriptor of the position you so vehemently refuse to denounce in spite of all evidence and information offered to you with the concept of a “witch hunt” when trans women are ACTUALLY brutally murdered for an innate part of their identity is insulting, at the very least.

Let’s get this straight: despite transphobes trying to conflate sex with gender and arguing that sex is the only “real” identifier of the two, our existence on this planet and our perception of this world is a gendered experience. It is our brain, where the majority of researchers agree that gender lies, which decides and dictates not only who we are and how we feel but also how we interact with everyone around us. I don’t think it’s an outlandish statement to say that when it comes to who we are as people, that flesh machine protected by our skull is the key player.  PSA for transphobes everywhere: when people say penises have a mind of their own, they are NOT talking literally. The more you know. 

Gender is obviously a much newer concept than sex-it is both influenced by and interacts with every element of our lives. It’s also much more complex, in that there are still many gaps in our understanding. I assume these two factors combined with the familiarity of the (usually) binary model of biological sex are a part of why TERFS fundamentally reject the importance of gender in favour of the latter. Yes, most of the time, we feel our gender corresponds with our sex, but not always, and nor is there any concrete proof that this has to be the case. Most studies tend to agree that our brains start out as blank slates, that we grow into the gender we are assigned based on our bodies. In other words, our sex only defines our gender insofar as the historical assumption that they are the same thing, which in turn exposes us to certain cultural expectations. To any TERFs that have somehow ended up here-if you haven’t already, I suggest looking into the research of Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist whom has spent a large portion of her professional career analysing the data of sex differences in the brain. Whilst she originally set out to find some kind of consistent variance between the brains of the 2 prominent sexes to back up the idea that the brains of men and women are inherently different, she found nothing of significance-individual differences, yes, but no consistent similarities in the brains of one sex that were not present in the other. Once differences in brain size were accounted for, “well-known” sex differences in key structures disappeared-in terms of proportion, these structures take up the same amount of space in the brain regardless of sex. Her findings are best summed up by her response to the question: are there any significant differences in the brain based on sex alone? Her answer is no. To suggest otherwise is “neurofoolishness”. Not only does her research help put to bed the myth that our brains are sexed along with the rest of our bodies during development (this is now believed to happen separately, meaning the sex of our bodies and brains may not correspond), but also the idea propagated by the patriarchy for centuries that basically boils down to “boys will be boys”-a myth used to condone male sexual violence against women and even against each other on the basis that it is inherent and “can't be helped”. That they are just “built differently”. Maybe at one point in human evolution, men were conditioned to fight and women were conditioned to protect, but whilst the idea remains and continues to affect our societal structures (and thus said cultural expectations), we’ve moved on. I mean we evolved from fish for fuck’s sake but you don’t see us breathing underwater. 

Gender identity is based on many things and admittedly we don’t fully have the complete picture yet. The effects that socialisation and gender norms in particular, as much as we don’t want them to exist, have on our brain are huge; there’s evidence that they can leave epigenetic marks, or in other words cause structural changes in the brain which drive biological functions and features as diverse as memory, development and disease susceptibility. Socialisation alters the way our individual brains develop as we grow up, and as much as I’d love to see gender norms disappear, they’ll probably be around for a long time to come, as will their ramifications. The gap between explaining how socialisation affects the brain of cisgender individuals compared to the brains of transgender or non-binary individuals is not yet totally clear, but as with every supposed cause and effect psychology tries to uncover, there are outliers and individual differences. No, brains are not inherently male or female at birth but they are all different, and can be affected by socialisation differently. In one particularly groundbreaking study conducted by Dick Swaab of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, postmortems of the brains of transgender women revealed that the structure of one of the areas in the brain most important to sexual behaviour more closely resembled the postmortem brains of cisgender women than those of cisgender men-it’s also important that these differences did not appear to be attributable to the influence of endogenous sex hormone fluctuations or hormone treatment in adulthood.

