#legal opression

[spocks-got-a-glock]

This is literally like how in the UK the legal age of consent was much higher (21) for gay sex when it was finally decriminalised than for straight sex and it was used to continue perpetuating the image of gay men as either predators or victims.

Tips for governments: people doing things you don't like? Try forcing them into compliance by denying them recognition of their adulthood and threatening them and those around them with punishment for disagreeing.

"They shouldn't socially transition until after 25"

So trans people magically aren't adults at 18 like cis people!?!?!????

[sarcasm] Wow yeah that sounds good and like something a normal government would say. Hope this isn't a dangerous precedent that will be used to repeal rights from other minority groups

[autismmydearwatson]

Attention Transsexuals

You DO NOT have to bind/pack to be who you are

You DO NOT have to be on hormone therapy to be who you are

You DO NOT even have to define yourself with a clear-cut label to be who you are

But you DO have to:

Point out random fictional characters and say "that's gonna be me someday"

[reserwrekt]

One of the things I kind of like saying but it really, REALLY pisses neurotypical people off- is "it's just a piece of paper."

Stupid laws? Piece of paper. The Constitution? Piece of paper. Money? Paper. Marriage certificate? Piece of paper. Any contract, degree, ect is a piece of paper. Your value you place on the paper is just that- your value of a piece of paper.

[selamat-linting]

heartbreaking! your friend of 14 years is still not a family abolitionist despite constant exposure to your extreme political views

[lordofryoshimacoast]

Saying Lolth was right about men. /Hj

LISTEN I JUST THINK IF A GUY FLIRTS WITH YOU OR CATCALLS YOU UNPROMPTED, HE SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH/hj

ALTERHUMANS I AM SUMMONING YOU

let's start a chain

everyone reblog with your alterhuman toxic trait

mine is that I forget that I'm not actually the size of a cat, which usually ends up with me stuck in a box

[pansyfemme]

the thing that is really infuriating to me about a lot of talk about polyamory is that when people bring up that, yea, a lot of the talking points against it are pretty similar to homophobia people go ‘well being polyamorous isn’t lgbt so’ and it’s. for me a biiiiit of a weird point. because, sure? it’s not lgbt by everyone’s definition, and while i don’t think anyone’s really than much of an authority to decide what isnt lgbt- that goes both ways, and i suppose im not much of an authority on what is. regardless if polyamory is lgbt or not tho- regardless if we seperate every (aka. most) queer polyam person from every straight polyam person and regardless if we forget about the shared history between the two communities- here’s the thing. if you are disqualifing the social and legal predjudice that polyamorous people face because they’re not lgbt and therefore.. somehow don’t face opression, you really need to. think very hard about the idea that you consider queer relationships as the only type of relationship that faces opression systematically. Queerness is not the only way a person can be descriminated against for their sexual preferences, romantic preferences and their personal history with relationships. i feel like this is. a concept that we all understand. or should. that saying that polyamorous people face similar predjudace to gay people doesn’t equal every polyamorous person being gay. It means that they are a minority of people who face discrimination at many societal levels for the people they have sexual and romantic relationships with, which feels like. something we can recognize as akin to queerness even if we do seperate the two communities. do you get me

[howlingday]

Imagine Jessica explaining the Fourth of July to The RWBYJNROE group.

Nora:I can set off explosives legally and in my neighborhood?!?

Jessica: Er, I think there's still some laws about it, but, yeah, kind of. Wait, do you mean you're not allowed to do it in Remnant?

Nora: Oh, I can. Or, I used to, until I had to open this really big walnut.

Ren: She almost blew up the orphanage when she did.

Jaune: So, why do you celebrate the July 4th?

Jessica: Well, it's supposedly when the Declaration of Independence was signed. It was our way of telling the British, the country we were at war with at the time, that we were independent and no longer relied on them. It's considered the most important day in the American Revolution.

Jaune: Whoa... So your world fought to be free from opression?

Jessica: Well, this was a long time ago, way before I was born, but, yeah. Except it was just the US fighting against Great Britain. Well, not just the US since... Ugh. There's a lot of history behind this one holiday, and I think it would take a while to even start to begin explaining it.

Nora: Well, why don't you start from the beginning... While I help you feel at home with this-

Ren: NO.

[proudproship]

Aging up or down characters to make it legal or make it a proship is fun. Alternative versions or past versions is fun too. Selfcest is fun, human x non human (specially if not completely human looking) is fun.

Having fun while shipping is sooo great and is such a good way to express your feelings. I love showing it through fanart and makes me so motivated

Antis should have occasional fun. Not all of these dynamics are "illegal" or evil. Antis and artists overall should be more creative the new social media is putting an art standard is so stupid that takes all the creativity

YES!!!

IT'S FUN TO BE CREATIVE

AND IT'S OKAY TO HAVE FUN !!!

AND FUCK THE BASTARDS WHO OPRESS OUR IDEAS; OUR IDEAS ARE SO MUCH MORE FUN THAN THEIR'S EVER WILL BE!!!

[goatfactsofficial]

Honestly, I consider my self "pro-israel" but still very critical about Bibis goverment, specially since fuckers like Gvir ad Smorvtich are in charge. I think that with Hamas finally gone and this fuckers either jailed for good or gone since they are actually hated by the Israeli population rn (The only reason they havent kicked them to kingdom come is because its the middle of a war) a good faith peace plan for both sides can be established with a third party of trust.

