#polemic topic but whatever

[alicentsultana]

The way we see mothers in fiction reflects our relationship with our own mothers.

Unless we're going mommy dearest and similar works that show narcissistic mothers and problematic/toxic relationships and portrayals, those are undeniably horrible and bad.

However, when we talk about general mothers portraiture we're going to immediately judge also through what we live and experienced.

I have a wonderful relationship with my mom, though she had me hours after she turned 18, and of course, have committed errors, she still succeeded in parenting and raised me with the best of her abilities. Therefore, I tend to see mother-sons/daughters relationships in a good light, as as depth and development goes by, I can change and adapt my initial opinion.

Therapist and Psychology Professors oftenly remarks that mothers, in a way or another, have some parcel of guilt over how her kids will develop and turn out, some more, some less. Relapse mother? Troubled kids. Distant mother? Insensitive kids. Overbearing/Overprotective? Kids learn to lie, omit, rebel. So on and so forth.

Mothers do have a hand on how you deal with your life. But a loving mother, a zealous mother, a young mother, an older mother, a religious mother, a free spirit mother... All of them doesn't have to justify themselves beyond maybe acknowledging where they went wrong, because, after all, aren't all of them also bound by expectations, morals, time and beliefs? And weren't all of them doing what they thought was right? Weren't all of them dealing with motherhood differently and in their particular ways? With or without support, they did what they could.

But take a look at these mothers:

They made mistakes, do they have to justify themselves and ask for forgiveness? Because they did what they have to? To survive, to attend demands, to protect, to ensure their safety and success...

There are mistakes, and there is also another even greater problem: you have to grow up and learn how to deal with this pain yourself, talk, digest, transform it, but no one but yourself will have to learn how to deal with it, even when it was done with such toxic and cruel behaviors, you will have to deal with it. To love or to hate.

Now, let's focus on the love part.

Mary, Elizabeth, Isabel, Januaria, the Bennets girls, Khadija, Alicent, Hürrem and Rhaenyra's children, all of them wouldn't even ask for their justification, ask why they did what they did, because they all know their mother loves them no matter what, they did what they had to do. Distant or not, overbearing, hysterical, insensitive, and doomed by the narrative. They know, and eventually recognize that those actions were done by love.

So yeah, go on, ask your loving mother to justify herself, I dare you all. Ask your grandma and aunt too. Ask that one mother who pissed you off online too.

Also, don't forget that maybe, that parenting style was all they came to know about. And unless one breaks a very long and, shockingly, difficult to recognize cycle, they will unknowingly perpetuate it.

Anyway. That's how I see it. Because oh boy, I wouldn't even ask my mom to explain herself to me, no matter my grievances. But that's a me thing. How do you see it?

[gulyas069]

ok conclusion of the Historikerstreit is:

the topic of the historic singularity isn't even the center of the discussion, which is lamentable because it should be discussed

Ernst Nolte's original article hits vulnerable points of the historic singularity theory but draws wrong conclusions and argues them terribly to boot

Habermas' retort is anti-intellectual garbage based entirely on faking quotations

there are elements within the historic singularity camp that place the holocaust so far outside of history into myth of pure evil that they refuse both sociological and historical scientific explanation for how it could happen (which opens up some unintended problems: it did verifiably happen so we can understand it, or it is myth and we can't; both things can't exist at the same time. but the fact that it did verifiably happen renders this argument moot)

the reference points for comparability of the holocaust that are mentioned are (a) the Armenian genocide (b) the Holodomor and (c) Pol Pot. the comparison to the Armenian genocide is orientalist, the comparison to the Holodomor is - owed to the Historikerstreit happening before the opening of the Soviet archives - not scientifically valid since the 2000s and the Pol Pot comparison is polemical. the limited points of comparison - both for genuine scientific exploration and nationalist apologia - make a genuine discussion of the historic singularity impossible

it is an unapologetically western-centric, if not supremacist, discussion. the German Herero genocide with the first German annihilation order is never mentioned - even when Eberhard Jäckel sees the singularity in the giving and executing of a straight up annihilation order -, and the repeated white supremacist judgements of the so-called "left" camp that the Holocaust is a singularity in the Western moral framework (but not the Eastern, or whatever the opposite of the West is), that ignore the British and French colonial genocides like the British invention of concentration camps, the American annihilation of the first nations, and the French war on the very population of Algeria, demand a (and i hate to have to use that word) post-colonial revision (as does point 5)

there are many comparisons and definitions of the singularity that demand examination whether their postulations are actually true, but this is never done because it is entirely a mudslinging battle in the newspapers instead of a scientific or at least genuine nation-building discussion.

resume: no need to read, it's a mudslinging contest, though at least it reveals the intellectual honesty of the repeat participants, both for better and for worse.

[theculturedmarxist]

I’ve largely avoided writing anything too topical about the conflict in and around Ukraine, because I dislike polemic, and anyway I don’t have enough technical knowledge to write about day-to-day military issues. Nonetheless, I can’t help being struck by the sense of disorientation and intellectual befuddlement that a lot of western writing about the fighting displays. In turn, this comes, I suggest, from a fundamental western unwillingness to do the hard work of learning about strategy and the political uses of military force, and to raise one’s eyes from the exciting bangs and booms, advances and retreats on the battlefield, and to look at the big picture.

So here, I’m going to try to take a step or three back, and talk about the biggest of the big pictures, and try to show how various  political and economic factors have to be taken into account in understanding what I think the Russians are trying to do. Whatever your views on the conflict, it’s very hard to say anything useful about it (I’m looking at you, Josep Borrell, for example) unless you make an effort to understand the importance of these factors.

Fortunately, others have been this way before in writing about strategy, and nobody more fruitfully than the great Prussian soldier and military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz. Now one reason Clausewitz is important is that he is part of a very select group of theorists and historians, including Machiavelli and Thucydides, who were practically involved in the things they wrote about. Like them, he is referred to much more than he is read, and misunderstood even when he is read. But Clausewitz was the first important theorist to get away from detailed writing about tactics, and ask (and indeed answer) the question, what is war actually for? And why do states resort to military force? His answer was simple: war is “an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” We want our enemy to do something, or stop doing something, and so, says Clausewitz, we must put our enemy in a “situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make.” In addition, he adds, this situation cannot be a transient one, where the enemy can simply wait for things to improve, but one where the enemy is effectively defenceless, or likely to become so.

But Clausewitz insists on the need to situate war in the context of state policy generally (not “politics” as politik is often wrongly translated here). Wars start, he says, because of some “political situation, and the occasion is always due to some political object.” Thus, “war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means … The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purpose” (my italics).  Although On War is a forbidding text, these citations (in the standard Howard and Paret translation) are all taken from Book I, and you can download an older public domain translation of that Book and read it in an hour. (Maybe Mr Borell’s office should consider doing that.)

After doing so, things become immediately much clearer, and a number of the questions not asked by western media and politicians become obvious. What, for example, are the larger Russian political objectives? How significant is the current fighting in Ukraine, and indeed how significant are individual battles? What parallel activities are going on, politically and economically, all tending in the same direction? And what vision do the Russians have of the situation they want to bring about—what Clausewitz calls the “end-state”?

But why are these questions not being asked on a systematic fashion by the West? After all, if it wants to frustrate Russian plans, it might make sense to try to deduce what those plans are, and how the Russians expect to bring their end-state about.

The answer, I think, comes from a mixture of two factors. First, much of the policy impetus on Ukraine comes from Anglo-Saxon countries, whose history of warfare, and thinking about warfare, is essentially expeditionary and limited. Apart from very brief periods in 1916-18 and 1944-45, the British and Americans never had to consider the use of large land and air forces, and develop a doctrine for their employment. Historically, military expeditions were small, with limited objectives, far away from the motherland. The Falklands War of 1982, for all that it was a remarkable military achievement, fits very much into this tradition, of small-unit tactics, individual leadership and battlefield improvisation.

The type of military operations that Europeans have actually conducted since 1945, and especially since 1989, have tended to follow this model. Although generations of NATO officers planned and exercised for apocalyptic confrontations with the Warsaw Pact, those countries that actually carried out real-life operations became involved in much lower-level counter-insurgency or peacekeeping missions. And when Europeans, still a little dizzy from the fall of the Berlin Wall, started to think about what tasks their militaries might perform in the future, their best guess was more of the same: peace missions,  military-assisted evacuations, crisis-management deployments, and so on. And so national service and large armies were abandoned, high-intensity large-scale warfare stopped being studied except as history, and careers were made from leading small groups of soldiers on missions far way.