Maybe dysphoria is something that evolves organically and environmental factors don’t even come into it. Like I said, we don’t have the whole picture. What we DO know is that for some people, as soon as they become self-aware, that dysphoria is there, and the evidence for THAT, for there being common variations between the brains of cisgender individuals and transgender individuals, is overwhelming. You can be trapped in a body that does not correspond with how your brain functions, or how you wish to see yourself. Do individuals like J.K Rowling really believe it is ethical to reinforce the idea that we are defined by our sex and that our sex should decide the course of our lives, should decide how we are treated? That we should reduce people to genitals and chromosomes when our gender, the lens through which we see and interact with the world, could be completely different? Do they not see anything wrong with perpetuating the feelings of “otherness” and dysphoria in trans individuals that results from society’s refusal to see them as anything more than what body parts they have? In a collaboration between UCLA MA neuroscience student Jonathan Vanhoecke and Ivanka Savic at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, the statistics collected pointed to what trans activists have always been trying to get at-the areas of the brain responsible for our sense of our identity showed far more neural activity in the brains of trans individuals when they were looking at depictions of their body that had been changed to match their gender identity than when this wasn’t the case; when they saw themselves with a body that corresponded with their gender identity, when they were “valid” by society’s definition, they felt more themselves. When J.K Rowling tells trans people that their “real identity” is the sex they were born with, she is denying them this right to be themselves and due to her large platform, encouraging others to do the same. YOU are doing that, J.K. And who knows why? Where does your transphobia come from? Peel back the bullshit layers of waffle about feeling silenced and threatened, which you know you are directing at the wrong group of people, and admit it’s for less noble reasons. Taking the time to unlearn the instinct embedded into your generation to see people according to the cultural status quo of biological determinism is effort, I know-but you wrote a 700+ page book. I’m sure you can manage it. Or is it an ego thing? You don’t want to admit that you may have been uneducated on gender and sex in the past, and now have to stick by your reductive position so your image as an “intellectual” isn’t compromised. I don’t know. Only you do. But your position is irresponsible and dangerous either way. You can make up bullshit reasons as to why the link between trans individuals and the incidence of suicide attempts and completions isn’t relevant or representative of the struggle that trans people face due to the hatred that people like you propagate but it is there, and you J.K Rowling, someone who has spoken in the past about the horror of depression, should know better. You should know better than to CLAIM you know better than the experienced researchers who have found the same pattern time and time again-that the likelihood of trans individuals committing suicide is significantly higher than that of cis people. 

No, Rowling’s transphobia has never been as upfront as saying “I don’t believe transgender people exist” but she continues to imply that when she makes claims such as womanhood being defined by whether or not one experiences menstruation, and the completely subjective concept of whether an individual has faced sex-based violence from cisgender men. I’m sure she’d be out here taking chromosome proof cards like Oysters if it wasn’t for intersex individuals throwing her whole binary jam into a tailspin. Yep, there’s even suggestions that the binary biological model might not be so binary these days-just because two people have, say, XY chromosomes, does not mean that these chromosomes are genetically identical between individuals-the genes they carry can, and do, vary and so their actions and expressions of sex vary. 

Ideally, what TERFs want to do with their language of “real womanhood” is create an exclusive club that trans women are left out of when they too suffer under the same patriarchal society that those who are born female do. Yes, they might not experience ALL the issues a person born with female genitalia do, but no two women’s life experiences are the same anyway. Trans women also have their own horrible experiences with the patriarchy, and are often victims of a specific kind of gendered violence that is purported by the idea of “real womanhood”. Don’t throw trans sisters under the bus because you’re angry about your experience as a woman on this planet-direct your anger at the fucking bus. Don’t claim that “many trans people regret their decision to transition” when the statistics overwhelmingly show that this is the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE of the truth (according to British charity organisation Mermaids, surgical regret is proportionately very low amongst gender affirmation outpatients and research suggesting otherwise has been broadly disproven) because you’ve spoken to a selective group of trans individuals probably handpicked by the TERFS you associate with to confirm their biases, and then have the nerve to claim that trans-activists live in echo chambers on top of that. Don’t use anecdotes and one-off incidences where “trans women” (I say trans women in quotation marks because we’re pretty much talking about a completely statistically insignificant group of perverted cis men who have, according to TERFs, somehow come to the conclusion that going through transition will make their already easy-to-get-away-with hobby of assaulting women even...easier to get away with?) have committed sexual crimes to demonise and paint as predatory group who are largely at risk and in 99.9% of situations, the ones being preyed on. It’s a point so disgusting that trans activists shouldn’t even have to respond to it, but the idea that an individual would go to the pains of legally changing their gender and potentially the hell of the harassment that trans people face, the multiple year long NHS waiting lists to see specialist doctors,  just so that they can gain access to women only spaces is ridiculous. It’s worth noting here just how sinister you repeatedly bringing up this phantom threat of cis men becoming trans women in order to assault women in “women only” spaces is. The implication here is that they should use the toilet corresponding to the sex they were born as, right? Because it’s all about safety? Well, statistically speaking, far more trans women are abused whilst having to use men’s toilets than when they use women’s ones and the same goes for trans men, and yet you don’t mention it once. Your suggestion also puts people born female who identify as women but maybe do not dress or present in a typically feminine way at risk of being ostracised when THEY need to use the women’s bathroom. The idea that by ceasing to uphold values like yours we are putting women at risk is quite simply, unsubstantiated; the legislation to allow individuals to use the bathroom corresponding to whichever gender they legally identify as has been around since 2010 in the UK and yet we’ve yet to see the sudden spike in the number of women being assaulted in bathrooms you imply will exist if we create looser rules around gender identity and let people use whichever toilet they feel the need to. Similarly, in a study of US school districts, Media Matters found that 17 around the country with protections for trans people, which collectively cover more than 600,000 students, had no problems with harassment in bathrooms or locker rooms after implementing their policies. If cis men want to assault women, they will. They don’t need to pretend to be trans to do so. Don’t pretend to be speaking as a concerned ally of LGBTQ+ individuals when you’re ignoring the thoughts of the majority of individuals who come under that category.

