#racial theories

[giritina]

(Edit: just to be clear I don't mean to emphasize this girl with the tattoo as the primary perpetrator if this stuff. Idk her story, it's in kind of bad taste but there's more to this than a tattoo)

I saw this great video discussing a critique of "lobotomycore"/"lobotomy chic" and the erasure of the racist history of lobotomies.

I can't add further on the subject of race, but as a person with schizotypal I did connect it with this image

(Source, though I have not verified it by sifting through the archive)

"Lobotomy chic" and the humor surrounding it is used so often by people who I've seen have zero empathy for schizophrenic people. For disables people generally.

Even just looking at how they treat an actual lobotomy victim, Rosemary Kennedy, even when she's that archetypical 40s white woman. Her disability is erased.

Here's a popular tiktok about her. No context, just images of her younger self and her older self. Simply "she was normal, glamorous, and then she became strange, disabled." Oftentimes, her intellectual disability is treated more as a conspiracy theory than a fact of her not receiving enough oxygen at birth. People are happy to relate to her as a ~poorly behaved woman~, but not as an intellectually disabled one.

It just reminds me how this has become a sort of coquetteish phrase and a universal joke that erases everything except the low support needs disabled white woman's experience. The idea that for your eccentricities, you'd be at risk. That you might be the only one at risk, so there's no need for solidarity with the intellectually disabled, the schizophrenic and psychotic, anyone with profound or uncomfortable disabilities. Times ten thousand if those disabled people are black. And god forbid they are disabled, black, AND homeless.

[communistkenobi]

a very common mistake people make in political/social discourse is applying individualist thinking to some social phenomenon or theory. one of the most common examples is someone responding to the theory of white privilege with “but there are poor white people” or male privilege with “I’m a man but I have no power” etc. and in order to refute that properly you have to essentially get into a philosophy of science debate, to explain that the benefit of a given social theory is its ability to be generalised above the level of the individual, that what is being described is a social process, that human beings occupy various positions within a social space (a family, a neighbourhood, a workplace, a state) that are not individual. To be able to give an account of some social force you necessarily cannot be just talking about the particularities of a single person - if you were, all you would be expressing is an individual opinion about a single person. If you want to rise above the level of ‘mere opinion’ you need to actually provide an account that is general enough to apply to multiple people of varying social situations but systematic enough to be able to differentiate between who you are and are not speaking about. Of course data are lost in this endeavour - probably best summed up by the aphorism “all models are wrong but some are useful” - but the success of a given social theory is its ability to sustain its explanatory power despite these data losses. Like the whole game of generalisation is building a theory to figure out what data points to discard and which to retain. It is no more contradictory to say white privilege is real even though there are poor white people than to say the police are a white supremacist institution even though there are non-white police officers. In fact these seeming contradictions are accounted for in these same social theories - white supremacy has had centuries of policy development at this point, it is a fairly well-tested set of logics that have adapted to a variety of conflicts, problems, and political/economic/social developments (Sylvia Wynter talks about this in the context of the post-slavery US for example). White supremacy is thus resilient to these apparent contradictions (and these contradictions generate further social developments, such as the shifting meanings and locations of whiteness), which is why zooming into the level of the individual is often not helpful in explaining its effects on a social level.

Weber says that I need not know Caesar to understand Caesar - that to talk about Caesar as a historical figure and as a particular location in ancient Roman society is fundamentally different than a description of him as an individual. And nobody actually talks about Caesar as an individual anyway! Even psychological or biographical profiles of him are premised on the fact that Caesar is worthy of this profile as opposed to any other person living in the Roman Republic. The reason we all know his name is that his place in history is extended beyond the individual. A Roman general and leader is fundamentally not an individual, not a private person. The very fact that I can say “Roman General” but not say any person’s name and have people understand what I’m saying is evidence of this. By definition ‘Caesar’ the historical figure is not an individual in any meaningful sense, he has power that is only available through social institutions and formations, and that is why he is known even today. Even the most liberal Great Man Theories of history locate an engine of history within the general position of Great Man (this is a fundamental contradiction within this type of thinking, the generalised Individual). If there can be more than one Great Man in history then he is not an individual, he is occupying a generalisable position in human history that can be calculated, bounded, and studied.

