#socio-political dynamics

[thunkdeep]

Green and Guns: Oklahoma's Unique Cocktail of Cannabis, Casinos, and Carrying

Today, we're diving into a #ThunkSpiracy that's as intriguing as it is baffling. Picture this: Oklahoma, a state often seen as conservative and traditional, is now leading the charts in cannabis dispensaries, outpacing even California.

Hey there, ThunkDeep family! Today, we’re diving into a ThunkSpiracy that’s as intriguing as it is baffling. Picture this: Oklahoma, a state often seen as conservative and traditional, is now leading the charts in cannabis dispensaries, outpacing even California. (I Guess thats why the section i live in is called Green Country) Add to that a plethora of casinos and some of the most relaxed gun…

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

I've been sitting on this post since I saw it on my feed because something is being demonstrated here about one of the biggest misunderstandings people often have about intersectionality as a framework of approach. I have absolutely no idea if I can articulate my thoughts in a way that can be heard, but I think I need to try.

I'm feeling a resonance to growing up hearing white people breaking down their ethnic background into rigid fractions purely based on which relative last lived in the old world. We've all seen the math. 20% Irish, 50% English, ⅛ Cherokee on my mother's father's side.

Except that they got to that math by subtracting their "ethnic eccentricities" from a default White American Experience. In this framework, one imagines A Person as being the same as the hegemonic default, with each "marginalized intersection of identity" acting as a sifting filter that removes your access to certain Personhood Privileges. At one end of the experience is the Unfiltered Person, wholly privileged and never at a disadvantage. At the other, the Most Oppressed Class in America, with their scant smattering of remaining humanity at the bottom of a tall tower of sifting trays. To be marginalized in some way is to be Without Privilege, as if privilege and oppression are mutually exclusive states of existence. A black man is no longer fully a man because he is black, and therefore while "he still has male peivilege" the assumption is that some of these privileges aren't accessible to him. That one can confidently say "these are the male privileges a black man doesn't have, but always remember that he's still more privileged abd therefore less disadvantaged than any woman."

This obviously makes (white) people squirmy because they recognize they're treading into territory of "white women are more oppressed than black men" which is an argument with immediate and obvious counter (see above). But trying to walk this tightrope allows them to leave the underlying framework of hierarchy within systemic oppression while laying claim to "intersectional" politick.

Perhaps the black man isn't MORE privileged than a white woman, but at least **equally so on a different axis**. Perhaps he can both oppress and be oppressed because his manhood is inherently dominating, but his blackness is inherently deemed subservient?

Except that black men aren't (only) harmed by systemic oppression in the direction of timidity/subservience. Their perceived "hyper-aggression" is itself a form of embodied violence against them.

So perhaps it's not about positioning, it's about the manner of violence! Surely we could claim that black WOMEN are the ones who experience sexualized/gendered racial violence, while black men only experience *racial* violence!

Except that's not true either. Racial violence against black men has ALWAYS been gendered, and OFTEN been sexualized. Black men and boys being treated as inherent sexual predators ISN'T because they are men. It's because they are black men. For decades, we have understood that positioning men from racial minority groups as inherently hyper-masculine and as default potential sexual predators has been used as described above to enact gendered violence (e.g. revenge killings related to the "ruin" of a family woman). But we have also understood for just as long that it is also used to deny the higher rates of sexual abuse these racialized men and boys endure (see the positioning of racialized "othered" men and boys who are raped using phalluses and phallic like objects by members of the dominant racial group, often REGARDLESS of the gender of the perpatrator).

But to acknowledge that black men experience gendered and sexualized racial violence, is to acknowledge that men of ALL groups may experience gendered and sexualized violence related to their marginalized identities. A concept easily confirmed simply by looking at the ways that trans men and gay/bi men experience gendered and sexualized queerphobic violence. Acknowledging these things means accepted that gendered violence is not the domain of women or other gender minorities, but rather **the impact** a person's gender has on how the violence they experience when they are exposed to systemic violence for ANY REASON.

I think this is the piece people struggle with. They imagine "axes" of oppression being different algorithms charted on a graph where each person inhabits the whole of the algorithm, and is simply experiencing separate but interacting relationships to systemic violence.

Instead I would recommend people imagine a spiderweb. Every web is unique in how it is woven around its spider. The different "threads" of self that make up the whole of "me" are not separate from each other but actively comingling, connecting and reconnecting, and entirely one comprehensive self that is far more than the sum if each thread combined. The web includes all the components of self at once, not distinct but in tandem with each other. A black man is no more "only black" than he can ever be "only a man". A man of mixed race is each of his races and is SOMETHING ELSE ALTOGETHER- the **synthesis* of each of his races. That's what it MEANS for race to be a social construct. For gender to be a social construct. A man who is mixed black, white, and latino for example is never just black, never just white, never just latino. He is all of those things together and he is also NONE of those things, because he is HIM and race isn't actually something you can quantify.

We CHOOSE to construct meanings, and as long as we accept the premise that the meaning of each component of self is in any way separable from the others, we are truly failing to deconstruct the supremacy underlying those meanings. We NEED to understand that "privilege" is not a state of being. It is a permission slip from authority. The ENTIRE POINT is that as long as authority gets to decide whether or not you get to access your rights, then NO ONE HAS RIGHTS, because authority is far less worried about having an internally consistent logic between their prescribed (the values we SAY we have) and described (the values we are OBSERVED to have) values, and far more worried about wielding power to enforce their described values. They WILL happily revoke the permission slip to people who "aren't oppressed" for the simple reason that they ARE otherwise a threat to the dominant order (see the white preachers lynched alongside black civil rights protestors as "race traitors").

