#genocidal rhetoric pointed at literally every single one of us

[crippled-peeper]

older/middle aged and rural trans people who ask “what trans neutral means?” because they genuinely have never heard this word are not oppressing you violently and you don’t need to respond to them with violence. aren’t y’all constantly like “we have bigger battles than this intracommunity drama!!!!” with literally everything else pertaining to trans people? but it’s ok to tell older/poorer/rural trans people to fucking off themselves for only learning the terms “trans masc” and “trans fem”? that’s really weird. get away from me

[mythica-ithaca]

the fact that I see some of y'all posting more about how important it is to vote for Biden than you ever have about Palestine just shows that you fucking "vote blue no matter who" people genuinely don't give a fuck about anyone but yourselves.

you only choose to speak up when YOUR hypothetical rights are threatened. you love to fear monger about how much hypothetically worse it would be under trump than acknowledge the actual atrocities that Biden is committing and condoning every single day. how exactly is he the "lesser" of two evils for?

do any of you actually look at the images coming out of gaza, or are you too fucking ~triggered~ to fully acknowledge other peoples suffering rather than your own. have you seen the video that came out recently of the little boy whose brain is exposed, about to be laid next to his dead family members, only to twitch and seize in his fathers arms as he screams and runs in horror to find a doctor, because his son is alive. his brain is literally falling out of his skull but he is still alive. that is one brief example of the most horrific shit you've ever seen in your life coming out daily for almost a year. how on this earth can you watch that and possibly claim that Biden is in any way shape or form "less" evil.

instead of demanding that the dnc force a different candidate, you're trying to guilt trip people who have actually seen the mutilated bodies of children on their timelines every single day and watched the press briefings of bidens administration denying genocide and defending Israel at the expense of literally everything else for the last 8 months, into voting for a man who supports it 100% and has not and will not be convinced otherwise.

this is where allowing them to push widely unpopular and centrist candidates has gotten us. it didn't work with Hillary in 2016. it BARELY worked in 2020. and hate to break it to you, but its probably not going to work again. so congrats. your "vote blue no matter who" rhetoric has got them thinking that they can push the most right leaning liberals on us and think that we'll vote for them just because they're in a blue tie instead of a red one.

if you care about democracy like you say you do, then the Democrats should be fucking TERRIFIED that you won't vote for them if they don't deliver. not constantly reassured that they can commit literal fucking genocide and still get your votes if they dangle abortion rights over your heads. you realize they see those posts too right? the ones that say "Yes! protest vote in the primary but make sure to actually vote for the guy in the general!!" like. you are literally telling them how performative your activism is.

if every election at this point is the one where democracy is on the line then we are already fucked. if they don't get it through their heads now that we will not support this shit, then every election to come will be between a fascist and a fascist who cares slightly less about whether gay people get married or not. but that's all you care about right? as long as your domestic policy is in your favor then the rest of the world can suffer at your tax dollars.

this isn't about morality voting. this is about recognizing that there is not actually a "lesser" of two evils in this situation, just because you think that the causes that you personally care about will be less affected one way or the other. because what if it was abortion rights? what catholic Joe Biden was firmly against abortion and was threatening to ban it completely and throw anyone getting or giving one in prison for murder. what if it was videos of lgbt people being slaughtered coming out every single day for a year. genuinely fucking ask yourself if you'd still be saying "vote blue no matter who" and that he's the "lesser" of two evils.

vote for whoever the fuck you want. and I do genuinely urge you to vote for the most progressive candidate you can for the house and senate and your local elections. but for the love of god, stop trying to convince people that there is, in any sense of the word, a "Lesser" evil in this situation. stop trying to absolve yourselves of the fact that you are CHOOSING evil. it's genuinely sick.

[hesperocyon-lesbian]

you want rightful criticism? how about her saying cis people shouldn’t speak for trans people when that’s exactly what she’s doing? how about her choosing exactly one political issue to hinge her entire vote on and doing exactly nothing for the queer community that she wants to claim as her own after dating men her entire life and almost marrying her last boyfriend? i too am against genocide, but her silence on literally every other issue speaks VOLUMES. i realize that comphet is real especially with where she grew up but she has zero involvement in any sort of activism outside of saying “oh both sides are bad :(“ or the fact that she, as a cis woman, thinks she has a right to tell trans people under the age of 18 that they shouldn’t want or get gender-affirming surgeries. being bipolar isn’t an excuse for being a shit human being and using her bipolar disorder as excuse is a disservice to bipolar people.

Anon you’re fucking embarrassing yourself. Seriously. I could post this without even responding to you and it’d still be embarrassing for you.

You start out by whipping out gold star lesbian rhetoric. Seriously? You really think that plays to a trans crowd? Step up your rhetoric, you’re still so transparent.

Second, you’re not gonna fool anyone here with your whining about “single issue voters” when I’m literally a single issue voter on this. I’m not voting for Copmala unless she stops sending money and weapons to Israel, and she’s never going to do that. Frankly Chappel Roan’s stance on that is a lot softer than mine, if anything I’d criticize her for saying she’s still voting for Kamala. More than 100,000 Gazans have been slaughtered by Israel at this point. That is the key issue, and it’s one on which there is no substantial difference between the two candidates. No, that doesn’t mean I want Trump to win, it just means I won’t endorse genocide.

Third, what are you even talking about re trans surgeries???? I haven’t heard anything about this? Do you have proof or are you just gonna claim random shit. Since everything you’ve said has been in bad faith I’m gonna assume that’s a lie or a deliberate misconstruing of her words until proven otherwise

You need to understand that this isn’t primarily about me defending an artist who I think is in the right. It’s about me defending anyone who stands up against this genocide. But to you it’s on the same level as petty shit talking about someone’s dating history

[butwhatifidothis]

The fact that someone in 2024 can say "a person is bad because the blood from another race mixed with theirs and made them bad" without any shred or irony or self awareness is ghastly.

Probably comes from the idea that they are "good people," so they can't say racist shit or be racist because racism is bad and they are good people.

Which leads to shit like Shandale and multiple other people repeatedly saying shit like "The Nabateans as a race are ontologically evil and deserve the genocide that happened to them and the humans who genocided them were the good guys." "The Nabateans need to have their rights stripped away from them and live as second-class citizens to atone for what other Nabateans did." "The Nabateans are so savage and violent and evil that having their blood mixed with yours makes you evil like them." The Nabateans are evil, so they deserve to be erased. They deserve to be oppressed. They deserve to be killed. All of them. Even the children. No exceptions.

But they're not a "real" race so it's fine to advocate for their genocide. It's fine to cheer on their genociders and wish they were "properly" portrayed as the good guys they clearly are. It's fine to say "only humans should rule over humans" as if that isn't an ear-bleedingly loud dog-whistle for racial supremacy. Shandale is a good person so Shandale can't say Bad Person things, of course.

And the worst part is that Shandale knows what they're saying sounds bad. They fucking hate it whenever anyone with enough nuts in that cesspit of a discord directly tells them "hey yo this is some racist ass shit you're spewing out, can you like, stop?" They and the people who agree with them pull the "YOU'RE pulling the real world into this, and THAT'S so distasteful and bad!!" because Shandale knows that they only have that cover to hide behind. Shandale isn't saying what they're saying because they aren't aware of what they're saying or don't know why what they're saying is bad, they're saying what they're saying because they found the race they can scapegoat into getting away with saying this.

They all very clearly desperately want to say this shit. They will all go on for hours upon hours at a time vehemently going to bat for this hateful rhetoric, to the point that they will quite literally make shit up about what the Nabateans have done to make them evil. They owned slaves! They destroyed culture! They were tyrants! All of them! Genuinely every single one of them! All that shit is the CORNERSTONE to Shandale and their buddies' rhetoric, and they fucking made it up! It makes you wonder why they're so desperate for this clearly untrue thing to be true, and none of the answers to that question do them any favors to put it kindly.

And everyone in that server with the means to kick Shandale and all the other people who are clearly fucking racist and are using Nabateans as a scapegoat to vent their clearly fucking racist views would rather DM me to tell me ~oh so kindly~ that I should stop airing their moldy tattered laundry (in exchange for the mods following their rules of their server that they've been ignoring for fucking years) than do fucking ANYTHING about the mod that is peddling the racism. Shandale and their buddies don't need any shred of awareness - or more accurately, any shred of acknowledgement - because they know the second they bare their asses to the world the other mods will fucking scramble to cover for them. It's all beyond pathetic and disgusting

[walks-the-ages]

You convinced me to vote for Jill Stein. I was feeling so defeated about voting no preference or not voting but I'm a single issue voter on genocide I guess and couldn't bring myself to vote for a party and administration that was perpetuating it. So it was kind of liberating to vote third party and vote FOR something instead of just against something. All those people saying just vote and some of those same people saying you shouldn't vote third party, it's like does my vote count or doesn't it? So hypocritical. If you're not willing to vote for something better than what's the point? And the Dems haven't moved left and haven't done all the things in the last four years they're promising to do in the next four so again, we need to let go of that dream that we can "move them left." Anyway I guess just thanks for being thought provoking on this issue!

yep, last two elections I was so full of anxiety the entire time, absolutely terrified of what was gonna happen come election night and after...

but this time, after seeing a full entire year of genocide, of learning more and more about US history and the things our government has done and explicitly continues to do under both democrats AND republicans, I voted third party for the first time for the Green Party and I will probably continue to vote Green for the rest of my life, honestly.

I did Early Voting in my state, and here on election day, I am calm, knowing one of the main two is going to win, but knowing that I am also one of the people who won't go down in the history books as embracing the genocide.

I'm doing what I can to help, both online (signal boosting) and in my local community .

The people who spend their entire life frothing at the mouth about "we just need to vote blue no matter who just one more time! The canidate doesn't need to be perfect!They can commit genocide even! They just need to be wearing a blue hat while doing it!" every 4 years online.... I really can't say that I confidently believe these people engage with their local communities.

and yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

"Every vote counts! But no, don't vote like that! That doesn't count!"

"Every vote counts only when its in favor of my blue-hat-wearing genocidaire, any vote for literally any third party is just you literally voting for the red-hats! Ignore the complete lack of logic in this statement! Don't even ask if conservatives voting for a conservative third party are also somehow voting for the red-hats, or if by my logic, their vote is magically going to the blue-hats when they vote yellow-hats instead of red!"

Vote Scolders and genocide apologists really need to come to grips with the reality that if you're constantly, for almost a decade now, being "forced" by a two party system to "choose the lesser evil" and that "lesser" evil continues to push right wing policies, lose national protections for abortion and queer rights including trans healthcare, and is literally currently committing genocide and bombing multiple countries who actually try to stop the genocide, and embrace literal modern day hitler by inviting Netanyahu, a literal war criminal with an arrest warrent out for him in multiple countries to come speak directly to congress where the "good, lesser-evil" party gave him over 20 standing ovations for spouting genocidal rhetoric....... uh, first of all, you're not voting for a 'lesser' evil of any kind, you're just voting for an evil you think will be slightly more convenient for you, and you will happily throw entire nations into concentration and death camps if it makes you feel slightly more cushy and secure and two --

we don't actually live in a democracy if we are "forced" by a two-party system to vote for two equally genocidal fucks who don't represent any of their constituents and live on lies, lies, and more lies.

Democrats continually refuse to even consider raising the minimum wage and happily embrace funneling millions of dollars to Cop City so we can even further militarize the police here so they can better kill people every single day, while Trump gains voters by making wild promises that he's gonna make overtime be paid out in triple pay instead of time and a half that he, clearly, being a fascist billionaire fuck, never intends to fufill, but sounds good to the people who have been voting Democrat their entire life but never seen any material benefit from it (and yes, that is a real example a coworker gave me of why they were initially considering voting for trump, but then decided they're just not going to vote at all because none of the candidates actually feel good for them, and their family is split down the middle calling anyone who doesn't vote for their favorite side a traitor, ) etc.

