#not even getting into racism/sexism & review bombing | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

innuendostudios · 3 years ago

Text

youtube

I was invited to give a talk on GamerGate over Zoom in early 2021. I've long been frustrated that there isn't a good timeline of GG and its origins on YouTube. When people ask "what the hell was GG anyway?" they often get referred to my or Dan Olson's videos on the subject, but both of them were made while GG was ongoing, and presumed a degree of familiarity on the part of the audience. There was just too much to say about what was already happening to spend time getting the audience up to speed, and it was safe to assume our audiences had enough context to follow along. But time moves fast on the internet, and many people who now care about such things weren't there while it was happening, and are lacking the necessary context to follow the better videos. For a long time, I've only been able to direct them to RationalWiki's timeline, which is excellent but so exhaustively comprehensive that it's likely to scare off first-timers.

I realize an hourlong lecture isn't necessarily helping matters, but the first 20-or-so minutes of this video are my attempt at streamlining the timeline such that people can be up to speed on the most important stuff fairly quickly. The rest is talking about what it all meant, how it prefigured the Alt-Right, and using it to better understand digital radicalization.

This video was made with the help of Magdalen Rose, who edited the slides to the audio while I was laid up with a back injury. Go sub to her channel! And please back me on Patreon.

Transcript below the cut.

FUCKING VIDEO GAMES? FUCKING VIDEO GAMES. THEY MADE DOZENS OF PEOPLE MISERABLE FOR YEARS OVER VIDEO GAMES! NOT EVEN FUCKING VIDEO GAMES, FUCKING ARTICLES ABOUT FUCKING VIDEO GAMES. THIS IS WHAT PASSES FOR LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCE. ARE YOU KIDDING ME WITH THIS SHIT??

Hi! My name is Ian Danskin. I’m a video essayist and media artist. I run the YouTube channel Innuendo Studios, please like share and subscribe.

I’m here to talk to you about GamerGate, and I needed to get all that out of the way. I’m going to talk about what GamerGate was and how it prefigured The Alt-Right, and there are gonna be moments where you’re nodding along with me, going, “yeah, yeah I get it,” and then the sun’s gonna break through a crack in the wall and you’ll suddenly remember that all this is happening because some folks - mostly ladies - said some stuff - provably true stuff, I might add - about video games and a bunch of guys didn’t like it, and you’re gonna want to rip your hair out. By the end of this, you will have a better understanding of what happened, but it will never not be bullshit.

Also, oh my god, content warning. Racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, rape threats, threats of violence, domestic abuse - I’m not going to depict or describe at length any of the worst stuff, but it’s all in the mix. So if at any point you need to switch me off or mute me, you have my blessing.

Brace yourselves.

Some quick prehistory:

In 2012, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian ran a Kickstarter campaign for a YouTube series on sexist tropes in video games. And, partway through the campaign, 4chan found it and said “let’s ruin her life.” And a lot of the male general gaming public joined in. And by “ruin her life” I’m not talking 150 angry tweets including dozens of rape and death threats per week, though that was a thing. I’m talking bomb threats. I’m talking canceled speaking engagements because someone threatened to shoot up a school. I’m talking FBI investigation. The harassers faced no meaningful repercussions.

And in 2013, Zoe Quinn released Depression Quest, a free text game about living with depression. They received harassment off and on for the next year, most pointedly from an incel forum called Wizardchan that doxxed their phone number and made harassing phone calls telling them to kill themself. The harassers faced no meaningful repercussions.

(Also, quick note: Zoe Quinn is nonbinary and has come out since the events in question. When I call Zoe’s harassment misogynist, understand I am not calling Zoe a woman, but they were attacked by people who hate women because that’s how they were perceived. Had they been out at the time things probably would’ve gone down similarly, but on top of misogyny I’d be talking about nonbinary erasure and transphobia.)

Okay. Our story begins in August 2014. The August that never ended.

Depression Quest, after a prolonged period on Greenlight, finally releases on Steam as a free download with the option to pay what you want. In the days that follow, Zoe’s ex-boyfriend, Eron Gjoni, writes a nearly 10,000-word blog called The Zoe Post, in which he claims Quinn had been a shitty and unfaithful partner. (For reference, 10,000 words is long enough that the Hugos would consider it a novelette.) This is posted to forums on Penny Arcade and Something Awful, both of which immediately take it down, finding it, at best, a lot of toxic hearsay and, at worse, an invitation to harassment. So Gjoni workshops the post, adds a bunch of edgelord humor (and I am using the word “humor” very generously), and reposts it to three different subforums on 4chan.

We’re not going to litigate whether Zoe Quinn was a good partner. I don’t know or care. I don’t think anyone on this call is trying to date them so I’m not sure that’s our business. What is known is that the relationship lasted five months, and, after it ended, Gjoni began stalking Quinn. Gjoni has, in fact, laid out how he stalked Quinn in meticulous detail to interviewers and why he feels it was justified. It’s also been corroborated by a friend that Quinn briefly considered taking him back at a games conference in San Francisco, but he became violent during sex and Quinn left the apartment in the middle of the night with visible bruises.

Off of the abusive ex-boyfriend’s post, 4chan decides it’s going to make Zoe Quinn one of their next targets, and starts a private IRC channel to plan the campaign. The channel is called #BurgersAndFries, a reference to Gjoni claiming Quinn had cheated on him with five guys. A couple sentences in The Zoe Post - which Gjoni would later claim were a typo - imply that one of the five guys was games journalist Nathan Grayson and that Quinn had slept with him in exchange for a good review of Depression Quest. Given the anger that they’d seen drummed up against women in games with the previous Anita Sarkeesian hate mob, #BurgersAndFries decides to focus on this breach of “ethics in games journalism” as a cover story, many of them howling with laughter at the thought that male gamers would probably buy it. This way, destroying Quinn’s life and career and turning their community against them would appear an unfortunate byproduct of a legitimate consumer revolt; criticism of the harassment could even be framed as a distraction from the bigger issue. Gjoni himself is in the IRC channel telling them that this was the best hand to play.

The stated aim of many on #BurgersAndFries was to convince Quinn to commit suicide.

Two regulars in the IRC, YouTubers MundaneMatt and Internet Aristocrat, make videos about The Zoe Post. Incidentally, both these men had already made a lot of money off videos about Anita Sarkeesian. Matt’s is swiftly taken down with a DMCA claim, and he says that Quinn filed the claim themself. (For the record, in those days, YouTube didn’t tell you who filed DMCA claims against you.) Members of the IRC also reach out to YouTuber TotalBiscuit, who had been critical of Sarkeesian and dismissive of her harassment, and he tweets the story to his 350,000 followers, saying a game developer trading sex for a good review might not prove true, but was certainly plausible.

This is where GamerGate begins to get public traction.

Zoe Quinn is very swiftly doxxed, with their phone number, home address, nudes, and names and numbers of their family collected. Gjoni himself leaks their birth name. The Zoe Post, and the movement against Quinn - now dubbed “The Quinnspiracy” - make it to The Escapist and Reddit, which mods will have little luck removing. The Quinnspiracy declares war on any site that does take their threads down, most vehemently NeoGAF. People who defend Zoe against the harassment start getting doxxed themselves - Fez developer Phil Fish is doxxed so thoroughly, hackers get access to the root folder of his website.

In what I’m going to call This Should Have Been The End, Part 1, Stephen Totilo, Editor-in-Chief at Kotaku where Nathan Grayson worked, in response to pressure not just from The Quinnspiracy but an increasing number of angry gamers buying The Quinnspiracy’s narrative, publishes a story. In it he verifies that Quinn and Grayson did date for several months, and that not only is there no review of Depression Quest anywhere on Kotaku, not by Grayson nor anyone else, but that Grayson did not write a single word about Quinn the entire time they were dating.

In response, The Quinnspiracy declares war on Kotaku. r/KotakuinAction is formed, which will become the primary site of organization outside of chanboards. The fact that their entire “movement” is based on a review that does not exist changes next to nothing.

Some people start to see The Quinnspiracy as potentially profitable. The Fine Young Capitalists get involved, a group ostensibly working to get women into video games but who have a Byzantine plan to do so wherein they crowdfund the budget and the woman who wins a competition gets to storyboard a game, but another company will make and she will get 8% of the profits, the rest going to a charity chosen by the top donor. 4chan becomes the top donor. They like TFYC because the head of the company has a vendetta against Zoe Quinn, who had previously called them out for their transphobic submission policy, and he falsely accused Quinn of having once doxxed him. 4chan feels backing an ostensibly feminist effort will be good PR, but can’t resist selecting a colon cancer charity because, they say, feminism is cancer and they want to be the cure to butthurt. They also get to design a character for the game, and so they create Vivian James, who will become the GamerGate mascot.

Manosphere YouTubers Jordan Owen and Davis Aurini launch a Patreon campaign for their antifeminist documentary The Sarkeesian Effect and come to The Quinnspiracy looking for $15,000 a month for an indefinite period to make it, which they get.

In what will prove genuinely awful timing, Anita Sarkeesian releases the second episode of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, and, despite not being a games journalist and having nothing to do with Quinn or Grayson, she is immediately roped into the narrative about how feminists are ruining games culture and becomes the second major target of harassment. Both she and Quinn soon have to leave their houses after having receiving dozens and dozens of death threats that include their home addresses.

After being courted by members of the IRC channel, Firefly star Adam Baldwin tweets a link to one of the Quinnspiracy videos and coins the hashtag #GamerGate. This is swiftly adopted by all involved.

In response to all this, Leigh Alexander writes a piece for Gamasutra arguing that the identity that these men are flocking to the “ethics in games journalism” narrative to defend no longer matters as a marketing demographic. Gaming and games culture is so large and so varied, and the “core gamer” audience of 18-34 white bros growing smaller and septic, that there was no reason, neither morally nor financially, to treat them as the primary audience anymore. Love of gaming is eternal, but, she declared, “gamers,” as an identity, “are over.” Eight more articles contextualizing GamerGate alongside misogyny and the gatekeeping of games culture come out across several websites in the following days. GamerGate frames these as a clear sign of [deep sigh] collusion to oppress gamers, proving that ethics in games journalism is, indeed, broken, and Leigh Alexander becomes the third major target of harassment. These become known as the “gamers are dead” articles - a phrase not one of them uses - and they make “get Leigh Alexander fired from Gamasutra” one of their primary goals.

Something I need you to understand is that it has, at this point, been two weeks.

Highlights from the next little bit: Alex Macris, a higher up at The Escapist’s parent company, expresses support for GamerGate; he will go on to write the first positive coverage at a major publication and cement The Escapist as GamerGate-friendly. Mike Cernovich, aka “Based Lawyer,” gets GamerGate’s attention by mocking Anita Sarkeesian; he will go on to hire a private investigator to stalk Zoe Quinn. GamerGate launches Operation Disrespectful Nod, an email campaign pressuring companies to pull advertising from websites that have criticized them. They leverage their POC members, getting them, any time someone points out the rampant racism and antisemitism among GamerGaters, to say “I am a person of color and I am #NotYourShield”; most of these “POC members” are fake accounts left over from a previous, racist disinformation campaign. Milo Yiannapoulos gets involved, writing positive coverage of GG despite having mocked gamers for precisely this behavior in the past, and gets so much traffic it pulls Breitbart News out of obscurity and makes it a significant player in modern conservative news media.

[Hey! Ian from the future here. This talk mostly addresses how GamerGate prefigured the Alt-Right strategically and philosophically, but if you want a more explicit, material connection: Breitbart News took its newfound notoriety to become, as its Executive Chair phrased it in 2016, "a platform for the Alt-Right." That Executive Chair was Steve Bannon, who threw the website's weight behind The Future President Who Shall Not Be Named, and, upon getting his attention, would then go on to become his campaign strategist and work in his Administration. So, if you're wondering how one of the central figures of the Alt-Right ended up in the White House, the answer is literally "GamerGate." Back to you, Ian from the past!]

In what I’m calling This Should Have Been The End, Part 2, Zoe Quinn announces that they have been lurking the #BurgersAndFries IRC channel since the beginning and releases dozens of screenshots showing harassment being planned and the selection of “ethics in games journalism” as a cover. #BurgersAndFries has a meltdown, everyone turns on each other, and the channel is abandoned. And they then start another IRC and things proceed.

It goes on like this. I’m not gonna cover everything. This is just the first month. It should be clear by now that this thing is kind of unkillable. And I worry I haven’t made it obvious that this is not just a chanboard and an IRC. Thousands of regular, every day gamers were buying the story and joining in. They were angry, and no amount of evidence that their anger was unfounded was going to change that. You could not mention or even allude to GamerGate and not get flooded with dozens, even hundreds of furious replies. These replies always included the hashtag so everyone monitoring it could join in, so all attempts at real conversation devolved into a hundred forking threads where some people expected you to talk to them while others hurled insults and slurs. And always the possibility that, if any one of them didn’t like what you said, you’d be the next target.