So it’s very frustrating to deal with! It’s an attempt to refute an explanation of a social phenomenon with individual anecdotes, much of which is already accounted for in said explanation. It makes many, many, many discussions about the social and political world endlessly repetitive and uninteresting, because you are always stuck at litigating the most basic, atomic point of reference. And of course that is the point for many people, they aren’t interested in any of this because they are racist and they are misogynistic and so on. It is an extremely effective derailing tactic, but part of the reason why it’s so effective is because individualism is such a pervasive mode of thinking. All of the groundwork is already laid out for people who say white privilege isn’t real because the social and epistemic infrastructure necessary to get other people to buy that argument has already been built for them to make that type of claim. Which is why the people who smirk at the camera when they say shit like this are so pathetic because they behave like they thought of that all by themselves, unaware or (more probably) deliberately ignoring the fact that they live in a society specifically built to facilitate, automate, and celebrate the garbage coming out of their mouth

[visenyaism]

How is Criston Cole subject to a racist view by the Westerosi when he’s white-passing as hell?? The black (Velaryon) and Asian (Mysaria) characters face no racism in-universe (not talking about the racism in the writers’ room), but you think the white-passing man does? He could be subjected to xenophobia because of sharing ties to Dorne (not part of Westeros), but that’s not the same thing as being viewed through a racial lens, like you’re suggesting.

He is literally introduced when he takes his helmet off for the first time and Alicent says “oh gods he’s Dornish.” Because of his appearance. To them he “looks Dornish” and is racialized in-universe as Dornish which is in-universe perceived as a racial “other” in the canon. I do not know if they could have spelled it out clearer for you. Did we watch the same show

[taliabhattwrites]

Understanding Third-Sexing

Crossposted from my Troonsky account.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lois Beckett at The Guardian:

Attacks targeting American public schools over LGBTQ+ rights and education about race and racism cost those schools an estimated $3.2bn in the 2023-24 school year, according to a new report by education professors from four major American universities. The study is believed to be the first attempt to quantify the financial impact of rightwing political campaigns targeting school districts and school boards across the US. In the wake of the pandemic, these campaigns first attempted to restrict how American schools educate students about racism, and then increasingly shifted to spreading fear among parents about schools’ policies about transgender students and LGBTQ+ rights.

Researchers from UCLA, UT Austin, UC Riverside and American University surveyed 467 public school superintendents across 46 US states, asking them about the direct and indirect costs of dealing with these volatile campaigns. Those costs included everything from out-of-pocket payments to hire to lawyers or additional security, to the staff member hours devoted to responding to disinformation on social media, addressing parent concerns and replying to voluminous public records requests focused on the district’s teachings on racism, gender and sexuality. The campaigns that focused on public schools’ policies about transgender students often included lurid false claims about schools trying to change students’ gender or “indoctrinating” them into becoming gay. This disinformation sparked harassment and threats against individual teachers, school board members and administrators, with some of the fury coming from within local communities, and even more angry calls, emails and social media posts flooding in from conservative media viewers across the country.

In addition to the financial costs of responding to these targeted campaigns, the study revealed other dynamics, the researchers said. “The attack on public officials as pedophiles was one I heard again and again, from people across extremely different parts of the country: rural, urban, suburban. It speaks to the way that this really is a nationalized conflict campaign,” said John Rogers, an education professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the lead author of the study. The frequency with which both school board members and school superintendents were “being called out as sexual predators – it was really frightening”, Rogers said. Superintendents from across the country told the researchers how these culture battles had affected their schools, and cut into resources they would have preferred to spend on education.

[...] While disagreement, debate and dealing with angry parents are a normal part of local public school administration, the researchers noted, the political campaigns that schools have faced in recent years have been anything but normal. Many of them have been driven by “a small number of active individuals on social media or at school board meetings”, and fueled by misinformation. The school-focused campaigns, which started with claims that elementary and middle schools were harming white students by teaching critical race theory and later shifted to attacks on schools’ policies for transgender students, were nationally organized, with “common talking points” that could be traced back to conservative foundations and rightwing legal organizations, and were intensely amplified by rightwing media coverage, Rogers said.

Public schools across the US burned up nearly $3.2BN worth of money fending off right-wing culture war items such as book bans, anti-LGBTQ+ extremism, anti-student inclusion, and anti-racial equity policies.

See Also:

The Advocate: U.S. public schools lost $3.2 billion fighting conservative culture wars: report

[rhetoricsofraceandidentity]

[randomnameless]

A Master’s Thesis for a university no less

-----

Yep, I’ve seen that!

at least that people got some dedication, I nearly died when I wrote mine but it wasn’t for shitposting so maybe that made it even more tedious lol

But I’d say, how can you even write a Thesis about something as empty as Fodlan? I think the writer mentionned how Supreme Leader didn’t attack civilians but... while we don’t see her do it, Ashe mentions they’re starving, Baldo’n’Waldi must come from somewhere (the experiments started in Remire, before the War, but obviously to be used for said war in, basically, Supreme Leader’s maternal territories!) and I guess the religious people fleeing the Empire or not bothering to send letters to their friends who don’t hear about them anymore since the war started must have been busy Zumba’ing with Rhea in the 5 stars Enbarr resort.