Anyways, thank you for the anon, I am glad I could be of help!

Endlessly voting for "The lesser evil" just leads to anxiety and despair; actually putting your vote in for a candidate you want to vote for is one of the most freeing experiences possible if all you've been old enough to vote in is these constant Doomsday Elections.

There's a lot of ways to get started making connections in your local community, and the one I have started with and inspired many others to as well, is to simply start a garden, learn how to grow food and save seeds, and start sharing that with first your direct surrounding neighbors, then your neighborhood via online groups, and beyond! I've gotten many people into growing their own food and then beyond to sharing their harvests just by simply informing people "if you are buying colored bell peppers or tomatoes, or bags of dried beans, you can literally just plant all of those seeds" and watching their faces become full of wonder.

Oh and if you want a theme song for voting third party after voting for the lesser evil all this time lol:

anyways for anyone who hasn't voted yet, here's Jill Stein with the Green Party's ballot access map:

and here is their platform:

To all the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" crowd who actually do care about Gaza, but you're absolutely terrified of this election because of what everyone has been saying about Trump ending the world if Democrats don't win:

Remember, you are allowed to change your mind.

No one else can see who you voted for.

You do not have to decide 5 months in advance of an election that you're going to be voting for x and then have that decision written in stone.

The only time its too late to change your vote is after you've already cast your ballot.

You can go into that voting booth thinking you're gonna vote for x, and then see the screen or the paper and realize you really, really do not want to support the ongoing genocide.

After you have cast your vote, if someone asks who you voted for and you don't wanna say you voted for the Green Party........ you can literally just lie. Especially if its going to protect you from predatory friends or family who are part of the doomerist "vote blue no matter what they do" crowd.

Same goes for Republicans, or people who think they have to vote for Trump because their entire family is strict MAGA supporters.

You do not have to vote for Trump. You can vote for whoever you want, including third party. No one needs to know who you are voting for. If your maga friends and family demand to know if you voted for Trump too, you can..... just say yes.

No one is obligated to know who you voted for. If you want to vote for a party that is actually trying to make a difference in how much shit there is in the world, but you need to protect yourself from friends and family, you can simply lie and say you voted for their favorite candidate "of course!"

[casualfruit]

Antizionist Jews are like "colonization, exile, rape, and slavery were good for us akshully 🥰" The diaspora isn't something to be celebrated you fucking freak, it was a cataclysm that's the reason we've suffered 3000 years of rape, murder, expulsions, ethnic cleansings, forced conversions and oppression leading up to the world's first industrialized genocide that WILL happen again (aided and abetted by kapos like you). It's the reason my ancestors were forced to live as third class citizens in shithole Libya until they were violently expelled. What should be celebrated is the way we maintained our identity, religion, culture, and connection to our homeland despite the majority of us being forced to leave and facing the aforementioned tragedies in our countries of exile. Also, the hypocrisy of you screeching about "ethnonationalism" (25% of Israelis aren't Jewish. 20% are Arab. There are literally 2 million Palestinian Israelis but go off I guess) when you want an actual Arab ethnostate is just too fucking funny. And by the way, a literal Syrian Nazi invented the lie that Israel is settler-colonial. But you lot have never had a problem spewing Nazi rhetoric. You're just following in the Arab Nazi founder of the Free Palestine movement's footsteps (:

What a shock, the Zionist wants to give me hell but doesn’t have the guts to say it to my face. It’s okay though, I know it’s you @aqlstar

I don’t believe in ethnostates for any race or ethnicity. Not even my own. I refuse to follow any “rules for thee but not for me” bullshit.

It’s not a “Syrian Nazi lie” that Israel is a settler colonial state, it’s just a fact. Sure, Israel was nominally created as “reparations” for Holocaust survivors, but that still required violently removing the people already living there. Does that sound at all familiar? And besides, Israel wasn’t actually made for the betterment of Jews—it was made to be an extension of British and USAmerican imperialism. It’s currently functioning as a satellite state for the US. And every time Palestinians are slaughtered en masse and forced out of an area, Israelis come in to settle there (that’s the settler part of settler-colonialism). Europeans did the same shit with Native Americans, and it was just as reprehensible then as it is now.

Then again, you don’t care about rape, murder, expulsion, or ethnic cleansing if it’s done against Arabs, so that comparison probably doesn’t mean much to you.

You have zero appreciation for the Jewish cultures that have been formed in different places and times across the world. You do not give a single shit about how Jews have managed to find happiness and community and engage in cultural exchange with their neighbors despite all the hardships we have faced. You do not care about diasporic Jews except as a rhetorical tool to bludgeon your way through braindead arguments. Stop pretending to have our best interests at heart when you obviously fucking don’t.

It’s kind of funny how you keep calling me a Nazi when you’re the one in favor of ethnostates. Why don’t you spend some time unlearning your anti-Arab racism and your hatred of the Jewish diaspora before calling me a bigot?

P.S. your insistence that antizionism = antisemitism is literally the dual loyalty conspiracy, aka the belief that Jews are loyal to Israel before any other country no matter where they’re from. That’s one of the oldest antisemitic talking points in history. The Nazis in particular got a lot of mileage out of it.

P.P.S. Free Palestine now and forever 🇵🇸

[iamnotawomanimagod]

welp. time to just get this off my chest.

on tumblr it's "support Palestine or you are the scum of the Earth" but literally everywhere I go and everyone else I talk to is spouting the "there's two sides to this" "there are no good guys" rhetoric

so no, I'm not surprised that people who aren't chronically online in the deepest left spaces on the internet support Israel.

does it piss me off? of course it does. do I understand the omnipresent and pervasive nature of Western propaganda and the way very few people in Western culture are interested in confronting that? yeah, I do. is it fucked up that that's a reality in Western/American culture? yeah, it is. do I think screaming and mud-slinging at every person who even slightly suggests that there could be no good answers in this is even remotely productive, useful, or helpful? no. I'm not going to end the war by calling my chronically-ill, dying mother a genocide supporter.

I do not support the genocide and I am part of those that see the absolute need for an immediate ceasefire. I am the only one I know in my offline life that feels this way. My friends and family are all left-leaning.

it's difficult not to see the attitude here on tumblr as virtue signaling. it's also difficult to have any meaningful conversations with the people in my life about Palestine when this issue has been ongoing since before I was born. since before my mom was born. yes, people feel overwhelmed and scared and unsure of what the right thing to do is. that's a very human response to war. it's awful.

I don't think we should stop talking about Palestine. I do think tumblr has distilled this issue down to a single talking point that does not allow for any meaningful conversation to take place with the people who could actually have their minds changed, because if you step even the tiniest bit into the "two sides to every 'conflict'" discourse, you are labeled a supporter of genocide.

even posting this is going to get me some major side-eye, I know that. and yes, I am speaking from a place of enormous privilege, safety, and distance. I know.

I just think of all the other horrific shit going on in our world, every single day, and of how little impact me and my family and friends can actually have on any of it, and then I come on tumblr and every other post is about abhorrent actions taken against people who I cannot help. an absolute deluge of human suffering, graphic violence, and traumatizing images and stories that I can do absolutely nothing about.

geopolitics is not something I've ever had any hope of having significant impact on. it's so so so far above my head. it's so far out of my control. and I'm too sensitive of a little bitch to just keep swallowing the bad news and knowing I can never really fix it or even help in a meaningful way.

I don't want to visit a blog about bears and see images of children crushed under rubble. I don't want my favorite fandom blog to post video of victims waving white flags and being shot down.

who is this actually helping? whose mind is this actually changing, when you're on the "there is ONE side to this and if you think anything even a little bit otherwise, you are Evil" website?

I get two options when I vote. less genocide or more genocide. voting is the only thing I can do to influence my country's politics, and I was going to do it already anyway. my president is 100% culpable in this and he's STILL the better option.

and how people posting on tumblr lowkey do seem to think that they're going to stop the war that way. you aren't. this is a fucking echo chamber, and I know that's true because the moment I step outside of it, the discourse changes completely. you cannot and will not save the world by blogging. people who aren't blogging about it are not contributing to the genocide.

I guess if this is upsetting to you and you think I'm a bad person because I feel this way, you can unfollow me. if you're a mutual, at least soft-block me on the way out.

[floralovebot]

I was on instagram and saw this random pro-israel thread and i just,,, i feel so sick. honestly there was a point where i thought "this has to be some weirdo trying to rage bait people right?" but no this bitch is genuinely just like that

I'm sure there are tons of people who could dissect this much better than I can but the one thing that I really want to say is I fucking hate how so many zionists act like they're the only ones being rational, composed, and "civilized" in this discussion. Like first, Palestinians have the full right to be angry and not rational when you're bombing them. Second, the audacity to side with a genocidal apartheid state that is actively gunning to kill every single person in Palestine and threatening the rest of the Middle East,, and then act like YOU are the one who's being normal and rational??? Like... I'm not surprised to see a zionist be that entitled and it's almost humorous how far up your own ass you have to be to not see it for yourself.

Siding with the genocidal maniacs who have been murdering Palestinians for decades and then getting Offended when people call you out for yknow. siding with the murderers. Acting like you're coming from good faith when you say out loud that you support the murderers. "... view details of the conflict differently" meaning "I'm a brainwashed zionist who blindly believes everything the Israeli government says out of fear of the Palestinian boogeyman and won't do any critical thinking on why that's an issue". Centering this entire conversation on the Hamas group and acting like Palestinian civilians deserve to be bombed, murdered, raped, torn apart, and erased just because of a quote unquote terrorist group that Israel literally helped to create and ONLY exists in response to Israel's violent occupation and murder of Palestinians.

"Israel works very hard to evacuate civilians." Yeah? Telling them to go somewhere safe and then bombing those areas too? Being oh so gracious and giving them a couple of hours to leave their homeland forever and never be able to go back? After Israeli civilians cheer and fantasize about building hotels and theme parks over the graves of thousands of innocent people? "There were unspeakable war crimes committed against Israel". Oh yeah I get it now. War crimes and murder only matter when it's Israel but not when it's Palestine. Thanks for putting that so clearly!

"I think there's a lot of trust that needs to be built up before that is possible. You can't live side by side with people you believe want to kill you." Wow, it's almost like that's a perfect reading of how Palestinians feel after decades of being murdered by the Israeli state oh oh what? No, she was talking about Israel? Oh yeah okay.

The audacity to treat Palestinians like children who can't help themselves around the cookies like BITCH you are insane. Outwardly saying that Palestinian people can't be trusted to act normal in society. The exact same rhetoric that white people used to justify not freeing enslaved people. The same rhetoric they used to justify not giving land back to indigenous people. The same rhetoric used to bomb Vietnam and Japan. It's almost like violent colonizers have a history of viewing their victims as violent, uncontrollable savages who would immediately do to their colonizers what was done to them. That fear of violent Palestinians is your own spiritual guilt haunting you for supporting their murder and oppression. That will live with you no matter what happens to the people of Palestine or the state of Israel.

I just... I'm sorry for ranting about this random ass person on a failing app they probably only used so they wouldn't get ratioed on twitter but something about it just really got to me. The only comfort is that their replies were littered with people calling them out and,,, attempting to educate them.

It's ironic that so many of their gotchas for why we should support Israel could actually be applied to Palestine and these zionists just,, never get that? They never see the irony. They don't get it. They refuse to get it. How anyone could listen to this and think this is a rational person who doesn't support genocide is beyond me. This is 101 genocidal colonizer.

