#poltical rhetoric

[littledead-ridinghood]

Yes sorry Ollie is a cop. He is a cop in the way nearly every DC hero is a cop and part of copaganda. We have multiple articles on how all super heroes are cops but that you can enjoy them and find catharsis anyway. Ollie gives people justice who are ignored by the system and Ollie is a cop are both true that's ok. You can look up super heroes and copaganda on youtube and find multiple nuanced videos.

okay, I wasn't going to respond to this at first, but this is my opinion on cops in the dc universe. It's not fully fleshed out yet, I feel, but I've been mulling it over in my head for months, and is something I've wanted to talk about for a while now.

Plainly speaking, I think cops who work with vigilantes are inherently bad cops. Vigilantism is illegal and when cops team up with vigilantes, they are adhering to their moral code rather than the law ie copaganda.

It's a play on dramatic irony where we as the audience know more than the characters in the story. We can see Detective Jim Gordan, for example, working with Batman (who were told is a good guy) because he knows the GCPD is corrupted and he can't trust his fellow officers. Therefore, because Batman is headlined as "the good guy" in these storylines that reflects on Jim Gordan making him, in turn, "a good guy." We're told to view him as such because Jim's morals are "clean," "see he also wants to clean up Gotham City, so he's partnering with the people who are actually trying to do that."

The problem is that in these instances, Gordan is adhering to his morals over the law where his morals are to protect the people where the law says to protect property. We can say that it's for the greater good, but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal, argo, making him "dirty". And that is copaganda! Upholding Gordan for breaking the law because "he knows better than the institute" is literally some of the most common copaganda in media. It's right next to writing cops as if they're your friends so that people will instill trust in the institution (think B99).

Cops and vigilantes should inherently not get along because vigilantes would not exist if the system--if cops--worked. But the system doesn't work, so these individuals take justice into their own hands via criminal action. Now, we look at these heroes and say "yes, they're criminals on a legal basis, but we understand that morally speaking, they're doing good work." Jim Gordan doesn't have the luxury of that grayness. He can try to clean up Gotham, but once he starts doing so outside the law, he, himself, is also a criminal and an accomplice.

Personally, I don't think your moral compass should start and stop with the law because the law isn't always morally correct. Many laws throughout history have been created by those in power to stay in power. And if you can't recognize how the law can be used to impede on others' natural rights then you have an unholy amount of privilege. Having said that, most fiction where cops are allowed to uphold their morals over the law is written as them protecting the people (as stated with Jim) rather than the real-world equivalent where upholding "morals" is usually off-the-rail abuse of power. This is where cops use the excuse "I thought they had a gun!" and jump straight to brutality rather than assessing the situation and attempting to talk a person down. Because it's not actually about morals like portrayed on t.v. but, again, that idea that laws exist to keep the top on top.

I disagree with your statement: "[Ollie] is a cop in the way nearly every DC hero is a cop and part of copaganda." Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but this is a very "a square is a rectangle, so a rectangle should also be a square" kind of argument.

I think characters can have instances of copaganda (any story that has cops in it is inherently copaganda, even if portrayed in the worst light possible, for the simple fact that cops are present) but, that doesn't make them a cop.

By saying Oliver is a cop, I presume you mean because he goes after criminals, which completely undermines what a cop is. That's like saying an attorney of law is a cop because they work in the legal system to prosecute the accused i.e. going after criminals. Cops exist to protect property, uphold the law (but they have no legal obligation to protect the public a la DeShaney vs. Winnebago(1989), Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales(2005) and re-enforced after Uvalde in spring '22), and was created to control weaker groups of people.

That's just not how Ollie's portrayed. Oliver is portrayed as an anti-fascist, social justice, cop-hating, criminal. He's literally juxtaposed with cops. Holding himself accountable in law is not an endorsement of the legal system but rather a stance in his morals that no one is above accountability which is how the law should work. You can say all of his writing, just by including cops, makes his comics copaganda, but that doesn't reflect on Ollie as a character endorsing the police nor does it "make him a cop". Copaganda reflects on cops as an institution and how writers want us to view them. Oliver is literally one of the characters whose stories actively revolve around him sticking up for those who are victimized by the police. You said it yourself, anon, "Nearly every DC hero is a cop." You just happened to pick one of the ones who falls into the small minority of non-cop abiding.

Furthermore, though I assume you mean Oliver metaphorically embodies what role cops fill, in the literal sense as well, your claim is fundamentally wrong because Oliver Queen has never been an actual cop before either. Someone who would fit your sentiment would be Dick Grayson who has been written in the role of an officer before (literal) as well as upholds the system as best he can (metaphorical).

The difference between Bruce, Oliver, and Dick in their inherent "all stories that have cops are" copaganda is that Dick and Bruce both constantly get aligned with cops by others including the police whereas the Police actively hunt Ollie down because they see him as a threat to their power. Ollie actively hates cops. Bruce and Dick (usually) actively don't. Ollie works against the Police whereas the other two work with the police so much so that, again, citizens relate their brutality to that of cops.

I was reading Hal and Ollie's road trip arc a good handful of months ago (of which is about the dichotomized relationship between Ollie "loud and proud leftist" Queen and Hal "before his rebellious phase" Jordan), and one of the issues was made up of two stories. The second one is of Hal and Ollie at odds over the best way to solve something via the authorities or good ol' fashion revolution, but I want to focus on the first half of the issue. It takes place in Gotham where Officer Bullocks literally commits an act of heavy Police Brutality against a gang of older teens and young adults who wronged him(they trashed his entire apartment) and he gets away with it because he "felt bad." It was horrifying to read; there was no accountability.

