#the actions of the oppressor will always be seen as more just than the actions of the oppressed

[cherrybomb107]

One more thing about the difference between Caitlyn’s actions and Jinx’s. As I’ve said before, comparing their actions is disingenuous imo, for the simple fact that Caitlyn is an oppressor, and Jinx is oppressed. That’s not to say that victims of systemic oppression are incapable of violence, just that the violence they are capable of is fundamentally different to that of their oppressor, and therefore cannot be compared. But the difference in reaction to Caitlyn’s actions vs the reaction to Jinx’s is what I wanna talk about.

Caitlyn is an authoritarian dictator. She gassed Zaunites, co-signed martial law, hit her partner, unlawfully arrested people, and almost killed a child just to get to Jinx. Yet large swathes of the fandom brush off or downplay these atrocities because of “grief”. Of course grief is a reason for doing things and acting out of character, but it does not excuse anything. Especially because, as not just a Piltie but a Kiramman, Caitlyn’s allowed to be much more destructive in her “grief”. She gets to take out her pain and anguish on an entire city, but other characters are not afforded that privilege? Why is that?

Jinx meanwhile makes all of her weapons by hand. She only kills enforcers, Firelights, Councilors, and goons who attack her. I’m not going to defend her actions here(as I’ve made many posts here explaining my thoughts and feelings on them). But I will say that it’s interesting that the violence Jinx is responsible for is enough to make her a “psycho” and a “terrorist” but if you point out how Caitlyn’s actions literally make her a dictator and how “grief” doesn’t excuse anything, you’ll be crucified by the fandom. Why? Because both in the show and in real life, the feelings of the privileged are legitimized, while the actions of the under privileged are demonized and pathologized.

It’s the same story with women and misogyny. Men are not “crazy” or “emotional” for perpetuating patriarchy and punishing women for the crime of existing. Men get to make “jokes” about how much they hate women. How they want to rape, kill, and harm them. Then they actually go out and do it! And this is not called the results of misogyny, oh no! It’s simply a “male loneliness epidemic”. Men have spent centuries subjugating women to horrible things I can’t even describe without tearing up. But they are still thought of as the more “logical” and “reasonable” gender. However, when women react to this institutional sexism, they get labeled instead of listened to. “Crazy”, “hysterical”, “delusional”, “emotional”, “hormonal”, “pmsing”, “doing too much” etc. Women don’t get to lash out and fight back against a system that sees them as subhuman. But men are allowed to set that system up and benefit from it.

Same thing with slavery. Slave owners were not “crazy”, “insane”, or “cruel” for not only owning human beings but mentally, physically, emotionally, financially, and sexually abusing and torturing my people. Yet enslaved people who would do anything to be free were labeled “drapetomanic”. Called crazy because they didn’t want to be enslaved. The oppressor’s feelings are always more valid and justified than the oppressed, no matter what they do.

The Black Panther Party were called “terrorists” for arming themselves both with guns and with books, and preparing to fight back against a system that didn’t see them as human beings. The government made multiple plans on how to disrupt their movement and destroy it from the inside out. Why is the US government not commonly called a terrorist organization? Why does a kid who steals candy from a store, or a mother who steals formula for her child get labeled a “criminal” or a “thief”, but the government is allowed to steal thousands of dollars from us, pump poison into our food, water, air, push propaganda at every turn, brutalize our people, and destroy our communities with no consequences?

Because the privileged are always justified both in their feelings and actions, no matter how heinous. That’s why the Black Panthers were “criminals” and “terrorists” while the government was just “trying to restore order”. That’s why men get to kidnap, rape, murder, beat, and oppress women but a woman making jokes about the male suicide rate is a “bitch” or a “feminazi”. That’s why Jinx is a “terrorist” and a “psycho” but Caitlyn is a “complex female character” who’s “grieving.

This also points to something else: individuality as yet another privilege. Despite overwhelming evidence that men commit majority of violent crimes, when women express hesitation about being around men, it gets brushed off as “not all men”. When Black people express wariness about cops it gets brushed off as “a few bad apples”. When in reality it is an issue with policing as an institution. Yet when a woman does something bad, it’s “These bitches can’t be trusted.” “All women are the same.” “All women want blah blah blah.” Women don’t get to be thought of as individuals. When one woman does something, it reflects on women as a whole. When a Black person does something, all Black people are “criminals” or “thugs.” We don’t get to be individuals.

Same thing with Caitlyn and Piltover as a whole. It’s “not all Pilties” and “we’re people, just like you” when the heat is on them. But when Caitlyn lost her mom, it was “those animals”. “I see how easy it is to hate them”. Councilor Salo referred to Zaunites as “demons”. And when Caitlyn asked Vi to be an enforcer, she said “We can show them that not everyone in Zaun supports Jinx.” Huh? What type of sense does that make? Caitlyn had been conducting her off the book’s investigation into the Undercity’s violence since season one, yet she still didn’t even know who was behind it all, or who Jinx was! Now, it’s “we have to show them that not everyone in Zaun supports Jinx”? Where would she even get the idea that people in Zaun would support Jinx in the first place?

She says this in the first episode of season two. Why would all of Zaun be responsible for Jinx’s actions? Why would all of Zaun be supporting Jinx at this point in time? See what I mean about individuality? When Pilties like Marcus cause harm, it’s “one bad apple”. Yet when Jinx justifiably tries to fight back against her oppressors, all of Zaun is put on the hook, whether they support her or not. It doesn’t matter. Just being a Zaunite means you support Jinx, and you need to be brought to “justice”. Whether you actually did anything wrong or not is irrelevant. By virtue of your identity you are guilty until proven innocent, while Pilties are innocent until proven guilty. And even then, they get a slap on the wrist when proven guilty.

Oppressed people will always be demonized and vilified in the court of public opinion in real life, and that absolutely affects how people consume fiction. Jinx’s actions are blown out of proportion (people think she’s killed dozens/hundreds of people when that’s simply not the case) while Caitlyn was “manipulated by Ambessa” and she “didn’t even do anything that bad”. One of these characters has the money, power, and institution backing her to make a city suffer. The other character has scraps at best. But only one of these characters will ever be thought of as a “monster”.

TL;DR The fandom’s reception to Caitlyn’s actions highlights a larger issue irl in that oppressors get let off the hook, while oppressed people get held to different, and sometimes even impossible standards

[navramanan]

still heartbroken but cannot move

[radfemsiren]

🤍A basic rundown of my beliefs as a radical feminist 🤍

(I don’t represent every radical feminist, but these are usually the standard opinions you’ll find of many radfems. Hate or disagree with them, that’s fine! But know the truth of who I am and what I stand for beforehand)

- there are 2 sexes, the male sex is oppressing the female sex

- femicide, rape, child sex abuse, hijab laws, female genital mutilation, domestic labor, trafficking, war crimes, revenge porn, prostitution… women and girls around the world are being exploited, tortured, and killed because of this oppression, and it must end.

- female oppression is sex based oppression, meaning a woman can’t just identify out of her oppression (for example hijab laws)

- sex is biological and an immutable truth, gender is a social construct

- gender should be done away with because gender roles are male supremacist and result in women and girls being stereotyped, dehumanized, barred from education, safety, bodily autonomy, etc.

- defining women with anything other than biology is misogynistic and relies on stereotypes

- the biological differences between men and women must be acknowledged in order to effectively end patriarchal oppression

- radical feminism is getting to the root of female oppression (radical -> root)

- misandry is not real and is just an extension of misogyny (for example, “men are told not to cry!” Yes because women are seen as inferior and any trait associated with us is seen as degrading/emasculating for men. This is why there is no female equivalent to emasculation.)