As someone from SPE (!) mentionned, the Fodlan games take explicit care not to have anyone seriously challenge her beliefs of criticise her, or give spotlight to her main, self-perceived, nemesis who... well, is either fridged, exists off-screen or gives infodumps before dying.

Which makes any discussion about a “Just War” completely moot - Watsonian wise, especially if you take Fodlan as this entity functionning under the Crust System - same, Doylist wise, with any comparisons with real world Conventions (iirc OP mentionned that one of they juries asked if taking a dragon prisoner could be considered a war crime or something like that lol) because, hey, it’s a video game basically centered around a gameplay mechanic of depleting a red unit’s HP bar by hitting them with a weapon.

This is basically a really good shitpost which shows a lot of dedication - and that’s the kind of stuff fandom thrives for (remember zigludo chan sama senpai’s wiki page?) !

but as a serious/discourse/meta piece...

It’s basically the same redshit 10k words, with a bit more formatting and no word limit.

I mean, I used the search engine for “nabatean” and found nothing, and I think you can’t valably discuss Supreme Leader’s motives, ignoring this 

“You are a child of the goddess. You must not be allowed power over the people!“

part of her reasoning to fight against the Church.

Not wanting to give that chamber pot any credit, but if they sprout heinous arguments to support their fave, imo, it’s basically because even the members of that hellpit noticed Supreme Leader’s, uh, fondness for Nabateans as a species, and since she can’t do anything BaD or be wrong, it means the species are BaD.

[overleftdown]

farleigh start and racism; oh boy.

(some people are going to find this post really annoying. some people are like felix catton.)

read this.

just some thoughts from the perspective of a person of color who is slightly too obsessed with this character. this movie leaves the viewer a lot of wiggle room to interpret how dynamics such as race and privilege come into play. there are certain parallels between this movie and the real world, and how unnoticeable white privilege tends to be for white people.

lemme lay some groundwork. from what i understand, the most prevalent form of racism and white privilege within upper- and middle-class circles is implicit bias. this is racist conceptualization that subconsciously interacts with one's perception of society and people. implicit bias is often externalized through microaggressions, differences in treatment and language towards a marginalized person, misplaced guilt or pity, and persistent denial of any existing privilege or marginalization. most of these biases are also founded on stereotypes. some racial stereotypes are heightening (e.g. asians are all smart) and some are lowering (e.g. black people are all lazy). all stereotypes are harmful. i'm going to discuss some of the stereotypes that could theoretically interact within the saltburn canon, as well as some things i've noticed within viewers. can of worms, to be honest. boutta get INTO IT.

to use one of my externalization examples, let's discuss (or, more accurately, let me discuss) the denial of existing privilege or marginalization. this is a subconscious way to uphold a sense of morality, effectively avoiding "white guilt," so to speak. as is clearly presented to us, the cattons are very attached to their methods of upholding their own self-righteousness. saviorism is a common theme within both elspeth and felix. in oliver's conversation with elspeth about poor dear pamela, you can see that oliver recognizes elspeth's need to justify her actions in an attempt to preserve her sense of decency. one can only assume that this applies to how they view farleigh's relationship with them. there's more to talk about there, but i'd like to start with the only overt mention of race in this movie.

in felix's confrontation with farleigh, farleigh makes the bold and brave decision to mention his blackness. i call this brave because it's genuinely a terrifying thing to do, and the end of this conversation is proof. "oh, that is... that is low, farleigh. seriously, that's where you want to take this? make it a race thing? i never know our footman's names; the turnover for a footman is notoriously high!" we have felix's intentional or unintentional shaming of farleigh. we have felix's appalled denial of any involvement of race or racial bias. we have felix's diversion away from farleigh specifically and onto his own inability to know his staff's names. felix made no further attempt to recenter farleigh, aside from telling him that the cattons have "done what they can." (which is SO absurd on its own. they are clearly and obviously able to do more. they are disgustingly rich). farleigh does feel ashamed after felix's response; you can see it on his face, and archie says it directly. here is a relevant and prevalent stereotype for all marginalized people: that the discussion of marginalization is exclusively weaponized to gain something or manipulate a situation. this is how felix chooses to see farleigh's implication of existing white privilege. this conversation results in nothing, does nothing, as felix chooses not to confront what he's probably thinking as he repeats the words "begging bowl" to venetia.