So I agree with you, there is a wild amount of copaganda in comic books both because of writers' political beliefs and views on the world (bullocks getting away with it because the writer thought it was fine) but also in the context of the stories. An example of in-story writing would be the first thing Jason ever said to Bruce in rebirth: "You want to beat up on a kid, go enlist in the G.C.P.D. like every other bully in this city." So in the context of the batman universe, Jason and people like Jason (i.e. the weak and vulnerable) do relate vigilantes to cops because they constantly see them working with each other. Dick Grayson was a cop for a period of time joining the Blud. police department because "those were the morals his father instilled in him." And I could go on and on about the faith comic characters constantly put in law and order.

Oliver holding himself accountable under the law, though, is not endorsing the system like Bruce and Dick do, he does not place his faith in law and order. That is him actively taking a stance saying he is not above the law. Where on most cases, Bruce does view himself as being above. And even when Bruce admits to going too far, he will never fess up to the public that he, Bruce Wayne, did it, whereas Ollie doesn't allow himself to hide behind his persona. A big difference between the two men is that Oliver being Green Arrow is very public knowledge and Bruce tries to hide his life as batman as best as he can. It all comes down to accountability.

Now, you sent this about Ollie, so why am I talking so much about him in relation to Bruce. That's because Ollie and Bruce are constantly being related to as the same, usually in the vein of "well, they're both hella rich with no powers who play dress up, right?" But this is a complete misunderstanding of Ollie's character (for one, he's not rich, or at least he's not supposed to be).

I think this constant water-downed view of Ollie is what allows people to project Bruce's less-than-iron beliefs onto Ollie.

There are decades worth of canon where a core of Ollie's is the fact that he can't stand cops and doesn't believe the system that's used now can be saved, only mitigated as something better replaces it. He holds himself accountable for his actions as Green Arrow because he knows that just complaining isn't enough. He needs to step up as a leader and not just help overthrow a discriminatory institution but actually actively help rebuild it. Whereas Bruce actively believes the system can be saved. Most notable that comes to mind right now is the new Batman movie where Bruce, in his final monologue, just saw how the cops failed to protect Gotham from the riddler, but states how, just like the bat symbol is now established with hope, he now has hope that the police can do the right thing. He doesn't learn that the current system will never truly work and instead now believes that it could work (when we know it can't).

If you want to focus on copaganda in DC comics, Arrows just aren't going to be your strongest contestants. Because Copaganda does exist, but your best bet is going to lie within most bat-adjacent characters who literally try to uphold that system. Or you can look at lanterns whose stories not only are about literal space cops but have also deviated from Hal Jordan rebuilding his moral compass and calling out the guardians for their fascist tendencies to turning Guy Gardener, a man previously written as to be a notorious cop hater, into working in the Baltimore P.D. as an actual cop. Those groups have the basis for talking how police are glorified. Arrows just don't have that historical canon for a strong argument.

[the-perfect-wagnerite-returns]

thoughts on alex ross's book "Wagnerism: Art and Poltics in the Shadow of Music"

While the book is in my library, I've yet to actually read it yet. That said, I have very low expectations.

I'm well familiar with the work and opinions of Alex Ross, mainly from his tenure as a music critic for The New Yorker. I found his book The Rest is Noise to be long-winded and digressive, a standard impassioned plea for vindication of the "genius" of modern music that's pretty standard fare for the intellectual class. Emotionally charged rhetoric in defense of the ingenuity of composers like Babbitt, Cage, and Glass only get you as far as the ear is willing to tolerate, and unfortunately in practice their music is intolerable. He does a good job of including composers of true merit, like Prokofiev and Shostakovich and Messiaen, with others whose only merit is conferred by establishment fawning over ugly over-intellectualism, like Reich and Partch and Xenakis. My assumption is that the intention was to buoy the perceived merit of the latter to the actual merit of the former by association, but for me all it did was deepen the trench between true art and the academy-driven slop Ross is so enamored with. There's a very clear message here: if you cannot appreciate the noise of these musical intellectuals, it is because you are not intelligent enough to know how - you are not of the anointed.

I distinctly recall the publication period of Wagnerism, during the height of the pandemic. It was a curious affair for anybody with a healthy suspicious of the media establishment. Here was a book that should be appealing to almost exactly nobody outside of the musical world: an exploration of the political and social ramifications of Wagner as a presence both inside and outside of the concert hall. And yet, the book launched with unprecedented success. Ross participated in dozens and dozens of virtual interviews across organizations of all types, many of which are still on youtube. Recorded lectures and podcasts devoted entire episodes to his new title. Ross was featured and mentioned by name by high-profile conductors and producers in the music scene. And, naturally, the book was totally soaked with praise, glowing reviews, and positive reception on its release.

In all my years as a Wagner scholar, I have NEVER seen a response like this to a serious book on Wagner. Not for the works of Bryan Magee, not for the works of Michael Tanner, not for Deryck Cooke or Robert Donnington, not even for the late Roger Scruton, whose posthumously published treatise on Parsifal was his THIRD volume on Wagner in less than two decades. It was a fascinating convergence of the media apparatus and the intelligentsia. Perhaps less surprising is the rather more diverse reception Wagnerism has received from readers outside this establishment, but as I have not yet read the book myself, I cannot comment on their accuracy. But I certainly have my expectations.

[yanderemontgomerygator]

headcnanon/fanficitition: motngoemry yator is yanderge for glamrock fredy but trans rigjts are activelgy being striped away across the unitd states an transphobia is rampant acros all comunities