We need to be able to understand that intersectionality isn't about dividing people down into fractions of self. It is about recognizing the way every facet of self interacts and expands upon each other and themselves. If we can't get there? If we can't ACTUALLY let go of the hierarchies used to enforce the oppression? All the "good talking points" in the world mean literally fuck all.

So here is my problem with the "by virtue of being a man, you have to make your peace with the fact that some people will be uncomfortable with you, and thus you have to make yourself a safe person"

I've heard the same thing about being black. A lot of people have taken my very presence as hostility. I have had people escalate situations just because I am present as a black person in front of them. Before, and after transition.

You know what the problem with bending over backwards to make other people comfortable with your presence even though you haven't actually done anything to them besides breathe the same air?

It's never enough. You can be One Of The Good Ones for ages and at some point you will fail your Good One inspection and people will turn on you at the drop of a hat. People who you thought you had a good rapport with. People you thought were your friends.

I have *experienced* this, both online and in person.

The onus is on everyone to be safe people to be around. Singling someone out and blaming them for daring to share a demographic with someone else who has caused harm isn't cute when people do it to me because I'm black, and it's also not cute when they do it because I'm a man.

People are uncomfortable about my blackness all the time. I didn't magically stop experiencing racism when I started taking testosterone. So it's absolutely wild to me that people think "well, you know, with what you look like, some people won't want you around" is going to fly when I was explicitly taught *not* to tolerate that shit by every single one of my black relatives.

Someone doesn't like that I'm occupying a space? Well I'm not hurting them, so that's a them problem and not a me problem. That's how I've learned how to exist as black in white-majority spaces. Why do you think you can change the demographic and get me to agree with you?

[mortalityplays]

This is a fantastic linguistics paper – the researcher observed the artificiality and social pressure imposed on kids when they're asked to produce language on the spot, so instead had them talk to a rabbit in a room with a tape recorder. He found that when talking organically, without an adult authority figure around, their speech was exponentially more sophisticated, socially fluid, and creative.

As someone in the twitter thread points out, this has obvious implications for situations in which cued language production is used in diagnosis e.g. for autism. I'd add that (while this particular paper's remit is limited to children) it should also make us think about situations where adults are pressured to speak by authority figures: court hearings, police encounters, benefit assessments, asylum interviews, etc. If the presence of power hampers your ability to advocate for yourself, these are all rigged propositions.

Anyway, you can read the whole piece here (taken from a talk on his research, so it's very readable):

e: sorry, I should add the context that this is a language study situated in Hawaii in 1970 so there are also some very significant racial socio-linguistic politics discussed here that might be distressing to read about. I don't want to discount that aspect of the power dynamic studied here either.

[katakaluptastrophy]

Masterpost of TLT metas

This is mostly for my own reference, as tagging doesn't seem to guarantee something being findable on Tumblr...but if you like wildly overthinking lesbian necromancers in space, enjoy!

Overthinking the Fifth House:

What is a "Speaker to the Dead"?

Actually, Magnus Quinn isn't terrible at sword fighting

Imperial complicity: Abigail the First

Pyschopomp: Abigail Pent and Hecate

Did Teacher conspire with Cytherea to kill the Fifth?

What does the Fifth House actually do?

The Fourth and the Fifth can never just be family

Cytherea's political observations at the anniversary dinner

Abigail Pent's affect: ghosts and autism

Were the Fourth wards of the Fifth?

Abigail probably knew most of the scions as children

Magnus Quinn's very understandable anger

Fifth House necromancy is not neat and tidy

Are Abigail and Magnus an exception to the exploitative nature of cavaliership?

"Abigail Pent literally brought her husband and look where that got her" (the Fifth in TUG)

The Fifth's relationship dynamic

The Fifth's relationship is unconventional in a number of ways

The queer-coding of Abigail and Magnus' relationship

Abigail and Palamedes, and knowing in the River

Was Isaac the ward of the Fifth?

Did Magnus manage to draw his sword before Cytherea killed him? (and why he probably had to watch his wife die)

How did Abigail know she was murdered by a Lyctor?

Fifth House necromancy is straight out of the Odyssey

The politics of the anniversary dinner

Was Magnus born outside of the Dominicus system?

Overthinking John Gaius:

The one time John was happy was playing Jesus

Is Alecto's body made from John's?

Are there atheists in the Nine Houses?

Why isn't John's daughter a necromancer?

The horrors of love go both ways: why John could have asked Alecto 'what have you done to me?'

Why M- may have really hoped John was on drugs

What is it with guys called Jo(h)n and getting disintegrated? (John and Dr Manhattan)

John's conference call with his CIA handlers

Watching your friend turn into an eldritch horror

Why does G1deon look so weird? (Jod regrew him from an arm)

When is a friendship bracelet not a friendship bracelet?

Why did John have G1deon hunt Harrow? (with bonus update)

The 'indelible' sin of Lyctorhood and John's shoddy plagiarism of Catholicism

Are John Gaius and Abigail Pent so different?

What was Jod's plan at Canaan House?