now. saviorism, guilt, and pity. felix specifically tells oliver that sir james made an effort to support farleigh out of guilt. i'd like to order some things in a way that i perceive them. frederica start runs from england, which is explained in a condescending way by felix. frederica start marries a so-referred-to "lunatic" who dug through fred and jame's money, although it's farleigh who only mentions fred's financial irresponsibility. out of guilt, james offers to pay for farleigh's education. the specificity of education is compelling to me. perhaps james is simply a patriotic man who strongly believes that english education is better. or this is a mobilized racial stereotype! who can truly know. i digress. james' offer to pay for farleigh's foreign education puts the cattons in an odd position; if farleigh is to attend english schools, he will need to stay with the cattons. if farleigh is staying with the cattons, he will need to be treated as equal to felix and venetia. this is all one long chain of obligations. none of these acts from one family member to another should be considered "charitable," because family should intrinsically create a trustworthy and supportive dynamic.

i believe that the cattons do consider their fostering of farleigh as obligatory. moral obligation, as they recognize that families are intended to have a sympathetic and loving relationship. they cannot, however, escape the truth that they're just guilty. the "begging bowl" and "biting the hand" are more symbolic of a starving dog and its charitable adopter than a cousin/nephew who's staying with his absurdly rich family. see, the cattons are fully and entirely capable of affording another child, of supporting frederica financially, etc. the only way i can rationalize their reluctance to do so is by assuming that they don't feel like farleigh deserves it. is this a crazy assumption? i genuinely don't see why else. of course, i don't think this mentality is explicit or conscious. it's more-so the reality that when farleigh walks in a room, he's not the same as anybody else. aside from background characters at oxbridge, the only on-screen black people are liam, joshua, and james' godson's wife (who gets degraded on-screen). this is the reality of being different in an environment such as the english aristocracy. the cattons choose to see themselves as the hand that feeds the less fortunate, more entertaining, and least inconvenient. the cattons' inclusion of farleigh is not only reliant on how well farleigh performs, but also on their own pity and guilt.

all of this is somehow, painfully mirrored by some takes i've seen on farleigh. maybe this entire post is presumptuous, but you know what isn't presumptuous? saying that certain people hold farleigh to an incredibly odd standard. while the cattons never canonically said anything along the lines of "farleigh doesn't deserve our love and support," mfs on the internet have. the number of times people have referred to this character as greedy, lazy, petty, and malignant is so odd to me. i'm insane, i know. i just don't understand how people can hold farleigh to the backdrop of an english aristocratic family and so passionately say that he, of all characters, is the most detestable. or that he, of all characters, has no reason to behave in the way he does.

is farleigh greedy? greed is defined as a desire for more. farleigh has no desire to climb ranks, no desire to replace or surpass felix, no desire to hold any power over any family member. he is maintaining, upholding a standard that has been set for him throughout his life. is it kind or selfless of him to meddle in other people's affairs with the cattons? no. does he have a reason to be upset that non-relatives of the cattons are a threat to his inclusion in the first place? yes. is farleigh lazy? i don't even need to explain this one. no. if you don't consider oliver lazy, then i really don't want to hear anything. is farleigh petty? pettiness is defined as "an undue concern for trivial matters, especially in a small-minded or spiteful way." farleigh's meticulous attention to trivial matters isn't undue in any sense. a person of color and their meticulous attention to trivial matters is almost never undue. elspeth is a good example of petty. is farleigh malignant? there are a lot of definitions of malignant and i've seen people apply all of them, in some way, to farleigh. that's just wrong. archie madekwe once said, "i was interested in humanizing what, on paper, seemed like a mean character, a villain, or a bully. i don't think he's any of that. he's very self-serving, but i think he's really a heartbreaking character." case closed, this was for my own piece of mind. had to write this section because good lord.

in conclusion to this post that has gone tragically off the rails, i think the in-canon and viewer perspective of farleigh is, perhaps, a little racially motivated. sue me. they are all very centered on this idea that farleigh doesn't deserve inherent respect, support, and love. to remove farleigh's rational position within the cattons family would be akin to removing his right to familial love. genuinely, that's how i see it. the transaction nature of farleigh's actions is responsive. he sees felix as a social shield at oxbridge, he sees elspeth and james as the beholders of his perceived security, and he sees saltburn as a way to escape from his lack of privilege and his lack of stability in america. boom. bam. pow.

[cheesebearger]

agatha all along had a really tight, well-constructed narrative until episodes 8 and 9. i actually think the conclusion episodes undermine what was working so well at the beginning. my main points:

Alice should not have died to, as Jac Schaeffer said, "punish" Agatha; having a woman of color die to "punish" a white woman flattens her character into an object designed to inflict white pain;

the revelation regarding who bound Jen's power reduces her trauma to a joke and disregards how interesting her having been "bound" by trauma rather than magic would have been;

Agatha's backstory fails to engage with the "why" motivating her serial killing or with her emotionally negligent and abusive parenting irt Nicky and the reveal that she can control her powers is significantly less interesting than if she cannot;

and Billy being revealed as responsible for the road and the trials fundamentally changes the significance of every moment of the show - to the point where you have multiple women dying for what is, literally, no reason due to his actions.