To combat this, some progressives offered up the hashtag #GameEthics to the people getting swept up in GamerGate, saying, “look, we get that you’re angry, and if you want to talk about ethics in games journalism, we can totally do that, but using your hashtag is literally putting us in danger; they calling the police on people saying there’s a hostage situation at their home addresses so they get sent armed SWAT teams, and if you’ll just use this other hashtag we can have the conversation you say you want to have in safety.” And I will ever stop being salty about what happened.

They refused. They wouldn’t cede any ground to what they saw as their opposition. It was so important to have the conversation on their terms that not only did they refuse to use #GameEthics, they spammed it with furry porn so no one could use it.

A few major events on the timeline before we move on: Christina Hoff Sommers, the Republican Party’s resident “feminist,” comes out criticizing Anita Sarkeesian and becomes a major GG figurehead, earning the title Based Mom. Zoe Quinn gets a restraining order against Eron Gjoni, which he repeatedly violates, to no consequence; GG will later crowdfund his legal fees. There’s this listserv called GameJournoPros where game journalists would talk about their jobs, and many are discussing their concerns over GamerGate, so Milo Yiannopoulos leaks it and this is framed as further “proof of collusion.” 4chan finally starts enforcing its “no dox” rules and shuts GamerGate threads down, so they migrate to 8chan, a site famous for hosting like a lot of child porn. Indie game developer Brianna Wu makes a passing joke about GamerGate on Twitter and they decide, seemingly on a whim, to make her one of the biggest targets in the entire movement; she soon has to leave her home as well. GamerGate gets endorsements from WikiLeaks, Infowars, white nationalist sites Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, and professional rapist RooshV. And hundreds of people get doxxed; an 8chan subforum called Baphomet is created primarily to host dox of GamerGate’s critics.

But by November, GamerGate popularity was cresting, as more and more mainstream media covered it negatively. Their last, big spike in popularity came when Anita Sarkeesian went on The Colbert Report and Stephen made fun of the movement. Their numbers never recovered after that.

Which is not to say GamerGate ended. It slowed down. The period of confusion where the mainstream world couldn’t tell whether it was a legitimate movement or not passed. But, again, most harassers faced no meaningful repercussions. Gamers who bought the lie about “ethics in games journalism” stayed mad that no one had ever taken them seriously, and harassers continued to grief their targets for years. The full timeline of GamerGate is an constant cycle of lies, harassment, operations, grift, and doxxing. Dead-enders are to this day still using the hashtag. And remember how Anita had nothing to do with ethics in games journalism or Zoe Quinn, and they just roped her in because they’d enjoyed harassing her before so why not? Every one of GamerGate’s targets knows that they may get dragged into some future harassment campaign just because. It’s already happened to several of them. They’re marked.

(sigh) Let’s take a breath.

Now that we know what GamerGate was, let’s talk about why it worked.

In the thick of GamerGate, I started compiling a list of tactics I saw them using. I wanted to make a video essay that was one part discussion of antifeminist backlash, and one part list of techniques these people use so we can better recognize and anticipate their behavior. That first part became six parts and the second part went on a back burner. It would eventually become my series, The Alt-Right Playbook. GamerGate is illustrative because most of what would become The Alt-Right Playbook was in use.

Two foundational principles of The Alt-Right Playbook are Control the Conversation and Never Play Defense. Make sure people are talking about what you want them to talk about, and take an aggressive posture so you look dominant even when you’re not making sense. For instance: once Zoe leaked the IRC chatlogs, a reasonable person could tell the average gater, “the originators of GamerGate were planning harassment from the very beginning.” But the gater would say, “you’re cherry-picking; not everyone was a harasser.”

Now, this is a bad argument - that’s not how you use “cherry-picking” - and it’s being framed as an accusation - you’re not just wrong, you’re dishonest - which makes you wanna defend yourself. But, if you do - if you tell them why that argument is crap - you’ve let the conversation move from “did the IRC plan harassment?” - a question of fact - to “are the harassers representative of the movement?” - a question of ethics. Like, yes, they are, but only within a certain moral framework. An ethics question has no provable answer, especially if people are willing to make a lot of terrible arguments. It is their goal to move any question with a definitive answer to a question of philosophy, to turn an argument they can’t win into an argument nobody can win.

The trick is to treat the question you asked like it’s already been answered and bait you into addressing the next question. By arguing about whether you’re cherry-picking, you’re accepting the premise that whether you’re cherry-picking is even relevant. Any time this happens, it’s good to pause and ask, “what did we just skip over?” Because that will tell you a lot.

What you skipped over is their admission that, yes, the IRC did plan harassment, but that’s only on them if most of the movement was in on it. Which is a load of crap - the rest of the IRC saw it happening, let it happen, it’s not like anybody warned Zoe, and shit, I’m having the cherry-picking argument! They got me! You see how tempting it is? But presumably the reason you brought the harassment up is because you want them to do something about it. At the very least, leave the movement, but ideally try and stop it. They don’t, strictly speaking, need to feel personally responsible to do that. And you might be thinking, well, maybe if I can get them take responsibility then they’ll do something, but you’d be falling for a different technique I call I Hate Mondays.

This is where people will acknowledge a terrible thing is happening, maybe even agree it’s bad, but they don’t believe anything can be done about it. They also don’t believe you believe anything can be done about it. Mondays suck, but they come around every week. This is never stated outright, but it’s why you’re arguing past each other. To them, the only reason to talk about the bad thing is to assign blame. Whose turn is it to get shit on for the unsolvable problem? Their argument about cherry-picking amounts to “1-2-3 not it.” And they are furious with you for trying to make them responsible for harassment they didn’t participate in.

The unspoken argument is that harassment is part of being on the internet. Every public figure deals with it. This ignores any concept of scale - why does one person get harassed more than another? - but you can’t argue with someone who views it as a binary: harassment either happens or it doesn’t, and, if it does, it’s a fact of life, and, if it happens to everyone, it’s not gendered. And this is not a strongly-held belief they’ve come to after years of soul-searching - this is what they’ve just decided they believe. They want to participate in GamerGate despite knowing its purpose, and this is what would need to be true for that to be ok.

Or maybe they’re just fucking with you! Maybe you can’t tell. Maybe they can’t tell, either. I call this one The Card Says Moops, where people say whatever they feel will score points in an argument and are so irony-poisoned they have no idea whether they actually believe it. A very useful trick if the thing you appear to believe is unconscionable. You can’t take what people like that say at face value; you can only intuit their beliefs from their actions. They say they believe this one minute and that another, but their behavior is always in accordance with that, not this.

In the negative space, their belief is, “The harassment of these women is okay. My anger about video games is more important. I may not be harassing them myself, but they do kind of deserve it.” They will never say this out loud in a serious conversation, though many will say it in an anonymous or irreverent space where they can later deny they meant it. But, whatever they say they believe, this is the worldview they are operating under.

Obscuring this means flipping through a lot of contradictory arguments. The harassment is being faked, or it’s not being faked but it’s being exaggerated, or it’s not being exaggerated but the target is provoking it to get attention, which means GamerGate harassers simultaneously don’t exist, exist in small numbers, and exist in such large numbers someone can build a career out of relying on them! It can be kind of fun to take all these arguments made in isolation and try to string together an actual position. Like, GamerGate would argue that Nathan Grayson having previously mentioned Zoe Quinn in an article about a canceled reality show counts as positive coverage, and since Grayson reached out to Quinn for comment it’s reasonable to assume they started dating before the article was published (which is earlier than they claim), and positive coverage did lead to greater popularity for Depression Quest. But if you untangle that, it’s like… okay, you’re saying Zoe Quinn slept with a journalist in exchange for four nonconsecutive sentences that said no more than “Zoe Quinn exists and made a game,” and the price of those four sentences was to date the journalist for months, all to get rich off a game that didn’t cost any money. That’s your movement?

And some, if cornered, would say, “yes, we believe women are just that shitty, that one would fuck a guy for months if it made them the tiniest bit more famous.” But they won’t lead with that. Because they know it won’t convince the normies, even the ones who want to be convinced. So they use a process I call The Ship of Theseus to, piece by piece, turn that sentence into “slept with a journalist in exchange for a good review” and argue that each part of the sentence is technically accurate. It’s trying to lie without lying. And, provided all the pieces of this sentence are discussed separately, and only in the context of how they justify this sentence, you can trick yourself into believing this sentence is mostly true.

So, like, why? This is clearly motivated reasoning; what’s the motivation? What was this going to accomplish?

The answer is nothing. Nothing, by design. GamerGate’s “official” channels - the subreddit and the handful of forums that didn’t shut them down - were rigidly opposed to any action more organized than an email campaign. They had a tiny handful of tangible demands - they wanted gaming websites to post public ethics policies and had a list of people they wanted fired - but their larger aim was the sea change in how games journalism operated, which nothing they were asking for could possibly give them. The kind of anger that convinces you this is a true statement is not going to be addressed by a few paragraphs about ethics and Leigh Alexander getting a new job. They wanted gaming sites to stop catering to women and “SJWs” - who were a sizable and growing source of traffic - and to get out of the pockets of companies that advertised on their websites - which was their primary source of income. So all Kotaku had to do to make them happy was solve capitalism!

Meanwhile, the unofficial channels, like 8chan and Baphomet, were planning op after op to get private information, spread lies with fake accounts, get disinformation trending, make people quit jobs, cancel gigs, and flee their homes. Concrete goals with clear results. All you had to do to feel productive was go rogue. In my video,

How to Radicalize a Normie, I describe how the Alt-Right encourages lone wolf behavior by whipping people up into a rage and then refusing to give them anything to do, while surrounding them with examples of people taking matters into their own hands. The same mechanism is in play here: the public-facing channels don’t condone harassment but also refuse to fight it, the private channels commit it under cover of anonymity, and there is a free flow of traffic between them for when the official channels’ impotence becomes unbearable.

What I hope I’m illustrating is how these techniques play off of each other, how they create a closed ecosystem that rational thought cannot enter. There’s a phrase we use on the internet that got thrown around a lot at the time:

you can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into.

Now, there are a few other big topics I think are relevant here, so I want to go through them one by one.

MEMEIFICATION

So a lot of interactions with GamerGate would involve a very insular knowledge base.

Like, you’d say something benign but progressive on Twitter.

A gater would show up in your mentions and say something aggressive and false.

You’d correct them. But then they’d come back and hit you with -

ah shit, sorry, this is a Loss meme.

If I were in front of a classroom I’d ask, show of hands, how many of you got that? I had to ask Twitter recently, does Gen Z know about Loss?!

If you don’t know what Loss is I’m not sure I can explain it to you. It’s this old, bad webcomic that was parodied so, so, so many times

that it was reduced to its barest essentials, to the point where any four panels with shapes in this arrangement is a Loss meme. For those of you in the know, you will recognize this anywhere, but have you ever tried to explain to someone who wasn’t in the know why this is really fuckin’ funny?

So, now… by the same process that this is a comics joke,

this is a rape joke.

I’m not gonna show the original image, but, once upon a time, someone made an animated GIF of the character Piccolo from Dragon Ball Z graphically raping Vegeta. 4chan loved it so much that it got posted daily, became known as the “daily dose,” until mods started deleting every incident of it. So they uploaded slightly edited version of it. Then they started uploading other images that had been edited with Piccolo’s color scheme. It got so abstracted that eventually any collection of purple and green pixels would be recognized as Piccolo Dick.

Apropos of nothing, GamerGate is a movement that insists it is not sexist in nature and it does not condone threats of rape against the women they don’t like. And this is their logo. This is their mascot.

If you’re familiar with the Daily Dose, the idea that GamerGate would never support Eron Gjoni if they believed he was a sexual abuser is so blatantly insincere it’s insulting… but imagine trying to explain to someone who’s not on 4chan how this sweater is a rape joke. Imagine having to explain it to a journalist. Imagine having to explain it to the judge enforcing your abuser’s restraining order.

Reactionaries use meme culture not just because they’re terminally online but also because it makes their behavior seem either benign or just confusing to outsiders. They find it hilarious that they can be really explicit and still fly under the radar. The Alt-Right did this with Pepe the Frog, the OK sign, even the milk glass emoji for a hot minute. The more inexplicable the meme, the better. You get the point where Stephen Miller is flashing Nazi signs from the White House and the Presidential re-eletion campaign is releasing 88 ads of exactly 14 words and there’s still a debate about whether the administration is racist. Because journalists aren’t going to get their heads around that. You tell them “1488 is a Nazi number,” it’s gonna seem a lot more plausible that you’re making shit up.

MOVE FAST AND BREAK THINGS

Online movements like GamerGate move at a speed and mutation rate too high for the mainstream world to keep up. And not just that they don’t understand the memes - they don’t understand the infrastructure.