- all current religions are patriarchal and made by men to exploit and control women

- access to abortion is a human right and should never be threatened, women are the creators of life and deserve to gatekeep it, as well as exercise full autonomy over our own bodies

- Using sexist gender roles to define yourself is giving these misogynistic stereotypes power (wearing makeup or dresses doesn’t make anyone less or more of a woman, this is misogyny)

- the beauty industry is patriarchal and exploits women, our bodies and our money

- sex work is not work, it’s always exploitation (consent can not be bought)

- the porn industry is patriarchal and relies on trafficking, coercion, and rape to function. It also conditions its watchers to be aroused by violence against women, and results in more real life consequences for women and girls

- women’s spaces and institutions must be protected. Women’s safety is more important than catering to male feelings

- marriage is a patriarchal institution made to exploit the domestic labor of women for her entire life

- BDSM/kink are patriarchal and only center the pleasure and well being of men.

- hookup culture is patriarchal and the risk to reward is not worth it for women to engage in it

- gender ideology is patriarchal and is a direct hindrance to female liberation (we can’t define ourselves or our oppressors, we can’t create spaces away from our oppressors, we can’t create laws and policy based on these definitions, people who are gender non conforming / have gender dysphoria are pressured to alter their bodies to conform to a rigid standard and become lifelong medical patients, etc)

- choice feminism and liberal feminism caters to conforming to patriarchal standards and institutions, and refuses to examine why women make choices under patriarchy

- women of color face oppression on the axis of our sex and race, men of color only face oppression on the axis of their race

- non white patriarchal institutions must be criticized: a mullah is just as dangerous to the liberation of women as a pastor is

- women should decenter the men in their lives just as men have done with women. That means prioritizing us! Engaging in women’s media, art, stories, fostering female communities and support networks, uplifting and empowering their sisters around the world

- being a radical feminist means consistently taking radical action, big or small, we all can do it! Go support a female artist, go donate menstrual products to a shelter, go tell off a man when you see him making a woman uncomfortable. We all can make a difference!

…My feminism focuses on criticism of Islam and middle eastern patriarchy, but there are radfems with many focuses/passions… some in eco feminism, some on uplifting Romani women, black women, neurodivergent women, women with disabilities, prostituted women… some are passionate about women’s sports, women’s art, women’s writing, women’s history, lesbian and bisexual women’s stories… everyone has their passion on here, so before you come to attack, just check out my blog and click around at the different profiles on this corner of the internet…. maybe we might not be the terrible witches you thought us to be. Or maybe we are, but witches are awesome so who cares lol

[elspethdekarios]

I have thoughts about Anders

So I just finished Dragon Age: Awakening (I’ve played through all 3 main games, went back to do the DLC) and I have so many thoughts about how different Anders is pre- and post-Justice sharing his body. I think part of this is the voice actor change in DA2, but his personality seems so different, too. Awakening Anders is sarcastic, always cracking jokes, mostly light-hearted even after everything he’s been through. DA2 Anders has moments like this, but he’s much more intense and brooding. Awakening Anders has a few lines about wanting to settle down with a pretty girl or have a plump wife waiting for him at home, but DA2 Anders is PINING. And with the time skip, it’s a slow burn. Awakening Anders doesn’t strike me as the slow burn type—he’s very flirty and even a little raunchy at times. But Anders in DA2 doesn’t really act like that. He’s got a tortured, romantic soul. He’s much more serious. And maybe it’s just because he’s grown up a little bit, but now that I’ve met Justice as a character before he and Anders become one, I wonder how much of that change is Anders maturing vs. Justice’s personality coming through.

I know this game has been out forever and I’m probably not saying anything new, but Anders is so fascinating to me. More rambling and dialogue analysis under the cut:

The very first thing that struck me as different about Anders in Awakening (other than his general personality) was his response to Wynne telling the Warden Commander that the Libertarians in the Circle want to pull away from the Chantry, and Anders says that it’s a recipe for disaster. SIR! WHO ARE YOU?

Awakening Anders also doesn’t seem particularly interested in justice for mages or revenge for how he and other mages have been treated. He wants his freedom, and I’m sure he wants freedom for other mages too, but he’s not exactly radical like he is in DA2. In fact, it’s Justice who seems to inspire Anders to, well, seek justice. I’m emphasizing some of this dialogue to analyze it below:

Justice: I understand that you struggle against your oppression, mage. Anders: I avoid my oppression. That's not quite the same thing, is it? Justice: Why do you not strike a blow against your oppressors? Ensure they can do this to no one else? Anders: Because it sounds difficult? Justice: Apathy is a weakness. Anders: So is death. I'm just saying.

Justice: I believe you have a responsibility to your fellow mages. Anders: That bit of self-righteousness is directed at me? Justice: You have seen oppression and are now free. You must act to free those who remain oppressed. Anders: Or I could mind my business, in case the Chantry comes knocking. Justice: But this is not right. You have an obligation. Anders: Yes, well... welcome to the world, spirit.

Now, look at this conversation between Anders and Isabela in DA2:

Anders: I don't know how you live the way you do, blithely ignoring the consequences of your actions. Isabela: This is about the Qunari thing, isn't it? I'm not ignoring it. I just recognize that it happened years ago. Isabela: There's this fantastic thing called "moving on." You should try it sometime. Anders: Has it occurred to you that Kirkwall is only just recovering from the Qunari attack? Isabela: And you want me to... what? Flog myself daily? Isabela: Has it occurred to you that maybe there's no justice in the world? Other than that voice you keep in your head.

Isabela sounds more like Awakening Anders than Anders himself does in this conversation. Justice accuses Awakening Anders of ignoring the oppression of other mages like DA2 Anders accuses Isabela of ignoring the consequences of her actions (for the record, I don’t think either of these assumptions are 100% true, but I digress). In Awakening, Anders is cynical when Justice tells him he has an obligation. What can he change? He has to worry about his own survival as an apostate before risking his life even more to save others. Hence the line “welcome to the world, spirit.” Anders is pragmatic, even a little pessimistic, where Justice is idealistic.

But then, the conversation with Isabela! Like Justice tried to convince Anders of his obligation to other mages, Anders now is trying to convince Isabela to take responsibility for her actions. She’s ignoring the unrest that was caused by her stealing the Qunari tome instead of doing something to help—just like Awakening Anders is ignoring his oppressor. 

When Anders and Justice merge, Anders starts to see the bigger picture, the oppression that reaches far beyond himself. From the short story Anders:

I always knew I wouldn't submit. I could never be what they wanted from me -- compliant, obedient, guilty. But before Justice, I was alone. I never thought beyond my own escape: Where would I hide? How long before they found me? Now, even that thought repulses me. Why should so many others live with what I will not? Why must the Circle of Magi stand? Just because it always has, just because those who read Andraste's words twisted them to mean that mages must be prisoners? Why has there never been a revolution? … They will all die. Every templar, every holy sister who stands in the way of our freedom will die in agony and their deaths will be our fuel. We will have justice. We will have vengeance. And suddenly I'm alone, standing in a burning forest, with the bodies of templars and wardens at my feet. So many, and I didn't even know they were there. Didn't even know I had killed them, but the evidence is all around me. Not the aftermath of a battle as I've known it, but a bloody abattoir of rent limbs and torn and eaten flesh. This is not justice. This is not the spirit who was my friend, my self. What has he become? What have I become? We must get out of here. There is no place for me in the Grey Wardens now. Is there a place for me anywhere?

