#im not necessarily saying I think we shouldn’t have a government im just saying the reasons used against anarchy and communism are bad

[x-ladydisdain-x]

“people are inherently selfish, government is necessary bc everyone would hurt each other without enforcement of rules” my local library has no late fee. sure, maybe some asshole who has been so deeply brainwashed by capitalism that they are convinced that ultimate success is material/monetary gain that comes at minimal cost to themself may steal a book every once in a while. this hypothetical asshole is not a representative of human nature, but a product of the society they live in. This asshole would not exist in an anarchist society. And then there’s the majority of the people who visit the library and know that stealing from a public library is an awful thing to do because libraries are sacred spaces and provide crucial resources. the majority of us who are not so far gone as to never even consider the community and to prioritize self gain above all else are who should be used as a more accurate representation of humanity. And sure maybe there’s another person who knows that stealing from libraries is bad and wouldn’t so in most circumstances, but maybe for whatever they really really desperately need a book permanently and can’t obtain it through other means, and so they steal. Because this is not to say that people aren’t inherently selfish, this person is a perfectly valid representation of human nature as well. It’s just that humans are also inherently communal and compassionate. We just live in a society where selfishness and individualistic drive is encouraged, praised, and necessary, while collectivity and striving for the common good is frowned upon and a burden, and efforts rarely have lasting tangible results. So with the question of the necessity of government or the potential for any economic system beyond capitalism, it is easy to say that nothing else would work due to the inherent selfishness of humans when that is what we have been taught and what we observe. And in situations of suddenly entering periods of anarchy, of course there was violence and theft. Of course after generations of viewing the accumulation of wealth and material goods as the ultimate goal, and being met with the shock of it all being within reach with no more regulation of what you can or can’t have, the people failed at self regulation and acted brashly. These instances can’t serve as examples of life under anarchy because they happened suddenly, under already strenuous and desperate circumstances. Such a system, or lack thereof, would have to be implemented gently, changing peoples mindsets alongside it.

[stvharrngton]

Can I ask a genuine question?

I have shared stuff on here, but my friend hasn't because she uses this as an escape from the real world. She has shared on her other social media. Isnt that ok?

I keep seeing this issue pop up in the Fandom. Maybe i have a different way of looking at it, but if you have for example a sideblog where you only reblog fanfiction or one solely for nsfw things, it would feel weird and almost disenguineois to share something once. Like you're scrolling through smut and then there is just a random post? It feels almost like you are just sharing it to say you did, at least in my mind?

And now people are being attacked for supposedly not saying anything. I got a nasty message from an anonymous and I HAVE shared things before (I also only have like 15 followers so it probably wouldn't be hard to figure out who did it).

I understand the creators of the show are shitty people, and people can call that out and should, but are we also not allowed to live in a Fandom space? I know that is very privileged of me to say, but can we stop sending hate and bashing those who may or may not have shared about what is going on because I fear it's going to have the opposite effect.

Like for me getting that bad message...I ignored it but it also made me disgruntled. Like, im still going to share stuff and be vocal cause my blog has been for other things in the past and this is more important. But if it annoyed me and made me want to not say anything out of spite, how many others who run solely Fandom blogs? If that makes sense?

it does make sense what you’re saying and i do understand your point.

for me, and this is my personal opinion, it doesn’t really matter whether you are solely a fandom blog or not? this is a side blog for me to post my fanfiction and reblog any steve/stranger things related content and yet i will still post things relating to palestine and those within the show who are zionists because i believe it is an extremely important belief to express and whether you like it or not, it relates to stranger things and the fandom itself, in my view, and by not saying anything or believing you shouldn’t have to say anything is condoning their behaviour. its genocide at the end of the day and when it comes to an issue of human rights i don’t believe it should matter whether it fits in with your blog or not, or whether it would be perceived as weird to be scrolling through fanfiction and to then see a random post about something else i truly don’t think it should matter? i know i wouldn’t find it weird or disingenuous. but then again i am just one person and like i said thats just my opinion really

i totally understand the want to escape from the real world and why people may use their blogs and fanfiction to do this and this is a valid response as we all have lives beyond on our blogs and stuff going on personally but like you said it is privileged and i do believe we should all acknowledge that. the images are graphic and what is happening is extremely upsetting but in my opinion that is no reason to simply ignore what is happening. i don’t have an issue with people necessarily being silent (i don’t really have the time to trawl through people’s blogs to check if they have posted or not!) although i don’t agree with it, i would never try to police how people use their blogs or try and police their activism but my issue is specifically with people who are asking the question as to why they should bother saying anything if that makes sense? because for me it comes off extremely shitty and privileged that people seem to not be bothered about what’s happening because it’s not happening to them. i do believe everyone has a responsibility to condone a genocide that many of our governments (my own included) are funding and supporting

whether people want to believe it or not some people in the fandom do have a certain amount of influence due to their large following and i’m not saying it’s their duty to speak up on every single issue but i do believe it should be acknowledged but personally for me it doesn’t matter how many followers i have on either blog if it’s important i’m going to post about it and it’s a shame that others don’t share that view. i don’t know if it’s because im extremely political and have no issue articulating or expressing my beliefs? but i know others are not the same as me.

i don’t condone anyone getting hate asks, having been on receiving end of those, it isn’t nice. no one should be on the end of those no matter what the subject is. i don’t think it has any place in fandom at all and it’s such a shame that it seems to be so rife in the stranger things fandom. but i do believe in debate and a civilised discussion of politics and world issues in fandom spaces ESPECIALLY when it is directly linked to certain members of the cast and the show

[medium-kat07]

As someone who has been mulling over this in secret for a while, can someone please explain this to me

/dsmp /rp

Because c!Techno... He said that c!Tommy betrayed him by going back to l'manburg. That in itself is a lot to unpack but there's one thing he mentioned, that he would have stuck with Tommy until the end, that he would have protected Tommy...

And I keep thinking back to that one scene in all the animatics where c!Dream tries to take tommy and Techno steps between them to protect tommy, and he says "That's gonna be a bit of a problem, dream. Because this guy's with me." And that's usually where the animatics cut off.

But right after that, Techno says, "Unless you want to call in that favor."

And I can't I cannot get that out of my head bc he was literally willing to trade off tommy if Dream called in the favor. He was willing to do that, right?

And tommy saw this, and he probably realized he wasn't as safe as he thought he was, right? How can Techno claim that tommy betrayed him when he was willing to do the same?

I believe there is SOMETHING i'm missing, maybe Techno said he was bluffing at some point, and i really would like SOMEONE to explain it to me bc if I'm right, c!Techno is even more of a hypocrite than I thought he was.

--

--

Edit: @the-unaligned-player Okay yes let’s talk about that!!

You wanted me to mention the ‘Favor’ that Techno was willing to give Tommy up for; that c!Dream saved c!Techno from execution. I want to say that im really happy you told me that because I did Not know the previously, and while it doesn’t change my opinion, it’d be good to say exactly why;

Yes, that’s a good thing to have a favor for, and Techno should totally feel grateful his life was saved, and he’s allowed to pay back the favor and that’s good and great. It was a good thing Dream did for him. He’s allowed to feel like he should pay something back. But that doesn’t mean he gets to be angry at Tommy for being grateful to his nation.

Now, i’ll be honest, L’manburg was a piece of shit. It was a terrible thing from the start and it hurt a lot of people by just existing. And when Tommy changed sides, and left Techno, we really need to consider the fact that 

1. Tommy had been fighting for this place his entire life. For years, this little stretch of land wasn’t just a Nation, it was literally his home. It was where he lived and where he loved and where he wanted to die, if he could’ve. It wasn’t just a government, it was his symphony, finished or not, and even though it was terrible, he couldn’t give it up because Techno said it was bad and that’s that. He just couldn’t.

2. Up until this moment, Tommy had been convinced Tubbo hated him, had forgotten him, and/or wanted him dead. Dream told him that Tubbo didn’t care about him, that much was something that DID happen in exile and I can go pull up clips if I need to. Now, Tommy was finding that he COULD be with Tubbo again. He could fight for his country with his best friend again. That Tubbo did care about him- and Tubbo had been by his side since the beginning and they’d been through everything side by side, whereas Tommy and Techno were not nearly as close. Tommy wasn’t just betraying Techno for a government, he was betraying him for his best friend, who he loved and cared for.