In an attempt to cover GamerGate evenhandedly, George Wiedman of Super Bunnyhop interviewed a lawyer who specializes in journalistic ethics. He meant well; I really wish he hadn’t. You can see him trying to fit something like GamerGate into terms this silver-haired man who works in copyright law can understand. At one point he asks if it’s okay to fund the creative project of a potential journalistic source, to which the guy understandably says “no.”

What he’s alluding to here is the harassment of Jenn Frank. A few weeks into GamerGate, Jenn Frank writes a piece in The Guardian about sexism in tech that mentions Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. In another case of “here’s a strongly-held belief I just decided I have,” GamerGate says this is a breach of journalistic ethics because Frank backs Quinn on Patreon. They harass her so intensely she not only has to quit her job at The Guardian, for several months she quits journalism entirely.

Off the bat, calling a public figure central to a major event in the field a “journalistic source” is flatly wrong-headed. Quinn was not interviewed or even contacted for the article, they were in no way a “source”; they were a subject. But I want to talk about this phrase, “fund a creative project.” Patreon is functionally a subscription; it’s a way of buying things. It’s technically accurate that Frank is funding Quinn’s creative project, but only in the sense that you are funding Bob Dylan’s creative project if you listen to his music. And saying Frank therefore can’t write about Quinn is like saying a music journalist can’t cover a Bob Dylan concert if they’ve ever bought his albums.

And we could talk about the ways that Patreon, as compared with other funding models, can create a greater sense of intimacy, and we also could comment that, well, that’s how an increasing number of people consume media now, so that perspective should be present in journalism. But maybe it means we should cover that perspective differently? I don’t know. It’s an interesting subject. But none of that’s going on in this conversation because this guy doesn’t know what Patreon is. It was only a year old at this point. Patreon’s been a primary source of my income for 5 years and my parents still don’t know what it is. (I think they think I’m a freelancer?) This guy hears “funding a creative project” and he’s thinking an investor, someone who makes a profit off the source’s success.

The language of straight society hasn’t caught up with what’s happening, and that works in GamerGate’s favor.

In the years since GamerGate we have dozens of stories of people trying to explain Twitter harassment to a legal system that’s never heard of Twitter. People trying to explain death threats to cops whose only relationship to the internet is checking email, confusedly asking, “Why don’t you just not go online?” Like, yeah, release your text game about depression at GameStop for the PS3 and get it reviewed in the Boston Globe, problem solved.

You see this in the slowness of mainstream journalists to condemn the harassment - hell, even games journalists at first. Because what if it is a legitimate movement? What if the harassers are just a fringe element? What if there was misconduct? The people in a position to stop GamerGate don’t have to be convinced of their legitimacy, they just have to hesitate. They just have to be unsure. Remember how much happened in just the first two weeks, how it took only a month to become unkillable.

It’s the same hesitance that makes mainstream media, online platforms, and law enforcement underestimate The Alt-Right. They’re terrified of condemning a group as white nationalist terrorists because they’re confused, and what if they’re wrong? Or, in most cases, not even afraid they’re wrong, but afraid of the PR disaster if too much of the world thinks they’re wrong.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTROL

A thing I’ve talked about in The Alt-Right Playbook is how these decentralized, ostensibly leaderless movements insulate themselves from responsibility. Harassment is never the movement’s fault because they never told anyone to harass and you can’t prove the harassers are legitimate members of the movement. The Alt-Right does this too - one of their catchphrases is “I disavow.” Since there are no formalized rules for membership, they can redraw boundaries on the fly; they can take credit for any successes and deny responsibility for any wrongdoing. Public membership is granted or revoked based on a person’s moment-to-moment utility.

It’s almost like… they’re cherry-picking.

The flipside of this is a lack of control. Since they never officially tell anyone to do anything but write emails, they have no means of stopping anyone from behaving counterproductively. The harassment of Jenn Frank was the first time GamerGate’s originators thought, “maybe we should ease off just to avoid bad publicity,” and they found they couldn’t. GamerGate had gotten too big, and too many people were clearly there for precisely this reason.

They also couldn’t control the infighting. When your goal is to harass women and you have all these contradictory justifications for why, you end up with a lot of competing beliefs. And, you know what? Angry white men who like harassing people don’t form healthy relationships! Several prominent members of GamerGate - including Internet Aristocrat - got driven out by factionalism; they were doxxed by their own people! Jordan Owen and Davis Aurini parted ways hating each other, with Aurini releasing chatlogs of him gaslighting Owen about accepting an endorsement from Roosh, and they released two competing edits of The Sarkeesian Effect.

I say this because it’s useful to know that these are alliances of convenience. If you know where the sore spots are, you can apply pressure to them.

LEADERS WITHOUT LEADERSHIP

One way movements like GamerGate deflect responsibility is by declaring, “We are a leaderless movement! We have no means to stop harassment.”

Which… any anarchist will tell you collective action is entirely possible without leaders. But they’ll also tell you, absent a system of distributing power equitably, you’re gonna have leaders, just not ones you elected.

A few months into GamerGate, Randi Lee Harper created the ggautoblocker. Here’s what it did: it took five prominent GamerGate figures - Adam Baldwin, Mike Cernovich, Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Nick Monroe, formerly known as [sigh] PressFartToContinue - and generated a block list of everyone who followed at least two of them on Twitter. Now, this became something of an arms race; once GamerGate found out about it they made secondary accounts that followed different people, and more and more prominent figures appeared and had to get added to the list. But, when it first launched, the list generated from just these five people comprised an estimated 90-95% of GamerGate.

Hate to break it to you, guys, but if 90+ percent of your movement is following at least two of the same five people, those are your leaders. The attention economy has produced them. Power pools when left on its own.

This is another case where you have to ignore what people claim and look at what they do. The Alt-Right loves to say “we disavow Richard Spencer” and “Andrew Anglin doesn’t speak for us.”

But no matter what they say, pay attention to whom they’re taking cues from.

AD CAMPAIGN

George Lakoff has observed that one way the Left fails in opposition to the Right is that most liberal politicians and campaigners have degrees in things like law and political science, where conservative campaigners more often have degrees in advertising and communications. Liberals and leftists may have a better product to sell, but conservatives know how to sell products.

GamerGate less resembles a boots-on-the-ground political movement than an ad campaign. First they decide what their messaging strategy is going to be. Then the media arm starts publicizing it. They seek out celebrity endorsements. They get their own hashtag and mascot. They donate to charity and literally call it “public relations.” You can even see the move from The Quinnspiracy to GamerGate as a rebranding effort - when one name got too closely associated with harassment, they started insisting GamerGate was an entirely separate movement from The Quinnspiracy. I learned that trick from Stringer Bell’s economics class.

Now, we could stand to learn a thing or two from this. But I also wouldn’t want us to adopt this strategy whole hog; you should view moves like these as red flags. If you’re hesitating to condemn a movement because what if it’s legitimate, take a look at whether they’re selling ideology like it’s Pepsi.

PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING

One reason to insist you’re a consumer revolt rather than a harassment campaign is most people who want to harass need someone to give them permission, and need someone to tell them it’s normal.

Bob Altemeyer has this survey he uses to study authoritarianism. He divides respondents into people with low, average, and high authoritarian sentiments, and then tells them what the survey has measured and asks, “what score do you think is best to have: low, average, or high?”

People with low authoritarian sentiments say it’s best to be low. People with average authoritarian sentiments also say it’s best to be low. But people with high authoritarian sentiments? They say it’s best to be average. Altemeyer finds, across all his research, that reactionaries want to aggress, but only if it is socially acceptable. They want to know they are the in-group and be told who the out-group is. They don’t particularly care who the out-group is, Altemeyer finds they’ll aggress against any group an authority figure points to, even, if they don’t notice it, a group that contains them. They just have to believe the in-group is the norm.

This is why they have to believe games journalism is corrupt because of a handful of feminist media critics with outsized influence. Legitimate failures of journalism cannot be systemic problems rooted in how digital media is funded and consumed; there cannot be a legitimate market for social justice-y media. It has to be manipulation by the few. Because, if these things are common, then, even if you don’t like them, they’re normal. They’re part of the in-group. Reactionary politics is rebellion against things they dislike getting normalized, because they know, if they are normalized, they will have to accept them. Because the thing they care about most is being normal.

This is why the echo chamber, this is why Fox News, this is why the Far Right insists they are the “silent majority.” This is why they artificially inflate their numbers. This is why they insist facts are “biased.” They have to maintain the image that what are, in material terms, fringe beliefs are, in fact, held by the majority. This is why getting mocked by Stephen Colbert was such a blow to GamerGate. It makes it harder to believe the world at large agrees with them.

This is why, if you’re trying to change the world for the better, it’s pointless to ask their permission. Because, if you change the world around them, they will adapt even faster than you will.

THE ARGUMENT ISN’T SUPPOSED TO END

Casey Explosion has this really great Twitter thread comparing the Alt-Right to Scary Terry from Rick and Morty. His catchphrase is “you can run but you can’t hide, bitch.” And Rick and Morty finally escape him by hiding. And Morty’s all, “but he said we can’t hide,” and Rick is like, “why are we taking his word on this? if we could hide, he certainly wouldn’t tell us.”

The reason to argue with a GamerGater is on the implied agreement that, if you can convince them they’re part of a hate mob, they will leave. But look at the incentives here: they want to be in GamerGate, and you want them not to be. But they’re already in GamerGate. They’re not waiting on the outcome of this argument to participate. They’ve already got what they want; they don’t need to convince you GamerGate isn’t a hate mob.

This is why all their logic and rationalizations are shit, because they don’t need to be good. They’re not trying to win an argument. They’re trying to keep the argument going.

This has been a precept of conservative political strategy for decades. “You haven’t convinced us climate change is real and man-made, you need to do more studies.” They’re not pausing the use of fossil fuels until the results come in. “You haven’t convinced us there are no WMDs in Iraq, you need to collect more evidence.” They’re not suspending the war until you get back to them. “You haven’t convinced us that Reaganomic tax policy causes recessions, let’s just do it for another forty years and see what happens.” And when the proof comes in, they send us out for more, and we keep going.

The biggest indicator you can’t win a debate with a reactionary is they keep telling you you can. The biggest indicator protest and deplatforming works is they keep telling you in plays into their hands. The biggest indicator that you shouldn’t compromise with Republicans is they keep saying doing otherwise is stooping to their level. They’re not going to walk into the room and say, “Hi, my one weakness is reasoned argument, let’s pick a time and place to hash this out.”

And we fall for it because we’re trying to be decent people. Because we want to believe the truth always wins. We want to bargain in good faith, and they are weaponizing our good faith against us. Always dangling the carrot that the reason they’re like this is no one’s given them the right argument not to be. It’s all just a misunderstanding, and, really, it’s on us for not trying hard enough.

But they have no motivation to agree with us. Most of the people asking for debates have staked their careers on disagreeing with us. Conceding any point to the Left could cost them their livelihood.

WHY GAMES?

Let’s close with the big question: why games? And, honestly, the short answer is:

why not games?

Games culture has always presented itself as a hobby for young, white, middle class boys. It’s always been bigger and more diverse than that, but that’s how it was marketed, and that’s who most felt they belonged. As gaming grows bigger, there is suddenly room for those marginal voices that have always been there to make themselves heard. And, as gaming becomes more mainstream, it’s having its first brushes with serious critical analysis.

This makes the people who have long felt gaming was theirs and theirs alone anxious and a little angry. They’ve invested a lot of their identity in it and they don’t want it to change.

And what the Far Right sees in a sizable collection of aggrieved young men is an untapped market. This is why sites like Stormfront and Breitbart flocked to them. These are not liberals they have to convert, these people are, up til now, not politically engaged. The Right can be their first entry to politics.

The world was changing. Nerd properties were exploding into popular culture in tandem with media representation diversifying. And we were living with the first Black President. Any time an out-group looks like it might join the in-group, there is a self-protective backlash from the existing in-group. This had been brewing for a while, and, honestly, if it hadn’t boiled over in games, it would have boiled over somewhere else.

And, in the years since GamerGate, it has. The Far Right has tapped the comics, Star Wars, and sci-fi fandoms; they tried to get in with the furry community but failed spectacularly. They’re all over YouTube and, frankly, the atheist community was already in their pocket. Basically, if you’re in community with a bunch of young white guys who think they own the place, you might wanna have some talks with them sooner than later.

Anyway, if you want to know more about any of this stuff, RationalWiki’s timeline on GamerGate is pretty thorough. You can also watch my or Dan Olson’s videos on the subject. I’ll be putting the audio of this talk on YouTube and will put as many resources as I can in the show notes. The channel, again, is Innuendo Studios.

Sorry this was such a bummer.

Thank you for your time.