First of all, ow, my heart. But the point is: before he becomes part of Anders, Justice doesn’t feel a personal connection to mages’ freedom—he only cares because of the injustice. But once he and Anders become one, the source of injustice that Anders cares about the most, that he has deep resentment for, that has caused him great harm, becomes Justice’s cause. We know that Justice can sense/feel memories of the body he inhabits because he remembers some of Kristoff’s past, or at least feels connections to certain objects or people even if he can’t explain it. Kristoff was dead, though, so those memories were only fragments. I imagine that with Anders, he can experience those memories more clearly, including, of course, the injustice he and others have suffered at the hands of the templars. Justice is able to integrate into Anders fully, whereas with Kristoff, the body was an empty vessel with remnants of the past soul that was within it. 

Now, let’s talk about where Anders ends and Justice begins, something that even Anders himself is unsure of. Here are some DA2 banters about the division (or lack thereof) between the two of them:

(Outside The Hanged Man, Act 3) Anders: Justice doesn't let me get drunk anymore. I kind of miss it.

(in Legacy DLC) Anders: I've tried to forget about this side of myself. Justice is... so strong. Sometimes the Wardens seem insignificant. But seeing that poor bastard brings it all back. The Darkspawn taint. The call of the archdemon. It's inside me, as much a part of me as Justice.

Anders: Justice once asked me why I didn't do more for other mages. I told him it was too much work. Anders: But I couldn't go back after that. Couldn't stop thinking about it. Anders: Sometimes, I miss being that selfish.

Varric: So, the knight-commander... Boiling in oil? That one never gets old. Anders: This is past time for joking. Varric: I'm helping you indulge in elaborate revenge fantasies. I think it's good for you. Anders: Meredith will die. Do not doubt that. Varric: Go away, Justice. Can Anders come out and play? Anders: [Justice voice] Stop. Varric: You are no fun anymore.

(if Anders was taken to the Fade) Anders: I have tried to avoid the Fade since Justice. It's disturbing when he takes over.

The above dialogues imply that Anders and Justice are two separate entities in one body. The one from Legacy is tricky, since he compares it to the taint, but he still refers to Justice as separate from himself, which is why I included it. And that’s not even touching on the fact that Justice has a different voice than Anders. But these:

Aveline: So you're two people, Anders and... Justice? Anders: That's not strictly accurate. Aveline: But you are of two minds. Anders: Many people are.

Isabela: Hello? Is Anders there? Can I speak to Anders? Anders: You can stop yelling. It's always me. Isabela: Oh, good. I didn't want to talk to that other guy. You know, the stick-in-the-mud. Anders: He can still hear you. Justice and I are one. Anders: Anyway, you wanted to talk to me? Isabela: Not really. I just wanted to make sure it was you.

(If Hawke convinces Anders to give up his plan) Vengeance: Leave! This does not concern you! Hawke: This is Anders's decision, not yours! Vengeance: I am Anders! You have given into sloth. You would stand by while mages are abducted and tortured. Go. Anders has no need of you.

There’s not a clear answer either way. And I didn’t expect to find one. I think a lot of this back and forth is Anders trying to understand who he is now that Justice is part of him. He clearly still feels like he has some level of agency and individuality apart from Justice, but he struggles with it. This feels very anticlimactic, but I guess that’s just the nature of it all.

If you read this far, wow thanks. Now to not leave off on a sad note, here are some DA2 banters that feel very Awakening Anders to me - please enjoy <3

Anders: I keep thinking I know you from somewhere... Isabela: You're Fereldan, right? Ever spend time at the Pearl? Anders: That's it! Anders: You used to really like that girl with the griffon tattoos, right? What was her name? Isabela: The Lay Warden? Anders: That's right! I think you were there the night I— Isabela: Oh! Were you the runaway mage who could do that electricity thing? That was nice... Hawke: Please stop talking. Now. (Or if Varric is in the party) Varric: I don't think I need to know this about either of you.

Anders: So, I never expected to be palling around with the captain of the guard. Aveline: We're not "pals." Anders: We're not? What about that time we painted each other's toenails? Aveline: Do you want something? Anders: Love, life, and liberty. What more does a man need?

Anders: Nice day to be planning a trip into the Deep Roads, don't you think? Anders: The Blight, the dampness, the festering darkness filled with tainted rats... Carver: Shut up. Anders: You've got a real chip on your shoulder, you know? Carver: I've got a big blade on my shoulder, magey. Anders: Right. Wonder what you're compensating for.

Fenris: Is there something you want, Anders? Anders: You really don't have the temperament for a slave. Fenris: Is that a compliment or an insult? Anders: I'm just wondering how your master didn't kill you. Fenris: How have the templars not killed you? Anders: I'm charming.

Anders: Is that supposed to be Andraste's face on your crotch? Sebastian: What? Anders: That... belt buckle thing. Is that Andraste? Sebastian: My father had this armor commissioned when I took my vows as a brother. Anders: I'm just not sure I'd want the Maker seeing me shove His bride's head between my legs every morning.

(All dialogue found on the Dragon Age fandom wiki.)

[low-budget-korra]

Let's talk about Caitlyn Kiramman from Arcane (again)

Tons to talk about her so, here we go

1. Is she privileged? Yes. Is she a bad person because of it? No.

In fact, from the beginning, Caitlyn always wanted to do what's right and that's the reason she became an enforcer(in her life experience until then, as Piltie, the enforcers were there to keep the peace and help the city and it's people). She wanted to help people and was one of the few Top Siders who viewed Zaun people as people and not monsters or trash.

2. Did she get blind by revenge and make some bad stuff? Yes.

But let's be fr, if my mom was murdered like that and by the same people I tried to help, I would do the same or even worse and probably so are you Caitlyn haters. And that's okay, we are emotional beings and rage truly is something that blinds people.

Not to be that person but half of Caitlyn's hate posts just scream "i never lost someone important in my life and I don't know how grief works" Cuz unfortunately I did and even tho it wasn't nowhere near the violent way Cassandra died, I still had to struggle with the anger phase. And I say this bc people act Caitlyn was just pulling a tantrum, overacting or smt

Sure, her pain ain't bigger than Jinx's or Vi's, but it's still hurts and the only true difference is that Cassandra had the privilege of an honorable funeral, while Felicia and many others from Zaun, didn't have. But don't be here all condescendingly try to disqualify Caitlyn pain just bc she is rich

Anyway, she was so blind by revenge that she released the toxic gas on Zaun, and it is said and shown that she only used to clean the streets before search operations and against the baroons. Still fucked up bc there's no way innocents weren't harmed but still, it ain't like she release the gas on everyone just for funzies as some people comments

Ambessa played her cards pretty well bc it's easier to do something like that if you dehumanize your enemy. And those Zaun thugs were dumb enough to fall for the Ambessa trap in the ceremony and the whole Zaun suffered because of that.

And if we can learn something from this is not to be too quick to violence bc you may be played and in the end, you and your people will suffer with the oppressors now ""justified"" actions. Yes, violence can help but we need to know how and when to use it.

3. Caitlyn is possibly the most complex and misunderstood character from season 2. Mostly bc even tho we had lots of micro expressions and subtext that explain her actions, there were things that maybe needed to be said. This would save the character from being so misunderstood

Like a scene with her saying something like "Vi...I'm sorry if I hurt you" and then Vi would respond like "if?" and then silence after. Could even be in that scene in act3 when Vi just wakes up from the coma. Idk, I know it sounds dumb but again, it would save the character from being misunderstood and hated over them

"But Caitlyn changing sides was too plot convenient and came outta nowhere". No? Lmao in fact you can see in her face how she regrets hitting on Vi and how she kinda of doesn't want to be there when Ambessa is making the speech in the end of act1

But then again, Ambessa plays her cards and calls out Caitlyn into a position where she simply can't say no. Remember that they were already thinking that someone from the Top may have helped the attack and Caitlyn was seen hanging around with a Zaun criminal and sister of the terrorist, if she refused what Ambessa was offering, people would assume she is a traitor and that could mean death to her.

