#nazi punching discourse

[thedreadvampy]

it's been a bleak time, we can all agree, we must find joy where we can. and I simply cannot and will not imagine what it's like to not find it funny when a bunch of Israelis are so used to being coddled about committing genocide that they feel empowered to boast about it publicly, and are sooooo shocked to get the shit kicked out of them.

like awwww did baby get addicted to never seeing any consequences for their vile racist bullshit? did a wickle baby need to go crying to mummy because the nasty foreigners didn't like when they yelled 'WE THINK IT'S FUNNY THAT WE KILLED BABIES! RAPE IS GOOD AND COOL! WE'RE DOING GENOCIDE LOL'? get booted bitch lmao.

[etz-ashashiyot]

You know how sometimes arguing a point is losing?

Like if you engage the argument at all you are inherently putting up for debate things that should never be up for debate and the argument itself is degrading?

You see this with interpersonal gaslighting:

A gaslighter doesn’t simply need to be right. They also need for you to believe that they are right. In stage one, you know that they’re being ridiculous, but you argue anyways. You argue for hours, without resolution. You argue over things that shouldn’t be up for debate  – your feelings, your opinions, your experience of the world. You argue because you need to be right, you need to be understood, or you need to get their approval. In stage one, you still believe yourself, but you also unwittingly put that belief up for debate. In stage two, you consider your gaslighter’s point of view first and try desperately to get them to see your point of view as well. You continue to engage because you’re afraid of what their perspective of you says about you. Winning the argument now has one objective :  proving that you’re still good, kind, and worthwhile. In stage three, when you’re hurt, you first ask, “What’s wrong with me?” You consider their point of view as normal. You start to lose your ability to make your own judgements. You become consumed with understanding them and seeing their perspective. You live with and obsess over every criticism, trying to solve it.

[Source]

But you also see this on a broader societal level, with people asking unfathomably awful questions about minority groups, such as:

[Source]

It should go without saying, but no group of people should be forced to explain that yes, they really are real people, dickheads. The question doesn't deserve an answer; it deserves at best a disgusted eyeroll + "Are you a Nazi?" and at worst a punch to the face.

There is also the related phenomenon of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. The question is framed as a yes or no question, but the real answer for the innocent is: "I've never beaten my wife and never would." But even that answer still dignifies the question with a real response and puts the idea in the mind of the listener that hey maybe that's a real possibility and this guy is lying because of course he wouldn't just admit that. Now I don't know what to believe, but I'm skeptical.

Even if he answers, doubt has been cast on his character and many people (maybe even most people) neither have the attention span to listen to his full counter argument and supporting evidence nor are invested enough in strangers' lives to take the time to dig for facts on their own. Critically, it comes from a good impulse that shouldn't be repressed or taken too far in the opposite direction; namely, that we want to believe survivors and make it socially acceptable to speak out about abuse.

This leaves us with the uncomfortable reality that balancing believing survivors and whistle-blowers against not automatically believing allegations that very well may be false and/or in bad faith is a very tricky balancing act indeed. Because of this, people tend to struggle with taking survivors seriously and with presuming innocence until guilt has actually been proven, both. And as for the latter, this is at least partially due to the same psychological factors underlying the Don't Think of an Elephant problem.

Why am I discussing this?

See the thing is that these types of discourse have all been used, heavily, against the Jewish community, especially since Oct 7th, but really going back hundreds of years.

If you want to be our ally, you need to be on guard for how people use this rhetoric to accuse Jews of absolutely batshit cookoo bananas allegations (like being lizard people or having horns, or secretly running the world, or killing Christian babies to use their blood in our matzah, etc. etc.) and get away with it. Now obviously if so many people weren't already racist towards Jews as a people and had a vested interest in maintaining their supercessionist cultural worldview from Christianity and Islam, it would be a lot harder for this to work. Alas, the past 2000 years has created a bit of a snowballing effect.

This culminates in the effect described so well by Sartre:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

— Jean-Paul Sartre

Right now, Jews are facing extreme levels of these types of rhetorical abuse, and are receiving very little help in the way of pushback.

We have to stop trying to explain ourselves and start just naming these tactics instead.

[transman-badass]

I hope everyone who's ever said they'd punch a Nazi gets the chance to prove it.

I hope everyone who's ever said "protect trans kids" put their money where their mouth is.

I hope everyone who has ever caused discourse and division in the queer community shuts the fuck up and stop doing the feds work for them.

I hope the world that's born when this one burns down is kind.

[remus-poopin]

The framing of this really makes it sound like James was specifically, and uniquely, attacking Snape for being a deatheater/dark magic user, but we know that’s simply not true because we have him actually giving us his reason:

“Leave him alone,” Lily repeated. She was looking at James with every sign of great dislike. “What’s he done to you?”

“Well,” said James, appearing to deliberate the point, “it’s more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean...”

(OOTP, pg 647)

He doesn’t say, “because he hangs out with people who use dark magic”, “because he uses dark magic”, “because he’s bigoted” he just says “because he exists”.

And we know he attacks other students and there is no justification offered for that either:

“Messing up your hair because you think it looks cool to look like you’ve just got off your broomstick, showing off with that stupid Snitch, walking down corridors and hexing anyone who annoys you just because you can — I’m surprised your broomstick can get off the ground with that fat head on it. You make me SICK.”

(OOTP, pg, 648)

“Once James had deflated his head a bit,” said Sirius.

“And stopped hexing people just for the fun of it,” said Lupin.

(OOTP, pg 671)

What’s being emphasized here is not that James bullies and attacks others for a just moral cause, but because he is arrogant, and because he can. This is a really significant part of James’ character, his privilege and entitlement shapes the way he interacts with Snape, Lily, Sirius, Peter, Lupin and the Order. But more importantly it shapes how Harry views him, as he is someone who has been singled out and attacked by other arrogant and entitled individuals (Dudley and Draco).