start

glakroco freddy: helo motngoemry gator whhat is going on

motngoemry gator: republicans hav been spewing out an endless stream of anti-trans propoganda, threats and legislaition throighout the U.S, to th point wher republicans are able to build an entire cult folowing and even win positions of polticical power by basig the majority of their entire campaign off of mockig and threatening the transgender comunity. ther are laws in several U.S stats right now trying to strip the trans community - especialy trans youth - of what litle rights they already have by restrictig access to gender affirmig healthcare, tryig to keep trans people oujt of sports, FORCIBLY detransitionig trans people, banning changes in ID, and a LOT mor. some states are even tryig to take trans children awya from their families and charge their guardians as CRIMINALS for givig their children HEALTHCARE. this is literaly a governmenr-approved genocide, as restricting access to gender affirmation WILL result in th deaths of an innumerable amount of trans people in all states that pass such legislaton. ontop of this, education of all LGBT identities (especially gender identites) ar beig banned from education on the basis of "grooming", which is an increeibly dangerous an obviously false rhetoric to b spreading. this same lack of education of lgbt identities is what has alowed transphobia to ge tto the point it is currently at. the worst of the laws are hapening in red states lik texas, florida and alabama, but therg are only less than 10 states in al of the U.S that are speculated to remain safe for transgeder peple on a legislative level within an election cycle. but thats JUST on a legislative level. societaly, trans peple ar at the most risk of homelessness, harrassment, assault and murder out of any other LGBT identity, and thats just the results frm trans people who reported having these things happen to them, whic alot of trans people do not feel safe doing due to rampant societal and systemic transphobia present in most helplines an law enforcement. some of the biggest things causing all of this transphobia right now are right wing reactionary influencers along with news outlets like New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, Fox News and mor, who hav been publishing a fuckton of propoganda as of late. these posts further lead the normalzation of transphobia across the country, and you hav pribably heard the result of this transphobia just living your everyday life thanks to the popularity of the dangerous lies they have spread, such as trans people being 'dangerous', biological advangtages in sports, drag events that allow the atendance of children being grooming events, and a lot more [all of whch are factually proven to be bull shit]. these outlets are also spreadig false information about transgende people that has lead cis people to feel comfortable ommitting trans pepole from conversations and spaces that their participation is crucial in such as human rights, LGBT issues, topics related to healthcare, etc. this ommission is incrediby dangerous as it favors the comfort of cis people ovr the inclusion of trans people in situations that can, at worst, be life or death for them. transgender people need and deserve a voice in al facets of society.

motngoenry agtor: obviously the main groups to blame for transphobia and transphobic laws are cis people and the GOP, but demicrats, progressives an the LGB comunities have all faild the transgende r community on every posible level as well. not only are the large majority refusing to do even tje bare minimum to help out the trans community, but many lefitsts actively help the GOP in pushing anti-trans rhetoric. this iz especially shameful from the LGB community, as trans people played a HUGE role in progresing protections for mariage equality, protections for LGB comminities as minority groups, and for societal acceptanc of queer identities. in return, the LGB comunities have done next to nothing to do the same for trans people. sinc republicans are not goig to elt up at all, more HAS to be don by leftists and LGB folks, ESPECIALLY those in power, to protject the trans community. the curent state of trans rights in the country right now should be seen as a masive failure by all left leanig people. it is completly unacceptable. the left is not doig enough for transgender people. leftist voters need to show up t the polls an look into who an what they are votig for. anti trans laws are being drafted acros the country as we speak. it is crucial rigjt now tht the left speaks out and does mor against the onslaught of anti trans legislation going around right now. the isues transgender people face in the U.S go MUCH further beyond what i have stated here.

flamrock fredt: wow

motngomery gator: yeha also neopronouns an xenogenders ar cool fuck all of you.

end.

sory for inactivity i hav been sleepig. i wil be back. Some dajy.

[[ALS. i wold just like to add since i mentiond drag that i am aware that drag and being trans is not th same. unfortunstely drag is a big talking point from transphobes rigjt now so it does end up beig relevant in conversations about transphobia.]]

[locustheologicus]

The Persecution of Social Democrats and a Call for the new Great Awakening

I recently went to the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. It is an experience that I will not forget. Like a pilgrimage I suggest that all Amercans should take the opportunity to visit this museum and allow yourself to witness to the horrorific geonocide that was allowed to take place in Nazi Germany. The horrors of World War II are now 80 years behind us and the hard-won lessons are starting to erode as we no longer fear totalitarian regimes. Dictatorships are now even praised by presidential candidates like Donald Trump who recently praised dictators and the totalitarian regimes of Russia, China, and North Korea during his New Hampshire speech.

In another post I mentioned how Candidate Trump has brought forward the rhetoric of Nazi Germany regarding who identified, persecuted and eventually murdered anyone who was not part of their Aryan ethnic minority and far right adherents.

At the Holocaust museum I had a wake up call as I saw my own political ideals and faith community mentioned as part of their political persecution.

Here again you see social democrats mentioned as an "enemy of the state."

I also saw my Catholic faith community identified as yet another "enemy of the state" because it had values that contradicted the far right agenda of the Nazi state. The caption on the bottom picture states: "Catholic priests were among the main targets of Nazi mass murder in Poland. Here, priests and teachers from the city of Bydgoszcz await execution."

I am a Catholic and a Social Democrat. I am proud of both my religious and political views which are very much what I believe in. I posted a blog titled "Confessions of a Social Democrat" based on a foreign affairs article titled "Can Social Democrats Save the World (Again)". I offer my own political platform (I firmly believe that all Americans should have their own) in this post for all to read.

Social democrats are followers of the progressive tradition that existed under the Roosevelts and the Kennedys. Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy can be said to support a social democratic platform that recognized the ideas of promoting social regulations and distributive justice that would support the common good and allow most citizens to enjoy the basic protection of economic and social rights. It was FDR's hope that our constitution would provide for the guarantee of social and economic rights but that agenda remains for a future generation. The post on social democrats unpacks this agenda further.

But I also believe that my faith calls me to adopt this poltical agenda. I am reading a book, which I will reflect on later, regarding economic democracy. It is called "Humanity @ Work & Life." In it there was a chapter that was coauthored by Brian Corbin of Catholic Charities USA. In recognizing the role that the Catholic Church has with elements of both social and economic democracy Corbin offers the following insight after reflecting on the Exodus story and how Jesus would follow-up from this biblical tradition of liberation and social justice.

Jesus was the first social democrat, distributing fish and bread to the masses, demonstrating that faith in the miracle of sufficiency equal to the needs of all feeds the hungry and heals the sick.