This being said, why the fuck do people root for Hamas? Ive seen this so called progressive even calling them 'resistance'. These fuckers are the main cause that palestinians are in the situation they are in. They use all the money they get from aid to try to attack israel, use their own population as shields because they dont care about them and indoctrictnated them to hate since children. Do they really want to leave them opressing Gazans like nothing happened after oct 7th? Because Ive havent seen any goverment willing to do this dirty work because, sadly, Hamas wont reliquinsh their "power" peacefully.

Honestly, in a past I considered my self pro-palestinian and pro-israel, at least publicly, but these loud minority of Hamasinks seemed to have hijacked a movement that started with good intentions. But sadly it appears that this minority is becoming the majority.

Is there anything that can be done to revert this? To alianeate these extremist from the reasonable voices?

First of all, hell of an anon to get. If you're baiting, nice job. Otherwise I'm going to assume this is a good faith ask. (Though I'm still confused as to why you asked me.) So re: why do people support Hamas. I'm assuming you're referring to the Pro-Pal Left that has reared its head since October 7th. Honestly I think it comes down to the privilege that almost everyone in the Imperial Core has: Freedom from War. These folks learned about War Crimes in highschool or whatever, never bothered to learn what they actually were and the how and why of their drafting, and now they hear about Israel bombing hospitals and they can't imagine any possible scenario where that could be justified. To these folks War is two armies marching at each other in block formations in an open field. And perhaps their only conception of Urban War is the civilian-less and consequence-free set pieces of modern warfare shooters. And it shows! I've seen people praising the Mujahideen in Gaza as brave and noble heroes for slapping the side of a Merkavah with a tandem charge RPG all while ignoring the fact that the person firing the RPG isn't wearing any sort of distinguishable uniform and are therefore committing the crime of perfidy. And it drives me insane because perfidy is such a fucking poisonous thing to do. Any action which erodes a belligerents ability to read actions in good faith is horrific, and actions like that are exactly what Hamas' strategy and tactics are based on and around. To break it down for the pissing on the poor crowd: 1: Hamas plans operation and bases soldiers in hospital 2: Israel bombs that hospital, whichever officer in charge has made the hard decision that the number of military casualties is worth the number of civilian collateral casualties, as well as damage to the hospital infrastructure. (THIS IS LEGAL AND NOT A WAR CRIME) 3: Hamas makes up death count and has their media corps play corpse jenga 4: useful idiots in the Imperial Core see that Israel bombed a hospital (no possible reason for doing that other than killing innocents!) and the 3000 years of antisemitism thats hardcoded into their brains kicks in and all the blood libel floods out. As for alienating the extremists from the moderates. I have no idea. Frankly I could care less about what Johnny Jihad or his leftist brownshirts care about Palestine or Israel or Jews or Palestinians. I give far more of a fuck in making the world a better place where I can. And that takes many forms. Including skipping out on my draft service because I didn't want to risk being a part of the apparatus that does in fact contribute to the oppression of Palestinians. What have any of these "Pro-Palestine" leftists ever done for the Palestinian cause that comes anywhere near that level of direct action?

[thoughtaddictand]

Lebanon restricting the rights of its Palestinian and Syrian refuge population. The world: ....

Lebanon denying its own Christian minorities any right to have a say. The world: ....

Child labour and marriage is completely legal in Lebanon. The world: ....

Lebanon opressing its own Drude population. There world: ....

Lebanese security force are known to torture detainees. The world:....

The Internet and free speech in Lebanon are restricted. The world:.....

Gays and women have a piss poor human rights situation in Lebanon. The world: .....

--------

Israel, months after rocket fire by an INTERNATIONALLY recognized terrorist organization began, finally reached a point where it could no longer ignore threats, first implores civilians in Lebanon to evacuate, an then, and only then, decides to strike. The world: "I stand with Lebanon, those poor beings. I feel so sorry you have to to deal with the problem that Israel. How dare it invaders Lebanon because of Hezbollah? Zionism is Lebanon's plague, the Zionists are devils, Israel is a messenger from hell. Destroy this evil Jewish state, then Lebanon will be free. Oooooooh, my solidarity and with the Lebanon's is endless!

[feelingthedisaster]

i dont undertand the need of lgbtq+ to hate on aspecs

"we need to discuss other issues that cause more deaths/urgent problems on the queer community" okay, lets talk about them, its important, lets talk and spread awareness and...wait you arent doing that, you are wasting time hating on aspecs instead of using that time to talk and spread awareness on those issues

"they arent opressed like we are" first, when being lgbtqia+ became a opression olympics? second, are we forgetting corrective rape, conversion "therapy" is still legal even in those countrys who have "banned" it, medical abuse/malpractise?

"they arent queer" im not gonna get into the same argument over and over

"an aro man harassed me" because he is a creep and a bad person, not because he is aro. all communities have bad people on them, it doesnt mean the entire community is bad

but most importantly, can we stop focusing on hating on each other for absolutly nothing and "they are crying wolf" and focus on the massive waves of transphobia? or queer teens on the streets? or the violent hate-crimes? lets stop this senseless arguments that dont help anyone and focus in something that actually puts lives in danger instead of "i dont want them in my gay club/bar"

get your priorities straight

what do you actually want? hate on aspecs for not being opressed enough or spread awareness about the opression you suffer?

[blubushie]

i've seen some blogs i follow say that misandry isn't real and men aren't opressed for being men and honestly the former doesn't sit right with me. misandry is not systemic like misogyny but your answers about your experiences prove that it does indeed happen in queer spaces. masculine queer men have to prove that they aren't a threat by making themselves a walking gay caricature.

Hell men aren't just oppressed in female-dominant "cultures" (like queer spaces) but they're also oppressed by patriarchy and, in some ways, legally. They're just not oppressed in the same way women are.