So there is little to no evidence to support James going after Snape for “deatheater reasons”, and it is also crucial that this isn’t the case simply on a narrative level.

I once again find myself needing to remind everyone that the spell James Potter uses to hang Severus Snape by his ankles in OoTP was a spell invented by... that's right, Severus Snape. The only way James would have learned the spell was if.... that's right, again, if Severus used the spell on someone else first.

And also, the scene might have been the first time that he called Lily a Mudblood, but to quote Lily, "you call everyone of my birth Mudblood, Severus. Why should I be any different?"

James wasn't bullying some innocent kid. He was bullying a wannabe death eater with his own spells.

[ultfreakme]

"It'd make more sense if he was a villain" : Jay Nakamura, The Yellow Peril and Orientalism in the Comics Community

That quote above is speculating the potential of Jay Nakamura as a villain, specifically in the context of arguing for the incompatibility of Jon and Jay as a romantic couple due to the ideological differences that may arise from being a villain. Such speculations about fictional characters aren't uncommon and have been demonstrated in the canon of comics itself with stories like Injustice. But these statements should be regarded with caution, and with consideration for the context of a character.

This quote was said in service of comparing Jay Nakamura and Ash, a character introduced in Lazarus Planet, and to emphasize his potential as a love interest despite him being a villain.

There’s more but the general consensus seemed to be, that there was excitement in the potential for romantic tension between Jon and Ash due to Ash’s villainy, but the same was the reason for separating Jon and Jay. Many others stated Jay had to have manipulated Jon to an extent, which ‘corrupts’ Jon. This argument is not a concern when it comes to Ash although textually, Ash is the ‘homme fatale’ as defined by C.S.Pacat and is thus intentionally manipulating Jon throughout his appearance by looking down on his attitude as a hero, whereas there is no evidence of manipulation between Jon and Jay.

Why would one see a potential for "villainy" in certain characters? Is it story-based? Is it a personal preference for certain themes? Is it for entertainment? Or perhaps, something much deeper than all of this that you may not even be aware of?

What is the difference between Jay and Ash, and why does the villainy of one elicit enthusiasm and the perceived villainy of the other bring out irritation? While there is audience reception, writing quality, and subjective opinion which readers are free to express, these large-scale reactions warrant examination. Jon and Jay’s relationship had caused waves in international news. The story of Superman is inherently political and that of ‘Superman: Son of Kal-El’, ties itself back to these roots. Thus, the immediate aversion to Jay must be addressed and examined, since his character and his relationship with Superman can impact queer representation in media by virtue of carrying the brand of Superman.

DC Comics and The Depiction of Asian Culture

With characters such as Black Lightning, Steel, and New Super-Man getting new runs, and newer characters such as Xanthe Zhou and Cameron Kim(City Boy) being introduced, recent years have seen a push in diversifying the cast of superheroes. But American Comics as a medium have always idealized the image of the White Man and has been a means to define American Values, thereby alienating people of color(POC). Comics often reflected the anxieties of the Western World, with Captain America from Marvel Comics punching Nazis, and Superman fighting the Ku Klux Klan. While it has pushed for the message of freedom, community and rebellion with an emphasis on righteousness, the reflected anxieties are confined to those of the White Man.

World War 2 had given rise to anti-Chinese and Japanese propaganda, with American-Asian individuals being suspected for treason. Japanese immigrants in the 40s were accused of being spies for Japan. A quote from the article, ‘The "Yellow Peril" Mystique: Origins and Vicissitudes of a Racist Discourse’ states:

“Anyone who accepts an invitation to visit China or to entertain visitors to America from China are to be regarded either as dupes, as potential victims of cleverly trained agents of the People's Republic of China, who, during the course of an ordinary conversation, are able to extract secrets from them, or as spies working for a foreign government.”

Tensions from World War 2 and the perception of China as a Communist hellscape threatening American Capitalistic freedoms has led to such accusations. The idea of those of “the Orient” but specifically East Asians being experts in espionage to gather data, and leak it to the Chinese or Japanese governments has transferred over into fiction. 

Colonialism, and the racial hierarchies proposed by evolutionary theories of the nineteenth century placed the ambiguously Eastward individuals as subservient to the White Man. The concept of evolution had been co-opted by colonizers, upper class Western political circles, to expand upon eugenics to justify that POC fell into a hierarchy, where the white people were always on top. Asian and specifically East Asian people were defined by inferiority and a lack of advancement, but also as a marked threat with their supposed shrewdness as we’ve established.

The most prominent Asian characters in DC have been Ra’s Al Ghul, Talia Al Ghul, Lady Shiva, Cheshire, and Katana. They have long histories within the comics and are deeply influential, but the characters listed are typically in antagonistic roles, primarily using espionage-based techniques, expertise in weaponry, and membership among shadowed organizations to execute their goals. For the sake of brevity, we’ll be examining the portrayal of the Al Ghuls with a focus on Talia Al Ghul. Talia, much like Jay, is introduced first as a love interest and thus relevant for further discussion on the perception of Jay.

The Threat of The Lover from The Orient

The Al Ghuls originate from an undefined part of the Arab world. Talia is Arab and Chinese, but she is not allowed to be fluid, she is not allowed both. Depending on the creative team’s intentions, she is portrayed both as a temptress and a romantic interest, oscillating between these identities depending on her loyalty to her father and her love for Batman. When she is meant to be a victim of her father, imposing stereotypical morals assigned to the Arab world through orientalism, she wears ‘harem’ robes, she is darker, she is distinctly Arab. When she is a sly temptress, she wears a qipao or a kimono, leaning into Asian stereotypes. 