Months go by and when we see act2 Caitlyn she is already more calm, her initial rage and wishes of vengeance kinda of ran out, and she is already realizing all the shit she did and disagreeing with Ambessa's ideas. In simple terms: She just wanted a way out.

Oh and let's not forget how Caitlyn was alone during all that. Her father was also grieving, Jace was gone, Mel was gone, Vi was gone...she was all alone and emotionally vulnerable, which makes it so much easier for Ambessa to manipulate her

So when she reunited with Vi and Vi called her Cupcake, it's like "wait, you not hate me after what I did to you?" moment , it was when she realized she wasn't alone anymore. And after hearing that Vi was helping her father, Caitlyn immediately wanted to help - maybe as a way of saying sorry, to redeem herself from the bad shit she did during those 6 months.

And when she got to see Jinx happily and chill, just hugging her dad...it was the moment she remembered Jinx wasn't a monster, that little moment is when she starts humanize Jinx and we can see in her eyes.

"then why did she arrest Jinx" Because Jinx surrendered and she had no choice, Jinx didn't kill just her mom. But she waits for Vi to wake up, to decide what to do and I bet while this happened, people were pressuring her to execute Jinx already or something.

That conversation she had with Jinx kind of seal the deal. Probably the first proper conversation they had and seeing Jinx so weak and vulnerable...it totally makes her destroy the image she previously had of her. There's no way back, she didn't forgive Jinx and I don't think she ever will, but she stopped hating her. Which is a start.

And knowing Vi would never allow Jinx to stay in jail, Caitlyn just say "fuck it" and let Vi release her sister. This was an act of love, especially bc Cait knew Vi could just run away with Jinx and she may never see her again.

"the CaitVi sex scene was unnecessary" I didn't see any of these when it was Jayce and Mel tho 🤷

It is both sad and funny how a huge part of the Caitlyn haters also loved and forgave Silco. This just proves that if a woman will be judged harder, a lesbian will be judged 2x more harder cuz the amount of lesbophobic comments I've seen...

[biblioflyer]

Being right doesn’t mean you get to kill everyone else.

I’ve seen some griping that the writers of X-Men ‘97 “did Magneto dirty” by first showing how human / mutant coexistence was a delusion only to have Magnus go full genocidal tyrant. I think this, like the exchange between Rogue and Captain America has nuances that aren’t being appreciated, but I’ll grant the point that the demographic disparity and the destructive capabilities of the setting ensure that it doesn’t take broad support by non-mutants to enact a pogrom. Even before the revelation of Bastion, the idea of an attempt to kill as many mutants in one place as physically possible and ruin the illusion of safety wasn’t that far fetched: with or without the support and sanction of major world governments.

That Magneto would respond to the Genosha massacre with disproportionate force, and let’s call it what it is: killing humanity including quite a lot of mutants, is not the writers turning on Magneto. It’s who Magneto is in the animated series and at the moment in comic lore it’s based on. Who Magneto is is a mutant supremacist. Separation from Sapiens was never just about safety. Magneto wanted to build a parallel culture. Not for the sake of creating a culture and the beauty of creative endeavors but because of mutant chauvinism.

Because the setting is what it is, Charles the assimilationist is doomed. If the rubric for success is mutant safety and equality across the board, then it’s simply unachievable because tiny cabals of madmen can cobble together salvaged alien tech, secrets from the future, and knock off Stark tech to unleash horror that is obscenely difficult to prevent and doesn’t require widespread societal consent.

Charles chooses not to blame the people just trying to live day to day for the actions of hate filled mad scientists and lynchers.

Magneto blames the masses for not recognizing and stopping the threat in their midst, sees their inaction as complicity, and even if they are blameless then they are camouflage within which existential threats to mutants conceal themselves and if Magneto has to burn down the whole village or planet to deny genocidal schemers their cover, that’s what he’ll do. He’ll kill as many non-mutants as it takes to feel safe because he did not value their lives prior to Genosha, did not feel they valued mutant lives, and he has always viewed mutant lives as more valuable. Genosha ratcheted that up to genocidal rage.

Revolutionary, terrorist, oppressed, and oppressor are not static categories. Real life figures and fictional characters can slide between them very easily because monsters can make valid points and victims can do monstrous things. A correct observation about society doesn’t justify the monster’s darkest desires and suffering doesn’t make evil deeds justified.

That’s the point. That’s always been the point of X-Men. It’s not cops and robbers, bigots vs good people, it’s the struggle of everyone not to judge everyone else by the worst thing a member of the other group has ever done. Magneto and Bastion are the faces of giving in to rage and fear. Succumbing to the easy moral certainty of collective punishment and of the rationalizations provided by their respective supremacies. They always were. Even when they were making sense. Especially when they were making sense.

Epilogue: (Tolerance is Extinction pt 3 spoilers)

It’s never too late though to step off the path of the tyrant. Better early but late is better than never.

[linktotheheart]

I've been thinking of two of my biggest fandom loves, Legend of Zelda and The Locked Tomb.

I've seen so many takes that paint Hylia as evil, cruel, an oppressor who rejects the personhood of her chosen champion and steals away Zelda's chance at a life like a parasite creeping in to fill the shell of the girl who was always meant to be a vessel.

I've seen plenty of takes exactly counter to that, which insist that Hylia is kind, that Hylia is a person too and doing her best to love and be loved and save the world and the people she cares so much about and preserve their personhood.

I've also seen a few (though to my taste, not enough) takes on Hylia's ambitions, desires, and reasoning simply being alien to that of Hylians due to her goddesshood. On a human scale, she is amoral, because she operates on the scale of wars and worlds.

But one thing I haven't seen is: what if it's multiple of those? What if she loves her champion and princess so deeply she hurts them in the cruelest of ways? What if she is imperfect? What if she is abusive but not evil and a victim but not good? What if she's all of the above, and is simply so powerful that the way her actions translate to the tiny lives of people are tidal waves that are tiny in her wide ocean but devastation to the tiny island chains scattered throughout?

What if her actions are necessary and inexcusable? What if she destroys Link and Zelda every time she is trying to save them, her hands too big for the tiny fragile pieces of their heart? What if she is the most flexible narrative force, meant to represent courage, wisdom, power, and love?

What if The Legend of Zelda is just as much a story about the horrors of love as The Locked Tomb is? What if the horrors and wonders are just two sides of the same coin that is love? What if Hylia is kind and cruel and all the messy human things and an unfathomable deity? What if she is more than one thing? What if she is many things?

I dunno. Maybe it's just my adoration for the many different, often contradictory lenses through which the fandom views her. Maybe it's the way each iteration of LoZ paints her in a different light. In Skyward Sword, practically a main character, driving the narrative and being herself swept up in it. In Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, nearly absent beyond her fingerprints left on the hearts of Link and Zelda and her faint voice granting her hero back his strength. In still other games, fainter but still present like a slowly beating heart beneath the skin of Hyrule and realms beyond.

I love every interpretation of her. I love takes that pull from classical mythology to make her flawed and as petty and cruel as humans can be. I love takes that pull from the idea of a perfectly good deity that is a paragon of virtue. I love takes that stem from religious trauma that find her more cruel than Demise and more culpable for the destruction of their war.