I’m not saying anything regarding the morals of the favor or something, I don’t know where i’d start with that, but what i’m TALKING ABOUT is that in my personal opinion, Techno shouldn’t have been angry with Tommy for anything, because Tommy had just as much reason to betray Techno as Techno did Tommy- they had equal responsibility to each other.

Tommy is to L’manburg as Techno is to The Favor, if you get what I mean. While L’manburg isn’t necessarily Good in any way and the favor isn’t Bad in any way, the characters have the same level of loyalty to both concepts.

All I’m saying is that, as far as I’m aware, Techno should not have been mad at Tommy for betraying him.

You can refute this with evidence in the reblogs, I’d like someone to because I’ve wanted to talk/debate with someone on this for a while, but don’t be rude please just remember it’s still minecraft roleplay lmao

[disneydeb1928]

One Piece Theory: The Treasure of Mary Geoise

The first time we hear about the existence of a treasure hidden in Mary Geoise is by Doflamingo, 

“It’s because I know all about a crucial treasure… that exists within sacred Mary Goise!! And the very knowledge of its existence would shake the world to its foundations!! To them, I was the worst kind of fugitive… one with an ace up his sleeve! Once the Celestial Dragons realized they couldn’t kill me… they grew quite cooperative. If only I’d had the power of the op-op fruit in my grasp… On that specific day years ago… I would have been able to use of Marie Goise’ treasure to seize true world power!!!”

                                                                                -       Doflamingo, Chapter 761

We can garner, actually, quite a few things from Doflamingo’s speech. For starters, he calls it a “crucial” treasure. “Crucial” implies that whatever the treasure may be is, at the very least, very important (no duh!). However, “crucial” is a very particular word to choose. It alludes to a necessity – This treasure is imperative for the continuing success of something.

But for what?

While pirates, wars, and uprisings may cause the World Government annoyance, the events and people that appear to cause them the most alarm are those that challenge the status quo. They are absolutely terrified of the possibility that the world they’ve constructed in the last 800 years might be fall apart. The general Celestial Dragons fear this on a very topical level. They like the grandiose and morally ambiguous world they live in that gives them all the power. However, the Gorosei and Im-Sama tackle this on a much more hands-on level (See: Ohara Incident). It’s because of this, that I believe that the treasure is critical for maintaining the current state of affairs for the One Piece World.

Doflamingo then states that,

“If only I’d had the power of the op-op fruit in my grasp… On that specific day years ago… I would have been able to use of Marie Goise’ treasure to seize true world power!!!

The op-op fruit, as we know, can gift a person eternal youth (basically immortality) via the Perpetual Youth Surgery. Therefore, Doflamingo is saying that had he been immortal, he would have been able to use the treasure to take over the world. This implies one of two things:

1.)   To seize true world power, would require a person to use the national treasure for a very long time (which would be possible as eternally youthful)

2.)   A regular human would not be able to utilize the national treasure

Personally, I feel that the second option is more likely because it insinuates that only a very particular type of person is able to use the national treasure. Which would connect us to the new mysterious body of power in the One Piece World – Im-Sama.

Before the Reverie Arc, the Gorosei were the big bad bosses of the World Government. Shrouded in a lot of secrecy, they remain nameless to this day. The first several chapters of this arc, as well as comments made previously, built the Reverie up to be a nonpartisan gathering of world leaders. Oda emphasized this fact by focusing on the “empty throne”. So imagine our surprise, when only a few chapters later, we are introduced to Im-Sama (Ch. 906).

We first see them entering a freezing chamber deep within Pangea Castle with bounty posters in hand. Inside the chamber is a large straw hat. Fans immediately started to theorize that the giant straw hat must be the national treasure. Honestly, who is to say that it’s not, because at this point, anything is possible. However, with that being said, I doubt Oda would make it that literal – or that easy.

As I mentioned, this chapter – as well as the one afterwards – has spawned many a theory. Many have done a deep analysis of every page. There is little doubt that the straw hat is important. It would simply be too much of a coincidence (in relationship to Luffy) to be anything but a purposeful decision made on Oda’s part. However, I think the room Im-Sama enters, is of particular interest.

For starters, it appears as though there’s either steam in the air, or it’s freezing. If the whisps in the air are supposed to represent the cold, I believe – like many others – that this room’s purpose is to preserve something. If the straw hat is to be taken at face value, then it wouldn’t make sense to place it in a frozen room. I’m no expert on straw, but I’m pretty sure getting it wet constantly in the cold temperature wouldn’t lend itself to keeping it in pristine condition. No, I think it’s more likely that the giant straw hat has a connection to whatever is really being housed in that room.

So here it goes: It’s possible that the room is a crypt meant to preserve a person’s body. Honestly, in the world of One Piece, I don’t even think the person would necessarily have to be dead for them to be kept preserved. A la carbonite in Star Wars. If this is true, than it’s safe to say that whoever is being kept preserved is the true owner of that giant straw hat.

However, that begs the question, is this person even the treasure? Oda decided to introduce us to Im-Sama right after Doflamingo mentions the national treasure from his cell in Impel Down, saying,

“Isn’t it fine to reveal what it is already…? Power degrades quickly anyway… it rots away in no time at all…!! Fufufufu!!”

                                                                                -       Doflamingo, Chapter 906

“Why does it matter if it’s revealed now? Power doesn’t last long. It’ll rot faster than anything thinks!”

                                                                                -       Doflamingo, Episode 885

I think it’s interesting that Doflamingo choose the word “rot” to describe how power degrades because that’s usually how people describe a dead body. This could just be a coincidence, but Doflamingo has a sick sense of humor and I could see him finding this funny – especially if no one else knew.

With that being said, I don’t want to overlook the importance of his statement “power degrades quickly anyway��. Because, while at first I thought he was referring to the national treasure’s power degrading, I now believe he’s referring the World Government itself. It’s almost like he’s saying, that at this point it shouldn’t matter if the secret gets out, because it was going to eventually. No body of power can last forever no matter how much control you have – something Doflamingo knows intimately. It definitely fits the fatalistic mindset we’ve come to expect from Doflamingo.

However, that begs the question, what exactly can this treasure do? Why is it crucial for the World Government to have? At this point, we can only really speculate on what specific ability it has. However, I would wager a guess that it has something to do with controlling how people remember history.

In a separate post, I speak about how the World Government has remained in power for so long because of how they manipulate the population similar to that of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars. They rewrite history to paint themselves as heroes and then continue to monitor the news and information before it goes out to the people, which in turn, increases complicity.

I just think that if it were some great destructive device, that we would have seen it by now. 

[mithliya]

Okay, so I want to be clear when I say again that white women in the suffragette movement said/did racist things, just as white women in feminists movements today say/do racist things,. Even white anti-racist activists will, at least on occasion, say and do racist things simply by growing up in a white supremacist society. I don’t want to give the impression that I’m disputing that reality. I only mean to illustrate some of the nuance (and why that matters today).

I sent those quotes in an effort to illustrate how the women’s suffrage movement was intertwined with universal suffrage, both white women and black men campaigned for each other’s right to vote. The women’s suffrage organizations grew directly from the basis of abolitionist movements. The initial suffrage (and wider women’s rights) movement was indistinguishable from the civil rights movement. When the 14th/15th amendment was proposed splits in the civil rights movement deepened — both white women and black women (and presumably some black men) campaigned against any amendment that didn’t include women. Similarly, black man and both white and black women favored the 15th amendment even without including women (of any race), who argued that women could wait. Ultimately the latter group saw their wish, and the division resulted in two separate organizations that continued to campaign for women’s suffrage.

The quotes you screen-shotted are undeniably terrible and exemplify the racism within the movements. To be nuanced however, they also span a wide range of individuals — from actual slave owners to women who said something racist but also directly participated in anti-racist activism.

To illustrate (from the quotes you provided):

Rebecca Latimer Felton - terrible human, slave owner, all out white supremacist

Carrie Chapman Catt - she later said “our task will not be fulfilled until the women of the whole world have been rescued from those discriminations and injustices which in every land are visited upon them in law and custom”, lobbied against the word “white” being added to the 19th amendment, and lobbied congress/used her presidency of the League of Women Voters to advocate for people of color and Jews

Elizabeth Cady Stanton - she also founded the Women's Loyal National League that led the largest abolitionist petition drive at the time, organized the American Equal Rights Association a suffrage organization that explicitly supported universal suffrage. The organization split when (mostly) the black men in the organization supported the 15th amendment without advocating for it to be extended to women. (She definitely said racist things around this time, similarly Frederick Douglass, who was both her friend and one of her main critiques at the time, said many sexist things.) The split was later merged back into one organization that she headed.