(Just Some of the Trans Women Murdered for Being Trans Over the Last Couple of Years, L-R: Serena Valzquez, Riah Milton, Bee Love Slater, Naomi Hersi, Layla Pelaez, and Dominique Fells)

Trans women are not the threat here. Bigots like you are the threat. HOW DARE you use your platform to reinforce this rhetoric that gets trans people killed when there are so many much MUCH more important things going on right now. Two black trans women had been murdered just for being black trans women in the week you wrote your essay defending those initial tweets. This is an ongoing issue. As a cis woman, my opinion should read as sacred texts to you right, Joanne? Because I’ll say with my whole chest that I feel far more threatened by bigots like you who do not care for the harmful impact of their words than I do by trans women. I do not feel threatened by trans women AT ALL. And yeah, to me, unless they tell me otherwise that they like to go out their way to affirm their trans-ness (which I completely respect-it takes a lot of courage to be proud about your past in a world that condemns you for it), they’re just WOMEN like any other. Yes their experience of “womanhood” may be different to mine but no two individuals experiences are the same anyway and our gender related suffering has the same cause. As a rich, white, cis woman, it’s wild that you are painting yourself as the victim in this debate when trans people can face life in prison and in some places a death sentence for openly identifying with a gender different to their sex in a lot of countries. Nobody is saying that you can’t talk about cis women. Nobody is saying you can’t talk about lesbian issues either, though it’s a bit of a piss-take that you like to throw that whole trans women erase lesbian existence argument out there as a kind of trump card to say “look, I can’t be a transphobe, I’m an LGBTQ+ ally!”, an argument akin to the racist’s age old “I can’t be racist, I have black friends!”. You know from the responses you get to your transphobia that majority of the LGBTQ+ community are very much adamant that trans women are “real women” and that the same goes for trans men being “real men”, so don’t claim to speak for them. You cannot simultaneously care about LGBTQ+ rights and deny trans people their right to live as who they are, however veiled your sentiments around that may be. The whole gay rights movement of the 60s and 70s exist partially BECAUSE of black trans women such as Martha P Johnson if you didn’t know, and though it’s kinda common knowledge I’m doubting that you do because very little of what you tout is backed up by any kind of research. The articles you retweet, echoing the views of lesbians who also happen to be TERFs do not count-the idea that trans people existing simultaneously erases the existence of lesbians only applies to individuals such as yourself who don’t see trans women as women in the first place. That is the problem! Most people don’t have an issue with the fact that you may have a preference for certain genitalia, but I would argue that ignoring exceptional circumstances related to trauma or some other complex issue, relationships are supposed to be with the person as a whole, not their “organic” penis or vagina and it’s kind of insulting to anyone in a same sex relationship to reduce their bond to that.

Back to my point though, of course there are issues that cis women and lesbians face that need talking about, but trans people are affected by the same patriarchal system. You don’t need to go out of your way to mention that they’re not included in whichever given specific issue when there are also cis women who may not have experienced some of the things TERFs reference. You especially don’t need to act as if trans women are the reason we need to have these discussions in the first place. As I’ve said, as MANY women have said, repeatedly-they are NOT the threat here. It is disgusting to see someone I once had so much admiration for constantly punch down at a group that is already marginalised.  It’s 2020, J.K, there’s so much info out there. YOU’RE A FULLY GROWN WOMAN. There’s no justification. We get it, you had a tomboy phase. You weren’t like “other girls”. You didn’t like living under a patriarchal system. So you think you understand the mindset of people who want to transition. You think you’re not doing anything wrong by helping to slow the advancement of trans rights because well, you turned out fine? But you clearly fundamentally misunderstand what being trans is. It’s not about your likes and dislikes and having issues with the experience of being a woman (god knows we all do but I doubt anyone truly thinks for one moment that being trans would be any easier), it’s about how you think and feel at your core. It’s such a complex issue, and all the majority of trans people are asking you to do is LISTEN to them. You may be determined to live in binaries, yet the bigger picture is always more complex and fluid and it’s ever-changing, so all we can do is keep an open mind and keep wanting to know more and gather more evidence. If you’re capable of the mental gymnastics required to retcon the piece of work you wrote in the 90s to make it seem as if you were “ahead of the diversity game”, to the extent that you are now claiming Voldermort’s snake has always actually been a Korean woman and see nothing wrong with that when paired with the fact that the only Asian character you originally included was called Cho Chang, then well…I’m sure you can put your ego aside and do the groundwork to understand what trans people are trying to tell you too. You inspired a lot of children and teenagers and even adults, and got them through some very difficult times, taught that the strength of one’s character matters far more than what anyone thinks of you. You claimed you wanted to stand up for the outcasts.

Well, stand up for the outcasts. Now’s a better time than any. And once again: TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN AND TRANS MEN ARE MEN. They shouldn’t have to hear anything else.

Lauren x

[DISCLAIMER: shitty collages are mine but the background is not, let me know if you are aware of the artist so I can credit!]

[rinrenrina]

Protests and social movements: local news media and you.

This Patriot Act video by Hasan Minhaj is about how important local news is to covering what affects us, especially in light of BLM and antifa protests. Local news media are compiling lists of Black-owned businesses, protest groups that need support, community resources, and documenting/recording perspectives and events. It's also local news media that are breaking stories of national importance like Epstein.

