#this is simply dehumanizing and should be a crime

[esyra]

These days, I have long debated what to write regarding Palestine-Israel, and questioned why I should write anything at all. The idea that celebrities and the loudest chronically online people you've ever met, blessed in their ignorance and indifferent to livehoods different than theirs, feel the need to opinate on social and geopolitical issues is absolutely insane. Most of the time, they do more harm than good—spreading misinformation like wildfire. Such opinions are what convinced me to ultimately talk about it.

Rest assured I'm not particularly qualified to talk about any of this, then again no one seems (or tries) to be. This is not a statement, simply questions about selected nuance. Full disclosure: I am of Palestinian descent. And I tried my hardest to be all-encompassing and empathetic; if I fail at any moment, my sincerest apologies.

All around social media I've seen only two kinds of posts regarding Palestine and Israel; they're either completely favorable to Israel and dehumanize Palestine or they treat Palestines as a footnote, in which it's made to assure its author doesn't endorse murder but also to point out that Palestine "deserve what's coming." There's a certain nuance required to support Palestine that's not asked when supporting Israel.

I've seen Jamie Lee Curtis reposting a picture of Palestinian children watching Israelis air strikes as if they were of Israeli children. There's no doubt it was a malicious-intended post considering she credited the photographer while deleting the original caption which explicitly explained who the ones pictured were. After being severely corrected in the comments, she simply deleted and made no mention of it. Guess children don't matter if they're Palestinian. I've seen way too many celebrities responding to the conflict with worries about how they might be affected by it, as self-centered and selfish as you can imagine.

I've seen a journalist claim that 40 Israeli babies were beheaded and multiple newspapers (many of them British, because what else can you expect from them?) and public figures reposting as a fact, only for the same journalist to later claim she actually "never said that" (she absolutely did). Also the IDF explaining they have no information confirming the allegations that 'Hamas beheaded babies'. I've seen people using statements from Sabra and Shatila massacre survivors and trying to rewrite Palestine, which were the victims of said crime, as the perpetrators. I've seen people using videos of Russian attacks as Palestinian ones. I've seen a British journalist fabricating a harmful statement from a Palestinian Ambassador to help dehumanize Palestine, and being proud of such. I've seen BBC using the nuances of language to their liking, reporting how Israelis were 'killed' while Palestinians 'died'. Always heard journalists avoid adjectives in favor of being unbiased. Again, guess that's unimportant when it comes to Palestine. Most of all, I've seen people equate supporting Palestine to anti-semitism.

If that belief steams that Palestine and Hamas are one-and-the-same, and the latter is a anti-semitism organization, then that's another concern I'd like to add the recently appraised 'nuance'.

Hamas first appeared during the first intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 marked the end of the uprising—an agreement between Israel and Palestine meant to lay the groundwork for the formation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, it has erased Palestine's recognition as a State. In its history, Hamas have equate the liberation of Palestinians with the destruction of Israel, likely the reason they're a highly divisive organization that has often been at oddens with more mainstream Palestinian politicians. However, Hamas backtracked on its aims in a 2017 proclamation, making it clear that what it wants is to end a “racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project.” In its 16th topic, they state "Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine."

The description of the Israeli occupation as fascist most likely comes from the similarities of Palestine to an "open air prison". They have no control of their own borders (IDF controls who and what enters or leaves) and are deemed stateless. "In defiance of international law, Israel considers all Palestinians inhabitants of the occupied Palestinian territory as non-citizens and foreign residents." Meaning if they leave their territory, they won't be allowed back in. Their rights in the Arab World are uncertain, particularly in Lebanon and Egypt where they are denied rights to secure residency, employment, property, communal interaction and family unification. Procedures to allow non-residents to apply for naturalisation in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia do not apply to stateless Palestinians. So while those asking for Palestinians to be evacuated for their safety certainly have noble intentions, I ask of you: where they will go? Can you imagine walking away from home knowing you're heading into nothing? What's the difference between living in the rumbles of their homes and being homeless in another country?

The ones who decide to stay (and the ones unable to leave) are likely not making it for much longer. According to the United Nations, roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis have been killed in the ongoing conflict since 2008, not counting the recent fatalities. Is it truly a war if one side is so overpowering in its resources and retaliations? I feel the need to point out these stats to question why the notion that "violence is never the answer" is only used now. When it has been the only response until now.

Then again, Hamas remains a polarizing force in Palestinian society. They're an organization that's slaughtering families and less than a third of Palestinians think the group deserves to represent them. There has not been an opportunity, however, for elections to change their representatives. Palestinians living in Gaza must endure an unstable political reality with an unrepresentative government implementing repressive policies against LGBTQ people and abusive policies against detainees. Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu purposefully propped up Hamas and there has been speculation that Iran has supported them. I've seen many post as if it's a fact, so I'd like to reinforce that it's speculation. In essence, Hamas is a terrorist group with questionable history and even more questionable allies. None of which has the Palestine's best interests at heart.

This has been overly long, and I still haven't touched on all topics I wished to address. Some I probably couldn't express properly since it's such a complex geopolitical issue. Then again, no one seems to try while all seem very comfortable in being as biased as they wish to be. So I thought I add my compassionate two cents in favor of Palestine and all the years of oppresion they've endured. I still hope you'll read this to the end, and extended to Palestine the same sympathetic hand you've rightfully extended to Israeli citizens.

My heart aches for the innocent people murdered, Palestinian and Israeli. Settlers aren’t innocent, but people who were born there didn't really choose to be one. Jewish people following matters of faith don't deserve to die. No one has (or should have) the right to take someone's life away. People at the Gaza Strip that are either just trying to survive or attempting to protect their homes also don't deserve to die, as flawed as their logic and actions might be, and many are missing that nuance. The denial of food, water, and medical aid, violates the Geneva convention. And it's a kind of retaliation that Palestine in its entirety will never be able to match.

Currently, the Israeli government is preparing a ground invasion of Gaza. An anonymous Israeli official said they would turn Gaza into “a city of tents.” A parliamentarian said that Israel should not concern itself with the safety of any Gazans who “chose” to stay in the Gaza Strip, as if every crossing hasn't been blocked.

Soon, the 'war' will end. And when it does, I can assure you Palestine won't be the last one standing. They've never had a real chance. I'd like to remember everyone that, despite Netanyahu's claims that they are "human animals", Palestinians are human beings. People. All of which deserve to live, deserve compassion and deserve protection. They also deserve to be remembered.

[wolfertinger]

tw: a graphic depiction of a historical lynching, for context purposes, and because I need people to realize how horrifically racist it is for Wis to use that word in that manner. "Trans women are allowed to rape and abuse with impunity because they're marginalized" is not a logical proposition I would ever think to hear outside of the most insane type of right wing 'satire', yet here is Wis... Saying it out loud like it's profound, left wing, and trans friendly, when it in fact is one of the most damaging statements someone could ever make vis-à-vis trans identity.

