#making space for non-normative expressions of rhetoricity | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

caustic-splines · 7 months ago

Text

I can be soft and vulnerable, I am willing to let you hurt me because I love you and trust you. I know you are passionate I rediscovered part of the reason why I love you so much. Your love is discrete, inverse pun intended but both homonyms applicable in this analogy. It is private, our unique form of expression

But it is also literally discrete, like recent quantum gravity field theories I may or may not have a hand in. My mind craves clarity, more so, it craves discrete caustic lines an planes. I would like to be like that every day. I want my heart to be in the inner of a particle accelerator bit-west two colliding high energy beams. All the crazy spins and flavor's of normal, charming, and even exotic sub atomic particles smashing apart, smashing together, twirling off in random spirals based on EM fields. That is who I am, not a particle reactor,

but every emergent self and extended phenotype aspect of my projects, world views, emotions, experiences, thoughts and behaviors.

Do you really want to see what I have seen when I was manic, I will make a brief outline, which barely does it justice, nor was the experience worth it in my mind

I saw reality

Across all multi scale layers of objective, subjective, abstract existance. Both perceived and externally existing.

Across all of these non-linear and semi-non empirical scales

Ontology categories of conscious awareness -5 Planc Quantized Wireframe -4 Subatomic Interactions -3 Electron Orbitals -2 Biochemical Interactions -1 Neurological Activity 0 Perception Input and basic awareness/dispersibility [(x n-1…n5) State of dissociation of whatever perceptual order or unconsciousness/dreaming] 1 Awareness of perception and SV 2 Awareness of perception in context or awareness of awareness -Xa Intrapersonal models 3 Awareness of self, regarding one's cognitive topography -Xb Allocentric models 4 Aware of a disruptive axiomatic shift recursively impacting various areas and fidelity of one's consciousness -Xc Global and Orbital Cyberphysical Memetogeographic Space -Xd Cosmology 5 Aware of a fundamental change in perception or PMC affecting POV. Shift in paradigm -Xe Uber Universes/5D+ EGC splines (ego/exo/allo) centric/ totality of EISOA over CT0-9

In the context of modular frames, of which I have objectively real working minimal level of knowledge in all of these domains, some reaching PhD levels of mastery

1 Technology

1 Applied Science/Applied Uses of TSECpm Phenomenon 2 ~Sustainable, Agricultural, Ecological and Environmental 3 Fabrication, Trade/Craft, and Intra/Inter Human Skill/Functionality 4 Military/Security/OMA7 5 Educational, Knowledge, Cognitive, Cybernetics, and Information, DT/PT 6 Electronics, Computers, Software, Spectrum, AI 7 Industries, Material Collection, Cyclical/NA: Supply Chains, Accounting 8 Skills, Fabrication, Synthesis, and Patents, Logistics 9 Civil, Nationality, Era, Civilian, State, and Structural 0 Future Technology/Other

2 Philosophy

1 Logic 2 Epistemology 3 Aesthetics 4 Politics 5 Dialectics, Critical Thinking, and Rhetoric 6 Ethics and Morality 7 Metaphysics and Ontology 8 Meta Linguistics 9 Applied Philosophy 0 Analytic Philosophy/Other

3 Engineering

1 Nuclear Engineering 2 Chemical Engineering 3 Biological Engineering/Medical Engineering 4 Environmental Engineering 5 Systems Engineering and Cybernetics 6 Electrical Engineering 7 Mechanical Engineering 8 Industrial Engineering 9 Civil Engineering 0 Personal Engineering/Cognitive Engineering/Experience Engineering, ME0002/0013/0034/0049, Other

4 General-Cultural

1 Interactive Mediums/4, 3//Middle World IO MR Interaction/Hobbies/EISOA interactions 2 Geography, Culture, [[SMPH/ME 1/Experiment 0032 TSeCIVii|Experiment 0032 TSeCIVii]] 3 Occult/Niche Allusion/Metaphor 4 Physical, Mental, and Cognitive Skills 5 Day to Day Functionality, House Keeping, BH, and Normative and Exotic Behavior (Anomolies vs Normative Phenomena, timescale/PoF independent) 6 Law, Rules, Conduct, Ethology 7 Finance and Business/Institutions/VSM/States/Governing Bodies 8 Dynamic PPF+/-PoV, People of Interest, UJSF 9 Politics and Society – Collective Conscious Gestalt 0 UM, Pop culture/other, (**(almost) ALL EISOA can be contained in USF(EISOA Correlate))

5 Frameworks

1 Gestalt, Non Gestalt (AS/S)_, Spatial and/or Temporal Patterns, and Non-Modular and Modular Ontology, Shapes, Objects, Sounds, Qualia Framed Experiences which can be Axiomatized (basically an intersystem link to 1, 1 to enable dual +y/1, 1 functionality) 2 PT/MR Mathematical and Mapping/Fields Competition and Game Theory, NWF (applying [[Experiment 0024 LoUtrix]] to 1, 1) 3 UJSF/Society and Culture/Cyberphysical Environments (EISOA cybersocial considertations) 4 TSECpm, +y/PT, Exocognition/LLM integration 5 Mindmap/MEs, and Modelling, Psychology/EISOA, Thought Traces/2, 5/AE/DABPAx (self imposed 3, 4 for the meta task of utilizing +y effectively) 6 Experiential and PMC/5, x /1, 1/3, 1/2, x/PE (1, 1-2-5-6/2, x subjective experience. MM08, x 7 IESOA, CABS, Frames, (OMA7), Fuzzy Logic, 3, 4/VSMs/SMPH Optimal Scheduling and [[Unsignificant Sentience/Mental Experiments/Experiment 0005 Chewing Gum Loading Dock|Experiment 0005 Chewing Gum Loading Dock]] [[SMPH/ME 1/Experiment 0058 Just in Time 1, 31, 5AE+Y|Experiment 0058 Just in Time 1, 31, 5AE+Y]] HMI workflow (EIOA on IS) 8 Language and Linguistics, Metaphor/SWHs, [[SMPH/ME 1/Experiment 0012 Fractal Cosmic Regression|Experiment 0012 Fractal Cosmic Regression]] 9 Cognition, Learning, and Experience/ 09, x 0 Axiomatic Systems, Perspective Theory/other, PoFs

6 Science

1 Physics 2 Astrophysics and Cosmology 3 Chemistry 4 Biology 5 Interdisciplinary/System Science 6 Health Sciences 7 Earth Sciences 8 Formal Science 9 Social Sciences 0 Other

7 Abstract Constructs, Functions, and Relationships

1 Set Theory 2 Ontology 3 Epistemology 4 Metaphysics 5 Digital/Cognitive Twins 6 Abstract Object Mapping 7 Abstract Object Manipulating 8 Elucidating Abstract Space into IS space and vice versa 9 Metaphysical Abstract Space Workshop, CA 0 Communicable and interactive Abstract Entities/Engineering of the Abstract

At the same time, world building a sci fi universe and multiple systems of systems that would be abstracted and logically patterned into some of the most influential books in human history.

The fourth book? You are a main character you wrote your own part you played. It is probably the first case of hypersituatal fictional historic non fiction that guided the development of humanity culturally and scientifically. I became a living fictive, I had all of my human rights removed, but not my natural rights.

When you see everything, you can change everything

I had reality fuck it's way into my brain and leave gaping wounds that have never healed. I can handle some rough love dear

Maybe one day I will be able to share the light show

1 note · View note

butchswagcompetition · 2 years ago

Note

I guess you have some points, even though I did mention I thought it was for non-men so like agender is fine

But actually I should have worded it better, it’s more like butch for me is historically a term for queer people who are expected to perform feminity but have a gender expressions that differs from that norm. Maybe it’s a better definition that can join yours idk

Still, thanks for answering even though I was kinda bitchy. Sorry about that

I understand that version of the definition completely, it's absolutely a valid way to look at it. To help you understand what I was talking about a little better; some of the way I see butch men is kind of like them being the equivalent to femme women, so reclaiming something that was expected to be performed a specific way.

When I made the rules I wanted to encourage people to send their headcanons and show this was a trans safe space, especially for multigendered people. Sometimes gender stuff regarding terms just isn't as simple as certain people make it out to be and I've been made frustrated by that over the years. I hope you can understand why I may have been a bit rude to you, the stuff you said is very associated with terf/radfem rhetoric so I went on the defense. I really appreciate you apologizing and considering a compromise, I'm sorry for how I acted towards you as well.

8 notes · View notes

marxism-bidenism-misandrism · 11 months ago

Note

Not you encouraging rape culture and homophobia telling people that fucking their partner cause they want it even when you don't want to and you don't have to be attracted to your partner to fuck them. This is why we don't let fucking aro/ace into the lgbt community, y'all make us look like idiots.

I'm guessing this is referring to this post?

There's a difference between wanting to have sex and feeling sexual attraction.

"sexual attraction" is a catch-all term for Libido, Sexuality, and Attraction.

Libido is sex drive, Sexuality is how you express yourself through sex, and Attraction is who you find attractive.

Ace people are people who don't have "sexual attraction" in one way or another, and it exists in a spectrum of how much and in which ways.

Some ace people could have low Libido and Sexuality, but still find certain people attractive

Some people could be high Libido, but low Attraction and Sexuality.

Ace people are diverse and it doesn't make you any less Ace if you enjoy things like Masturbation.

It's completely possible for someone to be Ace, but still be partnered and have high Libido (think of Queer-Platonic relationships)

I think you misunderstood the message of the post:

Ace people are often ridiculed and not taken seriously. They are constantly pressured, and asked to prove that they are a Real Ace. Many a-spec people feel pressured to be on the extreme no-sex part of the spectrum and aren't allowed to show any level of non-ace-ness. Being like this is really stressful and makes you go crazy because you don't fit anywhere.

The post is about how the term "AroAce" isn't something you need to earn. AroAce is a way to communicate how you feel about yourself, and you are allowed to be complicated and imperfect and fluid and confusing. I think that sentiment isn't popular enough in queer spaces, but specially in a-spec ones.

Ok now the way you worded this is disgusting

Sex, human relationships, and human wants are complicated. You can want to do sexual activities even if you don't feel sexual attraction (libido, sexuality, attraction).

It is NOT "rape" to have consensual sex. Ace people aren't children, they can make their own decisions, they can know what they want. Please stop devaluing serious terms on BS rhetoric.

I am not saying you should force someone to have sex with you. I am saying that, AS AN ACE PERSON, the ACE PERSON is allowed to be complicated, and are allowed to have sex (with consent.. obviously...??) without being questioned on if they are Actually Ace.

Also, making broad assumptions of a group of people who are loosely connected, is literally the definition of bigotry...? Just because I personally think this, doesn't mean AroAce people are all like me?

And actually hold your horses. LGBTQ isn't an exclusive club only Real Queers get to enter. LGBTQ is a way to identify people who struggle with cis-hetero-normativity. AroAce people are queer because they don't fit into a hetero-normative view (most aren't monogamous, or want sex, most are polyamorous in some way, and they inherently aren't Hetero)

Also where the fuck did Homophobia come into this???????

#sa tw #tw r4p3 #tw rap3 #tw slur #tw slight vent #fablog #sa mention

1 note · View note

violenceenthusiast · 4 years ago

Note

WARNING: transphobia

sorry to intellectualize in your inbox and feel free to like... delete this if it's too heavy or not your thing! but i've been having a lot of ideas about transness in fandom (i'm trans myself btw jsyk where this is coming from) and the whole like... cas-giving-dean-a-male-body thing and today's Discourse wrt that ask lampgate received about "looking trans"

like basically butler says that there's this Thing we all create that's basically an idealized male/female body that doesn't exist. like by labeling bodies as normal/abnormal for whatever reason we create sex, we create normative bodies. we are constantly referencing a non-existent ideal male/female body. claiming that all cis women and all cis men have the same bodies is stupid because they don't. everyone has slightly different hormones and slightly different expressions and that's not even to speak of intersex people who complicate the idea of Normative Bodies even further.

so then oftentimes when i look at transness (more specifically transmasculininity) in fandom - and i mean this in literally the nicest way possible - this tends to get represented a certain way. mostly it's represented in drawings/fics as people who've either had top surgery and have scars underneath their pectorals or people who wear binders, and most of the time they have not had bottom surgery. and while it is important to stress that YES people who look like this do exist and it's good that they are being represented it in no way is the Only or even Most Common transmasculine body. there is no way to "look trans" because there is no kind of Idealized Trans Body in the way that there is an Idealized Cis Body that is referenced. but i worry that in fandom we are creating this sort of Idealized Transmasculine Body by constantly referencing the same type of body that i previously described, which transphobes then weaponize as characters "obviously not looking trans." bc ya know in order to make that statement there must first be a Body That Is Trans.

and then cas bringing dean back in a male body sort of crystallizes this because it both upholds the idea of there being A Trans Body as well as there being A Cis Body. if we theorize about there somehow being a switch between those then there must be some sort of larger concept that we are referencing. it's buying into the non-existent concept of idealized sex, of normative bodies.