First, a timely article about the Seattle autonomous zone/CHAZ that’s an exact example of what’s going on in the video: local Seattle Times journalists did original reporting [link] and fact-checked some claims (yes, it’s peaceful; no, crimes are not happening; no, local businesses are not being extorted and in fact are doing well; yes, the mayor and governor told Trump to shut up) along with USA Today, which picked up ST’s reporting and added more information [link]. And here’s more original local reporting about armed right-wing groups being dangerous and obnoxious because they boogeyman antifa: [link]. Industry callouts on Fox News for creating and publishing doctored images of CHAZ, which is as ridiculous as it sounds [link].

Ridiculous.

To the point, the video had me thinking about the widespread "Why isn't the media talking about this" or "What the media won't show" messaging that's in nearly every high-note protest/BLM Twitter thread or Tumblr post I’ve seen that are not only often false (Yes, local and national news organizations are reporting that protesters are peaceful [link], cops are abusive+lying to everyone about the content of their body cams [link], and communities are creating resource and hydration centers [link]. No, news media will not ignore you if you keep protesting - the video in this post [link] is from NBC.), but show how much of an information bubble some people live in.

Remember, these are your news orgs, not a government's news orgs. Everyday people are the voices in an article, especially in local and community news.

The same popular posts I see about not trusting Democrats/Biden/liberalism and incrementalism are voiced by several knowledgeable activists in this article, New generation of activists, deeply skeptical of Democratic Party, resists calls to channel energy into the 2020 campaign [WP link | non-paywall MSN link] by Cleve Wootson Jr. [link].

Some pull quotes (but you should check out the article):

“Some people are like I’m . . . done accepting what the Democratic Party has offered us. It’s not getting better,” said Keene, 37. “This current moment is a reflection of the United States’ inability to meet any of the demands black people have put forward. I wish they would stop holding black people responsible for the failures of the Democratic Party. Why aren’t y’all responsible for not giving us a candidate worth voting for?”

Malcolm X warned people that neither Democrats nor Republicans had adequate plans to help black Americans in his “Ballot or the Bullet” speech. And Martin Luther King Jr. called on his followers to not accept political stalling.

“It’s always come down to the question of time,” Delmont said. “Dr. King had so many great sermons or speeches about time and how that group of activists just could not wait. People feel the same way today. You can’t wait for Biden to get elected. You can’t wait four years. We can’t wait on politicians if we want to see these things change.”

These are the same ideas that have floated through the blogosphere, especially here on Tumblr.

That isn't to be an idealist though. There's a lot to complain about in US journalism. At the top editor positions, it's highly staffed by white people, men, cishets, and those with privileged backgrounds. All journalists use news judgement (PBS has information on what news judgement is here: [link]), which in front page design aims to showcase what’s important to know in terms of impact, but deciding "what's important/what will people read" when the decision-making team is homogeneous and privileged leaves valuable voices unheard, entire life experiences unaddressed, and harms marginalized groups.

This is something recognized among journalists: The Inquirer's POC staff had a sick-out and open letter about a now-fired top editor's news article that insensitively riffed on BLM [link], NYT staff and union came out against the now-demoted opinion editor’s publishing of an opinion piece by the Arkansas governor that called for violence against protesters [link], Post-Gazette was publicly criticized by staff, union, and the public when management barred a Black journalist from reporting on protests because she joked about anti-protester hypocrisy [link].

There's a lot of criticism to be had about US journalism, but the "Why isn't the media talking about this" or "What the media won't show" messaging I'm seeing on Tumblr and Twitter is inaccurate because the very things people are saying are not being reported actually are being reported. It's coming from a place of not having the methods to access this information - maybe it’s not visiting non-social media sites to receive the news that affect and reflect you, not understanding that articles of quality take time, not knowing that you can reach out to news orgs and tell them what the news is, and/or not knowing how overwhelmed/source competitive news organizations are.

A read more to not dash stretch. Under the read more is information on how to escape the “Why isn’t the media reporting”/”Why am I only just hearing” information bubble (visit a news site), why the news takes days to be good (imagine writing an original research essay), and tips on avoiding paywalls and on basic journalism.

Receiving the news that affect and reflect you

There's a significant difference between the news you will see on a social media feed (even if you do follow news orgs) and the news you will see by going to any news website. I can write more about it later, but the tl;dr is that the news you see on a social media feed is decided entirely by algorithms, money, and community bubbles, which isn't evil, but causes other important news to be buried on your feeds. Social media are great for fast news and no longer letting only a select few people, who cannot reflect the need-to-knows of everyone, decide what's important. And to better avoid the information bubble, you can combine your social media feeds with news websites so that you can better avoid the "Why am I only just hearing about this" phenomenon and see that yes, the thing you said was never reported on, probably was reported. Yes, the front page curation won’t reflect the need-to-knows or even nice-to-knows of everyone, but the information available is still valuable and impactful - I saw the article on armed right-wingers holding an anti-antifa block party by visiting Seattle Times, Wootson’s article from MSN, the article on cops lying on documents about their body cam recordings from CNN’s front page. By visiting news websites, you may find information and topics that never landed on your feed - which you can now introduce to and improve your social circles with.