[fedorahead]

we spend our entire lives being taught how to identify phishing and nigerian prince and love scams but never taught why they work, only derision for the people falling for them

they work by exploiting our compassion for our fellow man, and a little bit our greed

if someone is asking for your support and not offering anything in return, it's not a scam, it's just a request.

if someone is on the main drag flying a sign, you can just walk past, you can give em something, you can make a new friend, or you can harass them. if you care that their spaceship probably didn't actually run out of fuel, that's kind of a you problem because the rest of us understand that the spaceship is a rhetorical device used to represent their real life struggles. and either way, the odds that you're gonna stop walking, stand and point, screaming about spaceships and liars, are pretty slim to none because you're a coward even if you did feel some major ethical violation for their sign being representational rather than literal. also because you know that some dude spanging is already in a lower position than you in society, doing what he can to try to survive. you understand that, and maybe you don't support his spacecraft habit, and you walk on by and none of this takes more than five seconds of your life. and fuck it, maybe he really did have a spaceship and it really did run out of fuel. it's not like you can cerify that.

so when you log onto tumblr and you see a bunch of requests for assistance for people in a warzone, it can feel really weird if you've lived a life of privilege and never seen people trying to survive before. when you think making rent is the biggest stressor in your life, it can be hard to understand there's a level below where getting a bottle of water is the line between life and death. your life is hard and nobody can take that from you, but you still have to recognize there are people on a lower rung with lives that are also hard and that fucking with them would be extra shitty and really unnecessary.

and maybe you see something that seems suspicious. maybe it's not a rhetorical device like a spaceship, but something that alerts your compassion scam sense like a gofundme being based in a different location than the person in need, or someone seeming to coordinate a huge amount of money to "several families" that you aren't sure are real. and it's not a spaceship, so they're not being upfront with their misleading if that's what they're doing, and so it makes you extra uncomfortable because you see others throwing as much care and compassion at these people as they can while you sit with an eyebrow quirked wondering how they could be so stupid to fall for these scams.

but you've skipped a few steps here. you have decided they are scams based on some red flags, which is fine when you're making a decision for yourself. but some red flags aren't enough to discredit someone, just enough to keep yourself safe. so scroll past and live your life.

if you want to start a campaign to tear them down, you have a lot more work to do! you have to actually do some digging! maybe even talk to strangers for more information!

when you come at someone, you gotta come correct. because whether you destroy their life or not, your oversight is gonna destroy you. and if you did not get absolute fucking proof that the person you're targeting is a genuine scammer, ignoring all of the ethical ramifications of attacking innocent people, you've chosen to alienate every single one of those passionate compassionate donors who are pouring their lifeblood into trying to make the world a better place. and they've been fighting for these people in the face of genocide (as far as they are concerned), so why the fuck would they back down in the face of someone on tumblr?

it's pretty weird to insist someone is scamming the greater internet for spaceship parts when there's an actual spaceship parts vetting process going on by volunteers specifically designed to rule out the people who don't actually have spaceships vs the ones who genuinely crash landed and need a hand. and there's photos of the spaceships. and you can converse with the people, actually talk to them, about their spaceship experience. hell, even have a friend also talk to them and see if you both get the same story. maybe look into the people aggregating all the spaceship requests into a spreadsheet of legitimate spaceship victims and see if their stories add up. communicate with the donors who say they talk to the people requesting parts every day. learn how the effort is going, how the money is getting to the families.

i'm sure there are some very real scams happening as these situations are rife with people trying to take advantage, and maybe you'll uncover some of them with your digging and then people can actually step in and help. but until you've put in that work, you're just kicking wildly into a crowd with better vetting and more community work than "dude sitting on the corner with a sign".

and if you wanna call the whole thing a conspiracy or flawed or whatever, do that without pointing the finger at people who are likely also victims of that conspiracy. do it honestly and with integrity instead of being an outrage culture harnessing little bitch.

[whetstonefires]

i thought the narrative did allow for sympathizing with jet and hama? hell, the narrative structure with jet and hama has their sad backstories and motives placed first, then after that they do things that make katara more and more uncomfortable until it gets to something horrifying. jet even tried to make a new life afterwards and his death is nothing but tragic. azula was introduced as a terrifying sociopath and wasn't given sympathetic attention until season 3.

Weirdly this ties in to some of the themes from the Vietnam War ask I just answered! Let’s see what I can do.

The thing is. You’re allowed to pity Jet and Hama, but they aren’t presented to us in sympathetic terms, no. We aren’t meant to empathize too closely with them, or even see them as immense tragedies. Jet’s death is sad, but it’s also a relief; it isn’t framed to stick with the viewer as even a major story beat.

We are explicitly discouraged from identifying with both of them; their role in the story is as negative examples, warning the main characters away from senseless violence and extremism.

Putting their sad backstories first and then following it with a Dark Twist actually works against making them sympathetic, because it means the motion of the narrative is away from them--we start out with a positive impression that gets worse, which leaves a much more negative psychological imprint than starting with bad and getting even a little better. It draws the attention and the story away from what was done to them and toward what they did, while the order in which Azula is shown to us moves the other way.

So their traumas are provided as context for their actions, though in a very outline version in Jet’s case, but they aren’t dwelt on; we don’t get into their heads and feel their agony with them; the narrative’s engagement with their motives is restricted to explication, and the assertion that their suffering does not justify their actions.

Which isn’t exactly wrong--they both were targeting noncombatants in a way that wasn’t likely to be terribly helpful to anyone, and that really is something that deserves warning away from because it’s very tempting when you have a lot of pain, and the proxies for your real enemy are so much easier to reach with the strength you have.

(Lateral violence is born from this process of reframing, though what they were doing was not that--they both were managing to target the actual group they had beef with, which is better than a lot of people in real life manage rip.)

But that’s a specific narrative choice that was made with these characters, to create them and deal with them as dark-reflections-in-the-world of other people’s (mostly Katara’s) wounded anger, and nothing more.

While Azula got a whole episode wherein the emotional arc of the A-plot centered largely around her feelings about her own social awkwardness and relationship with her mother.

And like. This is, for the most part, a side effect of Azula’s centrality in the story and her relationship with Zuko!

And of the way the Fire Nation royal family is used as a narrative microcosm of how the ideology behind Fire expansionism is toxic and abusive all the way down, and has to be dismantled.

So it’s not bad, exactly.

But it does mean that we’re encouraged to engage far more closely and in a much more nuanced manner with the self-image and lived experience of the homicidal, consciously sadistic young fascist from the industrially developed expansionist empire...

...than we are with the experiences and decisionmaking of the oppressed people victimized by the system of which she is a leading part. 

And that’s kind of a pattern in American media, and deserves to be pointed out and critiqued where it crops up. It’s kind of inevitable, but it would be better if it could not be an unmarked default.

The narrative, in part because of the perspective from (and to) which it was being written, can more comfortably engage with Azula’s experiences because they’re ultimately personal--they interface with the broader, institutional reality in terms of allegory and in terms of consequence, but they are built on and about, and can be discussed in terms of, the interactions of individual persons.

While otoh Jet and Hama’s formative traumas are institutional in nature--it was the Fire Nation as military power that took their families and their homes and the lives they should have had away from them; it was the Fire Nation as administrator of colonial-political prison that destroyed Hama inch by inch.

And how do you resolve that? How do you parcel that down and let that go and make peace within yourself, when the thing that destroyed you is still there in the world, still taking and hurting and still beyond your reach? It hurts and it expands as if to swallow the whole world, that question, that irreconcilable need.

Katara only comes to terms with her own, in-comparison contained, experience of being traumatized by that same institution by drilling down until it’s a grudge against a single human person, who isn’t worth it.

But of course it really was the Fire Nation that took her mother away from her. And that’s difficult. That’s beyond the scope of the children’s cartoon. So they lock it away.

And Azula is locked away in the end, too, but she’s locked away as a person, whom we came close to and watched very intimately as she broke. While Jet and Hama are to a considerable degree locked away as ideas, not allowed to escape the confines of their rhetorical roles.

Making Hama a serial kidnapper/torturer/maybe-killer and locus of horror, and sending her back to Fire Nation captivity in a community with every reason to hate and fear her, and abandoning the character there with no follow-up (except using her legacy as a characteristic of villains in the sequel series) was a narrative decision that the people writing Avatar made.

There were good reasons for it in terms of the plot and Katara’s arc and it was even good storytelling! It doesn’t Ruin Avatar and there’s not an easy fix for it.

But it was a decision, and it has reverberations in terms of the history of representation of institutionally wronged people and particularly indigenous people in American media.

Having Jet be first almost a straw man of a resistance fighter, then betrayed and victimized by his own people, and finally literally disposed of, and take his rage and struggle with colonial aftermath with him, was a choice that was made, and which also has implications and an impact on the worldbuilding.

It’s a children’s series, and it’s a plot that needs to be resolvable on Aang’s terms; there’s only so far they could pursue either thread, but those decisions--especially with Hama--carry a certain subtext, and stand in stark contrast to the depth Azula in all her glorious shattered monstrosity was permitted.

And it’s worth talking about!

I mean...Korra had a lot of writing issues, like the pacing and the horrible love triangle, but a major underlying one (at least in Season One I didn’t get any further haha) was that it tried very hard to get out of realistically engaging with the aftermath of colonial violence in any depth whatsoever, despite specifically choosing to set season 1 in a place founded on the aftermath of colonial violence.

You cannot have America without genocide and colonialism, and when you try to have expy-America without talking about the genocide and colonialism you already established in the setting...you’re shooting your narrative in the gut. 

And this situation was created out of the same limitations that let Azula be more human than Jet or Hama, and dug into the ethical complexity of her situation with far more care than either of them merited.

[serialreblogger]

You want to talk more about the bigotry in Harry Potter? Go ahead! I've actually heard stuff like that before, but have yet to do much research on it personally and it's been a while since I read it, so I'm interested.

WELL

Before we begin I should start with a disclaimer: this analysis will be dedicated to examining as many bigoted aspects of Harry Potter’s writing as I can think of, so--while I personally am more or less comfortable balancing critical evaluation with enjoyment of a piece, and strongly advocate developing your own abilities to do the same--I know not everyone is comfortable reading/enjoying a story once they realize its flaws, and again, while I think it’s very important to acknowledge the flaws in culturally impactful stories like Harry Potter, I also know for some people the series is really really important for personal reasons and whatnot. 

So! If you’re one of those people, and you have trouble balancing critical engagement with enjoyment, please feel free to skip this analysis (at least for the time being). Self-care is important, and it’s okay to find your own balance between educating yourself and protecting yourself.

On another note, this is gonna be limited strictly to morally squicky things to do with Rowling’s writing and the narrative itself. Bad stuff characters do won’t be talked about unless it’s affirmed by the narrative (held up as morally justified), and plot holes, unrealistic social structures, etc. will not be addressed (it is, after all, a kid’s series, especially in the first few books. Quidditch doesn’t have to make sense). This is strictly about how Rowling’s personal biases and bigotry impacted the story and writing of Harry Potter.

Sketch Thing #1: Quirrell! I don’t see a lot of people talking about Quirrell and racism, but I feel like it’s a definite thing? Quirinus Quirrell is a white man who wears a turban, gifted to him by an “African prince” (what country? where? I couldn’t find a plausible specific when I was researching it for a fic. If there’s a country which has current/recent royalty that might benevolently interact with someone, and also a current/recent culture where turbans of the appropriate style are common, I couldn’t find it). Of course, it wasn’t actually given to him by an African prince in canon, but it’s still an unfortunate explanation.

More importantly, ALL the latent Islamophobia/xenophobia in the significance of the turban. Like, look at it.

“Man wears turban, smells like weird spices, turns out to be concealing an evil second face under the turban” really sounds like something A Bit Not Good, you know? If you wanted to stoke the flames of fear about foreignness, it would be hard to do it better than to tell children about a strange man who’s hiding something horrible underneath a turban.

Also, Quirrell’s stutter being faked to make you think he was trustworthy is a very ableist trope, and an unfortunately common one. “Disability isn’t actually real, just a trick to make you accommodate and trust them” is not a great message, and it’s delivered way too often by mass media. (Check out season 1 of the Flash for another popular example.)

Sketch Thing #2: The goblins. Much more commonly talked about, in my experience, which is good! The more awareness we have about the messages we’re getting from our popular media, the better, in my view. 