#video essay #alt-right playbook #Youtube

380 notes · View notes

everydisneymovie · 4 years ago

Text

Review #21: Peter Pan

Post #24

6/18/2020

Next up is 1953′s Peter Pan

Enjoyment : [2]

Holy crap this is a hard movie to get through. The concept and setting are great, a fantasy world filtered through children’s bedtime stories? I am here for that. But honestly the characters really ruin this. Everyone without exception is selfish, self centered, racist and sexist. The characters only speak in snarky quips or weird bigoted statements. It is ok to write mean characters, but none of them do or say anything that shows further depth or growth. Tinkerbell is the only character who does anything redeemable and even then they muck up her heroic sacrifice with baffling editing. Other than a few funnt visual gags there is nothing enjoyable here.

Quality : [3]

The animation is average, albeit more than a little stiff. Only Tinkerbell and Tigerlilly are animated with any effort or personality and that appears to be purely fueled by the animators horniness. Captain Hook has some good animation and visual beats, but thats only because he gets to partake in easy-to-animate slapstick. The editing is down right awful. The scene were Tinkerbell sacrifices herself is the peak example of how bad the editing. Peter and Tink seems like they are about to have a moment of character growth, when it abruptly fades and moves on, with Tinkerbell perfectly fine in the very next scene. I think they had the ‘clap if you believe’ scene but cut it during production. The story structure is also garbage. I noticed this in Alice in Wonderland as well. Both movies are adaptations of children's books, and each movie seems to go chapter by chapter. This causes each scene to be really self contained and it doesn’t connect to the next at all. This is a really rough movie and all the corners show.

Hold up : [0]

Hey look the first zero on this list. This movie is easily the most offensive Disney movie I have seen so far. Song of the South is pretty awful, but the racism is non stop throughout Peter Pan. The characters just spew weird imperialist rhetoric about the ‘savages’ they are trying to colonize. Do I even need to bring up ‘What made the Redman Red?’ Yes. Yes I do. Holy crap this movie is garbage. How can this still get rereleased by Song of the South gets vaulted? I am kinda shocked. There is also a thick layer of sexism soaked into this movie. Every woman just fawns over Peter and he treats them all like trash. The only emotions any woman expresses is jealousy towards one another because they all want Peter and that’s their whole personality. Again, I don’t think I can find any dialogue not twinged with hatred or judgement. It is just non stop ugliness from start to finish and there is no good justification for it.

Risk : [4]

The only real points I can award is how dark and creative this movie gets. It isn’t much but the pirates openly talk about murder and actually do kill each other. I also liked that Tinkerbell was openly just a jerk from the start. Characters in Disney movies don’t have a lot of personalities so even negative personalities are fun to watch at this point. The storybook aesthetic could have been a lot of fun but it doesn’t really go far enough with it. I think Disney kept falling back on their comfort zones by animating slapstick instead of telling a good story.

Extra Credit : [2]

Can’t really say much. I really liked the gag with Hook having different hooks for different occasions. Also a really creative shot is the X-ray of the bomb package. You can actually see that the bomb is a repurposed canon-ball and flintlock pistol fuse. The hands of the clock complete the circuit and set off the pistol, activating the canon-ball. It is very minor but I like the clear thought put into the actual functional design and how Hook would logically construct a timer bomb. I liked that they got into his head and what he would have on hand to construct a bomb.

Final thoughts:

Wow this movie sucks. I feel like Disney needs to apologize for making this. I feel like the characters were all set up for lessons that they never end up learning. Jerk characters need to learn their lessons and change by the end or we should at least be able to understand WHY they couldn’t change. The characters in Peter Pan just stay jerks, with the exception of Tinkerbell. I am actually glad Tinkerbell got her own spin offs she deserves better than Peter. This is hands down the worst movie I have seen so far on this list. I know for a fact there will be worse in the future but this one is just garbage.

Total Score: 11/50

<- First <- Previous 21 out of 431 Next ->

the list

#every disney movie #I watched Every Disney Movie #reviewing every Disney movie #Peter Pan #tw: racism #tw: sexism #Disney #animated movie #movie review #Movie Reviews #movie theory #movie ranking #Film Theory #Captain Hook #Tinkerbell #Rey Rapids #capitalism #late stage disney #late stage capitalism

18 notes · View notes

justwinginoverthings · 5 years ago

Text

I see a lot of people saying Hollywood is hypocrite for giving Parasite the Best Picture award because they're the rich who leech off the poor and the movie was directed at them and I... Listen. I get it. I ain't about to condone private jets and using furs. The whole espectacle of wearing brands bothers me too BUT...

People really need to stop blaming actors for everything (except real allegations of bad behaviour). Contrary to popular belief not everyone there is there by nepotism, many actors AND directors and screenwriters and technical crew have stories about waiting tables and living poor until their shot got to them. They also endured the Hollywood machine (impulsed by big studios) which includes using them for publicicty, demand their time for completing projects, suing them if they want to quit a project, for many it takes years to reach a peak of good stable job, and it can be lost at any minute: if they stop looking perfect, if they piss off the wrong people, if they complaint too much. Like for real, most actors get a good bull of work between their 30s to their 40s and that's It. Many times when you see Hollywood stories you see mostly people who as soon as they got their money they bought their families a home, a car for some family member, paid for another's education, and in their thank you speech people are always thankful of the crew, of the APs and ADs. Also they can't be woke 24/7. I think enough has been said about how cancel culture is difficult to apply to the real world, because I love Taika for being an indiginous man finally getting the big awards but why did you have to hire pedophille apologist ScarJo???

Also remember, for their story of success, they probably know a ton of actors friend who didn't make it. The amount of overwork in technical fields is also astounishing, and they know they always have to be learning the latest advancement or they'll get no job. Mostly, they're all under the big pressure of working for studios, which ARE the evil overlords ya'll should rage against, who hide and destroy women who accuse producers of sexual harassement, who for years gave anfetamines to their performances, who literally owned people until they sued their studio houses so they could leave their contracts. This is all without counting how may of those rich people clapping in the Oscars have faced antisemitism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. How they have to see each other as competetion (like ya'll Susan Sarandon literally complained why all the good older women roles were only given to Meryl like, valid) and how networking is a tiresome machine they have to keep working with (SOUNDS FAMILIAR TO A CERTAIN MOVIE?!), And how sometimes they make good diverse and inclusive movies and Audiences don't give a fuck (hello??? Birds of Prey has WOC, a gay character and female director and great reviews and is a box office bomb)

So, you know, of course they're gonna fucking love Parasite. Even more so as the Academy tries to diversify each year (never enough, yes, but each year they do a little more) and people who have really seen struggle now get to vote. So you know... Rage against the evil studios who keep hiring toxic directors and producers, who keep relegating films that truly show poverty or racism as it is to the imdependent film circle, who keep making movies without women and lazy remakes for money. Just... Jesus stop blaming individuals for something that is a system, and I feel like questioning why the capitalism machine has so rotten Hollywood would be the message of Parasite anyways.

8 notes · View notes

beaulesbian · 6 years ago

Photo

I decided to finally make a part two of this post, it took me half a year longer than I anticipated, but I rushed to finish it at least for June.

🏳️‍🌈 Happy pride month! 🏳️‍🌈

The Watchmaker of Filigree Street by Natasha Pulley – The best kind of subtle romance I have ever read. Includes mysterious pocket watch, solving bomb threats in Victorian London, a lady scientist, changing of future based on occurring events, an adorable clockwork octopus, and so much more! Did I mention the best, most beautiful romance I didn’t even expect to get?? Read it! (mlm main characters)

All out: The No-Longer-Secret Stories of Queer Teens Throughout the Ages by multiple authors, edited by Saundra Mitchell – This book was so refreshing to read!!! Retellings of fairy tales but queer and poc and mostly happy. I enjoyed each of the short story so so much, I don’t have words to say how much I loved this book, just, can we please have more stories like that? Thank you.

Radio Silence by Alice Oseman – Ever wanted a book with a main character boy and girl who won’t end up together by the end of the book? Then this is a book for you. Frances and Aled do not only become best friends who won’t end up together, but there’s even more diverse characters than these two main ones. This book even has an ace (demi) sexual representation, which I was very excited about, and the main character is biracial bisexual girl. There is lot of fandom talk and a radio show drama (kind of similar to Welcome to Night Vale). But also talks about other important topics like deciding that college might not be for everyone despite them being a great student in high school.

Not Your Sidekick by C.B. Lee – It’s a cute and sweet superhero themed futuristic story, first book of a trilogy I think. The main character is Vietnamese American bisexual girl, Jessika Tran, whose parents are both superheroes, but she doesn’t have any powers. She starts working for a company she later discovers belongs to town’s villains, but with time she learns that not everything about superheroes and villains is perfectly black and white. Also she’s working there with her crush, so that’s a bonus. It’s a really great book, there’s wlw romance and lot of diversity, action and silly scenes. The history behind the people’s superpowers and worldbuilding was really interesting too. The sequel is also already out, featuring a poc trans boy as the main character, who is part of Jessika‘s friend squad.

The Gentleman‘s guide to Vice and Virtue by Mackenzi Lee – A book everyone here should read!! A historical roadtrip with lot of angst, fluff and mutual pining of two of the main characters. It takes place in 18th century Europe. Monty is kind of an asshole, some moments you will hate him then you will love him, but as the journey progresses so does he. He travels with his sister, Felicity, and his best friend (and crush!) Percy, to visit few cities in Europe before he has to start work in his fathers company. This book addressed lot of issues, like white privilege and racism in that time period, sexism and ableism. But it’s also an adventurous book that’s funny and charming, and makes you feel really happy one moment and sad the next. There are also pirates!

Dreadnought by April Daniels – This is a first book of a duology about a lesbian trans girl Danny who receives superpowers after witnessing death of the superhero Dreadnought, which means she now has to become the new Dreadnought. But with the powers also becames real the ideal vision of her body, that she always wanted. She is very happy about it, but it also means she has to face her family and best friend and explain why she looks different. On top of that she has to help the other superheroes with stopping the new threat to the city, the villain who killed previous Dreadnought. Trigger warnings for transphobia, but it’s really worth to read.

Mask of Shadows by Linsey Miller – I’ve seen mixed reviews of this book but personally I loved it. It’s a fantasy YA with lgbt protagonist, that I don’t have enough of. Sal is a genderfluid, also bi? pan? thief who enters a competition to become one of Queen’s Assassins. Basically the last one standing (or rather living) takes the place. Sal knows how to fight and survive but also needs to learn other things to win this position. Like taking classes of writing/reading which teaches him a lady of court they previously stole something from, whom Sal quickly starts to like more than they should, with the competition at play. For me it was a really great book to read and I can’t wait to read the sequel!

The Upside of Unrequited by Becky Albertalli – I had to read this one quickly before Leah on the offbeat came out, and it was a joy to read this one too! Again so much representation, I love Becky’s books and the Simon vs world. This story is about Molly who has had a lot of crushes but never actually dated anyone. She’s jewish, has anxiety, is fat, loves her family, is very creative, and has another crush on a guy who is her coworker. There’s so much cuteness in this book, I was smiling and crying the whole time reading it. More for representation: her sister is gay, she has two moms, a new Korean-American pansexual friend (who her sister totally likes) and more. I need to meantion trigger warnings for fatphobia, because of part there with her relative, it made me cry so much, it was very reletable and I hated it but there was very good closure for it in the end, which I’m happy about. Anyway read this book, overall it’s a cute and happy book with lots of fluff!

Leah on the Offbeat by Becky Albertalli – I loved Leah from the Simon vs book, so I was really happy we got more focus on her. She’s fat and funny, unapologetic about who she is, in her words: “basically your resident fat Slytherin Rory Gilmore”. There was mentions she likes boys as well as girls. Because of a tour for her college she goes with Abby to see where she will live the next few years and stuff happens. And then there’s also their high school prom, which she thought she was ready for, but maybe she’s not ready for at all. I’m not even going to write more, it’s an amazing book, I cried so many times.

Timekeeper by Tara Sim – This story takes place in a Victorian era Britain where clock towers are needed for time to flow correctly. Therefore there is lot of mechanics who repair said clock towers, because if the clock stops, the town around it stops in time as well. The main character Danny is one of those mechanics in London, but his father is trapped in a town that Stopped and Danny needs to find a way to save him. But after someone tries to sabotage a clock tower in a small city, Danny is assigned in that town to fix it, and he eventually finds out that the myths he heard – that in clock towers could sometimes be seen beings, spirits of the towers – might actually be true. This book was so nice to read, there was the atmosphere of the Victorian era, mystery, cute mlm romance and awesome female characters.