Articles of quality take time, aka "People wanted the news five minutes ago"

There's a few tweet threads where someone is shooting video of a currently developing situation, with a caption akin to "Why isn't the media talking about this" ...even though this is something that is currently happening, so of course no one has sat down and made the article or video segment. Especially if they’re waiting on comment from city officials. Tweets are a fast, immediate information delivery method and this is where protesters have an advantage. If you had checked YouTube's front page from the US the past weeks, you may have noticed that the news video article/news livestream section took about two days from the start of the protests to say that the protesters are peaceful and that it's the police that are violent. It's extremely slow compared to a protester's tweet. If you combine the speediness of a protester's tweet with the context/backstory/statement from officials in a news article, your knowledge of what's happening is more thorough. The news article takes time to come out and be worth reading, though.

(Related to the topic of speed and quality is the Mueller Report. It's 450 pages, yet news orgs were writing about it on day one. It was all junk because they were reading from the Trump CliffsNotes in the rush to meet the people-want-to-know-yesterday/first scoop demands so the articles worth any time only started coming out a week after the Report's release. News orgs admitted to their initial reporting being garbage and being led on, but by then readers who don't look at news websites had moved on. The same goes for any protest or breaking news coverage: it's usually junk for the first few days. Sometimes subverted by local news orgs due to their proximity to the events.)

Reach out to news orgs

There's important ground information coming from protesters and observers - first-hand experience with police brutality, police militarization, and just how tired Black Americans are of having to protest for their lives. Among this info are communities' food and hydration resources, example here [link].

"What the media won't show." "These stories need to be told."

Two things that go well together by remembering to tell your local news organizations. And if they show up (you might get the reporting from a desk treatment: adapting a press release (which btw, nonprofits and non-organized groups can write and submit too) to an article), you have their ear: tell them your message. Something every journalist has heard? "Your article is only as good as its sources." You can be the reason that article and news org are good.

The above mostly applies for when you don't want to be a press worker. But another angle is to be your own community's source of news and watchdog. You have access to the exact same information a news organization is privy to (FOIA and PRA), the same protective laws (shield laws, the First Amendment guarantees the right for journalists to work), and being a writer is free to learn and easy to do especially in the time of free blogging and content hosting. As this NPR post [link] put it:

I think I can say that I have some professional credibility as a journalist. I have a master’s degree from a major university, a national Emmy award, work in all forms of media, and am in charge of journalism at Wayne State University in Detroit.

Yet legally, I have the same standing as a journalist as a high school dropout who writes a blog in his grandmother’s basement, and that is exactly the way it is supposed to be.

And if you do start your own community news source, forward the articles you publish to the wider-area news orgs above you. Tying it back to the video: this is how the news works - local news media are important to national discourse.

Here’s some other things that can hopefully be helpful to understanding the essential field that is journalism:

- If you're being paywalled by a local or national newspaper or by a magazine you want to read, check if your library (or a friend who will let you use their library card) already pays for online access either through a website or through an app like Flipster. Or, search the title of the article and see if an another site (such as MSN) offers it free. - Tips: You only need to read the first two-three paragraphs of a news article, but it helps to read the rest. How and when to be an anonymous or on-background source: when you have information no one else has and/or you would face retaliation for speaking. More here: [link]. What differentiates an opinion from an editorial: editorials are the opinion of the editorial board, opinions are written by columnists, officials, and readers. Figure out what type of article you like better: inverted pyramid favors quick reporting (minutes to hours) and fewer facts, feature style favors long-term reporting (weeks to months) and more research, details, and human-focused anecdotes/testimony.

To nitpick the video: local and national broadcast news has more than what’s on TV, they also have a robust web article and web video article presence. For example, NBC’s article about BLM NY members’ and other activist groups in NY’s social justice and policy goals (and an app that creates digital models of Black and brown heroes of history to educate!). [NBC link | MSN link]

[robertdowneyjjr]

Okay gotta say props to this anon for being dedicated enough to send an essay into my inbox and being generally irritating as all hell but I’ll bite. Let’s unpack this.

I didn’t say that only white people are offended by him. I said that most of my POC friends didn’t have an issue with RDJ’s role in Tropic Thunder and that it feels like people who criticize him for that role are white people being offended on our behalf, which we didn’t ask for. Never have I spoken for all members of a racial group, but I, as a POC myself, am saying that I don’t need someone to come in here to speak for me either.

So RDJ publicly asked people to forgive Gibson. That’s not so different from Gibson personally vouching for RDJ at a time when he was uninsurable and thus unable to find work. RDJ never excused Gibson’s actions, did he? Nor did he claim that Gibson didn’t need to face the consequences of his actions. Gibson has hardly even been in the public eye for years now. How do you know if he’s changed or not by now? And anon, how shitty of a friend must you be, if you’re the type of person who believes in ditching someone who was there for you over a drunken mistake they made? Empathy must not be a concept you understand, because real human connections aren’t like social media. You don’t just unfriend or unfollow someone after seeing them make bad comments in a post and expect to wipe your hands clean of them. Gibson was there for RDJ in a time when no one else was. RDJ feels a sense of loyalty. There’s no fault in that.