For those who haven’t encountered this bit of analysis before: the goblins in Harry Potter reek of antisemitic stereotypes. Large ears, small eyes, crooked noses, green/gray skin, lust for money, control of the banks, and a resentful desire to overthrow the Good British Government? Very reminiscent of wwii propaganda posters, and in general the hateful rhetoric directed towards Jewish people by other European groups from time immemorial. 

I’m also extremely uncomfortable with how goblin culture is handled by Rowling in general. Like, the goblins were a people that were capable of using magic, but prohibited by the British government from owning wands. That was never addressed. They also had a different culture around ownership, which is why Griphook claimed that the sword of Gryffindor belonged rightfully to the goblins--a gift isn’t passed down to descendants upon death, but instead reverts to the maker. This cultural miscommunication is glossed over, despite the fact that it sounds like Griphook’s voicing a very real, legitimate grievance.

To be honest, apart from the antisemitism, the way Goblin culture is treated by the narrative in Harry Potter is very uncomfortably reminiscent to me of how First Nations were treated by English settlers in North America, before the genocide really got started. The Goblins even have a history of “rebellions,” which both raises the question of why another species is ruling them to begin with, and more significantly, is eerily reminiscent of the Red River Rebellion in Canada (which, for the record, wasn’t actually a rebellion--it was Metis people fighting against the Canadian government when it tried to claim the land that legally, rightfully belonged to the Metis. But that’s another story)

In sum: I Don’t Like the implications of how Rowling treats the goblins.

Sketch Thing #3: Muggles. Ok because we’re all “muggles” (presumably) and because I’m white, talking about this might rapidly degenerate into thinly-veiled “reverse racism” discourse, so please y’all correct me if I stray into that kind of colossal stupidity. However, I am not comfortable with the way non-magical humans are treated by Rowling’s narrative.

The whole premise of Harry Potter is that Evil Wizards Want To Hurt The Muggles, right? Except that it’s not. Voldemort’s goal is to subjugate the inferior humans, rule over non-magical people as the rightful overlords, but that’s hardly mentioned by the narrative. Instead, it focuses on the (also egregious and uncomfortably metaphorical) “blood purism” of wizarding culture, and how wizards would be persecuted for their heritage.

But muggles, actual muggles, are arguably the ones who stand to lose the most to Voldemort, and they’re never notified of their danger. We, the muggles reading it, don’t even really register that we’re the collateral damage in this narrative. Because throughout the series, muggles are set up as laughingstocks. Even the kindest, most muggle-friendly wizards are more obsessed with non-magical people as a curiosity than actually able to relate to them as people. 

I dunno, friends, I’m just uncomfortable with the level of dehumanization that’s assigned to non-magical humans. (Like, there’s not even a non-offensive term for them in canon. There’s “muggle,” which is humorously indulgent at best and actively insulting at worst, and there’s “squib,” which is literally the word for a firework that fails to spark.) It’s not like “muggles” are actually a real people group that can be oppressed, and like I said this kind of analysis sounds a bit like the whining of “reverse racism” advocates where the powerful majority complains about being insulted, but... it kind of also reeks of ableism. People that are not able to do a certain cool, useful thing (use magic) are inherently inferior, funny at best and disposable at worst. They suffer and die every day from things that can easily be cured with magic, but magic-users don’t bother to help them, and even when they’re actively attacked the tragedy of hundreds dying is barely mourned by the narrative. 

It gives me bad vibes. I don’t Love It. It sounds uncomfortably like Rowling’s saying “people that are unable to access this common skill are inherently inferior,” and that really does sound like ableism to me. 

Either way, there’s something icky about consigning an entire group of people to the role of “funny clumsy stupid,” regardless of any real-world connections there may or may not be to that people group. Don’t teach children that a single genetic characteristic can impact someone’s personhood, or make them inherently less worthy of being taken seriously. Just, like... don’t do that.

Sketch Thing #4: The house elves. Everyone knows about the house elves, I think. The implications of “they’re slaves but they like it” and the only person who sees it as an issue having her campaign turned into a joke by the narrative (“S.P.E.W.”? Really? It might as well stand for “Stupidly Pleading for Expendable Workers”) are pretty clear.

Sketch Thing #5: Azkaban. Are we gonna talk about how wizarding prison involves literal psychological torture, to the point where prisoners (who are at least sometimes there wrongly, hence the plot of book 3) almost universally go “insane”? This is sort of touched on by the narrative--“dementors are bad and we shouldn’t be using them” was a strongly delivered message, but it was less “because torturing people, even bad people, is not a great policy” and more “because dementors are by their natures monstrous and impossible to fully control.” 

“This humanoid species is monstrous and impossible to control” is, once again, a very concerning message to deliver, and it doesn’t actually address the real issue of “prison torture is bad, actually.” Please, let’s not normalize the idea that prison is inherently horrific. Of course, prison as it exists in North America and Britain is, indeed, inherently horrific and often involves torture (solitary confinement, anyone?), but like--that’s a bad thing, y’all, it’s deeply dysfunctional and fundamentally unjust. Don’t normalize it.

Sketch Thing #6: Werewolves. Because Rowling explicitly stated that lycanthropy in her series is a metaphor for “blood-borne diseases like HIV/AIDS”. The linked article says it better than I could:

Rowling lumps HIV and AIDS in with other blood-borne illnesses, which ignores their uniquely devastating history. And Lupin’s story is by no stretch a thorough or helpful examination of the illness. Nor is its translation as an allegory easily understood, beyond the serious stigma that Rowling mentioned.

That Lupin is a danger to others could not more clearly support an attitude of justifiable fear toward him, one that is an abject disservice to those actually struggling with a disease that does not make them feral with rage.

This definitely ties into homophobia, given how deeply the queer community has been affected by HIV/AIDS. Saying a character with a condition that makes him an active threat to those around him is “a metaphor for AIDS” is deeply, deeply distressing, both for its implications about queer people and their safety for the general population, and for the way it specifically perpetuates the false belief that having HIV/AIDS makes a person dangerous.

Sketch Thing #7: Blood Ties. This isn’t, like, inherently sketch, but (especially for those of us with complicated relationships to our birth families) it can rub a lot of people the wrong way. Rowling talks a big talk about the folly of “blood purism,” but she also upholds the idea that blood and blood relations are magically significant. 

Personally, I’m very uncomfortable with the fact that Harry was left with an abusive family for his entire childhood, and it was justified because they were his “blood relatives.” I’ve had this argument with ultra-conservative family friends who genuinely believe it’s a parent’s right to abuse their child, and while I don’t think that’s what Rowling is saying, I do feel uncomfortable with the degree of importance she places on blood family. I’m uncomfortable with the narrative’s confirmation that it is acceptable (even necessary) to compromise on boundaries and allow the continuation of abuse because “it’s better for a child to be raised by their Real Family” than it is to risk them to the care of an unrelated parent.

Genetic relations aren’t half as important as Rowling tells us. For people with a bad birth family, this can be a damaging message to internalize, so I’ll reiterate: it’s a pretty thought, the love in blood, but it’s ultimately false. The family you build is more real, more powerful and more valid than any family you were assigned to by an accident of genes.

I can think of one or two more things, but they’re all a lot more debatable than what I have here--as it is, you might not agree with everything I’ve said. That’s cool! I’m certainly not trying to start a fight. We all have the right to read and interpret things for ourselves, and to disagree with each other. And again, I’m not trying to ruin Harry Potter. It’s honestly, as a series, not worse in terms of latent bigotry than most other books of its time, and better than many. It’s just more popular, with a much bigger impact and many more people analyzing it. I do think it’s important to critically evaluate the media that shapes one’s culture, and to acknowledge its shortcomings (and the ways it can be genuinely harmful to people, especially when it’s as culturally powerful as Harry Potter). But that doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t enjoy it for what it was meant to be: a fun, creative, engaging story, with amazing characters, complex plots, heroism and inspiration for more than one generation of people. 

Enjoy Harry Potter. It is, in my opinion, a good series, worth reading and re-reading for enjoyment, even for nourishment. It’s also flawed. These things can both be true.

[kalamity-jayne]

Speaking from personal experience, the people who say shit like, “this isn’t a literal genocide,” don’t have a fucking clue how the mechanisms of Hate work, they have never been the victim of a serious hate crime. And by serious hate crime I don’t just mean getting called a slur, i mean, “someone actually tried to physically harm or kill you.”

Genocides don’t just happen at the flip of the switch, it’s a slow and steady escalation. If the ramp up is too swift too soon the fascists are met with too much resistance.

Genocides begin with rhetoric and proceed glacially until a certain tipping point is reached because by moving at such a slow pace all the fence sitters and a large swathe of the victims become frogs in a pot of water that’s just been set to boil, blind to the severity of the existential threat until it’s too late.

The reticence to call this a genocide also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what hegemonic power structures look like and how they operate. There are several reasons why hegemonies like the patriarchal white supremacist christ-fascism are so difficult to uproot.

One, they are composed of several different blocks of power constituted by an ever rotating cast of actors. Two, hegemonies hid their internal mechanisms through a process of essentialization, reducing whole populations to base essences it claims are in-born to said group (the surface level of this would be stereotypes), and naturalization, slowly over a long period of time presenting the oppression it subjects us to as both natural and good. Through this process of essentialization and naturalization hegemonies make every single one of us either willing or unwitting active participants to the our own oppression and each other’s.

Having been a victim of a violent hate crime I wouldn’t wish that on anyone but if you are one of the fools saying this anti-trans agenda isn’t genocidal you need to read up on some history because right now, you’re one of the frogs.

if a trans woman complains about the ongoing campaign of trans genocide in the united states and the uk and your response is “well it’s not TECHNICALLY genocide yet so you really shouldn’t use that word because it makes us look bad” i think you should perhaps actually just shut the fuck up and read literally any news coverage containing the words “trans” and “desantis,” just for starters

like wow so they’re not literally dragging us to camps??? it’s not literally a nazi germany style holocaust so you can’t call it genocide????? buddy do you think the fascists are BLUFFING?????????? grow the fuck up you child, because if you’re even a little bit not-cishetwhite they’re gonna use the “threat” us trans people represent as a pretext to come after you.

we call it a genocidal agenda NOW because that is THEIR STATED INTENTION. that is the ONLY logical outcome of the policies they’re proposing and the words they say and the hate they foment. we call it a genocidal agenda NOW because by the time it actually becomes a genocide it’ll be TOO FUCKING LATE

[ingek73]

01-22-2112:00 PM

‘Time is running out’: Prince Harry calls for social media reform after U.S. Capitol riot

In a Q&A with Fast Company, The Duke of Sussex responds to social media’s role in the Capitol attack and explains why the next step must be to hold social platforms accountable.

[Photo: Samir Hussein/WireImage/Getty Images]

BY KATHARINE SCHWAB

LONG READ

Over the past year, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have become increasingly outspoken advocates for healthier social media—a topic that is clearly near to their hearts, given the horrendous vitriol and harassment they have faced online and in the press.

By partnering with organizations that aim to understand technology’s impact on society and vocally critiquing the state of online life in the media, the couple are using their clout to push for change in the current digital ecosystem. In an essay for Fast Company last August, Prince Harry called on business leaders to rethink their role in funding the advertising system that underlies the misinformation and divisive rhetoric that’s often shared on social platforms.

“This remodeling must include industry leaders from all areas drawing a line in the sand against unacceptable online practices as well as being active participants in the process of establishing new standards for our online world,” he wrote.

Now, social media is facing an inflection point, just weeks after a violent mob stormed the Capitol in an attack that was conceived, plotted, and stoked primarily online. Powerful platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube responded by suspending Donald Trump’s accounts, while Amazon and Apple cut ties with Parler, a social network that was used by the rioters. But experts and regulators believe that more must be done to reform social media.