Anna Howard Shaw - I know very little about her. She definitely said many racist things, but she did champion universal suffrage and campaigned to end racial violence (arguing that universal suffrage would end lynchings). Still, she also failed to condemn racist actions by her peers.

Same as (1)

Belle Kearney - terrible human, slave owner, all out white supremacist

Frances Willard - confusing mix of actively recruiting and working with black women and also promoting racists myth that white women were in danger of black men that facilitated lynchings (due to her “temperance reform”). Also appeared to be more laissez-faire when president of the WCTU since she let conservative states hold on to conservative and/or moderate positions regarding reform for both women’s rights and racial justice.

Same as (1)

As for why it matters today:

No, women definitely won’t have the right to vote revoked for discussing racism in past movements. But there’s a difference between discussing racism, and perpetuating misinformation. One of the main ways the American government disrupted activist movements throughout history was to sow dissension in their ranks. (And the American government/military taught many of these techniques to foreign countries.) An excellent example of this is the COINTELPRO operation, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Their goal was to divide and conquer - a movement can’t make progress if it’s busy fighting itself - and poison the public’s opinions of the movements, so as to dissuade new members from joining. (At this point, I want to reassure you that while this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is very much proven and it/other programs did much harm to domestic and foreign reform movements.)

The myth that the suffragette movement was specifically racist, rather than operating in concert with and emerging from, anti-racist activism contributes to this divide and conquer method of disrupting activism. If you (general you) can convince women of color that the “original feminist movement” (ignoring the ahistorical nature of such the label itself) actively campaigned against them, then it’s much easier to dissuade them from considering feminist activism or to divide activist movements. (And, if it were true, it would be entirely justified!)

Of course, that’s not to say that feminists shouldn’t criticize (or disavow, to the extent possible) white supremacists like Felton or Kearney, or that we shouldn’t discuss and reform the racist sentiments in past and current movements. (In fact, I believe, and expect you do as well, that doing so is not only permissible but necessary, because to deny the racism that did exist in past/current movements would alienate women of color just as much as the idea that the feminism-of-old was solely for white women, and would in fact be an expression of racism in and of itself.)

I hope this clarifies what I’ve been trying to convey.

im surprised about the claim that white women and black men campaigned for each other's right to vote. i was under the impression that the civil rights movement was largely focused on black men and often outright excluded black women having a say, so i don't really know why they would support other women (such as white women) having a say when i heard they didn't support that for black women, who were always black men's biggest supporters.

i do get your point, to a degree-- and i think we agree overall but simply word things differently. i don't think that the women's suffrage movement was Bad and i don't think the white suffragettes back then were like, all evil and more racist than the avg white person in their society. i would say overall, those women were quite forward thinking and progressive for their time. i don't doubt that a significant portion of women were far worse than that, and even opposed women's rights (bc of the society they grew up in where this was a controversial thing). my only argument is that pretending they weren't also racist and had traits worthy of criticism (such as their racism) is innaccurate. a lot of prominent suffragettes were quite racist, and that's not to say that their feminist beliefs lead to that or that women's rights is interwined with racism, but just to point out that even those women who fought for the right to vote for women were not particularly good allies to poc but most specifically black people, and more importantly, black women. i also wanted to point out that being anti-slavery and campaigning against it, did not mean they were generally anti-racism or fighting against racism overall. they were fighting against the worst and most extreme forms of racism in their time, but they were all still racist in their own right. i'd like to reemphasise what i initially shared that you disagree with (+ my tags, and my previous comment on it so as to be fully transparent), which is not that different from what you're saying imo:

now i'm not trying to argue the origin of the movement, what it rose out of, how it relates to racism or anything else; my qualms are with the claim that the suffragettes were not racist. maybe back then, they were closer to allies to black people than most, however they were still quite racist. similarly, since you brought up white allies, white allies today may be the best we have and the best in our time, but they are also still often quite racist themselves.

my main and only point is that these women were still racist, and this is not to discount the women's suffrage movement, i just think that when we deny that aspect of the past then what we're doing is alienating woc. i've noticed a general trend of white women on here saying that white women were targetted by the KKK for example, fixation on stuff that is targeted at white women like 'karen' and placed on equal grounds with calling black women 'laquisha' to berate them, arguments that white women dont have racial privilege, etc and while i don't think the people making such arguments are necessarily coming from a bad place, many woc seeing this will end up feeling like the movement is geared towards white women and does not properly consider & include woc. that's why i take issue with the claim that xyz white female historical figure wasnt racist bc she was pro-slavery abolition, like, sure that must've been really progressive for its time but at the same time it doesn't change that the same woman did work w white supremacists and white supremacy was used as an argument to support white women's suffrage. it probably worked as a strategy and helped pave the way for other women, but its good to acknowledge these issues and criticise them esp since they remain relevant today when people are still indirectly debating how much woc should be considered in feminism.

[tfw-no-tennis]

mtmte liveblog issue 35

ooooh baby functionist universe time

the cover with the neon ‘everything is fine’ sign is rlly good but also the pile of dead data stick bots makes me so sad omg noooo they're so cute leave them alone :( 

minimus and rewind...! its so cool seeing them interact

also I just love the crowd shot, and you can immediately see that there are a ton of data stick bots like rewind around - which isn't what we’re used to at all

also some good ole totalitarian govt stuff like the ‘you are our eyes’ sign (which, in retrospect, is fucking evil damnnnn)

also I'm so [eyezoom] on this functionist universe stuff bc like, this is basically the only time we ever see dominus be a character (rather than hearing abt him thru other characters), and even so he remains pretty ambiguous 

like, minimus clearly isn't thrilled that dominus didn't show up to see him at the space airport or w/e when they've been apart for two million years - and even tho we later see why he didn't show up, it still shows that there's some tension there

the amount of crowd shots in this issue is insane 

oooof, the fact that they sold luna 2 - and to the black box consortia, who we just heard about last chapter when they previously got into a space battle w/the galactic council and the djd

fu!minimus being part of the primal vanguard is interesting, I wanna see more about that. what was he doing w/them for 2 million years?

rewind just casually saying this completely fucked stuff, like that the govt ‘outlawed the intellectual class’ and ‘deported the knock-offs’ (which I'm assuming is cold constructed bots?)

I really like the sense we get thru minimus and rewind’s convo that all of this fucked up stuff has happened slowly enough that its become almost normal - like, they talk about it casually, even though its clear they don't necessarily agree with any of it 

plus the sense of ‘even if things get really bad ill be okay’ that both rewind and minimus seem to adhere to - rewind having been upgraded from being in the disposable class due to his connection w/dominus, and minimus saying ‘I like to think that obsolescence is something that happens to other people’ 

I love all the fucked up signage this issue. ‘take pride in being a means to an end,’ yikes

god and the fact that there isn't MORE data sticks, there's just LESS of other alt modes bc of how many alt modes the govt has wiped out completely...

oof, and continuing the whole ‘slow change’ thing - minimus saying that ‘the council never touches the astro class,’ and maybe that used to be true, but the govt will keep pushing that line, clearly...

and we get to see minimus’s alt mode! altho we the readers know that this isn't minimus’s true form...

‘amazing, the lengths some people will go to cross class boundaries,’ minimus says, as if he isn't doing exactly what rewinds describing, but even moreso as a loadbearer wearing an entire suit of armor

and then the casual public execution of the last lunabot...oof.

love the ‘cybertron. the present day’ text overlay...I was so confused about this when I first read it lmao. I figured it had to be some sort of au/quantum nonsense but STILL

back on the lost light, chromedome is going full kool-aid man on rewinds door

mannnnn I absolutely love the plotline of rewind 2 and chromedome 1...im so glad the story acknowledges that they ARE different, they did experience different stuff on their own lost lights, and rewind 2 being a quantum duplicate doesn't mean he had the same experiences as rewind 1...

and I love so much that chromedome just Doesn't Get It, bc of course he wouldn't - he’s too relieved that rewind is back to even consider that its not quite the same, that the rewind he was forced to blow up is still dead (which is a fucked up thought, so of course chromedome, the master of pushing the past away and moving right along, would want to avoid thinking about that in favor of continuing his relationship w/rewind 2)

it also makes a lot of sense that rewind, who records everything and puts a huge emphasis on history/the past, would be hyperaware of all the differences between him and rewind 1, and his chromedome and this chromedome

AUGHHHH and chromedome referring to an offer he made to rewind that was pretty clearly ‘if your memories of the djd slaughter are too much, I can remove them for you’ ooooof...I love these two so much, like...their absolute opposite approaches to trauma is fascinating

oooh mannnnn and then rewind starts ‘remembering’ stuff from the functionist universe...the plot thickens...!