Men are considered inherently stronger/better, which means women can't compete with us, which means any time a man is a victim of a woman it's automatically his fault for ALLOWING himself to be. How are you, a man, gonna let a woman hit you? (It's because even if you defend yourself, and you make the call the police, YOU'LL be arrested as the aggressor. It's your word against hers, and in domestic violence they will always favour hers.)

We are simultaneously shit on for defending ourselves, because how dare a man ever put his hands on a woman even in self defence, but at the same time if we DON'T do that, it's our fault for being abused because we didn't "resist" our abuser. This is the male version of being asked about what you were wearing when you were victimised. The only way men are ALLOWED to be recognised as victims is if you're a child and your abuser is an adult man. If it's an adult woman? Hell, kid, you're lucky.

A lot of people think men can't be raped—either because we "always want sex", or because we're expected to physically resist our rapist and win. Contrast this to women, who are told to piss themselves or scream, or just take it because maybe if you do your rapist won't kill you. (If you ask me a firearm makes a helluva equaliser, but that's a conversation for another day.) Legislation even reflects this—in the UK, for example, according to UK law, it isn't possible for a women to rape a man unless she penetrates him with an object. A woman violently raping a man, even a child, by restraining him or otherwise and forcing him into penetrating her, is merely considered sexual assault and carries a much lighter sentence than rape.

And that really sucks for someone like me, who was raped by two women while I was drunk. Who didn't even realise I was raped until a mate explained it to me, because it's normalised that women can have sex with a drunk man and that's not considered rape—not even if he blacks out and asks them to stop when he wakes up, and they keep going while he blacks out again. Like what happened to me. An even bigger kicker—a man is always considered responsible in sex. So if a drunk man and a drunk woman both agree to sex while both are intoxicated, legally HE is raping HER despite both being unable to actually consent.

This in addition to men being expected to be sole providers for a home by society—look at the current rise of women looking for a sugar daddy or red-flagging a man because he only has one car instead of two, or of men never being favoured in family court even when the mother is unable to care for the children or is abusive, or how women will weaponise visitation against fathers for spite because they know the court will side with her regardless of how good of a father he is, or the lack of men's shelters, or how DV shelters won't take women with minor children who are boys older than 12 so a woman has to either go back to her abuser with her children or leave her sons behind alone with an abusive father, of people laughing at the male loneliness epidemic and treating it like a good thing/deserved reckoning instead of recognising it as a warning sign for a flood of lost teens and young men drifting down the Andrew Tate or rapist incel misogyny pipeline, of people laughing at men's mental health month posts and outright encouraging men to commit suicide under them while men already statistically commit suicide at a higher rate than women...

Men are oppressed in some ways, I'd argue some of those ways are systemic, but no one talks or cares about it. There was a feminism wave in the 90s of "patriarchy harms everyone", which is true, but now we're on a different wave of "men are biologically evil", which is absolutely batshit fucking insane and helps no one. Bioessentialism helps no one. (Plus it's transphobic and intersexist.)

Anyway I'm gonna go back to working on my ute now.

[sabugabr]

RRR, Black Adam and the Response of the Oppressed

OR: The Colonial Wound and how to approach Violence as a solution against the mechanisms of oppression

OR: how to get the debate right VS how to ruin it completely

Spoiler: RRR gets it right

So, I was keeping this one to myself because it's a very delicate subject, but rejoicing in RRR's recent Golden Globe nomination, I thought hell might as well talk about it.

First of all, a very important disclaimer:

I am not here, in any way, defending or endorsing any side in this debate. My personal views on violence and armed struggle and guerrilla warfare are not what I will be addressing. Armed struggle, is an extremely complex issue that is still being debated today by theorists and academics much more qualified than I am, so no.

Rather, my aim here is simply to address how this debate has been represented, and my take on this issue: media portrayals of social, historical and most importantly, decolonial debates. And recently in 2022, we've had two approaches (And yes, I am fully aware that this topic is much better covered in dozens of media that have this debate entirely as their main focus, but I am talking about superhero blockbusters here, so keep that in mind) that may seem similar, but are fundamentally completely divergent:

The Telugu movie RRR (Rise, Roar, Revolt)

And curiously, DC Film's Black Adam

No need to say, there'll be major spoilers ahead, so be warned

1. THE RESPONSE OF THE OPRESSED

Before I start, I would like to clarify as briefly as I can some terms and concepts that I consider necessary to begin to understand decolonialism and the response of the oppressed, a term that was coined in the famous quote by Jaylen Brown during the height of the BLM movement, "Do not confuse the response of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor".

Pierre Bourdieu differentiates the violence of the oppressor into two categories:

explicit violence – in which the action of the dominant subject is visible (and therefore, in our current society, subject to questioning and legal or moral limitations)

and symbolic violence – conceptualized by Bourdieu when he addressed the issue of male domination in society and all the faces in which it presents itself – and we see it everywhere, from racial demographics in income distribution to that homophobic joke your uncle always makes.

This relationship of systematic domination can be understood as a chain, and in view of the necessary rise of awareness and consequent rupture of this chain, Audre Lorde presents the uses of anger.

By connecting the idea of symbolic power and the breaking of the domination relationship with the use of anger, we have the explosion of a natural reaction of the oppressed triggered by centuries of imprisonment in their own fear and, bringing this reality specifically to colonial relations, using anger over your own fear results in liberation. (source)

And although it wouldn't hurt to address the revolutionary terms in its most famous roots in the French Revolution and etc, here it seems more fitting to comment on Marx. And class struggle.