John and Ianthe tread the Eightfold path

The Mithraeum is more than a joke about cows

When was John Gaius born? (And another)

John Gaius and the tragic Orestes

John and Jesus writing sins in the sand

John and Nona's echoing chapters

John's motivations

Overthinking the Nine Houses:

'No retainers, no attendants, no domestics'

Funerary customs and the violence of John's silence

Juno Zeta and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad time

The horror of the River bubble

Every instance of 'is this how it happens' in HTN

Feudalism is still shitty even if you make it queer and sex positive

How do stele work?

Thought crime in the Nine Houses

The Houses have a population the size of Canada

What must it be like to fight the Houses?

You know what can't have been fun? Merv wing's megatruck on Varun day...

Augustine's very Catholic hobby (decorating skeletons)

Necromancers are not thin in a conventionally attractive way

Matching the Houses with the planets of the solar system

Why don't the Nine Houses have (consistent) vaccination or varifocals?

How would the Houses react to the deaths at Canaan House?

How does Wake understand her own name (languages over 10,000 years)

What pre-resurrection texts are known in the Houses?

Camilla and Palamedes very Platonic relationship

The horrors the Cohort found at Canaan House

Do the Houses understand the tech keeping them alive?

Overthinking House religion:

What do the Houses believe about death?

Was M's nun a Franciscan?

Cavaliership and arbitrary socio-religious structures

Ritual scarification

Sacraments and sacramentals

What did Silas think god wanted at Canaan House?

In defense of Silas

There's no such thing as a 'good' necro/cav relationship

Veiling and shaving in Ninth House cult practice

Tongue-in-cheek thoughts on Eighth and Sixth religion

A very long deep-dive on House belief and practice

Overthinking Harrowhark Nonagesimus:

'The meat of your meat...belonged to god' and 'that is how meat loves meat'

The horror of parental touch: Harrow, John Gaius, and Abigail Pent

Why is Harrow so obsessed with Abigail's hands?

Frontline Titties of the Fifth and transgressive necro/cav relationships

Harrow, Wake, and permeability of the soul in HTN

Bible studies for weird queer necromancers:

Epiphany: revealing god's child to the wider world

The Holy Innocents and the creche massacre

The Virgin Mary and Commander Wake

John Gaius and John the Baptist

Instantiating the Trinity and the Second Resurrection

What's the significance of Paul?

St Paul's theology of gender and sexuality and the House theology of cavaliership

Maundy Thursday: consuming another for eternal life

Harrow and the Harrowing of Hell

[hahahafangirl]

gotta put my thoughts down before i forget it but the thing that did it in for me is how spy x family is ultimately and uniquely a “children-focused” work, where the major stakes require that we pay attention to the lives and dynamics of young children so that — specifically — we have to genuinely engage with and invested in their inner lives, motivations, desires, thoughts, emotions, etc.

i think this is a very unique focus in the shounen sphere, where the audience and creators are centered about adolescent boys (the shounen genre, in its name) and thus have a very wide scope of focus that nonetheless has “aged” past “childhood”. usually media about children and childhood are sequestered in its own genre (children’s shows like doraemon, magical girl anime like precure series, etc.) aimed at a different target audience who are in the same demographic as the main characters in the shows. this is, obviously, not a bad thing. but i appreciate the “genre-breaking” focus that spy x family have because it inspires a sort of empathy to children, who are often not the most favorite group of people for the typical demographic of shounen readers, that is specifically vital in today’s climate. (can’t say much about japan itself, who historically has been dealing with declining birth rates, but oh i can speak for the american individualism— ironically where sxf is also very popular in) another thing about this is it’s drive home how intertwined the family life is, and should be. agent twilight and thorn princess’s plot-lines are clearly shounen-esque (a spy fighting for world peace, an assassin weeding out traitors) but they are nonetheless inextricable from the family- and anya-focused story, because by choice or circumstances they are anya’s parents. they’re a part of a larger societal fabric that embedded them in relationships to others — children being one of them. i think that’s pretty neat.

another thing, specially about the depiction of children in sxf: they are fictitious yet realistic enough to portray real children and inspire sympathy for them. a lot of asian home media in general have the problems of portraying young children as “problems”: annoying, loud, privileged, dumb, ungrateful, etc etc. these are such complaints about children that are unfortunately way too common and way too ungenerous and mean-spirited; none of these tropes are present, even in a media full of scions and heiress. complaints about them being brats (red circus bus hijacking arc) was rightfully framed as unsympathetic and unreasonable (they’re children! they can’t help where they were born into— it goes both ways.) i think the crux of this beautiful balance sxf struck in portraying nuanced, dynamics children is sympathy. they can be loud, they can be whiny, cry at the drop of a hat, has too much energy, gross, have bad grades, clingy, inconsistent, academically unmotivated, ran off randomly— and that’s fine, because we know why they do it, we are given space into their inner thoughts, something so rarely afforded to real life children at times. but they can be motivated, they want world peace, they want to have genuine friends, they want their friends to be happy, they have crushes, and most of all they love their parents and they love the people around them.

i think regardless of everything sxf is a work that understands that children are full of love and the majority of the things they do are out of love. i think that alone makes it incredible in the current socio-econo-political climate where sympathy is spared so little and humanity spreads so thin children barely gets what they deserve. i suppose that’s the sort of war we are entrenched in.

[fenxshiral]

The Veilguard Doesn't Feel Like a Dragon Age Game

While I am enjoying my time with Veilguard, despite my complaints, I think my biggest complaint is this: it doesn't feel like a core entry in the Dragon Age series - it feels like a spinoff. The music, while good, is vastly different from previous entries - having a much more cyberpunk feel to it that just doesn't fit the setting. The action combat feels completely out of place compared to the Baldur's Gate inspired round-based combat of the previous three entries.