Against this background, Prince Harry is once again imploring people to pay attention to the problems social media have wrought. In a wide-ranging interview with Fast Company, he explains why social platforms must be held accountable for the Capitol attack and the circumstances that enabled it, and why we must remodel the digital world before it’s too late.

FC: Six months ago, you wrote an essay for Fast Company in which you asked companies to take action to ensure the meaningful reform of our “unchecked and divisive attention economy.” How has your perspective on social media’s role in society changed over the last few weeks since the attack on the U.S. Capitol?

Prince Harry: When I wrote that piece, I was sharing my view that dominant online platforms have contributed to and stoked the conditions for a crisis of hate, a crisis of health, and a crisis of truth.

And I stand by that, along with millions of others who see and feel what this era has done at every level—we are losing loved ones to conspiracy theories, losing a sense of self because of the barrage of mistruths, and at the largest scale, losing our democracies.

The magnitude of this cannot be overstated, as noted even by the defectors who helped build these platforms. It takes courage to stand up, cite where things have gone wrong, and offer proposals and solutions. The need for that is greater than ever before. So I’m encouraged by and grateful for the groundswell of people who work—or have worked—inside these very platforms choosing to speak up against hate, violence, division, and confusion.

FC: Why is this topic so important to you? How was your outlook affected by the well-documented online harassment you and your wife have faced in the U.K.?

PH: I was really surprised to witness how my story had been told one way, my wife’s story had been told one way, and then our union sparked something that made the telling of that story very different.

That false narrative became the mothership for all of the harassment you’re referring to. It wouldn’t have even begun had our story just been told truthfully.

WE ARE LOSING LOVED ONES TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES, LOSING A SENSE OF SELF BECAUSE OF THE BARRAGE OF MISTRUTHS, AND AT THE LARGEST SCALE, LOSING OUR DEMOCRACIES.”

PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX

But the important thing about what we experienced is that it led to us hearing from so many others around the world. We’ve thought a lot about those in much more vulnerable positions than us, and how much of a need there is for real empathy and support.

To their own degree, everyone has been deeply affected by the current consequences of the digital space. It could be as individual as seeing a loved one go down the path of radicalisation or as collective as seeing the science behind the climate crisis denied.

We are all vulnerable to it, which is why I don’t see it as a tech issue, or a political issue—it’s a humanitarian issue.

From an early age, the guiding principle in my life has been about the duty to truth, the pursuit of compassion, and the alleviation of suffering. My life has always been about trying to do my part to help those who need it most, and right now, we need this change—because it touches nearly every single thing we do or are exposed to.

FC: Where do we go from here? What do you think needs to change to create an online atmosphere where truth, equity, and free speech are all prioritized?

PH: I ask the same thing every day and lean on the experts to help give guidance on how to reform the state of our digital world—how we make it better for our kids, of course, but also for ourselves—now.

The avalanche of misinformation we are all inundated with is bending reality and has created this distorted filter that affects our ability to think clearly or even understand the world around us.

What happens online does not stay online—it spreads everywhere, like wildfire: into our homes and workplaces, into the streets, into our minds. The question really becomes about what to do when news and information sharing is no longer a decent, truthful exchange, but rather an exchange of weaponry.

WHAT HAPPENS ONLINE DOES NOT STAY ONLINE—IT SPREADS EVERYWHERE, LIKE WILDFIRE: INTO OUR HOMES AND WORKPLACES, INTO THE STREETS, INTO OUR MINDS.”

PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX

The answer I’ve heard from experts in this space is that the common denominator starts with accountability. There has to be accountability to collective wellbeing, not just financial incentive. It’s hard for me to understand how the platforms themselves can eagerly take profit but shun responsibility.

There also has to be common, shared accountability. We can call for digital reform and debate how that happens and what it looks like, but it’s also on each of us to take a more critical eye to our own relationship with technology and media. To start, it doesn’t have to be that complicated. Consider setting limits on the time you spend on social media, stop yourself from endlessly scrolling, fact-check the source and research the information you see, and commit to taking a more compassionate approach and tone when you post or comment. These might seem like little things, but they add up.

Finally, there’s a responsibility to compassion that we each own. Humans crave connection, social bonds, and a sense of belonging. When we don’t have those, we end up fractured, and in the digital age that can unfortunately be a catalyst for finding connection in mass extremism movements or radicalisation. We need to take better care of each other, especially in these times of isolation and vulnerability.

FC: Since the Capitol riot, big tech companies from Twitter to Amazon have exercised their power by making determinations about who gets to use their products. Do you think companies should have the power to make decisions about who has access to some of the most prominent platforms on the internet?

PH: We have seen time and again what happens when the real-world cost of misinformation is disregarded. There is no way to downplay this. There was a literal attack on democracy in the United States, organised on social media, which is an issue of violent extremism. It is widely acknowledged that social media played a role in the genocide in Myanmar and was used as a vehicle to incite violence against the Rohingya people, which is a human rights issue. And in Brazil, social media provided a conduit for misinformation which ultimately brought destruction to the Amazon, which is an environmental and global health issue.

In a way, taking a predominately hands-off approach to problems for so long is itself an exercise in power.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about Speakers’ Corner, an area in London’s Hyde Park which is home to open-air debate, dialogue, and the exchange of information and ideas. I used to go past it all the time.

This concept of a ‘public square’ isn’t anything new—it can be traced back to the early days of democracies. You get up there and speak your piece. There are ground rules. You can’t incite violence, you can’t obscure who you are, and you can’t pay to monopolise or own the space itself. Ideas are considered or shot down; opinions are formed. At its best, movements are born, lies are laid bare, and attempts to stoke violence are rejected in the moment. At its worst, intolerance, groupthink, hate, and persecution are amplified. And at times, it forces lines to be drawn and rules or laws to emerge or be challenged.

I THINK IT’S A FALSE CHOICE TO SAY YOU HAVE TO PICK BETWEEN FREE SPEECH OR A MORE COMPASSIONATE AND TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL WORLD.”

PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX

I’m not saying we should abandon technology in favour of Speakers’ Corner. Rather, it’s that we should avoid buying into the idea that social media is the ultimate modern-day public square and that any attempt to ask platforms to be accountable to the landscape they’ve created is an attack or restriction of speech. I think it’s a false choice to say you have to pick between free speech or a more compassionate and trustworthy digital world. They are not mutually exclusive.

With these companies, in this model, we have a very small number of incredibly powerful and consolidated gatekeepers who have deployed hidden algorithms to pick the content billions see every day, and curate the information—or misinformation—everyone consumes. This radically alters how and why we inform opinions. It alters how we speak and what we decide to speak about. It alters how we think and how we react.

Ultimately, it has allowed for completely different versions of reality, with opposing sets of truth, to exist simultaneously. In this, one’s understanding of truth does not have to be based in fact, because there’s always an ability to furnish some form of “proof” to reinforce that version of “truth.” I believe this is the opposite of what we should want from our collective online community. The current model sorts and separates rather than bringing us together; it drowns out or even eliminates healthy dialogue and reasonable debate; it strips away the mutual respect we should have for each other as citizens of the same world.

FC: How do you plan to use your platform to push for change when it comes to hate speech, algorithmic amplification, and misinformation in 2021? Since you’re not a trained expert on these topics, why do you think people should listen to your perspective?

PH: I know enough to know that I certainly don’t know everything, especially when it comes to tech—but when you see this as a humanitarian issue, then you see the spread of misinformation as requiring a humanitarian response.

This is why my wife and I spent much of 2020 consulting the experts and learning directly from academics, advocates, and policymakers. We’ve also been listening with empathy to people who have stories to share—including people who have been deeply affected by misinformation and those who grew up as digital natives.

What we hope to do is continue to be a spotlight for their perspectives, and focus on harnessing their experience and energy to accelerate the pace of change in the digital world.

FC: Your Archewell Foundation has collaborated with several groups and institutions that aim to rethink technology and study its impact on people. As a philanthropist, why are you supporting research efforts within this space?

PH: If we’ve learned anything, it’s that our dominant technologies were built to grow and grow and grow, without serious consideration for the ripple effect of that growth. We have to do more than simply reconsider this model. The stakes are too high, and time is running out.

WE HAVE TO DO MORE THAN SIMPLY RECONSIDER THIS MODEL. THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH, AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT.”

PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX

There are a lot of incredible people and digital architects thinking about—or already working on—innovative and healthy platforms. We need to support them, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it can make commercial sense. And we have to look at the state of competition and ensure that the landscape doesn’t indiscriminately squeeze out or incentivise against fresh ideas.

I believe we can begin to make our digital world healthier, more compassionate, more inclusive, and trustworthy.

And it’s time to move from rethinking to remodelling.

FC: Given your concerns about divisiveness, misinformation, and hate speech online, how have your views on using social media yourself changed over the last few years? How do you approach it now and are you planning to make any changes?

PH: It’s funny you should ask because ironically, we woke up one morning a couple of weeks ago to hear that a Rupert Murdoch newspaper said we were evidently quitting social media. That was ‘news’ to us, bearing in mind we have no social media to quit, nor have we for the past 10 months.

The truth is, despite its well-documented ills, social media can offer a means of connecting and community, which are vital to us as human beings. We need to hear each other’s stories and be able to share our own. That’s part of the beauty of life. And don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting that a reform of the digital space will create a world that’s all rainbows and sunshine, because that’s not realistic, and that, too, isn’t life.

There can be disagreement, conversation, opposing points of view—as there should be, but never to the extent that violence is created, truth is mystified, and lives are jeopardised.

We will revisit social media when it feels right for us—perhaps when we see more meaningful commitments to change or reform—but right now we’ve thrown much of our energy into learning about this space and how we can help.

FC: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about our ability to build a healthier online ecosystem?

PH: Optimistic, of course, because I believe in us, as human beings, and that we are wired to be compassionate and honest and good. Aspects of the digital space have unfortunately manipulated (or even highlighted) our weaknesses and brought out the worst in some.

We have to believe in optimism because that’s the world and the humanity I want for my son, and all of us.

We look forward to being part of the human experience—not a human experiment.

[theinquisitivej]

‘Avengers: Endgame’ – A Movie Review, and a Reflection on Endings

Endings are rarely the definitive final word.

A person’s story can come to an end, but the stories of the people around them and the world they live in carry on, even if that one person isn’t there anymore. That realisation conjures up a whole tangled mess of emotions, but it is the natural way of things. It’s not right to want everything to end with you. In life, we make the most of the time and energy we’re given, and if you make enough right decisions, get lucky, and dedicate enough of yourself, you’ll hopefully get to go with the sense that you did okay, and that those you leave behind are going to be alright. Endings in fiction are as infinitely variable as any other feature of artistic expression, but in narratives with expansive casts or fleshed out worlds, they often leave us with the feeling that we’d only have to stay a little longer and there would be more stories to explore. Just as the real world is bigger than any one lifetime, successfully-established fictional worlds feel much larger than any one set of characters and their narrative.

         For the last eleven years, audiences have enjoyed a series of blockbusters featuring an impressively varied range of stylistic approaches. At their best, these films are deeply satisfying and affecting, delivering poignant moments about characters coming to terms with their own flaws and trying their best to do the right thing. But when considered together, these films have never entirely felt resolved, with each one going out on a lingering note of “just wait for what comes next”. The story was never over for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, because another film was never far away. And now that the grand conclusion has finally come and $2.5 billion worth of us have watched and re-watched it, things are just the same as ever, and yet we’re at a moment that we’ve never seen before and are unlikely to see again for a long time. We’ve reached an ending of the story that begun with Tony Stark and his box of scraps in that cave in 2008. The story is over. But there are more stories to come.

Yes, there will be spoilers ahead. But I say again: this film has crossed over the two and a half billion dollar mark. I’m pretty sure if you’re reading this, you’ll have contributed your drop or two to Marvel’s bucket. So let’s talk about the movie.