The second factor is simply that in general the West’s wars have been limited liability ones, where there have been few casualties at home. True, the wars in Algeria, Angola and, arguably, Vietnam, produced political convulsions and brought down governments, but the actual death and destruction almost all took place somewhere else.

For the Russians, geography mandated a different set of criteria. Always a massive country with a relatively large population and long borders, the nation has suffered foreign military invasions repeatedly in its history. It is used to being obliged to fight on its own territory, and in World War II alone, suffered nearly thirty million dead, a large proportion of them civilians. Thus, national defence is literally a life and death issue, and thinking about, and planning for, war, takes place at a massively higher and more complex strategic level. It’s also worth pointing out that the formidable edifice of Marxist-Leninist Military Science has not lost its influence, and Marxism was above all a doctrine based on the predominance of tangible material forces.

This Russian experience inevitably produces a way of looking at conflict which is radically different from western one, with the proviso that the West itself has had to painfully learn similar lessons during two World Wars, only to promptly forget them each time. War is seen in a total sense: as a political, economic and military struggle combined. Sheer numbers, political discipline, massive reserves of manpower and equipment, total mobilisation capability and long-range and ambitious strategic planning are inevitable features of such an approach, so if we want to see what the Russians are after, it would be as well to include these factors. The end-state is, by definition, not military, and thus the military may contribute to that end-state in a wide variety of ways. Victory on the battlefield may not be the overwhelming priority, if other factors are operating in your favour, and the employment of large forces over a wide area will itself impose a higher-level way of thinking.  For example, giving battle, even if you think you will win, may be a bad idea if it uses up units and equipment which are going to be badly needed elsewhere. Better to withdraw. Conversely, inviting an enemy attack on your positions, even if it is tactically disadvantageous, can be a good idea if you inflict heavy casualties that your enemy cannot replace.

The Soviet and Russian militaries have a long tradition of studying the terrible past wars of their country, and there are a number obvious conclusions from any such analysis. One is the importance of sheer numbers, of personnel, of equipment and ammunition. In a long war, which the Russians, unlike the West, have always expected to fight, these things matter a great deal.  In the Cold War, the Red Army planned to win by a tactic known as echeloning. Essentially, you send your best forces in first, and they are mostly destroyed, but destroy the enemy’s best forces as well. Then you send in your second echelon, and mop up the enemy’s remaining forces, even if you lose most of yours. Your third echelon has effectively no opposition, and you win. (This would not have surprised Clausewitz, who argued that it was important to be “strong everywhere, especially at the decisive point.”) Likewise with ammunition stocks. If you have two million rounds of ammunition and your enemy has half a million, your enemy is going to run out before you do, after which you will have dominance. The West has opted, since the late 1940s, to have fewer weapons and less manpower, hoping that quality will trump quantity. During the Cold War, it also planned to use tactical nuclear weapons early, since it could not accept the economic burden of maintaining massive conventional forces as the Soviet Union did.  Whether all that would have worked in the Cold War we will, thankfully, never know, but clearly it is the very opposite of the policy the Russians have been pursuing recently.

If this sounds like industrial-scale warfare, that is exactly what it is: and literally so, in that the importance of war production was another lesson from 1941-45, where the Soviet Union out-produced the Germans in military equipment even after moving its factories East of the Urals.  Moreover, Soviet and later Russian equipment was designed to be operated by conscripts, and therefore was kept relatively simple, so that it could be employed in very large numbers. We are seeing the results now in Ukraine, where T-62 tanks, kept in reserve for many years, are being sent to the Donbas to be operated by local militias and recalled reservists with lower standards of training. The West has opted for platforms which might individually perform better in combat (so far, nobody knows) but are much more complex and difficult to operate and maintain. Among other things, any attempt to greatly expand western forces in the future would require a complete rethink of concepts like ease of use, training time and maintenance of equipment.

The West has an intrinsic difficulty with this kind of approach. Notably, its tradition of military history and theory is focused much more on battles than campaigns, much more on leaders than on forces, much more on stories of individual weapons systems than on war production. Even historians writing about the Eastern Front in WW2 still tend to write about individual battles (notably Kursk), whereas the best accounts (by Chris Bellamy for example) correctly focus on the campaign level. Indeed, it’s been persuasively argued that individual battles in that terrible conflict largely only affected the precise timetable, and that underlying factors dictated the result from the start. Notably, the catastrophic German underestimation of the size and fighting power of the Red Army, and the Wehrmacht’s inability to finish the campaign by the beginning of the Autumn, have been argued to be much more important limitations than victory or defeat in any single battle. That’s as may be, but it’s clear that even that sort of approach  is completely foreign to the intellectual framework of those western commentators following every video, every rumour, every twist and turn of the bloody game that’s being played in Ukraine. It’s hard to find an appropriate metaphor: perhaps music critics arguing over the costume of the prima donna in an opera, without mentioning whether the production was finally greeted by flowers and a a standing ovations, or by the cast being pelted with rotten eggs.

Finally, the Russians are operating, to repeat, in a Clausewitzian tradition, which sees military force only as useful when it is clearly tied to a political purpose. (And a purpose is not just an aspiration.) The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for example, included a clear political strategy for building support for the new regime among the professional middle class, reforming the state and the political system and creating effective security forces. In the end it didn’t work, at least not after the fall of the Soviet Union, but it was at least a strategy. By contrast, the kind of plans for Afghan reconstruction that that I remember seeing circulating in the West in the 2000s, were just a series of loosely-connected aspirations, where it was assumed that the arrows on Powerpoint slides actually represented some kind of causal relationship. Much the same was true at the time of the Iraq War (although the US State Department had done its best). In Washington, the future of Iraq was seen in terms of a series of concordant and sequential fantasies, with no idea how they were to be brought about. Mostly, this was because Liberalism always assumes that certain political elements exist universally, and that once the Bad Guys are removed from power, nations will develop automatically and ineluctably towards a liberal democratic model. This is still very much the view today. If you have anything to do with ideas trading as Post-Conflict Reconstruction or Peace-building, especially as marketed by organisations like the UN and the EU, you’ll be presented with a series of sequential steps towards a hypothetical utopia, but with nothing holding them together. So for example a Ceasefire is shown as leading to Demobilisation, then to Restarting the Political Process, then to Elections, then to Stability.  But if you ask precisely how a ceasefire will lead to restarting the political process (or indeed why it should do so) you’ll be greeted with an embarrassed silence. And of course in real life it generally doesn’t: it’s odd that it’s Liberalism, rather than Marxism, that seems to believe in historical inevitability.

So if that’s the tradition the Russians are coming from, and that’s why the West has difficulty understanding what it’s seeing in Ukraine, then what does that tell us about the type of wider and longer-term plan the Russians are likely to have, and how they will go about it? Two qualifications need to added though, before we start.

First we should avoid the temptation to assume “masterplans” everywhere. It’s easy to fall into conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, the Bilderberg group, the “Anglo-Zionist cabal,” or some plot to destroy Europe’s economy masterminded from Washington. But that’s the stuff of airport bestsellers, not real life. Second, and partly as a consequence, we’re not talking here about some complex and detailed plan over generations, but rather a series of relatively straightforward objectives at different levels, consistent with Russian statements so far, and with a sensible unbiased look at what their security objectives obviously are. As good students of Clausewitz, we would expect the Russians to consider war at all its levels, so let’s lean on him again as our guide.

Consider first what Clausewitz said about the need for victory to be complete, and definitive, to avoid the enemy being able to restart the war. And here we recall that, in 1945 the Red Army did not stop at the Russian border, but went all the way to Berlin, where it occupied half the country and installed a puppet regime. This kind of conclusion to a war is actually not unusual: in 1814, Russian troops actually occupied Paris after the final defeat of Napoleon. It is only in recent decades that fully inclusive peace settlements dealing with underlying causes of conflict, with the participation of vulnerable groups, and complex peace-building regimes after detailed negotiations and all-embracing peace-treaties, has become the norm. The latter will certainly not happen this time, which is why we need to be very careful how we employ the word “negotiation”, but neither is it likely that the Russians will want to physically occupy any more of Ukraine than they have to. So what would complete victory mean, in this sense?