Magic is much more high fantasy than previous entries have allowed it to be. The darkness of the "Dark Fantasy" Is severely muted. The complex politics and socio-economical plots are completely absent compared to previous entries. Where previous entries would have gone to great lengths to explain why a certain group of people are doing something, Veilguard just glosses over it.

There are no "Costs" to anything like there are in previous games. Various factions that are multifaceted in previous entries are instead "Cleaned up" so that their less desired qualities aren't talked about. It's obvious that the dirty parts of the lore are still there - the problem is that they are ignored and brushed under the rug almost as if the game is ashamed of them.

None of these things are necessarily bad in a vacuum. My point is that many of the hallmarks of a Dragon Age game just *aren't there.* This feels like a spinoff game, or extremely high budget fan fiction. It doesn't feel like a dragon age game.

I think partly that dynamic shift is inevitable because everybody who *made* Dragon Age what it is are gone. An entirely new writing team has come in and it is clear that while there is a lore bible, the new team is playing very fast and loose with it. That's their perogative, of course, but I do think it's going to lose them many old time Dragon Age fans, especially if subsequent entries in the series (if any) are like this.

Like I don't like to talk down about people, but I legitimately believe the story I wrote for my Dragon Age tabletop game that took place after Inquisition is a more lore-accurate sequel than Veilguard is.

Again: the problem isn't that Veilguard is bad. On the contrary, despite my complaints it's actually quite good. The problem is that it feels like spinoff made by a completely different studio. It feels like a game made by people who either don't understand Dragon Age, or want Dragon Age to be something the previous three games in the series confirmed that it's not.

[turbulentscrawl]

Social Dynamics in the Manor

I did this for funsies

Leaders

Eli- The peacekeeper. He’s invested in the happiness of all the manor’s inhabitants, and often steps in (uninvited) to mediate issues between them. Secretly, he likes the attention and fulfillment that being needed gives him.

Luchino- One of the more passive “leaders.” He’s of the opinion that most inter-personal issues will sort themselves out with or without his interference, as nature often does. He gives his opinion on things freely, but doesn’t step in with force unless it’s critical.

Orpheus- A wolf in sheep’s clothing, Orpheus plays the role of a Follower to get a more personal understanding of the others. He prefers to lead from behind the scenes, controlling situations through careful leaking of information, or a specified figurehead.

Emily- A natural mother figure, Emily is sought out for comfort and advice as often as she is healing. Her rapport is especially strong with the other women of the manor.

Ada- A bit of a gaslighter, to be honest. Ada is good at convincing people they want the same things she does, be it through words or hypnosis. Her ability to read people is of strong use. She’s a bit more passive, however, and is less likely to see a need to step in for situations that don’t impact Emil.

Alva- Not a natural-born leader by any means, but his previous role in education has made him an experienced one. Alva is perhaps a bit too calm, a bit too slow to react as a leader, but he is nothing if not level-headed and calculating.

Kiegan- She’s been cold-shouldered for too long, and is not willing to be ignored anymore in life. Kiegan takes charge every time she sees an opening.

Phillipe- Has a strong sense of justice, and will always speak up for whatever he views as morally correct (though it should be noted that his morals are warped and prejudiced, and someone other than him is always at fault.) He can be even more pushy than Kiegan, when his heart burns with enough passion for something.

Followers

Andrew- Likes to think he’s a Lone Wolf, but he often feels directionless.

Luca- Will point a horse towards water, but not lead it or try forcing it to drink.

Freddy- Fancies himself a leader, but for all his intelligence and scheming he’s not well-liked enough to have followers. Also, his plans tend to be too…sacrificing.

Florian- As long as he gets his ten seconds of fame every once in a while, he's fine with whatever the atmosphere ends up being. ironically, he occasionally sides with Freddy, just because that man's "strategies" can be such dumpster-fires that it would be easy for Florian to save the day.

Kreacher, Emma, Lucky Guy, Willaim, Helena, Vera, Kevin, Margaretha, Patricia, Murro, Jose, Mike, Demi, Victor, Edgar, Ganji, Anne, Emil, Memory, Joker, Frederick, Lily, Violetta, Smiley ,Leo, Michiko, Wu Chang, Ann, Antonio, Ithaqua, Sangria, Grace

Lone Wolves

Aesop- Sometimes acts as a follower, but he doesn’t usually feel invested in the various issues and drama that comes up.

Norton- Is willing to follow when a situation calls for group cooperation, but he trusts his own judgment over that of most others in the manor.

Naib- Experience has taught him to fend for himself. He looks out for his allies, of course, but a group-mentality is sometimes detrimental to survival.

Alice- She behaves like a Follower for the sake of blending in, but Alice spends every unwatched moment she gets with her own goals and curiosities in the forefront of her mind.

Melly- Solitary and private. Melly makes truces, not allies.

Qi- Believes some emotional distance is the key for maintaining a clear head and fair judgement.

Matthias- A recluse for safety’s sake. He partners more closely with a select view, but does not like to call into crowds.

Jack- Only cares about satiating his own desires, and not the manor’s socio-politics.

Bane- A recluse for his own safety. He’s content with being left alone for the rest of eternity.

Hatsur- He speaks for and enforces the decrees of the Baron, but otherwise doesn’t care for the affairs of the other Hunters and Survivors.

Joseph- What’s the point in trying to obtain peace in hell? At least suffering, he thinks, would sometimes be more interesting.