While Orientalism portrays Asian women as sexual beings, who are seen as particularly dangerous because of their influence on the libidos of White Men, it veers towards a lack of desirability in Asian men. The sexual interest of Asian men is portrayed as inherently predatory of white women, a danger from which white women must be rescued.

What would this mean, then, for an Asian Queer Man, who is a romantic interest of Superman?

Jay Nakamura and “The Pink Hair Connundrum”

Talia’s former fluidity in her design and clothing is contrasted starkly by the clear definition of Jay’s design. Much like Lois Lane, whose assigned color is purple, Jay has been assigned a specific set of colors to make him identifiable; these being pink, orange, greens and teals.

Many of the recently introduced Asian characters have strong silhouettes and stylization. Kong Kenan is primarily red with accents of yellow and black, Xanthe Zhou’s is blue and yellow, City Boy is Black and Red. Identifiable and concretized designs are necessary to the superhero genre, where the design is essential towards cementing identity. This is in direct contrast to long-term portrayals of Talia, whose skin tone, color scheme and styling varied with great frequency. 

Jay’s design competes in vibrance with the primary colors of the Superman suit. This raises issues because the Asian Love interest is visually not subservient to the White Hero. The muted colors expected of any romantic interest is not present here, which immediately creates tension.

His design adheres to typical fashion choices in queer culture. The stereotype of a ‘pronoun haver with dyed’ hair has run rampant in recent years. While queerphobic individuals denigrate these features as something lesser, the queer community gravitates towards alternative design choices which turn eyes for a purpose. The LGBTQIA+ community uses alternate clothing, colors, and fashion pieces to mark themselves and their identity within the community, mainly to signal to other LGBTQIA+ individuals of their presence (Flags and Fashion: Expressions of Solidarity through Lesbian Clothing, Eleanor Medhurst). It is a form of solidarity.

Heteronormativity is defined by a set of social rules imposed on varying aspects of culture, from language to clothes, and the replication of these enforces what is ‘normal’. The fashion choices of the LGBTQIA+ community defy these rules despite efforts by these imposed social norms to police them. The heteronormative majority see it as their duty to correct these transgressions in hair color, clothing, speech, etc.

But, following these normative rules means the marginalized individual would have to put in extra labour to conform– to not be judged and refused. The queer person is expected to do this additional labour, and it falls to the marginalized people to negotiate within themselves the extent of compromise they must make for their own identity to fit into their environment (A gay reflection on microaggressions, symbolic normativities, and pink hair Aleksi Soini). The normative people are never challenged.

It is up to the LGBTQIA+ individual to prove themselves as ‘normal’. 

Solini’s article recounts a moment where a coworker of his stated, “‘You're okay; you're not one of those over-the-top faggots with bleached hair”. Heteronormativity functions in binaries. You are male or female. Similarly, you are straight or gay. There is of course, in the name of inclusion, a “normal” gay, and an “abnormal” gay.

Jay Nakamura would be considered the latter, because his character design is a representation of someone who takes no efforts to conform to heteronormativity. 

In the context of Superman: Son of Kal-El, he is a reporter who wants attention so that he may redirect it to protect refugees. He purposefully stands out with his chosen orange and green hoodies. His ability to stand out is a direct attack against the narrative created by the colonizer of his country, Henry Bendix.

Henry Bendix kidnapped Jay and his mother, Sara, to silence them. Sara was the former president of Gamorra, and ran against Henry Bendix in the previous elections. Bendix abducts these two in an effort to silence the call for the freedom of Gamorra. Jay is one among hundreds who are experimented on, essentially enslaved under Bendix’s command— a clear effort to erase their identities. It is implied his hair turned pink due to the experiments, since he has black hair in an alternate universe where Bendix did not colonize Gamorra.

His hair is a symbol of resistance within the story itself, since he gained it after surviving long periods of experimentation. On a metatextual level as a queer character, he represents the LGBTQIA+ tendency to transgress heternormativity. Subversion is an act of resistance. 

The aesthetic of “Superman and Lois Lane” appeals to conservative values, and this is often used to push the image of a perfect American Nuclear Family, leaning towards the stereotypes of yesteryears where ‘traditional values’ reigned supreme. Superman 2016 leans into this, the setting is an idyllic countryside village known as Hamilton. Lois Lane, defined as a career woman and intrepid journalist is confined to the home, and Clark is seen primarily around the farm. They are both removed from their profession meant to symbolize the protection and distribution of truth. Their clothing abides by these as well. Lois wears athleisure, tight tops and leggings, found in muted pinks and purples, as opposed to her rumpled office formals. Clark is often seen in flannel tops, jeans, and jackets, primarily in reds and muted blues and browns. Visually, they are meant to conform to the binary established by heteronormativity. The primary colors of the Superman suit are shown in tandem with the American Flag. There is space made for color, but only as long as it conforms.

Jon and Jay’s story is firmly set in the city of Metropolis and constantly circles the idea of truth, journalistic integrity, and propaganda. His unnatural hair and bright clothing stand in stark contrast to Superman 2016, disrupting the aesthetic rules of heteronormativity in the fabric of the Superman story.

The clear definition of his color story, as an Asian man, a queer man, and a love interest, creates tension within the world of comics.

Espionage and Distrust of Asian Characters.

As established previously, the World Wars, colonialism and the eugenicist taken on evolution embraced by the Western world in the 19th century led to a deep suspicion of anyone of East Asian descent. 

The belief in the shrewdness of Asian characters is reflected in the characterization of those like Talia. Talia is portrayed as having deeper meaning in all her actions. She leaks information to the heroes in ‘Tower of Babel’. In her time as the CEO of LexCorp, she sold all the assets to Bruce Wayne though she was portrayed as a villain. Her character is frequently presented as untrustworthy, and readers are made to question her every move. This is further reinforced by these double-crosses and information sharing. Similarly, Cheshire and Catman’s relationship in Secret Six is defined by deep distrust, Cheshire toys with Catman by hiding information and shifting loyalties depending on what is advantageous to her. Simone often comments on her sexual appeal being dangerous, and the ways in which she uses a character’s unwillingness to trust her to further intrigue and disseminate information.