Following Clausewitz, the first variable would be that of time. For the Russians, Ukraine must be left in a situation where it is incapable of posing a threat in any reasonable length of time. It’s hard to be precise, but twenty-five years sounds about right. Now, even if the Russians do nothing more, the best guess is that it would take a good ten years to reconstitute the Ukrainian forces to something like their February 2022 level of effectiveness. But note that this implies the availability of massive funds (which Ukraine does not have) or massive, organised and sustained aid from abroad, including either substantial diversions of new armaments from the already-depleted US and European militaries, or substantial investments in new production facilities especially for Ukraine. Neither seems very likely. In addition, a new generation of officers would have to be recruited and trained, military infrastructure repaired or newly constructed, and a wholesale process of conversion from ex-Soviet to western military equipment, together with the associated operational doctrine, would have to be developed. And of course the basic infrastructure of the country would have to be repaired in order for the military to function at all. The chances of achieving that at all, let alone in as short a period as a decade, are not great.

So the problem may solve itself. However, it’s probably not in Russia’s interest to have Ukraine completely disarmed, because that would lead to potential instability, which could spill over into Russia itself. Whatever government succeeds the current regime in Kiev will have to be able to control its own territory. So the Russians may force a peace treaty on Ukraine which, for example, includes the creation of a professional gendarmerie, allowed to operate light armoured vehicles and helicopters, but no more. Attempts to develop or acquire more powerful systems would be impossible to hide, and easy to squash. This is a much more elegant and much cheaper solution than attempts to construct massive fortifications or occupy non-Russian speaking territories.

However, it’s been obvious for a long time that Ukraine is only the visible part of the strategic iceberg, for both sides. The West wants, roughly, a return to the 1990s, and the end of an ideological and strategic competitor. Russian aims obviously include frustrating that, but almost certainly go much farther. Unlike many people I have no idea what’s in the collective heads of the Russian government, but it’s possible to make some broad deductions from the draft treaties the Russians circulated in December last year. These are treaty texts, and drafts at that, so it’s unlikely that they constitute anything more than a wish-list of objectives that in reality would probably have to be adjusted downwards. But we can make some reasonable inferences.

The principal Russian objective in Europe is to be the local military superpower, in a Europe which is militarily weak, partly dependent economically on Russia, and does not pose a military threat. So far as Western Europe itself is concerned, we are not far from that now: only Ukraine could have been said to have posed a military threat, and that is no longer the case. The idea would then be to convert the ring of countries around the borders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (in practice, the Baltics, Rumania and Poland) into effective neutral states, without foreign troops stationed there. This would not necessarily mean these countries leaving NATO, because US troops, for example, are stationed in non-NATO countries anyway. Rather, there would be an unspoken agreement (as with Finland during the Cold War) that these states would behave themselves with respect to Russia. One component of this solution would be the withdrawal of the relatively small numbers of US troops still in Europe. This is likely to be part of the parallel aim of effectively destroying NATO as an alliance, by showing that, in practice, it has no military utility, and by extension that what is generally called the American “security guarantee” is worthless. Note that this does not mean that NATO cannot survive in some dormant and vestigial form: it’s unlikely the Russians would object to that.

In all of this, we need to bear in mind one other concept of Clausewitz: the Centre of Gravity. Clausewitz wrote a lot about this in different parts of On War, but the easiest way to conceive of it, is as the most important target of the war,  on which everything else depends. It is “the ultimate substance of enemy strength” on which the greatest possible effort should be concentrated. Clausewitz notes that this may be, but does not have to be, the enemy’s military forces. At the end of the book, he mounts a strong defence of Napoleon’s decision to enter Moscow in 1812, rather than to pursue the defeated Russian Army. No conceivable military victory, he argues, could have knocked a country the size of Russia out of the war, while taking and holding the enemy capital could have done so. In the end, he accepts the plan failed, but only the capture of Moscow was actually worth trying. Had the Tsar and the aristocracy been as shaken by the loss of the city as Napoleon hoped, the war would have been over. That was the Centre of Gravity.

Clausewitz also notes that the Centre of Gravity may be the delivery of a blow against a more powerful ally. So in the case of operations in Ukraine itself, this means the willingness of the West to continue supporting the regime in Kiev militarily, politically and economically, because if that stops, so will effective Ukrainian resistance, and that will open the way to other strategic objectives. In a war where both Russia and the West are careful not to strike each other directly, this willingness will have to be attacked indirectly, effectively by persuading the West to give up, because success is impossible. There are precedents for this, although they may seem surprising. The NVA/VietCong forces fighting the US and the South Vietnamese forces were well aware that they could not win a conventional military victory. What they could so was to bring the Americans to the point where they realised the struggle was hopeless, just by continuing the war, and inflicting political and economic damage on the US itself. This they duly did. The situation was quite similar with the French in Algeria and the Portuguese in Angola: both were militarily dominant, but each war ended with political and economic exhaustion and a change of government. Afghanistan is a more recent example of much the same approach. So here, the Russian objective is probably the political and economic exhaustion of the West to the point where further support of Ukraine seems useless, or even impossible. And whilst it may not have been part of the original plans, it’s hard to believe that the Russians would regret the West continuing, for at least a while, to weaken itself militarily and economically in a hopeless cause.

So at that level, the Russians are presumably seeking to make the West give up any hope of a solution favourable to them. This means they have no incentive to compromise, or to agree to peace talks. In effect, they only seek to dictate peace terms, perhaps along the lines sketched out above. If the West does not give up, operations in Ukraine will continue as long as necessary. At a higher strategic level, the Russians probably also intend for the War to go on long enough to make NATO’s weakness, and the impotence of the US, transparently clear, such that it can more easily accomplish the kind of wider objectives I have just outlined, as well as weakening western economies.

Now,  I have no idea whether this is actually what the Russians are intending to do: I can only say that it seems entirely possible to me. This is, after all, a society that takes Clausewitz more seriously than Harry Potter, and Tolstoy as a better guide to war than Twitter. And I have no idea whether it will succeed. But more importantly, if the above analysis is even remotely correct, then the West is intellectually and politically badly equipped to understand what the Russians are doing, let alone react effectively to it.

[peakatseven]

i feel like it's because people (queer and not) used to believe that gay men wanted to be women and lesbians, men. its incredibly heteronormative at its core, but if you look at history, lesbians have constantly used men's fashion as their own and gay men do it with female fashion. there's also lots of cases where transgender people first discovered they weren't attracted to the gender they were "suppossed" to be attracted to. for example, a straight trans man has always been expected to be into men, but really he's just attracted to women so he first comes out as a lesbian. further down he might realize he was just a man but didn't fully understand yet so he comes out as trans. so i can see why the two comunities found each other.

i've even encountered people who were fully supportive of same sex marriage (a pressing issue in peru still) who believe this is what we are about. men who want to be women and women who want to be men. wether that's through dressing, dating or surgeries, they think we're all the same. i choose to not see it as transphobic or homophobic, just ignorance and a product of the culture in which they live. that way i can try and educate them in a kind(er) way.

also on a similar note- i obviously know why it’s combined but it has always fascinated me that “lgbtq+” combines gender and sexuality 

[alastorseye]

About Remadora

When I say I really hate the HP fandom, I'm talking about the "fans" that hate everything about the saga, but still having Harry Potter accounts. They change the original story, claim that fanonical facts are canon, and launch hatred and death threats at those who simply like HARRY POTTER JUST THE WAY IT IS. Yes, I'm mostly talking about Marauders fans, which I joined after reading the books because I thought it would be interesting and funny. I suddenly realized how toxic and hateful that fandom was, it's like a cult dedicated to deifying Remus, Sirius, James and Regulus, and it seems that hating Snape, Dumbledore, and Remadora is a requirement to be a part of it.

At the beginning I used to consider Wolfstar as something funny, a bromance, it never bothered me, I mean... every fandom has fanon ships and I respect that, but the way they always hate Remadora and their shippers is something that MUST stop.

"You see!" said a strained voice. Tonks was glaring at Lupin. "She still wants to marry him, even though he's been bitten! She doesn't care!"

"It's different," said Lupin, barely moving his lips and looking suddenly tense. "Bill will not be a full werewolf. The cases are completely -"

"But I don't care either, I don't care!" said Tonks, seizing the front ofLupin's robes and shaking them. "I've told you a million times. . . ." And the meaning of Tonks's Patronus and her mouse-colored hair, and the reason she had come running to find Dumbledore when she had heard a rumor someone had been attacked by Greyback, all suddenly became clear to Harry; it had not been Sirius that Tonks had fallen in love with after all."