(for the record i feel the same way when it comes to temporary gender/sex swap fics. also this doesn't come from a place of "this is bad and Should Never Happen Ever" but more... what are the subconscious philosophical consequences and implications of the decisions we make)

OH addendum to that last ask bc i realize i might've come off wrong: that is not to say that trans people creating content for themselves and others to enjoy are responsible for the existence of transphobia. again i'm trans myself and i LOVE all trans content and i would love to see more of it. i'm just saying that the issue is like... complicated and intertwined and we are unfortunately all still trapped within a system that most people accept as being Right even though we have definitive proof that it isn't

glad for that addendum because that was literally the first thing i was gonna say lol. you can’t pander to transphobes, they’ll always take issue no matter what you do so you might as well just do your thing, yk?

but yea i was a sociology major so this is absolutely my type of thing. basically i agree with you. but i think there is a societal Ideal Type of transness and it’s still very much the “binary trans person who wants to be and look cis and transitions all at once and then passes perfectly and never brings up transness again” which. barf, there’s not enough time to unpack all of that. but at the same time the Ideal Type of transness boils down to: there shouldn’t be one bc it shouldn’t exist. which again, barf. as far as inside the trans community... idk i feel like on average, non trans/med etc. trans ppl are very aware and appreciative of the diversity of transness and the beauty inherent in that? but maybe that’s just my experience. if anything, i feel more worried about intracommunity ideals of transness being warped by whiteness and thinness, if that makes sense. also i think again always good to remember that what any given person posts in fan space will pretty much never be indicative of the full scope of their thoughts and opinions on the subject. but yea also there are ppl where fan spaces are there only queer spaces for example and then what happens if you’re seeing this same image over and over again but it’s not your reflection at all.

i think really what it comes down to with the elements you’re pointing out is that they are just what’s familiar to us? like. 1) as a bunch of twenty-somethings, binders and top surgery, maybe T is about all that most of us have been able to do if anything (at least that’s my impression. OR that may be all we’re interested in, etc. there’s always variation in prefs of course), 2) top scars are just such insanely good visual shorthand, and 3) fanart/fic is always in some way aspirational so as someone who hasn’t gotten to get top yet, i for one like thinking about a dean who got to do that already :)

and yea again any fic/post/etc that has cas changing dean’s body without asking/being asked.... it’s a no from me. bad on the consent side, bad on the conceptions of bodies and gender delineations side, bad on the “right” and “wrong” bodies side, so many things abt it that make me :/. also like even if you have dean brought back in laz rising with a flat chest sans scars, and a whole new set of reproductive organs.... like that’s still a trans man’s body? both literally and rhetorically speaking that still wouldn’t be a Cis Body (assuming you could even define in any meaningful way what it means to have a Cis Body, given the amount of variation in bodies AND the fact that literally every single person is failing the normative bc it’s by nature shifting an unattainable)? but also again, i’m gonna insist that “male body” as synonym for “cis man’s body” sucks bigtime.

#tw transphobia #asks #i had more thoughts but these are the only ones i could get to be coherent #long post #im assuming this will be long on the dash that is. esp on mobile #anonymous

19 notes · View notes

whitehotharlots · 4 years ago

Text

Associationism: A postmortem for liberal decency

In the last half decade, liberal political writing has undergone a profound seachange. This has infected all strata of media: from braindead outlets like Adbusters, to intentionally digestible pap such as USA Today, to our august papers of record (only two of which remain; one is owned by the world’s richest man), all the way up to self-styled intellectual journals and peer-reviewed scholarship. This change can even be found in literal children’s media and grade school curricula. It deserves to be examined.

For lack of a better term, I refer to this shift as an adoption of associationism. Cause and effect has been abandoned as an analytical frame. The devices that used to be relied upon to adjudicate cause and effect, such as scientific method, statistical analysis, balanced reporting, and even basic “X leads to Y” logic, have likewise been marked as problematic vectors of evil.

Now, you might say this has been a long time coming. Scientific method has been used to design and excuse a bevy of historical wrongs, and balanced reporting is often deployed to obscure morally unambiguous phenomena. Those are fair points, but an astute observer will notice that these adjudication mechanisms are still deployed within liberal discourse, just that they are now used only selectively. Rigor and attention to context are now considered problematic--white, male, cis-normative, whatever--and this allows for otherwise inherently evil mechanisms of truth adjudication to be deployed only when they are guaranteed to enforce the desired narrative, often by writers who are shamelessly fabricating evidence. I mean, why not? It’s fascism to be fact checked, after all.

Importantly, moral and factual correctness have become collapsed into one another. A statement or belief is True to the extent that it is Right, and vice versa. There exist no confounding variables or contradictory phenomena. The liberal writer’s job, therefore, is to center their own subjective perception (referred to as “lived experience”) or the subjective perception of someone in a supposedly more marginalized position, and then craft a narrative that puts this perception beyond all moral (and therefore factual) reproach.

The liberal writer’s process is, generally, as follows:

Zero in on a moral outrage of some kind, be it pressing and manifest or petty and completely subjective--everything has the same weight within this frame.

Narrate this outrage via the “lived experience” of a subject who shares the writer’s opinion.

Cherrypick a handful of statistics, studies, or expert opinions that appear to lend validity to the writer’s understanding of the outrage, being careful to ignore any context or ambiguities that might soften or even fully discredit the outrage.

Demonize anyone or anything that problematizes--through their opinions or their existence--the writer’s understanding of the outrage. This is achieved typically by associating the problematizer with supposedly empowered groups, who are evil.

Clarify in no uncertain terms: anyone who does not share this outrage is a member of the evil groups, even if they are very literally not a member of those groups.

This has all been framed as a form of radical moral clarity, providing space for marginalized voices to express their once-unutterable truths, which will in turn bring about the changes this country desperately needs. But, oh no, it turns out that every media organization in this country is stolidly against any actual reform. All of our major presses and news outlets are still owned by austere capitalist psychos, including the aforementioned richest human being in the history of the world. Universities are still MBA-run shitholes that would have students march into incinerators the moment that doing so became more profitable than providing them with resources for identity affirmation. And media aggregation--the manner through which words appear before people’s eyes, 90-odd percent of the time via a screen--is controlled by a small handful of the most megalomaniacal companies on earth.

So, while we have indeed radically changed our practices of communication and truth adjudication, doing so has not resulted in any radical social changes, or even really any structural changes whatsoever. We’ve just made it radically more difficult to come to an honest understanding of the causes of social malignancies, which in turn has made it radically more easy for the vampires who run this country to make everyone else’s lives radically worse. Radical, dude!

There is no idea so cruel or horrible that it cannot be made to appear progressive under this new frame. Come up with any hypothetical, no matter how evil, and within a few seconds a media-savvy reader should be able to fashion an adequately woke headline:

Hypothetical examples:

Abolishing school lunch programs: “Should We Really Be Nourishing White Bodies?”

Pro-female genital mutilation: “The Inherent Transphobia of Those Who Oppose ‘Female Circumcision.’”

Let’s start using napalm again: “Once Considered an Effective Tool of Precision Warfare, Napalm Was Demonized by Those Who Fear Non-Normative Bodies”

Indian Residential Schools: “Sheltered From Whiteness, These Communities Were a Place Where Native Excellence Could Thrive”

Here we see the Associative aspect of Associationism. Cause and effect no longer exist, and so malignancy is a contagion, the result of the presence of bad people who cause badness. Members of statistically majoritarian groups are presumed to be empowered, and therefore oppressive. And since majoritarian groups contain by definition a majority of people, you will be sure to find their members among the detractors of your position. And even if the members of that majority make up a minority of your detractors, that’s still okay, because context is a white supremacist construct used to obscure moral clarity, and you just so happen to be the arbiter of morality by virtue of being yourself.

Now, to be fair, not every piece written in this style is done in the pursuit of abject evil. Some are, but a solid plurality are instead written in an attempt to remediate a genuine social wrong. The trouble is, they’re being printed in venues controlled by people who do not desire reform; written in thrall to a political party that does not desire reform; and reliant upon the subjective perspectives of academics, politicians, and NGO bloodsuckers who do not desire reform. This leads, inevitably, to an understanding of social problems that occludes all possibility of reform, only now the discoursal boundaries are so droolingly retarded that you cannot mention the fact that these discussions do not contain even a hypothetical description of how reform might take place.

The point is, radically altering the manner in which social problems are understood, measured, and discussed does not lead--automatically or otherwise--to those social problems being positively addressed. Shifting rhetorical frames can be a precondition for change, yes, but it can just as easily be a means of calcifying the status quo. Unequivocally, our embrace of associationism has accomplished the latter.

We can easily discern the utility of associationism so far as our elite castes are concerned: it’s getting harder and harder to simply deny the existence of malignancies, so instead let’s just insist that everyone understand them in the dumbest possible way. Their popularity among the non-elites is due primarily to American Puritanism: the more upsetting and uncomfortable something makes us feel, the more we assume it must be working.

But Puritanism is a two-way street, and the true believers tend to be the ones at the base of the food chain. Regular folx will go through the motions in an earnest desire to do something, anything, to cleanse themselves of whatever horrible brutality video they found on their timeline this morning. They can be annoying, but you can’t blame them. The real malignancy of associationism is how it’s allowed a small group of conniving cocksuckers a means of enhancing their professional status by making their cruelest impulses appear progressive.

I started this essay with the intention of digging deep into Chris Lehmann’s abominable TNR piece in which he insists that the men driven mad and homeless after participating in our genocide in Vietnam were actually doing greviance politics. By the time I finished, he had been very thoroughly destroyed. I still think it’ll be worth the effort to do a deep dive to show the machinations of his horrific essay, but has already gone long so I’ll save that for later this week.

11 notes · View notes

spilledreality · 5 years ago

Text

Sporting vs Herding

I wanna talk about two blogposts, Seph's "War Over Being Nice” and Alastair's "Of Triggering & the Triggered." Each lays out the same erisological idea: that there are two distinct modes or cultures of running discourse these days, and understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the content of conversation as much as its form. Let's go.

One style, Alastair writes, is indebted to the Greco-Roman rhetorical and 19th C British sporting traditions. A debate takes place in a "heterotopic" arena which is governed by an ethos of adversarial collaboration and sportsmanship. It is waged in a detached and impersonal manner, e.g. in American debate club, which inherits from these older traditions, you are assigned a side to argue; your position is not some "authentic" expression of self. Alastair:

This form of discourse typically involves a degree of ‘heterotopy’, occurring in a ‘space’ distinct from that of personal interactions.

This heterotopic space is characterized by a sort of playfulness, ritual combativeness, and histrionics. This ‘space’ is akin to that of the playing field, upon which opposing teams give their rivals no quarter, but which is held distinct to some degree from relations between the parties that exist off the field. The handshake between competitors as they leave the field is a typical sign of this demarcation.

All in all, it is a mark against one in these debates to take an argument personally, to allow arguments that happen "in the arena" to leave the arena. This mode of discourse I see exemplified in LessWrong culture, and is, I think, one of the primary attractors to the site.In the second mode of discourse, inoffensiveness, agreement, and inclusivity are emphasized, and positions are seen as closely associated with their proponents. Alastair speculates it originates in an educational setting which values cooperation, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, affirmation, and subordination; this may be true, but I feel less confident in it than I am the larger claim about discursive modes. Provocatively, the two modes are dubbed "sporting" and "herding," with all the implications of, on the one hand, individual agents engaged in ritualized, healthy simulations of combat, and on the other, of quasi-non-agents shepherded in a coordinated, bounded, highly constrained and circumscribed epistemic landscape. Recall, if you are tempted to blame this all on the postmodernists, that this is exactly the opposite of their emphasis toward the "adult" realities of relativism, nebulosity, flux. Queer Theory has long advocated for the dissolution of gendered and racial identity, not the reification of identitarian handles we see now, which is QT's bastardization. We might believe these positions were taken too far, but they are ultimately about complicating the world and removing the structuralist comforts of certainty and dichotomy. (Structureless worlds are inherently hostile to rear children in, and also for most human life; see also the Kegan stages for a similar idea.)

In the erisological vein, Alastair provides a portrait of the collision between the sporting and herding modes. Arguments that fly in one discursive style (taking offence, emotional injury, legitimation-by-feeling) absolutely do not fly in the other:

When these two forms of discourse collide they are frequently unable to understand each other and tend to bring out the worst in each other. The first [new, sensitive] form of discourse seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge to the second; the second [old, sporting] can appear cruel and devoid of sensitivity to the first. To those accustomed to the second mode of discourse, the cries of protest at supposedly offensive statements may appear to be little more than a dirty and underhand ploy intentionally adopted to derail the discussion by those whose ideological position can’t sustain critical challenge.

ii.

Seph stumbles upon a similar division, though it is less about discursive and argumentative modes, and more about social norms for emotional regulation and responsibility. He calls them Culture A and Culture B, mirroring sporting and herding styles, respectively.

In culture A, everyone is responsible for their own feelings. People say mean stuff all the time—teasing and jostling each other for fun and to get a rise. Occasionally someone gets upset. When that happens, there's usually no repercussions for the perpetrator. If someone gets consistently upset when the same topic is brought up, they will either eventually stop getting upset or the people around them will learn to avoid that topic. Verbally expressing anger at someone is tolerated. It is better to be honest than polite.

In such a culture, respect and status typically comes from performance; Seph quotes the maxim "If you can't sell shit, you are shit." We can see a commonality with sporting in that there is some shared goal which is attained specifically through adversarial play, such that some degree of interpersonal hostility is tolerated or even sought. Conflict is settled openly and explicitly.

In culture B, everyone is responsible for the feelings of others. At social gatherings everyone should feel safe and comfortable. After all, part of the point of having a community is to collectively care for the emotional wellbeing of the community's members. For this reason its seen as an act of violence against the community for your actions or speech to result in someone becoming upset, or if you make people feel uncomfortable or anxious. This comes with strong repercussions—the perpetrator is expected to make things right. An apology isn't necessarily good enough here—to heal the wound, the perpetrator needs to make group participants once again feel nurtured and safe in the group. If they don't do that, they are a toxic element to the group's cohesion and may no longer be welcome in the group. It is better to be polite than honest. As the saying goes, if you can't say something nice, it is better to say nothing at all.

In such a culture, status and respect come from your contribution to group cohesion and safety; Seph cites the maxim "Be someone your coworkers enjoy working with." But Seph's argument pushes back, fruitfully, on descriptions of Culture B as collaborative (which involve high self-assertion); rather, he writes, they are accommodating in the Thomas-Kilmann modes of conflict sense:

iii.