As an Asian journalist, a refugee, and a recently-introduced love interest, Jay is in a position which raises anxieties in the common American comic reader who has been trained to distrust the idea of information in the hands of such an individual. The established tension arising from his character design motivates readers to uphold such suspicion.

The text of the story makes it explicit that he admires Lois Lane, and his position as the journalist love interest of Superman calls for parallels with Lois. His monicker, The Truth, is directly derived from the Superman slogan, ‘Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow’. Yet, there is fear that he is manipulating Jon.

The fight between the Axis and Allied powers led to a deep mistrust from the American against Japanese immigrants and American-Japanese citizens. General John L. DeWitt’s statement regarding the Japanese immigrant population summarizes the sentiments in this time:

Sinophobia continued to flourish, and was worsened with the accusation and trial of Wen Ho Lee, a naturalized American Citizen from Taiwan, who confessed to reporting classified information regarding nuclear weapons in America to Chinese scientists while visiting Beijing. The truth of this accusation remains contested, but the confession and sentencing led to the intensification of distrust in Chinese people.

The country of Gamorra is located in Asia, and is located south of Japan. It was created initially by Korean writers Brandon Choi and Jim Lee. Gamorra was colonized by those of Japanese descent, and it can be surmised it is an allegory for the colonization of Korea by the Japanese Empire. This history is not reflected in Superman: Son of Kal-El, and readers would identify Gamorra as vaguely Asian.

Though the Yellow Peril targeted various countries in different manners, xenohpobia and orientalism affected Asian populations on a similar scale. It was specifically, “the Whites” against “the Others”. The ambiguity of Jay’s Asian origin makes him a potential target for a combined imposition of stereotypes from varying Asian cultures.

The overall effect, is that in fiction, the Asian Lover cannot be trusted with information.

Seduction, Hypnotization and the threat of Sexuality

Morality Panic around the sexuality of Asian bodies has existed for centuries. The British population characterized Chinese immigrants as morally depraved, defining them as opium smoking individuals who indulged in gambling and prostitution. Setting aside the fact that the cause of the opium distribution in China was due to the British, and the first of the Opium Wars were fought because the Chinese government took measures to get rid of opium, the presence of Chinese populations in Britian was in defiance of the colonial mindset.

An increase in immigration occurred during the World Wars, and White Women grew more independent through the job opportunities created during this period. The reluctance of White Women to conform to the patriarchy and the increase in immigration, led to rumours of helpless white women being lost in the Limehouse streets, victim to the “moral depravity” of the Asian Man.

Sexuality has always been a source of control in the heteronormative patriarchy. The binary of male and female is defined by the subservience of women, sexually, to men. Specifically, white men. A loss of control in this sexuality for the White Man is a threat.

Cheshire, Lady Shiva, and Talia are portrayed as using their sexuality to weaken their White Male opponents. She is a threat because she results in a loss of control over libido, she weaponizes it against the White Hero. He falls victim to his sexuality, and is seen as helpless to these ‘charms’ and a hapless victim. Grant Morrison takes this much farther with Talia and Bruce, wherein she is implied to have sexually assaulted Bruce Wayne. The metaphor of sexuality as a weapon becomes that of overt assault, the stereotype stretched to its extreme. Cheshire’s seduction is shown as dangerous, and Thomas Blake is weakened drastically around her purely due to his attraction towards her. It seems her mere existence is a devastating blow. 

While the Asian Woman is a sexual object, one who seduces, a temptation which cannot be refuted, the Asian Man is portrayed as deeply undesirable and sexless. Anti-immigration laws, exclusion, and the deep history of Orientalism and Xenophobia ostracizes the Asian Man from American Masculinity, creating the “American male” and the “other”, thus stripping Asian Men of their masculinity. Due to masculinity being defined by sexuality, the othering of the Asian Man leads to an assignation of sexlessness (Park, M. (2012). Asian American masculinity eclipsed: A legal and historical perspective of emasculation through US immigration practices. Mod. Am., 8, 5).

They are feminized, portrayed as undesirable. Which leads to the stereotype of The Seducer, a byproduct of the Yellow Peril. Due to the perceived lack of desirability in Asian Men, their sexuality is instead portrayed as inherently predatory. Shanghai Express(1936) and The Cheat(1915) portray Asian Men as sexual predators victimizing white women, who must be rescued by the White Heroes. The Limehouse district of London were fear mongered as places where the Triad Gangsters would kidnap White Women and force them into sexual slavery (Witchard, Anne (4 February 2015). "Yellow Peril: Sinophobia and the Great War: a Q&A with Dr. Anne Witchard".).

Jay is a queer man, desired by a white man. On many occasions, Jon has initiated physical intimacy with Jay. White men, as we’ve seen before, are seen as victims of their libidos. But Asian men are sexless. A white man could not possibly truly desire for the Asian body, especially not for the Asian male body. The impositions of the aforementioned stereotypes in fiction have led to a disbelief in the existence of such a relationship configuration. Jay does not conform to the aesthetic of the Asian seductress, or of a feminization of any sort. Rather, he has glasses, fitting more into the Asian Nerd stereotype, which emerged from the demasculinization of Asian Men.

It is difficult for a comic reader, who has been hammered down with the idea of seduction, temptation and subterfuge around the Asian sexuality, to see Superman fall for an Asian boy with glasses, free of external manipulation. Jay with pink hair and a distinct lack of revealing outfits or overt sexual advances must then, therefore, be using some unseen and undetectable force, more sinister than can be imagined, shifting into the realm of the magical.