I’ll give you the sun by Jandy Nelson – I cried a lot reading this book. At first it actually took me few months to read past first two chapters, because the writing style was so different from what I was used to, but after that I got absorbed in it very quickly. It’s a story about two siblings, Noah and Jude Sweetwine, who both go through some difficult times, with family, school and personal stuff, it’s about making mistakes and fixing mistakes. It’s about love, art, sibling struggles and growing up.

Other books that I read and loved and definitely recommend:

Of Fire and Stars - Audrey Coulthurst (f/f fantasy romance)

We are the Ants – Shaun David Hutchinson (m/m)

In Other Lands - Sarah Rees Brennan (bi mc, m/m)

Release – Patrick Ness (m/m)

Our dark duet – V.E. Schwab (sequel of duology, agender character, not much romance at all in this duology, it‘s one of my favourites)

A Conjuring of Light – V.E. Schwab (a beautiful fantasy, last book of trilogy, happy ending for m/m pairing whose each story is important throughout the whole series. Again, one of my favourite series)

Magnus Chase and the Ship of Dead - Rick Riordan (I don‘t want to spoil here but it‘s good, genderfluid representation since book two, more in this final book)

Ice crypt - Tiana Warner (sequel of the Ice Massacre, wlw romance between mermaid and human girl, who knew each other since childhood, there is third final book, Ice Kingdom, already out, but I still haven‘t read it..)

Happy reading!

(tagging few people who i think might enjoy it ♥♥: @eradne, @poefinn, @twomillionfreckles, @eliotcoldwater, @queen-max, @tsukiyam-a)

777 notes · View notes

oscar-isaacs-number-one-bitch · 6 years ago

Photo

“Widows” Movie Review

Widows is the latest entry in an increasingly impressive catalogue from both director Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame, 12 Years a Slave) and writer Gillian Flynn (Gone Girl, Sharp Objects). The film stars Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, and Elizabeth Debicki as a group of three women who become widowed when their husbands are killed after an attempted heist goes horribly wrong. Now left to face the consequences of their husbands’ criminal world, the widows are backed into a corner when the man their husbands stole from comes to collect. Using a notebook and a set of blueprints left by her husband Harry (played by Liam Neeson), Veronica (Davis) and the other widows must pull off their own heist in order to pay off a debt with a time bomb attached to it. With an all-star cast that also includes Cynthia Erivo, Colin Farrell, Daniel Kaluuya, Brian Tyree Henry, Robert Duvall, Jacki Weaver, and Jon Bernthal, Widows sets out to answer the question: can Steve McQueen pull off a mainstream hit?

The answer? Resoundingly so, and better than most. Widows is not just one of the best movies of the year, it’s one of the greatest heist movies ever committed to film. There’s so much to unpack about this movie that I hadn’t even thought about when I was watching it because I was just so blown away by the quality of the art on screen. This film includes some of the best show-don’t-tell commentary on police brutality, racism, sexism, trauma, domestic violence, political corruption, and gentrification that I’ve ever seen, and it’s all just under the surface, waiting to be discovered the more one considers the layering of Steve McQueen’s thriller. That might get lost on some viewers (including me until this morning) who get so wrapped up in the plot machinations of the entire proceeding, how artfully crafted those machinations are, and how quickly the pacing moves that you don’t even have time to unpack it all, but it eventually seeps its way into your head like a seed that just needed to sit for a few hours before deciding to spring up from the ground.

And that’s the thing about making this a Steve McQueen picture: this man takes a premise that sounds just kind of okay to sit through under a less experienced eye, and turns B movie entertainment into a canvas on which to paint grade A art. The cinematography (here brought beautifully to screen by Sean Bobbitt) alone would land this film an Oscar nomination, and yet McQueen never settles for just a pretty looking film. Every shot has a point, every frame an idea, and only a director like this can pull off a film like that. He drops you right into the middle of the action, but not before reminding you what the point of this movie really is. The film opens on a shot of Liam Neeson and Viola Davis sharing a kiss in bed together, reminding us all that this film is not just a heist picture, it’s a picture of grief, confusion, ticking clocks, trauma, and the ultra-complex world of dealing with loss in a criminal enterprise. And it reminds you of how dangerous that world is by the next shot which features one of the most impressive action sequences in heist film history: the back of a van racing across the streets of Chicago, trying to escape police. Ultimately, it’s a movie about the ripple effect of consequences faced when someone close to you leads this kind of life.

Steve McQueen has layered this film with so much to ponder that it’s hard to know if one will even have time to consider it all by the time one goes in for a repeat viewing. In fact, a repeat viewing may be required in order to spend enough time with just the first layer that one feels comfortable moving on to the second. Widows establishes him as not just an arthouse voice for the Academy to love, but a bona fide expert in the craft who’s ready to swing for the larger fences and hit his mark every single time. He’s now right up there with Alfonso Cuarón and Denis Villeneuve as one of the most exciting directors working today.

I could praise Steve McQueen’s direction of this film until the end of time, but I also want to give due credit to writer Gillian Flynn for crafting yet another incredible script for McQueen to work from. Flynn is a master at tension and twists, and no less than twice does she pull off some of the best twists in heist storytelling I’ve seen on screen. Between Gone Girl, Sharp Objects, and now Widows, Flynn is quickly becoming not just one of screen’s greatest writers, but one of the most thrilling writers to watch in any medium. She is a master craftsman, especially when it comes to characterization through action, and her pacing is as frenetic as being on any actual heist.

Perhaps this goes without saying given the pedigree involved by just having this talented of a cast, but every performance in this film is top notch. Everyone fits exactly where they’re supposed to go, and the chemistry between them works out perfectly. One doesn’t often hear chemistry between actors mentioned without a romantic or comedic context (often both), likely because people just assume you don’t need it to be as strong outside of those contexts, but it is nonetheless vital to the survival of any film, especially in the heist subgenre, and all these performers pull it off spectacularly. Viola Davis, the commander-in-chief of any film she’s in, once again pulls off here an astounding power only an actress of the highest caliber can conjure, and is perfectly paralleled by Liam Neeson, proving that even with minimal screen-time, he can out-act almost anyone (just not Viola Davis – it’s a pretty evenly matched performance). Cynthia Erivo, Colin Farrell, Jacki Weaver, Jon Bernthal, Brian Tyree Henry, and (hey, look who’s back) Robert Duvall are all fantastic in however large or small a part they play in the film as well, but if we talked about all of them at length, this review would be 10 pages long, and even I don’t want that.

Michelle Rodriguez does play the same character she plays in most things, so I wouldn’t say it’s too much of a stretch for her, but because the writing of her character is so good due to Gillian Flynn’s expert abilities, she fits perfectly in with the rest of the ensemble and is quite entertaining to watch. But the true standouts in this film are supporting actress and actor Elizabeth Debicki and Daniel Kaluuya. Debicki is often cast as just “one of the pretty people,” in things like Guardians of the Galaxy and The Man from U.N.C.L.E., but here gets to show off that not only does she have real acting chops most American audiences haven’t seen yet, those chops are some of the best they’ll see in 2018, and it’s a shame that because it’s not necessarily a showier role, she likely won’t get that Oscar nomination her performance is absolutely deserving of.

There is an actor in this movie, however, who’s familiar with the Academy Awards, former nominee Daniel Kaluuya. Kaluuya has burst onto the scene with brilliant performances in Get Out (for which he was nominated for Best Actor) and the largest smash hit of the year, Black Panther, but now he’s been allowed to fully explore his villainous side, and it is terrifying. Kaluuya plays a sort of enforcer and though I won’t spoil for who or for what purposes, the way he sets out to accomplish what he needs to do in order to achieve his goals is some of the most harrowing villainy in all of 2018. He is truly a fear-inducing presence – just seeing the screencaps of him in this movie make my skin continue to crawl. It’s a master performance from one of the singular most talented new actors on scene today, and if any performance in this movie (aside from Viola Davis) were to get Oscar recognition, it would be this one.

I haven’t even talked at length about how beautiful this movie looks, but I won’t here now; you really should just see it for yourself. Widows was everything I wanted it to be and more – a thrilling heist movie, a gorgeous chorus of brilliant cinematography and performances, a masterclass in direction and screenwriting, a layered exploration of crime and consequence, and a resounding testament to the talents of one of the most exciting directors to burst onto the scene within the decade. It’s an incredibly kinetic ride with some of the best pacing, action, and exploration of narrative themes in heist film history, and to boot, one of the best movies of the year.

I’m giving “Widows” a 9.6/10

2 notes · View notes

allyxmethstuff-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Avengers: Infinity War and it’s Relevance to 45′s Regime (Some Spoilers)

So, did you see the latest Avengers movie? If you haven’t you may want to not read part of this review but I want you to; because while you may ignore the film’s message for the fun the movie absolutely is - the statement it makes is necessary. I can understand how you don’t want to think about the outside world in a summer blockbuster. However, this is the most important piece of pop culture that relates to our world.

Thanos as we all know from the trailers is looking for the Infinity Stones to end all life on Earth. We’ve heard it before. We’ve seen the heroes in these stories time and time again defeat these foes. To many Americans - this is the story we were told through Joseph Campbell’s “The Heroes Journey” and some never questioned it. We were taught that we were heroes but many other Americans know this isn’t true at all. To those that this country committed genocide against, to those that this country enslaved, to those that have been lynched, to those that have been killed by cops for doing nothing wrong, to those that have been destroyed through nuclear bombs we dropped, to those that lost their leaders so this country could obtain their resources without giving anything back, to those that cops would never help because we are not white; cis; and affluent, to those that would be put in jail because of bigotry, to civilians of foreign countries killed by our own army, to our own journalists that have been killed by our own army, to those that lost their country because this one stole the borders only to then kill - we know that the good guys do not always win.

And in this movie the good guys do not win. And it’s important to take note that the consequences are the destruction of half of life across the universe. So what does that mean? Is this the beginning of a broken cycle in the Joseph Campbell’s “Hero’s Journey”? Not exactly as this is the first film of a two-part movie. Despite knowing that let’s consider what this means. It’s a weapon of war. A weapon of mass destruction. And the man that wants to do this is not infamous in the Milky Way Galaxy - but so well known and feared that people only wish they never come across him and he would leave them alone. Who can blame these people when Thanos’s title is “The Mad Titan” along with his massively powerful army. Does this sound like anyone we know? You’d be lying if you said you didn’t know who this sounds like.

Its 45. C’mon the title says it. 45 has been itching to use nukes since the moment he won the general election in 2016. He has killed more civilians in the Middle East than President Obama did his entire presidency just within a few months. There is no way that many Middle Eastern civilians died unless it was deliberate. The man became a war criminal in his first few days. His racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, sexism, and anti-lgbtq+ personality has made him worse than even Andrew Jackson. And Andrew Jackson killed so many First Nation citizens that 45 has worked hard to surpass him. He has left Puerto Rico a death island with no help which has left fellow citizens drinking contaminated water and almost no power during a gigantic economic depression there. He allowed the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue after President Obama told them they must suspend work on the pipeline. The protests were started by the First Nation people because it mostly went through the river in their reservation and they knew the oil pipeline would contaminate it. And it did. He has called black football players and countries with higher populations of black people derogatory words. He hired Nazis to work in the White House. He himself has a book of Hitler’s speeches on his bedside table and this man is not an avid reader. This comes straight from Ivanna (45′s first wife).

I could go on about all of the discriminatory things he has done and that is unfortunately as American as apple pie. After all 45 did not make slavery legal but this country did make it legal. This country also made slavery illegal with the 13th amendment but during the Reconstruction Era we still had to work hard to stop slavery. It’s still not over though. That same 13th amendment allows the country’s incarcerated to be paid slave wages for their work by getting paid pennies. Not even a full dollar sometimes but literal pennies. These are human beings that hopefully reform and get out some day but when you pay them nothing for work they do for years with hopeful reform in mind how can they live off of their earnings? The food their given is so unhealthy and the water to clean them is so disgusting you might as well wonder how someone leaving our justice system could see the good in doing what’s right after?

And then there are those paid a minimum wage. Even if you’re paid what the Los Angeles minimum wage is at the time I wrote this you’d be making $12/hr. The average rent as of writing this is $1450/month for a 1-bedroom/1 bath. How much would it take for us to make for that to be a quarter of our monthly salary? $36.25/hr. Minimum wage is $12/hr in a good area and $7.75/hr. That means in a good area you’d need to work 120 straight hours or 5 days without breaks to get enough for your rent to be a quarter of your wages. No job would give you that many hours so you’d be working 3 jobs without a break for 8 hours straight. Do you know what happens in three days if you don’t get enough rest? You die. Now do you see what this is? Now do you see how this is unconstitutional? And how our country has only grown to be incrementally less atrocious? And the person in charge doesn’t want to pay people. He’s done it before by not paying contractors after working for him.