He goes on to juxtopse the Jesus of the Gospel narratives with the Christ of Christian nationalism.

Religious faith in America's present and immediate future is haunted by a widening dichotomy between Jesus the Christ and militant nationalist Christianity. The former distributes fish and bread to the masses, showing how the grace of moral and spiritual solidarity leads to the miracle of sufficiency equal to needs, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, dying under torture while forgiving tormentors and the sins of this world. The latter convenes and condones the Insurrection of January 6, 2021, carrying Nazi and Confederate flags into the US Capitol edifice for the first time in its erected history to ignite deeper rifts between garce and grievance.

Corbin gives us something to think about here.

It has been suggested by others including myself that a religious tradition of America is the Great Awakening Movements that have taken place. The first one led to the Revolutionary War, The second one preceeded the Civil War and the third set the progressive agenda that created the ideals during the Great Depression and World War II. I think, in light of what Corbin says, we need to prepare to usher in a new 4th (by some count 5th) Great Awakening that sets the authentic Gospel message against the heresy of pseudo-Christian Nationalism.

Social and Economic Democracy is very much part of the Catholic vision and the American dream. The far-right will attack us because their values do not embrace diversity and social justice. Furthermore they fear these legitimate American values which can be found in our revered Constitution and Declaration. Although I always enjoy reflecting on FDR and MLK's social democratic quotes below as well.

The above quote from MLK is hard to read to I will add it below.

I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits. - MLK

Jesus reminds us that:

No one who lights a lamp hides it away or places it [under a bushel basket], but on a lampstand so that those who enter might see the light. (Lk 11:33)

Our faith cannot stay hidden, especially when it needs to stand firm against a secular ideology that threatens to persecute our voices. All of the Great Awakening movement have served the social gospel and because of that we have witnessed America do great things and make a stand against injustices that our wealthier members committed. We active Catholics and social democrats will once again be treated like "vermin" by those who voice the divisive and hate filled speech of the far-right agenda. This is not a unique experience, but now we all be aware of the horrible consequences that can happen if we stay silent. Let us stand against the error of Christian nationalism and usher in a new Great Awakening era that can:

Address the corruption of money in politics and the need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform,

Recognize the reality of globalization, racial discrimination and ecological concerns,

And usher in the long awaited fight to incorporate the Second Bill of Rights (Economic and Social Rights) into the Constitution.

[butterfly-95]

As someone from international relations and Poltics, I think I can give you at least one key point as to why:

- mass government propaganda: we've seen it in situations like the rise of Nazi support in Germany where they led crowds into believing they should blame most of their problems on certain minorities of the population (if we want to use an extreme example, which is being followed by Israel officials in this situation, as ironic as it may be).

In another example (and in a much less dramatic and horrific proportion), you can look at propaganda used back in elections for certain positions: like how pro-Brexit politicians used (again) certain argumenta as justification to push for a pro-Brexit stance, such as border controls, immigration, sovereignty from certain European institutions and rules made by the EU, which in turn would end up backfiring on them badly because it is like a boomerang effect. If you want to exit it, then you have to be ready to deal with consequences regarding business and investments diminished since people and goods will face specific issues and ultimately affect certain sectors of the economy.

Let's also put into perspective the following: it is argued that areas where an active presence of other groups aside from the typical British citizen hasn't been seen could have potentially influenced whether the voters in that area/region would turn out pro or against Brexit. If you live in a remote area or where there isn't as much diversity, then the locals will easily be swayed by politicians' propaganda and believe some messages that are anti-immigration. Ultimately, personal experiences will influence the decision as well as economic prospects of the person(s) voting.

As such, if we follow this logic, knowing the background of the situation in occupied Palestine and taking into account the modus operandi of the Israeli government in terms of false messages that promote hate against Palestinians and anyone who dare speak against what Israel has been doing since 1948, considering that you oppress a certain group of the population while also promoting that there's a "reason" behind them living in such oppressive conditions (or even actively being persecuted and erased) while trying to control everything the population may consume of knowledge through media and other tools, the result will be the situation as it has been so far. Many people will be kept "in the dark " about the facts, much like how the Russian government also tries to spin the rhetoric in their favour while actively invading and terrorising people in Ukraine.

Of course, living in dictatorship is not an excuse for your "ignorance" especially if you're taking something out of a group's pain and oppression, but to shed some light on this situation, it is through misinformation, through lies and deceit used in propaganda that a hateful rhetoric is constructed and the responsibility turned away from the actual criminals.

I think people need to realize that it was sheer luck that they have been born in developed countries with decent living conditions, away from the threat of war or civil conflicts. It is by pure coincidence at times that you end up being a citizen of a developed country, rather than one with an impoverished population experiencing man-made (because it is man-made in this day and age) famine, diseases that have been long eradicated or war (be it a civil conflict or due to selfish interests of developed nations who profit from these, at the cost of civilian lives). You could have been born into these conditions.

The point is: NO ONE should ever be made to witness the horrors of war, famine, poverty, disease or any other trauma inducing situation in which they have no free will or say about its outcome.

[basilhearsanoise]

pleaseee elaborate on your homophobic sam take. it’s very compelling. i always thought sam’s early plotline with the demon blood was a queer allegory, but your explanation for his attitude towards dean’s bisexuality makes a lot of sense now that i think about it

WOW I'M A REAL SUPERNATURAL BLOG NOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH THIS MADE MY DAY I WILL ABSOLUTELY ELABORATE THANK YOU

there are So Many Layers i probably won't even be able to get them all down but here's some major ones. from the get-go, sam is The Opposite of dean on so many issues, and essentially throughout the show they flip. this is most notably demonstrated by the fact that sam starts out as a Devout Christian (or at least we are to assume that he is christian given his approach to prayer, god, angels, etc) and by the end of the show sam is completely and utterly devoid of faith. whereas dean is like If There's A God In Heaven, What's He Waiting For? - Elton John.mp3 in the beginning of the show, and by the end he's like "i have faith in humanity, in spirituality, in CASTIEL, in MY SON JACK," by the end. but this is just one of the MANY issues they flip back and forth on, or just slowly and surely change their perspectives to be more like the way the other brother started.