Whatever the explanation, it surely cannot be an honest desire.

And so it veers into speculations of seduction. Many had hilariously proposed that he had used pink kryptonite with sincerity. Plenty had examined the swirl-like pattern behind Jay in a singular panel to mean that he had used hypnosis. His joke about working with Lex Luthor to tease Jon was used as a confession of his crimes, and his plans were always to expose Jon's vulnerabilities. On and on they went

The label of ‘terrorist’, journalism, and the perception of refugees

This, is sensitive. I have often hesitated to speak about this to anyone due to how fresh the topic is, how real the violence of this can be. It is no secret, that the United States labels the populations it wishes to exploit or eradicate with the label of ‘terrorist’. The invasion of Iraq, the current unchecked occupation of Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, and the dismissal of Yemeni efforts to support the aforementioned countries is due to the labelling of a fight for liberation, for freedom, as ‘terrorist activity’. Heradstveit and Pugh put it best;

One of the primary ways in which a government increases its legitimacy and induces its population to support it above and beyond what their own interests dictate is by assimilating the concepts of ‘opposition’ and ‘crime’. It goes without saying that governments are meant to act against ‘crime’, at any rate crime committed by their less powerful subjects, as this is part of the definition of a government.

They propose that the label of ‘terrorism’ can cover anything from guerilla warfare, armed resistance, any form of political opposition, even those which are non-violent and can be classified as vandalism. Any action in opposition to the locus of control, is classified as terrorist activity.

Comics reflect reality, as mentioned at the beginning. Jay does the same in his journalism. The second issue of Superman: Son of Kal-El, portrays Jay reporting on a Gamorran refugee boat, which was sinking on its way to Metropolis. These are the first bits of dialogue we hear from Jay. He is aligned with an anarachist group called ‘The Revolutionaries’, who undertake armed violence in a fight for liberation. Batman puts the label of criminality and specifically, of terrorism, into the reader’s minds.

This is meant to be refuted, and it is within a single issue. But the readership saw it as confirmation of their suspicions arising from the previously mentioned points, while ignoring the critique on the US government. Jay’s position as a disenfranchised refugee is entirely forgotten, despite the text repeating his position at varying points. 

The seeming confirmation of the Asian seductress, of subterfuge, always takes precedence.

Superman comics have often been used to empower people. Superman’s story is inspired by Jewish myths and lived experiences. His status as an illegal immigrant has been covered across multiple mediums. He has smashed the Klan, he has helped free an enslaved world, he has helped people through their trauma, he has defended immigrants trying to find safety, assured queer children that they are loved and accepted, he fights corrupt billionaires who exploit the common folk. 

Jay’s story contributes to the same values, but he is dismissed purely on aesthetics and race. 

It is important to evaluate why certain characters make us uncomfortable. What elicits this reaction? What is the source? I would never urge someone to like a character, this is subjective but it is important to analyze where our biases can come from. Sometimes it is as harmless as being unable to relate to a story. On other occasions, it can be rooted in something as insidious as this. 

If you would like to make Jay a villain, or any hero into a villain for that matter, ask why.

[hug-your-face]

If the response to fascist bullying isn't to punch the Nazi, then it's the wrong response.

"Decorum" is not an effective strategy against an opponent that only understands fear and force. A really great story from Heather Cox Richardson.

...But today’s struggle within the Democratic Party shows a split between those who lead an opposition party devoted to keeping the government functioning, and a number of Democrats who are stepping into the position of leading the resistance to MAGA as it tries to destroy the American government. Praise for those resisters shows the popular demand for leaders who will stand up to Trump and Musk.

In a similar moment in 1856, newly elected representative from Massachusetts Anson Burlingame catapulted to popularity by standing up to the elite southern enslavers who had dominated the government for years.

Blustering, threatening, and manipulating the mechanics of the government, southern lawmakers had come to expect their northern political opponents, who valued civil discourse and compromise, to cave. Southern leaders threw their weight around to gather more and more power over the country into their hands. Finally, in 1854, they overreached, forcing through Congress the Kansas-Nebraska Act that permitted them to spread human enslavement into the American West. In the following elections, northerners sent to Congress a very different breed of representatives.

On May 22, 1856, pro-slavery representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina came up behind Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner and beat him nearly to death on the floor of the Senate after Sumner had given an antislavery speech Brooks found objectionable. But rather than pleading for calm and compromise in the wake of the attack, Burlingame had had enough. On June 21 he rose and gave a speech about his colleague and his state, calling it “Defence of Massachusetts.”

Burlingame stood up for his state, refuting the insults southerners had thrown at Massachusetts in recent speeches and insulting southerners in return. And Burlingame did something far more important. He called out the behavior of the southern leaders as they worked to attack the principles that supported “the very existence of the Government itself.”

“[T]he sons of Massachusetts are educated at the knees of their mothers, in the doctrines of peace and good will, and God knows, they desire to cultivate those feelings—feelings of social kindness, and public kindness,” Burlingame said. But he warned his southern colleagues that northerners were excellent soldiers and that “if we are pushed too long and too far,” northerners would fight to defend their lives, their principles, and their country.

Burlingame provoked Brooks, and he, temperamentally unable to resist any slight, challenged Burlingame to a duel. Brooks assumed all Yankees were cowards and figured that Burlingame would decline in embarrassment. But Burlingame accepted with enthusiasm, choosing rifles as the dueling weapons. Burlingame was an expert marksman.

Burlingame also chose to duel in Canada, giving Brooks the opportunity to back out on the grounds that he felt unsafe traveling through the North after his beating of Sumner made him a hated man. The negotiations for the duel went on for months, and the duel never took place. Burlingame had turned Brooks, known as ���Bully” Brooks, into a figure of ridicule, revealing that when he faced an equal opponent, his bravado was bluster.