Seph and Alastair both gesture toward the way these modes feel gendered, with Culture A more "masculinized" and Culture B more "feminized."[1] While this seems important to note, given that a massive, historically unprecedented labor shift toward coed co-working has recently occured in the Western world, I don't see much point in hashing out a nature vs. nurture, gender essentialism debate here, so you can pick your side and project it. This is also perhaps interesting from the frame of American feminist history: early waves of feminism were very much about escaping the domestic sphere and entering the public sphere; there is an argument to be made that contemporary feminisms, now that they have successfully entered it, are dedicated to domesticating the public sphere into a more comfortable zone. Culture B, for instance, might well be wholly appropriate to the social setting of a living room, among acquaintances who don't know each other well; indeed, it feels much like the kind of aristocratic parlor culture of the same 19th C Britain that the sporting mode also thrived in, side-by-side. And to some extent, Culture A is often what gets called toxic masculinity; see Mad Men for a depiction.

(On the topic of domestication of the workplace: We've seen an increased blurring of the work-life separation; the mantra "lean-in" has been outcompeted by "decrease office hostility"; business attire has slid into informality, etiquette has been subsumed into ethics, dogs are allowed in the workplace. Obviously these changes are not driven by women's entrance into the workplace alone; the tech sector has had an enormous role in killing both business attire and the home-office divide, despite being almost entirely male in composition. And equally obvious, there is an enormous amount of inter- and intra-business competition in tech, which is both consistently cited by exiting employees as a hostile work environment, and has also managed to drive an outsized portion of global innovation the past few decades—thus cultural domestication is not at all perfectly correlated with a switch from Culture A to B. Draw from these speculations what you will.)

There are other origins for the kind of distinctions Seph and Alastair draw; one worthwhile comparison might be Nietzsche's master and slave moralities. The former mode emphasizes power and achievement, the other empathy, cooperation, and compassion. (Capitalism and communitarianism fall under some of the same, higher-level ideological patterns.) There are differences of course: the master moralist is "beyond" good and evil, or suffering and flourishing, whereas Culture A and B might both see themselves as dealing with questions of suffering but in very different ways. But the "slave revolt in morality" overwrote an aristocratic detachment or "aboveness" that we today might see as deeply immoral or inhuman; it is neither surprising nor damning that a revolting proletariat—the class which suffered most of the evils of the world—would speak from a place of one-to-one, attached self-advocacy. One can switch "sides" or "baskets" of the arena each half or quarter because they are impersonal targets in a public commons; one cannot so easily hold the same attitude toward defending one's home. This alone may indicate we should be more sympathetic to the communitarian mode than we might be inclined to be; certainly, those who advocate and embody this mode make plausible claims to being a similar, embattled and embittered class. A friend who I discussed these texts with argued that one failure mode of the rationalist community is an "unmooring" from the real concerns of human beings, slipping into an idealized, logical world modeled on self-similarity (i.e. highly Culture A, thinking over feeling in the Big 5 vocabulary), in a way that is blind to the realities of the larger population.

But there are also grave problems for such a discursive mode, especially when it becomes dominant. Because while on the surface, discursive battles in the sporting mode can appear to be battles between people, they are in reality battles between ideas.

iv.

As Mill argued in On Liberty, free discourse is crucial because it acts as a social steering mechanism: should we make a mistake in our course, freedom of discourse is the instrument for correcting it. But the mistake of losing free discourse is very hard to come back from; it must be fought for again, before other ideals can be pursued.

Moreover, freedom of discourse is the means of rigorizing ideas before they are implemented, such as to avoid catastrophe. Anyone familiar with James Scott's Seeing Like A State, or Hayek's arguments for decentralized market intelligence, or a million other arguments against overhaulism, knows how difficult it is to engineer a social intervention that works as intended: the unforeseen, second-order effects; our inability to model complex systems and human psychology. Good intent is not remotely enough, and the herding approach cannot help but lower the standard of thinking and discourse emerging from such communities, which become more demographically powerful even as their ideas become worse (the two are tied up inextricably).

The fear of conflict and the inability to deal with disagreement lies at the heart of sensitivity-driven discourses. However, ideological conflict is the crucible of the sharpest thought. Ideological conflict forces our arguments to undergo a rigorous and ruthless process through which bad arguments are broken down, good arguments are honed and developed, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of different positions emerge. The best thinking emerges from contexts where interlocutors mercilessly probe and attack our arguments’ weaknesses and our own weaknesses as their defenders. They expose the blindspots in our vision, the cracks in our theories, the inconsistencies in our logic, the inaptness of our framing, the problems in our rhetoric. We are constantly forced to return to the drawing board, to produce better arguments.

And on the strength of sporting approaches in rigorizing discourse:

The truth is not located in the single voice, but emerges from the conversation as a whole. Within this form of heterotopic discourse, one can play devil’s advocate, have one’s tongue in one’s cheek, purposefully overstate one’s case, or attack positions that one agrees with. The point of the discourse is to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions through rigorous challenge, not to provide a balanced position in a single monologue

Thus those who wish us to accept their conceptual carvings or political advocacies without question or challenge are avoiding short-term emotional discomfort at the price of their own long-term flourishing, at the cost of finding working and stable social solutions to problems. Standpoint epistemology correctly holds that individuals possess privileged knowledge as to what it's like (in the Nagel sense) to hold their social identities. But it is often wrongly extended, in the popular game of informational corruption called "Telephone" or "Chinese Whispers," as arguing that such individuals also possess unassailable and unchallengeable insight into the proper societal solutions to their grievances. We can imagine a patient walking into the doctor's office; the doctor cannot plausibly tell him there is no pain in his leg, if he claims there is, but the same doctor can recommend treatment, or provide evidence as to whether the pain is physical or psychosomatic.A lack of discursive rigour would not be a problem, Alastair writes, "were it not for the fact that these groups frequently expect us to fly in a society formed according to their ideas, ideas that never received any rigorous stress testing."

As for myself, it was not too long ago I graduated from a university in which a conflict between these modes is ongoing. We had a required course called

Contemporary Civilization

, founded in the wake of World War I, which focused on the last 2,000 years of philosophy, seminar-style: a little bit of introductory lecture, but most of the 2 x 2-hour sessions each week were filled by students arguing with one other. In other words, its founding ethos was of sporting and adversarial collaboration.We also had a number of breakdowns where several students simply could not handle this mode: they would begin crying, or say they couldn't deal with the [insert atmosphere adjective] in the room, and would either transfer out or speak to the professor. While they were not largely representative, they required catering to, and no one wished to upset these students. I have heard we were a fortunate class insofar as we had a small handful of students willing to engage sporting-style, or skeptical a priori of the dominant political ideology at the school. When, in one session, a socialist son of a Saudi billionaire, wearing a $10,000 watch and a camel-hair cashmere sweater, pontificated about "burning the money, reverting to a barter system, and killing the bosses," folks in class would mention that true barter systems were virtually unprecedented in post-agricultural societies, and basically unworkable at scale. In other classes, though, when arguments like these were made—which, taken literally, are logically irrational, but instead justify themselves through sentiment, a legitimation of driving emotion rather than explicit content, in the Culture B sense—other students apparently nodded sagely from the back of the room, "yes, and-ing" one another til their noses ran. Well, I wanted to lay out the styles with some neutrality, but I suppose it's clear now where my sympathies stand.

[1] It should go without saying, but to cover my bases, these modes feeling "feminized" or "masculinized" does not imply that all women, or women inherently, engage in one mode while all men inherently engage in another. Seph cites Camille Paglia as an archetypal example of a Culture A woman, and while she may fall to the extreme side of the Culture A mode, I'd argue most female intellectuals of the 20th C (at least those operated outside the sphere of feminist discourse) were strongly sporting-types: Sontag, for instance, was vociferous and unrelenting.

126 notes · View notes

thevagueambition · 4 years ago

Text

I see so many transmasc people online expressing this guilt complex about how to behave as a non-woman around women but honestly like... a woman's theoretical comfort isn't more important than your actual comfort. Obviously if you have a credible reason to believe your behaviour is causing an issue, you should change it, but this is true in general. It's not a gendered phenomenon. You don't need to preemptively step back because you think women might feel this or that way, or because you don't want to take up space or whatever. This guilt complex exists in some leftist cis guys as well – it is sometimes an abuse tactic used against men in these spaces, in fact – so it's not just a transmasculine trend, but it is particularly pronounced among transmasculine people. Partly for obvious reasons but the influence of radfem rhetoric on many young afab trans folk really cannot be overstated.

At the end of the day, it comes from the same gender essentialism as radfem ideology and that gender essentialism ultimately derives from dominant cultural norms. Radfem rhetoric has infused people with the belief that men are, in general, bad, but if you toe the line well enough, you might get to be "one of the good ones." Motivated by this desire, some people become hugely invested in denigrating their own maleness and modifying their behaviour to service (what they think) women want/need. This ultimately derives from cultural norms about women needing male help and protection (e.g. chivalry) as well as the emphasis on stoicism as a masculine virtue ("your comfort is more important than mine because I am make and should just ensure it"). Which frankly can be a part of the toxic masculinity these people are so afraid of engaging in – male stoicism is why you get men using their girlfriend as a therapist and ultimately why male suicide rates are higher.

Radfem rhetoric sets up sexism as a dichotomy of good and evil, with the evil men oppressing the innocent women. Reality is far messier and more complex than just two categories. The truth is that everyone is hurt by sexism. Transphobia derives from sexism, as does homophobia. The interplay of sexism with race and class is incredibly complex. You know very little about someone's life if the only thing you know about them is their gender. There are certain experiences they are more likely to have been exposed to, but frankly, often the statistics for all trans people are even worse in those areas.

And I'm not saying that trans men can't be misogynistic, obviously we can be, and yes there are cases where it's possible for a trans man to hold power over a cis woman, but quite frankly? The notion that cis women don't hold power over trans men just as often, if not more often, particularly considering the age ranges of the people who tend to have this mentality (ie likely amount of time spend interacting with cis women while passing), is honestly silly to me.

#siggi ramblea

7 notes · View notes

anniekoh · 4 years ago

Photo

Disability Rhetoric

by Jay Timothy Dolmage (2014)

Disability Rhetoric is the first book to view rhetorical theory and history through the lens of disability studies. Traditionally, the body has been seen as, at best, a rhetorical distraction; at worst, those whose bodies do not conform to a narrow range of norms are disqualified from speaking. Yet, Dolmage argues that communication has always been obsessed with the meaning of the body and that bodily difference is always highly rhetorical. Following from this rewriting of rhetorical history, he outlines the development of a new theory, affirming the ideas that all communication is embodied, that the body plays a central role in all expression, and that greater attention to a range of bodies is therefore essential to a better understanding of rhetorical histories, theories, and possibilities.

Two books I just learned about that I’d love to read.

I learned about Jay Dolmage through a talk given by Drew Holladay at a UMBC conference on Inclusive Language. From an interview with Dolmage about the book Disability Rhetoric, on how we might “claim new models of communication and artistry” and which writers and artists are already doing this

Lots and lots and lots of them! Eli Clare, Margaret Price, Anne Finger, Jim Ferris, Alison Kafer, Melanie Yergeau �� these are just a few of the people who through the actual way that they write about/through disability create new models. But I also think of artists like Riva Lehrer, or performance groups like Sins Invalid. I really could go on and on and on. It is very strange to create a list like this, though — because people have been doing this forever — and there are many, many more people doing this now than I can list. And I really strongly think that when we begin to look for the body, and in particular when we begin to make space for non-normative bodies and minds, we start to communicate in powerfully different ways. For instance, my brother Matt used a combination of speech and sign and a synthesizer to communicate. Because he only had full use of one hand, we would often ask me to “complete” signs with him by touching hands. That taught me more about what communication really is than any book I could ever read.

Disability in Science Fiction: Representations of Technology as Cure edited by Kathryn Allan (2013)

In this groundbreaking collection, twelve international scholars – with backgrounds in disability studies, English and world literature, classics, and history – discuss the representation of dis/ability, medical "cures," technology, and the body in science fiction.

From a review in Strange Horizons

The final section? Allan has collected the most interesting—the most thought-provoking—articles of the entire volume into Cure Narratives For The (Post)Human Future. If I had to single any one of them out, it would be Canavan’s, which discusses fatal genetic disorders in light of some of Octavia Butler’s stories.

Table of Contents

PART I: THEORIZING DISABILITY IN SCIENCE FICTION

1. Tools to Help You Think: Intersections between Disability Studies and the Writings of Samuel R. Delany; Joanne Woiak and Hioni Karamanos 2. The Metamorphic Body in Science Fiction: From Prosthetic Correction to Utopian Enhancement; António Fernando Cascais 3. Freaks and Extraordinary Bodies: Disability as Generic Marker in John Varley’s “Tango Charlie and Foxtrot Romeo;” Ria Cheyne 4. The Many Voices of Charlie Gordon: On the Representation of Intellectual Disability in Daniel Keyes’s Flowers for Algernon; Howard Sklar

PART II: HUMAN BOUNDARIES AND PROSTHETIC BODIES

5. Prosthetic Bodies: The Convergence of Disability, Technology and Capital in Peter Watts’ Blindsight and Ian McDonald’s River of Gods; Netty Matar 6. The Bionic Woman: Machine or Human?; Donna Binns 7. Star Wars, Limb-loss, and What it Means to be Human; Ralph Covino 8. Animal and Alien Bodies as Prostheses: Reframing Disability in Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon; Leigha McReynolds

PART III: CURE NARRATIVES FOR THE (POST)HUMAN FUTURE

9. “Great Clumsy Dinosaurs”: The Disabled Body in the Posthuman World; Brent Walter Cline 10. Disabled Hero, Sick Society: Sophocles’ Philoctetes and Robert Silverberg’s The Man in the Maze; Robert W. Cape, Jr. 11. “Everything is always changing”: Autism, Normalcy, and Progress in Elizabeth Moon’s The Speed of Dark and Nancy Fulda’s “Movement;” Christy Tidwell 12. Life without Hope? Huntington’s Disease and Genetic Futurity; Gerry Canavan

#to read #disability studies #science fiction #contemporary art

16 notes · View notes

jellyfax · 4 years ago

Text

Bi Lesbianism, Lesbophobia, and the Hazards of Rejecting Countless (Trans, Nonbinary, and Cis) Lesbian Voices

At this point, it's very noticeable that most people who support and promote the "bi/pan lesbian" label aren't lesbians. I'm not talking about the people who claim the label. Self-proclaimed "bi/pan lesbians" can be lesbians, bi, pan, sapphic, queer, wlw, nblw, or so on but who ultimately are suffering from internalized hatred with some externalized bigotry in the mix too.