1. should we tell people there are monsters? dean says "we can't tell anyone they exist the whole world will panic" vs. sam says "they have a RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE"

but also. are all monsters evil? dean says "yes, they kill innocent people and they killed my mother and destroyed my life, they ALL deserve to die" but sam says "SOME of them must be good....it's not THEIR FAULT they're disgusting, evil and eat people uwu"

monsters/cryptids/spirits/folklore etc have virtually always been, in some way shape or form, a queer allegory themselves. the shapeshifter arc spoke to me as a trans person on a deep personal level. dracula was essentially racist propaganda. so if we take this allegory to supernatural, and say, "acceptance of monsters = acceptance of queerness" dean's hatred of them is a hatred of himself, his own inner monster, his own internalized homophobia - in addition to the fact that because he IS a queer man who has been VICTIM to REAL VIOLENT homophobia before, it would make sense that he is #antifa #acab #kill all the nazis forever #don't waste time trying to make monsters good when you could save good people from them instead. which is like. a reasonable response to have to a group of people that systematically try to kill you. but that also makes sam's "oh pity the monster dean, don't kill it, FORGIVE, JUST GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO ~ REPENT ~ THEIR SINS" ....like, even in later seasons he is saying stuff like this, and while it's true that dean SHOULD forgive some of the monsters that sam says this about, it still reads to me as two major red flags of 1. forgive your abusers to be the better person and 2. "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric. sam doesn't actually give a shit about any of these monsters he gives a shit about keeping his own ideological purity. he sounds like scary youth pastors i had as a child.

this is further demonstrated by the fact that as dean becomes more accepting of his sexuality as the show goes on, he becomes more accepting of monsters. that's benny's ENTIRE EXISTENCE AS A CHARACTER: "i accept this vampire because he is honorable, and manly, and looks really fuckin cute in suspenders." that's also why sam hates benny so much even though he's the one who's been like "but monsters can be good T__T" this whole time. what the fuck other reason would he have to hate benny so much?

this is also CLEARLY the ENTIRE subtext of the Demon Dean arc - Sam FLIPS OUT about him going off with crowley because he could FORGIVE one little crush on an angel, because of the fact that he's an angel, and also because dean wasn't "shoving his unholy lifestyle down everyone's throats" but demon dean is....loudly, angrily, gay. demon dean is a manifestation of all the gayness that dean has suppressed his whole life and now he's "too indecent" for sam. this is FURTHER demonstrated by the fact that crowley literally yells at dean to "pick a side" after demon dean sides with the slighted wife in a demon deal instead of the cheating husband, literally because of the fact that the husband says "men are just supposed to sleep around" and dean gets so mad about this sexism that he kills him.

this is dean not only rejecting sexism more than sam literally ever actually does in the show (everything he says about it reads to me as idle posturing Fake Woke Shit whereas dean is a sleazebag, but he's an Equal Opportunity sleazebag) but also his rejection of being pigeonholed as gay when he is, indeed, bisexual. crowley represents the biphobia that gay people enact on bi people, sam represents the homophobia that straight people enact on all queer people.

this brings me to the next part of sam's Not Niceness - he's like, actually 100% more misogynistic than dean is. i know i'm Not A Woman but like i am trans, queer, and not dumb. sam is a fucking sadist serial killer man who treats women like garbage the SECOND they are no longer useful to him, this is most clearly demonstrated when he doesn't have a "soul" but it existed in him basically from the get-go, he is painted as the "more emotionally mature one" but that reading became so inaccurate the show literally started making fun of his character for thinking that sappy fake shit could pass as sincere care for another human being. dean actually talks to women like they're people with feelings. he routinely identifies with the victims and is paralleled against them, especially if they are victims of childhood sexual assault. sam does not talk to women unless they serve some kind of purpose to his goals and is much more routinely depicted weirdly enjoying killing enemies that are women. sometimes not even for plot reasons, it's just weird shots that nobody thought to red flag because this show is. A MESS.

anyway. another example is the one that i mentioned in the post about the confederate soldier, the fact that sam is fucking racist and dean is at least, within the narrative, less racist.

ANYWAY, THERE'S STILL MORE I COULD TALK ABOUT BUT I'LL LEAVE IT AT THIS: sam is constantly telling dean that he's not being sensitive or poltically correct but every single time it comes off sounding like a straight person telling an actual gay person how not to be homophobic. like, please, sammy, touch grass. dean says: touch grass, kill nazis.

[corelliaxdreaming]

I finished my first day of orientation! It was pretty boring actually, lots of safety and manufactoring defects and things I already know from being in this line of work for awhile. There's only one other guy training with me, but at least I'm not alone. The trainer guy is pretty chill. Talked constantly about his granddaughter, which was kind of adorable. Nice overall. But made an HR-type comment about how it's better to keep politics out of the workplace. Then, throughout the day proceded to make the following comments:

~*'blizzards still exist so climate change can't be real' rhetoric*

~"Vaccines are creating supervirusus."

~"I'm in the process of filing complaints that we have a nursing mothers' room but not a man cave." (cleary a joke, but really, dude?)

~One I'm slightly less likely to actually be upset at him for, but lots of gendered language when discussing products like IUDs and prostate exam equipment.

~"Let me tell you this aside about my tough military vet friend who punched out a pushy BLM person soliciting donations with the full knowledge it could have killed him and not caring." (Like, yeah, it sounds like the person was being shitty, but the tone in which you tell a story like this matters.)

~He made a comment about his doctor saying he needed cataract surgery but he didn't want it. The other trainee joked, "Tell him you don't need one because you don't drive a Cataract, you drive a Rincoln." Which was funny for exactly as long as it took the trainer to say "my doctor is actually Chinese, so I'm gonna do that, and it's gonna be hilarious."