I really like how one of the main ‘things’ in a lot of tf universes is energon/energy shortages, its interesting when the angle is kinda like, ‘energon is a finite resource and the methods to obtain more often involve destroying other planets,’ that's a pretty unique, alien problem for the tfs to have

it also makes sense that the functionists would form partially in response to that (perceived) shortage, and any sort of scarcity would push them further into their extremist views

I like how expressive the characters with visors are...its cute...

poor rewind has to go thru So Much

WHY can just anyone go into the morgue and touch the dead bodies. I mean I guess megatron being one of the captains explains why he’s in there, but that still shouldn't be allowed 

‘megatron mountain’ vhbjdkshfbjskfbhhk that's so fucking funnyyyyy I love rodimus....I quote that line a lot, especially when watching g1 lmao

the fact that swerve diluting his engex bc he’s a cheapskate saved everyone's s lives is amazing lmao

also like...damn brainstorm sure tried to murder Literally Everyone huh. like I guess the logic would be that if he succeeded in changing the past it wouldn't matter that they had died there cause the timeline wouldn't exist, but STILL. I guess that shows how confident brainstorm was in his plan

it makes so much sense somehow that rung doesn't drink. and we’ve seen firsthand why magnus doesn't lol

mannnn that panel of brainstorm shooting magnus with some wacky beam and causing the magnus armor to fall off in vehicle mode...Super Cool, just peak mad scientist vibes there

ok but if minimus switches to alt mode when ultra magnus does - as we see here, where minesweeper-minimus is inside big-ole-car-magnus - does that mean that inside the minesweeper is turbofox-minimus?? I want to seeeee

ghsdufjkbvksadfbhjs the panels of rodimus telling megatron that brainstorm time travelled are so fucking funny

and megatrons rant about how absolutely bonkers the lost light is....hvbhjdskfbasjh that's so funny oh my god. like yeah dude you're right and you gotta roll w/it sorry 

'on this ship, a minor breakdown is practically a rite of passage’ vbjdsnfbkasdfn its true and I love it

goddddddd it kills me how at this point in the story its So Obvious to everyone that brainstorm travelled back in time to do evil decepticon double agent stuff - and we as the reader can even buy that bc brainstorm has been so sketchy until now, and nothing he’s done contradicts what rodimus suggests - but it turns out in the end, it was all just for love. AUGHHHHHHHH its about the LOVE!!!! that's why I love this arc so much.

back in the functionist universe - god I cant believe rewind waited until Now to reveal to minimus that dominus has a tv face...like I get that that's a difficult topic to bring up in conversation but like, a little sooner might've been good hbvhjkdhnfbjaksl

oh man it hurts...rewind saying that they're in a ‘blind spot...’ oh man :(

rebel rewind, tho!! I love it sm

oh man and rewind never even broke the news about dominus to minimus oof. that's a tough reveal 

MANNN I really like the whole ‘flathead’ thing, its so awful and brutal. its such a logical extension of empurata, and as dominus says, once people get used to seeing empurata’d bots, it loses its punch...and the flatheads thing is even more invasive 

and writing wise, both empurata and the tv-heads are such good devices to show evil govt bs. I talk abt it a lot but I like all the ways jro gets creative with the ‘alien robots’ thing; a lot of these concepts wouldn't work at all with humans or other organic aliens

GODDD and dominus’s chilling speech being interrupted by the functionist propaganda....fucking horrifying I love it

also seeing dominus here is fascinating - clearly the council managed to pin him down enough to turn him into a flathead, but they never discovered his true alt mode...same with minimus, actually 

the cog is so fucking ominous. just floating there...

and the council is scary too! their names, and the fact that they all look the same...seems about right for an evil alien governing body

mannnnnnn and then the reveal that the data slug alt-modes will be ‘recalled’ next...rewind noooooo...and the one council guy even admitted that they still served some purpose in society, BUT that their ability to mass store data made them dangerous to the goverment...evil!!

meanwhile, rodimus doesn't know enough about science to be appropriately frightened about their timeline being wiped from existence, so he’s having a grand ole time

‘no one’s nodding, perceptor’ bvhjdbfasdfhbk their expressions....the lost light command crew are all clearly team ‘leave the science to the scientists’ lmao

I do love the paradox stuff, and brainstorm’s way around it all 

‘so I'm not allowed to take an interest in magic?’ hvbjhsdkfbjhkdf ily sm rodimus

but also like....rodimus suggests a parallel universe could've formed and perceptor is like ‘no way, that's not scientifically possible,’ as if brainstorm didn't basically defy science by time travelling at all...and more to the point, functionist cybertron DID get created, so rodimus was actually RIGHT this time

love that we’re already seeing perceptor’s admiration for brainstorm and his invention even here....sapiosexual mfer

a time travel chase....so beautiful...I love sci-fi so much

seriously time travel is one of my favorite tropes ever, this arc was inevitably gonna be my fav 

‘he’s going to kill orion pax.’ DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN

meanwhile, on functionist cybertron...aw, is that bulkhead? great cameo! oh wait what's going on with all the data sticks...? uh oh!

the fact that their heads just EXPLODE....soooo fucked!! 

god and then the council picks up their dead bodies, for...probably something evil, I’d assume

god and then dominus got even more fucked....

‘there are certain words you cant afford to lose’ ;_; REWIND....GODDD IM SAD 

GOD GOD GOD the reveal that minimus has CAMERAS in his EYES GODDDDDDDDDDDD that's so FUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and rewinds reaction...ME TOO BITCH TF!!!!!!

all the ‘you are our eyes’ messages are even worse now huh!!

they did it while minimus was asleep...that's so fuckedddd

FUCKKKK and then rewind’s impassioned rebel speech, which I adore.....rewind ily sm...he’s such a good revolutionary, I wish we could've seen him leading an anti-funtionist rebellion....BUT THEN ‘oh? what about the back up?’ and its just like HHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH and then his head starts smoking and we see another billboard, but this time it says ‘WE are your eyes’ - is the implication that everyone is now a surveilling spy, whether they like it or now, so now it’s ‘we?’ like, we’re all in it together, spying on each other! ooooof

also. this is like the third time rewind has died on-screen in this series lmao (well, if you count the fake-out death where he thought he’d be cancelled out during slaughterhouse)...he ALMOST died in issue 12 too....poor rewind

‘the custom-made now’ is such a great title. jro always killin it w/the titles

plus ‘elegant chaos’ is such a cool arc name. fucking epic 

M A N NNNNNNNN THIS ISSUE WAS BALLER...this ARC is baller....I talked a lot hvbhdjkhfndsak lmao but there's so much to talk abt!!! I love the look into the functionist universe, I love seeing alternate versions of characters and settings so much, and I love time travel, so this issue is basically made for me

plus I fuckign love alien robot politics and seeing the absolute control the govt has over cybertronian society in the functionist universe is fascinating - plus from a storytelling standpoint, I think it was brilliant to show the ‘other side,’ aka what things would've been like without the war...which is something ill talk about later when its more directly addressed in the story but man do I enjoy that 

basically I love this arccccc I cant wait to read more hhhhhhh

[wittynameme]

update to the “a confession” feasco.

if you dont k ow what im talking about just look up “a confession” on my page and read all the way through . (its an unorganized mess im so sorry)(my name is chloe plz ignore that.

f:For the racist thing- A country with two different races might have a bad history with each other. So generally the country that got the beat down the most is gonna hate the other, so that country's people are gonna be racist and against them. With the stealing thing- Animals steal eggs and what not all of the time. Also with artifacts the governments take those and preserve those for the future. Racism is bad I understand that because it usually is because of someone's skin which is wrong to be against someone for there skin tone. Stealing is also bad, like robbery and shoplifting and so on

me:you do realize that you just used like , three natoriously rasist talkinhg points used by kkk members all the time right?

me:you think that humans are naturally rasist because of a war and the winners tell the story and the losers are bitter about it? in this case the losers of this "beat down" being africa?the "rasism is natural" thing . the "africa is just bitter" thing.or are you sayig whights were the victims? which in that case is the "whights are being attacked" thing

f:Both aren't necessarily wrong actually

we are not like dumb animals, we have the ability to know when we sis something wrong .yes animals steal but the full grown people who grave robbed thoghs tombs did so because they thought they could and should have known etter

and the "its for there own good were just keeping them safe" thing implies the people we stole it from wont take care of it. even if they dont its not our call cause the mummys are not ours, its not like they want the artifacts any less tha we do

So you're saying we shouldn't take artifacts and preserve them and let people destroy them and sell them off.