You're unironically saying that rape doesn't matter if the perpetrator is trans fem because the victim was an "evil theyfab" That it doesn't matter that Mari tried to babytrap Sawyer because Sawyer "abused" Salem and you. (No proof of this has ever been shown except for Salem's constant suicide baiting, so, lol.)

You're proving that no one, even other trans women because you could decide they were lying too, can trust you and people who agree with you about sexual assault. How does this make the lgbt community safer? How does this keep trans women safe?

You say that Sawyer raped Mari. Why should we care if that's true or not, when you scream and insist that one rape is the worst crime against all trans people and call the other a "dumb fucking story full of holes," and the victim a "evil bitch." Wis is one of the most evil people I've come across on tumblr that wasn't an active sexual predator or rapist themselves. She has a pathological hatred of all TMEs, and is willing to lie and fabricate anything to excuse violent assault against them because she identifies more with the rapist than the victim. Maybe she should reflect on why that is.

Also, as an aside: Using the lynching of primarily black men that were falsely accused of rape against white women to defend your rapist buddies, who you have ADMITTED that you know sexually assaulted someone? Genuinely so racist I cannot even believe it, and we know Salem sees and quietly supports it because Sawyer hurt Salem's feelings. {TW and note, obviously I do not support violent threats against Wis or Salem. The graphic description below is only to reflect the historical reality of lynching, especially as was done to black people in the American South, and to contrast it with what Wis is saying is happening to her and Mari. } Until someone is being lit on fire, beaten, drug in the town square, drawn and quartered, and then hung as they slowly suffocate in front of a crowd of cheering people who keep their charred body parts as souvenirs: keep lynching out of your white fucking mouth, you racist ghoul. You are being confronted on the internet for the heinous things you have said and done, same as Mari: you could log the fuck off and all this would go away. To compare that to being murdered in one of the most horrific and dehumanizing ways possible is beyond the pale levels of self centered white woman victimization and crybully racism. You are not being lynched, you are not the victim, fuck you and your rape apologist boyfriend who stands by and watches as you slander a victim and spew bile and racism in his name. Black nationalist my ass, Salem can't even get his white girlfriend to stop implying she's being lynched over fucking anon hate.

i am just saying. the historical case of emmett till, was a young black boy being falsely accused by a white woman, then being violently killed by two adult men, said woman emotionally manipulated the court into freeing his killers, while knowing full well the boy was innocent. she admitted to it years later, long after it was too late.

"white woman tears" is used as a joke. but unironically. it is manipulation of the highest degree. it has caused MANY people of color, to be harassed, victimized, or killed, because a white person simply did not like them being there. i am sick of wis co opting terms specific to black suffering, to refer to a WHITE woman's consequences, to her own actions.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The backlash is in full swing. People who speak out for Palestine, for Palestinians, for Gaza are being punished simply for using their voices to advocate against genocide and for the preservation of life. Many of the high-profile examples of people being punished for their speech involve absurdly banal statements. Some folks didn’t even mention Israel by name. The CEO of Web Summit has resigned after tremendous backlash over the comment, “War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are.” It would be comical if the implications weren’t so disastrous. Forced out for saying war crimes should always be called out. This obviously correct statement should’ve received no backlash at all, and instead cost this man his job. And yet, as we’ll get into here, the response to such a mundane statement hints at Israel and Zionism’s immense fear over public opinion turning, and on an even greater scale exposes the vulnerability of Western hegemony in this moment. Paddy Cosgrave, the Irish entrepreneur and CEO who stepped down at Web Summit, is not alone. Authors, workers, and politicians who speak out against Israel’s actions in any way are being censured and forced out of their jobs. The famed 92nd Street Y in New York City canceled the talk of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen for signing an open letter condemning Israel's "indiscriminate violence" against Palestinians in Gaza. The editor-in-chief of eLife, a scientific magazine, told the world he is being replaced for sharing a piece from The Onion that called out indifference to the lives of Palestinian civilians. There is again a comic tragedy to someone firing an editor for sharing a headline from a satirical magazine that reads, “Dying Gazans Criticized For Not Using Last Words To Condemn Hamas” and not realizing how they are proving the very point they hope to suppress. In short, by suppressing, firing, and attacking those who uplift the humanity of Palestinians and condemn war crimes, powerful people are making it clearer than ever that they are not in fact on the side of justice. Even more plainly, when they condemn Hamas as barbaric again and again, but then go after people who oppose crimes against humanity and say that thousands of innocent people in Gaza should not be slaughtered, they expose themselves as barbaric and depraved. I hesitate to even use the language of barbarism, as implying the absence of civilization has over centuries become synonymous with dehumanization. But as Israel runs ads in Times Square that say “Be Human. Stand for Israel” and relentlessly bombs Gaza, killing thousands, it becomes hard to ignore how nearly every move made both by the state of Israel and many Zionists has the opposite of its intended impact.

[sophieinwonderland]

I stand with you on the dehumanizing MAGAt part. I'm not American, so I believe that makes me a neutral party:

Where I'm from, many, if not most, American right wing politicians would be charged with committing hate crime if they were politicians here. Think about that. Things like misgendering and taking away rights from minorities is very much a path leading to nazism in our eyes. We don't want nazism again.

Don't show any sympathy to people that want to take away your human rights. They don't deserve it. They wouldn't show you any sympathy when you are rotting in jail simply for being LGBTQ+, so why should you?

All of this!

And I am going to reiterate once more that the last sentence there isn't even hypothetical! They are very proudly cheering for trans people being arrested for using the bathroom of their gender RIGHT NOW!

This is the reality Americans are living in. And it's getting worse!

And I think it's getting worse because we've let it. Because we have allowed this hate to be tolerated. We've allowed it to feel safe in its existence.

And because, frankly, we are more critical of our allies than our enemies!

This is true if you look at how angry people are at me for using the same rhetoric against MAGAts they use against others. It's also true when you look at establishment Democrat politicians who have attacked progressive members to appeal to moderates.

[xclowniex]

So if that terror attack on Lebanon is justified for the death of those 12 Druze children (which I'm sure you wouldn't be as heartbroken about them if they were killed by the IDF instead), what should the IDF punishment be for killing thousands of Palestinians children and how many Israeli civilians are you willing to let die in order to get to those Israeli terrorists? Assuming you think Israelis should even be punished for killing children (or that the word terrorists can be used to describe someone that isn't Muslim)

I wasn't going to answer this as I know it's obviously in bad faith but I'll bite

Stop putting your US centric views onto me. Here in New Zealand, we considering March 15th a terror attack. If you don't know what happened that day, a white supremist opened fire on two mosques in Christchurch. The white supremist who did it? He is a terrorist. I consider him a terrorist. All the media here considers him a terrorist. He is a terrorist.

New Zealand has designated a few white supremist groups and individuals as terrorists

Do you know who else is on this list?

Hezbollah.

Do you know who is not on this list? The IDF. You can check for yourself too

To quote the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, which is ya know, laws surrounding terrorism, the IDF currently is exempt from it.