"And I've told you a million times," said Lupin, refusing to meet her eyes,staring at the floor, "that I am too old for you, too poor . . . too dangerous. . ."

When I read this part of the HBP I realized that Remadora was my favorite Harry Potter ship. Of course I wasn't aware of the death threats I'd receive later. I've read some "reasons" why some fans hate Remadora.

"Tonks forced him!"

We all know how insecure Remus was. I don't have to explain what's written in Wizarding World (Pottermore). This is the Remus bio:

Well, we can read that Remus was really attracted to Dora.

"Remus, so often melancholy and lonely, was first amused, then impressed, then seriously smitten by the young witch. He had never fallen in love before. If it had happened in peacetime, Remus would have simply taken himself off to a new place and a new job, so that he did not have to endure the pain of watching Tonks fall in love with a handsome, young wizard in the Auror office, which was what he expected to happen. However, this was war; they were both needed in the Order of the Phoenix, and nobody knew what the next day would bring. Remus felt justified in remaining exactly where he was, keeping his feelings to himself but secretly rejoicing every time somebody paired him with Tonks on some overnight mission".

This is so sad and cute, and that's undeniable. I cried when I read it. If someone still thinking that Dora forced Remus to marry her after reading this paragraph... I mean... they're probably talking about another book series.

"The age gap!"

I'm so satisfied to know that some Remadora shippers have explained this. When it's about a kid and an adult... OF COURSE IS HORRENDOUS! Because children are not physically and mentally prepared to have romantic relationships. Wizards are legally adults at 17, REMUS MET TONKS WHEN SHE WAS 21!

I mean, many old people abuses of young people innocence, or something. But we all know that Remus wasn't one of those! He really loved Tonks, and that's canon. I don't know what's doing in the fandom people who denies canon facts.

Remus and Tonks were two physically, mentally, and legally adults loving each other.

"Remus didn't love her!"

He was an introvert, Tonks was an extrovert, she made his life better. And of course, I loved the way he introduced himself when he was trying to prove he wasn't a Death Eater:

"I am Remus John Lupin, werewolf, sometimes known as Moony, one of the four creators of the Marauder's Map, married to Nymphadora, usually known as Tonks, and I taught you how to produce a Patronus, Harry, which takes the form of a stag." (Remus Lupin, DH)

Maybe I'm not the only one who perceive he was proud to be Nymphadora Tonks husband.

"I.. I made a grave mistake in marrying Tonks. I did it against my better judgment and have regretted it very much every since". (Remus Lupin, DH)

This phrase makes more sense after reading Remus bio. He used to think that he was "too poor, too dangerous" for her. He thought he wasn't enough for her. He never imagined that she would love him back. He was a werewolf, and of course he knew he was dangerous, you only need to be emphatic to realize he tried to get away from Tonks because he loved her, he didn't want to hurt his beloved woman!

If you don't believe me, read this again. It's in the chapter 11 of Deathly Hallows:

"Don't you understand what I've done to my wife and my unborn child? I should never have married her, I've made her an outcast!"

So, if Remus was trying to escape it's because he loved them, he thought he spoiled their lives. And of course, no one likes to feel that their influence is bad for someone they love!

"Their relationship came from nowhere! They don't have a development"

Well, the saga's name is HARRY POTTER, not The Love Life of Remus Lupin. The story is about the tragic life of this kid and everything he went through to save the world of a cruel and dark villain. I know many readers are young people in love, and they only want to ship everything, but that's not the main topic here, maybe mother's love would be the topic. Of course Ron and Hermione had a development because they were HARRY'S BEST FRIENDS, and they were always with him, from Philosopher's Stone to Cursed Child. Remus and Tonks are minor characters, and it's funny the fact that this usually comes from Wolfstar shippers, so... is Wolfstar more developed than Remadora?! I mean... they can ship whatever they want, Snape and the Sorting Hat, Dobby and Voldemort, anything, but that does not give them the right to disrespect such a cute, tragic and beautiful canon ship as Remadora.

"They are queercoded! Their relationship is homophobic!"

It's surprising to hear this. It's like... people gets angry just because the author doesn't make queer their favourite characters? I will explain why I don't think Remus and Tonks are "queercoded":

Whether through their dress, their behavior, their language, or other subtle forms of implication, queer characters were written or designed to communicate their unstated queerness to those who were searching for representation.

And this is the definition on the website Pride.com:

"Using LGBTQIA tropes and stereotypes to allude to a character's sexuality without explicitly confirming it in the text."

We all know that Disney used queercoding on characters like Ursula, Scar, Jaffar. And why do we know that? Because DISNEY WANTED TO PORTRAY THEM LIKE THAT, get it? Disney, THE CREATORS MADE THESE CHARACTERS INTENTIONALLY QUEER. How? BASED ON STEREOTYPES.

And going back to Remadora, I was really happy to see by first time a bada*ass woman, with short hair who wasn't portrayed as a lesbian just because the way she looks. This character didn't follow the: "Straight women have long hair and are girly", and "short dyied hair is for lesbians". I'm very very very surprised the fandom follows these stereotypes.

About Remus: I don't know how the phrase "being a werewolf is a metaphor about people with HIV AIDS" means "he's gay". Fenrir Greyback bit him when he was a kid. Many people interpret this as "r4pe". Okay, even thinking that it is the meaning of the "bite", I still cannot understand how being "r4ped" and "infected" makes him queer. Is this (again) a stereotype about people with AIDS and gay?

"JK Rowling created Remadora because she didn't like people shipping Wolfstar!"

It is true that fans love shipping everything, they queerbait and queercode everything. That's great, that's not the problem. The problem is when people starts bashing fans who ship canon straight couples. A very good example is the polemic on Falcon and Bucky relationship, some fans wanted them to be a gay couple, Anthony Mackie said that two men can only be friends, and there is no need to always give them a romantic connotation. People cancelled him, they called him homophobic. Yes, just because a person with authority (on the story they're following") didn't like the fact of queercoding their favourite characters. It's the same about Remadora.

Grindeldore is a very interesting and underrated couple by the way. You can love or hate JK Rowling, but the truth is that Harry Potter story is hers, and even if Remadora was "because she didn't like Wolfstar", she is the author, it was her mind where these characters first appeared, as a big Harry Potter fan I respect and like the original story, that's not a sin. An author has the right to make some changes if some characters were misunderstood by the readers.

(Yes, I wrote this a bit angrily since I've seen too much hate towards Remadora shippers)

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

as a fairly recent bts aficionada (discovered them in 2020), i’m a bit confused by the double standards in this fandom… like, why the polemic about this Jk’s pic with that Jay Park guy (who seems to be an ego the size of a planet but well, like so many artists) but crickets about the ones with Lady Gaga or even more the collab with Snoop (as much as i like to listen to his music his lyrics are mostly extremely misogynist)? it’s like people were more concerned by his so-called bad tweets about Bts (honestly it wasn’t that bad but maybe i haven’t seen them all) rather than the rest tbh.. I don’t understand this fandom half of the time there’s a scandal"… anyway, I really like reading your blog, you don’t stay at the surface level of things and don’t idolize the boys it’s refreshing

Fans like to pick and choose whatever is deemed acceptable for them or who needs to be cancelled according to their own criteria, which is always changing, depending on their belief/outrage/mood. If they don't like Jay Park and his views and statements and as a result, JK having a photo with him is problematic, then the same should apply to their colab with Snoop or them working with Supreme Boi (army doesn't like him but I haven't seen anyone cancelling BTS for it).

I'm not going to discuss here what Jay Park did and said because this is not a topic that I want to engage too much with. I can understand those who have a problem with him and also those who don't and I'll leave it at that. But what I will say, is that Army does have double standards as you mentioned and things that are being criticized in other artists get a free pass including when it comes to BTS themselves.

And one last thing and I'm closing the Jay Park - Jungkook topic, is that Jungkook is a man that seems to like doing whatever he wants, a fandom can't control him or ask of him to behave or hang out with people that only a fandom deems acceptable. He is his own person, with his own beliefs and moral compass and if those things turn out to be in contradiction to what some fans want, then so be it.

[helianthus-tarot]

Hey, Julian! Because of your convo with an Anon, I just tested the 16personalities.com (3x to make sure) and my personality is INFP-T. I know most people say that internet tests are not precise but in my case, it's right, according to the test I made when I was in school, applied by a psychopedagogue (I guess that was the professional) and as a matter of self-knowledge. Do you credit the correspondence between MBTI and Astrology that some people do? I know it's a divided and ““polemic”” topic. Have a nice week.🤸🏻‍♀️

Hi there!