To preface: I never expect anything well written from the MCU or Disney, but about 65% of this show was surprisingly well-written. However, like with most Marvel franchises or TV shows, they just ruin it with their last moments by shoehorning in something, or having a very choppy constantly shifting emotional tone for the conclusion. I'm just glad that the show didn't end with a huge CGI battle sequences like Moon Knight and WandaVision did as they are the definition of a cop out for story telling.

As to point one: Alice's story was left unfinished. Multiple characters mention they made no effort to save her. Agatha is revealed to have complete control over her power, too. So ultimately, Alice dies for nothing. To "punish" Agatha, but that flattens her into an object, a weapon, directed at Agatha. She's no longer a person, she's merely a tool being wielded by the writer literally, and narratively by Billy and Agatha. Rio's words to Alice additionally make no sense - she tells Alice that she's a "protection witch who died protecting someone," but she didn't. She began to protect Agatha, and then Agatha consciously made the decision to kill her (as we know she has complete control over her power). Alice is murdered. She doesn't die heroically protecting someone. She dies for no reason, and dies with her story unfinished and unfulfilled. Is that how life goes sometime? Yeah, obviously. But this is a story, where the writer made a conscious decision to kill off a woman of color to "punish" her white main character. Alice fully deserved a complete character arc and the fact she did not have one is due to racist objectification of her.

Point two: Jen's power should have been revealed to be internally suppressed rather than bound by Agatha. Firstly, because making Agatha responsible makes the entire thing a joke - Agatha is flippant, she doesn't even remember necessarily how it happened, it completely undermines her "I left you alone..." comment to Jen. Secondly, the show introduces Chekov's Racist in episode 3 and, as a result of the reveal regarding Agatha, his existence in the story fails to have any significance. In fact, it reads as Jen simply being too blind or too foolish to "understand" who took her power from her. It robs her of the weight of her trauma at the hands of a violent racist and completely reduces the depth and affect of the trauma from racism that Jen experiences. Rather than having her cope with and come to terms with the reality of the trauma she experienced at the hands of the unnamed doctor, her entire story comes to be one of a woman "foolishly" misinterpreting her own life and lived experiences. It also would have been more interesting if Agatha had, genuinely, left Jen alone out of respect for her midwifery; that allows both characters to exist within the complexities of their own traumas without sacrificing one's pain for the other.

Point three: Agatha's backstory was rather limp. I think it could be immediately improved if a single line of dialogue was added, from Rio to Agatha. If, when Agatha asked what Rio would want to allow her to keep Nicky, Rio had responded, "I'll give you as much time as you give me bodies." From there, it would be easy to see why the loss of her son would drive her to engage in that ritual serial killing even more out of grief and out of resentment for being so alienated from her community. Personally, though, I think the backstory we needed was actually Agatha in Salem, being put on trial. Though I do think it's interesting to have Agatha make her son bait for her victims, thus making him an accomplice in her murders, and doing so using a song he wrote with his mother out of love; I just wish it was presented as how disturbing it all actually is - the episode itself never quite gets the emotional tenor it needs, it needed to empathize with Nicky as a child who is absolutely being emotionally neglected and abused, existing with the knowledge that he must help his mother murder.

And point four: Billy being revealed to be the creator of the road immediately destabilizes and reduces the show's stakes. I suppose I should lump in here the fact the road is a con by Agatha as part and parcel of this issue. I feel like the show kind of shied away from committing to the idea of the Witches Road - a really cool concept that, if well executed, could have been the stage for a great story from start to finish. By having Billy create the Road, we actually have Lilia's entire life become centered around him - the time loop she is trapped in, across her entire lifetime, is because of him. Not because of her, not for her, not for her growth, not for her coven. She dies for Billy. She dies for nothing. And sure, everyone ultimately dies for "nothing" if we want to get nitpicky. But how sad is it, for Lilia to be trapped dying in Billy's mind-road, for her entire life. Everything she is, flattened into a mere device for Billy's pain and growth. Way to completely ruin an incredible episode of TV by adding additional context lmfao.

Ultimately, I think the show is fine. Just fine. It could have been much better, which frustrates me. My assumption of what the show was going to be was this: the Witches Road exists as a journey wherein one must overcome their fear of death and strengthen the bonds of the coven to ward off social death, and to ultimately experience a form of "death" at the end of the road wherein the coven would be reunited, fundamentally changed as a result of their journeys. I thought that the meaning appended to "Death" in the show was going to align with the meaning of the tarot (upright: spiritual transformation, new beginnings, letting go, endings, sudden upheaval, etc.; reversed: inability to move forward, fear of beginnings, etc.) given they went through so much effort to put together the "correct" tarot spread. I'd also note that the "What's Missing" was community - so having the ending of the season be most of the coven permanently dead leaves that "What's Missing" still unfulfilled.