Briefly, Marx and Engels saw revolution as the result of organized political action by the exploited. Therefore, one can only speak of revolution when there is a rupture with the old political, social and economic order; and in its place, new standards of social relations are established whose principle is to ensure freedom and social equality among men.

This is what we mean when we talk about inverting the social order, and Marx will also use the terms infrastructure (productive forces + relations of production) and superstructure (politics, police, army, law, morals, religion, etc.).

The superstructure, for Marx, is created by the most favored and dominant class, but determined or conditioned by the infrastructure.

Therefore, the revolution would happen when the working class (and in that logic, any oppressed group) reversed the order and took control of the superstructure.

In short, this can be understood as the basis of revolutionary thinking.

Now apply this to the invasion, colonization and genocide scenario, and you'll see where I'm going here.

KKKKKKKKKKKKKK THAT'S A BIT EXTREME EXAMPLE SORRY but actually in Black Panther I the plot could very well be read through Marxist lens (and that has certainly been done), but I won't even go into that here, god forbid Wakanda Forever hahahah imagine that, anyway going back to my thread

2. ARMED STRUGGLE

A quick definition of armed struggle, which can be found in dictionaries, is armed resistance against oppressive regimes. In the armed struggle, the militants understand that the situation of society requires drastic action so that it can be modified, and for this reason they decide to take up arms and declare war on the oppressive regime. Guerrilla warfare is an example of armed struggle.

In the armed struggle, a group of militants opposed to the current regime in a given society, organize actions that can be strikes, attacks on barracks or public buildings, etc, aiming to destabilize the current power with the aim of overthrowing it and placing a different regime in its place, like a democracy, for example – in general, the armed struggle follows a leftist tendency. (source)

In Brazil, for example, the armed struggle appeared mainly as resistance to the Military Dictatorship between 1964 and 1985.

All of this goes along the idea of using violence as resistance to oppression (as already pointed out before): fire is answered with fire. In the specific scenario of the guerrilla, the French philosopher, journalist, former government official and academic Jules Régis Debray writes the controversial book Révolution Dans La Révolution, where he points out that "The main objective of a revolutionary guerrilla is the destruction of the enemy's military potential"; the enemy is stripped of it's military power (it's weapons) to ensure a greater chance of victory.

"To destroy an army you need another army.", Debray says. "Precisely because it is a mass struggle, and the most radical of all, the guerrillas need, in order to triumph militarily, to gather politically around themselves the active and organized majority, since it is the general strike and the generalized urban insurrection which will give the coup de grace to the regime and destroy its latest maneuvers - last minute coup d'état, provisional junta, elections - by extending the struggle throughout the country." (source)

Does that all ring a bell?

Sure it does.

Now, these are all historical scenarios, and nowadays the moral debates about armed struggle have become extremely more complex (as they should), and the disarmament discourse is taking more and more space in these debates. Is armed struggle the only solution? Wouldn't there be others?

But it is still a complex debate. The Brazilian rapper (and political thinker and, dare I say, philosopher) Mano Brown, a strong advocate of disarmament, staunchly defends that violence, most of the time, bounces back on the oppressed, not the oppressor.

Look at him all precious

He argues, however, that one cannot simply condemn the oppressed who react violently. Already in 2006 he presented in an interview that:

"I am in favor of disarmament, but this argument is difficult, things should be done differently […] People are coming as a class struggle, you know? Rich people don't want poor people to arm themselves and remain unarmed. And poor people don't want rich people to arm themselves and remain unarmed. Did you see the kid's argument: "How are the police allowed to carry guns while I remain unarmed? " It's kind of uneven. It's confusing." (source - translated by me)

Mano Brown is part of the Brazilian rap band Racionais formed by 4 black men from the periphery, who revamped their music after realizing that it could be used to foment violence. They front a series of social programs, and revolutionized the way peripheral music is seen and consumed. Nowadays, in 2023, Mano Brown hosts one of the biggest political interview podcasts in Brazil (having even interviewed Angela Davis), is considered one of the most active leaders of the racial struggle, and along with the other members of Racionais, has taught open classes in estate universities.

The Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire, considered one of the most notable thinkers in the history of world pedagogy, inaugurates in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (you can read it translated right here) the idea of the liberation pedagogy. He strongly emphasizes that liberation pedagogy is a political process that aims to awaken individuals from their oppression and generate actions for social transformation – through education.

NOW WITH ALL THAT IN MIND WE CAN FINALLY MOVE ON TO WHAT MATTERS,

3. THE MOVIES

I'm going to talk about RRR here first because it makes me happier, but for reasons of time and your patience I'm not going to extend myself so much in the analysis of this film technically, and if you want a more detailed look at the grandeur and the importance and the genius of this film, please watch any of the many videos that are now appearing on youtube on the subject (I recommend RRR: Make Movies EPIC Again, by Jared Bauer, and The Importance of RRR, by the wonderful Accented Cinema)

ONCE AGAIN ATTENTION FOR BIG, MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

The story therefore revolves around two men: Raju, who infiltrates the British army to steal fireguns and deliver them to the people's guerrilla, and Bheem, a Gond leader who is after Mali, a child of his people who was kidnapped by the British to basically serve as a pet.

They meet under false identities, and unaware that they were both fighting for the liberation of India (through different methods), the two men form an extremely strong bond of love and friendship, which results in their struggles coalescing into an evocation of patriotic unity and popular resurgence against the colonial forces.