I love takes in which she destroys Link and Zelda. I love takes in which she saves them. I love takes in which she and Zelda are one and the same, in ways that either maintain their separate personhood or synthesize it into an entirely new being (plurality, hello!). I love takes in which she and her champions control the strings of fate, and ones where they are helplessly entangled and imprisoned by them. I love takes in which she devours and takes in which she is subsumed.

Why should it only ever be one or the other? Why can't it be both? What's mutual exclusivity to an omnipotent goddess? Alternatively, how could she not be many things when she is a deity too helpless to save anyone herself?

Idk. Just, the horrors of love and how they don't erase or negate the wonders of it. How the two build on one another to make each greater. How pain and pleasure are just two kinds of ecstasy, and it's all just stimulation of nerve fibers. How Legend of Zelda is, above all, a mythos being retold throughout the ages in different worlds, and how therefore, it necessitates it's characters being many things.

Y'know?

[semusepsu]

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

--Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter From a Birmingham Jail

[taikk0]

i dont think anon was referring to sps simple style, sp is a pretty controversial show. from what i've seen, it seems pretty bigoted? i could be wrong. sorry if this ask is rude, i don't mean to be rude, but yeah i think that's what anon meant

Oh no, not rude at all!! Sorry you have to apologize my response to that anon was a lot more srs than I intended I just wanted to get my point across, I'm all for open discussions :] to answer the bigoted question, I wouldn't entirely say no. but I can say that South Park was not made to make fun of minorities and spread harmful messages. The show presents bigoted behavior from the antagonists who are too stupid to realize they're wrong, it's up to you as the audience to realize that what they are the antagonists and that their actions should not be justified and supported. And even then, there are characters who outwardly speak out and work to fight against said bigots in the episodes they're in. However, the show also relies on shock humor. And this is a criticism on the fans part, but they really gotta stop saying "why are you surprised? It's South Park" as if being surprised over something gross or offensive wasn't the point in the first place. The ridiculous shit in the show isn't supposed to be normalized!! It's supposed to be absolutely ridiculous to the audience and catch them off guard!! You're not supposed to get used to it!! You're not supposed to like it, but you're not supposed to read too deep in it either, breaking down why it's wrong and why you found it shocking and why this is SUPER PROBLEMATIC!! Isn't the point. You just gotta acknowledge that "oh that's fucked up I cant believe they did that, that is so wrong" and just sit in shock for a bit and move on. Like, you can't tear the show apart for one joke when its purpose was for you to realize it's supposed to be ridiculous and wrong at the same time, and the show itself being aware of that fact. A lot of the offensive material circulating around on why South Park is bad lacks context. Cartman and Butters dressing up as chinese stereotypes? They are at a normal Chinese restaurant, harassing a Chinese family because they're idiots who believe that china will overthrow the world, they are asked to leave. Ike in a relationship with his teacher? Ike is a victim of a grooming that is not taken seriously by the police because the predator was a woman, portraying how male victims situations are overlooked in real life, the teacher dies in the end. Randy saying the N-word on live television? He is ridiculed and seen as a total asshole, he gets called "N-word guy" by the people around him and retaliates by making it illegal to call him that name, a satirical role reversal portraying the hypocrisy and sensitivity of white people (oppressors) where they make the "slur" against them illegal but not the slurs against the people they have oppressed for years.

But even after all this, I can see that there are other examples that I can't, and I am not willing to justify. At the end of the day, we all have to acknowledge that South Park was made by two cishet white men. (this was why I said I can't entirely say no) Their opinions will not always be right, and I'm sick of fans trying to justify some of their episodes and jokes just because they like South Park, South Park is not one of those shows you want to ride or die on. I personally have a few jokes and episodes I dislike and will absolutely never watch again, but that is not my main focus. Discrimination is not my draw, and I don't think that's the show's either. Now we're going out to discussion territory and more of personal opinion. I personally enjoy South Park because I feel very drawn to the characters and I find their character driven adventures and antics to be really entertaining. I don't care much for the social commentary. Not that I completely ignore it, it's just something I acknowledge is important in some episode's narratives, but not something I pay too close attention to.

I don't think I watch South Park for the intended reasons, and I don't think most of the fans over here on Tumblr do either. I can admit that I enjoy a version of South Park that isn't technically South Park entirely. I enjoy South Park for what it isn't, and that is a situational comedy with four little guys getting into all sorts of trouble <3

And the funny thing about this whole post is that I used to be a South Park hater.

I thought it was just a bigoted show where the only jokes it had were slurs and children saying fuck, right before I actually gave it a chance and was surprised to find out that it was more than I thought it was, and that I actually somehow enjoyed it.

It's kinda crazy to me that I'm technically defending SOUTH PARK of all things right now.

But uh yeah, I like South Park, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was, and I ended up hyperfixating on it. I'm not here to change anyone's mind and make them watch South Park because "it's ACTUALLY spotless and politically correct all the time, you're just sensitive ☝🤓" People are right to label South Park as controversial, and people are right to be offended by it when it's making fun of something it doesn't understand or without the proper nuance, and people are allowed to discuss and criticize the show for it. With all that said, The show is not emblematic of its own fans, and some of its own fans need to stop looking up to it like it's the bible.

Matt and Trey can be wrong, and even fans like me who enjoy it aren't too dumb and ignorant to recognize and rightfully not be in support of certain aspects of it when a line is being crossed.

This whole thing was supposed to end right after I attached the photo of the characters, but then I just decided to write more and so I puked this extra fluff out, sorry about that lol

[piqued-curiosity]

I’m in awe at how eloquently and succinctly you answered all those asks that eagleflightdraw clown kept sending you! It’s crazy how tif’s fight so hard to convince themselves that they’re men to the point where they end up bootlicking their own oppressors. I feel bad for her at a certain extent, but it seems that she’s so caught up in wanting to be a man that she’s completely lost sight of what the goal of feminism is. I think the saddest part of all is that this girl is sending you ask after ask defending men, but those same men wouldn’t piss on her if she was on fire. You NEVER see men defend women the way women (libfems mainly) defend men and it’s actually baffling that they don’t see that. Anyway, I loved all of your responses! Keep it up! 🩷

Thank you, that means a lot! 💕

I’m glad she was respectful, but she displayed such a typical misunderstanding of feminism and how sex-based oppression works. I say typical, because I see the same attitude in many TIFs. From what I’ve seen, it looks like what’s happening is a disconnect between their ideology and reality that they have to desperately explain away. They know feminism benefits them, because they know they’re affected by things like abortion and contraception restriction (I’m using that example a lot because this same conversation came up a lot last year when the US overruled Roe V Wade, so it’s an easy example). But they also want to believe they’re men, so they have to make the claim that “feminism is for everyone, including men” to make themselves feel like the reason they are benefited by feminism isn’t because they’re female, but because they’re men and feminism is for men too.

The easier solution would be for them to go back to how the trans movement started, which was acknowledging the difference between sex and identity. That way, they could put aside their personal identity for the sake of feminist action and understand that in this fight, they’re in it as female people, not as “men”. But modern trans people are incredibly selfish and entitled, which is why we see the conversation shifting to “here’s how we accommodate trans identities!” Anytime we try to speak on an important feminist subject. Again with the Roe V Wade situation, the trans community was more concerned with how to use gender inclusive language than how to actually solve the problem.

In short, it’s a result of members of the trans community being so wrapped up in their personal identity that they expect everyone else to revolve everything around said identity. And that they try to bend everything around them to fit their identity (“feminism is for men too, because I’m a man who’s pregnant and needs proper care!”), instead of understanding that their gender identity is not the most important thing at all times.