Chloe it assumes we just love these mummys more than they do and were scarered they will hurt it so that completly justifies us keeping it from them.we should ask permission first 

That's what they do

Chloethe whole "its for preservation" thing is exactly what the british museum said when people lobied for the artifacts to be moved to and african museum.

"they"

africans fuin and sell there artifacts as trinkets?thats ALSO a rasist sterio type.

That's just how the world is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Chloe no it isnt you have been fed propaganda and you dont even know itall the things you said have been used by the kkk constantlyits like ypur reading right out of there apologetic s book.

I don't see the problem in that. I'm a person of history. Does it help to mention that my preferred ideology is Socialist-Imperialist. Does it also help to say that I'm also Atheist/Satanist. I'm also a Republican and conservative. I also see things from abroad. I also believe history should be preserved at all costs.You sent Today at 12:18 AMif you knew the hystorical contexts of the arguments you just used i dont think you would be usseing them

What are you talking about?You sent Today at 12:20 AMi litteraly just said where the "were preserving them" argument comes fromYou sent Today at 12:21 AMand if you love the accurete preservation of hystory than you must be anti confeterate right?sent Today at 12:21 AMNoYou sent Today at 12:22 AMthe confeterates literraly flodded public schools with confeterate propaganda and tried to pass laws that forsed american nationalism to be taght in schoolYou sent Today at 12:23 AMand banned any books deemed"against the confeteracy"You sent Today at 12:23 AMmost of the confeterate monuments are from the 60sYou sent Today at 12:23 AMas a fear tacticYou sent Today at 12:24 AMnot real authentic confeterate statuessent Today at 12:24 AMOkay..You sent Today at 12:24 AMthe flag we assosiate with the confeteracy is actually very resentYou sent Today at 12:25 AMcan you guess who poularized the confeterate flag we see today?You sent Today at 12:25 AMa literal kkk dragon who adopted it as a symbol of the "opressed whights"sent Today at 12:25 AMThe Confederate flag is not popular, the Confederate battle flag isYou sent Today at 12:26 AMthats what i was talking aboutsent Today at 12:26 AMOkYou sent Today at 12:27 AMmost of the people who say they are modern confeterates adopted the flag and lable as something to stand under for a more modern political agenda , usually whight nationalism.You sent Today at 12:27 AMbut the spin it as "were being opressed by minority groups"sent Today at 12:28 AMTo a degree yesYou sent Today at 12:28 AMthey dont want to preserve hystory , they whant to preserve this weird fantacy world where the 1940s were the good old days , there perseptions of hystory.

What's wrong with ww2?You sent Today at 12:30 AM.....uh people diedYou sent Today at 12:30 AMthere was a warYou sent Today at 12:30 AMa war of the worldssent Today at 12:30 AMWell yeah that's what happens in warYou sent Today at 12:30 AMgermany , italy, and japan were ruled by horrible dictatorssent Today at 12:31 AMWrongYou sent Today at 12:31 AMehy do you just say that like thats normal??? like thats a good thing?sent Today at 12:31 AMKinda yeah

wtfYou sent Today at 12:32 AMyour a nazi lover?sent Today at 12:32 AMNoYou sent Today at 12:32 AMi thoght you said you were americansent Today at 12:32 AMI amYou sent Today at 12:32 AMthen tell me you hate nazis

No, I don't hate any ideology

but you hate the one that caused the halocaust more right?

millions of peole died it shouldnt take you that long to type "yes"

No I look at them negatively, it was some horrific things they did but they never did anything to meYou sent Today at 12:36 AMso what !You sent Today at 12:37 AMthat they have never done anything to you!You sent Today at 12:37 AMthay never did anything to you because your whight conservitive and not jewish

say itYou sent Today at 12:38 AMsay the halocaust was bad and hitler was evil

say the halocaust was bad and hitler was evilsent Today at 12:40 AMYou know Judaism is just a religion. Yes the holocaust was bad. Hitler was good at bad, just depends on how you look at it.Jimmy Goodson sent Today at 12:40 AMGood and bad*You sent Today at 12:40 AMhe was evilsent Today at 12:41 AMIn some aspects yesYou sent Today at 12:41 AMwhy wont you say it? why do you beat around the bush?Aa

Because he did some great achievements toYou sent Today at 12:42 AMwhat the fuckYou sent Today at 12:42 AMlemmy guessYou sent Today at 12:42 AMthe train thingsent Today at 12:43 AMNoYou sent Today at 12:43 AMno he did not that is a rumor satrted by neonazi groups-You sent Today at 12:43 AMthan what!You sent Today at 12:43 AMwhat prey tell could pissibly be worth so many lives? you scare mesent Today at 12:47 AMHe United a shambled country. He fixed the economy of Germany. He put Germany back on the world stage. Helped stop hunger and joblessness in Germany. He made the first super highway. Because of him Europe is a prosperous place. Without him NATO wouldn't be a thing. And so on.

you think communist germany was a thriving economy? even if it was that would be outshadoewd by the mountain of dead bodyssent Today at 12:50 AMWho ever mentioned communist?You sent Today at 12:50 AMand the second bit?You sent Today at 12:51 AMnato was made to stop him??????You sent Today at 12:51 AMto stop the red scurge?sent Today at 12:51 AMAll of that was before ww2 (for the top part), Germany was fascist.You sent Today at 12:52 AMand what is the deffinition of fascismsent Today at 12:52 AM...You sent Today at 12:53 AMa dictator who tortures and brainwashes people , opressing the right of others.You sent Today at 12:53 AMisYou sent Today at 12:53 AMnotYou sent Today at 12:53 AMasent Today at 12:53 AMNo...You sent Today at 12:53 AMgoodYou sent Today at 12:53 AMthing a dictator who tortures and brainwashes people , opressing the right of others.You sent Today at 12:53 AMisYou sent Today at 12:53 AMnotYou sent Today at 12:53 AMasent Today at 12:53 AMNo...You sent Today at 12:53 AMgoodYou sent Today at 12:53 AMthingsent Today at 12:54 AMYou got the fascist thing wrong but okayYou sent Today at 12:54 AMyou missed the other 4 texts following it but oksent Today at 12:55 AMThat's not the definitionJimmy Goodson sent Today at 12:55 AMI also don't see the problem in a dictatorshipYou sent Today at 12:56 AMand you call yourself an americansent Today at 12:57 AMI never said I call my self anything I never said I call my self anythingYou sent Today at 12:58 AMso you just hate everyone then?

No I see everyone as equalsYou sent Today at 12:59 AMequally ok to murder in the persuit of money and metirial growth?

equally ok to murder in the persuit of money and metirial growth?You sent Today at 1:00 AMyou can see why im upset right!sent Today at 1:00 AMThat would be different thenJimmy Goodson sent Today at 1:00 AMYea I seJimmy Goodson sent Today at 1:00 AMSee*You sent Today at 1:01 AMwell you just said it was fine the halocaust happened because hitler ultimatly ended up creating economic ad political grrowth That was before ww2 and yes the holocaust bad.You sent Today at 1:04 AMwhy did you not just say that in the first place?

I said that sometime beforeYou sent Today at 1:04 AMyou cant call a horse a horse when you see a horse? I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

the fact you shrug at the holocaust discusts me

the fact you shrug at the holocaust discusts meYou sent Today at 1:06 AMi hope you never hold any knind of power

Okay?Jimmy Goodson sent Today at 1:07 AMI have my own country technicallyYou sent Today at 1:07 AMwell its not americasent Today at 1:08 AMIt technically somewhat owns America I have my own flag, ideology, religion, currency, map, and so on

(he then directs me to this link after i ask him what the fuck hes talking about)

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_orangeempire?fbclid=IwAR1PpZaq_r6oVFXdZ0j3WZnoUIbH3c1suPEfD58msuX_gFB9T9FJq1X3fOQ

this guys actualy insain

i need a hug.