Like I said, not a bad guy, but...not exactly 100% woke. Also doesn't seem to realize how much casual conversation and anecdotes reveal your poltical stances.

[nedflames]

My thoughts on "Random" humor (motivated by Danny's last video, of course)

In college, I learned about this theory of humor called "benign violation" which explains that a joke needs to surprise the audience (violation) but it also needs to stay within certain boundaries so it doesn't go over heads or anger an audience (benign). There needs to be a balance.

There is also a theory of "tension and release". Jokes need build up (tension) and then they need a punchline that sparks shock and laughter (release). That's why comedy is so close to horror (tension of fear that sometimes stays or can be released by shock, conclusion, or laughter). I'm gonna make this sexual, because why not, but it's also why comedy is similar to an orgasm; there needs to be a peak of tension that gets rewarded with catharsis (what the French call "La Petite Mort" aka "The Small Death"). The act of laughter, not always spurred by a joke becuase laughter can also come from fear or stress, is the body's way of releasing tension. There can be no release WITHOUT tension.

(I really wanna carry on about how comedy and horror can use this tension and release to combat cognitive dissonance in an audience. Like, they provide comfortable space for being uncomfortable and that's a powerful way to communicate certain social/poltical ideas both for the good or the bad. Comedy and horror, like rhetoric, are AMORAL tools of communication/art and can be used to dismantle social/poltical dogmas OR support them. This is one of the many reasons why I wish people would respect comedy and horror as art forms because as soon as we value them enough to analyze them we can use them for good and understand how they ARE used for bad. I just had to say all of this irrelevant stuff. I HAD to.)

Guava's problem is that he thinks he's reaching for the violation side of the "benign violation" spectrum but in reality he's abused it so much that the violation has become benign. That's how "random XD" humor works. Another problem with that brand of humor is when someone thinks they're being funny because their punchlines are "shocking" but when punchlines are too inaccessible and weak they're just too benign. There is no build up of tension so there can be no release.

Good random humor should be used sparingly or else it loses it's violating/shocking nature. And good random humor needs to be accessible to an audience.

(Here's where I should've ended the rant but keep reading if you want to see this spiral into some philosophical/ethical stuff)

Of course this all hinges on one thing I've been mentioning a lot: audience. Humor, like all art forms, is subjective. What is benignly violating to one audience can be too violating or too benign to another audience. Guava's audience is very young and...well, stupid. Young and stupid enough that they can't grasp comedic concepts past "I just said the word CHEESE loudly aren't I a silly goose??". So, they may find his content funny because they don't have the critical thinking skills or cognitive powers to want anything more challenging from their entertainment. It's all mindless nonsense.

Which is...bad imo because children should be exposed to content that DOES challenge them in some way (hell, EVERYONE should be exposed to content that makes their brain interact with it). Am I saying we shouldn't enjoy some mindless content every now and then? Absolutely not. But I think if that kind of content is all that a kid watches then that's fucking damaging to their cognitive and critical thinking skills.

Hate to get all Frankfurtian here, but anti-intellectualism is rampant in the U.S. and that's PARTIALLY because we're too comfortable consuming mindless art, we don't value art, and we don't interact with art in meaningful ways. If we aren't thinking critically about art, if we aren't interacting with it, that makes us so much more susceptible to negative propaganda (propaganda is also amoral, guys). It numbs our brains, turning them to on/off switches instead of the mechanical wonders they should be. We cannot let this keep happening. We can't let children have their brains get destoryed by mind-numbing media.

While the Frankfurts were hella classist with their views on high vs low art, they had some good fucking points! (Look at the state of the U.S. after we voted for a fucking celebrity who relied on ignorance to get where he got.)

Kids should not be consuming mindless content! (At least mindless content should not be in their main diet! It should be equal to like...a snack every once and a while.)

Wow, I did not expect this rant to go in this direction but here we are. It started off as a rant about comedy and turned into a rant about the moral issues behind mindless children's content. It got REAL soap-boxy up in here. Oh well!

[panicinthestudio]

Progressives and the left can not rest on a Biden presidency. Squeaking by with choosing someone that isn’t an unending stream of disinformation, populist pandering, and crises should not have been difficult. Obama being elected president did not magically change the trajectory of the States from further racism, violence, and reactionary moves to entrench power and moneyed interests further.

Trump is a symptom of both major parties failing to repudiate the worst impulses of their ideological positions, relying on rhetoric instead of substantive outcomes and benefit. He exploited the cracks that already existed, removing him and the influence behind him does nothing to solve those failings. The States and the world at large is still falling back to extremely conservative politics, throwing bodies on the pyre of neoliberal economics and global industrialization continue to ravage the social and environmental stability, new cold wars are turning hot, technology is constantly outpacing regulatory policy, and the pandemic is just one signal that we are willfully ignoring the myriad existential threats we pose to each other until it is much too late.

I do not expect media or the poltical apparatus to change in one election or one term, the damage done will take generations. After being faced with four years of the daily vitriol spewing from the White House, they’ve acquired a new toolset, for better or for worse. It’s taken more than four years (to the verge of the next president being called) for most of them to show some spine this past week, consistently and actively pushing back against the privilege and deference accorded to a president. All that’s been done thus far is confirm that the process still favours white men as a personification of their political power; that the distinction is in the acceptable level of unhinged. As well, the fight on how Trump and his legacy is remembered begins.

Use the Biden years wisely, whether or not he is one term. Do not let anyone take political loyalty for granted. Prove that minds can be changed in the face of evidence, sound policy, and just activism that meaningfully moves the world forward.

[clarityandchaos]

Many men are intoxicated by what comes out of their mouths; what is extraordinary about Trump is how little it takes to get him drunk. More worrying is how little it takes to get his followers drunk.

The riddle of Donald Trump: how a man of few words reached the pinnacle of power by Howard Jacobson for The Guardian.