"However, an act does not fall within subsection (2) if it occurs in a situation of armed conflict and is, at the time and in the place that it occurs, in accordance with rules of international law applicable to the conflict."

(Sub section two refers to civilians being harmed or killed)

Fun fact about war crimes! Individuals get arrested for them and designated as war criminals, not everyone who is apart of the military. Bibi can be arrested for war crimes. Any individual IDF member who did the war crime can be arrested for war crimes. Whatever the Israeli version of John Smith is, who has never committed a war crime during his service, cannot be arrested for a war crime, and therefore cannot be labeled a terrorist.

But wouldn't Hamas and hezbollah be excempt from being a terrorist group as they're in an armed conflict? They've both committed terrorist acts outside of armed conflicts, ergo, terrorist organizations.

Also, you can read the act I was quoting if you want

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0034/latest/DLM152702.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_terrorism+suppression+act_resel_25_a&p=1

So, now that we have established that the IDF has not committed a terror attack as they're currently in armed conflict with Hezbollah, the rest of what you said falls apart, but to address it.

1. I would be equally as sad if the IDF killed 12 druze children

2. I think that any IDF members who have committed war crimes + bibi should be arrested for war crimes as I've stated so many times

3. If I lived in an ideal world, all hezbollah members would simply be arrested and there would be no loss of life. But we don't live in an ideal world. Hezbollah won't allow themselves to be arrested. Hezbollah also remains an active threat. If IDF members who have committed war crimes + Bibi refuse to be arrested and are still an active threat to people (key word active threat), yeah killing them would be best. Considering the exploding pagers had a mortality rate of 0.3%, and not all of that were civilians, I would expect a mortality rate of less than 0.3% of civilians near the individual war criminal to be killed.

Oh whats that? Not the answer you expected yeah I thought so. How about instead of frothing at the mouth trying to find a gotcha you can use to dehumanize me, you actually A) read up on laws* and definitions and B) read through my blog first because I've said many times that individuals who have committed war crimes should be arrested

*I know that NZ law may differ from laws elsewhere but they're pretty similar in the US, Canada and the UK

[fortunatelychaoticphantom]

Why is the fact that Jesus and Jews were from Israel considered controversial? It’s what we’re taught at school (and for Christians - church) in the US.

I’m genuinely asking, this isn’t sarcastic. No one I know has ever disputed that fact before.

Hello!

You're referring to this post.

It's controversial because denying the connection of Jewish people (especially Ashkenazim but not only) to the land of Israel is a fundamental aspect of post-modern antisemitism.

Classical and modern antisemitism, particularly in Europe, relied on the Jewish people's foreignness to dehumanize them. It was obvious they were Not From Here, despite living there for centuries and longer, and many demanded that they Go Back To Where They Came From. And then they did.

But antisemitism didn't go away just because Israel was founded, it simply morphed, just like it had between its classical phase (centered on religious otherness, religious "crimes" and blood libels) and its modern phase (centered on race theory and economics).

Of course, right-wingers are still classically and modernly antisemitic. They usually don't bother to hide their hatred, it's pretty fundamental to their ideology and identity (though there are aspects of hiding, especially with holocaust denial). But the left has always been just as antisemitic as the right. But it has also grown in the post-modern age, after world war 2, with specific ideologies, centered around notions of humanism and the importance of human and minority rights. And antisemitism doesn't sit well with these notions, especially not after the holocaust... So something had to change. Unfortunately, it wasn't the antisemitism.

This is a classic cognitive dissonance; I feel something (hatred for Jews) that is inconsistent with my ideology (hating people based on their ethnicity is bad). In such instances you can either 1) work to change your actions (it doesn't matter what I feel, as long as I don't harm Jews, and eventually I might change my feelings for them); or 2) change your believes (Jews aren't a category worth protecting).

Now, "hating Jews" is still a big no-no in western left circles. Even now you can't actually directly say it (obviously this was true before October 7th. It seems like even these rules are changing as we speak). So westerners needed to do two things: 1) white-ify the Jewish people (especially the Ashkenazim) and 2) shift the focus on Israel.

The white-ification of the Jewish people is a major theme is western leftist circles in the past 70 years, especially in the US because of its complicated history with race and ethnicity, but it's prevalent in many other countries as well (it should be noted that Jewish people themselves have contributes to this phenomena for many reasons, but this is not the place for this discussion).

In the post-modern age, "whiteness" means "evil" and it is connected to European and western imperialism and colonization. So, essentially, they change what being a Jew is - a white person, as opposed to a Levantine person. This is where some of these people will do mental gymnastics to deny where Jews are originally from, whether denying modern Jews have anything to do with the historical ones (and many choose this route) or somehow both admitting they are from Israel but saying it doesn't matter because it happened a long time ago and then with the same breath talk about how Palestinians are the indigenous ancient people of the land (they are both indigenous, the world is just that stupid). Now, since white people are evil, they are open for criticism, especially if they are colonizers. And since Jews are white now, it makes no sense for them to live in the Middle East.

Which brings us to refocusing their criticism on Israel. Here, people have to walk a fine line between a legitimize political criticism of the Israeli government and the society itself throughout the years (and there are MANY justified criticisms...) and just being antisemitic. Unfortunately, western leftist circles tend to lean more heavily into the latter. And, again, as has been particularly evident for the last three weeks, their focus is on identifying Israel as colonizing enterprise, not just beyond the 67' Green Line, but by it's very nature of existence, since Jews are white now and don't belong there.

And now, once again, they call us to Go Back To Where We Came From (just to be very clear - Palestinians and the rest of the world are doing it as well), despite that part of the world literally saying "don't bring them here, they are not from here", like they always did, just like the post OP was sharing. Only those Europeans aren't saying "Jews are from the Land of Israel and they deserve to live there", they are just saying what the entire world has been saying for the past two thousand years - we don't want Jews anywhere, period.

They don't give a shit about where Jews are from. Some of them say we're from Europe for the sole purpose of destroying Israel. And they would gladly displace millions of Jews and send them to live again with the people who tried and nearly succeeded to annihilate us. Everyone else just don't care, as long as they can hurt us, but also refuse to accept us as their own. And trust me - if and god forbid when millions of Jews will once again become refugees, not a single nation around the world from which We Came From would take us in. Not one.

I know that people know where Jews are from, but the fact remains that huge sections of the world right now, especially on the left side of the political map, will actively deny it.

Because the truth is - the world doesn't give a shit what Jews are or are not. The world doesn't give a shit where Jews are from or aren't from. The world doesn't want Jews in Israel, and it doesn't want Jews anywhere else.

The only place the world deems the Jews to belong to is their graves.