         I appreciate the efforts of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely as screenwriters, Joe and Anthony Russo as directors, and the input of every person involved in deciding the final shape of Endgame’s story to make its structure noticeably different to that of Infinity War. The previous Avengers film is a constant juggling act, relying on the viewer taking to Thanos as a central thread around which the rest of the film is hung. We’re either seeing the various steps Thanos is taking along his journey, hearing about what kind of man he is and what he intends to do, or seeing characters who are consistently on the back foot as they frantically scramble to strategically and mentally prepare for an opponent they’re not ready for. By this point in the series, we’ve been conditioned to expect to see things primarily from the point of view of the dozens of characters aligned with the Avengers, but Infinity War is messy and fractured when you look at it from the perspective of the heroes. And that’s the point – our heroes are fractured, and so there’s no unified effort against the villain as he single-mindedly pursues his goal with continuous success. The Avengers are a mess, and they lose. Thanos is the one who seizes control of the narrative, undoing the decisions and sacrifices made by the heroes as he dictates what his ambitions are and why they are so noble… and because viewers are susceptible to sympathising with the person who names themselves the hero and takes the reins of the narrative, far too many people bought Thanos’ rhetoric. For a year there, we really were seeing think-pieces that said “maybe the genocidal zealot who emotionally manipulates people is right”!

         But Endgame’s structure deliberately contrasts against Infinity War’s. Whereas Infinity War is about heroes being separated and the catastrophe that follows in the wake of this disunity, Endgame presents its heroes as a group of grieving people who are unified through their shared regrets and resolve to overcome their despair together and work towards a singular objective to try and fix everything. The Avengers are disassembled in Infinity War and reassembled in Endgame. As a result, the structure is comparatively more uniform. You can clearly differentiate the film into three distinct thirds – the five-year time skip that shows life on a mournful Earth still coming to terms with half of life being eradicated, the Back to the Future Part II time-travel mission as characters revisit scenarios from previous films, and the big blowout battle where every surviving main superpowered character in the entire franchise is dumped into one battle for your viewing pleasure. Each third offers something different, meaning you cover all of the ground that you’d want to in a dramatic, energetic, and emotional close to a blockbuster saga with literally dozens of characters who are all key players. Each third is impressively balanced, and they all act as strong supporting columns for the film as a result.

         However, because these thirds are as distinct as they are, it’s almost inevitable that you’ll come away saying “I preferred these two parts over that third part, which felt okay but a little unnecessary”. Personally, I think there are plenty of themes (grief and a desire to revisit the past, putting guilt and trauma to rest, and of course, the strength of unity) and character arcs (Nebula finally choosing to integrate herself into a group of people who value her and literally killing the old version of herself who wanted only to please her abusive father-figure being the stand-out one) which help gel each of the film’s three segments together without much resistance. But I have encountered multiple people who have expressed the sentiment that they really liked two thirds but they could take or leave another third – inevitably, which third is which always varies. I can imagine that, if you’re not getting a lot out of one of the segments, Endgame will certainly make you antsy for the film to return to what you felt it was pulling off more successfully. The three distinct thirds can result in a fragmented viewing experience for some audience members. On the other hand, I felt that the clearer, more focused structure not only made the film seem less jumbled than its predecessor, but also made it a suitable companion-piece to Infinity War and its Thanos-centric structure.

         The emotional response I have to Endgame is not the same electric glee I had from seeing the first Avengers, though moments like Cap picking up the hammer, the cinematic equivalent of a double-page spread of every single MCU hero charging towards Thanos’ army in one image, and “she’s got help” all sparked that feeling off inside me with more intensity than I’ve felt for a long time. No, what I feel more than anything about the MCU right now is a paradoxical sense of melancholic yet nevertheless delighted satisfaction. A part of that comes from the strengths of that first third, which, despite my sincere claims that all three sections gel together successfully, is nevertheless my favourite segment of the film (with the possible exception of the epilogue, but we’ll get to that). In this review’s opening paragraphs, I talked about endings not being the definitive final word as life and the world must always carry on. My reflection on that was primarily positive, but in this opening hour, we see the sad alternative form that this concept can take. Thanos killed half the universe and was killed in retaliation – the conflict ends, as does the hope of repairing the damage done by this tragedy. But the universe doesn’t end even with half of its inhabitants being gone. As Steve succinctly says, the survivors have to keep moving forward, “otherwise Thanos should have killed all of us”. It’s an outlook that Steve encourages, even if he can’t fully believe it himself, because he thinks it’s the best way for people to regain control over their unthinkable circumstances. The setup for Endgame presents us with a universe that died a half-death – everything ended for half its population five years ago, while life for the other half of the population persists, and they are trying their best to make sense of that.

         That struggle with grief, both on a colossal and a personal scale, is what unifies every single character, but the difference lies in how they respond to that grief. Black Widow throws herself into her work to try and keep the good that superheroes can do going, but her efforts feel as if they aren’t enough, being told by Okoye that the natural tectonic shifts she’s reporting on aren’t something you actively address with a strike squad and that you have to “handle it by not handling it”. Hawkeye was always the simple guy involved in the Avengers who was kept grounded by his family. Without them, he has nothing to keep him rooted, no home to return to, so he goes in the complete opposite direction and becomes a dedicated avenger in a literal sense, dolling out punishment fuelled by his frustration without any of the purpose and direction that he gained from his connections to friends and family. Hulk / Banner actually come out of this having made some progress, deciding to meditate on what they learned from their losses and literally come together in their grief to become one being, Professor Hulk. Tony and Pepper make the most of the luck they managed to find together, but are both keenly aware of all those who weren’t so lucky, wanting to get back what they lost but keep what they’ve found, which is remarkably human and understandable. Thor… hm. Okay, yes, Thor is a mixed bag. In all honesty, I loved Thor in this film and was empathetic towards his depression and anxiety attacks. I also love that Thor gets to stay as he is and still be shown that he is indeed worthy to wield Mjolnir and fight in the battle alongside all these other heroes without having to change who he is. But I do acknowledge the issues that numerous viewers have raised about some of the jokes made by the other characters being at the expense of Thor’s weight, and how they found it uncomfortable, and, in instances, meanspirited and harmful. I love the current version of Thor and feel Chris Hemsworth injected even more bubbly charm and infectious spirit to his character while blending it with the genuine pathos Thor was going through with remarkable talent. But the film’s tendency to use the character’s weight as an opportunity to make jokes about him being fat is not ideal. I’m glad to see Thor continue as he is into further movies (though it is possible that they’ll say he lost weight between Endgame and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.3), but I sincerely hope we DON’T see the fat-jokes continue as they are. The lighting, music, and performances of everyone in the cast all contribute to this palpable sensation of immense loss, which communicates not only what’s at stake in this epic conclusion, but also how each character involved has been changed by what they’ve had to go through since Infinity War.

         But that only touches on the melancholic side of things; why do I also feel delighted and satisfied as I take in these sombre themes? Well, to put it simply, this one sticks the landing by closing the right doors in the most appropriate way while keeping other doors open in a balanced approach that seems so right. Tony Stark sacrifices his life after declaring “I am Iron Man” one last time, putting everything of himself into doing the right thing when so long ago he enjoyed a life of zero-accountability and kept his work on weapons technology at a safe distance. The image of his first arc-reactor in its memento case reading “Proof that Tony Stark has a heart” floating on the water at his funeral destroyed me at both viewings, because not only have his actions proved this fact as well, but we see numerous people all around this site as they pay their respects, showing the hearts of so many characters we care about who were connected to his. And Steve Rogers, the soldier who could never sit down if he saw a situation pointed south, after standing up against a galactic tyrant and his army, first alone and then with the support of countless men and women rallying to him, finally lets himself rest. Not many people have talked about the new horizons Steve takes in in this film; when the surviving heroes take Rocket’s ship to the Garden Planet, the camera makes a point of focusing on an extreme close-up of Steve’s eye as they travel through hyperspace. Even after nearly a decade of familiarity with this new era, the man out of time, a kid from 1940s Brooklyn, is seeing things that he could’ve never imagined. He’s come so, so far. I can think of no better conclusion than for him to return back home.

          But the film’s epilogue isn’t just concerned with closing the curtain on these heroes as they sit down to rest. Just as these stories end, we see hints of what stories are yet to come for other heroes. In the sequence where the camera pans over the countless faces attending Tony’s funeral, it’s fitting that the last hero we see (before Nick Fury steps into frame under the veranda, concealed in the shadows at the very end, much like his very first entrance as a post-credits tease at the end of Iron Man) is Carol Danvers. Having made her debut just months ago, she is the most recent addition to this universe, so her position at the back of the line reflects that. Her placement halfway up the steps she’s standing on suggests that she’s acting as an embodiment for the road to the future – she is literally on the next step for the series of films Marvel will make as they move forward. And she’s not alone, because other heroes will continue to thrive and flourish as their stories continue. Sam is handed the mantle of Captain America, and what’s achingly beautiful about this exchange is the attitude of the two men involved. Sam views Steve as his friend first and foremost, so he is sincere when he says he’s happy for him. But Sam also respects Steve so much as the man who deserves to be Captain America. Much like how Mjolnir can only be wielded by those who are worthy, Cap’s shield becomes a sacred relic that should only be worn by the right man for the job. And when Steve gently encourages Sam to try the shield on, knowing full well what it means to the world and to both of them, he does so as both Captain America finding the right man to fill his position, and as Sam’s friend Steve, telling him with assurance that he really is one of the best people he knows. When Sam confesses that he feels like the shield belongs to someone else, Steve responds with elegant purity “it doesn’t”. Everything at the core of Captain America, the bravery, the conviction to always stand back up and fight no matter how much it pains them to do so, and the responsibility to always look out for the little guy, are all qualities which never belonged to Steve and Steve alone; those virtues can belong to anyone, and Steve tells his friend that he recognises them in Sam. I cannot wait to see the good that Sam will do as he follows his promise to do his best.  

         Tom Holland’s Spider-Man has been developing a mentee / mentor relationship with Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man since Civil War, and here it culminates in a bittersweet arc that lays the groundwork for what I expect will be some fascinating and impactful characterisation in Far From Home in a few months’ time. Tony mourns for Peter most of all, viewing him as a surrogate son who has much of the same inventive genius and drive that he has, with the addition of some compassionate heart and level of responsibility that is far beyond his years. Peter has it in him to be better than Tony, and Tony knows this. So it’s understandable why the loss of that kind, youthful spirit and his limitless potential would hurt Tony so much. In Tony’s dying moments, we share Peter’s tears as we see how much this connection means to them both and realise what is being lost. But we know this is exactly what Tony fought for – the chance for the next generation to live and grow. Holland’s performance when we see Peter return to school hints at his sense of disconnection, as his expression creates the impression that he feels like a stranger in a place with which he once felt so familiar. With the support of his friends, especially Ned, he will find his way in the next step of his journey.

          Endgame provides definitive endings for the journeys of characters we’ve been following for more films than we see most actors get to play Bond, but it also manages to cast a hopeful eye towards the future without compromising its position as a neat conclusion to everything up to this point. In fact, its simultaneous handling of reflective closure and moving forward with renewed purpose makes for a remarkably poignant milestone. Stories rarely strike such a balance between meaningful finality and the uplifting excitement of wanting more stories and knowing you’re going to get them. And that probably sounds shallow and frivolous because, at the end of the day, we’re talking about a successful studio delivering a hyped-up film that promises to be a finale but also serves the financially driven purpose of pitching you a dozen other films and TV series. But through the efforts of over a decade’s worth of dedicated storytellers and creative artists, this series has come to mean more than just another substantial drop in Disney’s bucket. It’s become a fictional world that a massive audience has fallen in love with in the same way that people did with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia, Mass Effect, and a hundred other worlds. We’ve rooted for these characters and cried at some of their most emotional moments, and we’ve grown to care so much about the MCU that it represents a living, breathing world for us. And this kind of ending just makes that proximity to reality that much closer. Stories end and lives come to a close, but they often do so in the middle of other people’s lives and stories. After all, Yinsen’s sacrifice in the MCU’s first film, Iron Man is the end of his story, but his death acts as a foundational moment for the man that Tony would grow to be – his ending is a part of Iron Man’s beginning. In Endgame, heroes pass away, lay down arms, or choose to step down from a position they no longer feel a need to hold onto. At the same time, other heroes move onto the next step of their journey, accept new responsibilities, and accept the titles passed onto them from those who know they will do a fine job. It’s a beautiful encapsulation of the natural balance between life and death, between the end of the old and the beginning of something new. It’s the balance that Thanos strived for but never fully understood, as he wanted to cultivate life but in his obsessive crusade ended up sewing nothing but death. It is only right that the heroes are the ones to achieve that balance through their actions and connections with one another.