[unhingedthinking]

Strap yourselves in guys, I’m about to analyse the shit out of this argument™

Just for those of you who took one look at the title and went nope. here’s some tl;dr. 

The author

The author is a rector for an Anglican church and holds a PhD in theology. Now this article was written a couple of years ago, but has resurfaced in the wake of our shitlord extraordinaire™ government deciding that the best life decision (rather than you know, do their actual job) was to hold a non-binding plebiscite to see if the Australian public thinks LGBTIQA+ people should be allowed to be married with that actual terminology.

How he positions support for same sex marriage

Now the argument that is being made here is that the current debate at the time (and let’s be frank, still is) is that the major argument for the yes vote is that “well all of our countries that we’re pals with (and some we’re not so chummy with) have passed it, so it’s about time that we passed it too.” Basically the en vogue argument. It’s apparently fashionable to give equal rights to people so we should totally hop on board for that reason alone. The dude actually defends the government not passing it by comparing a survey saying “hey, same sex couples should have the right to marry and the majority says so” to a survey that says “hey most people want capital punishment.” I mean, both are technically a death sentence if you squint really hard, just the fact that one’s a little more permanent and the other is ideally far more amenable to a happy and sustainable life. He basically makes the argument that the only reason you haven’t heard the argument for against same sex marriage is that those who are pro are lobbying and shouting too loud for sensible no arguments to be let through.

And here’s his argument

His main argument (and I’ll give credit, it’s a well reasoned argument), is that we shouldn’t support marriage equality because it simply isn’t “marriage equality.” It’s something that’s entirely different. 

In order to offer the status of marriage to couples of the same sex, the very meaning of marriage has to be changed. In which case, what same-sex couples will have will not be the same as what differently sexed couples now have.

It will be called marriage, but it won't be marriage as we know it. It won't be "marriage equality": it will be an entirely new thing.

Getting in a side dig at Bill Shorten (because that’s apparently still something cool for conservatives to do as well). This is how he defines marriage:

As we now understand it, marriage is not merely the expression of a love people have for each other. It is, or is intended as, a life-long union between two people who exemplify the biological duality of the human race, with the openness to welcoming children into the world. Even when children do not arrive, the differentiated twoness of marriage indicates its inherent structure.

Now, I didn't pluck this definition from the sky, nor is it simply a piece of religious teaching. It is the meaning of marriage that emerges from all human cultures as they reflect on and experience what it is to be male and female. It is only in the last 15 years that anyone has seriously thought differently.

According to this guy, a child is the “tangible expression of our two sexedness”.

Now if you’ve been following along with my general blogging regarding gender, sexuality, queer, or post-queer theory (yeah, i’m deliberately separating them because the academic in me needs to), you’ll have already seen that I’ve already talked about the whole limitation of seeing biology as “two sexedness”. But that’s not really what I want to choose to focus on for the purpose of his argument, as that’s not the crux of his stance.

The stance in which his argument falls within the notion that marriage is simply a signification of two people (in his argument of opposing sexes, utilising essentialist constructions), life-long commitment to the rearing and nurturing of children. He then uses this notion that because of this, the argument for same sex marriage has no standing as by revising the meaning of marriage to be one that does not include the “two sexedness” and having the goal of a “tangible expression of our two sexedness” in that marriage, same-sex couples are only ‘married’ in the name of it, rather than the act. It’s simply a choice of word rather than an official commitment.

And my favourite part, here’s why that particular argument is outdated (and, quite frankly in my opinion, wrong)

This discourse is particularly interesting if you place it within a Focauldian lens falls within the power relations surrounding the exercise of bio-power, or in layman terms exercising power over the practices of reproduction and life. The author only deems a marriage legitimate if the couple are having the intention to copulate and rear children in the understanding of heteronormative idealism. It is playing into the morality clause that children are only able to be sufficiently raised with both a mother and father figure who fulfill sufficient masculine and feminine roles in the development of the child. 

Now let’s break that apart. If we forget the whole religiousness and “two-sexedness” sections of the argument for a moment (I’ll fold them back in in a minute I promise), let’s look at the other factors:

The structure of the family unit is quite a bit diverse from what it was deemed 15 years ago as by the author’s statement of the argument for redefining marriage. The nuclear family is no longer the sole viable option for people in contemporary society. Single parent families, same-sex families, foster carers, legal guardianship between family friends, polyamourous familial structures, groups of people raising children together, the list is pretty much inexhaustible.

Considering the fact that technology has significanlty improved to the point where we can have IVF, stem cell research, donors and surrogates as viable options for same sex couples to have biological children, they still have the ‘intent to begin a family’

Research actually demonstrates that there’s not really a discernable difference between children raised in a heterosexual coupled relationship to that of a homosexual, but then again, that depends on how you interpret the data of the study.

If we go back to contemporary understandings of gender theory, all individuals interpellate and enact various constructions of masculinity and femininity in their everyday lives, and therefore having both cisgendered male and female essentialised constructions of masculinity and femininity are not necessarily required within the rearing of children, as these constructions are also interpellated through socialisation within institutions such as schools and the wider societal interactions.

Adoption and foster care is literally a thing (albeit some structural and functional barriers within the institutions that manage such services still prevent nonheteronormative couples from accessing such services successfully - but that’s another matter entirely).

To put it in a simpler way, understanding the intent to start a family as solely biological between a woman and a man having sex is quite frankly antiquated in its construction and does not reflect the contemporary understandings of familial structures. In fact, it’s a limitation on children as it doesn’t allow them to experience or perceive the diversity of relationships outside of their own familial unit, which can generally lead to them being more accepting of difference and being a less shitty person in general.

Let’s move back to the religious side of the debate, which is that marriage is defined similarly in “all cultures” - despite there being evidence of those of a third sex (agender or intersexed) in many civilisations and cultures that defies the “two sexedness” argument. By religious standards, sure if you want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, by all means that’s your own perogative. I’m an atheist so it does not bother me either way. However, as the author actually defines in his argument, this is legislation we are talking about. Legislation refers to the state, which is separated from the church (and therefore religion). It is state marriage that we are referring to. If a church does not want to marry two people because they are same sex, that’s their issue. We’re talking about defining marriage between two people (regardless of sex) as a legal right for all. Yes civil union is similar in its construction to state marriage, and yes they are recognised as such in many situations. But here’s the thing. We’re not fighting for something that is similar. 

The word marriage itself has power. 

It has a status within society that a civil union is just not on par with. “My husband/ my wife” are revered in our monogamously centric society as a life goal that everyone should strive to attain. It opens a door to a social standing that you’re perceived to be in a stable, committed relationship that is accepted by society. You are in a position, like the author states, to have children and raise them to be decent and well intentioned active citizens. The fact that it is a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman (if we’re being essentialist here and ignoring the existence of intersexed and nonbinary individuals like much of this debate seems to do) shouldn’t really matter in this day and age if we’re basing our definition of marriage on the notion of the intent to raise children. If they want to do it, then who gives what’s going on between their legs or in between their sheets. Quite frankly, they’re not going to make their children gay, like how every heterosexual couple only raises heterosexual children *cough*.

Finally, let’s consider the fact that the author is opposed to the notion that a lifelong commitment without the intent of raising children is an empty promise. I’m sorry, but why isn’t the act of willingly committing yourself to one person for the rest of your life not enough? Why do we have to bring children into the matter? Is it really so bad that some people decide that either they don’t want to have children or do not perceive themselves to be capable to raise children to have that commitment to one other person recognised by the state within the eyes of the law? I don’t think so. 

Let’s wrap this ramble up

Basically whilst his argument is logical and has an academic merit to it, he is basing his evidence in outdated models of the familial unit, and blurring the lines between the state and the church in order to define his points, particularly by bolstering his viewpoint from a westernised religious standpoint on the definition of marriage. Asking for marriage equality, whilst on the surface, only appears to be wanting to have equal rights to something that is not possible under the current definition of marriage is senseless. Language is constantly evolving and changing, and redefining the word to suit contemporary understandings of how relationships and the commitments within those relationships are perceived and valued is not only a good thing, but something that should be at the core of the foundation of being a decent human being to those who live a life that is diverse from your own.

So I’ll agree that this guy is not being a bigot in his approach to the debate (as it is rather civil I have to say), it’s just that his information and perception of contemporary discourses of social reality are being ignored in favour of his own ideology of what marriage should be.