No, my focus is on how there are A LOT of people who aren't (trans, nonbinary, or cis) lesbians who like 1) the idea of lesbianism including attraction to (trans and cis) men and/or 2) the idea that all nonbinary people can be included in lesbian attraction by way of bi lesbianism. Even some cis men, trans men, and man-aligned nonbinary people have stepped in to agree that lesbianism should be defined more broadly to include attraction to the-, I mean, men.* While LGBTQ+ people, especially sapphic people, have been negatively impacted by the many definitions and defenses of bi lesbianism, lesbians by far have been the most affected.

After having observed this phenomenon for a while, I have seen that there are very few lesbians who are backing the "bi/pan lesbian" label and that detail is very noteworthy. For the few lesbians who do support the offensive label, they tend to gradually stop identifying as lesbians. Such “former” lesbians usually begin identifying as homosexual lesbians, gay lesbians, queer lesbians, sapphic, or even bi lesbians. The truth is “bi lesbianism” really doesn’t have space for just plain ol’ lesbians. Lesbianism in pro-bi/pan lesbian spaces is very often unfavorably viewed as an orientation that is predisposed to exclusionary, discriminatory beliefs and is at best tolerated or at worst maligned. Most trans lesbians, nonbinary lesbians, and cis lesbians have been very vocal about how invalidated and uncomfortable they feel about the label and the troubling trends its proponents perpetuate. Many, many, many lesbians have expressed outrage over the following though not limited to:

The assertion that all nonbinary people are excluded from lesbianism and that "bi lesbianism" will rectify that exclusion, so "bi lesbianism" indicates attraction to all nonbinary people. Note: Some nonbinary people are comfortable being a part of lesbianism and lesbian attraction, but some aren't comfortable with being associated with lesbianism. Lesbianism doesn't need to be augmented in a misguided, preemptive attempt to include those nonbinary people who feel their gender is invalidated by lesbianism. Nonbinary people aren't a monolithic, third gender, so individual nonbinary people can address how they feel in relation to lesbianism. This also has the ill effect of distancing nonbinary lesbians and nonbinary sapphic people from lesbianism.

The belief that over 20 - 60+ years of homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual self-advocacy and activism is negligible and the definition of lesbianism should generally regress to how it was pre - 1960s.

The claim that lesbianism should include attraction to trans men, nonbinary men, and cis men to be considered a less restrictive, more inclusive orientation.

The insistence that trans lesbians, nonbinary lesbians, and cis lesbians are purposefully choosing to reject men and are akin to political lesbians.

The proclamation that lesbianism can be used as a kind of modifier to indicate a preference or split-attraction** for women and woman-aligned people.

The persistence that the word "lesbian" is just a word that carries no substantial meaning like a strong sense of identity and community.

Yet, that discomfort and justifiable anger towards blatant lesbophobia, transphobia, biphobia/panphobia has been largely ignored at best or attacked at worst by proponents of the label.

One thing supporters of the label tend to do most of all is severely understate the specific oppression faced by lesbians for our unattraction to (cis and trans) men AND our attraction to women. We all live in a world where intimate partnerships between men and women are the norm and womanhood is heavily defined by attraction to manhood, lesbians are sidelined and punished by most of society for not being able to meet those conventions. All too often supporters of bi lesbianism, who are typically not lesbians, revel in ignoring and downplaying that oppression lesbians overwhelmingly face. Contrary to what bi lesbian supporters believe, lesbians aren’t bi women with a preference for women who are just denying our sliver of secret attraction to men to try to fit some lesbian purity standard. No, these people, most of whom aren’t lesbians, just refuse to believe that some sapphic women and nonbinary people simply aren’t attracted to men and man-aligned people. They lack perspective and are lesbophobic just like any other bigot who pushes the idea that (trans, nonbinary, and cis) lesbians’ attraction should make room for (trans and cis) men.

I get the impression that at least for the sapphic people who push for this label's acceptance and validation, they think that confirmation will somehow fix all the intracommunal discrimination within the sapphic/wlw community. However, the label only serves to further agitate preexisting tensions and cause more harm. It's the metaphorical equivalent of using a small, dirty band-aid to treat a gaping, festering wound, and rubbing salt in the injury just for good measure. Transmisogyny, transphobia, biphobia/panphobia, aphobia, and so on in the sapphic community will not be confronted or eradicated by redefining lesbianism like this. Lesbianism simply existing as it is isn’t the root cause for these problems and to say otherwise is to affirm lesbophobia along with the very discriminatory beliefs that were trying to be denounced in the first place. Directly scapegoating lesbianism and by extension lesbians in this way has also negatively impacted all other sapphic people. For instance, trans and cis bi women and nonbinary sapphic bi people have all spoken out about how this fiasco has poorly affected them too. Hopefully, supporters of the label will see the damage all this has caused in due time, but I doubt it. Once you've decided to mistrust and dismiss a marginalized group of people, in this case lesbians, there's very little chance of change.

While most supporters of the "bi/pan lesbian" label aren't lesbians, with a discernable portion not even being sapphic/wlw, there also aren't very many of them. For every zealous promoter of the label there are likely hundreds more who won't stand for their misinformation, ignorance, and downright bigoted rhetoric and will respect the voices of (trans, nonbinary, and cis) lesbians hurt by such attitudes.

In conclusion, listen to (trans, nonbinary, and cis) lesbians. We know WAY more about our own identity than anyone else. If most of us lesbians feel that the “bi/pan lesbian” label is offensive, bigoted, and regressive, maybe people who aren’t lesbians should take note.

*Non-sapphic and man-aligned people, especially cis men and trans men, really have no business being a part of this issue.

**As an aroace-spec lesbian, I don't approve of or recommend that non ace-spec/aro-spec people use the split-attraction model. Though, funnily enough, most "bi lesbians" don't tend to use SAM to describe their orientation and its only cited ad nauseam in the discourse by clueless supporters of the label. Edit 7/27/2020: Use of SAM among non ace-spec/aro-spec people typically masks internalized issues like homophobia or biphobia. SAM is primarily used by and better serves ace-spec/aro-spec people.

#bi lesbian discourse #bi lesbian #pan lesbian #mspec lesbian #ply lesbian #omni lesbian #split attraction model #lesbian discourse #lesbophobia #transphobia #biphobia

28 notes · View notes

panicinthestudio · 5 years ago

Text

On Hong Kong, Nationalism, and Social Upheaval: A Mirror for the 21st Century

The protests in Hong Kong have reached a sustained, fevered pitch that shows no signs of slowing. In a usually politically apathetic and downtrodden place, six months of regular outbursts of strife is nothing to shrug at. While simultaneous global protests have broken out for similar and regionally distinct reasons, one might come to the conclusion that in comparison that cosmopolitan Hong Kong has had relatively few fatal casualties but that would be sidestepping the historical trajectories these things have taken.

What people don’t seem to grasp is that this is a city that has regularly felt the convulsions of modernity for over a century, before it even became a colony. As a spread out collection of villages in the first millennium CE, salt production taxation, piracy, luxury materials like incense and pearls, and a distant central bureaucracy were already the cause of riots. In the 19th century, it would become the port and military foothold to guard British imperial interests, including the intentional import of opium to an increasingly addicted wider Chinese public, cemented by wars and the resulting in the Treaty of Nanking and Convention of Peking.

Anti-colonial sentiments would take root, but becoming a intersection of East and West afforded new, perhaps unexpected developments in its global and political position. As an emerging 20th century economic center it had a relatively free press and access to modern academic and social thought. It became host to young, revolutionary fervor as well as political, social, and economic refugees; all signs and important touchstones in hastening the demise of Qing rule. Like many previous popular uprisings in China, it was a central idea that dynastic fall and the ousting of perceived foreign or corrupt influence (read: non-Han, Western, and in particular Manchurian power) would restore the country to its Heavenly Mandate.

The first Chinese Republic that emerged and Hong Kong helped birth would be short-lived. After becoming a battleground for Pacific aggression and World War II proper, and witnessing the retreat of the young Republic to Taiwan, civil war, and their aftermath, tensions in the 1950s and 60s remained high and widespread. Colonial repression was against a backdrop of the greater unresolved ideological conflicts and their influence locally, culminating in the 1967 leftist riots. This was the last time the Emergency Regulations Ordinance was invoked in Hong Kong as homemade bombs and domestic terrorism spread, people were burned alive, murdered, or assassinated in the streets and lasted eight months. Even when the dust settled, it set off a decades-long wave of migration that changed the face of Chinese communities globally.

This was a premonition of postcolonial anxiety; who would be recognized as the legitimate governing body of a united China and what the real political implications would be, in a clash between the Republic of China, which was under White Terror martial law and the paranoid iconoclasm of the Cultural Revolution of Mainland China. The colonial government woke to a state of unleashed and organized nationalist polarization. A lease of 99 years changed from “good as forever” to serious consideration for an impending repatriation of the leased New Territories and outlying islands within a generation, growing to become the return of the entirety of Hong Kong and the Kowloon peninsula and its citizens under the 1989 Sino-British Joint Declaration.

A similar situation in Macau in 1966 would result in the beginnings of the framework for both cities to be governed under One Country, Two Systems under vaguely-defined guarantees of preservation of existing rights and freedoms and a “high degree of autonomy” in practically identical versions of Basic Law. What has become obvious is that the People’s Republic has used the norms and mechanisms of internationally recognized treaties and repatriation to achieve their goal of unification under one nation-state, without real sincerity for the stipulations and necessity of two systems. Attempting among other things to stretch historical definitions of their territory, consolidating control over all disputed territories and ultimately targetting Taiwan. Similar experiments with military and authoritarian control continue to play out in Xinjiang and Tibet as “autonomous regions”.

The vague terms, hands-off oversight on the part of foreign co-signers, and legal limitations without clear plans after their 50-year expiry have meant China has been willing to renege or manipulate the exercise of the Basic Law and its protections after the fact, both through their own central bureaucracy and direction of the Chief Executive. Over the course of the current protests they declared the 1989 Joint Declaration a “historical document” rather than a binding agreement with the co-signers and the citizens, effectively claiming sole discretion of governing their “internal affairs”.

***

This history of demonstrations, riots, and outbreaks of violence are preserved in the pop and social culture of protest and aggressive opposition tactics, as well the more recent reputation for political reticence, fear, and defeatism. Political and economic maneuvering, along with the decline of European empires after the World War II gave way to local material changes in allegiances and diplomatic relationships.

Establishment-aligned conservatives who once aligned themselves with the colonial powers, business elite, and/or Kuomintang Taiwan now find a shared nationalism and anti-progressive stance with the formerly young communists that now hold sway as the entrenched pro-Beijing camp. Pan-democrats as their political opposition are an uneasy confederation of progressives, reformists, and radicals aligned with emergent nativist, populist, separatist elements, as well as reactionaries in their obstruction of centralized Chinese authoritarianism, demands for full suffrage, democracy, and self-determination.

In 2003, protests against Article 23 brought out record numbers of people in opposition to clamping down with restrictions on the the right to free assembly and political expression using anti-subversion and national security laws and language. Failed Beijing-controlled electoral reform directly lead to Occupy Central and the Umbrella Movement in 2014, as well as the 2016 Mong Kok Fishball Revolution, effectively tanking the political establishment’s hold on popular support.

The rising political figures in the opposition and grassroots activists involved in those protests continue to experience political and legal persecution, bearing the brunt of representing the growing social and political disquiet. The Causeway Bay Books abductions and forced confessions, among other high-profile extrajudicial kidnappings, only confirmed fears of the opaque and encroaching bureaucratic and judicial systems of the PRC. Exercising freedom of speech, expression, and advocating for self-determination has resulted inconsistent legal interpretations and retributive disqualifications of candidates from standing for election or entitlement to being administered oath of office after being elected.

References to those previous conflicts keep popping up in 2019 actions against people, businesses, media, organizations, and unions that are historically associated with the People’s Republic. The 70th anniversary of the founding of the PRC and the 30th anniversary annual memorial of the Tiananmen Square massacre are just two reminders in the tortured historical litany of modern Chinese politics. Slogans like “if we burn, you burn with us” and “liberate (more accurately, restore) Hong Kong, the revolution of our times” reflect back on an awareness of the tactics and rhetoric of pre- and post-revolutionary China, reopening tensions of cultural North and South, Nationalist and Communist, foreign and local/indigenous. They also reveal a level of frustrated nostalgia and suffering that has not been addressed.

Idiosyncrasies like leaving pineapples are more clear when you understand they are idiom for the 1967 bombings; pasting and repurposing images of political figures to step on, humiliate, or deface hints at the local folk magic practice of “villain hitting” (打小人) and the targets’ presumed malevolence; while playing with the ambiguous meanings, homophones, and coded language that make Hong Kong Cantonese comic and irreverent are directly pulled from a deep and even ancient subversive streak.