First of all, RRR is a fictionalized biography of two real-life Indian revolutionaries, Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem. So, in real life, Alluri Raju actually stole guns from the British to stage uprisings against the British Raj, and Komaram Bheem really was a Gond revolutionary leader who coined the slogan Jal, Jangal, Zameen (transl. Water, Forest, Land) wich became a call to action for Adivasis (or Scheduled Tribes) peoples.

You can see the flag in the last scenes

This "historical aspect" (in addition to the incredible, completely impossible and impossibly glorious action scenes) makes it plausible to draw parallels between RRR and Tarantino's historical revisionism films like Django Unchained (2013) and Inglourious Basterds (2009), where in all cases we see scenes of extreme violence that somehow feel justified, or cathartic, for being directed against oppressors (slave masters, Nazis, British colonizers, etc etc)

The parallels are just there.

Black Adam, on the other hand, states in its synopsis that "After nearly five thousand years of imprisonment, Black Adam, an anti-hero from the ancient city of Kahndaq, is released in modern times. His brutal tactics and righteous ways attract the attention of the Justice Society of America, who try to stop his rampage by teaching him to be more of a hero than a villain, and they all must band together to stop a force more powerful than Adam himself."

So we have a superhero story set in the present day in a fictional country on the Sinai Peninsula (that means, right there besides the Gaza Strip and the Suez Canal), occupied by a mercenary crime syndicate called Intergang, who brutally oppresses the Kahndaqi people while robbing their mineral resources. All good, all great.

But as stated in the synopsis, the film's great moral conflict revolves around whether the use of violence against mechanisms of oppression is justified or not.

Basically,

And while these two scenarios may seem similar, the approach the two films take to this debate, which, as I've said before, is EXTREMELY DELICATED, and EXTREMELY COMPLEX, is completely different. Firstly, because RRR is the only one of the two that treats it as, well, a debate.

From the beginning, RRR establishes the two characters as essentially polar opposites; Raju is fire

Look at the scenery with the european buildings in the background

Bheem is water

And here, the native, untouched forest with pure cristaline water

Bheem is the god Bhima, immovable, patient and resilient

(like water)

And Raju is the god Rama, heroic, springy and skillful

(and hot)

Bheem is the legs (the foundation) while Raju is the arms (the action)

They ✨ complement ✨ each other

And this is translated into their different approaches to the revolution: Raju with his arms policy (inherited from his guerrilla father), who operates within the system to overthrow it, and Bheem with his native philosophy, using the land, the fauna, the culture, the religion, the people themselves as agents against oppression, operating from outside the system to overthrow it.

At the beginning of the film, Raju dresses Bheem in western clothing so that he can attend a British party (which allows him to know the building and locate Mali), and at the end of the film, Bheem dresses Raju in the traditional clothing of the god Rama, and arms him not with european firearms but with a sacred bow and arrow, evoking his native homeland in what configures the real defeat of the colonizers.

Not even getting into the merits of comparing these two films technically, just talking about the discourse itself, what for me fundamentally separates RRR from Black Adam, and even Django and Inglourious Basterds, is precisely Bheem's character. It's the other way to fight (but fight nonetheless)

This does not mean that the armed struggle is delegitimized, or diminished. On the contrary, it is explained, justified (within that historical and social context) and respected. People who fought in the armed struggle, and died in the armed struggle, are honored and respected. It allows you to understand where the idea of arming the population is coming from (in a certain parallel with Mano Brown's interview that I mentioned above), but it also presents other discussions on the subject, that happened at the time, and still happens today.

And above all, as I mentioned before, the film presents and reinforces the idea of inspiration. Even if education is presented only very briefly, in a popular assembly, in the long term, the film still gives extreme focus to the importance of raising awareness among the oppressed people.

This can be clearly seen in the scene where Bheem is being tortured in a public square by the British government, and refuses to kneel.

So when the torture becomes too much to bear, he starts to sing

Now, this is the most important scene in this movie and I'll die on this hill

And then, this happens

Bheem inspires not only the population, but also Raju, who even after years of enticement by his own father, steps back on his original (armamentist) plan when he realizes that "I was under the impression that guns would bring us freedom. But Bheem inspired a whole crowd with one song"

Even though in the context of the film the "path of choice" was still violent (this still is, after all, an action superhero movie), the message of this scene is extremely metaphorical. The idea of a song (art) inspiring all people to "become a weapon" against an oppressive regime is very powerful, and it resonates deeply in anti-opression movements all over History. It is, literally, the power of the people.

Furthermore, at crucial moments in the plot, both Bheem and Raju put aside their collective struggles for the other's individual good; Unlike his father, who readily accepts the militarization of his child son for the greater good, Raju, when questioned by his guerrilla companion for abandoning 15 years of work to save Bheem, says that "I will bear it for another 25 years, but I won't sacrifice Bheem for my goal".

Bheem, here, represents not only the friendship and love between them, but, metaphorically, an entire ideal of the people. Ultimately, one can say that this film addresses the idea of "what are the limits in my revolution": I will not sacrifice the other for my revolution; the limits of my revolution must be the wellness of the other (and in our metaphorical reading here, the wellness of the people).

Parallel, the torture scene can be metaphorically read as: the only valid sacrifice is my own, never that of the other. (and I won't be commenting on the revolutionary character of ideas like martyrdom and self-sacrifice, but yes). That's what Bheem and Raju do throughout the entire film, they put the other above themselves.

And in the end, they kill the british defeat oppression together✨

Now, as I've mentioned before, yes, this movie still ends violently, yes, it still glorifies and celebrates this violence in some of the best action scenes I've seen in my whole life, yes, it is heavily patriotic and sometimes a little bit too on the nose about it, yes, and did I rejoyce in it? Yes.