[vaniliens]

Long ass opinions / critiques on milgram under the cut before t3 actually hits

Im not even that mad / hateful of mlgrm at all tbh & I think & hope you can tell that from the fact that my main gripe with it isnt really "This project was awful from start to finish it never should've happened" but rather "There were better (& Arguably easier) ways to tell this story & get the point across"

i understand 100% why they thought, on paper, why this would've been a cool project to work on and It Is!! They did their best, i really love how it takes inspiration from the vocaloid community from the abstract symbolism filled MV's, the deco covers, how theres an interconnected story, and the potential of community guesswork & discussion of what this song and/or MV means. I might be a bit biased bc i got into it after being dissapointed in how lacking the virtual singers / vocaloid [community] feels in project sekai besides the commissioned songs but overall i think its really cute, even if its technically just what art as a whole is about 😭 You know, making you engage & think about The Implications. Getting the inspo from the voca synth community allows the project to stand out bc of how its presented. Its unique, its fresh, it keeps you on your toes.

I love how it (tries) to tackle well known & relevant issues in japan (& tbh the rest of the world), like ableism, misogyny, child abuse, call-out culture, homophobia, the entire prison system, etc. and how the victims and perpetrators react to it. Its very interesting. Its very clearly trying to humanize & sympathize even the "worst of the worst", and i appreciate how its one of the main themes in the story even if some of the audience didnt quite catch it. Its showing how simply punishing people who did wrong isnt the answer. Like theres SOOOO much nuance to unpack both in universe with the crimes & prisoners and in a meta sense through the way the story is presented, the way the audience reacts, the discussions, thoughts, developments, etc. Its so cool. They've clearly put a lot of effort into it.

At its core the Milgram Project has always been less about solving the crimes and more about asking the audience "Why do YOU think X happened?" Its basically a bunch of character studies!! You're peering through their hearts, examining their own version of the truth of their crimes, and drawing your own conclusions based on that raw, intrusive data that the system has given you. Aagh.

Unfortunately in my own humble opinion all these elements combined is exactly why it doesn't work as well as it could've And arguably should've for a project all about seeing the good or at least understanding eachother.

It asks "Why did X did it?" but it doesnt give us a platform to actually state Why they did it in any way, only to answer & play into the prisons b&w thinking, and you cant in any way reverse any of their verdicts once its been casted. And thematically it works. I mean its about a warden in a prison full of people who have taken lives, its doing its job to mirror the reality of real life Innocent (No punishment or otherwise legal consenquence) vs Guilty (Punish) verdicts, legally or non officially, as it should. But idk it doesnt really Help us understand why a character comitted their sin. It only introduces downwards spirals, which only makes the characters less willing to provide their actual motive(s) as time goes on. I get that the main thing its criticizing is the legal & prison system but its getting in the way of sympathizing with "Bad" people. Which again IS the point, thats EXACTLY what the prison system does and why its so harmful, it dehumanizes people to hell and boils down their entire personhood to "Guilty" but like???? It doesnt really provide an Out, or anything more Productive to think about. WHICH IS THE POINT & I KNOW THAT BUT IT KINDA FEELS LIKE IN THE END THERES REALLY NOTHING YOU CAN DO WHICH IS PRETTY NIHILISTIC???

Its like "Theres no point in examining why these people are the way they are bc everyones gonna suffer no matter which button you press in the end!! No you cant gain deeper optional insight either bc we're permanently rolling with THIS now." and what doesnt help are the extra contents like the voice dramas & interrogation questions where the characters themselves add more fuel to the fire by threatening eachothers or the wardens lives??? and it leads to people discussing 'Which Verdicts to Vote [to minimize the in universe damage so these fictional definitely-not-representatives-of-real-life-issues-&-its-consequences characters can be safe]' instead of 'Actual Insightful Character Analysis [to help eachother find our own conclusions no matter what it is & to improve ourselves as a person through examining fictional scenarios]' and it leads to COMPLETELY unproductive discussions and flame wars and its so upsetting to see.

Its fucking tearing itself (& the fandom) apart by making ITSELF perpetuate the black & white "Theres a CORRECT answer to this EXTREMELY morally gray & heavily nuanced situation!!!" thinking for the sake of criticizing (More like making a parody of) the prison system. Like wow who would've thought that the system designed so that literally everyone in it is turned into mere "GOOD" VS "BAD" caricatures of themselves would be a good sytem to EXAMINE PEOPLES COMPLICATED LIVES with. Does that make sense. Like isnt it ironic how what we call "Meta voting" is, in the end, more about these fictional characters lives than it is about us, as the actual living breathing audience who are capable of accepting things outside the dichotomy and are able to self reflect before its too late? us, the humans whos lives are more fragile and thus require more care from eachother than mere 2d drawings? Isnt that so ironic

AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR I GENUINELY, WITH ALL (or none in this case) OF MY HEART, DON'T AND CAN'T EVEN BLAME ANYONE WHO META VOTES. BECAUSE THE PRISON. THE PROJECT ITSELF. ENCOURAGES IT. AND IN THIS TRIAL AND EVEN THE PREVIOUS ONE WITH KOTOKO'S BEATINGS, PROVES THAT IT HOLDS WATER. MORE THAN ANY CHARACTER ANALYSIS. MORE THAN GENUINELY UNDERSTANDING WHERE THESE CHARACTERS ARE COMING FROM.

And the beautiful thing about it is that theres ALSO a discussion to be made about this, intentional or not, about how our actions weigh more than our thoughts / feelings which is ofc correct. This also ties in it with its theme, of taking people's lives and under what conditions is it considered something "Neutral" (even "Positive / Good") vs "Punishable" and ofc also the punishing & restraining that comes with getting a guilty verdict part, an action that leads to someone else's forced in-action.

Still though, in what way does this really help support the Actual Main Theme, which is understanding eachother / the prisoners, people who youve seen arguably the worst of? Its grappling between wanting to make the audience GENUINELY THINK and self reflect vs a show about people going through hell and you CAN be both but again!! with way milgram is run, because of the active audience participation it needs & encourages & the way it boxes the audience into these 2 choices, it was always going to snowball & sway more to the latter. Its becoming less of a thinkpiece & more just a shocking spectacle where everything is in "Superhell"

"Oh anyone can die in this prison if the audience messes up badly enough" do you think thats a good way to send your message. Just kill off a character whos arc wasnt even finished yet. When their deaths only serve to make things worse and thus more shocking and "High Stakes"? When their deaths are only punishing the audience who wanted to understand everyone in the prison by

1. forever 'Locking' said dead character(s) out of any new developments

2. Possibly make things more muddy & unclear in the trial, as the rest of the characters would be affected by the death(s) and would most likely close themselves off even more to cope with the trauma?

And. Like. Again I cant even get that mad bc can you blame the writers when theyre all forced to write shit on the fly based on OUR unpredictable reactions??? Ex. Did they expect Amane to get a guilty in the 1st trial despite the sympathetic MV which features a child repeatedly being abused?? They also have to choose and try to balance between making the horror of the situation clear while also providing a way for these present horrors to bring out the characters past crime. Its so complicated.

I really really hate how this happened. Please. If milgram had no audience participation and if it was instead just a linear story or 2 this wouldn't have happened.... everything would've been in the writer's control and thus we would've been guaranteed a more fulfilling story even if it lacks the explicit audience complicity to the violence & abuse. See: come on man, THE OFFICIAL PREQUEL NOVELS.