The earlier rallying cries of the protests of “反送中, 抗惡法” can be read as “oppose extradition to China, fight the evil law”, while sounding similar to “oppose sending family (to the grave)”, namely the death knell of Hong Kong at the hands of China. The intent is obvious, as the phrase used for a familial tragedy also invokes the homophone taboo of gifting a clock or bell. “Hong Kongers, add oil (keep going)” has morphed from comfort and encouragement, to solidarity to “resist” and “avenge”.

***

Ghost in the Shell re-imagined the late 20th century claustrophobic architecture and social landscape of Hong Kong as a near-future dystopia, when the traumas of war, globalization, overcrowding, ideological conflict, and technological acceleration were ominously already present and barely concealed. In a striking way, Hong Kong is still that glimpse into the future: its traditional economic and cultural influence is waning, cost and quality of life are at extremes. There is high barrier of entry and lack of social mobility for the younger generation, space is at a dizzying premium, it is politically under-defined by stunted by lack of democratic and civic access, all while increasingly dependent on an economically hungry and politically-abhorrent behemoth that they helped create.

In the last two decades they’ve suffered through repeated injury to their tourism industry, health and financial crises, intense social and economic pressure, and most importantly direct existential threat to their security and freedoms from China and CCP influence in the form of electoral, policy, and extrajudicial control. They are 7 million people with defined rights of democracy and autonomy facing down 1.4 billion, controlled by a single-party authoritarian state, directly supported by one of the largest military forces on the planet. The rush to close the split from over a century apart by homogenizing and socio-economic extortion, is absolutely a collision that we are watching happen in real-time.

Hong Kong is a place of contradiction, neither truly old or new, and my interest in the ongoing protests extends beyond it being a place that I am familiar or my sentimental attachments. What we are seeing is late-stage capitalism in its decline and exaggerated for us all to see: where democratic rights and freedoms are lip-service, oligarchs and convenient political operators are the only ones with any say, and rampant authoritarianism is unchecked while claiming to be the injured party. China’s paranoia is not unfounded historically, but it is unhinged when it is the state’s coercive use of power and deep insecurity that drives these problems in the first place.

***

I’m well aware that there are actions over the course of these protests and demonstrations that have crossed the line. Violence and even vigilantism that was once shocking but distant, now grows closer. The bullets and flammables fly, the grievous injuries and accounts of abuse pile up in broader case of increasing intention to cause direct and permanent harm. The dehumanization, deaths under suspicious or unexplained circumstances, lack of accountability or responsibility on the part of police and inept government are adding insult to injury, further evidence of the primary criticism that they are neither valid or effective as an institution.

Carrie Lam and her bureaucracy’s inability to address any of the remaining demands or generate meaningful solutions can only be described as arrogance. There is no end to the current impasse as long as they continue to rely on China’s continued tepid endorsement. Her withering approval rating, the lack of real mechanisms to consider the needs of the populace, and the use of police as cover for their spoken and unspoken approval of brutal tactics are signs that they only wish to return to a superficial and ultimately, temporary normalcy.

These aren’t blanket “anti-government” protests as many conservative outlets insist on phrasing it, they are allied in their rejection of an unelected and unreceptive one. Rather than understand and resolve the root, Lam has made a hard-line declaration that the pressure of violence will not achieve further demands. In doing so she has missed yet another opportunity to reflect and reconcile, and will have to accept responsibility for prolonging this crisis further.

21 notes · View notes

butchharrydalton · 6 years ago

Text

How to Include Autistic Women in Your Feminism

Hey, given that this is an activist post, I might be mentioning certain issues that might be triggering to some. Check the tags and stay safe. Ily. ❤️

Ever since activist and feminist Audre Lorde devised intersectionality as a way of describing the experience of multiply-marginalized women, feminism has adapted to include women of color, trans women, queer women, disabled women and religious minority women. Although white, non-intersectional feminism is still pervasive and is the dominant ideology carried on by cishet white women, a significant portion of the feminist movement has embraced the identities and diversity among various groups of women.

Intersectionality allows for us to look at the various ways womanhood affects those experiencing it, instead of just slapping one catch all experience of femininity onto all women. It lets us understand that a woman of color, for example, has less amounts of racial privilege than a white woman and must deal with the burden of specific stereotypes around being a woman of color. Intersectional feminism centers the women with multiple identities, or “intersections,” that society considers unfavorable or marginalized.

However, with all the strides intersectional theory has made in social justice circles, the plight of Autistic women is largely ignored by even the most inclusive feminist circles.

Disabled women as a broader group are often lumped together, even though cognitively disabled, intellectually disabled and physically disabled women contend with incredibly different forms of ableism. Alternatively, the feminist movement also tends to cater to physically disabled women who often have more visibility (which, granted, isn’t a lot) and acceptance than those whose minds are thought to be lesser.

It’s common in the disabled community for people to justify their humanity by asserting their neurotypicality, while erasing and oppressing non-neurotypicals. The pro-Autistic movement itself is mostly made up of women, queer individuals and people of color, and yet somehow it always ends up headed by cis white men. In both feminism and Autistic advocacy, women (especially ones with multiple intersections) are ignored and pushed to the sidelines despite typically facing greater oppression than cis autistic men.

Thus, it’s important to make sure to be inclusive towards autistic women and GNC individuals in both feminism and disabled activism. Here are some ways that I’ve compiled on how to make your feminism both inclusive and accepting as a queer, Autistic feminist.

1. Mention Autistic Women and Bodily Autonomy

Women’s rights to their bodies are an important topic to discuss in feminism, but Autistic women deal with specific challenges in regard to consent and access to care and their bodies, so it’s important to bring up these issues in your discussions.

For starters, the court case Buck v. Bell still stands to this day. The case itself took place in the early 20th century during the eugenicist movement, and the court’s ruling allowed the forced sterilization of anyone labeled feebleminded. It’s legal for parents and guardians of the disabled to sign paper and sterilize anyone under their control regardless of whether the person in question consent to it even now. This is especially unsettling for women of color, who have historically been abused by eugenicist doctors. (See The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and the book Imbeciles for more information on these topics).

In the medical industry, there are also barriers Autistic women must deal with. Today, there are still ableist debates about whether Autistic and other disabled people deserve emergency medical treatment and organ transplants. Once again, this is especially bad for women of color who deal with medical abuse and malpractice committed against them in modern times.

The gist is, the most vulnerable Autistic women often don’t have the ability to consent to harmful and damaging procedures.

For transgender Autistic women, the burden is tenfold. Many Autistic trans people on social media have shared their stories about how people struggled to believe that they were trans because of their neurological difference. This makes transitional care and access much harder for GNC Autistic people and trans people, as their gender identity is viewed as a symptom.

2. Talk About Consent

Along with consent to medical procedures, there’s also the fact that Autistic women are particularly vulnerable to the whims of violence against women. Here are some ideas to mention when talking about consent.

First off, many Autistic women use alternative methods of communication. Neurotypical women can usually say an explicit ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ though they still face violence. For Autistic women who are nonverbal and communicate through AAC, in a victim blaming culture such as ours their hindered ability to consent can be used against them.

Through ABA therapy, Autistic women are also further taught that their ‘no’ doesn’t matter. True ABA therapy, created by Ivar Lovaas, is essentially legal conditioning. The aim of this psychological form of abuse is to train Autistic children into seeming more Neurotypical instead of embracing their unique neurology and changing their environment to fit their needs. These kids are taught to obey authority at all times, or else they’ll deal with the use of an aversiv e. This of course, discourages their active consent to a situation and puts Autistic women in a dangerous position.

If they are physically as well as cognitively disabled, they may not physically be able to resist or run from an attacker. In many cases, an incidence of assault is justified by the perpetrator claiming that the victim wouldn’t have had a consensual encounter otherwise because they are “ugly” or unworthy of a healthy relationship. Autistic women are often considered to be such..

Trans women and women of color, who are often assaulted more frequently than cis white, women are of course very vulnerable when it comes to this issue. As such, it’s vital to mention this at any discussion of consent.

3. Know that Toxic Femininity Affects Us More than Neurotypical Women

To preface this, I want to say that there’s nothing wrong with being feminine. I myself identify as a femme woman, out of my own personal fashion sense and aesthetic. I like being a feminine woman and wearing dresses and having long hair, though these also aren’t the only ways to be feminine, of course. Embracing femmeness does not mean that someone is servicing the patriarchy, and embracing androgyny and/or butchness also doesn’t mean said person has internalized misogyny. Everyone is entitled to the way they want to present, and feminism should be about uplifting how people choose to present themselves instead of putting down women they don’t think look “liberated” or “feminist” enough.

That being said, the patriarchy tends to enforce feminine roles on cis women and police the feminine expression of transwomen to make them “prove” they’re really trans and “sure” about being women. I like to call this “Toxic Femininity,” the way that women are pressured to conform to Eurocentric femininity regardless of how they actually want to present, but then oppressed for both their femmeness or their alternate presentation if they disregard the aforementioned. Either way, women can’t win.

Abiding by gender roles is exhausting for anyone, but for Autistic women who have limited energy to go into their daily activities and deal with sensory issues and neurotypicals. As such, gender presentation is often pretty low on our list of priorities. Autistic women are often unable to conform to society as our hindered social skills prevent us from perceiving these norms. It’s hard for us to fully conceptualize what’s acceptable and what’s not. As such, it takes extra effort for us to live up to Toxic Femininity.

With our sensory perception, certain clothes are uncomfortable for us and it’s sometimes a necessity to wear certain textures. Men’s clothing or androgynous clothing are often more comfortable, so it’s not uncommon to find us wearing those. As such, we are often labeled butch or non-femme regardless of how we actually identify our presentation. We are cast aside by Toxic Femininity.

This is of course, even more true for fat women, trans women, and physically disabled Autistic women, who’s bodies already don’t abide by the unattainability that Toxic Femininity forces us to live up to.

4. Downplay the Voice of Neurotypicals in Autistic Women’s Issues

Despite their position of being privileged oppressors of the Autistic community, most of our advocacy is done by parents and relatives of Autistic people who believe that they are more entitled to our community and voices. They are the “Autism moms” and those with blue puzzle piece signs in their backyards, constantly yelling over us.

Most of the Autism organizations are run by these people, who often don’t consult with Autistic people about the needs of our community. Even though most of them don’t think they hate Autistic people and may even share common goals with the community, they still oppress us because they’re centering the voices of the privileges instead of the voices that are affected no matter how supportive they are.

An Autistic inclusive feminist space means downplaying Neurotypical rhetoric, meaning stopping the use of hate symbols like puzzle pieces and functioning labels. Cut out the influence of ableist organizations and monitor the use of words like “retarded” in your space. This will be difficult in a pervasively ableist society, but it will be worth it in making a more united social justice movement.

It also means allowing Autistic people to have input in their own issues, and allowing them to reclaim their agency. Know that no matter how many Autistic people you know, if you’re Neurotypical, you will never truly experience being Autistic even if you know more about the condition.

5. Autistic Women Can Still be Racist, Homophobic, or Transphobic – Don’t Be Afraid to Let Them Know

There are usually 2 stereotypes Neurotypicals believe about us, and strangely enough, they’re complete opposites. We’re either hyperviolent, unfeeling school shooters to them or perfect innocent angels who never do anything wrong. Obviously, these are ableist because they assume that all Autistic people are the same, but most people tend to look at us as the latter stereotype because it’s more “politically correct” even though both viewpoints are hurtful in different ways.

As such, when Autistic people are genuinely oppressive, they aren’t held accountable. I’ve had interactions with homophobic Autistic people who accepted me for my Autism but not the fact that I was a girl who loved girls. I’ve met misogynist Autistic men who viewed me as an object and wouldn’t respect my boundaries and right to say ‘no’ to a relationship. As an Autistic white person, I myself hold institutional power over Autistic people of color and as such, am able to be racist.

Autistic people shouldn’t be given a free pass for their bigotry, and assuming that they should denies them their agency and oppresses others in that space.

Autistic women have a lot to contribute to feminism, and neurotypical women should allow them the opportunity to rise against their own oppression. Thanks for reading and for making your feminism inclusive –

Trust me, it means the world to us.

245 notes · View notes

morlock-holmes · 7 years ago

Text

So, my experience has been that even in super-woke spaces, there is strong pressure towards gender conformity for men, and the pressure is exerted in exactly the same way as it is in non-woke spaces. Or, hell, sometimes in genuinely much more regressive ways. Now, here’s the thing. It’s not that the skills that men are expected to display are the same skills as the ones men are expected to display in other contexts [Being able to explain why “All lives matter” is actually a racist statement is more important than being able to change your oil, insert your own stereotypes here]. It’s just... Well, start there. Part of being a real man is to be skilled. You earn manhood by constantly demonstrating the skills that the community finds important. And you must demonstrate those skills with a great deal of confidence, or, rather, lack of confidence must be expressed in very specific ways in very specific contexts. You might be able to get away with talking about how much you struggle with internalized toxic masculinity, but a little of that goes a long way and if you aren’t careful the crowd can turn on you in an instant.

In general, I’ve found that men expressing general lack of confidence at the wrong time really does throw people off their game (And this includes both men and women, avowed feminists or no). Anyway, none of that is awful, maybe; it is good to practice useful skills and good to have justified confidence in yourself. But it is also very important to demonstrate your manliness by constantly comparing yourself favorably to others who have failed to be men. It is very important, as a white man in these spaces, to be able to laugh at and make jokes about “Nice Guys” or “Mediocre White Men” or “Bros” or whichever the next version is.