Final Score: Gold.

Avengers: Endgame is overflowing and self-indulgent, but it has every right to be and more than earned it. There are missteps, and there’s room for disappointment over the direction that certain characters are taken in, most notably the original version of Gamora ultimately staying dead and staying the victim of an abusive father-figure who seizes all agency away from her, or Thor arguably continuing to veer away from where he was at the end of Thor: Ragnarok and his new weight being an excuse to make cheap jokes that feel uncomfortable. But it is also a well-structured film that offers three distinct tones that are all equally engaging, and its delightful moments of humour and momentous action strikes a grand and immensely satisfying chord with its examination of grief and the natural interrelationship of the closing of one chapter and the beginning of another. It is as significant a landmark for this fictional series as any invested viewer could hope for. It’s a hell of a thing to have come this far, and I can’t wait for whatever comes next.

[language-escapes]

*cracks knuckles* Okay, so we’re doing this.

Let’s talk about Sherlock North.

Sherlock North is a new Holmesian adaptation that was announced yesterday.  It is described as a contemporary crime fiction series, taking place in Finland during Holmes’ Hiatus.  While on the run, he ends up solving some cases in a small town with the help of someone named Johanna Watson.

In the space of twenty-four hours, the tag is FULL of people saying it’s going to be awful, that it’s homophobic and engaging in ‘het-swapping’, that Watson being a woman is boring and overdone, etcetera etcetera.  The entire tag is full of this.  Twenty-four hours old, not even close to being filmed or produced, and the tag is full of people decrying it as bad.

I mean, we know NOTHING about this adaptation.  There’s a Holmes, there’s a Watson, takes place during the Hiatus, that’s it. Boom.  What the hell is there to hate yet?

Those of us who are veteran Elementary fans are familiar with this, of course.  We’ve lived through this before, and still live through it because people continually fail to understand that if you’re ragging on something, you should avoid landing it in the tag.  But let’s go ahead and address some of the things people are saying about Sherlock North.  Let’s take a look at the claims and see if they hold any water.

Because Watson is a woman, it means that Holmes/Watson won’t be a homosexual pairing; that’s homophobic.

Come here.  Sit down.  I’m going to hold your hand through this, because this is going to hurt.

Holmes and Watson aren’t a canon gay pairing.

I wanted to say it quickly, like ripping a bandaid off.  It’s going to hurt, it’s going to sting, but it also needed to be done.  The truth of the matter is that Sherlock Holmes and John Watson, in the original canon, aren’t a homosexual pairing.  Now, we can certainly talk about how we interpret the text (I am a lifelong Holmes/Watson shipper; I will go down with that ship), and subtext, and coding, and all of these things, but the fact of the matter is that, in canon, Holmes and Watson are never actually written as romantically together.  Again, in terms of subtext and the way we interpret it?  Absolutely, it is easy to see them as being in love and so married and all.  But it isn’t canon.  It’s all interpretation.

What this means is that making Watson a woman is not, in itself, homophobic.  They are not ‘het-swapping’ because neither character was written as explicitly gay.  It’s just not possible.  No one is removing a real homosexual relationship from the story.

I know, it fucking sucks that it’s 2017 and we’ve never had a mainstream media Holmesian production with an explicitly queer Holmes or Watson, LET ALONE an explicitly queer Holmes and Watson that are in a relationship together.  I know that a lot of the people in the Sherlock North tag right now are angry, betrayed, bitter BBClock fans who thought that their show would make the subtext text, only to find that that didn’t happen.  And it sucks, I get that.  But that doesn’t make a totally different show homophobic.  And being hurt doesn’t excuse lashing out at a show and making unfounded accusations when, again, it was literally announced twenty-four hours ago and we know nothing about it.

If this is your argument against Sherlock North, how about you go watch some adaptations with queer characters?  How about The Adventures of Jamie Watson (and Sherlock Holmes), which is on youtube?  In that show Watson is bi, and Holmes is ace, and a number of the supporting cast also have LGBTQ identities.  Or S-her-lock, which can also be found on youtube.  Watson is trans and Holmes is an aro-ace.  I can recommend both of those adaptations wholeheartedly.

Watson as a woman is boring; a woman as the sidekick and help-meet, how original.

That’s primarily a matter of opinion, and you’re welcome to it, but I have to say, I’m offended on canon Watson’s behalf.  That’s all you think Watson is?  A sidekick? A help-meet?  I know Holmes calls him that in canon, but it’s also Holmes who claims that all emotion is useless and then tries not to cry when Watson gets shot.  I wouldn’t think of him as a reliable narrator, is all I’m saying.

And Watson as a sidekick is… I mean, I guess technically Watson COULD fit into that role, but that rather diminishes what a good Watson is.  A good Watson is brave, and loyal, and stubborn, prone to a temper at times, clever, a full partner in the investigations, compassionate and insightful, generous, self-sacrificing… what I’m saying here is, if you read the canon and just saw Watson as a sidekick, I suggest you go read it again.  And bring along the lenses that help you interpret the text as queer, because those lenses will definitely help you remember that narrators are often unreliable.

Watson as a woman is overdone.

Let’s see, in terms of mainstream media adaptations, I know of FIVE where Watson is a woman while Holmes is a man.  FIVE. They are:

They Might Be Giants (1971), with Joanne Woodward playing Mildred Watson; The Return of the World’s Greatest Detective (1976), with Jenny O’Hara playing Joan ‘Doc’ Watson; The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1986), with Margaret Colin playing Jane Watson; 1994 Baker Street (1993), with Debrah Farentino playing Amy Winslow; and Elementary (2012-), with Lucy Liu playing Joan Watson.

Five women Watsons. If we expanded the selection to include women Watsons against women Holmeses in mainstream media… we have six. That sixth one is Russian, btw. Not sure how mainstream it actually is, given that it doesn’t even have a Western world release.

If that’s your idea of overdone, I hate to break it to you about men Watsons and men Holmeses…

They only ever make Watson a woman so that Holmes and Watson can be in a romantic relationship together without having to incorporate a gay romance- THAT’S homophobic!

See point one regarding the homophobia.

But in the adaptations where Watson is a woman, IS there always a romantic relationship between Holmes and Watson?  Is this actually a thing?  This is a rhetorical question, I know the answer- no, they’re not always a romantic item when Watson is a woman.  In the most popular of the five adaptations above, They Might Be Giants, yes, Watson and Holmes are in a romantic relationship by the end.  The film is a cult classic, so I can see why it has imprinted on everyone’s mind, and why the heterosexual-appearing (bisexuality is a thing! As is pansexuality! As is asexuality! Not all of these are visible from the outside!) relationship between a woman Watson and man Holmes is something everyone remembers.

But in the other four? One can maybe argue sexual chemistry in some of them (it would take some arguing, though; it’s more subtext than text), but there is no actual romantic relationship between Holmes and Watson.  So if the creators of these productions made Watson a woman in order to have a romantic relationship with Holmes without queerness, they did a horrible job of it, because they forgot to actually include the romantic relationship.

(Fuck, those of us who watch Elementary just want Holmes and Watson to fucking HUG.)

Making Watson a woman isn’t progressive, it’s regressive; even if you get rid of the romantic relationship stuff, they often remove Watson’s key characteristics, like Watson being a doctor, or Watson being in the military.

Every single woman Watson is a doctor of some form.  Some of them aren’t practicing doctors, it’s true; neither was canon Watson when we first meet him, and in the stories he doesn’t actually start practicing medicine again until after he marries Mary Morstan, which happened in ~1887/1888 (don’t get any Holmesian started about dates…).  1888 was a full seven years after he met Holmes.  So even canon Watson, while having a medical degree, was not a doctor when we first meet him.

As for the military stuff… look.  In the first place, in the US military, women couldn’t serve in combat until 2013.  For the UK, restrictions on women in combat weren’t lifted until 2016 (though they could serve as combat medics and join other, technically non-combat groups).  But in the second place, and more importantly, our canon Watson served in the imperialist, colonialist British military in the Victorian era, a deeply awful time when the military engaged in genocides.  England is somewhat ashamed of that heritage, at least on some level (not on enough levels, of course, and not enough to get them to knock it off even now, but that’s neither here nor there).  Why the fuck would we want Watson serving an imperialistic goal, especially if a show doesn’t have the time or resources or, hell, interest to unpack what all of that means?  Very few shows can engage well in the complexities of military service, even ones ostensibly centered around them (*squints at NCIS*).  Frankly, I’d rather my Watson not serve in the military this time around if it means not having to deal with showrunners struggling and failing to make sense of the military mindset.

(ETA: Winslow was with the Red Cross during the Panama invasion. Thanks @sanguinarysanguinity!)

(Disclaimer: my entire family is military; believe me when I say this shit is complex, and needs a lot of energy devoted to it to do it right.)

The name fucking sucks.

Well.  I won’t argue with you there.

(Anybody know if this is just a translation of what the name is???  Because then I understand why it’s so bad.  Is it just a working title?)

The sum up

Take a look at all of those complaints I listed.  These are the complaints I saw over and over and over again when I went through the Sherlock North tag today.  Are you sensing a theme here?  Is there something in common with all of these arguments?

I want an explicitly queer Holmesian adaptation as much as the next H/W shipper.  I dream of it.  If someone gave me money to make my own adaptation, hells to the yeah would make them queer and in love.

But that doesn’t actually seem to be anyone’s main problem, to be honest.  The main problem people seem to have is that Watson is a woman.  

Someone can argue till they’re blue in the fact that the reason they’re upset about a woman Watson is because they want a gay Holmes and Watson relationship, but the fact of the matter is, we don’t have that relationship in any media, at all, and yet people still watch that media anyway.  And you can certainly be sad about the potential for a gay relationship being gone.  I do get that, and respect that.  

(Sidebar: in the world of things I find hilarious is the fact that, in this adaptation, Holmes and Watson COULD BE a gay couple!  They could be happily married!  Because John Watson could be back in London, sad because his husband was killed by Moriarty because THIS TAKES PLACE DURING THE HIATUS. Johanna might be a totally separate character!  Or Johanna IS our Watson, and Holmes didn’t know Watson before the Hiatus in this adaptation.  You know why that’s a possibility?  BECAUSE WE KNOW EXACTLY THREE THINGS ABOUT THIS ADAPTATION.)

But the hate?  That’s some bullshit right there.

If your issue is that Sherlock North is yet another adaptation where Holmes and Watson won’t be a gay couple, I do understand that disappointment. I would also like to point out that just because Holmes and Watson won’t be a gay couple in Sherlock North doesn���t preclude queerness, so you will want to rephrase that argument.  Watson could be a lesbian.  Holmes could be ace.  One or both could be bisexual.  Remember that queerness is this whole big range of things.  We don’t know enough about this production yet to say one way or another.  Just remember that two white dudes touching isn’t the only way to be queer, and that disappointment over the lack of white dudes touching shouldn’t lead to woman-bashing.

And if a woman Watson is your issue you don’t need to worry.  There are literally hundreds of other mainstream media adaptations with man Watsons.  In some of them, there are barely any women at all!  You can avoid women to your heart’s content.