1. Official test and certified MBTI individuals

If I had to rely on a test, I would only rely on the official MBTI test. I can't personally attest to the official test accuracy because I haven't taken it, but this is a good post.

So to recap, the original personality type theory was from Carl Jung. It was further developed by Myers-Briggs. There is a MBTI company that develops assessments and provides trainings. So if a person wants to be certain, they should rely on MBTI certified consultants/individuals or use the official test.

I don't know who you are talking about and whether or not they are certified. So I can't comment on the accuracy. Certified individuals have access to the official test I think. For people who live in the US, it's about $50, just buy it if you want an answer.

[ official test | the company | research org ]

2. 16personalities

16personalities can be right. But it can also be wrong. And that's what makes tests generally unreliable. I just checked it again, and a lot of the questions don't take into account the reason/thinking process behind the action/preference.

I've got INTJ, ISTJ, INFJ, INTP from it. It changes based on my mood/health that day (taken on different days). If I can get it wrong, other people can get it wrong too. So how do we know which result is correct? We can't. Not unless we learn cognitive functions (or take the official test I suppose).

Don't misunderstand, I use the website if I want to narrow down someone's type when typing someone. But I don't rely on it 100%, I always check the result using cognitive function theory.

We can still be biased after we learn the functions, but imo it's still more useful than a personality description. We can turn the knowledge into practical actions. Personality description from a test doesn't help us much.

Learning cognitive functions is easier than learning Astrology. If a person can understand the roles of 10 planets and the characteristics of 12 houses and 12 zodiac signs, and what it means when you have planet X in house X in sign X, that person can learn cognitive functions.

3. MBTI and Astrology crossover posts/observations

I only consider posts/observations that are made by people who understand cognitive function theory (or people who are MBTI certified) AND who learn Astrology instead of only relying on Zodiac signs. Other than these; I might read the posts because I'm curious, but I won't take those posts seriously.

Is there any relationship between Astrology and MBTI? It is possible, but to test it, the person may need to 1) learn both Astrology and MBTI and 2) understand what kind of measurement can get them the most reliable data, which is hard to do. We probably won't see any relationship at all if we only focus on the sun sign and MBTI type (someone has done it, no relationship at all).

Also before we can make whatever conclusion or observation, we need data. How to get the data? Survey, we need other people. Astrology natal charts may be reliable, but MBTI results from free online tests are not. How can we get accurate data to form a reliable conclusion, if people submit the wrong MBTI type instead of their true type in the survey?

Plus, regardless how reliable Astrology is in giving out data on placements, there is also an issue about the chart itself. Should we use Placidus or Whole sign? Should we use Western or Vedic? Etc. It can work but it needs effort.

[hello-there]

Communities are a new way to connect with the people on Tumblr who care about the things you care about! Browse Communities to find the perfect one for your interests or create a new one and invite your friends and mutuals!

[icharchivist]

I’m glad to be seeing more post about the bullshit going on in France right now and tumblr actually not being dismissive for once, but with how much there is to catch back some infos don’t make the posts and i never know if i should bring them up or not

when we say systematic islamophobia is getting very bad in France we do mean it (see this post that sums it up well), we need to also mention that recently there’s been discussions of new laws that are less flashy and less obvious in their intention to harm Muslim people yet, imo, are even more insidious and worth talking about.

-There’s been discussion of an amendment to limit the topics being allowed to be discussed on university ground, mainly that we should “not discuss anything that discourage our laicity values” and “we shouldn’t encourage or allow islamic ideas”. The amendment itself is worded so that it’s just “not discussing things that do not align with the values of our country” which means that any topic and conversation the state may deem “unfit to the republic” could actually be censored, real censor. The main target at the moment remains Muslim people, and the right to defend their human rights in university, as well as the right to explore and study their culture in cultural studies.

-Meanwhile on a related note the government is also trying to pass laws to limit student protests in universities, right after this announcement was made. Protests on university ground could lead up to 3 years in prison. Student protests have been the core of a lot of civil rigths movement in France and a lot of the support for the communities in danger has happened in university ground. To target specifically the university, actually trying to limit the “freedom of speech” France loves to say they fight for, is also a clear move to try to cull the way people has been protesting about those laws being passed against Muslim people.

-(same as the first article, but it’s a wider problem) the state is starting to target anyone on the left that speak up to protect Muslim people by qualifying them of “islamo-gauchiste” (islamo-lefty). It is becoming a wider problem (the moment you link a political party to “your enemy” anything the political party says can be used to discredit them even if it’s unrelated to “the enemy”.), and it’s important to mention that the government believe universities are the core of the problem because it’s where “people become radicalized to the left and in defense of Muslim people”.

-Currently they’re also trying to pass laws to “forbid prayers at school” (also here), to not allow students to “pray” in “school’s corridors” anymore. This one baffles me because it is not a wide spread phenomena (and as many people brought up, students praying in corridors is often because they’re being anxious about exams anyway why is that that big of a deal), but the exemple taken to justify why it’s a thing that must be done only targets Muslim people and the way they pray, not Catholic people or the likes. 

-Another thing i almost forgot is the fact that they’re trying to pass laws to put back into question the notices you can get from doctors to not go to class specifically to target Muslim girls. This one is going to be hard to explain, especially since i’m finding only an older article and not the newest polemic.  In France we have sport classes that include swimming class, it’s mandatory, unless you get a doctor’s notice mentioning you cannot do this specific class for whatever health reasons. As mentioned in the first post i linked, it is especially a problem for Muslim girls since modest swimsuits are also forbidden. Any students, no matter their background, has the possibility to ask their doctor to make (fake?) health notice in order to avoid such class, especially a class that requests you to be half naked in front of your peers.  currently the government is trying to discuss a way to allow teachers to REFUSE those notices if they believe they are fake. This is especially made to target Muslim girls who have done this sort of notice to escape having to be half naked in sport class. As usual with this post, note how it’s going to screw over as well any people who for any reasons do not want to do sports (which is within their rights, some of the sports are extremely demanding), and especially throwing under the bus disabled people if their disability isn’t obvious to the teachers.

and i’m forgetting so much more because the government keeps throwing those possible laws out now, at the moment, while we’re still all in lockdown where we can be penalized if we go down the streets to protest, while most of the university are closed (which also brings home the disgusting irony of passing this many laws about “what happens in the university” while none of us can even set a foot in those university for over a year). 

A lot of them are pretty obvious in what they’re targeting, some others are trying to pass under the radar and pretend like it’s not because of Islamophobia. It is. It always is. And if this is not enough to be furious, each of those laws can be abused against any other group if the government sees fit eventually - their vagueness to protect themselves from the (rightful) accusation of islamophobia is ultimately setting up for this vagueness to be taken advantage of.

[grandhotelabyss]

"Changing the Literary Canon and Democratizing the Institution of Literature"

That's the title of my very first M.Phil English assignment. Got any input I could brainstorm about? Current reading recs include Western Canon by Harold Bloom and Literary Theory by Terry Eagleton. Just looking for thoughts to munch on.

It's a large topic; I'll very quickly recommend some essay-length treatments that might speak to whatever various sub-aspects of the topic you want to focus on; I assume most of these can readily found online, licitly or illicitly; I'm almost a decade out of grad school, and it's been well over a decade since my coursework, so if you want more contemporary references, you'll have to ask someone else.

Eagleton's book, especially "The Rise of English" chapter, is definitely a good first stop (though take his appalling glibness and snideness with several grains of salt and at the very least read Matthew Arnold's "Function of Criticism at the Present Time" for yourself).

For French Theory, try Barthes's "Death of the Author" and Deleuze and Guattari's "What Is a Minor Literature?" for the demotion of the integral, self-sufficient work upon which the canon is modeled and the elevation instead of the heterogenous and radically socio-political text, which can, implicitly, be any text (though Barthes's and D/G's examples are canonical).

For the sociology of literature, there's Bourdieu's "Field of Cultural Production," with its argument that the disinterested aesthetic posture on which the canon is based is a willfully exercised form of social power (skip the diagrams).