But that’s not the most important part not unless you count those among the actions he’s taken that are something to fear. He has begun to strip away freedom of the press by allowing the DoJ to strip the rights journalists have from their handbook. Leading a way for them to shut down dissenting public opinion. It has already begun through multiple journalists attacking Michelle Wolf when they have agreed with what she has said on their own stations. What of his unwillingness to invoke the sanctions against Russia? What of his willingness to fire those investigating him (a Nixonian precedent albeit)? What of the Nazis that he gave safe harbor to in his statement that there are good people on both sides? What of his assault on the environment in which we cannot live if we do not protect it from turning deadly? What of that moment when he found out the President of China was able to turn his appointment in office into a life term and wished for it to be done here? What of those moments he praises dictators and eschews democratic leaders? What of his desire to ban a group of people from entering the country based on inalienable qualities? What of his actions to hold immigrants both undocumented and legal from being given due process? What of his acts to keep these immigrants indefinitely and not allowing pregnant girls who do not want these babies access to abortion? And what of this man who has no humanitarian bone in his body who wishes to hold immigrants indefinitely?

The important part is do you see the abuses our own country has committed and do you see how he has gone further? Now consider what I said earlier. He keeps a book of Hitler’s speeches on his bedside table and he doesn’t read. He called for the murder of the innocent Central Park 5. He kills his citizens of multiple countries and not just his own. He tells his supporters to assault people and that he’d pay for their legal fees (but then never doing so). He says he wants to use nukes! I could go on but let’s get to where him and Thanos align.

Nukes, are a weapon of mass destruction. He wants to do exactly what Thanos has done in Infinity War. Kill as much of the world as he possibly can. He would be safe. He has an entire army that would protect him because they don’t see the issue at hand. But where would the rest of us be? Where would you be if he accomplishes this task? Would millions of people die or just a few hundred thousand? What about the radiation fallout? What about the 2 degrees Celsius temperature increase that would ensure climate change would get worse than we’ve seen already within just a few years? What of the Reichstag Fire he would create to hold power forever?

Thanos says he wanted to erase half of the universe so life could continue. All villains see themselves as the good guy. I’m not saying 45 is that smart. In fact quite the contrary. He isn’t doing anything for anyone else other than perhaps his daughter Ivanka and to an extent there is another similarity here. Yet, I would say his idol Adolf Hitler fits more in line with Thanos for just their intelligence. Hitler wanted to create a world without anyone not Aryan. In the movie you see some of the genocide Thanos enacts. The soldiers carried out the dirty work in both worlds. Hitler attempted to get a nuclear bomb but was thwarted. He had death camps. Thanos wasn’t looking to have those but where Hitler and Thanos don’t coalesce whereas Thanos and 45 do is a weapon of mass destruction. The difference is Thanos had no one to keep him in check. 45 does but those people are growing smaller in number. Those that would try to stop him from doing so get smaller day by day.

Imagine an unchecked 45. I’ve outlined his past and I’ve outlined his idol. I’ve outlined small amounts of spoilers for Infinity War’s antagonist and his goal. You’re going to see the movie if you already haven’t because it is a cultural flashpoint. And when you see the deaths of people through this weapon of mass destruction it is harrowing. Now you have an idea for what he could do just with a nuclear weapon. Imagine what he could do with a Reichstag Fire and becoming a dictator. And imagine what you wish you could’ve done before then.

#45 #donald trump #avengers #avengers infinity war #thanos #fascism #resistence

1 note · View note

brigdh · 7 years ago

Text

A Gentleman’s Guide to Vice and Virtue by Mackenzie Lee. A YA novel starring Monty, eldest son of an Earl in mid-1700s England, his childhood neighbor/best friend Percy, and his sister Felicity. The three of them are just about to begin a Grand Tour of Europe, their last summer of freedom and fun before Monty has to buckle down and behave like a noble heir, Percy starts law school, and Felicity is shipped off to a finishing school. Unfortunately none of them are particularly looking forward to their futures. Monty is very cheerfully bisexual, and has engaged in romps, gambling, drinking, and drugs to the point of being kicked out of Eton. Percy is mixed-race (the son of a plantation owner, though raised by his aunt and uncle, minor gentry) and though he's tolerated, his existence isn't always well-regarded in their circles. Felicity is pissed off about being doomed to learn embroidery and manners instead of going to medical school to become a doctor. Oh, and Monty is desperately in love with Percy, but is afraid to tell him and lose his friendship. This is just the beginning – as the book gets going, there are also revelations about epilepsy, child abuse, insane asylums, and more. It's not all serious, though. In fact, most of the book is light-hearted fun: there are encounters with highwaymen, battles with pirates, parties at Versailles, Carnevale in Venice, villas on Greek islands, operas, fortune tellers, hostage exchanges, escaping thieves, and basically every adventure one could imagine in 18th century Europe. There's even a plot about alchemists and an elixir of immortality which, to tell the truth, felt a bit out of place in the otherwise historically-based book. And, of course, there is lots and lots of pining as Monty and Percy engage in the most excellent sort of romantic-comedy suspense, yearning and avoiding telling the truth about their feelings. A++, that bit. My main complaint with the book is that Lee tries very earnestly to handle appropriately the issues of social justice she includes (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia), but every one of the ensuing conversations feels very 2017-approved, with every term the correct vocabulary, every checkbox checked, every privilege painstakingly unpacked. Not that such views couldn't – didn't! – exist in the past, but the way Lee portrays them doesn't seem to relate to the characters or setting at all. They don't arise out of the environment of the book, but are dropped in wholesale from an outside perspective that wants to be sure we know the right way to think. And then there's the moment where one character tells another about how the Japanese mend broken pottery with gold seams, see, so that the broken places end up more beautiful than the whole, and it's meant to be a profound moment but it's just so embarrassingly like this person in the 1700s is reading off a tumblr post. But nonetheless it's a funny, sweet book, if not quite as good as I expected when I heard "Gay Roadtrip through 18th Century Europe". What it reminds me most of all is reading an AU from a fandom you don't know. Maybe the characterization and setting isn't always that great but you don't care because it's not your fandom. It has the tropes you love and you can't wait to see the couple get together at the end, so you stay up late reading it on your phone. A Gentleman’s Guide to Vice and Virtue is that experience in original fiction. Seven Surrenders by Ada Palmer. The sequel to Too Like the Lightning which I absolutely LOVED. However I really should not have waited seven months to read this one, because I'd forgotten some of the characters and plots and this is a series jam-packed with multitudes of characters and plots, and you better have every miniscule bit of such details ready at your fingertips to have a chance of following the action. To briefly summarize the plot (a task that's probably impossible, but I'll try to hit the main points) in the 25th century the world has more or less become a Utopia. Nations have been abolished, religion banished to the private sphere, and gendered distinctions made it illegal; to all outward appearances, it is a world with no reason to go to war. Unfortunately it turns out that all of this has been made possible through carefully targeted assassinations, picking off key individuals to guide the world away from war, riots, major economic downturns, etc. Not many – about nine a year, on average, for the last two hundred years. This information sets off a flurry of activity as the characters take sides, variously trying to figure out the conspiracy behind it, hide the perpetrators, uncover proof, keep the public from finding out, and broadcast the secret to as many people as possible. When several world leaders turn out to be involved, chaos breaks out worldwide. It's not just drama, though; behind the action scenes is the frequently repeated question of if it was such a bad plan after all. Is it worth losing a few lives to prevent the millions of deaths that would happen in war? Seven Surrenders is all about the philosophical dilemma. In addition to the one above, we get multiple debates over the riddle, 'would you destroy this world to save a better one?', and 'If God has revealed proof of His existence, why did He chose you above every human who's ever prayed to believe? And, more importantly, why now?' There is speculation about the power of gender, of sexual attraction, of the effect of raising children as experiments, of the role of Providence in life, of what it would mean for two Gods to meet, of how one conducts a war when there are no living veterans to teach the next generation. But there's plenty of action too – the book includes revelations of secret parentage, long-lost loves, a revenge story worthy of the Count of Monte Cristo, bombs, murders, resurrections, suicide attempts, cute kids, so many disguises, sword fights, gun battles, horse chases, and more. Ultimately I didn't like it as much as Too Like the Lightning. It just didn't feel as deep or as grand, possibly because so much stuff was happening that none of it got enough exploration. One of the most best character arcs (Bridger's) happened mostly offstage, and many of the other characters were too busy reacting to the constantly changing political winds to have a real arc. I still recommend it, because it's just so different from everything else and I have to support an author who mashes up transportation science with Diderot's philosophy. But if you read it, definitely don't wait months between books. The Cater Street Hangman by Anne Perry. A murder mystery, the first in a series set in Victorian London. Charlotte is the middle daughter of a middle-class family, believed by all to be firmly unmarriageable but happy enough with her staid life. The book opens with the murder of a young well-off woman, then Charlotte's maid is also murdered, as are several others. There is no apparent connection between the victims except that they're all young woman, all live nearby, and all were strangled. Inspector Thomas Pitt is assigned the case, and he begins to spend a great deal of time talking to Charlotte – first just to interview her regarding the murders, but then for her own sake. But will Charlotte's family allow her to marry a... policeman??? There are several interesting things about the book. Set very specifically in 1881 (which is to say, before Jack the Ripper) the very idea of a serial killer – as opposed to a thief who murders for money – is new and shocking to most of the characters. So is the concept that such a criminal could appear "normal", that rather than being a dirty, lower-class raving lunatic, it could be a respected neighbor or even a member of their own family. These are such self-evident ideas to modern people (and most characters in mystery books) that seeing Charlotte and the others wrestle with them, discuss their ramifications, and feel guilty for suspecting their husbands and fathers was pretty fascinating. I also liked that the family was so solidly middle-class. Historical fiction has a habit of gravitating toward extremes: everyone is either upper aristocracy or enduring the most grueling poverty. A family of boring bank clerks actually made for a refreshing change. Unfortunately those are the only good things I have to say about the book. The middle 2/3rds of the story drags along interminably, as nothing happens except for characters having the same few discussions over and over again. Charlotte suspects her father! First she must have a conversation about it with her mother. Then her younger sister. Then her older sister. Then her mother and the older sister talk. Then the older sister talks about it to her husband. Then... Well, you get the idea. And it's not as though each new character was bringing a fresh perspective and insight to the issue! No, we just get the same few protests and agreements recycled over and over in slightly different wordings. It's such an awful slog that I nearly abandoned the book. However, I stuck it out to the end, only to be rewarded with the reveal of the killer (warning for spoilers, I guess): a lesbian who has been driven mad by repressing her sexuality! You know, I don't think I've ever actually encountered this awful cliche in the wild before. It would almost be exciting, if it wasn't so offensive. Though there's not a lot of time to be offended, because the reveal, motivation, attack on Charlotte, rescue, and arrest all happen in the last two pages (literally) so none of it is exactly dwelt on. It's probably all for the best that I disliked this book. It's the first in a 32-book series, and now I don't feel any desire to read the rest.

(DW link for easier commenting)(Also goddamn, I am so far behind on putting up my book reviews, you guys. So prepare for a lot of that.)

#book reviews #anne perry #ada palmer #mackenzie lee #books

3 notes · View notes

cplankblog-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Halfway through!

I almost can’t believe it, but I’m officially half way through my Web Development course!

Okay, I might be stretching things a little there. Of course I can believe it. I’m exhausted. It’s been six weeks going a million miles an hour learning as much as I possibly can. Six weeks of early mornings and late evenings. Six weeks of back-to-back tutoring sessions, white boarding, and constantly forgetting to add .length to the condition of my for loops. Six weeks of being acutely aware that there are so few women and people of color in my cohort, and six weeks of wondering what entering the tech sector is really going to be like.

Maybe it’s because last week was our first project week (more on that later, but overall GREAT!) but recently I’ve been thinking a lot more about why I’m putting myself through this.

Bottom line is it worth it? YES.

I really enjoy programming! I love learning, I love challenging myself, and the best part is I can feel myself getting better. I enjoy breaking down a problem, tackling it in pieces, and putting together something cohesive. It’s exciting! It’s satisfying! I look back every now and again on job descriptions in my old field and my heart is thrilled to be moving in a new direction.

But I’m also aware that, while the road from nontraditional education to bomb developer job is steep for everyone, it’s especially steep for women and people of color. I’ve seen a lot of chatter about how Bootcamps and other forms of nontraditional education are going to be big disruptors of tech. They’re going to open doors for folks who otherwise wouldn’t have the chance or the opportunity to be taken seriously in this field. I’ve talked with several software engineers who see that happening, too.

But at the end of the day, what I see is an industry where web design (especially) and web development are viewed as “lesser”. You see it in the pay scales, the job titles, and you hear it in casual conversation. I hear it from people, mostly men, in my own cohort who dismiss the design aspect of an application because “they just don’t do that design-y stuff”. It’s no coincidence that kind of work is the best entry point for women and people of color and also isn’t valued.