Alternatively, seeing as the trial 3 curtain call is LITERALLY called 'Route: Your [Curtain] Call,' implying that there were other routes we could've went on, it could've been a video game or better yet a visual novel. Then we'd be able to fully explore the characters as much as we want, even if, by resetting the game multiple times to get the routes to FULLY understand these charaters, it lessens the emotional impacts the deaths will have.

I dunno man i just wish it didnt get this complicated I just wish it was presented better....

"So what do you think happened? Was this justified or not?" I dont know man we're busy making sure people dont die so we dont miss out on any new info even though the act of 'making sure people dont die' is making us Waste the opportunities we have to get said new info. WE'RE in storytelling superhell.

[tirfpikachu]

cw: me holding women accountable for sexism/gncphobia.

let's be real gyns... at some point, it does become weirdo behavior when tumblrinas who don't face male-specific gncphobia foam at the mouth to excessively call any flamboyant or unmasculine man the f slur or a twink or something related to being gay or trans bc a dude can never be too gnc or it must be a gay thing or a trans thing.

listen, i make jokes like that too. i prob sometimes still will. but i'm being self-aware and noticing my own sexism. i'm still working through my own internalized gncphobia, it's a life-long journey. i was taught growing up that anyone gnc and male is either creepy, gay, or a sex thing. and sometimes the jokes we make do get a good chuckle out of me! but i think we do have to be like... okay at this point are we making the gender roles boxes tighter? are we actually helping at all normalize gender nonconformity in society? do we truly uplift ALL gnc people or do we just do the woke equivalent of calling them girly f*gs for daring to not be hugh jackman level masc 24/7? do we truly see them as men, or lesser men? and if he wears a croptop or a skirt or shows emotions immediately he's "gay coded" or slutty? as if gnc men and transfems don't get chasers all the time for just existing. it's turning anyone gnc into a fetish category and honestly it feels Weird.

idk, if i was a gnc het man rn growing up with kids bullying him laughing calling him girly and f*ggy and gay etc, something that often turns violent, bc we know how male bullies are, going through that all the time... fearing getting hurt for existing, and then coming into leftist spaces and seeing all these nonstop jokes about any male person even remotely gnc being a wh*re or "visibly gay" simply for breaking gender norms, for saying fuck you to the patriarchy and wearing and doing whatever harmless things that shouldn't be gendered to begin with... even we leftists need to hold ourselves accountable for upholding gender roles. also, if you're not affected by male-specific gncphobia, you should be a good ally. i know this is the horny male blorbo website, but gay men shouldn't be our laughing stock all the time either. we shouldn't infantilize them or fetishize them or dehumanize them. people who don't face male-specific gncphobia should keep their sexism and homophobia in check too.

some of y'all, and me back when i was a teen honestly, really do at times objectify gnc behavior that should be a totally normal thing. we turn it into a spectacle. we re-enforce the guy in a dress looking embarrassed and laugh at it instead of seeing it as the result of him being aggressively kept in a box since toddlerhood to not do anything that wasn't a Boy Thing. often involving parental trauma and violent bullying as well. i want gnc people to be comfortable and normalized and be totally normal. i want to wheel past a guy in a croptop and not immediately think "omg he's so obviously gay" bc het men can just look/act that way! women ABSOLUTELY can be horrible sexist bullies and at times full-on abusers and keep gnc men in sexist gender roles. i have seen women say the most vicious gncphobic shit to men.

the reverse, of course, also applies to gnc women. sorry for committing the crime of caring about both gnc people and women. sorry for mentioning men & transfems who face gncphobia that we just can't relate to. i know it's seen as cringe, don't think about men even existing if you don't want to, idc. i have an equal foot in the women community and the gnc community. i do not care for sexist, gncphobic women, outside of generic feminist sisterhood. i as a gnc woman do not feel safe if all gnc people aren't respected. i know bisexual women protect bi men from biphobic women all the time, and woc have to protect men of color and get shamed for speaking up too bc they're all seen as "male bootlickers" or whatever. at this point sexist women make me shake my head and move tf on. immature, childish, defensive, and assuming bad faith. i align with disabled men before i align with abled women in some instances. at times, i align with gnc men before i align with sexist women. sisterhood is not unconditional. breaking gender roles will free us all.

[majachee]

Trying to moralize what's happening in Palestine really shows one's own lack of, well, morals.

"Israel has the right to defend itself!" — self defense does not include bombing hospitals with children, doctors, families, the injured, etc. inside. That is a war crime. Self defense does not include bombing and shooting evacuation routes. That is a war crime. Self defense does not include bombing churchs and cultural artifacts. That is a war crime. Self defense does not include cutting off all access to food, water, electricity, humanitarian aid, etc. That is a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Israel has been doing this shit for years, decades. They are using Hamas as a tool for propaganda. The West hates Arabic countries and its people, it's blatantly obvious here in America with depictions of the Middle East post-9/11 and even before 9/11. Israel is taking advantage of this blatant bigotry and xenophobia.

Every country has it's own unique issues regarding human rights, equality, and separation of religion and the state, unofrtunately. The Middle East is not "uniquely evil" or even UNIQUE for whatever issues the Western media decides to hyperfocus on. I assure you, you can find an equivalent in America or any European country — whether in the modern day or throughout history. This does not make the civilians any less human, this does not make anyone less human. You're not at fault for simply being born in a country the world has unfairly deemed as "evil" or "subhuman." Your purpose in life is to live freely and happy, it is your birthright to live. You do not have to justify your existentence. You don't have to moralize your life. You shouldn't have to. You are human, you were born, and you should be free to live to life you were given.

You cannot moralize killing an entire population of people. Every person on Earth has their own beliefs and values, their own stories. Their own families, histories, passions, hobbies. You can't justify killing an entire civilization of diverse people because of one singular, small ass group. And even then, Israel has lied about Hamas again and again and again. We cannot trust a word that the Israeli government says. Nothing Israel can say about the Hamas will ever justify what they've done for 75 years.

People have the right to live. It's basic human rights and yet so many zionists and self-proclaimed "liberals" in the West refuse to acknowledge that. I suppose it's easier to ignore/justify genocide when you remove the personhood and individuality of the population. They're not people to you if you justify genocide, they're just faceless, void concepts.

Trying to moralize genocide is the same shit Hitler did. It's what Nazis and Neo-Nazis did/are doing. It's what Klansmen are doing. I don't give a flying fuck what Hamas did or did not do, the Israeli government is full of lying scumbags and nothing will ever justify the 75 years of bloodshed that stains Israel's stolen borders. In a parallel universe, everything they're saying about Hamas could be true and it still won't justify shit, because they aren't acting in self-defense and they're killing civilians in the tens of thousands.

By moralizing genocide, you are actively dehumanizing the victims. You don't see them as real people with real personalities. You are justifying murder, rape, torture, cultural erasure, historical revisioning, and wiping out entire societies off the face of the planet. It's blatant eugenics and facism.