[system-of-a-feather]

Just gonna slide this here taken from "addressing racial trauma in behavioral health" course I'm taking for my work because this absolutely does not apply to the Theory of Structural Dissociation what so ever

[biologusputrifier777-blog]

Grim Tidings for International Communism: F1nnster Fuckery

I have long since come to the conclusion that my ass will not live to see the fruits of class struggle, this generation of proletariats is cooked. If the supposed "leftists" of this generation fall into the sheer liberalism and cracker barrel ass takes because someone who they thought was a man (and later turned out to be a part of the very group they accused them of exploiting because these stupid fucking social democrats have the situational awareness of deaf dog) did gender wrong and presented too femme without being part of the right type of class (gender is enforced as a class and exists therefore as a construct perpetuated by the capitalist class to retain the power of capital over the proletariat, if you deny this you are either a Maoist, or even worse a Dengist) to do so is fucking crazy. This is the shit that crooked ass Social Democrats like Mussolini and Chairman Gonzalo would be doing if they were bitchless crypto redditors in the year of our lord 20 24. Lenin himself would not be able to redeem your anarcracker asses.

[crystalistrappedintheinternet]

adding tme to my bio bc while on one hand announcing my birth sex makes me dysphoric on the other hand. some of you are misogynists

[brick-van-dyke]

TERFs 🤝 Zionists

Using the exact same talking points and rhetoric.

[this-acuteneurosis]

I kind of want to get you started on mind tricks. cause like weak minded to strong minded dynamic and the blur away, but also the sith back in the day were for SURE a Caste system of force sensitive rulers and non force sensitives, and the jedi were their ENEMY off and on for thousands of years, cultural bleed through and dynamics of their own power systems but Ben we are not the droids you are looking for go away so I dont have to kill you, versus Qui hey I want this thing trade it for me.

Alright, Oct anon, it's been a while, but I have not forgotten you definitely forgot this ask in my drafts for who even knows how many months but it's found again, whoo!

It's taken me a while to get this together partly to try and arrange my thoughts in a logical order but also...

Guys, I really, really care about the use of agency in stories. Like, I've ranted about it in relation to droids, I've explained some of my problems with it in the context of the thematic changes between the OT and the PT, I stew over it constantly in my brain, it's a central theme of many of my own stories (including DLB).

I really don't like mind control, and not just in Star Wars.

Now, just because I don't like a thing doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in story telling. As a device, mind control/manipulation can be useful or important to a plot. To a theme. Overcoming it can be powerful or cool (Ella Enchanted-I prefer the novel personally, Tanjiro in Demon Slayer: Mugen Train), watching someone succumb to it can be agonizing (Frodo in Return of the King, anyone? Princess Euphemia in Code Geass?).

So, what is the point of Mind Tricks (and that naming choice, "trick," making it sound almost...harmless) in the Star Wars story, and maybe in the universe?

I feel like in its initial reveal, the mind trick was supposed to a) convey how "magical" Jedi were and b) get the plot from point A to B. Obi-Wan waves his hand, someone believes something hideously untrue, move along move along, don't think about it too hard.

Like, literally, audience, please. Don't.

Luke uses it in RotJ for pretty much the same reason. To convery a) Luke is well on his way to being a "magical" Jedi now (oh but wait, there's more character growth he needs!), and b) Luke needs to get into Jabba's palace and why would they let him in? Because he says so, so we will take him to Jabba now. Move along, move along.

I don't like the implications of this power existing, and as an adult who has been in situation where I have to report to higher powers, the disregard of the consequences of these things are a bit darker if I look too closely, but like...move along, I guess. It's fine as long as we're only using these powers on space nazis and slavers. Right?

Except then we get more movies. And cartoons. It's fine if Obi-Wan mind controls a person into not smoking, right? Smoking is Bad and Obi-Wan is Good.

Only.

Only...

Who taught Obi-Wan to use mind tricks?

Ah yes, my old nemesis.

To all you Qui-Gon fans out there, you may wanna leave. This analysis is probably not for you.

So like, Qui-Gon Jinn. Qui-Gon "I'm friends with the current Chancellor and thus an obvious, notable representative of the Jedi Order but I don't get along with my higher ups" Jinn. The thing you have to understand about my opinion of him is that, as a young, first time watcher of TPM, I liked him. He was funny, irreverent, direct. He was wise, or at least seemed to know things no one else did. He was a maverick, ready to go against all orders and advice for what he knew was right. And everyone around him was just stuffy and uninformed.