When I made the decision to leave nonprofits for tech, I knew I was going to be entering a male dominated field (fun fact: while women make up the majority of nonprofit workers, they still make up the minority of leadership roles!) but I think under estimated how challenging that was going to be for me. It’s both demoralizing and empowering. Demoralizing because I feel myself holding back in class or during white boarding exercises because I don’t feel confident enough about my answers only to hear men shout out wrong answers like it’s nothing (which isn’t a bad thing! It’s just that everyone should feel the same security in being wrong and that’s not the case because of institutionalized racism and sexism.) Demoralizing because I know there are women in our cohort who could code circles around some of these guys, but they, too, are holding back.

Empowering because I want to help change it.

I’m going to stop there, and pivot into a retrospective on our first project week!

Because Project 1 was fun and awesome!

Obviously also exhausting, and SO MUCH WORK, but we put together something really neat in the end that I’m proud to have worked on.

Our app is called Today’s Play and it’s designed to help you figure out if you want to go out to see live music tonight or not. Ever look up who’s playing at your local bar and have NO IDEA who they are or what kind of music they play? Today’s play makes you a playlist of the top three tracks of each artist playing in your city. I’m not going to lie, I’ve already used it in my real life. Check it out!

This level of collaboration and problem solving is EXACTLY what I wanted. It was an eye opener to see how other people tackle a problem, humbling to have them review your code, and I was lucky to be in a group full of open minds and a genuine interest in learning. I learned so much during this project I wouldn’t have been able to figure out on my own.

In addition to honing some of my technical skills, I’ve gotta say those “soft skills” I gained after years as a relationship builder and communicator really shined.

1. Apparently people outside the nonprofit sector are like, surprised (and mildly suspicious) when you express gratitude for something they did, said, or pointed out. As a fundraiser, I have a hard time NOT ending a sentence with Thank You!

2. In general, people aren’t great at expressing what they’re thinking/feeling. Taking a moment to stop and say “I think I follow you at a,b, but can you tell me more about c, d, e” goes A LONG WAY.

3. Immediately adding “Celebrate” as a task in Trello while you’re putting together your project timeline makes people laugh. I believe that celebrating accomplishments and wrapping that into the timeline is crucial for team morale and direction. It leads to better projects and a happier team.

I ended up becoming the defacto TPM because, after years of managing donors, board members, and volunteers, I’ve gotten really good at sticking to a scope and shutting down anything outside that. The key to a great project is clear parameters! If we spend all day talking nothing gets done.

In addition to project managing, I got to work on a chunky piece of the application getting our app to work with Spotify’s API and OAuth process. It was a fantastic learning experience that included Spotify’s implicit grant access and five chained AJAX calls and it was a blast putting it all together.

The next step is to make an app that removes all the playlists I’ve created in my Spotify account! Up to 105 now.

Now it’s onto MySQL and databases!! I’m especially excited because I think, for once, I might have a bit of a head start...

0 notes

hub-pub-bub · 5 years ago

Link

Maybe you just want to write a book and get it into people’s hands, but there are more dangers out there than you might realize.

To set the stage, I’ll go back to a recent event: the Amélie Wen Zhao controversy. You could be forgiven for not having heard about it, given that it’s only a big deal if you closely follow the world of young adult novels, and in particular the young adult communities on Twitter and Tumblr. I’ll do my best to summarize what happened.

Zhao is a young woman, born in Beijing, raised in Paris, educated in New York City and currently living there. She scored a 6-figure book deal with Delacorte Press, the first book of which was to be Blood Heir. Some reviewers got advance review copies. Then, a couple of things happened: Twitter user @LegallyPaige posted a tweet (since deleted) accusing Zhao of taking screenshots of tweets made by people who disliked her or her book, and of stalking and possibly harassing critics; marketing descriptions of the book, as well as tweets by advance reviewers like Ellen Oh, suggested that the book was racially insensitive as it focuses on an indentured servitude system with parallels to American slavery. There were also accusations of anti-blackness based on the treatment of a character who was racially ambiguous, at best, as well as talk of plagiarism that, as far as anyone who has read the book can tell, are not really credible.

Again, if you don’t run in these circles this might all sound like a pretty minor controversy–a mild storm that Zhao could easily weather. But YA Twitter doesn’t work that way. It is a microcosm of Twitter as a whole, dominated by clout-chasing “influencers” and full of cliques who follow what their preferred influencers say. If a book is presumed to be problematic, or the author presumed to be bad, it is a small matter to organize mass review-bombing on Goodreads, Amazon, or anywhere else one can have a say. If you speak out on behalf of someone accused in this way, you are inviting legions of opposing followers to come after you. The old adage is true: the only way to win is not to play the game.

Zhao herself chose not to play the game, as well. She wrote a thoughtful apology letter in which she announced the cancellation (or at least postponement) of Blood Heir. I’m not here to take issue with that decision, as it is a highly personal one. My purpose is to critique these cycles more generally.

All cards on the table: I’m a white man. I consider myself anti-racist as well as a feminist. I recognize the vast structural oppression that exist essentially everywhere, as well as the specific history of anti-black racism in the US. I am always on the side of social justice, which is why I think it’s necessary to call out the excesses of such movements.

For perspective, of course, in this case nobody died, nobody lost their livelihood. Zhao’s publisher stands by her and she will likely publish other books, and possibly Blood Heir itself after some revisions. What happened to her isn’t censorship, nor even what I would consider abusive. It’s more unfortunate than anything else.

What is concerning to me is the tendency to manifest an online mob on an extremely thin basis, and that the people who have large enough followings to spark these controversies know the power they wield, and don’t seem to have much sense of responsibility about it. Consider that this particular incident was sparked by an essentially anonymous accusation of screenshotting–an activity which is petty, at worst–and spiraled into allegations of racism.

As a writer, I do think it is very important to be sensitive to the issues of the world around me. It is entirely possible, even likely, to fall into unintentional racism or sexism. The best of intentions do not necessarily lead to a piece of writing that is free from the biases and inequities of our world. It is important to write mindfully, and to be careful not to reproduce oppressive cultural messages. This can take many forms, though. Some people object to depictions of racism, violence against women, and other horrors in the first place. Even if the purpose of portraying them is to critique them and make clear how awful those things are, there are readers who would rather not encounter such material in the first place. It is an understandable position to not want to read something like that, as it can mean having to face bigotry in fiction that you get enough of in your daily life. People who don’t want to read books like that are absolutely welcome not to!

Where I take issue is the idea that because someone doesn’t like a particular book, no one should be allowed to read it–that it should be withdrawn altogether. The comparisons to historically ineffective book bans apply pretty well here. In addition, it just seems like a big waste of energy. In a country where Donald Trump is President and is actively enabling literal Nazis to march in the streets and kill people, spending a lot of energy attacking a book that may not have anything all that wrong with it seems totally absurd. Yes, people can care about more than one thing at a time–but time and energy are finite resources.

I used the phrase “manufactured outrage” in the title, and that was with good reason. I have been around long enough to know that most of the time, these controversies are not drummed up out of a genuine concern for people who have been harmed, but to raise one’s own profile, and to demonstrate power as an influencer. (Note that all you really need to be an “influencer” is a lot of social media followers!) The emergence of the “#MeToo” movement, which has achieved some real accomplishments in terms of dislodging sexual predators from positions of power, has also put wind in the sails of online controversy-seekers. Everyone wants to be first in line to “cancel” the next “problematic” public figure. A writer faced with such a backlash might be inclined to simply ride it out, and hope the furor dies down after a few days. It usually does, but there is another problem: media coverage.

Only 15% of Americans actually use Twitter, and an even smaller share of those use it regularly. It would not have much influence over public debate except for one thing: it is massively popular among journalists and freelance writers, almost all of whom have column space to fill. Going out and investigating is difficult and expensive; mining Twitter for the latest clickbait topic, by comparison, is easy and free. Thus, these relatively tiny kerfuffles (consisting of a few hundred or a few thousand people, at most) get elevated to the level of national or even international discourse. Dozens of articles get written about online scuffles involving handfuls of people, and you’d think there was a real crisis brewing. The reality is just that journalists and freelancers tend to be Extremely Online (to use the Twitter jargon) and know that drama pulls clicks. This is a big part of the “manufacturing” of the outrage. We’re generally not talking about mass movements, here. “#MeToo” is a mass movement. “#Cancel[WriterOfTheWeek]” isn’t.

Another part of the “manufacturing” is that these outrages often emerge from circles that are not just insincere, but actively malevolent. Imageboard site 4chan and *chan sites of similar formats have forums where the entire point is identifying targets and organizing social media outrage against them. They tap into social justice circles and plant whisper campaigns that a particular person is problematic in some severe way–maybe the target is a sexual predator, or plagiarized parts of their book. If this can get picked up by a prominent influencer, the mob does the rest. Likewise, infighting is fomented by inventing wedge issues, a couple recent examples being “Santa shouldn’t be a man” and “pedophiles belong in the LGBT+ umbrella.” Yes, those are real things stirred up by bad actors and I did not make them up.

The point of all this is that it can be easy and exciting to focus on drama, to be an active participant in fomenting it. It might even feel good to play a role in getting someone to pay penance for their perceived wrongdoing. But it’s hard to say that any of it makes the world a better place, or actually serves any of the causes social justice is meant to. In Zhao’s case, one would think that her identity as an immigrant, a woman, and a person of color would bless her with the benefit of the doubt–but those things are instead liabilities, as she is held to a much higher standard than, say, the middle-aged white men who churn out sexist drivel every year.

A common piece of writing advice is to simply ignore critics. Critics will always find something to hate–it is essentially their job. That’s still true, to a great extent. It is sometimes necessary to publicly respond to criticism, but the best way to handle that is to take the high road. Let people know that they are heard and you are taking their advice into consideration–and then, decide for yourself what that means, and how it should change your work, if at all.

If you write a book condemning injustice, and people attack you and say you aren’t condemning it correctly, odds are there’s not actually anything wrong with your book–just the people doing the attacking.

Post written by J. D. Huffman so direct all fanmail to him <3

#writing #authors #sensitivity #reading

0 notes

wanderingfan · 6 years ago

Text

Things I Enjoyed This Week

Hello Again. Hope you’re having a good weekend! Here’s some things I watched/listened/obsessed over this week. This week I’m going to try to be a little more thorough on what each piece of content contains this time.

Main Fixation

Banana Fish

This is going to be here for the next 30 weeks and I don’t know what to tell you. Oh wait I do have something to say that I probably can’t sneak into the Eiji and Ash post I’m doing (hopefully it’ll be done by Tuesday.)

WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT HOW HORRENDOUS OF A POKER FACE EIJI HAS WHEN TALKING TO IBE.

“Oh, I will,” he says casually with his eyes bulging out of his sockets. I loved Eiji in the manga and I’m loving Eiji in the anime and frames like this really say a thousand words about him. I have a more depressing image that also says a thousand words but I’ll put that on a solo post later tomorrow.

Videos

Cooking With Twinkies! by brutalmoose

contains food products including sweets such as twinkies, ice cream and cookies, condiments, cooked and uncooked sausage and hot dogs, as well as a man cooking and eating said food.

Brutalmoose’s videos are always a treat to see, whether he’s making frozen dinners, cooking weird recipes, watching old tv or television movies, or playing far off video games. This one is him dressed in a mustard twinkie suit making food...using twinkies. The art is in the editing hon. And by that I mean it’s odd.

Down the Rabbit Hole by Fredrik Knudsen

contains disturbing information regarding things ranging from cult-like activity to mental illness to online abuse to attempted murder and suicide. viewer discretion is advised.

Hey hi I accidentally binge-watched this whole playlist. It’s documentary-like video series describing strange, often disturbing events ranging from events involving content creators to historical events like the plague. What makes this series work I think is how the narrator acts completely separate from the events, only giving information in order to allow you to draw your own conclusion.

Arthur Games #2! by PeanutButterGamer

contain bits of video made to make Arthur and its characters disturbing. some edits are disjointed and a little off-putting

Another video that relies on odd editing. These videos range from funny to slightly surreal. It’s about Arthur games...based on Arthur. The only episode I remember watching of Arthur is the one where he broke a glass bird by accident, and then one where his sister wanted to wish on a shooting star...I don't know I put in here because I watched it okay?

Examining the Yaoi BL Genre by GoatJesus

contains discussion of sexual assault, homophobia and sexism along with showing episodes that include sexual assault.

I almost removed this because there are some opinions GoatJesus has that I heavily disagree with. However when it comes to this video in particular GoatJesus is very on point, so I feel like since I keep running into posts declaring they hate Yaoi (sometimes while putting any content with seemingly non-straight undertones into that category,) and then others justifying their love of Yaoi (but not...real LGDTQ+ people and the stories they write cough cough) by declaring some nonsensical reasoning like yaoi was before gay culture (which is...uhuh. sure. okay.) I think it’s important to have more videos like this that are clear and honest on how they feel about this topic.