Burke- He’s only concerned with his inventions, his work, and he picks sides and solutions according to what lets him get back to things the most quickly.

Fool’s Gold- Doesn’t care about anyone else’s problems. He barely cares about his own some days.

[bernievm]

In the heart of the ancient Achaemenid Empire, a masterpiece of Persian artistry emerges—a rhyton (drinking horn or in the shape of a horn) carved from the deep blue lapis lazuli and adorned with gold, taking the form of a majestic ibex (mountain goat).

Dating back to the 6th to 5th century BCE, this exquisite ceremonial vessel not only exemplifies the sophisticated craftsmanship and rich symbolism of the time but also provides a fascinating glimpse into the cultural and economic prowess of ancient Persia.

[Description and Material]:

*Material:

Lapis lazuli, a semi-precious stone prized for its deep blue color, was highly valued in ancient Persia and sourced primarily from what is now Afghanistan.

*Form:

The rhyton is shaped like an ibex, a type of wild goat with prominent, curved horns, reflecting the importance of nature and animal motifs in Persian art.

[Use]:

*Function:

A rhyton is a type of vessel typically used for drinking or pouring liquids, especially in ceremonial contexts. The liquid would be poured from the top and flow out through the spout, which could be the mouth of the animal in this case.

*Ceremonial Role:

Rhytons were often used in religious and royal ceremonies. The choice of lapis lazuli and the intricate craftsmanship suggest that this particular rhyton was likely used by the elite, possibly in rituals associated with the Zoroastrian religion or royal banquets.

[Cultural and Historical Significance]:

*Art and Symbolism: The ibex design reflects the importance of wildlife in Persian culture and the symbolic use of animals in conveying power and divinity. The ibex, with its strong and agile form, could symbolize qualities such as strength and resilience.

*Trade and Wealth: The use of lapis lazuli indicates extensive trade networks and the wealth of the Achaemenid Empire, as this material was not locally sourced and had to be imported.

*Royal Patronage: The Achaemenid rulers were great patrons of the arts, and such luxurious items underscore their desire to display their wealth, power, and cultural sophistication.

[Academic Perspective on Material Culture]:

*Cultural Synthesis:

Scholars often view Achaemenid art, including rhytons, as a synthesis of various cultural influences, including Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greek, reflecting the diverse and cosmopolitan nature of the empire.

*Representation of Power:

Academics see these artifacts as representations of royal propaganda, showcasing the divine right and grandeur of the Persian kings.

*Symbol of Status:

In material culture studies, such high-quality items are considered symbols of social status and wealth. They provide insights into the social hierarchy and economic conditions of the time.

*Artistic Techniques:

The craftsmanship of the rhyton is analyzed for its artistic techniques, such as carving and polishing lapis lazuli, which indicate advanced skills and aesthetic values.

[Notable Examples]:

Museums and Collections: Notable examples of such rhytons can be found in major museum collections, such as the British Museum and the Louvre, where they are studied and displayed as prime examples of Achaemenid artistry and craftsmanship.

In conclusion, the lapis lazuli rhyton in the shape of an ibex from the Achaemenid period is a significant artifact that illustrates the artistic, cultural, and economic aspects of ancient Persia. It serves as a key piece of material culture, providing valuable insights into the ceremonial practices, trade networks, and socio-political dynamics of the Achaemenid Empire.

[psychotrenny]

While there are many conditions where inter-class contradictions are not the primary factor at play, that doesn't mean you should just discard class analysis entirely. Like class can still be a useful lens when dissecting the differences and conflicts between distinct segments/strata of the same class, and sometimes a great deal of analysis and discussion is needed to determine whether a particular group is just a distinct strata or a different class entirely. Inter-Class conflict can also still play a secondary role, or else explain the context for the current conditions, and could one day play a more ascendant role as the situation develops.

For example, this is why I'm skeptical of any analysis that treats "The State" as some discrete entity that's disconnected from broader class society. Like not every political situation is going to cleanly resemble the classical model of the state as the totally obedient tool of some external ruling class, but that doesn't mean that the members of the state apparatus don't comprise any sort of classes or stratas that is inextricably linked by some manner socio-economic relation with other classes and stratas in society. Phenomena like Bonapartism and State Capitalism are still very explicable in class terms, even if said explanation is going to vary significantly with the specifics of the situation and conclusion of the analyst. Like sometimes you might refer to the State/Bureaucratic Bourgeois, while other times Apparatchiks could be classifies as a specific strata of proletariat, and under some analyses the members of State Apparatus can be thought of as an entirely separate class of their own (especially under pre-Capitalist conditions, such as in the contentious theory of the "Asiatic Mode of Production").