Ultimately, most of the arguments against Sherlock North are just ridiculous.  It may suck.  It may be brilliant.  But it doesn’t have a cast, or a production crew, or any fucking funding yet, so we literally know not a single thing other than a general, broad concept.  So take a deep breath and step back.  Go hate women elsewhere.

(You know what I would like to see?  Some of this same outrage if Sherlock North ends up being a predominately white cast.  But if it has a white cast, suddenly we’ll hear all about how Scandanavia is just so white, it only makes sense for the cast to be white… and if folks got upset about race problems, they’d need to examine their own favourite Holmesian adaptations more critically, and we all know that ain’t gonna happen.  *sips tea*)

[meanderingandrambling]

The Longest Response

Pictured: text post from me reading “Just spent about an hour reading up on folkish Paganism. Feeling some combination of disgust, disdain, and disappointment right now.”

Response reading “Why? It’s no different than people saying Hindu or anything else is closed to people outside their race.”

@lulluria (Having a devil of a time tagging you, so I have no idea if you’ll even see this)

First off, as near as I can tell this is a legit question from a legit blog. I’m in a bit of a mood and will not tolerate Nazis or white supremacists of any sort. I will respond to that bullshit by blocking and posting some gifs of Richard Spencer getting punched. Okay? Okay.

Also in the interests of full disclosure I am a Sephardi/Ashkenazi by ethnicity and culture, non-specific religious witch by faith.

There’s a couple things that differentiate folkish Paganism and closed religions all having to due with individual cultures, times, places, and powers. Hope you like long rambling explanations. ‘cause those are kinda my thing.

So lets start with open and closed religions. Apologies if you already know all this, I just want to hash it out for anyone just scrolling through who has no idea what we’re talking about.

So open religions are just that, open to everyone and very often come with evangelism. The most famous (at least in the US) is obviously Christianity. We have a religion that accepts and encourages conversion regardless of personal culture, ethnicity, or race. Often by force.

Then we have closed religions. My girlfriend, the loverly @otahkoapisiakii is Blackfoot and Kemetic, the former of which is closed. That means it is entwined with her culture and ethnicity to the point that outsiders aren’t wanted.

This is obviously an over simplification, I for instance, am ethnically Jewish. Judaism is a religion, a culture, and an ethnicity all in one and while we allow converts we don’t seek them out.

Now when it comes to reconstructed religions things are rather more difficult, especially for regions and religions with limited records. So we have some instances, like Hellenic or Roman Paganism where there is a clear history of trade, conquest, and religious synchronism. That’s not the case all around, especially when you head up north.

Most folkish Pagans tend to be reconstructionists of a northern tradition, Heathens, Celts, Slavic Pagans, and the like. Thing is there really isn’t enough information from when these religions were at the height to determine whether or not they were open. Then there’s the fact that our current ideas about race, culture, religion, nationality, and ethnicity are all fairly recent. Racism and race as we understand it today didn’t really start to form until the Enlightenment. Before then cultural membership played a larger role than race when it comes to social acceptance (once again I am thinking specifically of Europe. My knowledge of history is painfully Eurocentric and given the topic of conversation I’d like to stick to what I know). Due to these historical blank spots we have so many people using them politically.

Just to be clear I have no objection to politics, many Pagans acts like politics are dirty and should be kept clean away from religion. But I would say that’s impossible. Politics informs our every action and in inseparable from everything from art, fashion, food, and yes, faith. That said I do practice a non-specific form of religious witchcraft that is heavily informed by the Reclaiming, so yeah, of course I would say that.

So that covers open and closed faiths. Let’s move onto race and purity.

I mentioned earlier that people like to use the past and our uncertainty surrounding it for political ends. No surprises there, that’s what everyone’s being doing sense we as a species became sentient. Folkish Paganism is inextricably tied into white nationalism. Maybe you don’t believe me, that’s fine, just go ahead and google folkish Paganism or folkish Heathenish if you really want a fun time (Odinism if you’re feeling especially masochistic). I’ll wait.

Do do do...do do dee...ba ba ba tum...

Okay you back? Cool.

You may have noticed a couple common threads: 1) the notion that race is real, 2) the notion that race matters (I am literally just quoting a couple alt-right blogs here), 3) the notion that racial purity must be maintained, and 4) the notion that whiteness is under attack. Let’s take a look at each idea one by one.

1) Race is real.

No. No it is not. At least not genetically. Two members of one race will have more genetic differences than any two members of different races. Variations in skin, hair, facial features are difficult to predict and while there are some commonalities depending on where in the world you are these visual differences are scientifically superficial (obviously they have very real effects on a social level).

One particularly obvious flaw is how whiteness has changed through the centuries. Take a look at what it meant to be white in the 18th century, the 19th, the 20th. Whiteness doesn’t refer to a concrete culture or people, but rather is a flexible category that refers to who holds the most power. It doesn’t exist.

There are various peoples and cultures that make up our modern conception of whiteness (English, Irish, German, French, Czech, Norwegian, Italian ect.) and these are individual cultures all worthy of study and celebration. But they are not whiteness (indeed the Irish, Italians, and Czechs are particularly recent additions to whiteness). Keep that in mind when white supremacists talk about whiteness. These cultures are all so different, why include them together? The white nationalist will tell you that the people of Europe are inherent linked by racial virtue. Never mind that until very recently the more white parts of Europe were all to happy to hurt their continental siblings they deemed unworthy of whiteness.

Now the white nationalist will come around here and say I’m lying. They will say that the science is all a Jewish conspiracy to destroy whiteness. They’ll tell you that I am part of that conspiracy. They’ll tell you that I am wicked, that I am dangerous, that I am inhuman. I can only ask that you look at what I’m saying and what they’re saying and make up your own mind. I strive to be as transparent and as thorough as possible in my arguments so you’ll have plenty to go over.

2) Race matters.

I mean, in the sense that it’s a social construct that has been used to oppress anyone who doesn’t fall into the most powerful group, then yeah, sure it matters.

But that’s not what they mean. This statement typically refers to “scientific racism,” that is to say the long rejected ideas of natural racial differences. White nationalists will tell you that different races have different strengths and weaknesses (and it just so happens that those strengths and weaknesses fall along stereotypical lines). They will tell you that these are natural and unalterable. They will ignore and actively suppress the work of people who act as exceptions.

Look at the world around you, look at history, look at the artists and scientists and teachers about you. We live in a golden era of information. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic but I do believe this works against the white supremacist. I just ask you to look beyond rhetoric and into the wider world.

3) Racial purity must be maintained.

It should be clear by now that if you believe in these differences and believe in the superiority of whiteness you would be invested in maintaining racial lines. One thing I’ve noticed is that they seem to think whiteness is really fragile. Racial mixing destroys whiteness, but not anyone else? It’s kind of weird.

Of course you also get the white supremacists who insist that they’re just proponents of “human biodiversity” (as if we’re a different species). Because they accept the first two premises they pretty do think different races are different species and like to insist that unless people maintain some weird notion or purity the world will become homogeneous. They are viewing you not as an individual but only as a single part of your racial group. Like a really, really, racist borg.

4) Whiteness is under attack.

This one is particularly interesting and currently pretty popular. Why even our dear leader has tweeted from white genocide accounts. This is the notion that multi-culturalism, racial mixing, and a decadent modern society is an attack on white people. This is the idea that white people choosing either not to reproduce or to reproduce with someone of a different race is genocide. I trust I don’t need to point out just how ridiculous that is.

That said whiteness as a category of power should be attacked. As I was discussing earlier there is no homogeneous white culture, only the various cultures of Europe that are typically looped together to make up our modern idea of whiteness. These cultures are all cool and beautiful and unique. But they are not white. Whiteness exists solely as a category of power. And yes, that category should be destroyed.

Hey, I guess I am their wicked Jewess after all!

So all of these ideas are commonly fond in folkish Paganism, because at the end of the day it’s an ideology meant to uphold some myth of white purity. They literally exist solely to keep PoC away from pre-Christian European religions.

Now I know what you’re thinking “Hey waveringbriar, what about all those other closed religions out there? The ones that have been practiced in a continuous line so we know they’re closed? What about all that?”

Glad you asked hypothetical tumblr person! That comes down to power.

In the contemporary Americas, Europe, Australia, and a great deal of Africa, Asia and the Pacific we live in cultures controlled by whiteness. The legacy of colonialism is still very much alive so on a global scale whiteness is dominant. There are people in living memory who were forbidden from practicing their religions, speaking their languages, being with their families because they weren’t (and aren’t) white. Hell, my mom was forbidden from speaking Papiamento in school when she was a girl, because Dutch was the only acceptable tongue for an educated young Curoçaoan.

In these instances a closed culture is a matter of survival, especially where genocide is concerned. Sometimes practicing your culture openly leads to persecution and death, sometimes it leads to appropriation and becomes a watered down accessory for whiteness, but in any case a non-white culture in a white majority location is in danger of assimilation.

I’ll use an example from my own culture. Some Christians like to celebrate Pescah because they believe it brings them closer to Jesus. But there’s a couple problems here.

First off Christianity has been trying to distance itself from Judaism for millennia, whether their calling us monsters or damned we are always painted as the Other.

And then there’s how they have been killing us for keeping our culture alive, so to see them now trying to join in is pretty insulting. You don’t get to kill us for celebrating ourselves as a people and then turn around and act like it’s all a fun party.

And finally these Christians get to go back to safety at the end of the day. The trappings of Judaism are just a fun or beautiful little experience for them, they don’t have to live with the danger. They don’t have to worry they’ll be attacked or insulted or hurt because of their ethnic/cultural/religious identity. We do. Our culture is not a fad or a pinterest board, it’s a very real part of us that we don’t get to (and frankly I wouldn’t) get to remove.

So when a white person appropriates a marginalized culture they are often praised for the very things that would get their PoC peers ostracized or even killed. Hell, just look at modern music, fashion, and casual English for plenty of examples.

On the other hand a PoC often has to assimilate just to survive, just to be seen as fully human. So when a PoC takes on an aspect of white culture it doesn’t risk destroying the dominant culture nor does it separate white people from their culture. The same cannot be said for a white person appropriating a PoC’s culture.

And that’s the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange. One is a dominant group plunking bits and pieces from a marginalized one, the other is two groups sharing on an level playing field. One destroys cultures, the other builds upon them.

Then there’s the issue of tribalist Pagans. I’ve seen this term just a couple times where a reconstructionist says their faith is open to everyone but they must integrate with the culture in question. And while I look a little side-eyed at them I think it’s totally cool (my hesitation comes from some overtones of cultural purity, I mean, yeah obviously study and work with the world from which your faith sprung, but you can’t just shluff off your past regardless of what it is). Though frankly I’d just call that universalist (the tribalists tend to say that the universalists just take anyone worshiping their gods without regards to scholarship, as near as I can tell they see universalists as the fluffy bunnies of reconstructionism). Basically it’s a similar attitude to the one you find in Judaism. No one seeks out converts, it take a study, and you’re taking on a culture as well as a religion, but outsiders are welcome.

In the case of reconstructed religions we are building from a huge gap caused by Christianity. Anyone of any background is going to be starting from a similar contemporary place. So when we look at these reconstructionist faiths from the perspective of culture (which I would argue is one of many perspectives through which we should always examine religion) it really makes no sense to limit adherents by ethnic, national, racial, and/or cultural background.

But look there are plenty of other people who have written on the subject with more grace. I’d advise you to check out the following blogs. These are obviously a very limited selection, but I just spent a couple hours on this because I believe in giving people an honest response and I’m tired. Please feel free to add more resources as you kids see fit. I’m gonna go lie down now.

Pagans of Color

Native Appopriations

This open letter from Scarlet Imprint with regards to occultism and fascism (Scarlet Imprint is also just an all around fantastic publishing house, they do beautiful work)

And please feel more than free to browse my own tag on cultural appropriation