Forgotten now, Burlingame’s speech was once widely considered one of the most important speeches in American history. It marked the moment when northerners shocked southerners by standing up to them and vowing that the North would fight for democracy. Northerners rallied to Burlingame’s call and, in so doing, reshaped politics.

Make your voice heard. Our congresscritters need to hear "If you're not going to FIGHT for democracy then make room for someone who WILL."

[ladyimaginarium]

"i'd punch a nazi!!" y'all can't even call in your own friends' biases & unfollow your antisemitic mutuals. y'all reverse shit yourselves over being called racist by poc & reblog "listen to poc voices!!" posts then be antisemitic but the second a jew tells you that you're being antisemitic y'all gaslight us & tell us we're lying & that you're "one of the good ones" or downplay it & only ever engage with the jewish community outside of low stakes fandom discourse & unlearn every type of racism & discrimination except antisemitism. like. stop being hypocrites. stop pretending to give a fuck about us. if you really gave a fuck about jews, you would've protected us from the fucking start & stood up against antisemitism even when it was hard no matter who it comes from, like anyone else. it's dehumanizing. i'm not upset or angry at people who simply don't know any better but when jews all across the political spectrum are telling you "hey, this is antisemitic, please stop saying this shit/supporting [insert antisemitic individuals and/or groups here]." & y'all refuse to listen to us, you're just antisemitic. it's performative activism & i'm so fucking over it.

[serenadeformice]

a lot of the peak discourse about steven universe, particularly surrounding forgiveness and the diamonds, in retrospect, was really severely rooted in an almost perverse obsession with punitive justice. an insistance that justice is torturing and hurting those who have done wrong. aside from the fact that its a kids show about forgiveness and love, idk. i dont think carceral justice is justice, i dont think punishing the wicked does anything for our society. that isnt to say violence is an invalid means of resistance, there are cases where it is necessary, but punching a nazi and taking control of a state to then wield its power against your political enemies are very different things. obviously. idk the point is i think the obsession with punishment in a lot of people's conception of justice is weird, it is just increasing the amount of pain in the world for no reason--it demonstrably has no effect on recidivism rates, it doesnt improve the material conditions of those victimized by someone who has done violence to them. just bums me out.

[queerpyracy]

this is punching nazis discourse all over again except you guys can't even handle the thought of just being mean online to stop them i honestly cannot handle this. i don't need to claim the moral high ground in stopping fascists i already have it by virtue of not being a fucking fascist

[ramoth13]

The Timeliness of Indiana Jones: A Look at Idealism in 2025

(Note: when using the term "myth" I mean social narrative and fiction as value; I do not mean to use myth as a stand-in for falsehood)

I want to start off by being exceptionally delicate regarding the application of narrative fiction in the real world. Everyone believes they are the hero of their story, the victim of fate, and only the villain that is most reasonable and deserved.

And even with that in mind, it can still be exceptionally tempting to pilfer the easiest and mundane examples from narrative to apply to whatever our current circumstances might be. Crying "wolf!" seems to be all the rage these days, and specificity and nuance are quickly becoming non-starters. When do we become desensitized to the warnings of Nazism and fascism? That time may have already arrived.

And yet, there's also been a contagious trend to explain away the banality surrounding our understanding of current events.

Look, whether you agree with the current administration or not (and to be open and forward with my biases for the sake of discourse, I very much so do not agree), we are not currently living in a fascist state. I, of course stress the word currently. You might say we are on our way there or that our ability to internally fight off such a state is quickly diminishing, but we are not yet subject to the every whim of a dictator. That said, the normality by which our current society is breaking down the institutional taboos is frightening. The normality and desensitization of unrighteous imagery is spreading with a new fervor.

That this particular gesture could be and has been explained away by a large portion of the larger social community is a good barometer of our atrophy.

It is worth noting that by using the term "unrighteous" my goal is to shift our understanding of the image away from a simply negative sign (in the same way we view, for instance, a flipped middle finger) and instead as something wholly unique and of inverted ethical value. The religious and moral weight of the term "righteous" should br understood as something to strive for, a goal not of superiority and purity, but of goodness and foundational to humanity.

And for any that might wish to misconstrue my intentions, I am not claiming that anyone in our government are Nazis. This essay is about symbolism and myth, what those in power "believe" is between them and God, or at the very least, not in my purview of discourse.

To understand this situation wherein unrighteous symbols are losing their negative, connotative currency, it's important also to consider the social landscape as well as the official one.

People, in general, understand this to be a negative position. Overall, people will reject this symbolism. Knowing that is important, but not the only point of value. That these symbols live on as a form of value is culturally significant. The taboo is still present, but the normalization of these symbols hints at a loss in meaning. This loss is gradual, not instantaneous.

We will never be a Nazi state.

That particular flavor of Fascism was seasonal, never to return again. But the symbols, motivations, hatred, and myths that powered that regime are always readily available to any power that might wish to use it.

So, how does any of this tie into Bethesda's response to Tomb Raider and Uncharted, Indiana Jones and the Great Circle?

When we understand propaganda as myth, we begin to see where the truth behind symbolism lies.

The swastika is not geometrically evil, but the symbol of meaning is.

We are slowly losing the importance of myth and symbol as a language of meaning. But the arrival of Indiana Jones is a return to meaning.

Playing as the titular character allows one the opportunity to engage in myth without the social baggage. Indiana Jones fights nazis in whatever form they show themselves, in whatever guise they pull. He never pulls punches. But the most important part of Indiana Jones is not that he fights the people, it's that he fights the Idealism of nazism. His violence isn't, I would argue, a trait of masculine dogma, but of radical ideology. Despite the clear contradiction, Indiana Jones' super power is his ability to maintain that there can be no exception when rejecting intolerance.