But it cannot be denied that RRR at least presents a reflection not often seen in films of the genre, which is the mere existence of real debate. In addition, the film is placed in an extremely specific historical context, portraying real historical figures, real life revolutionaries, folkloric parallels, a gigantic symbolic charge, in short, a whole other deal.

Besides it, the only difference between this film and idk, Braveheart, or Star Wars, is that in this film the social and racial parallels, the guerrilla warfare and class struggle (and the colonial wound) become clearer – and perhaps this is a more responsible way of representing a revolution.

NOW, BLACK ADAM ON THE OTHER HAND KKKKKKK

As mentioned in the synopsis, the background of Black Adam is curiously similar: we have an oppressed people, we have the militia, a clear racial reference to a real-life conflict, which affects thousands of people daily, and the figure of a mythologically evocative hero with super powers who will free the people from oppression through violent means. And yes, there is debate: we have the Justice Society, which condemns Black Adam's methods and questions his use of violence, only to be proven wrong at the end of the movie.

But the "proved wrong" isn't really built, or developed (as Intergang is quickly forgotten when they all start fighting each other and then… Satan? For some reason??), and it basically boils down to this:

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

And that's so funny because he actually just… killed like 3 soldiers in the second act of the movie. That's all he did.

And it gets even funnier because at some point we have a scene that genuinely makes a VERY VALID point that made me very hopeful when I was in the theater watching it

Like, this is SO VALID and she is SO RIGHT and this is such a great argument and a great debate point and then it just... goes nowhere

He just killed like 3 guys he didn't even talk to the people he just, quite literally, killed some pawn soldiers and went on to fight his own individual battles that had nothing to do with the actual opression state of the country besides them telling you that "it was bad".

The problem with Black Adam's is ac how shallow the argument is. Nothing is justified, nothing is not even debated, we just have Hawk Man going "killing is bad" and Black Adam going "yeah but I do it caused I'm disruptive like that", and even when we have this "inspire the people" moment is just... this kid with a cape doing this symbol and yes, symbols of struggle are a great tool in fighting oppression, and yes they work and they're so, so great, but this one specifically kind of just…was there?

LIKE OK THIS IS ALL GREAT but then it lead to people… fighting zombies?????

zombies ??!?!??!!!????

Like, how, seriously, how does this have to do with any of your previous state of opression? How does this change absolutely anything??? Are we going to have elections after the zombies thing, or... ?

And that, to me, is such a poor and wasteful way of representing people power that, even though I didn't take this film seriously, I couldn't help but feel mildly frustrated. Much of the recent wave of blockbuster media about decolonialism, in my opinion, has been making this same mistake, which is apparently thinking that just because a movie is made to be a blockbuster, or a superhero movie, or an action movie and easy entertainment, it cannot tackle complex topics. It cannot deepen a discussion. It can't take 10 minutes off a fight scene to establish a full dialogue. As if that would, idk, tire the audience maybe? Idk.

As if a universe of superheroes, or fantasy and action, couldn't contain a scene like this:

This scene seems so simple but it is so, so huge

Andor is perhaps an example out of the curve, because Andor is a series that makes a great effort to represent the fight against oppression in a very serious and responsible way, making it its main theme, of representing what a fascist government is,how a fascist government acts and affects all layers of a population, what is the immigrant cause, what is the armed struggle, what is it like to be a person of color in an far-right government. And it does all of this in an unprecedented way in the genre so far, indeed.

But as I said before, perhaps this should be how all media represent these themes. Because otherwise, even the best of intentions can turn against the causes you sought to defend. And ok, I know that Black Adam is "just a superhero movie" and that maybe it's unfair to demand so much from a movie that only came to propose a simple entertainment with fight scenes and jokes, and I had fun watching it indeed. I love Dwayne Jhonson we all do. But the thing is, if you're going to represent that debate, I genuinely believe it can't be done as simply, or as poorly explained, as it was in this film. A poorly presented arms discourse can become an attack on the legitimization of the armed struggle in its historical context, it can become a justification for a shootout against anti-oppression demonstrations, it can become the excuse for why a policeman mistook an umbrella for a rifle, or a piece of wood for a gun, and killed innocent (and peripheral) men.

In the best of scenarios, the intent is simply forgotten, or it's so hidden in the metaphorical layers of the work that it's easy to miss them. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be so many racist, misogynistic, right-wing Star Wars fans, for example (just to be clear, I'm not attacking Star Wars here at all, ok, I'm just using it as an example – you'll agree with me that I've never seen any Cambridge professors attack Star Wars)

And fair is fair, Luke did explode a moon-sized military base full of millions of people and all that...

SO ANYWAY

Armamentism is an extremely serious issue, and it must be handled very, very carefully. As I mentioned before, RRR has a historical context, and an argument builded throughout the entire film; I hardly think anyone comes out of RRR, or WomanKing, wanting to pick up a gun and simply shoot someone (I hope). But the way this idea was presented in Black Adam, it is not an exaggeration to say that someone might have had this impression after watching it. At the very least, the movie took no care making sure this wasn't the case, and that for me is troubling enough.

The struggle against oppression and decolonialism are extremely important topics, and I am happy that these themes are increasingly making themselves present in more and more media works (and we have had several very good ones recently) – and Black Adam does have good ideas in the middle of the mess. But if you're going to make a film to talk about oppression, without actually commiting to approach it responsibly, why do it?

And ok, RRR does have a very imperative call to action but well, look at them, would you not answer???