The Shape of Ableism: How We Restrict Disabled and Disfigured Stories by The Princess and the Scrivener

contains discussion of mental and physical disabilities, ableism, prejudice, racism, sexism and how film portrays these topics with examples from The Elephant Man, Wonder, Me Before You, and The Shape of Water, among others.

The way Scrivener discusses topics and her response to “critical” comments speak to me on this personal level it’s like she’s in my head and now I weirded myself out so if you want to see a proper look at the mistreatment and lack of disabled casting in films check this one out.

Are Rules Made to Be Broken? | Philosophy Tube by Philosophy Tube

contains discussions on politics, activism, philosophy, racism and discriminatory laws

An quickie on why rules are made to be broken...not much else to say the title speaks for itself. Short and sweet.

So I Installed 30+ Mods Onto Darkest Dungeon... and VAMPYRBORNE by Indeimaus

contains video game blood, violence and murder. also swearing.

Whenever I’m interested in a game but don’t have a big wallet I usually look at a good playthrough of it. However ever since I discovered Indeimaus I suddenly can’t imagine going through 30+ hours of a playthrough unless its someone I really like, because Indeimaus usually makes a single video that chronicles his experience playing through the game.

Gator Ate My Camera! and BIG PIG PARTY! by Brave Wilderness

first video contains live gators in a feeding frenzy and raw meat. second video contains pigs, chickens, organic cake (safe for animals to eat), birthday décor and Coyote eating a piece of the cake after dropping it on the dirt.

PIG PARTY! GATOR PARTY! Brave Wilderness videos are always a nice treat to watch when I feel I stopped in my tracks. When I’m lying down not sleeping I usually watch some Brave Wilderness videos until I go to sleep. Coyote’s love for creatures big and small is infectious.

Power Rangers (2017) - Deep Dive by FilmJoy

contains people eating oreo cookies and watching a movie. people chatting and having a good time on a couch and pausing to talk in front of the camera. movies watching parts are set in black-and-white.

Deep Dive is a series that strives to see the joy in movies that are...not conventionally joyful. They’re great if you’re tired of reviews that are essentially “this movie SUCKS” for 15-30 minutes and instead want to see someone at least try to find the good in even things that are atrocious. This time though they watched a movie that was...kinda actually good? All of them are surprised by this.

Klonoa: The Saddest Game Ever Made (Analysis/Tribute) - ChaseFace ...by ChaseFace

contains story beats to the first klonoa game, which deals with destruction, loss, deceit, and other themes, but its not gory or “adult” in any capacity.

Wh-what? Why would I be sad about this game? I never played it! I have no reason to cry about this cutesy game about friendship and dreams. N-nope! D-didn’t cry at alllllllll-aaaaaaaaaagh *gross sobbing*

Podcasts

Waypoint - Captain Toad's Wild Ride and No Man's Guy

contains discussion on toxic behavior in gaming communities (including mention of a bomb threat to a game creator) and the culture and issues of gaming development and publishing, along with brief asides to politics.

This week Waypoint discuss how good Captain Toad is among other Switch Games, and then goes into a details discussion on what happened to No Man’s Sky, including the visceral reactions to it.

Oh No, Ross and Carrie! - Ross and Carrie Traverse Flat Earth (Part 7): The Jeran Campanella Interview

contains skepticism of modern science, religion (focusing on catholic,) atheism and the flat-earther movement

Ross and Carrie take a break from the out-of-body club to interview a flat-earther on his experience in becoming one.

Wonderful! - Wonderful! Ep. 43: Davey Coolstool’s Math Poetry

contains a married couple being in love

Wonderful is a couple who used to do a Bachelor Podcast called Rose Buddies, but after the show got to a point where the couple decided they didn’t want to encourage anyone to watch the show they moved on to just a podcast talking about things they think are wonderful. Saccharine sweet and positive, will probably lull you to sleep.

The Worst Bestsellers - Episode 102 – Ramona and Her Mother

contains childhood nostalgia, memories, and family issues

The Worst Bestseller are ladies who go through...the worst bestsellers, from Warriors (LIES) to Fifty Shades of Grey. But PLOTWIST - They talk about a book they actually love this time with Ramona and Her Mother, which seems to understand the small struggles of being a young kid that are still applicable today as they were in the seventies.

Let's Fight a Boss - Ep 79: Willy-Banilly

contains swearing and some dark humor. also contain irish funeral arrangements.

A group of friend poke fun at each other while talking about what they watched/read, what they played, games news and emails. They’re usually two hours long but sometimes less or more depending on the topics. They can be very frank about what they like and dislike which might throw people off, but I respect them for still being good people. Its hard for me to get differing opinions that aren’t attached to more toxic behavior, so its nice to be able to enjoy a podcast that’s still respectful.

That’s it for this week. Take care!

#my stuff #things i enjoyed this week #banana fish #books #video games #food #podcasts

0 notes

jaouad2d · 7 years ago

Text

Why a Radical 1970s Science Group Is More Relevant Than Ever

In December 1971, a man left a major scientific conference in handcuffs, having thrown a tomato at former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey. It hit the front of the podium from which he was speaking, but “I could have hit him between the eyes if I wanted to,” the produce-slinger told The New York Times.

Along with the tomato came paper airplanes printed with Vietnamese flags and shouted jeers—that Humphrey supported the war, that he was boring. Led by Science for the People, an organization of radical scientists, the protesters wanted to jolt the often apolitical scientific establishment into recognizing the ways that powerful institutions use science for ideological ends. The year before, the group had tried to give Edward Teller, whose work was crucial to the creation of the hydrogen bomb, a “Dr. Strangelove Award.”

As cheeky as the group’s protests could be, the FBI took Science for the People seriously, tracking and reporting on their activities. As far as the Bureau could ascertain, Science for the People was not directly responsible for the tomato-thrower, but the group was picketing labs dedicated to war research and asking scientists to pledge not to work on military projects. Since they would “do anything to break down the offensive/defensive capability of the United States,” as one FBI report put it, the agency saw them as a real threat.

“Science for the People came out very strongly in saying that science is not politically neutral,” says Sigrid Schmalzer, a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “They had a critique of the entire system.”

Though Science for the People represented “the most important radical science movement in U.S. history,” write Schmalzer and her coeditors in the forthcoming book Science for the People, close to 50 years later, the group has been largely forgotten and “almost completely overlooked by historians of U.S. social movements.” But in the past few years, a new generation of scientists have been working to revive the group. In February, veterans of Science for the People and new enthusiasts will meet in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to reestablish it as a national organization.

“There are still questions about the priorities of science. Who’s paying for what research, and what are they trying to get out of it?” says Ben Allen, a biologist in Tennessee and one of the leaders of the new effort. “We’re asking scientists to think deeper about why things are the way they are, who’s in power, and why science goes the way it does under this system.”

Science for the People began in the political upheaval of the 1960s, when scientists started reevaluating the relationship between their work and government power. “I wrote this letter to the editor of Physics Today saying how we physicists should pay attention to the Vietnam War, we are involved, we ought to discuss it at least,” University of California, Berkeley physicist Charles Schwartz told the American Institute of Physics, in an oral history interview in 1995. The letter was rejected, and soon Schwartz, along with other colleagues, was organizing to create a radical caucus of the American Physical Society, which publishes Physics Today.

In short order, groups in Berkeley, Ann Arbor, Boston, and other progressive strongholds started working under the same banner. In 1970 they began publishing a magazine of their own, Science for the People, which was also used as their most common name. (Some members also used Scientists and Engineers for Social and Political Action, or SESPA.) Covers of early issues of the magazine showed a raised red fist, with a white hand holding a beaker in front of it.

Scientists, Science for the People argued, could no longer maintain a posture of objectivity. Their research, however purely intellectual in conception, was being coopted for political and corporate ends. “In many ways discovery and application, scientific research and engineering, can no longer be distinguished from each other,” they wrote.

"They had a quite distinctive approach," says Kelly Moore of Loyola University-Chicago, author of Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975. After World War II, scientists were often seen as servants of the nation, who provided facts and technologies for use by other institutions. Scientists who objected to weapon-making, it was thought, could simply refuse to participate. "Science for the People was not interested in this ongoing story that the scientist was merely a technician that someone else used," says Moore. "They were asking about production of knowledge, capitalism, profit, and racism. They were not assuming that scientists were neutral actors. They assumed scientists were deeply implicated."

In practice, this meant that the members started reconsidering how they should direct their scientific energy and expertise. An ecology lab might turn its focus from theory to agricultural production, or physicists and engineers might expose a secretive group of academics who consulted with the Pentagon on weapons used in Vietnam. Activists involved in Science for the People also worked with social movements, channeling their expertise into activism, such as providing farm workers with information about the dangers of pesticides.

The magazine included writing about the dangers of militarism, environmental destruction, and sociobiological theories that connected human behavior, race, gender, and genetics—a form of biological determinism that brought eugenics to mind. Contributors also considered the problems of sexism and racism within science. A 1982 issue, for example, included a “Feminist Critique of Scientific Objectivity.”

Science for the People wasn’t the only group created around this time to link science and politics, but its scientists had politics further to the left than the Union of Concerned Scientists, formed in 1969, and other groups. Some these groups operated by providing information to the public and advising the government; Science for the People was focused on how knowledge is produced and why.

“In the context of contemporary of American corporate capitalism … [science] largely contributes to the exploitation and oppression of most of the people both in this country and abroad."

The group’s writing was often grounded in Marxist analysis of power, capitalism, and class interests. “In the context of contemporary of American corporate capitalism … [science] largely contributes to the exploitation and oppression of most of the people both in this country and abroad,” members wrote in a 1970 essay, “Toward a Science for the People” (which the journal Science refused to publish, over the objections of some reviewers). The group was far enough to the left that representatives were invited to travel to China, Vietnam, and Nicaragua, but not far enough to the left for some members, who were more committed to revolutionary politics and eventually split off.

Throughout the 1970s direct action—an even more unusual political strategy for scientists—was also part of the group's work. Besides disrupting American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meetings, members took part in a "research stoppage" protesting the anti-ballistic missile system and led pickets outside New York's Riverside Research Institute, which was involved in weapons development, according to the editors of the Science for the People book. Members of Science for the People supported and participated in direct actions led by others, too.

These direct actions weren't violent. As one "Call to Action" published in the magazine put it, one of the key purposes of disrupting the AAAS meetings was "to bring the concerned and well intentioned scientists there over to a more radical perspective" and to "bring to light the basic political issues involved in the present practice of science." They wanted other scientists to consider the baseline assumptions of the scientific community more closely—as any good scientist should.

By the 1980s, the group was no longer as involved in direct action as it had been when Humphrey faced down that tomato, and for most of the decade publishing the magazine became the group's main focus. Science for the People finally dissolved in 1990, but the work it started never totally disappeared. Other, issue-specific organizations had spun off, such as the New World Agricultural and Ecology Group and the Council for Responsible Genetics. Even in the 2010s, there is still a listserv connecting people interested in the ideas and values Science for the People had defined.

Schmalzer, the UMass Amherst historian, first learned about the group through China: Science Walks on Two Legs, a book about members' visit to China. “It was a really inspiring vision—even for those of us who have more expertise in China and some historical distance—that science should serve the people, and that militarism creates science that doesn’t do that,” she says. In 2014, she convened a conference that she originally imagined would be a few old-timers gathered around a table to tell stories, but that quickly grew to a three-day event.

Since then, younger scientists have begun starting new chapters of Science for the People across the country. “I think a lot of people saw the power in this historical body of thought, the books and magazines that were produced, and the spirit of that slogan, 'Science for the People,'” says Allen. “It’s powerful and connects with people quickly.”

Scientists still depend on the military for funding, sexism is still a problem in scientific departments, and corporations and their desires still dictate the work and survival even of academic scientists.

After all, the passions of Science for the People in the 1970s and '80s remain relevant—and perhaps even more visible—today. Scientists still depend on the military for funding, sexism is still a problem in scientific departments, and corporations and their desires still dictate the work and survival even of academic scientists.

“I looked at the mission statement in the old magazine and thought, ‘I could still sign on today,’” says Katherine Yih, a biologist who was involved in the original group and is planning to attend the convention next month.

Scientists have often been reluctant to step away from their positions as objective experts to become activists. But the core idea of Science for the People—that science and politics cannot be divided—is a less radical notion than it was in the 1970s. Today, with the strength of climate denial in American politics and growing nuclear tension, it has a new resonance. A new generation of scientists is now wondering how they can use their training to keep the world whole.

Travel Why a Radical 1970s Science Group Is More Relevant Than Ever http://ift.tt/2Dx3PJH via Atlas Obscura - Latest Articles and Places http://ift.tt/2gfMXcj

0 notes