And to be fair, he wasn't wrong about everything. He's set up to be sympathetic. He's trying to treat with the gungans and they won't listen? Well he and Obi-Wan are right, the Trade Federation does go for the gungans. The Order says there are no Sith? Oops, wrong on that one. The Council makes the ambiguous assertion Anakin is "too old" to train. We've seen the OT. We know "too old" is nonsense.

But like, what does Qui-Gon do when he's thwarted?

He takes away people's agency.

Oh, you don't want to help us, Boss Nass, political leader? Cool, well I'm gonna undermine you in front of your entire court and you're gonna give us a whole ship (that we won't return) to help us defend a people you've been in an active war with for centuries. Oh, my currency doesn't work on this planet? I think it will mister small time junk dealer with a gambling problem (jokes on you for that one, sir).

This to me is a huge red flag in a story that is about literal slaves. I know people will defend the above examples. It was necessary. There were lives at stake.

You wanna know who would have suffered if Qui-Gon had been able to con Watto out of that part?

Anakin and Shmi.

Worthless (or event mostly worthless) currency on a planet where you have to buy water is literal death under the right circumstances. And who do you think Watto's going to reduce rations on. He's got cash flow problems? What's the quickest way for him to make back what he just lost? I'll give you a hint, he gambles on them later in the exact same movie.

So like, well before we get to "weak minded" or anything dubious like that, there's this awkward question of, "Why are the good guys always using powers to make people do things? And not worried about the consequences?"

And like, if we go back to simple story narratives, and trying to move things from point A to point B, that's fine I guess. I enjoy the OT. I'll move along.

But if you ask me to stop and think about it.

Well...

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Fabiola Cineas at Vox:

It took less than a day for the world to start rallying for George Floyd in late May 2020. The events that led to Floyd’s murder unfolded over hours, but a viral 10-minute video recording of the deadly encounter with Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was enough to send floods of people nationwide into the streets for months.  In the weeks after Floyd’s killing, the number of Americans who said they believe racial discrimination is a big problem and that they support the Black Lives Matter movement spiked. As books about racial injustice flew off of bookstore shelves, corporate leaders, politicians, and celebrities pledged to fight racism. The events of 2020 disturbed America’s collective conscience, and the movement for justice captivated millions. Until it didn’t.  

In retrospect, there were signs of brewing right-wing resistance all along. While many peacefully protested, others called for their defeat. Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton demanded that the US military be brought in to fight “insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters.” As police officers used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds across the country, President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to “dominate the streets” and defend “life and property,” sending thousands of troops and federal law enforcement officers to control protesters in Washington, DC; Portland, Oregon; and other cities.  Some Americans who wanted to stamp out the unrest took it upon themselves to practice vigilantism. One of them, Kyle Rittenhouse, fatally shot two unarmed men and wounded another when he brought an AR-15-style rifle to protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (Rittenhouse was later acquitted of all homicide charges.)

Though the mass mobilization of 2020 brought hope, it’s clear today that it also marked a turning point for backlash as the mirage of progress morphed into seemingly impenetrable resistance. Historically, backlash has embodied a white rejection of racial progress. Over the past few years, the GOP has built on that precedent and expanded its reach.  The right watched progressives rally for change and immediately fought back with the “Big Lie” of a stolen election. In many of the states that Biden flipped in 2020, Republicans rushed to ban ballot drop boxes, absentee ballots, and mobile voting units, the methods that allowed more people to vote. Since then, we’ve seen the passage of dozens of regressive laws, including anti-protest laws, anti-LGBTQ laws, and anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion laws. In state after state, these bans were coupled with incursions against reproductive rights, as some conservatives announced plans to take over every American institution from the courts to the schools to root out liberalism and progress.

[...] “There’s a backlash impulse in American politics,” Glickman said. “I think 2020 is important because it gets at another part of backlash, which is the fear that social movements for equality and justice might set off a stronger counter-reaction.” The protests of 2020 did. And though race is still at the core of the post-George Floyd backlash, many Republicans have gone to new lengths to conceal this element.  "One of the things that the civil rights movement accomplished was to make being overtly racist untenable,” said Anderson. “Today they say, ‘I can do racist stuff, but don't call me racist.’” For Anderson, backlash is about instituting state-level policies that undermine African Americans’ advancement toward their citizenship rights.

By early 2021, alongside the effort to “stop the steal,” legislation that would limit or block voting access, give police protection, and control the teaching of concepts such as racial injustice began spreading across Republican-controlled state legislatures — all in the name of protecting America.  “They cover [voter suppression] with the fig leaf of election integrity, with the fig leaf of trying to protect democracy, and with the fig leaf of stopping massive rampant voter fraud,” Anderson said. And, she said, laws banning the teaching of history get covered “with the fig leaf of stopping indoctrination.” That coordinated legislation was a direct response to potential racial gains for Black Americans and other marginalized groups. “After the death of George Floyd in 2020, it seemed like all of our institutions suddenly shifted overnight,” conservative activist Christopher Rufo said in a 2022 interview. Rufo’s answer was to release a series of reports about diversity training programs in the federal government and critical race theory, which, he argued, “set off a massive response, or really, revolt amongst parents nationwide.” 