It reminds me a lot of how it feels to speak to religious people, who have a very hard time seeing outside their worldview. The way that TRAs are so quick to scoff at the mere idea of saying “trans women are men, trans men are women”, reminds me of how quick religious people are to scoff at somebody saying “I don’t believe in god”. And the follow-up is always an astonished “so what do you believe, if not my belief?”, as if they can’t even comprehend the idea of somebody not operating within their own ideology.

And like you said, it’s sad to see women go out of their way to defend men when we all know that men would never think to do the same for them. I was thinking that the whole time I was reading her asks…seeing her bring up problems men face (that were off-topic and not related to misogynistic sex-based oppression and feminism, as well as often being problems caused by men themselves), and thinking to myself “wow, men are never so quick to talk about problems women face, and when they are, other men assume they’re just doing it to get feminists to date and/or sleep with them”.

I don’t really blame her though, because like I said, thinking like this about feminism is really the only way to logically uphold her false identity. If she accepts that feminism is for/about women and that women experience sex-based oppression, she’d be forced to see that she herself falls under the category of woman. And that would just be the worst thing in the world.

[voidpumpkin]

You always have interesting opinions, and apologies in advance if this is too specific of a question, but, in your perspective, what do you think is a children's movie that had a moral/message that you disagree(d) with or think was poorly executed? Not something people say all the time like Beauty and the Beast and kidnapping and whatever, but like, I've seen people argue on the message/theme of Ratatouille (cannot recall what this argument is for the life of me), but just as an example.

nah, you touched upon something I've been hoping people would ask. I unfortunately don't have one for kids movies, all the ones that come to mind work, or work whilst being flawed, or do in fact work it's just that the popular analyses' are dumb

so I'm replacing 'movie' with 'tv show' and talking about steven universe as its the only thing I can think of that fits your question

It's messages of non-violence, communication and forgiveness are undermined by the setting. By using war and colonialism as the framing device all of its messaging takes upon weird implications and falling into tired tropes of sympathesing for colonisers. The diamonds have done a LOT of shit than is too one to one to real world atrocties that people directly affected by it saw the implications of forgiving them and took umbrage, also the sheer amount bad stuff they've done and the lack of time and effort put into their redemption also results in people just not liking or believing it. Not helped by the fact that the story gives more time to the colonisers than their victims

(the missed opportunity that was trying to slowly heal and learn about the corrupted gems will always make me angry)

Then there's pink diamond, the revelation of rose is pink ruins any and all sympathy you have as the diamonds go from 'women who tragically lost their daughter' to 'women dealing with the consequences of their own actions because their daughter fled their mistreatment and opposed their colonialism'

there's also the fact the final arc is rushed beyond belief meaning any and all nuance is squandered, and if one replies 'they didn't have time, the show was cancelled', my response is, 'if they didn't have time to make a good story then they shouldn't have at all.'

It's messaging about nonviolence has always had weird implications due to the episode that started it, bismuth, has Steven telling a black coded women that killing oppressors to end their oppression makes her as bad as them. This reasoning is never dealt with again and looms over all future messaging.

also in a post trump world the pre trump conceived story of 'reaching to redeem/change your bigoted relatives' has aged extremely poorly.

tl;dr i can't think of a bad message in a movie but I can in a show. Steven universe, it's high stakes setting and post war/colonial backdrop creates weird/bigoted implications for its messages

[jewishbarbies]

Hi! I’m sorry to bother you, but I found your posts by accident and I just have a few thoughts as a fellow Jew (I’m mixed but my matrilineal Jewishness is Jewish Arab/Arab Jewish). This is aimed at the gentiles in your asks, but white USAmericans need to realize that they’ll always be inherently more privileged than Jewish people. Point blank. There’s no real discussion to have in regards to that. And there’s a LOT of commentary and jokes being made from USAmericans (mostly white) that is framing themselves as the victims or centers of this ethnic cleansing and apartheid. They are WHITE. I’m not a fan of them appropriating a lot of the humor or commentaries the actual oppressed and ethnically cleansed peoples are making, because when white gentiles do it it is ABSOLUTELY punching down and antisemitic. Westerners in general need to realize they have systemic power behind their words and actions that inherently disadvantage Jews. I’ve been very vocal about people derailing pro-Palestinian posts, and I’m going to be JUST as vocal about people derailing Jewish people venting about people using Israel as an excuse to voice their already preexisting antisemitic views. My Jewish identity is both Arab and Jewish. They don’t care about Arabs either. The same mayo gentiles beating their chest falsely accusing Jewish people venting, like yourself, of being a Zionist or genocide apologist are the same ones who before this past month was openly anti-Arab around me. So it’s like 🤷🏻‍♂️

White gentiles are not the oppressed in this dynamic, they are the oppressors and they need to start remembering that.

Jewish people halfway across the world shouldn’t be having to constantly condemn Israel in order to be allowed to vent about western antisemitism. Plus, goyim don’t even hide their antisemitism when even I, an anti-Zionist Jew, have been accused of being a Zionist when I’ve called out random white people using antisemitic tropes or imageries. If you want my honest blunt take, white gentiles are frothing at the mouth hoping that Jews, Arab, and Muslims just wipe each other out while they sit back and watch from their ivory towers in the US eating popcorn and scrolling through tiktok. I’ve been very critical of the white supremacy when it’s derailing Palestinian posts (even when done by my fellow Jewish people), and I’m also very critical of the white supremacy when it’s derailing your (or any) posts about antisemitism. I’m not trying to explicitly state the anon is a white supremacist (though I have some concerns), but … I was very annoyed by their implications you’re a closeted Zionist, just because you’re Jewish and venting about the Nazi shit that’s been on the Nazi app, formerly known as Twitter. You’re not derailing posts about the genocide or ethnic cleansing. You’re not even “both siding” genocide, either. You’re just a random Jewish person venting about the western world getting off to the idea of a bunch of Jews dying. A lot of people on here and Twitter aren’t even saying Israelis anymore they’re bluntly saying Jews. And as another Jewish person yourself, I know you’ve seen that vernacular shift first hand, especially judging from your vents.

I’ve had white people on this hellsite defend calling Jewish people they don’t like reptile people because “well Israel is calling Arabs animals” and I had to go “uh excuse you you are WHITE and I’m being dehumanized by both sides so thanks for that.”

It’s inherently antisemitic to police Jewish people being afraid of the rising antisemitism in the west and it’s also disingenuous to erase white gentiles’ and white countries’ involvement in this issue. It doesn’t miss me people are underplaying what white goyim have done and are still doing to contribute to the apartheid and genocide. All of this you’re vent vagueing about is the same exact stuff anti-Zionist Jews have also been complaining about for literal decades.