For Anglo-American identity politics and its discontents, see Elaine Showalter's introduction to A Literature of Her Own vs. Toril Moi's introduction to Sexual/Textual Ethics for a debate over whether a female counter-canon and its attendant criticism should be humanist or anti-humanist; Toni Morrison's "Unspeakable Things Unspoken" and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's "Axiomatic" from Epistemology of the Closet for how to criticize the old canon itself from minoritized positions, African-American and queer respectively; and Barbara Christian's "The Race for Theory" for a defense of the political necessity of open-ended (i.e., not theoretical) study and reading of contemporary non-white-male non-canonical literature, in this case late-20th-century black women's fiction.

For the contemporary digital humanities mentality, try Franco Moretti's "Conjectures on World Literature," with its techno-polemic against close reading of canonical literature and recommendation of distant reading of all literature instead.

For early versions of the pro and con stances re: popular culture as more vitally democratic object of study, there's Adorno and Horkheimer's "The Culture Industry" (con) and Fiedler's "Both Ends Against the Middle" (pro).

Irving Howe's humanist and old left defense of the canon, "The Value of the Canon," is finally well worth reading.

[ignitification]

I don't want to beat a dead horse but I don't get E and Hawks stans. Is it that hard to understand that by "Endeavor's in trouble" he means he's gonna do everything in his power to stop Endeavor from finally facing (more like starting to face, since most of the criticism is about his failures as a hero than as a father) the consequences of his actions that he's spent the rest of his life up until that point dodging? Even if they blame Dabi, it's not like their culpability is mutually exclusive.

I agree with you, but unfortunately it's not up to me or you to convince them. Everyone is free to think whatever they want (right or wrong it may be), and to analyse it in their own way. However, I do take an issue with people who want to convince me and try to put down my opinion by not even having sound arguments. Particularly this is worth for Endeavour, because I assume it’s pretty common knowledge that he is an abuser and rarely he has been called out for it (and for Hawks and BJ there is also the victim-blaming so uh), which mathematically means that they are condoning his behaviour, which I would say I don’t understand - but I think I do. It’s really not that hard to recognise that Endeavour has surpassed his guilt long enough and that he still hasn’t apologised for anything he did, and actually everyone who does not take an issue with his treatment of the family, especially after Dabi’s broadcast unknowingly is justifying his actions by letting him roam free (even after he had his chance to apologise multiple times). 

As for Hawks, instead, I don’t relate to his character and I actually talked about this a few times how I don’t understand him or his behaviour nor I want to. His victim blaming is just another drop in the ocean, and I do know and have befriended people who like his character (hell, one of my best friend’s favourite BNHA character is Hawks) but this does not mean that I personally have to. And if people like him, that’s up to them and I don’t judge anyone for it. I just would like to be left out of the polemics on my takes, as they are my takes and they express my personal opinion, regardless of whether the people reading them like them or not. 

Also no worries, you aren’t beating anyone, but I think it’s always uncomfortable to talk about these things. However, I do still stand by the opinion that everyone is free to think it in the way they want,  but it is always good to remember that it is where the other’s persons’ freedom stops, where mine begins. This said, I hope we can conclude this topic by saying that everyone has their preferences and that however they might affect our view, it is always good to know where to draw the line. 

Thank you for expressing your opinion and have a nice day/night wherever you are!

[bearplush]

I completely agree with your tags on that age/tweet post! I've been watching in disbelief and confusion how this topic came back around and a whole wave of black-and-white polemic opinions suddenly popped up on my dash.. I get that gatekeeping is bad and overgeneralizations as well, but also acting like really young groups will be just as comfortable holding a 20y/o fan's hand at a fansign as a 35+ y/o is just unrealistic... kpop has all sorts of weird dynamics and the labels literally make money off of "selling" their idols as imaginary girlfriends and boyfriends, so seeing older stans step into that dynamic can be strange and should be reflected, but of course of course doesn't have to be inherently "evil"... but also, like, I myself as an early 20s person sometimes feel weird stanning people born after 2000, even if I never saw them as "crush material" anyway, so the point that gets me worried is when fans don't think about/reflect that at all (but that counts for young stans as well, especially such that stan significantly older groups)

exactly!!! maybe the twitter op worded it a bit harshly (although if the person i reblogged the post from is correct then it sounds like it may have been a knee-jerk emotional response, and a totally understandable one at that) but as someone who grew up online in fandom spaces and experienced lots of weird shit from adults firsthand, i really feel like now that i'm the adult i owe it to younger fans to prioritize their safety over my own feelings and imo that means recognizing that it can be uncomfortable for teenage/early 20s fans to see people my age and older being obsessed with teenage/early 20s idols, regardless of whether anything truly creepy is going on or not. also you make a really good point about the bf/gf thing, like take the younger members of wayv for example. even if that's not how i view them (putting aside for a moment the fact that im a lesbian lol), the fact remains that a lot of the content they put out is *designed* for me to view them as like fantasy bfs, so i can easily see how it could lead to a weird dynamic (tbh i usually just ignore it cause im clearly not the target audience lol but still). but yeah the internet can make it really easy to forget that the person on the other side of the screen might be significantly older or younger than you (whether we're talking about an idol or a fellow fan) and while im obviously not saying we can all only interact with people +/-3 years of our own age or whatever i think it's something we do need to keep in mind

ummmm anyway so much for me not wanting to talk about this lol but im glad you saw my point and i hope you're having a good day/night!

[flowering-smile]

So this morning I read an article from a digital newspaper talking about a polemic that has been going around Spanish-speaking Twitter, talking about how Tolkien is sexist and white supremacist. Some people even accused him of being fascist and simpathizing with nazis. And I was quite upset about it.

And now I have to do a spanish assignment criticizing an article (whatever we want) and I'm exited on giving my opinion in this topic because I have so much to say.

[dragon-ball-meta]

Why is Piccolo's arc better than Vegeta's in your opinion? Not trying to be polemic, I just really like your meta and I'm very curious to read your thoughts about this topic.

Well honestly, a lot of it has to do with Piccolo’s arc just feeling more fleshed out and organic. More believable.He went from a being of pure evil stemming from Kami’s experiences of how wicked and cruel mankind could be to experiencing mercy and kindness from them. It planted a seed that started to grow, especially upon meeting Gohan, seeing the boy’s innocence, but also his kindness and warmth. It caused him to finally see the good in these “lesser beings” and even value the life of one of them above his own. But even THEN he wasn’t really a “good guy”, and most of his interactivity and alliances with the others were born from necessity and convenience. But during that time, he found himself coming to like this group of people, and the world he called home. And when it became clear that things were hopeless, that they were outclassed and doomed without extreme measures, he actually grit his teeth and forced himself to put his own feelings and desires aside and fuse with the being who rejected him as if he were garbage, or some disgusting, undesirable thing, all in the name of protecting the people he once sought to conquer, torment, and destroy. Compare this to Vegeta who more or less made very few, if any, changes during his time on Earth. He had no emotional attachment. Literally every decision he made was geared toward getting whatever inconvenience out of the way so he could focus on killing Goku again. Even fathering a child didn’t change him a bit, as he found himself more than willing to allow his infant son to die in pursuit of justifying and propping up his own ego. It wasn’t until Future Trunks demonstrated not only extreme strength, but a desire to even go at his own father if need be to accomplish his goal that Vegeta felt even the slightest tinge of affection and attachment to someone, something he still couldn’t fully bring himself to express toward his infant son, spending next to no time with him (and not even hugging the boy til he was 8 years old) until he saw an opportunity to train his son to be able to beat Goku’s son, still in the name of his own ego. Hell, he even showed a willingness to sell his soul to be rid of whatever attachment he’d managed to gain in order to get his ruthless edge back and force a fight with Goku again. And then… then suddenly, he’s bluffing. Suddenly, his son and his son’s mother were totally always on his mind. Suddenly, he’s willing to make the sacrifice play for the sake of the whole world.Now don’t get me wrong, those are still rather emotional moments, which is a credit to Toriyama really, but… it’s so forced. Especially in comparison to Piccolo’s. It’s such a sharp face turn for him that it almost gives you whiplash, and def feels like it was done mostly for the sake of fanservice and making him more marketable.Vegeta’s got an arc, no doubt about it, but finally saying Goku is Number One is hardly the best example of character development in this series as so many want to claim, especially, again, in comparison.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Doctorow's novella "Unauthorized Bread" explains why we have to fight DRM today to avoid a grim future

Salima has a problem: her Boulangism toaster is locked down with software that ensures that it will only toast bread sold to her by the Boulangism company… and as Boulangism has gone out of business, there's no way to buy authorized bread. Thus, Salima can no longer have toast.