Because social institutions are ultimately the product of the material conditions that produce and reproduce them, with the social dynamics of these institutions reflecting the material relations between the groups that participate in them. The primacy of Class analysis is a natural conclusion of using Dialectical Materialism to understand a class society. You can't just ignore this because the specific dynamics don't reflect whatever dogmatic understanding of "Class" you've internalised; that's a metaphysical and therefore revisionist way of thinking

[probablyasocialecologist]

The more fragmented the group is, the less it has the ability to govern itself or resist as a group. Fragmentation creates a coordination problem. There exists an extremely sophisticated system of domination that classifies Palestinians into different legal statuses and ID systems, so that each sub-group becomes defined by its own struggle. As an initial mapping, there are five main legal statuses for Palestinians: Palestinian citizens of Israel, residents of East Jerusalem, residents of the West Bank, residents of Gaza, and refugees or diasporic communities. Each status has an internal dynamic of control, domination, and relative legal privilege. It’s divide and conquer reversed, first was the conquering and after was the dividing. This mode of governance creates Palestinians with greater legal privileges than others, subsets from whom the occupation can extract different functions, tiered labor pools, and so on. On a very basic level, this is the same logic and aim at work when Benjamin Netanyahu promotes political divisions between Gaza and the West Bank.  On the question of domination by fragmentation, it’s helpful to think of this system as having been constructed over a period of over seventy years, whose origin point is partition, namely, a supposedly binary case of fragmentation. But over time this origin point leads to a more layered system of fragmentation, given that in 1967 Israel also conquered the remaining Palestinian lands. What do you do with all these people that you’ve conquered? They’re now, properly speaking, subjects of your regime, but you can’t make all of them citizens, because that will sabotage the project of maintaining a Jewish majority. Palestinians index a problem for the Zionist project, which is that the mere existence of Palestinians challenges and disrupts the system, and so it evolves with each step aiming to further fragment, control, and govern that existence. This system of control is structured by legal classifications that determine the socio-legal status of each Palestinian in the system.

21 August 2024

[omegaphilosophia]

The Relationship Between Cyberpunk and Posthumanism

Cyberpunk and posthumanism are two interconnected paradigms that explore the implications of advanced technology on human identity, society, and the future. Both address themes of human augmentation, the blurring of boundaries between human and machine, and the socio-political ramifications of technological advancements. Here's an exploration of their relationship:

1. Technological Augmentation and the Human Body

Cyberpunk: Cyberpunk narratives frequently depict a world where humans enhance their bodies with cybernetic implants and other technological modifications. This genre questions what it means to be human when our physical form is increasingly defined by technology.

Posthumanism: Posthumanism critically examines how technological enhancements can transform human identity and capabilities. It challenges traditional notions of the human body and mind, proposing that technology can fundamentally alter human existence.

2. Identity and Consciousness

Cyberpunk: Characters in cyberpunk often grapple with their sense of identity, especially when their consciousness can be uploaded, transferred, or altered by technology. These stories explore the fluidity of identity in a technologically advanced world.

Posthumanism: Posthumanist theory delves into the philosophical implications of such scenarios, questioning the nature of consciousness and identity. It posits that identity is not fixed but can be reshaped by technological and biological changes.

3. Socio-Political Implications

Cyberpunk: Cyberpunk worlds are typically characterized by vast socio-economic divides, corporate dominance, and a dystopian society where technology exacerbates inequality. This genre highlights the dark side of technological progress and its impact on society.

Posthumanism: Posthumanism engages with these socio-political issues, critiquing the power dynamics and ethical considerations that arise with advanced technology. It explores how technology can both empower and oppress, depending on its use and distribution.

4. Blurring of Boundaries

Cyberpunk: A key theme in cyberpunk is the dissolution of boundaries between human and machine, reality and virtuality. Characters often exist in hybrid states, part human and part machine, challenging the clear-cut distinction between the two.

Posthumanism: Posthumanism philosophically supports this blurring of boundaries, suggesting that the human experience is inherently intertwined with technology. It advocates for a more integrated understanding of humanity that includes our technological extensions.

5. Ethical and Existential Questions

Cyberpunk: Cyberpunk narratives frequently raise ethical and existential questions about the implications of living in a world dominated by technology. Issues such as privacy, autonomy, and the essence of humanity are central to the genre.

Posthumanism: Posthumanism provides a theoretical framework to address these questions, proposing that we rethink ethical norms and existential meanings in light of our evolving technological landscape. It emphasizes the need for ethical considerations in technological development.

The relationship between cyberpunk and posthumanism is deeply intertwined, with cyberpunk providing a narrative exploration of themes that posthumanism examines philosophically. Both explore the transformative impact of technology on humanity, identity, and society, highlighting the potential and pitfalls of a technologically enhanced future. By engaging with both cyberpunk and posthumanist thought, we can gain a deeper understanding of the ethical, existential, and socio-political implications of our technological advancements.

[brunettedelulu]

Feminism and Pop Culture: A Complex Interplay.

In the contemporary socio-cultural landscape, the interplay between feminism and pop culture is both intricate and profound. Pop culture, encompassing various media forms like film, television, music, and literature, serves as a powerful vehicle for disseminating and challenging societal norms. Feminism, as a movement advocating for gender equality and the dismantling of patriarchal structures, finds a fertile yet contentious ground within this sphere.

The Evolution of Feminist Representation :

Historically, pop culture has been a double-edged sword for feminism. On one hand, it has perpetuated stereotypes and reinforced traditional gender roles. The early decades of cinema and television, for instance, often depicted women as passive, subservient, or overly sexualized. Such portrayals not only mirrored societal biases but also contributed to their perpetuation.

However, the feminist movement's waves have progressively infiltrated pop culture, demanding more nuanced and empowered representations of women. The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of strong female characters who defied conventional norms, such as Ellen Ripley in Alien and Sarah Connor in Terminator. These characters marked a shift, albeit a gradual one, towards a more complex portrayal of women in media.

Pop Culture as a Platform for Feminist Discourse :

In recent years, pop culture has become an increasingly significant platform for feminist discourse. The rise of social media has democratized content creation and dissemination, allowing feminist voices to challenge mainstream narratives more effectively. Movements like #MeToo have leveraged pop culture to bring issues of sexual harassment and gender inequality to the forefront of public consciousness.