Super convenient that they don’t have a link handy, but lucky for you, I do. Here’s the profile in question and if you don’t want to read the whole thing, here’s the quote: 

“I have a really interesting political point of view, and it’s not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here, but you can’t go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. You can’t. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics every since.”

Never once did he use coded language or outright state that he became politically conservative because of black people specifically. Read the whole article if you want. It’s an interesting piece.

You might remember when RDJ walked out of an interview a few years ago during the AOU press circuit because of a reporter’s inappropriate line of questioning. It was a huge deal at the time, and almost every entertainment news site and channel was reporting on it. That interviewer tried bringing up this exact interview about RDJ ~not being liberal~ and asked him to clarify what he meant. Before RDJ walked out, he said this:

"I could pick that apart for two hours and be no closer to the truth than giving you some half-arsed answer right now," Downey replied with a smile. "I couldn't even really tell you what a liberal is, so, therein lies the answer to your question."

Now, since RDJ’s two biggest crimes are apparently racism and conservativism, here’s another source to debunk such claims. In 2012, RDJ donated extensively to Obama’s campaign. He has a history of donating to the DNC and you can search for all of that easily here. I’d post screenshots, but Tumblr has a limit on the number of images I can add to a post, so here’s a quick exercise in simple math: in 2012 alone, he donated over $75K to the DNC. In 2014, he donated $32K to the democratic senate campaigns.

And if that’s not enough for you, here’s an entire expose that shows you a year in the life of RDJ during his time in prison. Not once, ever, did he say anything about anyone’s race, and when asked pointed questions about whether he was treated in any negative way (sexual harassment, fights, etc.), RDJ never put anyone on the spot and tried diverting the conversation elsewhere.

Learning more yet?

Never once have I ever said that people need tor forgive and forget what RDJ has done in the past. You’re free to dislike him all you want, hold on to grudges over his mistakes and use that as a reason to continue hating him. Whatever. I don’t give a single fuck what you think about him. But don’t go around harassing people who are clearly his fans with your age old receipts in an attempt to make them feel like shit about liking him. Right now, you’re basically acting like that Channel 4 reporter while I’m in RDJ’s position. So I’m going to follow in RDJ’s footsteps and walk out now, because quite frankly, you’ve wasted enough of my time already.

[bdgthinks]

The Two Sides of “The Two Sides of Singapore, As Seen By A Food Delivery Rider”, As Seen By A Food Delivery Rider

https://medium.com/@bdgthinksShort pre-amble: Just as how the original Rice article is just the opinion of one writer, what I’m writing below is likewise, just the opinion of mine alone. Also, my opinions are based on my experience working with Deliveroo while Yusuf worked for Grab Food so there may be some differences between the pay structure, zone distances and other company-specific policies.

I was clicking past Instagram stories yesterday afternoon, about to take a nap, when I saw a friend share this recently posted Rice Media article. Part photo journal, part commentary on the gig economy, Singapore’s class divide, and how income inequality is growing more apparent as we adapt to the ever-evolving Covid-19 situation? Sign me the hell up. 

All images courtesy of Ricemedia.co, Yusuf Abdol Hamid, or myself

20 minutes, a few raised eyebrows, and many heated texts later – I reluctantly abandoned my plans to nap because I read some many things in this article (which I highly recommend you read first before reading on!) that I disagree with profoundly. 

Before I start, I want to offer my appreciation to Yusuf (the narrator), Boon Ping (the editor/author), and Rice Media for publishing this piece that will help many understand the oft-overlooked issue of social/income inequality in an engaging and accessible manner. My misgivings towards some of Yusuf’s opinions notwithstanding, the general sentiment towards this article is extremely positive and has done what I believe every great article should do, provoke thought and inspire critical thinking towards the status quo! 

A smattering of positive feedback to the original article 

What I appreciated most about the article is encapsulated by joce_zhang’s comment, that it’s an important reminder to be kinder to people – regardless. 

 However, I couldn’t help but find it slightly troubling that Yusuf and Boon Ping (the editor) seemed to have oversimplified these issues and reduced the stakeholders to caricatures: the rich as the Monopoly Man; and the tireless ‘seen by many as a dead-end job’ delivery couriers as a Dickensian orphan, counting pennies and agonizing over whether they ‘deserve’ a Zinger. 

I worry that one unintended consequence of this article is that some ways social inequality is highlighted may lead to reinforcement of the divide rather than dissolution. 

During my Summer holidays in 2018, I became attracted to the idea of working part-time as a food courier cyclist as in my mind I saw it as being paid to just cycle and listen to podcasts. Since then, I’ve been an on-off Deliveroo cyclist during the shorter holidays or whenever I needed a little bit of extra pocket money. 

In past the two years, I’ve earned exactly $4081.63 from making deliveries (inclusive of bonuses) and dividing it by a conservative $15/h rate, I’ve worked for around 272 hours or about 700 deliveries. split about 60/40 between private properties and HDB flats.