[thatstormygeek]

I can't help but wonder if the reason that trust in our institutions is at such a low point is because none of them are willing to recognize as illegitimate a movement that has made itself illegitimate.

Trump at the very least shouldn't have been permitted to run as a constitutional matter, and neither in my opinion should members of his insurrectionist party. He engaged in insurrection. Trump fomented an insurrection in order to overturn an election he lost, and his party supported him in this effort and has supported him ever since. ... The reason I say this is because when things that must not be permitted to happen are allowed to happen, then they stop being things that are not permitted to happen, and a narrative of normalcy and permission begins to form around those things. If consequences for infractions against society and law and government are not pursued with urgency, then they stop being understood as urgent matters. If human beings are allowed to be dehumanized and terrorized and persecuted and killed by the state, then such impermissible things become permissible under the law. When a president is allowed by the land's highest court to break the law with impunity, then the law stops being legitimate and so does the court and so does the presidency. When an insurrectionist party is allowed to run for office, then insurrection is no longer disqualifying, and if this happens even though the Constitution says it is disqualifying, then the Constitution no longer matters, either. These outcomes are more dangerous, in my opinion, than whatever danger would have arisen from doing what was needed to prevent them. So the Biden administration had one job to do, which, if left undone, would mean that every other good thing it managed to do would simply be mooted the moment the illegitimate party took power once again.

I know it's common to respond to such statements by saying that recognizing the illegitimacy of the Republican Party is unrealistic or impractical, or even dangerous—particularly since pursuing such a truth would have resulted in extreme strife. It's not false to say that the course I lay out was unrealistic or impractical or dangerous, but it is wrong—wrong, because realism and practicality and danger are not reasons to abdicate the duty to do what needs to be done, even if what needs to be done is dangerous; not when not doing it means greater and more enduring danger; not when not doing it means surrender of all future questions of what will be realistic and practical to insurrectionist monsters who care nothing for law or standards or safety. And treating an opposing party as illegitimate is often treated as not only impractical and unrealistic and dangerous, but electorally unwise. We're told that what the American people want is bipartisanship above all, civility above all, depolarization above all, adherence to the rules both written and unwritten above all. I don't think the evidence supports this. Treating an opposing party as illegitimate is actually a very successful tactic, if the history of this fading century is any indication, and there appears to be little if any political cost for engaging in this practice. It's how the illegitimate Republican party took power, for example. ... So it was that the Republican response to their epic loss was not to look within and see how they ought to change, but to treat Democratic rule as foundationally illegitimate for the crime of being led by a Black person. What has followed since that decision is nearly two decades of scorched earth: ignoring every gentlemen's agreement with Democrats, every unwritten rule that had made government work; sabotaging Democratic efforts wherever they could, at every level of government. They blocked every appointment they could. They investigated every rumor. They fought every loss with whatever tool they had before them. They encouraged their followers to engage in extrajudicial violence and celebrated those who did. All of it communicated very clearly the message: the Democratic Party is illegitimate, and any power they hold is held illegitimately, especially now that they are led by a Black person. ... Obama had run a campaign on changing our society fundamentally. It's the only time in my life that Democrats have run such a campaign, incidentally, rather than trying to triangulate certain carefully chosen progressive policies with a generally conservative center-right platform in order to capture moderate right-leaning voters by legitimizing their unfounded fears and bigotries. The latter strategy sometimes works, but very often doesn't. Obama's 2008 alternative strategy resulted in the only presidential landslide we've seen this century. Despite his landslide, Obama didn't govern as he had run. At every turn, he did his best to legitimize the concerns and fears of those opposing him as illegitimate. He pursued incremental change, offering a Republican plan for healthcare reform, in hopes that this legitimizing of Republican tactics would garner their support. He responded to Mitch McConnell's announcement that the Senate would not consider any Supreme Court nomination by nominating a conservative, Merrick Garland. None of this worked, because Republicans weren't concerned about points of agreement; they sought to make the larger point, which was: the Democratic Party is illegitimate, and any power they hold is held illegitimately, especially now that they are led by a Black person. There might be some lessons to draw here.

[hologramcowboy]

I usually stay far away from Twitter and fandom drama and I don't follow fandom groups but given the dehumanizing posts I've been seeing online, I am going on a fairly long rant, this is just my view, of course, so please discard it if not relevant to you:

The people making posts like these:

are at the core of the bully mentality. You are dehumanizing a Human Being with the entitlement that you get to define how a negative experience affects them. You do not, in any universe, get to tell someone who has been affected by something at what level they have been affected. Simply because you are not them. Furthermore, you are biased and discriminating against Jared Padalecki because he is a celebrity. Jared is a human being first and foremost and, as we've seen in the past, he does do social listening. This means death threats and other cyber crimes do affect him, not to mention the very real stalking some of you do when he moves from country to country. You end up following him under his hotel or even worse situations.

This discussion happening within fandom should include him because he is a direct victim. Also, the intent to commit cyber crimes and sending death threats does not get cancelled out just because that person may or may not have read the thread/post. Do you get this? Do you understand that if your intention and energy is vile, whether the content reaches your target or not, your cyber crime is still in effect? "Jared is a big boy and he doesn't care". Really? In what universe would you be okay with receiving death threats, would your family love that for you? Oh, they would not? So why on earth would you say it is alright that Jared received death threats? Fans do affect an actor's psyche, actors live to bring you joy and when they see you go toxic and dangerous it does affect their psyche.

Aside from this, as mentioned earlier, some of you actually stalk him at cons and at different locations and do so with hateful intent. The gravity of your actions is what causes actors to hide in public, avoid open spaces, reinforce their security, have panic attacks and fear for their life. Yet here you are, online, claiming that it's all good because said person is a celebrity so who cares.

If you dislike Jared, that's a matter of taste and your business but if you dehumanize Jared to the point of denying the very real atrocious actions perpetuated towards him, then you are no different than the perpetrators. You are, in fact, the enablers so you are even worse. A bad intention or idea cannot form into action unless people enable it and you played a key part with your bias and lack of care.

Think of all that evil hitting your child or loved one or even yourself, is it still nothing now? Do you see how wrong it is to minimize the abuse people perpetuate? Jared is a kind human being, so he avoids getting into drama as much as he can but that doesn't mean he is not affected. Also, someone not being affected is never, ever, an excuse to abuse said person. It's pretty interesting how someone suddenly doesn't count as human in your eyes. Talking about the abuse Jared gets in no way takes away from the other victims, in fact, it provides evidence of the intent and maliciousness of the people who attacked those victims. So it is highly important to consider as well as discuss. If you actually care about the topic at hand and the people involved that is. If you actually cared about shifting paradigms and improving fandom experience.

Lastly, Jared does deserve an apology too, the behavior displayed towards him is inhuman, degrading and damaging. He's no different than all the other persons at the receiving end of atrocious behaviors. The fact that you cannot comprehend that shows you lack humanity and empathy. If this was you or a friend at the receiving end, you would do the right thing but because you resent Jared, you are trying to twist an important discussion to damage him further. Jared doesn't know you and never did anything against you yet you feel entitled to dehumanizing him.