I’m sorry I ranted for too long, but I wanted to show solidarity with you. I’m sure there’s a lot you and I don’t see eye to eye on (2 Jews, 3 opinions), but at the end of the day I have your back because I know exactly what you’re talking about. No one is going to be antisemitic to you and get away with it 😤😤😤

I am so sorry people are wearing their iron crosses in your asks and Twitter feeds. And I’m sorry for wasting your time with all of this, I just felt you needed another Jew in your corner

thank you so much for taking the time to send this, I really do appreciate it. 🧡

I agree with everything you said here. it’s tiring seeing goyim think they can be apart of jewish conversations and are owed a seat at that table just because they believe all jews are white and therefore all white people are apart of the same group. I don’t expect them to truly understand everything bc how could they while not being jewish themselves, but the basic respect they give to other minorities is all I’m asking and I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

[maslows-pyramid-scheme]

black-pill lesbians: *organize months-long harassment campaigns to flood the inboxes of bisexuals and taunt them about their rape and calling them vile names*

piqued-curiosity: we need to have compassion for these women, I will always empathize with them no matter what they say, you have to understand they're angry about bisexual homophobia. and it doesn't matter what lesbians say to bihets anyway actually you're the bigot here for making such a big deal out of this.

lesbian: im so lonely because bisexuals are self-victimizers that don't understand their stupid rape and abuse aren't real oppression its so homophobic how they think they're real people

piqued: well you have to understand lesbians are really lonely so of course we're moved to just ignore rape apologia, I don't understand why you're demonizing me for no reason

lesbian: bi women are identical to TIMs, they're no more similar to us than het men, they're nothing but dick worshipers, their supposed abuse is just a ploy to weaponize against lesbians

piqued: well maybe I would have used different language, but ugh stop getting hung up on her calling you dick worshipers and belittling your rape and abuse and comparing you to het men. She's NOT a misogynist she's very insightful and you male worshipers need to listen to her.

bisexual: bisexuals shouldn't feel ashamed about having OSA, it's just a natural part of bisexuality.

piqued: what homophobic bullshit is this this makes me so angry this shows you people don't have any real issues

and this woman is supposedly the gold standard? soooo kind just because she pays lip service to the idea that most obviously crass behavior against bisexuals is bad (but then she says ok maybe its bad but it doesn't affect anything so who cares)? she's had excuses for them at every turn, but the most inoffensive words of bisexual positivity is proof bisexuals aren't really oppressed?

sorry this is so petty and random but no one takes anything against bisexuals seriously its all so clearly a game to them where they have to come out looking good but also put bisexuals in their place.

I think it's unfair to lesbians to take the actions of the and attribute them to the majority; lesbians and bisexual women (and gay and bisexual men) are the only people who will ever understand what it's like to have a 'different' sexuality in our heterosexist society.* I personally believe that this similarity far outweighs any of our real or perceived differences.

But I know the soul-crushing, hateful behaviour you're talking about. I've seen how 'black-pilled' lesbians treat bisexual activists on here - how they mock and harass bisexual rape victims, how they speak about us using degrading, sexualised, or biphobic language, how they belittle our experiences with discrimination ('it's just homophobia and misogyny' - that's from Piqued, if I'm not mistaken), how they shamelessly reframe bisexual mistreatment to attack gendies/misogynists/men ('Amber Heard is a victim of misdirected lesbophobia'), how they involve themselves in our business while simultaneously complaining about bisexuals involving themselves in lesbian affairs. I've also seen how their followers and the followers of their followers just... look the other way.

But it doesn't matter, does it? To black-pilled lesbians, an imperfect lesbian is only ever a well-meaning victim, and an imperfect bisexual is only ever a bad faith abuser/oppressor/handmaiden/what-have-you.

Anon, I'm so sorry if you've been on the receiving end of the black-pilled bullshit (and it's defo not petty and random - there's so goddamn much of it!). You're absolutely right - and feel free to reach out and vent anonymously/in my dms/to me on discord whenever you want.

[almaqead]

"The Reproach." From Surah 5: Al Ma'idah, "The Table Setting."

The following verses come across a little hot under the collar, but as with the study of the Torah, the Quran can be studied in four ways:

Literally: As stated.

Figuratively: What do the symbols and metaphors mean?

Allegorically. What do we do next? What has history to tell us?

Esoterically. What is revealed about God that otherwise cannot be seen or known lest the scripture reveal it?

Scribes have always known you cannot just tell people, like Willy Wonka, "No! Don't! Stop!" because something far more wilful than the urge to be ethical overtakes us if it is not continually superimposed upon by the Spirit of God through the study of scripture.

If we literally grab everyone that isn't merciful to people in need and cut them into bits, that won't accomplish much. So we know the verse means there is an instinct Muhammad was trying to develop, one that reacts strongly towards perverseness and corruption.

In some cases, capitol punishment is needed, and these are clearly defined by secular law and sentences are carried out by licensed trained professionals. So this covers a few of the bases for the scripture.

The most interesting part will be the esoteric portion which follows. Just imagine the genius of the collaboration between Allah, the Angel Gabriel and the Prophet to come up with this amazing way of hiding the True God within the Verses:

5:33-34

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Commentary:

a. The Value in Gematria is 10521, אאֶפֶסהב‎‎א‎, aepeshba, "somewhere".

Somewhere is actually Al Haram, the "sacred district". Within the Sacred District which is found it is said, during Tawaf at the Kaaba, "the moment of the sactifice" one learns why certain things are allowed by Allah and why somethings are foribben and the need to be decisive about these things goes away.

Tawaf "orbit" is this horrible habit mankind has for circumabulating real life without making a commitment to it. It is the monotony that is caused when politics, religion, history, technology and anthropology refuse to agree on why we deserve the highest quality of life and refuse to manifest it.

Muhammad called it quits and ordered his men to commit to life without war at the Kaaba, and then religion of Islam began. Like the rest, it has failed to return there and renew its vows to God to reside with the Haram.

If one is not a resident of the Haram then one is outcast and living in exile.

b. The Khatima: the Value in Gematria is 6584, והחד‎‎, "and the sharp." hada in Arabic which means to cleave, which has dual meanings as in the Torah. As within the Torah, to be sharp is to cleave away from what is ignorant and adhere to what elevates one's abilities to reason.

From 59:21:

"Had We sent down this Quran upon a mountain, you would have certainly seen it humbled and torn apart in awe of Allah. We set forth such comparisons for people, ˹so˺ perhaps they may reflect."

To disassemble a heretic therefore means to reflect upon what is Haram and what is actually taghut. Taghut, deliberate corruption is not to be tolerated and can indeed under many circumstances be gleefully dispensed with using capitol punishment.

The actions of the Mormons and Republicans in Gaza, Vladimir Putin in Ukraine and Bashar Assad in Syria, Muhammad Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia are good examples. Now all we need is a concerted effort on behalf of the lost and suffering by persons in a position to do right by them, persons as I stated who can legally reproach the world's oppressors:

Turning back the menace of authoritarian aggression will require resolve and short-term sacrifices. Champions of democracy must be willing to use diverse forms of power and new legal tools to aid allies and punish perpetrators, even when it means disrupting trade or cutting off investment from authoritarian actors. However, they must remember that their fight is with despotic regimes, not with ordinary citizens struggling to survive under authoritarian rule. Democratic governments should never abandon such people or forget that they too deserve to live in freedom.

Moreover, citizens across the region should not assume that their leaders will do the right thing. They need to recognize that political complacency has been the hallmark of the ongoing democratic decline, and that it is no longer acceptable given the scale and urgency of the current moment. Democratic societies must push their representatives to adopt courageous policies that meet the moment and lay the foundations for a safer, freer, and more just world.

As for the sake of the interpersonal, the Quran just as the says one must turn inwardly to God and suffer reproach upon oneself long before others are forced to act using the means of the law.

[moustawott]

One Piece Does Anti-Racism Surprisingly Well: Fishman Island (ft. My Hero Academia and Black Panther 2018)

So, this is not the usual posts I make, but I really wanted to get these thoughts out of my head. I could write a huge essay about it but I will try to keep it short here. (This is in reaction to chapters 370-372 of MHA.)

TL;DR: The way One Piece deals with anti-racism is surprisingly good (despite the series not being perfectly leftist (indicated by the big presence of fairytale monarchies) when using chapters 370 to 372 of My Hero Academia and Black Panther (2018) as comparison, two other mainstream pieces of media that discuss racism and it consequences within the oppressed group.