[christiansinglebabes]

This genocide has started way before oct 7th, israel is an occupying force that's been oppressing Palestinians for at least 50 years.

The 20% Palestinian population living in israel is subjected to apartheid, police violence and displacement from their homes.

They are not recognized as citizens, the ppl in gaza and the westbank cannot vote in israeli elections despite israel controlling those regions.

Gaza has been under siege for 16 years now. They've been controlling who goes in and out, Palestinians have to ask for permission to leave their cities even if they want to access medical care that isnt provided in gaza due to sanctions by israel.

Why does the financial interest of israel and its ally's trump the right of palestinian freedom? When the money they are making from military technologie is tested on the palestinians? Whats worse is that bombing of gaza has not just taken 33.000 lives, it has also poisoned and destroyed the land that israel claims it has a spiritual right to!

A land already drenched in the blood of thousands of palestinians spilled during and since the inception of israel in 1948. It has poisoned their future and made sure gaza will have to depend on aid for years and maybe even decades to come.

That is why Palestinians need to be able to return to their stolen land and they have a right to return home, even beyond legality israel is an ethno state that guarantees citizenship to -anyone- of the jewish faith even if they have no connection to the land.

What is the point of the UN and EU if we dont use our power to protect human rights everywhere, members of the UN like germany, france, USA and Britain actively funding the bombing of civilians, while claiming solidarity with the victims.

All this talking behind the scenes is doing nothing! Rn netanyahu is pulling back his forces from the south of gaza so they can take a nap, see their families, have a little snack and then go into rafah and kill the remaining 2.2 million Palestinians they told to flee there.

I am ashamed to be paying taxes in germany when that money is used for destruction instead of for the german population and I'm sick of the hypocrisy of western powers who have been exploiting africa and the middle east for decades while simultaneously condemning any and all resistance by the ppl they've oppressed labeling them terrorists.

Is the german state not a terrorist organization? Isnt the USA? Isnt NATO? Why is it that only the people that fight back against their opression with the same violence they've been shown by you are labeled terrorists.

Why was it so easy for you to condemn Russia in its attack on ukraine but you cant condemn israel for this genocide? I can tell you why, because Russia is an enemy and israel is a friend of yours. You only condemn oppressive states when it serves you and when the victims are white.

And while Netanyahu is a tyrant that needs to be dethroned dont be fooled, the issue with Israel is not Netanjahu, racist israeli society is what allowed a monster like him to power. His opposition are zionists just like him that are gleefully watching gaza be turned to dust and are happy to take over once netanyahu steps down, blame only him for the genocide and return to the status quo of opression of the west bank and gaza. 70% of israelis think the military actions taken in gaza are justified and the reason for that is because the only way to rationalize the existence of israel in Palestinian land is by assuming every palestinian is a threat to jewish life, that way no amount of cruelty is unjustified and can be done in self defense.

Why is it so hard to call this a genocide when Israeli officials have clearly stated on multiple occasions that their plan is to eliminate the possiblity of a palestinian state by killing or displacing the Palestinians, idf soldiers are filming snuff films and gleefully parade around womens underwear they stole out of the homes of the dead. How can you support a country like that?

When that support is putting world peace in danger by signaling that all these international laws here to protect us are all just suggestions you can ignore if you have enough money and allies.

U ask us to condemn hamas when u wont condemn the anti-apartheid state of israel, when hamas wouldnt exist without opression of the palestinians by israel.

While u sit in government trying to placate us with useless discussions and pretty words , children are being blown to pieces or left completely orphaned and severely physically and mentally disabled. Do u understand the impact this will have on the palestinian ppl even after this genocide ends? Do u really think they wont grow up hateful and resentful towards Israel? And can u blame them when they do? Now noone is arguing that hamas shouldnt be prosecuted for the human rights violations on oct 7th, however this one sided war on terror that doesnt rightfully classify the acts of western powers and their extensions in the middle east and africa as terror is hypocritical and an insult to our intelligence. This is not an equal struggle between israel and hamas, it is an ethnic cleansing of palestinians.

And to the media and politicians bastardizing the meaning of antisemitism, Criticizing Israel is not antisemitic, and saying that israel and jews are one and the same is what actually promotes antisemitism. Israel is a country and like every country it has to abide by international law,

Israel has been lying to its visitors and citizens since its inception, the jews who come to visit and the jewish israelis have been made to believe by zionists that israel is the only place they can be safe from antisemitism. But that couldnt be further from the truth, by israel declaring itself synonymous with the jewish ppl and their struggle while committing atrocities they are putting the global jewish community at risk and feeds the antisemitic conspiracy theories of a jewish opressive elite. We dont need an ethno state that pretends all jews are homogeneous, what we need is to make sure that jewish ppl are safe worldwide

Europe made this world unsafe for jews, Arabs and jews are not enemies,we are allies, my father grew up in a jewish neighboorhood in morroco and my best friend is jewish, she is my heart and she is my soul and I will not allow israel to drag her name and the name of jews through the mud!

A permanent ceasefire is not an end of what we demand and what the palestinians deserve, it is the bare minimum. And we will not allow the world to quietly reinstate support for israel after this genocide is over, we want an end to apartheid an end to occupation! We want palestinian freedom, from the river to the sea. We want right of return from the river to the sea, and we want a palestine where israelis and Palestinians have equal rights, from the river to the sea!

[bcomic-blog]

Tonight in El Goonish Shive

HOLY

SHIT

Okay, I'm not sure how people generally come across this post. I'm assuming MOST have already read the update first. But I don't doubt that for a few tumblrites seeing this in their dash is their reminder, "oh hey, I should check out the new page"

Just in case, I ain't saying fuck all about this page and especially not SHOWING anything from this page without a cut...