[witchofleviathan-blog]

Cultural Appropriation, Two Sides of The Coin

First of all, we need to define what it means. By Wiki: Cultural appropriation, at times also phrased cultural misappropriation,[2][3][4] is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of another culture. This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from disadvantaged minority cultures.

A very famous example of this was the Washington Redskins NFL team, who had this logo:

And the name RedSkins. There are debates about its origin but everyone agrees that it is offensive.  One explanation dates back to a time in history when colonial and state governments paid white people to kill Native Americans and were encouraged to cut off their scalps and even genitalia, to prove their “kill count”. 

Urban Dictionary however defines it as “The ridiculous notion that being of a different culture or race (especially white) means that you are not allowed to adopt things from other cultures.  This does nothing but support segregation and hinder progress in the world.  All it serves to do is to promote segregation and racism.”

For some people, white Americans walking around in traditional east African garb, for example, is considered cultural appropriation.  Others would argue it is a form of self-expression and shows appreciation and respect of another culture.  Alternatively, a white American wearing a sari to a traditional Indian wedding ceremony is considered by many not to be cultural appropriation, but instead is showing respect of the culture and tradition.

But there’s a big problem with critiques of cultural appropriation.  They reaffirm the very thing they intend to oppose: white Western domination over and exploitation of culture at the expense of everyone else.

This is the problem with cultural-appropriation critiques. They depend on reductive binaries—“high culture” and “low culture,” and oftentimes, “first world” and “third world”—that preserve the hierarchical relations between the fashion industry and the cultures being appropriated. This is related to the problem with cultural-appreciation defenses. Producers and consumers of culturally appropriated objects often present them as examples of healthy cosmopolitanism, of an openness to diverse global sources of inspiration. But the Indonesian plaid example shows that such production and consumption of “diversity” can often—intentionally or accidentally—obscure the actual diversity and complexity of the cultural object being copied.

60% of people on Debate.org say “No, they do not believe it is an issue.” 40% of people on Debate.org say “Yes, they do think it’s an issue.” Some of the top responses include: “Both sides have blown cultural appropriation way out of proportion. Anti-political correctness people state that it is a form of censorship and totalitarianism, But no one is banned from culturally appropriating. You can't expect for there to not be a backlash when you take the culture of a minority that your people group have oppressed and trivialized it. The arguments that everything is culturally appropriated, That plaid is Scottish and other things like that, Don't work because cultural appropriation is about stigmatized groups. Indigenous people, For example, Have been killed, Forcibly assimilated, And given little to nothing to make up for it (it can't even be made up for). Their culture is a core aspect of who they are, And after being aggressively challenged and slaughtered by Western society they are trying to preserve the last pieces of their rich culture. Western people don't understand why cultural appropriation is a problem because they've never had to deal with being stigmatized. When white people, For example, Dress up as Native Americans, It is trivializing a very sacred tradition, And being completely disrespectful to a group that is still hurt by white people to this day. But there is a line. There needs to be freedom of speech and expression, And the simple wearing of patterns and styles from a different culture isn't necessarily wrong. It's important to pay respect to its source, Though, And to understand its significance. I see no valid reason why people would be so upset about not being able to wear something that doesn't have anything to do with them. It's not about oppression, It's about acknowledging a culture and paying it the minimum amount of respect it deserves. No one is controlling what you wear, But the least you can do is pay respect to something very important to another culture, And make sure that where you are getting it from comes from actual members of that culture.“ “I don't think there's anything wrong with people 'stealing' aspects from other cultures. I don't see the issue in a white girl wearing dreadlocks, if that's what she wants then she must feel free to do so. Dreadlocks is not a priviliged hairstyle only black people can have (this is only an example). I know there are people who don't feel this way and are really offended when parts of their culture get 'stolen' by other people, but I believe there are worse issues like racism and homophobia that need solving first.“ “The way I see it anybody can use anything from any culture if it suits what they need it for. No invention is the sole property of any culture because no invention was created by a culture anyway, they were created by individuals. But, in some cases, certain aspects of culture are very important to the people who live in those cultures which can cause an issue. For example, a lot of Christians value the God they worship and take offense to people insulting him. Some Americans put a lot of value in the flag and hate to see others not respect it as much. And we can all agree on the song Feliz Navidad which is an appropriation of Christmas music is cancer. There are many other examples like the British Queen and guards, the Catholic Pope, that some people take serious offense to. So, why is it we sometimes can't see how other cultures might hold aspects of their culture with a certain dignity that they feel we don't respect. Like the Native American headdresses. We may see them as colorful garments that look interesting but too many of them it's a religious item. I remember many people took offense to urinated on the image of Jesus Christ so how do we tell them that we don't care if they feel its disrespectful. It doesn't only go one-way folks, so before we use concepts from other cultures we should make sure there isn't significant importance assigned to it.“ “I believe that if we give credit and respect the source of the culture that we adopt then we can have no systemic power dynamic between two cultures and abolishing any thoughts of racism consciously or subconsciously. We should respectfully adopt all cultures and shouldn't prevent or stop any other ethnic group from adopting your own culture.“ “There is an issue look i typed a whole nuch of stuff and it deleted and i dont feel like explaining all over again so im just going to start typing a whole bunch of blah but stealing someones culture is not right you ignorant bastards stick to your own culture.“ “Where are the arguments concerning Plaid? How many times has this pattern been used in cultures other than Scottish? Here the debate ends, because it will prove that if you are not white, you have a right. I am all about honoring all cultures. I support all things related to improving cultural and racial equities...But the debate about what is cultural appropriation is utter nonsense. Shall we all go back to animal skins and furs?” “All these things that people wear like bindis and headresses (sorry i dont know the name) without knowing the meaninh and how to wear thwm is simply wrong. Just because something looks nice and cool or 'urban' doesnt mean you should wear them. People get offended because their culturistic objects are simply used because thwy look 'nice' before wearing anything like these you have to take in the consideration that they are symbolic and you should only wear them if you are using them the way they are meant to be used.” “If people think cornrows look disgusting on black people but edgy on white people then the problem is with the society of people that think that not with the white people with cornrows. If there even is a problem at all. And why is everyone so concerned with what white people think anyway. Disallowing people to borrow ideas from other cultures obstructs the progress of the arts and of the world. Pretty much all american food is appropriated from other cultures. Actually most foods associated with particular cultures are appropriated from other cultures. Thats what happens. Everyone gets ideas off each other and we all progress and learn things from each other.“ “While white people are praised for altering their bodies, plumping their lips and tanning their skin, black women are shamed although the same features exist on them naturally. What looks ghastly, horrible and repulsive on the actual culture, looks ‘cool’ and ‘exotic’ on the oppressors. How can this be? A culture is supposed to be something that is vibrant, unique and homley to the person that belongs to that culture. A culture is what gives you history and what makes you interesting- It gives you a sense of belonging to a certain group. It isn’t there to be stolen or made fun of. A culture is sacred and it’s what makes you, you. It influences the way you dress, dance, how you act, what food you eat, and the list goes on. Therefore culture is a substantial part of somebody’s life. Hence you can’t just take it like it’s yours and change the entire concept of it; changing the meaning and turning into something it’s not. It’s just not right. In a song Selena Gomez, a pop artist, dresses up in traditional south asian clothes. Now I'm not saying that's wrong. People can wear whaevr they want. However what has Bindis and Saris got to do with her song? Absolutely nothing. Then why does she wear it? She is stealing an entire culture and ethnic identity and turning it into just a mere costume. She is changing the meaning of the once- important Bindi and turning it into just an ordinary fashion accessory.” “"Cultural appropriation" is a morally confused and historically nonsensical idea. All culture, across history, has been appropriated from other cultures. There is no such thing as pure culture. All culture is in flux and is in a state of appropriation and change, at all times. The Italians got pasta from the Chinese -- should they give it back? The Japanese took much of their culture from the Chinese, and Buddhism from the Indians. There is no such thing as "black" culture -- what we call "black" covers an extraordinarily diverse set of peoples, all of which have for centuries been pillaging and appropriating one another's cultures in Africa and elsewhere. Some culture, somewhere, started wearing corn rows. Should only the black people who trace their lineage to that particular people be allowed to wear corn rows? Should we stop eating Tex Mex food? Is it wrong for a white person to wear a ninja costume to a party? Should Native Americans be asked to shut down casinos because they came from white people? Should white jewelry makers in New Mexico stop making jewelry with Native American designs and symbols? Should black people be banned from wearing bowler hats? If you are half white and half black, do you get to wear corn rows on only one side of your head? Absurd. Totally, completely absurd. Food, dress, hairstyles -- none of it is pure, none of it "belongs" to anyone of any particular race, and talking about it being "stolen" is talking pure nonsense.” For me personally-I am on the 60% that say it is not an issue. I do think there is a line you cannot cross, but to get offended for wearing “om” yoga pants, using chakras, chopsticks, practicing Voodoo, cornrows, the list goes on and on. People, witches, wizards, or not, have the freedom to look into the history of the cultural, say per example chopsticks. Is the Witch Nancy going to cultural appropriate by using them? In no way. Doing a quick Google, Nancy can look up “where did chopsticks come from” and find: “Created roughly 4,000-5,000 years ago in China, the earliest versions of something like chopsticks were used for cooking (they're perfect for reaching into pots full of hot water or oil) and were most likely made from twigs.” Now she as both knowledge on wear chopsticks came from, how they made, and possibly who made them.  The same goes for Witchcraft and it’s paths. Yes, steer clear (unless you want to) of initiation only practices. Do your research. If a  spiritual path, or religion, or group, doesn’t fit in with your ideals, then you’re free to move on to the next idea. However if something really interests you? Say mojo bags, smudging, dolls, etc? My advise would be: -Buy from local sellers. (If you cannot buy from local sellers because of the price, cheaper ones do fine too! Respect =/=  going broke!) -Ask the people from where the cultural came from.  -Ask people/the group on how to properly do whatever Witchy thing you want to do. 