He is a pillar of virtue, a truth-seeker, a hero of both, intellectualism and empathy, a myth of resistance to tyranny.

There is little doubt that history will repeat itself in some form or another. But in the war of symbolism currently running rampant in the world, the nazi-punching seeker of truth feels like a breath of fresh air.

-

As an aside, the game is an excellent game and I highly recommend it.

~Ramoth13

[creidart]

Gotta love how many online leftist are all for "punching nazis" and "direct action" and then write about how wrong it is to give Ukraine weapons to kill russian soldiers that INVADED US and can we please just give up

Too many people view actual horrific events as online discourse and not living experiences of real people

[anti-terf-posts]

I just got two hate asks. I deleted both of them since I want this to be a discourse free blog, but I still wanted to share a bit of what one of them said, and ask for your guys' opinions

This person is claiming that I'm pro terf, because I'm turning regular pro-trans posts in anti-terf posts.

for example, take one of those "I love you trans people" posts. those posts mention nothing about terfs, but when I reblog them, I state "official anti-terf post". They compared it to people of colour having a party and enjoying their lives (I forgot the exact wording), but coming in and saying that its (metaphorically) a punch in the face to nazis.

The end of the post concluded with calling me an asshole. I'm wondering if taking these trans posts that mention nothing about terfs, and saying that they're "official anti terf posts" is an asshole move to do. And if so, any feedback is welcome, since I don't want to come across as one.

[biblioflyer]

Different Treks, Different Ethos? 

Is there authentic and valid disagreement between fans adjacent to the dumpster fires?

This is part of a series analyzing the finale of Discovery and the conflict between different aspects of the Star Trek fandom. This is in part inspired by and a reaction to a conversation between Andrew Heaton and Tim Shandefur on the Political Orphanage podcast. For more like this, use the Star Trek ethics tag.

I recently listened to a discussion between Andrew Heaton and Tim Sandefur on the Political Orphanage about the Politics of Star Trek, a couple of people I don’t particularly have a lot in common with except for a love of Star Trek. That being the case, it was an interesting exercise in seeing the franchise through someone else’s eyes. It was disorienting but interesting. 

Heaton displayed an impressive degree of understanding of views he may or may not share, but treats them with seriousness. I came away feeling like Sandefur in particular was caricaturing convictions he didn’t share and generally being deeply unfair, but it’s a viewpoint worth unpacking because I see variations on his arguments all over the place.

Essentially Sandefur draws a line between the Cold War liberalism of The Original Series and Star Trek The Next Generation, which he characterizes as “New Left”, maybe even “Post Modernist.” I’m fuzzy on whether he used the second term but I suspect he probably wouldn’t disagree given what I came to believe his definition of Post Modernist would be.

I know you may be already cringing because I brought up one of the biggest snarl worlds and thought terminating cliches in social discourse. I want to frontload this by saying that I think this is interesting, and even that it is probably reflective of a very real division in Trek fandom, not that I think Sandefur’s interpretation is fair minded or even accurate. He does get caught misremembering (a cynic might say butchering) Trek canon to make a point, but then who doesn’t have a tendency to emphasize the parts of the setting that affirm our convictions?

Kirkism

In Sandefur’s telling, the Cold War Liberalism of Kirk emphasizes equity, justice, intellectualism, is fundamentally optimistic about technology, is broadly positive about Western coded institutions and values, is prideful of its achievements, disdainful of ignorance (as defined by being scientifically backward or culturally illiberal), and perhaps most controversially: the Kirkian tradition is interventionist.

Kirk does not stop to ponder what the collateral damage will be from liberating the locals from an AI god before destroying said god. 

Kirk is mournful but resolute when it comes to arming a preindustrial people he is sympathetic to in order to ensure they are more evenly matched with a tribe the Klingons are arming. At no point does Kirk stop to interrogate what the gender, sexual, racial, religious, or political norms of said tribe are: it is enough that the tribe he is friendly with will at least be subjugated if not annihilated wholesale if Starfleet doesn’t arm them.

Kirk would not, and quite literally has not, hesitated to punch Nazis up to and including possibly causing an interstellar incident. Incidentally, in a sign the metapolitics of Star Trek may be swinging back to the Kirkian, Strange New Worlds even affirms that Kirk’s aggressiveness during the events of “The Balance of Terror” is the correct posture. Aggressively confronting an aggressor is depicted as essential for preventing a devastating interstellar war with the Romulans. 

I’m less persuaded about Burnham having been in the right with regards to “The Vulcan Hello” and the need to respond aggressively to the Klingons. There are a lot of variables between Shenzou opening hailing frequencies and T’kuvma becoming a martyr so I accept there is a strong argument for Burnham (and by extension, the “Kirkian tradition”) having been correct here.

So far, so interesting right? I would wager that your average social justice minded Trekkie is not actually finding fault with all of this if they weren’t immediately put off by the lack of severe criticism for Western values and institutions.

Kirk’s astropolitics meanwhile are complex. I would imagine a lot of us are uncomfortable with the idea of giving advanced weaponry to a preindustrial society no questions asked, but at the same time we don’t necessarily like the idea of them simply being wiped out. Do note that while the episode to my recollection presents this as a binary: arming or extinction, it is implicitly a trinary choice, it's just that the third option is really, really bad. That third option being directly interdicting weapon supplies from the Klingons and risking an interstellar war.

As far as the Discovery finale is concerned, the big thing is the techno optimism of TOS. Scientific progress is not unquestioned but it is generally portrayed as a positive.