[...]

The new era of backlash is grievance-driven 

That racial resentment has since taken on a particularly acrid temperament since Floyd's death. At the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump, facing a litany of criminal and civil charges, stood on stage and told the audience, “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”  Trump’s words summarized the political discourse that has spread since the killing of George Floyd and highlighted the absence of a formal Republican policy agenda. “[What he said was] not policy,” said historian John Huntington, author of the book Far Right Vanguard: The Radical Roots of Modern Conservatism. “It was just vengeance for some sort of perceived wrongs.” He added, “policy has taken a backseat to cultural grievances.” 

What Huntington calls out as “endless harangues against very nebulous topics like critical race theory or wokeness or whatever the current catchphrase is right now” are an important marker of this new era. “A key element of the current backlash we’re seeing is a politics of grievance,” he says. “‘I have been wronged somehow by the liberals or whoever, and Trump is going to help me get even with these people that I don’t like.’” Glickman calls this backlash tactic an “inversion” or “elite victimization”: “It’s a reversal that happens in backlash language where privileged white people take the historical position of oppressed people — often African Americans but sometimes other oppressed groups — and they speak from that vantage point.” To be sure, Republicans have passed dozens of laws through state legislatures to do everything from restricting voting to banning trans athletes from participating in sports. But for Huntington, these reactionary laws don’t amount to legitimate policy. “It's very difficult to convince people to build a society rather than trying to tear down something that's already existing,” he said. “Critiquing is easy. Building is hard.” Nationally, Republicans only passed 27 laws despite holding 724 votes in 2023. 

Vox has a great article on the right-wing backlash against the racial reckoning of Summer 2020 has had effects on our politics the last few years, such as waging faux outrage crusades against CRT and DEI.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

He's such a shallow thinker that you can always trust Kendi to blurt out the quiet part.

But what's interesting is the projection. He's correct, but not in the way he thinks. Because he's talking about himself and his own personality flaws and mental disorders. This is a quote from his best-selling screed:

I DID NOT knock on Clarence’s door that day to discuss Welsing’s “color confrontation theory.” Or Diop’s two-cradle theory. He had snickered at those theories many times before. I came to share another theory, the one that finally figured White people out.

“They are aliens,” I told Clarence, confidently resting on the doorframe, arms crossed. “I just saw this documentary that laid out the evidence. That’s why they are so intent on White supremacy. That’s why they seem to not have a conscience. They are aliens.”

-- Ibram X. Kendi, "How to Be an Antiracist"

"White supremacy" in this sense isn't the KKK or the Nazis. It's "the white man's science," and "objectivity is white supremacy," and "merit is white supremacy," and "math is white supremacy," and "the U.S. Constitution is a tool of white supremacy."

David Duke didn't get millions of academic funding and an entire institute created for him by Boston University. David Duke didn't get a $10m donation from a co-founder of one of the most powerful social media platforms. David Duke's didn't publish a bestsellng insane manifesto. David Duke's ideology hasn't permeated K-12 in every state in the country. David Duke's ideology hasn't been the basis for reeducation programs conducted through everything from the medical profession to soft drink manufacturers to government nuclear laboratories.

When people insist that "woke" is "just about being kind" or "just about being aware of racism," they're lying. I don't mean they're mistaken, I mean they're lying. It's been a third of a decade since activists cut the brake-line and pulled out all the stops. The idea that we don't know what this is, what's going on, is dishonest.

Next time you hear it, show the person this video and ask them, do you agree with Kendi? They won't know what to say. It's the same as when you ask a moderate Xian whether they agree with their god that you deserve to be tortured for eternity. They know there's an ideologically correct answer, "yes," and they know there's a morally correct answer, "no." They'll refuse to answer the question: "I don't make the rules, god does," and "you send yourself there" are classic tactics to avoid being honest.

This is the same thing. They have to agree with him ideologically, because they can't claim he's Not a True Scotsman. But if they do agree with him, they've exposed the whole "it's just about being kind" lie.

Of course, this won't work on the fundamentalist True Believers. If you ask someone from Westboro the hell question, they won't even blink, they'll say, "yes, absolutely." Again, same thing applies.

It's one thing for Kendi himself to have these ideas. A much larger problem is the fact that the thunderous applause from the audience shows how far and how normalized the moral corruption has set in.

People who endorse Kendi should be regarded by society in the same way as those who endorse David Duke.