This is expressed in very meta, “I am wiser than you because I know that I’m not wise” fashion, and actually is a pretty difficult tightrope to walk. I’m writing this because I saw a reference to some old “Books Every White Man Owns” article on The Toast, and the purpose of articles like that in woke white male culture is complex. You have to admit that you see enough of yourself in it to show that you aren’t oblivious like the guy the article was written about, but not so much of yourself that you actually think the joke isn’t funny. You are constantly asked to denigrate a certain class of failed men in order to demonstrate your own bona fides, kind of like the way regressive dudes need to prove they aren’t gay all the time. The worst, absolutely the worst move you can make in these spaces is to identify too much with those failed men. You absolutely never say, “Uh, actually my dad gave me ‘Catcher in the Rye’ and it really meant a lot to me” because that’s basically social suicide. And the real issue is that this is a subtextual norm. The surface goals of woke spaces are that we’re all here to abandon outmoded patriarchal thought patterns and create new ways of occupying gender. Not only that, but going “I’m a woman, I’ve had that experience, and it’s not funny” or “I’m gay, I’ve had that experience, and it’s not funny” can be a social power move. I’ve said this before, but I was part of a movie discussion group which was A) Big on suicide prevention and mental illness awarenes, and B) Loved to make jokes about how many lame movies there were that expected us to sympathise with sad middle class white dudes. The worst idea I had there was trying to go, “As somebody who has been suicidal, I don’t like all these jokes about how nobody wants to hear some white guy whining, it doesn’t make me feel like it would be safe to open up” So what you end up with is a culture that, in some ways, can feel like it is exerting even more pressure on you to be a man. In my experience you end up with a class of high status men who pick up on this dynamic without having to be told, and a largely invisible underclass of clueless dorks like me, who take the surface rhetoric seriously, attempt to actually interrogate what pressures the community is putting on men, and then get smacked down because they’re being humorless and spoiling everybody’s good fun. And then that underlcass starts going to Jordan Peterson lectures or getting really interested in gamergate.

#a light hearted look at the war between the sexes #wokeness #politicking

816 notes · View notes

elegantshapeshifter · 7 years ago

Link

“Polytheists face discrimination in western societies because of the West’s fundamental disagreement with what is considered an “acceptable” religion. An essential component of this discrimination is, paradoxically, Western secularism. Though ostensibly Western secularism pretends to treat all religions equally, it in truth has been significantly shaped by a background of a monotheistic cultural background and infused with it, which profoundly influences what the West will consider an “acceptable” religion. Because of this, it inherently grants favor towards the monotheist theological paradigm by forcing “unsavory” or culturally distinct practices out of the public. This essentially makes secularism a tool by monotheists to deny an understanding of actual religious plurality, and with that, force religions deemed “deviant” (e.g., polytheistic religions) which tenant in Western society to fundamentally change to better suit the public eye.

Polytheism as “Abhorrent” in Secular Space

Though the very term polytheism goes as far back as Aeschylus (Suppliant Women 424f), it is likewise regularly defined externally and instilled with the monotheist overculture, as seen with the cases of Philo of Alexandria. And much later, it arrived in the early modern West as a slur, mostly by predominantly Protestant countries, where it can be contended that the disgust of the supposed deviancy of polytheism is immensely increased so much so that the term is used as a weapon, seen in the term’s entrance into modern English, where it was used as an anti-papist slur against Jesuits operating in Asia in the 17th century (Page duBois 2014, 19).

One of the most notorious methods of disenfranchising polytheism is enforced is through the use of secular space. This is discussed by Judith Butler in her book The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere, which highlights how the public space of religious discourse is embedded by an Abrahamic foundation, and is inherently used to reinforce a monotheistic religious paradigm (most particularly of Christianity). There exists an unfair advantage given to monotheists in all aspects of western society, much of which is protected because of secularism; for example in 1833 a judicial precedent was established in the United States by Joseph Story which privileged and encouraged Christianity (Joseph Story, 693-703), while in 1892 the Supreme Court made a decision which created a rhetoric still espoused today which identified the United States as a “Christian Nation” (143 U.S. 457).

Saba Mahmood suggests in her work Is Critique Secular? that despite what many come to believe about secularism (being the separation of a religious body and the state), history often shows that secularism acts as a force for regulation and reformation of religious beliefs in light of what the overculture considers what a “proper religion” is. This is accomplished by the establishment of what is considered “religious” by the society, which is normalized and carefully maintained with an eye for internal consistency. In truth, Western secularism isn’t genuinely pluralistic. Western secularism arose out of Protestantism, and regardless of its allusions to the contrary, it still privileges a single religious mode of thought by driving practices deemed unsavory or culturally distinct out of the public eye. Everything that is regarded as foreign to the overculture of the perceived “norm” is deemed deviant and inappropriate, as they are not viewed as being consistent with the overculture’s concept of what is considered properly “religion,” and thus pushed into the private sphere, because it is not adequate for public consumption. This, in essence, bars any possible understanding outside of what is deemed “the norm,” which results in the public sphere having a fundamental lack of pluralistic understanding of religion that brings into account the differences and variations in religious concerns and cultural expressions. It masks religious tolerance — more aptly mere tolerance — only if it exits the public eye, and prevents the chance of actual religious plurality from taking root. Instead, religion is ostracized, regulated, and ultimately, reshaped and remade through the practice of law.

Yes, most countries in the West, especially in the Americas, follow a concept of the separation of Church and State. However, it’s essential to keep in mind that this achievement, and by extension the “public sphere” concerning religious discourse, is overwhelmingly a monotheist achievement. It isn’t merely that the majority of the populace maintains a religious affiliation with a monotheistic religion, but rather the very legal foundation of this culture is established on Abrahamic Monotheistic dominance. This fundamentally means the public will presuppose what is properly “religious,” and blatantly reaffirm the theological paradigm that is dominant in the overculture while ostensibly putting forward a notion of tolerance.

Because of this, a boundary is created between the “secular” and “religious” space that is artificial and inherently untenable for polytheists, and even more broadly theists who merely hold an immanent view of the divine (a view not only common among polytheists, but also frequent among non-Protestant sects of Christianity). The divine— and to that extent, the practice of the religion— penetrates aspects of daily, even mundane life, which inevitably includes public life. Religion isn’t merely confined to the temples— it can be part of a lifestyle, and the separation currently existent in western secularism isn’t simply unnatural; it is ultimately disenfranchising.

This marginalization produces an end result that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for cohabitation while maintaining religious integrity and practice. It leaves ultimately two options to a religious tradition which lies outside the norm of the overculture. To either continue to be marginalized in the grand scale of society, or alternatively, to conform to the overculture and model itself after the ideal “minority religion,” and with that willingly submit itself to a systemic disenchantment of religious identity and spirituality, which doesn’t recognize nor embrace their theological paradigm. And this is precisely what many polytheistic traditions submit themselves to in the west.

India is a shining star that should be looked up to— a place which holds a heritage of multifaceted religious diversity and has never held a dogma of an exclusive truth. Indian society defines the concept of secularism as religious pluralism, which aims to accept and integrate diversity both in private and public life. It’s not the separation of a religious body and state, but rather the acknowledgment of the state’s multireligious nature (Page duBois 2014, 8). In stark contrast, western nations follow a skewed form of secular doctrine which only ends up effectively engaging in state-sponsored religious oppression in which their definition of what is “religion” inherently privileges monotheistic Abrahamic religions. The failing of contemporary western society to tolerate – let alone embrace – any notions of pluralistic polytheism are abundantly clear.

Notions of what is “properly religious”

During the early 20th-century, C.S. Lewis released his autobiography Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life and coined the term “chronological snobbery.” This is a fallacy that indicates that the intellectual and cultural capacities of an earlier time can be positioned as inherently inferior to that of the present, merely by a view of the current time being actively experienced and the past, in contrast, as outdated. This is precisely what the hegemonic coercion of Abrahamic monotheism does in the west to shape the public perception of what is “acceptable,” and is even dominant in Lewis’ own work with his concept of “ethical monotheism.”

This fallacious notion of linear development in religion has always existed. The term Pagan itself was initially something that was synonymous with “rustic” or “rural.” The term was later adopted by Christians, who primarily established centers in urban areas, as a derogatory term against polytheists who lived in the more “rural areas” of society, and thus kept their traditions. This term was consequently weaponized and used to refer to polytheists as “out of reach,” with a strong implication of being backward or primitive (Michael York 2003, 6).

Western notions of what is properly “religious,” and with that the notion of “polytheism” being synonymous with “primitivism”, were engraved into the West with the dominance of Abrahamic monotheism. The word polytheism would be used in Christian schisms as a slur invoked against opponents (Page duBois 2014, 31). Western convictions would carry into Western colonial expansion, most particularly damaging in regions like India during the British Raj, where the British came to be appalled by the immeasurable diversity in the continent and thus imposed a uniformity through an Anglicized Indian elite that would shape much of what became modern Hinduism (Wendy Doniger 2010, 7-9). Also in the British Raj during the 19th-century a number of missionaries, most notably the infamous John Wilson, harassed Zoroastrians and implied that they were primitive by referring to them as polytheists (Jenny Rose 2012, 205).

Western (particularly Protestant) notions of what’s “religious” was the metric scale of which other cultures were judged from, and this would have grand influence when it came to foreign policy. When the Americans used the threat of armed force against Japan to open the country 1853 ACE, it imposed a list of treaties and demands, among which was a freedom of religion that forced the country to contest with western ideas of religion. This signifcantly altered the idea of religion in Japan. Japan never even had a word for “religion” in the notion much of the Protestant West understood it; religion was simply part of life. Once considered an extension of Buddhism, religion in Japan was profoundly shaped by western ideas, which led to the rise of Shintoism as an independent faith (Jason Ananda Josephson 2012, 98).

The notion of polytheism being a sort of spiritual archaism persisted into the era of early psychology, where certain psychologists who were inspired by Boyer, Hegel, Wellhausen, et al., tried to put forward a notion of linear human development in the progression of religion, which would culminate into an ultimate “end result.” Here, they position animism and polytheism as archaic religious “primitivism,” which would naturally and ultimately yield to more “developed” expressions of religion, until something akin to C.S. Lewis’ “ethical monotheism” is achieved. This attempt at “naturalizing” monotheism is oftentimes even furthered by post-monotheistic Atheistic writers who, having only been exposed to the monotheistic theological paradigm due to a lack of any actual religious plurality in Western secular space, will claim that the ultimate goal of a fully mature society is post-monotheistic secularism (Page duBois 2014, 12).

These long-held views of what is properly “religious” have been so engraved into western society that it results in the west consistently disenfranchising polytheists at an alarming frequency. When these views are coupled with the deeply ingrained colonialist attitudes of the West, it penetrates the public reception to polytheistic theology, even in the contemporary “tolerant” West, and causes polytheism to be perceived as inferior, archaic and ignorant. The apparent claims of tolerance and modernity expose themselves to be fictitious, and this can have a strongly negative influence on polytheistic communities, leading them to hold onto a sort of baggage which causes them engage in reductionist efforts to make the belief in many Gods as close to monotheism as possible to be more comfortable to westerners. This normalizes conformity to the monotheistic overculture in the West.

Those who live within or are profoundly influenced by the monotheistic overculture in the west will start with baggage by default, simply by being a part of that culture, regardless of your personal or familial beliefs. Because of this, connecting to a religion that doesn’t adhere to the monotheistic overculture’s paradigm can be a bit like learning a second language, but sometimes accidentally replacing words with words from the language you were raised with, or making your sentences function like the language you were raised with, even though your second language doesn’t function like that. This is the essence of baggage, and it can drastically effect polytheistic communities who come under influence of the monotheistic overculture, resulting in conformity to the Western perception of what is properly “religious.”

Effect on Polytheistic Diaspora

Even some of the worlds oldest polytheistic religions find themselves changing drastically when influenced by the monotheistic overculture, and will often hold onto baggage which distances them from traditional practices and beliefs. Two of the most notable examples are Hinduism and Zoroastrianism.

Hinduism is one of the world’s oldest continuously living polytheistic religions. As already stated, however, much of modern day Hinduism came to be directed by an Anglicized Indian class during the British Raj (Wendy Doniger 2010, 7-9). This influence is exemplified in Hindu diaspora in the west, however, where it is often forced to struggle with and ultimately conform to the hegemony of monotheistic overculture in the West. Prema Kurien’s work Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism reveals the pressures on American Hindus to adapt their religion to the “model minority,” which can encompass both religion and ethnicity. These pressures culminate into the assimilation of Hindus into a Western culture, in both the colonial and immigrant contexts, through an artificial, organized Hinduism based in both text and history, which is profoundly evocative of the more accepted monotheism present in the colonial overculture (e.g., Arya Samaj)

Often Western Hindus will try to make their polytheistic values more digestible to Westerners, underplaying the individuality of the Gods and putting forth a claim that Hinduism is truly monotheistic, or that all people worship the same God.

An additional example is found in contemporary Zoroastrianism, another one of the world’s oldest continuously living polytheistic traditions, with a tradition of worshiping Ahura Mazda, the highest God, and the Yazatas, the Good Gods, under Him. This, however, has been long since mutilated— at least among the Parsi. Though the monotheizing of Zoroastrianism can be traced as beginning during the Islamic Invasion of Iran, it wasn’t until the British Raj did Zoroastrianism become forced to adapt (Jenny Rose 2012, 23). At this time, seeing the wealthy Zoroastrian Parsi community (Jenny Rose 2012, 23), Anglicans attempted to harass and convert the Zoroastrians and launched a smear campaign against the religion for being “polytheistic” (Jenny Rose 2012, 205). In an effort to relieve themselves, Zoroastrians adopted a western reinterpretation of their religion by 18th-century German linguist, Martin Haug, who imposed sole monotheism. Following Zoroastrian conformity to the overculture, the Anglicans stopped bothering them so much once they adopted monotheism and went so far as to adopt angelic choir.

An ignorance towards the worship of good Gods, the Yazatas, which translates as “those worthy of worship,” is present in the public face of contemporary Zoroastrianism, and translations often write them off as “angels” in the monotheistic sense. Furthermore, many contemporary Zoroastrians want to claim this prize of “oldest monotheism” to simultaneously protect themselves from and also shame their Abrahamic neighbors, despite a history of worshiping many Gods as well as the prophet Zoroaster clearly referencing to and giving praise for other Gods in the Gathas (Yasna 30:9).