Then there's this: The people who perpetuated these behaviors displayed them publicly as well, especially towards him, thus providing a horrible example for others to follow. If you really cared about resolving bullying you would know those were seriously damaging paradigms being disseminated online and encouraged. Those people felt entitled to tell others to end their existence and the reason this happened was because you chose to ignore it thinking "people are grown ups and they can defend themselves" and "that's a celebrity, I don't care". So you saw the very clear signs but ignored or encouraged. You enabled. Now you are trying to create drama centered on one of the victims instead of owning your part in all of that and working on ways to create healthier fandom experiences.

Let's look at this one:

"We can attack Jared haters(or Misha haters or Jensen haters) on any other day of the week" Not only is this person directly admitting to being no different than those perpetrators, she is actually saying that attacking is what they do on a daily basis. Is that supposed to be the normal response? To attack? So bullying is the solution to bullying? Since when? Since when has mobbing people become the norm? Behaviors can be addressed without even remotely attacking someone. If you've created vicious cycles where you gang up on each other then that's only going in one direction, the same one those cult girls had.

My point is, please gain awareness and focus on creating healthy paradigms rather than on victim shaming/blaming, attacking whoever you disapprove of (same pattern those cult girls had, silo mentality and one sided views) and stop enabling the people who created such a negative impact within fandom by allowing them to display disempowering behaviors. Stop feeding into negative patterns and starts building healthy ones. Change starts with you and, whether you are aware of it or not, your choices affect others.

It is truly heartbreaking how people can twist their love for a show into hating actors and other people instead of using that passion to connect with like minded souls and create beautiful experiences together.

[helly-watermelonsmellinfellon]

Furina, and Genshin Stans' Inability to Handle Criticism

*SPOILERS*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The introduction of Focalors as a character in 4.0, did what it should. She was a very polarizing character and had people forming very specific opinions that would be damn near impossible to change.

Most everyone enjoyed the fact that she wasn't kissing the Traveler's ass, wasn't flirting with the Traveler from the jump, and was dramatic. However, that did not mean that many of them came away liking her as a character. It wasn't translated as 'simply bratty' or 'adorable tantrums' to many of us.

People are capable of liking the fact that she was written differently even if we didn't like her personality.

Personally, I still don't like Keqing even after everything that's happened so far. I find her attitude to be very annoying, and her stances on many things piss me off, but it's also nice for her to not be up the Traveler's ass when they come around. It gives every scene a nice air to experience.

Furina's story ending up incredibly tragic does not mean people have to suddenly pander to her.

At most, she was disliked by many for appearing to be lazy and not actually doing anything useful for her people the whole time. And Arlecchino had a right as a citizen of Fontaine, to call her out for her inaction and chosen lifestyle. Just because it was revealed that Furina was playing her part in order to fool Fate and the Heavenly Principles, does not mean Arlecchino is in the wrong for what she said(attempting assassination is another matter entirely).

Furina still called Paimon an object and tried to ignore her living, breathing sentience just so she could try to get the Traveler on trial for a fake accusation. Even if that law actually exists(per Neuvillette's voice lines) Paimon is not an object. Those of us with common sense recognized how fucked up that was, and how bullshit it was to try something like that just to... prevent the Traveler from wandering around and getting involved in stuff.

Y'all realize the Traveler would have ended up in the Fortress of Meropide for a crime they did not commit, right?

No one held a gun to Furina's head to make her do that. She could have completely avoided the Traveler entirely, but instead SHE CHOSE to make that their first meeting. The Traveler and Paimon base their impressions on her off of that meeting. And even after months in Fontaine, she did not prove to be much better at anything else.

In the end, Focalors' plan proved Furina wasn't being useless. She was actually doing her part as faithfully as possible, but that's all it really did. The accusations of her not caring and being lazy were wrong. She cared a lot and she worked very hard to exhaustion(both mental and physical).

But Furina spent 500 years treating people a certain way, and that has results. Those not from Fontaine are not as blinded by the glamor of her behavior and don't see it as acceptable. And guess what? Her introduction to the Traveler involved racism and dehumanizing the Traveler's companion(even if Paimon isn't human, she's sentient and living and humanoid) for the sake of a farcical court trial.

Then, she made false accusations against Lyney not long after. And the investigation by anyone but the Traveler was truly lackluster with barely any effort put in. To make things worse, she couldn't find any proof for her claims, so she just threw a group of orphans under the bus because... for some reason the Fatui has to be the ones to take in Fontainian children so they're not living on the streets.

It's not a good look.

Furina has suffered and has done her part to save her people, but she's also done some fucked up things and hasn't apologized for them.

You can't clamor for Arlecchino to apologize for what she said, or for Paimon to apologize for pestering her over and over to help out that theater troupe, and then sit there quiet over her behavior that had NOTHING to do with her cover as a 'god'. She could have easily kept up that cover while demanding for the case to be investigated better(NO ONE thought to look into the possessions of the troupe members before the Traveler asked? NO ONE thoughts to look in ALL the boxes while down int he basement?).

Many people got to learn that Furina is not a shitty Archon. She protected the people in the only way she knew was possible. She held that secret and was willing to take it to the grave.

She's also made some mistakes and never apologized.

The Traveler and Paimon not really knowing who the real Furina is or what her personal values are, doesn't mean they're being callous to her. Paimon saying she had no idea Furina would feel a certain way over something that happened, isn't her being mean. It's her literally not knowing and saying it in surprise.

The Traveler and Paimon thinking of Furina first after hearing that someone needs an expert in drama and theater, isn't them being mean. She's literally a celebrity known for performing on stage and is the only actress they were aware of in Fontaine. Common sense, people, learn to use it.

At most, the constant pushing was the actual bad part, and even then, this is Paimon... who needs things said 2 or 3 times in different ways before she(and by extension the playerbase) understands what's going on. That's just her character to repeat things just to get the clear picture. She's been doing it since the start of the game, and we all hate it. This isn't new.

Adding on... Neuvillette literally also did the same shit when he heard Furina was involved in a theater troupe's last performance. He tried to urge her to take to the stage once again and was quite insistent over it as well. He even used his own emotional ties to her to try and get her to change her mind. Yeah, he's hot and cool, but if Neuvillette doing the pestering is perfectly okay, then it was never the pestering and 'guilt-tripping' y'all had a problem with. It was just the people it was coming from.

Apparently, if it comes from a stranger that you aren't friends with, it's evil and horrible and despicable, but if someone you've known for 500 years keeps bringing up how they wish you'd change your mind on doing the thing you said you won't do anymore, all because they enjoyed watching you do it, then it's alright and just friends looking out for friends.

Furina is complex and more compelling as a character now, but she's still got a long way to go and all the time in the world to get there.