This sneakily familiar scenario sends our resourceful heroine down a rabbit hole into the world of hacking appliances, but it also puts her in danger of losing her home -- and prosecution under the draconian terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Her story, told in the novella “Unauthorized Bread,” which opens Cory Doctorow’s recent book Radicalized, guides readers through a process of discovering what Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) is, and how the future can look mightily grim if we don’t join forces to stop DRM now.

“Unauthorized Bread” takes place in the near future, maybe five or ten years at most, and the steady creep of technology that takes away more than it gives has simply advanced a few degrees. Salima and her friends and neighbors are refugees, and they live precariously in low-income housing equipped with high-tech, networked appliances. These gizmos and gadgets may seem nifty on the surface, but immediately begin to exact an unacceptable price, since they require residents to purchase the expensive approved bread for the toaster, the expensive approved dishes for the dishwasher, and so on. And just as Microsoft can whisk away ebooks that people “own” by closing down its ebook service, the vagaries of the business world cause Boulangism to whisk away Salima’s ability to use her own toaster.

If this sounds absurd, recall how Keurig tried to impose a DRM scheme on their popular K-cups a few years back. The only difference is, Salima doesn’t have the simple option of just getting a different toaster. The residents in Dorchester Towers, located right here in Boston, the home of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), are being forced, as Doctorow puts it in an interview in the LA Times, to “use our worst technology as beta testers for bad ideas.” To add insult to injury, they can only enter their high-rise apartments through a system of “poor doors” imposed via elevator software to ensure that the wealthy residents of the building never have to see them. (Lest this sound too on-the-nose, “poor doors” are a real phenomenon in the US, UK, and Canada.) It isn’t just degrading either: since the wealthy residents are prioritized, during busy hours, it can take over an hour just to get onto an elevator, and so the residents grow accustomed to hiking up thirty or more floors.

Salima initially solves her problem by searching “dark Web” videos that teach her how to hack her toaster to make it work again with whatever bread she likes; to her delight, she discovers quickly that she can also hack her dishwasher, the ventilation system in her apartment, and more. When her friend’s teenage son Abdirahim catches on, he takes Salima’s hacking a step further and teaches all of the rebellious, clever kids in the building to hack all of their household appliances (and maybe an item or two that Salima hasn’t figured out yet).

But when Salima and Abdirahim learn that the freedom to cook and wash whatever you like is limited to people who can pay for the privilege -- and that the consequences might include losing their hard-won homes or even their freedom -- the issues get complex quickly. What comes next are a series of debates, a plethora of new hacks, and a pretty suspenseful chase scene, which happen to lead the reader through a sophisticated and detailed argument about what DRM is, and how the more vulnerable a population is, the harder it might be to resist technological abuses.

This story is not exactly subtle, and it’s not meant to be: as the Los Angeles Public Library review notes, “There is no question regarding Doctorow’s positions on the ‘hot topics’ about which he writes in this collection, and he wants you to know it.” Whether this approach makes for fun reading or not depends on how okay you are with being very clearly fed a message, and it’s not for everyone; it’s definitely a polemic. However, we here at the FSF aren’t in the habit of being shy about our ethical opinions, and I also found this story to be a speedy, engaging read full of characters who I enjoyed spending time with (if anything, I would have preferred this scenario to be spun out into an entire novel, and am glad it’s being developed for television).

If I have any quibbles at all with “Unauthorized Bread,” it’s that the ending feels a little abrupt, and has a bit of a deus ex machina feel -- but, on the other hand, the ending can be interpreted to mean that the fight for software (and appliance) freedom is going to require the developers of technology as well as the users to join the fight. Tech workers have already taken a variety of stands in recent years to push their employers to adopt more ethical practices, so why not stand with the public against DRM? The future posited in this book is grim: but if we band together to fight back, we don't have to settle for shoddy technology that controls us.

https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/doctorows_novella_unauthorized_bread_explains_why_we_have_fight_drm_today_avoid_grim_future

[coloss-us-blog]

How to Get Into Google News - Whiteboard Friday

Posted by Polemic

Today we're tackling a question that many of us have asked over the years: how do you increase your chances of getting your content into Google News? We're delighted to welcome renowned SEO specialist Barry Adams to share the framework you need to have in place in order to have a chance of appearing in that much-coveted Google News carousel.

Click on the whiteboard image above to open a high-resolution version in a new tab!

Video Transcription

Hi, everyone. I'm Barry Adams. I'm a technical SEO consultant at Polemic Digital and a specialist in news SEO. Today we're going to be talking about how to get into Google News. I get a lot of questions from a lot of people about Google News and specifically how you get a website into Google News, because it's a really great source of traffic for websites. Once you're in the Google News Index, you can appear in the top stories carousel in Google search results, and that can send a lot of traffic your way.

How do you get into Google News' manually curated index?

So how do you get into Google News? How do you go about getting your website to be a part of Google News' manual index so that you can get that top stories traffic for yourself? Well, it's not always as easy as it makes it appear. You have to jump through quite a few hoops before you get into Google News.

1. Have a dedicated news website

First of all, you have to have a dedicated news website. You have to keep in mind when you apply to be included in Google News, there's a team of Googlers who will manually review your website to decide whether or not you're worthy of being in the News index. That is a manual process, and your website has to be a dedicated news website.

I get a lot of questions from people asking if they have a news section or a blog on their site and if that could be included in Google News. The answer tends to be no. Google doesn't want news websites in there that aren't entirely about news, that are commercial websites that have a news section. They don't really want that. They want dedicated news websites, websites whose sole purpose is to provide news and content on specific topics and specific niches.

So that's the first hurdle and probably the most important one. If you can't clear that hurdle, you shouldn't even try getting into Google News.

2. Meet technical requirements

There are also a lot of other aspects that go into Google News. You have to jump through, like I said, quite a few hoops. Some technical requirements are very important to know as well.

Have static, unique URLs.

Google wants your articles and your section pages to have static, unique URLs so that an article or a section is always on the same URL and Google can crawl it and recrawl it on that URL without having to work with any redirects or other things. If you have content with dynamically generated URLs, that does not tend to work with Google News very well. So you have to keep that in mind and make sure that your content, both your articles and your static section pages are on fixed URLs that tend not to change over time.

Have your content in plain HTML.

It also helps to have all your content in plain HTML. Google News, when it indexes your content, it's all about speed. It tries to index articles as fast as possible. So any content that requires like client-side JavaScript or other sort of scripting languages tends not to work for Google News. Google has a two-stage indexing process, where the first stage is based on the HTML source code and the second stage is based on a complete render of the page, including executing JavaScript.

For Google News, that doesn't work. If your content relies on JavaScript execution, it will never be seen by Google News. Google News only uses the first stage of indexing, based purely on the HTML source code. So keep your JavaScript to a minimum and make sure that the content of your articles is present in the HTML source code and does not require any JavaScript to be seen to be present.

Have clean code.

It also helps to have clean code. By clean code, I mean that the article content in the HTML source code should be one continuous block of code from the headline all the way to the end. That tends to result in the best and most efficient indexing in Google News, because I've seen many examples where websites put things in the middle of the article code, like related articles or video carousels, photo galleries, and that can really mess up how Google News indexes the content. So having clean code and make sure the article code is in one continuous block of easily understood HTML code tends to work the best for Google News.

3. Optional (but more or less mandatory) technical considerations

There's also quite a few other things that are technically optional, but I see them as pretty much mandatory because it really helps with getting your content picked up in Google News very fast and also makes sure you get that top stories carousel position as fast as possible, which is where you will get most of your news traffic from.

Have a news-specific XML sitemap.

Primarily the news XML sitemap, Google says this is optional but recommended, and I agree with them on that. Having a news-specific XML sitemap that lists articles that you've published in the last 48 hours, up to a maximum of 1,000 articles, is absolutely necessary. For me, I think this is Google News' primary discovery mechanism when they crawl your website and try to find new articles.

So that news-specific XML sitemap is absolutely crucial, and you want to make sure you have that in place before you submit your site to Google News.

Mark up articles with NewsArticle structured data.

I also think it's very important to mark up your articles with news article structured data. It can be just article structured data or even more specific structured data segments that Google is introducing, like news article analysis and news article opinion for specific types of articles.

But article or news article markup on your article pages is pretty much mandatory. I see your likelihood of getting into the top stories carousel much improved if you have that markup implemented on your article pages.