Television series such as The Handmaid’s Tale and films like Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel reflect and amplify feminist ideals, resonating with audiences globally. These narratives not only provide entertainment but also serve as catalysts for discussions on gender politics, power dynamics, and societal change.

The Commercialization of Feminism :

However, the relationship between feminism and pop culture is not without its complexities and contradictions. One significant issue is the commercialization of feminism. Brands and media companies often co-opt feminist rhetoric for profit, diluting its radical essence in the process. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as "commodity feminism," risks transforming a movement aimed at systemic change into a marketable trend devoid of its original political potency. The feminist slogan t-shirts, empowerment-themed advertisements, and "girl boss" narratives proliferating in pop culture can, at times, reduce feminism to a mere aesthetic or consumer choice, rather than a sustained commitment to gender justice. This superficial engagement with feminist ideals highlights the tension between authentic representation and commercial exploitation.

Intersectionality in Pop Culture :

A crucial aspect of modern feminist thought is intersectionality, a concept introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw. Intersectionality posits that various forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, and classism, are interconnected and cannot be examined in isolation. Pop culture's engagement with intersectionality has been mixed, with some progress and notable gaps.

For instance, while there have been strides in representing diverse female experiences, much work remains to be done. The success of films like Black Panther and shows like Pose demonstrates a growing recognition of the importance of inclusive storytelling. Yet, the underrepresentation and misrepresentation of marginalized groups, including women of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those with disabilities, persist as critical issues.

Conclusion :

The intersection of feminism and pop culture is a dynamic and evolving terrain. Pop culture holds the potential to both challenge and reinforce societal norms, making it a vital arena for feminist engagement. As consumers and creators, it is imperative to critically examine the media we engage with, advocate for more authentic and inclusive representations, and resist the commodification of feminist ideals. By fostering a more nuanced understanding of gender and intersectionality within pop culture, we can contribute to a more equitable and just society. The journey towards this goal is ongoing, requiring vigilance, creativity, and a commitment to transformative change.

[stirringwinds]

What do you think about Canon's idea of nations having their own special nation language?

Thanks for the question! Personally, I don’t really vibe with it at all? Genuinely no shade at all to anyone who enjoys it; I can see how conceptually, it’s playing with the idea that nations are different from humans and have some things in common. I’m sure there are many ways to be creative and thoughtful with it. I do think there are other ways nations have things in common and feel other nations ‘get’ them more than humans. But to me it shouldn’t be an actual language—and the idea of a universal language personally doesn’t gel with the type of historical hetalia I usually explore. 

The acquisition of a language, who is or is not understood, or who has to learn which languages, is inseparable from power, imperialism and the socio-political relations between nations. I don't take this approach because 'no fun magic allowed in fandom' (because nations are magic and magic is fun) but because I think linguistic difference is fascinating to integrate into nation relationships and adds many human layers to the characters. Linguistic dominance (or erasure) is such a tool of empire; we only need to look at how the British Empire privileged English at the cost various languages all across the empire, from Welsh to Māori. Or how the Spanish did over Nahuatl in Mexico and so on. Since empire is a theme I’m interested in exploring in hetalia, the existence of fictional universal language that provides nations with an alternative forum to be heard and understood…rather detracts from the human, historical reality, imo, of how the ability to speak or write and be listened to is inherently unequal. This is an aspect of humanity that I don’t want nations to be exempt from experiencing, particularly when language is such a key part of their being—like I headcanon that one of Alfred's first languages wasn't just English but Carolina Algonquian, the language of the Croatan people at Roanoke, which Arthur did not speak, and that difference was one divide between them as colony and empire—Arthur certainly Anglicised Alfred's education and exerted power over him that way once he claimed him as his 'son'.

Further, if anything, I feel like the “universal language” is just…a bit redundant and not as compelling, when in historically, there are specific lingua francas that have existed for one reason or another, between countries. Which we can explore. And the politics of that ^nicely encapsulates the history of cultural exchange and power dynamics. For example, between the East Asian nations���it’s classical Chinese. Kiku and Yong-soo learned how to write in Yao’s language because he was powerful and culturally dominant. To me, it’s significant if Kiku and Yong-soo could not actually make Yao understand until they learned his language, and he, conversely, could elect to ignore them.  There was no universal language they could use (save of course, general human expressions and body language lol—which are not quite sufficient for the specifics of diplomatic relations, trade…and peace treaties). I do think Yao’s a seasoned polyglot who finds learning languages entertaining, and he does eventually learn Korean and Japanese—but the point remains that who gets to be the lingua franca and why such lingua francas exist in humanity, are compelling to explore.

And so all that’s something I want nations to directly partake in and experience just as humanity did, with no convenience of a universal nation language existing at all, in shaping their interactions with one another. It’s just more interesting anyway, for me to think of Alfred and Kiku speaking Dutch because of his long term relationship with Jan (and in real life, that’s the bridge language the Perry Expedition used).