[kefnut-the-gweilologist]

like i understand why everyone is talking about adoption in the aftermath of the georgia abortion ban and i mostly agree with their rhetorical usage of it, but can we not act like domestic adoption is the US has 0 messy poltics attached to it

[reviewingspot1]

Best Books on logic, Debating and Galaxy

Books on logic ,debating and galaxy.

The Art of Controversy – Arthur Schopenhauer.

Any individual who is keen of discussing and debating has to go for  Schopenhauer’s The Art of Controversy without a second thought.

Most of this essay tells the tactics used in different kinds of debate. We know very well that truth is not important in debate or argument but how one’s point is proved right by logic and valid points.. This is an art ,art of proving wrong in right light. This book is full of distinctive tactics that range from basic interruption to out right presentation that your point is right even if your statement is completely wrong. We people laugh at political debate for their stupidity then we need to buy this book.

A Rulebook for Arguments – Anthony Weston

A Rulebook  for Argument is made for beginners. It contains 45 rules divided  into  nine chapters of simple arguing techniques. This book is mind blowing for knowing basic  tactics of debate. It gives positive rules for  arguing and debating and also gives two dozen ‘common fallacies’ at the end. A Rulebook is written in very easy diction with interesting facts. One can read it in one sitting from front to back. This book is best designed for beginners who want to learn argument and and debate.

Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders – Jamie Whyte

This book demands best exploration, especially in America as it’s the time of  election. It is an outstanding book on how to protect yourself from inaccurate reasoning that governs so much of modern poltical debate,and how to avoid accepting it . A great text  book on fallacies and critical reasoning.

Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking – D.Q. McInerny

Being Logical is a right book for the right  audience. It provides most basic concepts of logical thought and builds a strong foundation. A valuable book for the students interested in philosophy and reasoning.

You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You’re Deluding Yourself – David McRaney

You Are Not So Smart is a perfect book to know fallacies and logic. It can be read in short and long sittings both. It contains 48 distinctive cognitive biases, different shortcuts and  logical fallacies. we find that every chapter explains an universal human cognitive bias that are easy to cite in your own experiences.

Thank You For Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition: What Aristotle, Lincoln, And Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion – Jay Heinrichs

Aristotle was a great critic and philosopher who tought us  about Rhetoric. Rhetoric is an art of being able to argue rather than fighting. It enables you to persuade others to agree with you which is considered as one of the most important skills to learn today. If you are a student , learning logic or love to debate and win or want to sharpen your mind to be fast and logical then this book masterpiece for you. You must read this book.

Read more

[butchnymph-blog]

I want to organize irl

Currently most of society associates "gay and lesbian" with the "queer" LGBT movement that is perpetuating obsessive homophobia and frequent sexual assault against gays and lesbians.

I think it is important that we start to be publicly visible as opponents to this, and I think it's time we start organizing public protests to our mistreatment.

I want to talk to people with experience in peaceful organization, and interest in helping to make the public aware of what I would consider the queer corrective rape pandemic.

I want it to have a very clear mission statement/name along the lines of "Gays and Lesbians against Queer Homophobia"

I can discuss bisexual allyship, but I'm wary about diluting the purpose by adding people who aren't directly affected by conversion therapy rhetoric, because it will often invite people who see it as a philosophical debate in to start questioning the need for our movement at all, where we really need to focus on the direct and physical threat to homosexuals in the current poltical climate.

I'm not sure what to tag this as, but feel free to add people you think might be helpful to this cause. I know @lgunity does a lot of online work towards the same end.

[lettherebemonsters]

I tag it though and only once stepped on poltics in this dash I mean if my blog yeah

No, you're fine. What I can't stand are blogs that start pushing racist lingo or how attacking people in the name of political correctness is somehow "wholesome."It's part of the reason why I hightailed it out of the X-Men fandom...I got sick of people quoting Nazi rhetoric without knowing it.

[sgreffenius]

Well, I think it depends on, you know, we're following the science and what the CDC says. And so, each district is different, and so I think we have to listen to the experts and the science, and then the districts have to decide.

Jill Biden, member of the NEA, in reponse to the question, should schools reopen in the fall?

Can you believe the teachers unions still say, ‘follow the science’, and ‘follow the CDC’. The teachers unions are a main reason many people distrust the science. The CDC is a main reason many people distrust the teachers unions. The so-called science is a main reason many people distrust science.

Teachers unions will equivocate, prevaricate, and procrastinate until they believe they cannot extract any more money out of school districts. Just as the president wants to use the pandemic as a lever to build infrastructure - and so much more - teachers unions want to use the pandemic as a lever to force school districts to bow before them - as they bargain for so much more than, say, health professionals.

If you have become cynical about the CDC, blame teachers’ unions. If you have become cynical about teachers’ unions, blame teachers’ unions. If you have become cynical about ‘the science’, see below.

Let’s stop using the term ‘the science’. Putting the article the before that word, in order to cite science as your authority, is one of the stupidest rhetorical mistakes one could make as we talk about the pandemic and its consequences. If we want to understand a complicated subject, an epidemiological threat that requires accurate analysis, can you think of a worse concept than ‘the science’? It suggests that ‘the science’ exists independently of politics!

When will teachers’ unions stop their high-handed language, let alone their high-handed behavior, and listen to people? I have never seen a representative organization act so selfishly. Not even the two poltical parties operate quite this way, as they do not have assured membership. If the unions think anyone outside the Democratic party regards their arguments favorably, or if they think their public positions fairly represent their entire membership, perhaps they ought to rethink their strategy. 

Under current strategy, teachers unions appear to think their opponents are racists. If that is the go-to bargaining tactic for these bargaining units, we clearly need to make schools and school districts open shops, not closed ones. At this point, we know one thing for sure: collective bargaining does not enhance the quality of public education. We knew that before the pandemic. Covid-19 placed that knowledge right in front of our eyeballs.

Related article

White House: Schools Should 'Probably' Open in the Fall. Also: 'Maybe,' and 'It Depends.' Amid message confusion, report shows teachers union fingerprints on the CDC's school reopening guidance.