There are certain verboten technologies in the TOS morality. Genetic engineering of humans to explicitly improve their physical and mental prowess is viewed as inevitably flinging the door wide open to fascism due to the way it creates “superior beings with superior ambition.” Likewise, the setting seems vaguely hostile to artificial intelligence. The common theme seems to be that these are crypto-illiberal technologies that seem highly likely to result in the subjugation of humans to amoral actors.

Yet when it comes to most other things, there’s rarely much in the way of introspection about whether sentient beings (I’m probably going to end up saying humanity a lot just for simplicity, which I know Azetbur would take me to task for due to its xenocentrism) have a right to “play God” or to use this or that technology responsibly. McCoy is often curmudgeonly but a lot of the time it seems like he’s written to be a silly luddite for Spock and Kirk to dunk on. Likewise McCoy is often skewered for his excitability by Spock, whom he regards as cold and amoral.

Next: Picardism and why what you would do to protect your favorite bar may not well advised for when nuclear weapons are involved.

[aorish]

im kinda split halfway on the "punching nazis" discourse because i think there are better hills to die on. but its interesting to see someone specifically using "nazis dont have a right to exist in public because i dont consent to seeing them" as a wedge to argue that kink shouldnt be allowed in public

like idk maybe when you have a set of acceptable targets against whom violence is always permitted it inevitably ends up with you reinventing fascism even when your acceptable targets are literally wearing swastikas.

[parageist]

easy voting discourse solution: everyone vote democrat just in case shit hits the fan, but at the same time keep fighting for peoples rights, social progress, and ancom ideals

that way we can ensure the election winner will be a blue nazi instead of a super duper red hell nazi republican, whilst also continuing progress towards an eventual socialist society

because as horrible as joe biden and other democrats are, you have to understand that if a republican gets elected millions will suffer. but either way, make sure to continue protesting, rioting, and punching nazis. we’ll get through this together folks, we just have to ensure we have at least some safeguards instead of just refusing to vote and letting the republicans win

i know that on tumblr it’s super easy to find really cool trans/lgbtq/poc punks but in reality we only make up a small portion of the population, and even if we all voted for a socialist party, it wouldn’t be anywhere near enough to win an election. so we have to make the unfortunate choice of picking the lesser of two evils and voting democrat.

also remember that your vote doesn’t have to mean that you 1000% wholeheartedly support every single thing that person has done. you can hate that person with a burning passion and still vote for them, because the alternative is giving a free vote to the even worse party. so if you see me or anyone else voting blue and encouraging others to do the same, it is not in any way an indication that we support and agree with everything the democrats have done.

no matter who we vote for, we’ll continue fighting for our rights by any means necessary

[lilac-set]

Theres nothing good that could come of me reblogging and adding onto the post i just saw so im gonna make a post about it

I think the problem is that this was a vent post that people were taking a discourse post, but OP’s goal wasnt nuanced discussion, it was to vent, so they took it as a threat and lashed out at any replies trying to have a discussion

The post was basically saying that it isnt fair that the rest of the world is under the authority of another government they dont even get to elect (the usa), which is absolutely true

A couple usamericans tried to say what im saying now but got about as misinterpreted as possible, i think. Because, again, responses were not welcome on this post. They werent trying to make everything about themselves, but were trying to defend themselves on a post attacking them personally. The post was already about usamerians, they didnt derail. They weren’t defending their government on a post attacking their government, they were defending themselves on a post attacking themselves

Because for some reason OP made this about american people rather than the american government

They (the americans) said “whos forcing you to care?”, that wasnt taken well, they ARE being forced to care, by the government. But i think what they were trying to say, what im trying to say, is that this is an institutional problem, not a personal problem. They werent whining about how much life in america is so much harder than it is in all the places that our government destroyed, they were trying to illustrate that we as people are doing everything we can to fix our government, for our own and the rest of the world’s sakes, not that we’re too busy with our own stupid american problems to care about all the genocides america is committing elsewhere, but that we know that us simply “caring” about whats going on isnt going to change it, what will change their situation is changing our own government, but just because we’re all doing as much as we can to make that happen doesnt mean we can just simply rebuild our country from scratch because we want to, it isnt that easy

What they were trying to say was that we’re in a similar boat of being oppressed by our government, youre punching laterally at us, not up. Not trying to make it about themselves, not trying to absolve their government, but just not being sure why this is being aimed at them as, ya know, not the government

It’d be like if during ww2 instead of saying “nazis are evil and deserve to die” or “hitler is evil and deserves to die”, you said “all german citizens are evil and deserve to die” - its understandable as a vent, but it just isnt true. And then you get a bunch of germans on your post like “actually we hate what’s going on and we’re really trying hard to change it” and you respond like “im gonna kill a german just because you said that, you really cant stop making it all about yourselves, huh? This is why i hate germans”

I just dont think its helpful to make sweeping generalizations that everyone of a certain nationality is evil, one because thats just a shitty thing to do in general (not as shitty as everything our government is doing, obviously, but again, at us people youre punching laterally. We could play the oppression olympics and make a detailed ranking of exactly which types of people in which countries have it the worst, and yeah probably no american is gonna be at the very bottom of that list, but i dont think that list *matters*, youre dead whether you drown in an inch of water or 10 feet, whether you were simply unsheltered or a nuclear bomb dropped on your town. We need to be on the same team), but also… how do i explain this… its disheartening, as americans, who have at least a little more power to change our own government than people elsewhere do, to be told youre evil no matter what. Theres no point in voting, theres no point in calling reps, theres no point in signing petitions, theres no point going to protests, even running for office, etc, those things have no effect on the fact that youre evil and youre part of the problem. Theres no such thing as a good action, there isnt even a neutral action, everything you can do is evil, because youre an american, so quit trying, by trying youre just making it even more about yourselves. And god forbid you participate in any sort of mutual aid to keep another american from dying, those resources could be used to keep someone good from dying

This is bad, yeah?