(Maybe I should always do this? But especially tonight.)

If you are not caught up with EGS up to the Wed 12/6 update proceed no further, this is your warning lol

WOW!

I wanna call this a HUGE update, where so much happens. But technically we learned almost nothing new lol. Most everything that is confirmed about Mist in this update we already knew, basically...

Quick review of all of the plot points that Mist is part of:

Alternate universes aren't all equally "alternate"

The universe that the Griifins come from is inherently connected to the Universe the main cast live in. For simplicity, we'll call them Moperville and Avalon:

Like Moperville. Avalon has Uryuom and Seyonulu people. In Moperville they live in secret, disguised as humans. In Avalon, they live openly, but as a distrusted and opressed minority. Evidently it is believed that they originally arrived with intent to conquer, and they are legally prohibited from touching tech out of distrust that they aren't STILL plotting something

(Fuckin Dwight, man...)

So, on the Moperville side magic is a secret on the verge of coming out, but on the Avalon side, magic has been open for a long time. On the Moperville side humans believe they are the only sapients on Earth, and they aren't far off. Secretly, there are also some Uryuom and the Immortals, but that's mostly it. On the Avalon side, humans are one of a variety of sapient species, including Griffins, unicorns, and we haven't yet seen who all else. But the humans are a minority with a monopoly on political power, which is concentrated in those who have what is called a "royal aura"

So, the ENTIRE point of everything that happens in the "Balance" chapter is that Liam (the owl griffin) is sympathetic to the plight of the oppressed Uryuom, so he arranges the entire rigamarole of himself getting mind-controlled to attack royalty all as a distraction to pull one of the guards (Dwight) away from the portal from Avalon to Moperville, allowing three insurgents to sneak through to our side.

Their plan is to use the fact the Uryuom can use magic on the Moperville side again meaning that over here they can use magic items, specifically:

this thing, to allow them to STEAL the Royal Aura from someone over here, then go back with the aura that has always meant you are considered one of the powerful few on the Avalon side, and use that power to end the oppression of Uryuom and Seyunolu people.

There are three members of our cast that it's confirmed have a royal aura:

So in this page, Mist is looking for a way to supercharge the dream search, which is what happens in the NP chapter "Parable" which had been in a state of "canon, but it hasn't happened yet" but with tonight's upfate i assume it's going to finally happen!

Evidently, though, Seyunolu, unlike griffins. can't just see a royal aura. So that's Mist's part of the job: he can sense a being's auras and stuff, but only by entering their dreams, a process that wasn't finding their candidates very quickly. (Not too surprising,as they would have focused on the wealthy and powerful based on the mistaken assumption that if the Royal Aura people didn't rule openly here, they must be ruling from the shadows...)

So-- as I said at the beginning-- we don't actually learn a lot that's totally new about Mist... except we now know for sure that he is a Tulougol Seyunolu with a combination of human, Uryuom, and Unicorn... but that always seemed the likely bet. And we learned what he looks like without his disguise (which is one hell of a cool character design!)

I mean, wow!

Before this, it seemed likely this character would look like some sort of Unicorn/Human, but we couldn't be sure if that would look cool

It does!

So, at first when I read this I thought this was a confirmation of the character's NAME, but no, that had been confirmed a while ago, i just missed it!

For a long time this character was known by a placeholder name: "Mystucorn":

BUT, in passing, the leader called him "Mist" a while ago, as easy as this was to miss!

Another cool thing this page does is give Mist's pronouns. This is helpful because he has a very feminine appearance, even more so than the androgynous Noah, and it would be easy to accidentally misgender him. BUT that one also isn't actually new info: Mist's gender was established WAY back in his first appearance:

But there is one other COMPLETELY new thing established in this page: the NAMES of the other two Seyonulu involved in the plot to steal a royal aura, as well as their roles!

Saou is the leader who the plan is to make into Seyonulu royalty, and Potestas is essentially the bodyguard.

At this point I think it is safe to say which is which in their various forms and disguises going back to their earliest appearances!

Mist:

(note the uryuom antennae!)

(the scene with different shaped speech balloons to distinguish different speakers)

And finally:

Now...

Saou:

And

Potestas:

So, anyhow, this is all super exciting, I can't wait to find out what happens next... I mean, evidently "Parable" happens next, but now that that's no longer "sometime later this year", we'll finally find out more what happens AFTER "Parable"!

[mondieuwordnerd]

Is it shit Rebecca Yarros mispronounces Gaelic words - yes obviously. As someone who lives in a country with many locations named using Indigenous language that are routinely mispronounced, I get it. From what I've seen she's hired a tutor and is doing better.

But holy shit y'all do you know how fucking rare it is to have a main character with a disability in a prominent fantasy darling? Like the positive representation will have huge flow on effects for readers with no disability. The use of accomodations is incredible and the character is allowed to be a romantic, sexual person too. Again, fucking rare!

There is a trend on insta now following on from Iron Flames release - "books about opressed people by opressed people". These books should be platformed and read BUT if you think people with a disability aren't also systematically opressed in society!! They are under employed, legally paid less, and generally have worse health outcomes because they're financially under resourced. Not to mention more susceptible to poor mental health than the general population.

This is obviously not the first book with a character with a disability, you can find them if you look and they're also very good, but it's the first on this scale. Please do not try and cancel a writer with a disability lending her first hand experience to a novel. Of course she's not perfect but as far as I can see she is well intentioned and trying to do better