The messaging of Fishman Island Arc can be interpreted as: we shouldn't let our intergenerational trauma fester into hate against our oppressors. If we pass this hate to our children, they will grow up hateful and hurt their own people in the end, which makes community healing very difficult (a similar conclusion to Black Panther 2018, which is *the* bar for talking about racism and intergenerational trauma in mainstream media). This is much better than: we shouldn't let our intergenerational trauma turn into hate against our oppressors, because our oppressors will now have legitimate reasons to oppress us.

To elaborate:

• One Piece and Black Panther (2018) frame violence and hate caused by intergenerational trauma as a community problem. The opinions of outsiders are pushed aside, if not entirely absent from the discussion. This is a good way to present anti-racist action, because it puts the spotlight to the marginalized group and avoids the white saviour trope (though the Joyboy thing can be seen as a white saviour trope? Again, Fishman Island is not perfect, it's just surprisingly good compared to the rest of mainstream media. Especially the scene where the Strawhats explicitly say that they will let the fishman decide if these pirates are villains or good guys).

• MHA (chapters 370 to 372) falls flat on its face when it comes to anti-racism. Basically, it tries to say that the oppressed shouldn't express their grievances and frustrations through violence, because their children will suffer the now "justified" anger of the oppressor. This COMPLETLY ignores the fact that the oppressed were still being mistreated when they were peaceful. The messaging is simply maintaining the status quo of violent systemic discrimination. Oppressive peace is not true social justice.

• Furthermore, MHA uses the "one of the good ones" trope heavy-handidly (using the supporting "good guys"), which is an extremely racist concept. You can argue that Fishman Island arc uses that trope (Queen Otohime and Shirahoshi as examples), but it's much less obvious and doesn't have the explicit message of: actually, we shouldn't riot because it'll make us look bad in front of humans. Again, it's a lot more: we shouldn't let hate grow because our fishmen children will become hateful people too, and that doesn't create a healthy community.

• Stopping hate against racist oppressors is not about being liked by the oppressors, it's about putting that energy into loving and healing our own community. Black Panther (2018) tackles that topic through Killmonger: he is a tragic figure so blinded by hate against his oppressors that he forgets to love his own community and black heritage. Hody Jones is also somewhat tragic: his hate against humans is the consequences of anger turned into hate. He has no pride or love for his fellow fishmen. Because of that, Hody Jones divides his own community and endangers them all. This is especially important for anti-racism, since internalized racism is a huge obstacle to anti-racism and community healing.

On the topic of violent reactions to systemic racism and other forms of oppression:

• Violence and riots are a natural reaction to the systemic violence marginalized groups live everyday (yet mainstream media always tries to frame riots as completely unjustifiable and use them to discredit civil rights movements). Marginalized groups (like black children) have been known to show signs of PTSD. There's no denying that systemic oppression is very violent yet we are brainwashed into thinking that it's not true violence.

Conclusions: It's nice to see a hugely popular manga tackle racism in a way that isn't complete liberal/centrist messaging

[chaoscodex]

Star Trek and Star Wars are for everyone, but Star Trek's especially poignant to those who understand history and the humanity behind historical figures, especially those who were leaders of empires and kingdoms.

Every single leader that ever conquered another person/group/empire had a reason to do so, and Star Trek explores this without taking a staunch black-or-white stand on any one side. Trek also tends to show the softer side of every character explored, not just the evil or goodness they are supposed to portray.

Star Wars, on the other hand, is more of a high fantasy sci-fi whirlwind of "good vs evil" where the sides depicted are very obvious, and the viewer almost feels forced to choose one over the other. On top of that, the actions taken by both sides are almost always extreme in one direction or the other.

With some notable exceptions from the many side series, the Empire, New Order, and the CIS are the bad guys, while the Rebel Alliance, Resistance, and the Republic are the good guys. However, the negative effects of the "good" guys are rarely seen, while the "bad" guys always have a pronounced negative showing. Again, the viewer almost seems forced to cheer for the side that's deemed as "good.

Let's take the above posts as an example; the peoples of the Bajorans and the Cardassians.

If this was in Star Wars, the Bajorans would be shown as the suffering, native peoples of the planet, rebelling against the evil and oppressive Cardassians, who are conquering the planet, and the people there, for more resources to grow their war machine. We would want to, and feel compelled to, cheer for the underdogs, the Bajorans, since they are being violently conquered and suppressed, and boo and hate the Cardassians.

However, as said in the above posts, Star Trek doesn't force sides for either group, and shows the humanity of both.

The Bajorans have their own culture, religion, and lifestyles, and despite being systematically persecuted, they are refusing to give up what they've built. Kira, one of the major Bajoran characters, is shown as both a freedom fighter AND a terrorist. Her trauma, as well as her religious fanaticism, lead her down her path, and the show dives into those reasons with very little fear.

The Cardassians, too, have their own culture and religion. But instead of being shown to be oppressors as a whole, each and every individual has their own reasons and thoughts, some of which are directly against (!!) the oppression of the Bajorans! Dukat is often shown as a charismatic, cheerful leader, despite being the villain. He looks and acts as if he cares for his people and wants the best for everyone. However, he is a racist, a bigot, and a truly vile person underneath that facade, and the narrative explores both of those sides without massively blowing either out of proportion.

Now, this is coming from someone that grew up with much more SW than ST, but it's incredibly clear which series has a much more human approach. I can deep-dive into the individual characters from both sides, and their motives, in Star Trek. I don't feel compelled to make a decision to categorize either one as good or bad right off the bat, since there's so much about them that makes such a black-or-white decision difficult off the rip. Like, sure, Kira is fighting against her people's oppressor, but her partially deciding actions through religious zealotry makes her a very gray character in my mind.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was not a perfect show but its treatment of imperialism, war crimes, and genocide was light-years ahead of some of the stuff coming out today (looking at you, Star Wars).

In DS9:

Bajor, a world struggling to recover from decades of genocidal colonial policies, is front and center

Bajoran characters, most prominently Kira, are allowed to grapple with their own trauma and their stories don’t revolve around making their oppressors, the Cardassians, feel better

Kira’s history of violent resistance against the occupation is not sugarcoated, nor does the show shy away from the fact that she hurt innocent people in the process. But neither does the story condemn her for using violence to resist genocide

Not only was Kira a terrorist, but a religiously driven one as well. Belief in the Prophets held Bajor together during the occupation, and is a major subject of exploration in the show

Despite all that Bajor suffered, Bajorans are not relics of the past or a destroyed, defeated people–their culture is vital and alive, they are rebuilding against incredible odds, and are working toward Federation membership

Bajorans themselves are not some misty spiritual cardboard cutouts, either. They are complex, they lash out, they are spiritual, they are lovers, killers, reactionaries, weirdos, mystics, the full range of experiences and personalities

And then there’s Kai Winn, who is an entire book in herself. She is such a well-drawn female villain, a complicated portrayal of self-serving ambition, self-deception, and self-entitlement

Because Bajorans are given their own stories, it actually works when some Cardassians–generally minor and one-off characters–are shown to be dissenters, or themselves traumatized from the occupation

We actually see Dukat, the leader of the occupation, trying to play the misunderstood hero/redemption card only to get slapped down by the narrative time and again

Dukat isn’t a one-note villain either; he is often charming and sometimes inspiring, as when he has a stint as a resistance fighter himself against the Klingons occupying Cardassian territory

Ultimately, though, the story reveals Dukat to be a liar, a virulent racist, an abuser, and at heart an imperialist megalomaniac who almost destroyed the Alpha Quadrant with his lust for power

David Brin was right and Star Trek is better