[squiddoodle]

https://thehudsonindependent.com/why-im-voting-for-biden-and-why-you-should-too/

”

A week ago, I went to grab lunch with a friend I had­n’t seen in a while. We caught up about life, col­lege, and of course, the pan­demic. But af­ter we got through those top­ics, our con­ver­sa­tion shifted to pol­i­tics. Ob­vi­ously, we talked about Trump and his in­com­pe­tence in han­dling the va­ri­ety of is­sues our coun­try is fac­ing. But then we talked about the elec­tion. And I told him that I’m vot­ing for Biden. He told me he was­n’t vot­ing at all.

I was so con­fused. How could he not be vot­ing for Biden? And how could he not vote at all? I asked him, and he went on to ex­plain his rea­son­ing. He ar­tic­u­lated that the De­mo­c­ra­tic party needs to crum­ble so that we can build some­thing that can ac­tu­ally help peo­ple. The clas­sic, “Biden is a ter­ri­ble can­di­date,” line was used. And he very clearly ex­plained that his vote means some­thing to him: when he votes for a can­di­date, it shows that he agrees with all of their poli­cies. All of this made sense to me, and I re­al­ized that I have been so naive in think­ing that every­one thought the same way that I did. I am so grate­ful that I got to hear him speak about why he is­n’t vot­ing, be­cause I want to con­vince him—and other el­i­gi­ble vot­ers like him—to mo­bi­lize and vote for Biden this No­vem­ber.

I un­der­stand where you are com­ing from. It’s easy to feel hope­less right now. Trump won the 2016 elec­tion even though *most* Amer­i­cans did­n’t vote for him. Re­cently, we have lost so many Amer­i­cans be­cause our gov­ern­ments, lo­cal and fed­eral, blue and red, have failed to prop­erly ad­dress all of the is­sues that Amer­i­cans face. So it’s very un­der­stand­able that peo­ple have “tapped out” and lost hope in pol­i­tics. I know that this rhetoric comes from a place of dis­ap­point­ment or hurt, but I can’t help but feel like we are giv­ing up on a bat­tle we can win.

Some peo­ple have the priv­i­lege to re­frain from vot­ing be­cause they feel like De­moc­rats should “face con­se­quences” for their cor­rup­tion; these peo­ple can wait to vote for some­one to bring sig­nif­i­cant change. But oth­ers can’t. In fact, a lot of peo­ple sim­ply do not have the priv­i­lege to not par­tic­i­pate in pol­i­tics, be­cause they are fight­ing for their own rights. The rights of so many groups—Na­tive Amer­i­cans, il­le­gal im­mi­grants, dis­abled peo­ple, low-in­come Amer­i­cans, BIPOC, the LGBTQIA com­mu­nity (just to name a few)—are se­verely threat­ened by an­other term of Trump. These groups of mil­lions of peo­ple can’t wait four more years be­cause they are fac­ing life-threat­en­ing de­ci­sions right now. But even if you are so priv­i­leged to not be­long to any of the groups I just listed, your life is still threat­ened by Trump’s elec­tion, too. He has han­dled the pan­demic in the worst way pos­si­ble, and he will only con­tinue to worsen the state of our coun­try be­cause of his fail­ure to un­der­stand sci­ence and data. But if you think you’re care­ful and you won’t get the virus, I ask that you think about the en­vi­ron­ment. The earth can’t wait for rad­i­cal change in 4 years. Our en­vi­ron­ment is de­te­ri­o­rat­ing, and the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion has re­versed over 100 en­vi­ron­men­tal poli­cies, which has only ac­cel­er­ated the rate of de­te­ri­o­ra­tion.

I’m list­ing only a frac­tion of the is­sues that are af­fected by Trump’s pres­i­dency just so you know what peo­ple are talk­ing about when they say that this elec­tion is a hu­man rights is­sue. Trump is the most in­com­pe­tent, un­pro­fes­sional pres­i­dent in Amer­i­can his­tory, and he does­n’t de­serve a sec­ond term. But more im­por­tantly, the mil­lions of peo­ple who need change right now should­n’t need to wait four more years. Some of these peo­ple won’t make it four more years. It’s re­ally that sim­ple to me. And we can’t say that it’s okay if we don’t vote, be­cause other peo­ple will. We must take mat­ters into our own hands, and we must vote to pro­tect the rights of our fam­ily, friends, and peo­ple who we might not know yet. We vote be­cause we are com­pas­sion­ate hu­man be­ings and care about other hu­man be­ings. Sim­ple.

We have the op­por­tu­nity to make this elec­tion a turn­ing point in our his­tory if and only if we vote for Biden. I’m not happy about vot­ing for him, but I will do it any­ways. I will vote be­cause I care more about the mil­lions of peo­ple whose lives are at risk than whether my vote per­fectly aligns with his poli­cies or sup­ports his past.

In twenty years, we will look back to this mo­ment in our lives, and I hope that you can re­al­ize that this elec­tion is much more sig­nif­i­cant than we can cur­rently fathom. Vote.”

Poltics is a journey not a wedding. Vote for Biden because he’s a step in the progressive direction from what you have now! Vote for Biden because he’s more likely to do good things than Trump is! Vote for Biden becausecatleast then you will have the vote on your side and you then have hope of things getting much better, safer for all because Biden just winning WILL already be better and safer than what you have now!

The planet, can’t wait for your perfect candidate!!!

The people dying, can’t want for your perfect candidate!!!!

It can’t wait for your ”great revolution”!!!

It needs ATLEAST THE BEST YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW!!!

Your puritanism has already killed 100, 000s! The planet is already on fire! You KNOW things would not be as bad was hillary in power! Don’t let your self be fooled into doing nothing again! If you really care you should be doing everything you can to get any bit of improvement you can! Cause little bits add up. The right wing know this! That is how they are winning despite being a minority!!!!!