And I guess it’s also partly because of my different experience working in food couriering the past two years that made me feel so much discontent while reading Yusuf’s article. In these 400-odd deliveries to private residences (or heck, in any of my deliveries), I don’t recall having once been treated unnecessarily rudely, aggressively or dismissively by any of the stakeholders I interact with in the job – restaurant servers and managers, condo security management and customers alike. 

What I have experienced actually are customers that have tipped me for my efforts - especially ones who live in fairly inaccessible areas, and (during this circuit breaker period) offered me a snack or a cold drink to drop off their deliveries; security guards who ask me how my day was and if I’ve had my lunch or dinner; and restaurant staff who invite me to have a seat in the restaurant while I wait for my order. 

Some treats from kind customers 

Even when I had made a mess of the customer’s order from their order roiling around during a bumpy 15-minute bike ride (entirely my fault of course!), I’ve never heard anything more than an entirely deserved ‘tsk’ at the disappointment of having half of their pho soup ending up in the plastic bag instead of the bowl – and even then these tsk’s are far and few between! 

And it is (again, solely from my own personal experience) where I felt that Yusuf could have been cherry-picking the worst examples from his own experience to make a point. While service industry personnel are no doubt severely underappreciated and that should be improved as a whole, I feel that such blatant incidents are the exception rather than the rule. 

My point is: the world isn’t binary. Heck, even up to a year ago I was still echoing Yusuf’s entire argument and ranting rather colorfully about the injustice and discrimination of it all. Who are YOU to tell me which lift I can and cannot use? 

In the pursuit of delivering a commentary on some really important social issues, I feel that it fell short by over-emphasizing the ludicrousness of the elite and failing to consider the many other factors that contributes to this problem. 

For one, I thought that the annoyance projected to security guards seeing themselves as ‘a barrier between the riff-raff and their diamond-encrusted residents’ was a bit uncalled for – painting a picture of the fearsome guard – in employ of the up-in-the-air bourgeois hiding in their ivory tower, assailing an innocent courier who had the audacity to think that he had the right to take the same elevator as the residents? 

But then… when we consider that most lift lobbies are a good distance from the security guard posts where the guards are stationed, it doesn’t seem so unreasonable for a guard to have to raise his voice to get his point across, right? 

Being fortunate enough to live in a condo myself, I’ve sometimes felt unease in the duality that security guards experience every single day: faithful bastions in keeping residents safe, spending their days patrolling the lush, landscaped gardens and expansive feature infinity pools, but never once stepping foot into the houses they loyally guard.

And at the end of the day, clocking out to return home to an environment I assume is much less luxurious. 

So why then, do Yusuf and Boon Ping deign to foster an us vs them divide, arbitrarily placing one occupation on one side of the line and another on the opposite?

How about the incredulousness towards the guy who orders a stupid $11 Dal.komm latte every day, or the Grange Road resident who only orders a single scoop of Haagen-Dazs ice cream? 

Like I said, caricatures that highlight and reinforce the rich-poor divide.

Cherry-picking prevents the reader from seeing the single cups of coffee that I’ve delivered from Common Man Coffee Roasters to Tenteram Peak, the eight egg tarts from Whampoa Hawker Center to Toa Payoh. Or my dad, who lives a one-minute walk from the hawker center but still chooses to order through Grabfood because he paid for a subscription service that offers 50 free deliveries for just $10? 

All these customers lived in HDB units. 

As a courier, there’s nothing I appreciate more than collecting an order to find out I’m being paid $5 to cycle one block away, or reaching the restaurant to find out that a customer only ordered an easy-to-transport wrap instead of say, twelve packets of chicken rice – I’m getting paid the same amount anyway. 

So yes, they’re paying our salary, so thank you. 

Juxtaposition is also good and all for making a point, but is it truly accurate and representative? 

The word exclusive is used a lot by Yusuf - but are those who live in a smelly HDB with the pee smell in the corridor exclusively nice, and the expat who lives in the Ardmore Park condo with the super high ceiling exclusively mean? Is it wrong to live (or aspire to live) in an exclusive private property? These are questions to be stimulated, not answers to be given. 

There’s so much to pick apart, but my goal isn’t to say: I’m Right, You’re Wrong, it’s just that say that There Are Two Sides to Everything. 

A brief aside on ‘fulfillment’ 

While I love my part-time job – paying me upwards of $20 an hour to keep fit and listen to podcasts, I’m entirely cognizant that while I’m privileged that it’s a side-hustle, a side-gig, a part-time job to me; it’s also a livelihood to tens of thousands of hardworking people out there. 

Where I could turn off the app and head home when I decided I’ve earned enough in the week to eat at a new restaurant I’ve been eyeing or if it was too hot in the afternoon, most other people working my job can’t – if not, the lights may not turn on the next day. 

In a comment to an earlier draft of this piece, a friend shared that it’s a privilege to be able to separate your social identities. I think it’s also a privilege to have the choice of perspective. We exercise when we’re healthy, as a hobby, or a passion. Deliverymen don’t see it that way. There is no ‘good to do’, there is only ‘must do’. 

At the end of the day when the world starts to recover from Covid-19, you’re going to start getting photo and videography gigs and transition back to the white-collar world. 