Don’t be afraid to try new things. Don’t be afraid of dabbling in a few things until you figure your own path out. Ask, ask, and ask some more questions.  Sources: https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-cultural-appropriation-an-important-social-issue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2017/session/whose-culture-is-it-anyway-the-cultural-appropriation-debate/ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/teenager-prom-dress-cultural-appropriation-chinese-culture-criticism-debate-appreciation-a8330006.html

[vesku56]

“So, I’m a Liberal.” - Written by Lori Gallagher Witt

“An open letter to friends and family who are shocked to discover I’m a liberal... I've always been a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does.

Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: Not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period.

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.

6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water.

Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how others feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on them. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on everyone else.

8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I'm not opposed to deporting people who are here illegally, but I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc.

It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.

13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is sensible policies, including background checks, that just MIGHT save one person’s, perhaps a toddler’s, life by the hand of someone who should not have a gun. (Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine).

14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.”

[terencereviews]

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Review by: Terence Jakeson

OKAY YOU KNOW WHAT, I WAS TOLD THIS WAS AN AWESOME MOVIE OKAY?? EVERYONE PRAISED THE SHIT OUT OF THIS AND I CAN NOT BELIEVE IT IM GONNA

OK SO FIRST OF ALL I DIDNT SEE THE ORIGINAL BUT THEY PRETTY MUCH SUMMED IT UP AT THE START SO I DON’T THINK I HAD TO

ALSO HARRISON FORD ONLY SHOWED UP TOWARDS THE END SO WHAT THE FUCK

OKAY ANYWAY THIS MOVIE IS ABOUT ROBOTS THAT LOOK LIKE HUMANS OR SOMETHING?? OR ARE THEY CLONES?? ARE THEY MACHINES INSIDE?? WHAT EVEN MAKES THEM DIFFERENT FROM HUMANS EXCEPT THAT THEY AREN’T BORN?? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!

ALRIGHT SO THEY’RE CALLED REPLICANTS AND PEOPLE TREAT THEM LIKE SLAVES AND ARE RACIST TO THEM AND ONE GUY FINDS OUT THAT ONE REPLICANT WAS ACTUALLY BORN AND SUSPECTS THAT IT’S HIMSELF AND LOOKS FOR HIS PARENTS OR SOMETHING AND THEN THERE’S A TOTALLY BULL SHIT PLOT TWIST

BUT YEAH UHHHHH SO WHERE DO I EVEN START

FIRST OFF I’M SO SICK OF THIS TREND WHERE ANYTHING EMOTIONAL OR DRAMATIC HAPPENS AN ENTIRE ORCHESTRA BECOMES DEDICATED TO OBLITERATE YOUR SENSE OF HEARING

LIKE I’M SERIOUS HE FINDS A TOY IN A FURNACE AND OH WELL SOMEONE STABBED A VIOLIN THROUGH MY EARS AND INTO MY BRAIN GUESS I DIDN’T NEED THAT

THIS IS SO ANNOYING AND IT’S IN SO MANY MOVIES NOWADAYS JUST STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OKAY SO MY BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THIS MOVIE IS THAT IT’S THE MOST UNCOMFORTABLE EXPERIENCE I’VE EVER HAD!!! LOOK I GET IT PEOPLE DON’T THINK REPLICANTS ARE PEOPLE, YOU HAVE TO SHOW IT, BUT WHEN PEOPLE CONSTANTLY TREAT OTHER LIVING HUMAN BEINGS LIKE ITEMS IT’S REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE AND THEY REEEALLY PUSHED IT HERE!!! THERE’S ALSO A WEIRD DOUBLE VISION GHOST SEX SCENE THAT ALSO WAS UNCOMFORTABLE IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT WAY I CAN’T REALLY DESCRIBE IT!!! EVEN THE FIGHT SCENE JUST MAKES ME FEEL FUCKED UP WITH THE MUSIC CUTTING IN AND MAKING ME DEAF AND THE ANNOYING LIGHTS AND THE PITCH BLACK DARKNESS IT’S SO ANNOYING!!! AND DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE SCENE WITH THE BLIND GUY AND THE NAKED CHICK, I ALMOST GOT SICK, EVERYTHING WAS JUST WRONG, THE SILENCE, THE COLORS, THE DIALOGUE, THE SETTING, EVERYTHING!!! I ACTUALLY LEFT THIS MOVIE EARLY BECAUSE IT WAS SO UNPLEASANT TO WATCH!!!! I SWEAR TO GOD THERE IS NO MOMENT IN THIS FILM THAT FEELS LIKE SOMEONE’S HAPPY OR AT THE VERY LEAST HUMAN

THE ONLY CHARACTER I GAVE A SHIT ABOUT WAS THE DOG BECAUSE IT’S THE ONLY THING I FELT WAS REAL AND MADE SENSE TO ME!! I WAS SO HAPPY TO SEE SOMETHING IN THIS MOVIE I COULD CONNECT WITH EVEN IF IT WAS JUST A FUCKING DOG!!! I CRIED ONCE IN THIS MOVIE AND IT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER THAT JUST DIED IT WAS BECAUSE THE DOG LOOKED SAD AND NO ONE WOULD PET IT

THE “STORY” IS SHIT, AND IT’S CLICHE SHIT, GUY WORKS FOR GOVERNMENT, GUY FIGURES OUT IT’S BAD AND HE SHOULDN’T, RUNS AWAY, FINDS OUT THERE’S A REBEL MOVEMENT, YADDA YADDA

LOOK I GET THAT MOVIES DON’T NECESSARILY HAVE TO MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD BUT IF THEY MAKE YOU FEEL UNPLEASANT AND NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE THE ENTIRE TIME THEN IT NEEDS TO HAVE A DAMN GOOD STORY OR A POINT OR JUST AT LEAST SOMEHOW MAKE YOU THINK

AND NO, EVEN WITH THESE INTENSE THEMES LIKE HUMANITY AND SOUL AND ALL THAT, THIS MOVIE GIVES YOU NOTHING TO THINK ABOUT!! THERE’S NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT!!! THEY DO OFFER SOMETHING LIKE THAT PEOPLE ARE REAL PEOPLE IF THEY CAN GIVE BIRTH BUT WE ALREADY KNOW REPLICANTS ARE REAL LIVING BEINGS WITH FEELINGS THERE’S NOTHING TO QUESTION HERE!!!

ALSO I’M NOT KIDDING WHEN I SAY THERE’S NO PLEASANT SCENE IN THIS MOVIE. EXCEPT FOR AT THE END, THERE’S NO TIME WHERE ANYONE’S HAVING A GOOD TIME AND BEING HAPPY AND MAKING YOU FEEL HAPPY. YOU FEEL EITHER EMPTY OR LIKE SHIT THE WHOLE TIME

IN CONCLUSION, FUCK THIS MOVIE, AND FUCK YOU FOR LIKING IT. BYE