Helpful-to-have extras:

Also, like I said, this is a manually curated index. So there are a few extra hoops that you want to jump through to make sure that when a Googler looks at your website and reviews it, it ticks all the boxes and it appears like a trustworthy, genuine news website.

A. Multiple authors

Having multiple authors contribute to your website is hugely valuable, hugely important, and it does tend to elevate you above all the other blogs and small sites that are out there and makes it a bit more likely that the Googler reviewing your site will press that Approve button.

B. Daily updates

Having daily updates definitely is necessary. You don't want just one news post every couple of days. Ideally, multiple new articles every single day that also should be unique. You can have some sort of syndicated content on there, like from feeds, from AP or Reuters or whatever, but the majority of your content needs to be your own unique content. You don't want to rely too much on syndicated articles to fill your website with news content.

C. Mostly unique content

Try to write as much unique content as you possibly can. There isn't really a clear ratio for that. Generally speaking, I recommend my clients to have at least 70% of the content as unique stuff that they write themselves and publish themselves and only 30% maximum syndicated content from external sources.

D. Specialized niche/topic

It really helps to have a specialized niche or a specialized topic that you focus on as a news website. There are plenty of news sites out there that are general news and try to do everything, and Google News doesn't really need many more of those. What Google is interested in is niche websites on specific topics, specific areas that can provide in-depth reporting on those specific industries or topics. So if you have a very niche topic or a niche industry that you cover with your news, it does tend to improve your chances of getting into that News Index and getting that top stories carousel traffic.

So that, in a nutshell, is how you get into Google News. It might appear to be quite simple, but, like I said, quite a few hoops for you to jump through, a few technical things you have to implement on your website as well. But if you tick all those boxes, you can get so much traffic from the top stories carousel, and the rest is profit. Thank you very much.

This has been my Whiteboard Friday.

Further resources:

Google News Help

Publisher Center Help

Google News Initiative

Optimizing for Google News: A SlideShare presentation from Barry's talk at Digitalzone 2018 discussing how to optimize websites for visibility in Google News.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

[monoxaos-blog]

How to Get Into Google News - Whiteboard Friday

Posted by Polemic

Today we're tackling a question that many of us have asked over the years: how do you increase your chances of getting your content into Google News? We're delighted to welcome renowned SEO specialist Barry Adams to share the framework you need to have in place in order to have a chance of appearing in that much-coveted Google News carousel.

Click on the whiteboard image above to open a high-resolution version in a new tab!

Video Transcription

Hi, everyone. I'm Barry Adams. I'm a technical SEO consultant at Polemic Digital and a specialist in news SEO. Today we're going to be talking about how to get into Google News. I get a lot of questions from a lot of people about Google News and specifically how you get a website into Google News, because it's a really great source of traffic for websites. Once you're in the Google News Index, you can appear in the top stories carousel in Google search results, and that can send a lot of traffic your way.

How do you get into Google News' manually curated index?

So how do you get into Google News? How do you go about getting your website to be a part of Google News' manual index so that you can get that top stories traffic for yourself? Well, it's not always as easy as it makes it appear. You have to jump through quite a few hoops before you get into Google News.

1. Have a dedicated news website

First of all, you have to have a dedicated news website. You have to keep in mind when you apply to be included in Google News, there's a team of Googlers who will manually review your website to decide whether or not you're worthy of being in the News index. That is a manual process, and your website has to be a dedicated news website.

I get a lot of questions from people asking if they have a news section or a blog on their site and if that could be included in Google News. The answer tends to be no. Google doesn't want news websites in there that aren't entirely about news, that are commercial websites that have a news section. They don't really want that. They want dedicated news websites, websites whose sole purpose is to provide news and content on specific topics and specific niches.

So that's the first hurdle and probably the most important one. If you can't clear that hurdle, you shouldn't even try getting into Google News.

2. Meet technical requirements

There are also a lot of other aspects that go into Google News. You have to jump through, like I said, quite a few hoops. Some technical requirements are very important to know as well.

Have static, unique URLs.

Google wants your articles and your section pages to have static, unique URLs so that an article or a section is always on the same URL and Google can crawl it and recrawl it on that URL without having to work with any redirects or other things. If you have content with dynamically generated URLs, that does not tend to work with Google News very well. So you have to keep that in mind and make sure that your content, both your articles and your static section pages are on fixed URLs that tend not to change over time.

Have your content in plain HTML.

It also helps to have all your content in plain HTML. Google News, when it indexes your content, it's all about speed. It tries to index articles as fast as possible. So any content that requires like client-side JavaScript or other sort of scripting languages tends not to work for Google News. Google has a two-stage indexing process, where the first stage is based on the HTML source code and the second stage is based on a complete render of the page, including executing JavaScript.

For Google News, that doesn't work. If your content relies on JavaScript execution, it will never be seen by Google News. Google News only uses the first stage of indexing, based purely on the HTML source code. So keep your JavaScript to a minimum and make sure that the content of your articles is present in the HTML source code and does not require any JavaScript to be seen to be present.

Have clean code.

It also helps to have clean code. By clean code, I mean that the article content in the HTML source code should be one continuous block of code from the headline all the way to the end. That tends to result in the best and most efficient indexing in Google News, because I've seen many examples where websites put things in the middle of the article code, like related articles or video carousels, photo galleries, and that can really mess up how Google News indexes the content. So having clean code and make sure the article code is in one continuous block of easily understood HTML code tends to work the best for Google News.

3. Optional (but more or less mandatory) technical considerations

There's also quite a few other things that are technically optional, but I see them as pretty much mandatory because it really helps with getting your content picked up in Google News very fast and also makes sure you get that top stories carousel position as fast as possible, which is where you will get most of your news traffic from.

Have a news-specific XML sitemap.

Primarily the news XML sitemap, Google says this is optional but recommended, and I agree with them on that. Having a news-specific XML sitemap that lists articles that you've published in the last 48 hours, up to a maximum of 1,000 articles, is absolutely necessary. For me, I think this is Google News' primary discovery mechanism when they crawl your website and try to find new articles.

So that news-specific XML sitemap is absolutely crucial, and you want to make sure you have that in place before you submit your site to Google News.

Mark up articles with NewsArticle structured data.

I also think it's very important to mark up your articles with news article structured data. It can be just article structured data or even more specific structured data segments that Google is introducing, like news article analysis and news article opinion for specific types of articles.

But article or news article markup on your article pages is pretty much mandatory. I see your likelihood of getting into the top stories carousel much improved if you have that markup implemented on your article pages.

Helpful-to-have extras:

Also, like I said, this is a manually curated index. So there are a few extra hoops that you want to jump through to make sure that when a Googler looks at your website and reviews it, it ticks all the boxes and it appears like a trustworthy, genuine news website.

A. Multiple authors

Having multiple authors contribute to your website is hugely valuable, hugely important, and it does tend to elevate you above all the other blogs and small sites that are out there and makes it a bit more likely that the Googler reviewing your site will press that Approve button.

B. Daily updates

Having daily updates definitely is necessary. You don't want just one news post every couple of days. Ideally, multiple new articles every single day that also should be unique. You can have some sort of syndicated content on there, like from feeds, from AP or Reuters or whatever, but the majority of your content needs to be your own unique content. You don't want to rely too much on syndicated articles to fill your website with news content.

C. Mostly unique content

Try to write as much unique content as you possibly can. There isn't really a clear ratio for that. Generally speaking, I recommend my clients to have at least 70% of the content as unique stuff that they write themselves and publish themselves and only 30% maximum syndicated content from external sources.

D. Specialized niche/topic

It really helps to have a specialized niche or a specialized topic that you focus on as a news website. There are plenty of news sites out there that are general news and try to do everything, and Google News doesn't really need many more of those. What Google is interested in is niche websites on specific topics, specific areas that can provide in-depth reporting on those specific industries or topics. So if you have a very niche topic or a niche industry that you cover with your news, it does tend to improve your chances of getting into that News Index and getting that top stories carousel traffic.

So that, in a nutshell, is how you get into Google News. It might appear to be quite simple, but, like I said, quite a few hoops for you to jump through, a few technical things you have to implement on your website as well. But if you tick all those boxes, you can get so much traffic from the top stories carousel, and the rest is profit. Thank you very much.

This has been my Whiteboard Friday.

Further resources:

Google News Help

Publisher Center Help

Google News Initiative

Optimizing for Google News: A SlideShare presentation from Barry's talk at Digitalzone 2018 discussing how to optimize websites for visibility in Google News.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!