Lastly...for me the notion of a universal language (not just a sixth sense or instinct) that all nations, big or small, colony or empire, are born knowing without having to learn, and with which they can understand every other nation—imo, detracts from the human reality of how all languages are deliberate constructions created and given meaning by a specific community’s cultural context. My two primary languages are from drastically different language families. Even the way I think and to some extent, see the world, is consequently somewhat different whether I am expressing it in English or Mandarin Chinese. Two totally dissimilar writing systems, with no common origin—English belongs to the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family, Mandarin on the Sino-Tibetan. That’s not to say they cannot both co-exist in my head—they definitely can. English and Chinese have mutually incorporated words from each other. But all languages ultimately make sense only in the context of a cultural community that the user is in contact with or at least has exposure to, even if only third or fourth-hand through written materials rather than a native speaker. Even non-verbal languages like sign language—it’s different in different countries. Language isn’t like being born with a sense of smell or touch; it is so much more specific than that, and how it's acquired is such a vital aspect of humanity that I just want these eldritch fucks to experience the same way that we humans do. I hope that explains my take on it!

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

I am still very confused. When I needed to use a food pantry, their public website listed the documents that we needed to bring to verify eligibility. Is it considered unethical for them to have done that on a page visible to people not applying for food? I am having trouble understanding how having a list of requirements to verify eligibility that is publicly viewable is harmful to recipients. I don’t understand how m, for example, someone outside the food pantry knowing that clients are expected to bring identification, proof of residence, and proof of income is harmful to me.

I’m probably misunderstanding something

Food banks ARE considered unethical when they means test, yes. And most food banks only do so in letter, not in spirit for that reason. Everyone in aid work is aware that forcing recipients to "prove need" [even just to staff] is a massive barrier to effective resource distribution, which is why the food banks in my town keep off-record bags of supplies for people they can't document in their formal records or give funded supplies to. I have NEVER walked away from a food bank empty handed, even times when I showed up without documentation or explicitly endorsing criteria we both knew would exclude me from official supplies. Many food banks are required by state law [against all in-field policy recommendations and field research mind you] to means test anyway, and that is an acknowledged and discussed barrier.

You may notice, as time goes on, a greater shift AWAY from food banks and TOWARDS food fridges over the next few years for exactly this reason. Food banks are anonymous to access (standing refrigerated pantries that are not monitored except for restock and sanitation needs), do not means test, and do include ANY eliminating criteria for "right to use". These programs tend to report SUBSTANTIALLY lower food insecurity lingering after implementation than your more traditional food bank.

Essentially, the law and the populas repeatedly require aid organizations to engage in unethical and ineffective recipient dynamics, not because they are acceptable, but because they are mechanisms of control. They control who is allowed a safety net, and allow socio-political bias and prejudice to exist in the gaps with full plausible deniability, replicating and reinforcing the very factors that create resource scarcity/insecurity in the first place. For generations now aid workers have been carefully picking away at the idea that means testing is ANYTHING but harmful and it is truly not something I will tolerate being reinforced by people who want to position themselves as functionally progressive.

[cheatsru]

Battlefield 2042

In the chaotic landscape of Battlefield 2042, players are thrust into a harrowing future where the stakes are higher than ever. The game reinvents familiar battlefields, introducing dynamic weather changes and colossal struggle scenarios that keep every match feeling uniquely intense. With this immersive simulation, the concept of teamwork evolves significantly—squad dynamics become essential as players navigate vast open worlds filled with destruction and debris. Those who embrace collaboration will find themselves thriving, while lone wolves may quickly discover their disadvantages.

Beyond its stunning visuals and adrenaline-pumping action, Battlefield 2042 also serves as a poignant reflection on global instability. Players explore the consequences of socio-political turmoil through engaging gameplay that resonates on multiple levels—each victory tinged with a sense of urgency illustrating real-world challenges. As battles unfold against shifting backdrops impacted by player actions, it becomes paramount to strategize not only for survival but also for adaptability in an ever-changing environment. This ongoing evolution demands creativity and forward-thinking, making every session an emotional rollercoaster as victories feel hard-won and losses leave lasting impressions.

Ultimately, Battlefield 2042 is more than just another installment in a beloved franchise; it’s an experience that immerses gamers in thought-provoking narratives intertwined with high-octane warfare. It's this blend of strategy and chaos that sets it apart from other shooters—the challenge lies not only in defeating opponents but also in fully embracing the unpredictable nature of modern combat. Gamers must navigate both their personal growth within this digital warzone and understand how collective efforts can change the tide of battle—emphasizing unity even amidst chaos.

[dyemelikeasunset]

Cannot explain how much the portrayal of Mor and her moms .... Complicated relationship is to me. I have often felt in lgbt spaces, being unable to express the complicated hurt and love for the people who raised me. Mor is very relatable to me in this aspect. I wish it was something we talked about more as a community.

I'm really happy and kinda relieved it resonates with you. I also wish we talked about it more, and it's exactly why I wanted to write her relationship with Delilah this way.

This is gonna get a little socio-political from here on

but I think for me personally too, it's also complicated by the fact the dominant white culture leans toward demonizing parents of color. As a qpoc, I often find it really hard to talk about my complicated family dynamics without microaggressive racism getting involved. For many diasporic poc, our families are our main ties to our culture, and to be denied that connection is denying part of our racial and cultural identity. Of course it's complicated!

I just get so tired of the polarizing ways that parental relationships are depicted. Our parents don't always have to be understanding, "progressive," immediately-accepting angels for us to want them in our lives still. PoC should never have to be perfect to be given the human right to make mistakes and given the grace to grow. People are always so ready to give up on the older generation and put parents of color in the same box as oppressive forces that hurt them too

Also, it's up to adult children to make our own choices when it comes to our families-- other people shouldn't assume to know better

Anyway, I got a little heated, but just know that I see you, and I also wish we got to talk about strained family dynamics in more nuanced ways