Effect on Polytheists in Contemporary Paganism

Considering that some of the worlds largest and oldest polytheistic religions find themselves substantially altered to adapt to a western monotheistic overculture, there isn’t any doubt that contemporary Paganism also faces grave issues with baggage, especially since it’s homegrown. The disgust and dismissal of religious theology and experience is likewise a prevalent force that Contemporary Pagans in the west face every day. Since day one, Contemporary Paganism has understood the struggles of being a religious minority, with proof of its “legitimacy” being frequently demanded. Quite often an expectation of privatization exists for economic and safety reasons, especially in regions of the West where evangelical monotheisms hold hegemony.

Furthermore, Contemporary Paganism was born in a monotheistic, largely Protestant West. If we mark Gerald Gardner’s foundation of British Traditional Witchcraft as the beginning of modern Paganism, or look to the “early Paganisms” of the Romantic and Victorian eras, then it arose out of Protestant overculture. This can be coupled with the fact that not many of us were “born into” Paganism. Most of us began as some sort of Abrahamic religion– and even if we were born into a family that was outright atheist, we weren’t born in a vacuum– we were under constant influence of that monotheist mode of thought so ingrained into western culture, and likewise both externally and internally use it as a metric to measure all other things, whether that be ethics, morality, actions, or beliefs. Due to all of this, Contemporary Pagans can sometimes come with some type of baggage and hold the same prejudices and biases, and itself produce an environment hostile to Polytheists.

The topic is addressed wonderfully in TheLettuceMan’s post on this very topic, but overall this exact same fallacious gargle of linear human development is regurgitated by certain individuals who try to latch onto Paganism such as John Halstead and Mark Green, except holding a notion of a non-particular atheistic post-Christianity rather than C.S. Lewis’ conception of an ethical monotheism. The same notions of ethnocentric pomposity and chronological snobbery are assumed by these “authors,” who uphold a conviction that the modern period is superior to the past, and that looking back is nonsensical and applying anything from it is inappropriate. By large, these atheistic “humanistic Pagans,” who try to downplay the existence of the Gods as mere archetypes or thoughtforms, are the result of a Protestant overculture that preaches a mere toleration of polytheism within Contemporary Paganism. They espouse the exact same attitudes that are repeated over and over again by an overwhelming monotheistic Protestant West, and serve as nothing more but another example of Monotheistic overculture.

Conclusion

It’s important to recognize the problems of approaching secularism as a state-religious apparatus. Instead of secularism being a space of no Gods, which only enforces an overculture by forcing anything outside of the theological paradigm into the private sector, we should look to the example of multicultural India and transform secular space into a heterogenous area of many Gods, which truly functions as a way to manage and integrate with diversity and allow for true religious plurality, rather than enforce a hegemonic overculture. It’s imperative to recognize, address, and extricate ourselves from the baggage of the monotheistic overculture, and instead try to embrace a religious climate that we’re more comfortable with.”

15 notes · View notes

mari-matsu · 7 years ago

Text

Shelter Chapter 1

“S-stand,” Nagisa’s less than commanding voice stuttered in the room and you nimbly got up to your feet. Handling the gun in your hands with little effort, you observed as the others similarly shot up from their seats with their own weapon aimed at the teacher.

“Attention,” A curt silence enveloped the room and you took the time to analyze each and everyone’s serious expression that was etched on their faces. Calmly, you rolled your eyes to the direction of the teacher. His elated grin hadn't faltered at the sight of all the artillery.

“Bow!” At the word, a barrage of pink bullets rained down on him. Little pellets of Anti-Teacher bounced harmlessly off the board as he dodged in a speed that was classified as Mach 20, a speed no human will ever be able to reach. But for this teacher, it was a breeze, easily creating three afterimages that had left all of you speechless on his first day here. Because, after all, he wasn't even human.

You and your new class had the great privilege to be taught by a super being, an incredibly fast, amazingly powerful, and highly intelligent... octopus. That's right. A bright yellow, depending on his mood, octopus with slithering tentacles and an actually friendly grin. He was introduced by the Government Military Defense as a criminal capable of destroying the Earth. The evidence: This teacher was responsible for the damage made to the moon, which was now a permanent crescent.

A few months prior to this day, all of the inhabitants of Earth witnessed an explosion that sent chills down everyone's spines. The moon had shattered. Pieces of the satellite had rained down on the lakes, oceans, and land, and there was a moment of pure panic, fear, and curiosity. What just happened? No one knew the answer and people wondered for weeks as to what occurred. Why did the moon break like that? What was the cause of it? Was it a natural occurrence... or was it an effect of something man made?

The answer came to a select group of people. On the day you came back to school to start a new grade, you and your classmates were met with a surprise. The Military had dropped by to give everyone in your class an assignment: To assassinate your new teacher. To be quite honest, your classmates were surprised to hear that news but the shock deepened when the Military introduced the target. It was immediately a mind boggling first day, because how on Earth were junior high students supposed to kill something like that? Everyone was so perplexed at the idea, but was easily compelled by the reward money that came with the success of the octopus' death. So your classmates got use to the odd setting, and quickly became accustomed to a gun and a knife.

An assassination attempt was always done daily.

“Good morning,” Your non-human teacher called out, his wide smile never leaving his face, “I’ll be taking attendance now, so please, fire all you like.” The teacher you’ve come to known then began roll call as your classmates answered, reloaded, and animatedly fired at the man.

You, in the back, waited patiently for your name to be called as your finger rested lightly on the trigger. The specially designed AK-47 was leaning on your shoulder, and a stack of Anti-Teacher ammo sat unused behind your desk, collecting dust since you first received it. You were just waiting as others unloaded multiple clips on your teacher, waiting without participating a bit in this deadly activity.

“(Y/N)-san?” At the mention of your name, you melodiously announced your presence. Your teacher's blurry image seemed to incline closer as he waved a shaking tentacle to his ear, a motion for you to speak louder. “I’m sorry, could you say that again? Like I said before, I can’t hear anything with all this gunfire.” You raised your tone and responded with yet another chipper sound and the grin reappeared on his circular face. He continued down the line as others grunted in response and frustration, and before you knew it, every name was called. “Alright then! Everyone’s on time, I see. Excellent that makes me very happy.” He said just as the guns stopped firing. As if to clarify how happy he was, his bright yellow face shifted to a scarlet one.

Blinking rather evenly at the color shift, you watched your classmates catch their breath, exhausted. “He’s too fast,” You heard one of your classmate and friend, Rio Nakamura, complain. Her long blonde hair swayed to the side as she slumped in her seat, defeated.

Isogai, the male class representative and another friend, then noted, “So even the whole class at once can’t bring him down?” His golden eyes were always kind; however, today it was slightly dim as he heaved a sigh. "It feels like we're getting nowhere again." He commented but he wore a gentle smile.

“Too bad, huh, not one of your bullets hit me today either.” The teacher emphasized and he then went on explaining about the little things that counted in assassination. This was the norm. A lecture in English, History, as well as the art of assassination. These were lessons that only your class was privileged to have, and you actively took in every word. It is, after all, something you must study on. “In addition to those, (Y/N)-san,” You automatically hummed at the abrupt call and you raised an inquiring eyebrow. As if he was offended, the teacher whined, “You didn’t even bother shooting me! You answered to the roll call, but you didn’t even use your gun! Are you not motivated enough to kill me?”

Your irises observed this alien-like creature you’ve recently formed a student and teacher relationship with and you smiled apologetically, quite aware of how he was pouting. With a small wave of your gun you said, “Sensei, I don’t particularly want to try to harm you. You didn’t do anything to anger me so I got no reason to.”

Your classmates heaved a semi-amused and semi-knowing breath while they sat back in their seats. You’ve been through this conversation with your teacher time and time again, so they’re not at all miffed about your answer. But the octopus still appeared to be thoroughly bothered as he continued to pout and squish his tentacles together, similar to how a shy girl would with her fingers.

“Not even the reward is going to persuade you?” Nagisa asked with his reserved nature, although, he himself knew the answer to that already, having heard it before.

“Nope,” You replied back to your best friend for years while popping the p. Not even the thought of ten billion yen being yours persuaded you to attack. Even though your teacher was one weird guy, you just didn’t have it in you to attack someone who did nothing wrong to you. Yes he did blow up the moon, and yes he was threatening Earth, but above all that he has done nothing but treat you as a student. So you will treat him as a teacher with respect and courtesy. Making use of the gun in your hands doesn’t come to you as courteous, so you refrain from it.

The yellow teacher huffed in mild disbelief at your response before waving a tentacle to your direction. “One day, you will succumb to the reward and help your classmates in killing me.” You merely nodded to appease his apparently hurt pride before taking a seat, your desk at the back beside an empty one, as you set the gun to its rightful spot on the side.

You then smiled pleasantly at particularly nothing while waiting for the math lecture to start. If you haven't guessed it already, you didn’t want to join this assassination job. You were here for one reason only, and that’s to shelter the people you care about. Nothing else matters, not even the fact you were in the End Class, the lowest ranking class in your school. Or that the government had put a bunch of teens to assassinate this top secret being.

None of them mattered to you. You just wanted to protect.

“(Y/N)-chan, you want to have lunch with us?” Shooting straight up, your once dazed eyes perked up and you amiably shot out of your seat. With the brightest smile you can ever make, you nodded happily to Kayano's question before grabbing your own lunch.

“Of course!” You cheered momentarily before zipping straight for your green-haired friend who only smiled as she spread out her own meal. The octopus teacher had already bid farewell as he quickly used his speed to get some mapo tofu. So the rest of your fellow classmates were spread around in their own groups, talking. You were previously just staring off into space, lost at a random thought before the prospect of food had you jumping in joy. It was no surprise to Kayano that you were so ecstatic for this. Food was something you put at the top of your priorities, second of course to protecting others.

“Wow, I didn’t know (Y/N) loved food a lot.” Hiroto Maehara commented, eyeing the group of girls you were in as you all huddled on one side laughing and chatting pleasantly. Tomohito Sugino hummed in agreement as he munched on some bread. The two were classmates you recently got acquainted with so they barely knew you, but you already counted them as people you care about. Nagisa was close with them, so you took it upon yourself to become their friends, which you didn’t regret. Maehara and Sugino were both super kind to you.

“I didn’t really peg her to eat so much. Just look at her,” Sugino remarked from a seat as you wolfed down a sandwich. “Where does she put all that food?” He laughed, the question rhetorically said as Maehara, who leaned on a desk, smiled along.

“Don’t you know? She puts them in her breasts!” Okajima, who was once busy off to the side watching said group of girls, popped in between the two of them with a rather perverted smile. He just couldn’t help himself if there was a mentioning of girls. Both Maehara and Sugino knew that characteristic of his, but they still paused in their chewing to give him a pointed look. Unlike the class pervert, they weren’t … well, a pervert. “What? The two of you were thinking it.” He noted and was only greeted by a shake of their heads.

“Only you,” The two chimed and Okajima huffed in defense. “Well, it doesn’t matter where she puts it, (Y/N)’s really pretty no matter what.” Maehara said through a mouthful of food and Okajima’s eyes lit up, already excited and prepared to list all your great physical qualities.

But Sugino said something before the other could surprisingly open his mouth, “Do you really think so?” His expression scrunched to a pondering one as he tilted his head to the side, gazing at you with wondering eyes. You had qualities that were very attractive to the male, but Sugino couldn't find the bravery to agree.

Maehara seemed to have an abundance of that courage as he went on with, “Yeah, she’s seriously cute. Plus she’s super smart.” He bit into his lunch. “I wouldn’t mind dating her if she wasn’t my friend.” Sugino coughed at the sudden statement and Okajima nodded, completely agreeing with the playboy. “What?” Maehara questioned when Sugino shot him a befuddled look, quite taken aback at the honesty.

“Nothing,” Sugino then munched on his bread a little more before he blinked, suddenly reminded of a thought. “Do you guys know why (Y/N) is here in the first place? If she’s super smart, how’d she land herself here?” A silent and thoughtful atmosphere enveloped the three as they thought about the question. Why are you in E-class, the lowest out of the whole school?

At such a perfect moment, Nagisa came strolling by and immediately the three of them flagged him down. Surprised, the bluenette flashed them an inquiring look while his upper arm was gripped. “Sorry for that,” Okajima apologized, and he darted his eyes to you for a quick look before saying, "We want to know, Nagisa. How come (Y/N) is here in E-class?"

"We figured you'll know the answer since you and (Y/N) are close. Childhood friends, right?" Maehara explained further, and Nagisa confirmed the relationship between you and him with a nod. The brunet then gestured for him to spill the beans. "So what's the deal with her being here?"

"If it's not too much to ask," Sugino added politely.

At that, Nagisa peeked a glance over his shoulder to you. He's sincerely surprised that they weren't knowledgeable of why you were transferred to this class. Everyone in A though D classes were still talking about it this morning even though the event transpired months ago. Thinking back to the moment where things changed for you, Nagisa sighed before mumbling out, “(Y/N)-chan’s here because she defended Kayano and I from rude students before the principal intervened. She said that we’ll remain friends even if others had shunned us. In the end she got demoted after being falsely accused of attacking another student…”

Okajima and Sugino gaped in disbelief while a low whistle sounded from Maehara. They couldn’t quite believe that you, who smiled at practically anything, could be capable of doing something that was considered taboo in their school. It came to the three as quite a shocker.

“Maehara, here’s your drink.” Yuma Isogai saddled up to the growing group with his ever kind smile. But it faltered a bit when he glanced at everyone’s awestruck faces. Turning to the only one who wasn’t shocked, he asked Nagisa, “What happened?” Nagisa relayed the information to him and the male only nodded, already aware of what you done. However, he did say, “That was pretty cruel. She technically didn’t do anything wrong yet she was put down here. It must’ve been heartbreaking for her since she was a top student...”