As for the security guard and domestic helper at Ardmore Park, the server at the Grange Road Haagen-Dazs, and the tens of thousands of for-hire drivers and delivery couriers? There’s no ‘back to normal’ – this is their normal. 

In a discussion post on Yusuf’s article, a redditor referenced Maslow’s hierarchy of needs:

In the blue-collar normal, where every day is a struggle to meet the needs of financial safety and security, maybe fulfilment isn’t really an aspiration for most. In an article calling for empathy, I feel the quality slightly lacking in my reading. 

A few months back I began my education into inequality in Singapore with Teo You Yenn’s seminal This Is What Inequality Looks Like. In it, the title of one of her essays especially stood out to me: Dignity Is Like Clean Air. She describes, like Yusuf does, that many blue-collar workers in the service industry always feel invisible, that people don’t respect them, that it makes them feel small. I’d like to add on to** Dignity Is Like Clean Air** with the caveat: Segregation Is Not Necessarily Dirty. 

Going back to the ‘fucked up service lifts at the back for the smelly people, the non-residents and stuff’, how about we just call a spade a spade?

In restaurants, servers and chefs who have their meals there usually sit at tables near the kitchen (or even in the kitchen itself). 

In airplanes, consumers have the choice to pay a much higher premium for more leg room and a more gourmet selection of food. In fancy hotels, bellboys and concierge staff have to wear stiff suits – there’s usually a dress code for guests to enter certain areas. 

So, is it really that unfair, for someone who’s had the means to pay for the privilege of living in luxury, to not really want to share a lift with someone who might smell unpleasant from having spent hours cycling under the hot sun? 

The service lift provides the same functionality – no one’s saying that couriers are ‘lesser people’, we’re not being asked to walk up the stairs while the ‘masters’ take the magic moving box. It wasn’t created to separate the ‘undesirables’ from the ‘desirables’ like a pre-Rosa Parks bus, and it’ll be unhealthy to think of it as such – even worse to let it fester. 

To package my views into a neatly categorized box – When I’m Brandon the Deliveryman, it’s perfectly fine for a guard to request for me to take the service lift, but when I’m Brandon the Guest attending a dinner party at the same condo, no one is stopping me from taking the resident lift right? 

Different day, Different fit, Same me 

I still think that it’s incredibly fucked up that some employers make their helpers take a separate lift though. 

But in delivering the core message – is it more helpful to frame your reflection as ‘why do some people treat their subordinates with such contempt and how can we as society hope to change it’, or to just resent the fact that ‘rich people like that la’ – and laugh and pretend we’re friends. 

I guess what I’m most frustrated with about the article is that it had the potential to be so much more. It occasionally flirts with the possibility of going deeper into one issue or the other but ultimately ends up being a reflection of one privileged dude’s brief foray into an industry that many of us often take for granted. 

And because there are so many issues at play, people often fall into the trap of distilling extremely complicated issues into dangerous sweeping statements, which eventually does very little for the problem in question. 

Another frustration I often have towards the discourse towards social issues is that they often fail to carry a call-to-action. Okay, I’ve checked my privilege, I’ve understood that my successes in life is partly a byproduct of the wealthy family I was fortunate to being born into – now what? 

A good rule of thumb that I’ve been trying to implement into my life recently is to think about the net positive or net negative an action has onto society. And hence: 

To the fortunate: While it is important to understand your privilege and not take things for granted, you also don’t have to be ashamed of it. Every dollar you spend goes into the economy and is earned by someone else. So, what can you do to influence a net positive? 

Be kind to everyone, be kind to everyone, be kind to everyone. 

If you can, have the moral courage to call out undesirable behavior – especially if it’s someone close to you. But if you can’t – it’s okay too. Start with yourself. The world could do with less ‘you should do more’ and more ‘thank you for what you did’. 

This is not exclusive to tipping service staff or offering couriers a cold drink (although it is always really welcome!). Offer a kind word to anyone you interact with. Ask the office or school janitor if they’ve had their meal yet, wish your security guard a good morning/good evening when you pass them by, clear your tray when you’re at a fast food restaurant and smile and thank the servers if you pass them by. 

I promise you - these little acts of kindness will go a much longer way received than it takes you to give them. 

To our everyday heroes: Your intrinsic self worth is by no means defined by how an asshole treats you. You are so, so, so much more important.

You are somebody, you are somebody, you are somebody. 

In this essay, my intention is to extend the net positive that Yusuf and Rice has already generated while minimizing the net negatives it may unintentionally create by framing the issue as ‘us vs them’. 

I hope that it will be seen as an addendum to Yusuf’s original piece instead of a correction. To build up on the important issues that **each and every one of us **should acknowledge and then go one step further to see how we can resolve them. I hope that reading this has provoked more questions than it gives answers. I hope that we don’t see the world as black-and-white but how things can move to a more palatable shade of grey. 

Of course, my thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions here could be (and probably are) wildly ignorant and myopic, and I still have so much more to learn. So please confront me, dispute me and tell me where I’m wrong and what I don’t know. 

If I have to leave you with just one takeaway, I hope everyone remembers to be kinder to people – regardless.

(You can also find me at https://medium.com/@bdgthinks!)