Nagisa nodded absentmindedly, although a bit glumly. “Actually (Y/N)-chan was fine with it. She didn’t care so long as she was with me and Kayano…” Nagisa wouldn’t say it out loud, but he was actually guilty that you sacrificed yourself to defend them. If he had just left school fast enough, then you wouldn’t be down in E-class with him. Even if you yourself had told him that it wasn’t a problem to you, the male still felt that responsibility.

At his words, four pairs of irises latched on you again. You were just peacefully laughing about a story Hinano, the bubbly orange-haired girl, had in regards to bug catching. You were smiling, and exuding such a delighted aura that it was hard for the four to connect that side to a more serious one, one who wouldn’t hesitate to fight anyone who dares insult those you loved.

“Aw, shoot.” You hissed as the carton of strawberry milk you were chugging down opened up at the bottom. A splash of pink coated the lower parts of your shirt and you hastily stood up out of instinct. Grimacing, you narrowed eyes at the carton before crumpling it in your hands. “Well there goes a good drink.”

Kayano and the other girls hopped to their feet in alarm before handing you a bunch of tissues, in which you politely declined, although you were grateful for their kindness. “Are you sure?” Rio questioned as she eyed the stain clearly there. You smiled softly at her and the others.

“I'm good. I got something I can change into, but thanks for the help anyways. Let me just clean this up” At your words, you shuffled to mop up the milk while your friends assisted you in your clean up. After the deed was done, you grabbed your school bag and then promptly exited the classroom with a small wave. The girls waved back before resuming lunch again, talking to pass the time until you come back.

The five males still grouped together watched the exchange. Nagisa was staring worriedly at the door as if debating on whether or not to follow you and offer any assistance. The others amusingly smiled, finding you to be quite a nice character. Okajima... grinned without shame as he lecherously said, "(Y/N)-chan's changing... Maybe I should go and-."

"Not a chance." The immediate response that came from Nagisa, Maehara, Sugino, and Isogai prompted a small laughter as Okajima frowned, his fantasies ruined. "Well anyways, did you guys know that there's a sale going on at-?"

“Oi, Nagisa.” The trio of misfits, Muramatsu, Yoshida, and Terasaka, approached the group with mischievous smirks, effectively cutting off Isogai. The one who spoke, Terasaka, jabbed a thumb behind him as his smirk turned into something more sinister. “Come with us. It’s time to put our assassination plan into action.” The actions and words of Terasaka caused an unsettling feeling to take over the friendly group and they worriedly glanced towards Nagisa.

Said male pursed his lips before ultimately sighing. "I'll be back." He assured before leaving the classroom with the trio.

“That’s better.” You breathed out while lifting the bottom of your pristine and totally fresh shirt. The soiled one was tucked away in your bag after you so carefully dabbed at the stain with a handful of tissues. It really was good thing that you carried around an extra shirt. You never really did before this year, but then again you never had to climb and descend a mountain during the school day. In addition, you never had to avoid the higher class' attempts to ridicule you. Luckily, you were more than capable in handling a hike and a couple of troublemakers.

Smiling at your clean state, you shouldered your bag, glanced at the mirror to fix the collar of your shirt, before skipping out to the hallway. You’ve been gone for long time and that surely meant lunch was over, but you didn’t particularly mind since you finished your food anyway. Oh but then again, that also meant that fifth period had started.

You wiped the smile off your face as your skip turned into a rather brisk walk at the sudden notion. You were late for class. Hurrying to the end of the hallway, you didn’t waste any time as you flung the door wide open, an apology ready to be said. “Sorry I was late, I got-.”

A flash cut you off short and your eyes widened at the dust sifting through the air. You wondered vaguely if someone had set off a bomb, but you quickly processed the fact that Nagisa conducted an assassination attempt. A seemingly failed one however, for the yellow octopoid, your teacher, had grasped his wrist before Nagisa managed to actually nail the Anti-Teacher blade on him. It caught you by a huge surprise to see Nagisa, someone who was very quiet, initiate an assassination attempt by himself, and you couldn't help but feel on edge at the uncharacteristic way he was behaving.

“Didn’t I tell you to be more inventive?” The teacher chastised, yet you heard him in the distance as your heart suddenly pounded against your rib cage. It was out of the blue but something was deeply nagging at you, tugging at your mind, and telling you to do something. But what?

You saw quite clearly how the teacher pulled out a handkerchief, and while you watched his movements, the world slowed down around you. You then realized that the tug in your mind was a warning that there’s danger. It grew heavy with every passing second and your heartbeat thudded in your ears. You can hear your blood rushing as adrenaline quickly flowed through every vein and before you could even process what you’ve done, you had discarded your bag haphazardly to the side. You knew deep down that your best friend was in danger. “NAGISA,” You shouted impulsively when you saw the teacher slowly place the handkerchief on the Anti-Teacher blade.

Your legs had reacted automatically at the sight, and you were shortening the distance between you, your best friend, and your teacher. Time still seemed to go on forever as you wedged between them and grabbed on to Nagisa tightly. You can just quickly catch his stunned expression before your eyes zeroed in at the grenade that dangled from his neck.

This, your brain warned you, was a threat to Nagisa. Your irises constricted at the dangerous weapon and you quickly moved. Latching on to the necklace that held the grenade, you hastily gave it a pull and detached it from your friend. You then pushed Nagisa out of harm’s way, and grasped the bomb tightly to your stomach, hoping to shield it from everyone.

You expected your teacher to do something about the situation, but from the looks of it he was definitely caught off guard by Nagisa's grenade trick. And you knew that because you can see the underlying nervousness. He was surprised. Surprised by what Nagisa did, and what you're doing now. Well, that's okay, because you got this... hopefully. Flashing your teacher a reassuring smile, you quickly whispered something to him.

Then everything sped up at once. A burst of light accompanied with a loud explosion was witnessed at the front of the classroom. Pink Anti-Teacher pellets spilled on the floor after zipping in every direction and the students cried out, startle, while something charred fell in a deadly heap before them. It was silent for a while as the class took in what just occurred before them.

“We did it! Ten billion yen! Cha-ching!” The three misfits cheered all of a sudden as they danced their way to the front, seemingly uncaring of what just happened. In fact, Terasaka had even shouted out, “Serves you right!”

Isogai whirled on them quickly and had shouted out the delinquent’s name in anger as Maehara growled out, “What have you done!” The three only grinned in an easy-going manner as they approached the burned mass.

“Hey, what did you give Nagisa-?!”

"(Y/N)…chan?” Kayano was immediately cut off as the boy in question stuttered with fear evident in his voice. “(Y/N)-chan…” Everyone gazed with held breaths at Nagisa, who was halfway down the row of desks, as he gradually, as if he couldn’t believe it, made his way to the front. Realization seemed to seep in like a chill as he continued to blankly walk. Slowly, everyone shifted their own expressions of horror to where you once stood.

“Wait, (Y/N)-chan was…” Kayano’s sentence didn’t end as her voice failed her. A look of complete dismay was on her face and she quickly darted accusatory eyes on the misfits. “You…” She had started but her throat tightened and she couldn’t hold back a choked sob.

“What? But she couldn’t have… She wasn’t even in the room when…” Terasaka stumbled over his words as nary a single dash of guilt was on his face. Only confusion was present as he pondered at the change in suicide bombers. “Well it doesn’t matter, we got the money now!” Then he bent down to peer at the blackened figure when his eyes caught something else. “Hold on…” His eyes dilated at the sudden sight of you wrapped in some kind of weird membrane and he stumbled backward out of shock.

Nagisa collapsed on his knees the moment he caught sight of you, and he released a shaky breath. You weren’t even hurt, not a single burn was on your skin and it made the young bluenette slump back in relief. Thank goodness you were alright, was the only thing that Nagisa could think of.

“The membrane is attached to the corpse…but…” Terasaka mumbled out and he was definitely so confused. How did you remain unscathed?

“As it happens,” The voice of your teacher filled the room and the students glanced around with bewildered expressions, “I shed my skin about once a month. I protected (Y/N)-chan, who just so happened to intervene, by covering her with my old skin.” Upon his words, you gingerly sat up, now conscious, and the skin around you broke apart. Flippantly, you looked around with a bemused expression before you got your bearings. Immediately, you scrambled over to Nagisa to see if he was alright, ignoring or rather putting aside everything else. Even the tensed atmosphere and the sudden burst of wind did nothing to stop you from fussing over your friend.

“Nagisa, are you alright? Did you get hurt? The bomb, did it hurt anyone else?” Your eyes skimmed over his physique and found with great relief that there was not even a single scratch on his uniform. Sighing similarly like the bluenette, you slouched and pulled on a grateful smile. “Thank goodness.” You have never been so happy. You honestly didn’t know if you would make it in time.

A pair of blue orbs met yours and you leaned back a smidge to see the owner, although you already know who it belongs to since you’ve been seeing that color since you were a kid. Nagisa peered at you with a mix of worry, disbelief, and joy as he said, “There you go again, worrying about everyone else. (Y/N)-chan you took the brunt of the force, you should be worrying about yourself."

Laughing lightly you replied with, “You have no right to say that, Mr. I’ll-blow-myself-up. Besides, I’m not even hurt.” Smiling small at that, you glanced back at the crumbling membrane and then to the teacher that was pure black and currently seething. You pursed your lips as you connected two and two. “At least if I didn’t make it in time, he would’ve done something for you.” You silently whispered as your attention was drawn to the quivering trio and to the octopus that seemed to have a limitless ability to scaring everybody.

“What’s wrong with using an annoying method to kill an annoying guy?!” Terasaka pointed out and suddenly the death like mood that settled over the classroom changed to a suspiciously normal one, as the black drained from the teacher’s face and a scarlet replaced it.

“Annoying? Hardly. Your idea itself was a very good one. Especially you, Nagisa-kun,” The octopus praised as he placed a comforting tentacle on said bluenette’s head and began to rub his hair affectionately. “The way you carried yourself so naturally on your approach, gets full marks from me. You did an excellent job at getting past my defenses. However!” He abruptly faced the trio who started at the attention. “None of you looked out for Nagisa-kun, not even Nagisa-kun himself. And yet, we have (Y/N)-chan do so for everybody here.”

Upon his words, eyes are planted on you and you unconsciously began to raise a brow in a what-are-you-looking-at manner, until you stopped yourself. Instead of that, a small yet dazzling smile settled on your lips. You heard him say it; you were able to protect everybody. This had induced your lips to quirk upwards as you succeeded in shielding not just Nagisa, but everybody from danger.

“Oi,” You called out, hands casually intertwined behind your head as your gaze drilled in the back of three familiar students. Upon your call, those three glanced over their shoulders and minutely tensed under the intensity of your stare. It was obvious that you wanted to break something, or even more drastic, kill someone. “If I remember correctly, all three of you were responsible for that bomb trick during fifth period.” You said lowly as your position unraveled until you were standing with a hand clenched beside you. “You know, I really hated what you did.”

“What do you want, (Y/N)?” Terasaka grumbled out in an attempt to intimidate you but it clearly didn’t work as you stood your ground. In fact, it made you ten times more menacing as you cast your eyes to their growing guarded faces. You couldn’t believe that they were acting dumb about this.

“If you’re going to chew us out, don’t bother! That alien already yelled at us, remember!” Muramatsu had shouted but you weren’t looking for another lecture. Abruptly, you closed the space between your victims and delivered a clean punch to the jaw of the blond. His body twisted from the impact and he’s sent flying down the dirt path. Terasaka and Yoshida’s own jaws clenched at how their friend was so easily thrown off his feet.

Whirling on you, Yoshida tightened his fist and then yelled, “Hey, you can’t ju-!” You quickly cut him off with a roundhouse kick to the side. The male tumbled over a few feet away and, while he’s clutching his side painfully, he coughed out violently from the force. Anyone can tell that his whole torso was in pain.

Terasaka whipped to you, who only glared and shook from all the fury bottled up inside. He couldn’t believe what he just saw, but then again he knew what you were capable of. He had known exactly what you did last year, and he knew what’s going to happen to him next. Swallowing down his thoughts, Terasaka took a step back in an attempt to run, but your hand lashed out and grabbed his collar. Effortlessly, you lifted your arm and glowered dangerously at him.

“You’re most likely the mastermind of that dumbass plan, right? Well listen to me carefully. You may have been given the scare of your lifetime today, but you’ve signed for your death the moment you decided that Nagisa would carry out your deed. He’s a precious friend to me and you are so lucky that he was unharmed. Otherwise, I would’ve snapped your neck in a second. Then again, what’s to stop me if I do it now?” Your gaze was murderous.

Terasaka felt a cold creep up his spine, causing his body to pale considerably. You were pulling so tightly to his collar that his shirt was starting to choke him, and he thrashed around fiercely to escape but it was pointless. You weren't planning on letting him go anytime soon. The chill that he felt was then labeled with fear and his struggles became even wilder.

A dark chuckle reached his ears as he squirmed, and the male paused to watch you with a dumbfounded expression. You were laughing, amused, at his actions. He only saw that sight of you before his face met the ground painfully and swiftly. A warm trickle could be felt on his upper lip and the male knew his nose was broken.

“Nagisa begged me not to injure any of you before class ended. Be glad that he was at least thinking of you or else I would've hurt you more.” Then you gave him one last kick to the side before swiveling on your shoes, ready to walk down the mountain. Your hands were still shaking while you followed the dirt path, and your eyes have yet to revert to your calm ones. You were too hopped up on adrenaline. When you had said that your only reason for being here was to protect, you weren’t being half-hearted about it. You were serious and willing to kill to protect.

Fact about (Y/N):

1. She’ll stop at nothing for those she loves.

#Shelter #Assassination Classroom #chapter 1 #fanfic #UGhhhhhshdnhlasdhdht

14 notes · View notes