[lesbianlenas]

watching this doc abt a trial my friend told me to watch and omg them reading out the texts the lead investigator wrote abt the female defendant is crazy. he called her the c word, the r word, and the b word AND said he was looking for her nudes (which he claimed was a joke) said she was “a babe” but “had no ass” and said she was a whack job and hopefully she would kill herself. like it is truly scary the way that men are in positions of power like this when they have such dehumanized views of women. and tbh this is simply how men talk to each other when women aren’t around. and then those men are given authority over women and are supposed to be who women go to when they face violence and harassment. it doesn’t matter whether she committed the crime or not a man should never talk abt a woman like that esp one that he is exerting power over. disgusting.

[skateebrat]

Blog Post Due 2/13

What is the intersectionality of violent crimes against minorities versus white individuals?

We have heard the tragic stories of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and Tamir Rice. We have also heard of the mass shootings at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Vegas. There is a very distinct frame that these black men have versus our white counterparts. The media painted these black men in a dirty lens; he wasn’t cooperating, he looked suspicious, he had a gun, etc. justifying why they were dehumanizing them. While these police officers who have committed these horrific violent crimes are not exactly held at the highest accountability because of their race, gender, and role in government/society. As to the mass shootings across the nation, the media portrayed the shooters in a more light hearted lens; he was a loner, he had depression, he came from a nice family. Throughout middle school and high school, I remember how the intersectionality of discrimination and racism was being discussed but it was still challenging to pinpoint as there were multiple levels of injustice happening. 

How is intersectionality shown in our education today? 

In 2019, the University of Southern California was involved in an admissions scandal. The scandal was that affluent parents were bribing certain officials to get their children admitted to the school. This intersectionality of privilege and wealth was overlooked. I feel that the media framed it as a big joke/surface level issue even if it was a serious matter. Bribing to get into a prestigious school VS getting all the right requirements to be admitted. Let alone, if you are a minority or not. I’m not knowledgeable about the type of people who were involved in the scandal. But it just goes to show that if you have money, you have power. 

What are the dangers and or harms of CalGang? 

CalGang is a large database that law enforcement use to track and trap minorities for gang affiliated activities. For example, simply just being in the vicinity where there is gang activity, can potentially put you on a secret watchlist that you are not even aware of. This is intentionally harmful, whether you are a minority or not. Having your name in a database that you're not conscious about can put you in trouble depending on context. In class we had discussed that if you were in a car accident and you call police for help, but they come to find out your name is registered in the CalGang database, they can potentially detain or arrest you even if you were calling for help. It is not just your name that is inputted in this system, but it can also contain photos taken with or without your knowledge. This should feel unsettling, because in a previous article in Week 2 that had mentioned flaws in facial recognition had led to an arrest and jail. Police officers/law enforcement mindlessly rely on these databases even if this information is misleading, that is what makes it dangerous.

Is Calgang an institutional/systematic weapon for officers or people in higher power? 

As I previously stated in my last question, your information and photos being inputted into a criminal database without your knowledge and having fast growing technology such as facial recognition can lead to something far more complex down the road. Law enforcement or individuals in power can use this as a systematic weapon against you, on top of an already embedded discriminatory code. It can affect your education, work, and other potential opportunities. Latino/Chicano and African American minorities are the most vulnerable because that is what the “data” in this CalGang site shows. It is interesting that there is little to none information on white supremacy groups as that is considered a gang/cult. Yet, Southern California is known for the most white supremacy groups nationwide. 

Crenshaw, K. (2016, December 7). The Urgency of Intersectionality. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akOe5-UsQ2o

Muniz, A. & McGill, K. (2012). Track and Trapped: Youth of color, gang databases, and gang injunctions. Youth Justice Coaltion’s REALSEARCH Action Research Center. 

[paperstorm]

You say you wish Ronen (and presumably other Israeli Americans) showed the same outrage for the attacks on Gaza as they do for the attacks on Israel.

I’m curious, do you hold White Christian Americans do the same standard? When they remember the lives lost in 9/11, do you require them to mention the 70,000 civilian lives lost in the war in Afghanistan, which was started as a result of that attack? Does it put a ‘pit in your stomach’ when they don’t, or do you simply go about your day without thinking it worth mentioning?

Because as a Jew I’ve never supported Israel, but I’m starting to wonder why Israel is held to a far higher standard than any Western nation that retaliates against terrorism. The loss of innocent lives is terrible and should be condemned, but why is it worse than the innocent lives lost in Afghanistan? Is there something in particular about Israel that you and other left-wing Westeners don’t like?

As far as I can see, Ronen’s country was the victim of a terrorist attack. He reacted with sorrow and anger and supports his country as it seeks to punish those responsible and rescue those taken hostage. But why is he deserving of condemnation for an emotional response when Americans and Westeners can mourn and be angry about their citizens killed by terrorists without attracting any of the same vitriol? The West has done terrible things in the Middle East, and yet when the Middle East strikes back against its enemies only Israel and its people are not allowed to be angry.

Maybe you don’t have any answer, but if you do and are willing to respond I would like to know. What is the difference between an Israeli ‘coloniser’ responding to being a victim of terrorism and an American ‘coloniser’ responding to being the victim of terrorism? Why does one attract criticism and hatred and the other not?

I don't speak for anyone else but my personal answer to this question is yes. Unequivocally. I haven't been talking specifically about the Iraq/Afghanistan wars this week because that's not what's happening right now, but yes. People mourning/honouring victims of the 9/11 attacks should absolutely also be mourning the (by some estimates) nearly a million innocent people who died in the Middle East in the wars started as retaliation for that attack, in some cases in places like Iraq that had literally nothing to do with it at all. If someone feels sadness in their heart every day for the 9/11 victims and feels nothing for the innocent Muslim people who paid the price for something they had nothing to do with, I feel very comfortable saying that person has fallen prey to American imperialist propaganda campaigns or is just outright racist. The hoopla that followed 9/11 is almost beat-for-beat what is happening right now, all over again. We learned nothing. Once again our leaders are dehumanizing brown people, cheering on imperialism and violent colonial occupation, and using a terrorist attack to manufacture consent for war crimes. (Anyone wanting more info on how they do this should read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.)

The loss of innocent Palestinians is not worse that the loss of innocent Afghans. They are the same. They are both being murdered as payback for something they didn't do and their deaths were/are both being cheered on by the Western war machine because it makes money for defense contractors and because it's politically convenient to see brown people as expendable pawns in the game of Risk world leaders are always playing. So yes, I absolutely do condemn both and mourn for both.

Additionally, I know you didn't ask for sympathy but I know how difficult this is. I know it's a lot more complicated than white online leftists like to make it seem, and I know a lot of Jewish people personally who are struggling right now, as they have before, with their complex feelings for the state of Israel. I hope you're taking care of yourself, as best you can in these awful circumstances.

[gryficowa]

People with Disabilities: Why is he a villain as a character with a disability? It's ableistic that his experiences change nothing in the world he finds himself in and he won't be redeemed for his crimes!

Also people with disabilities, when a person with a disability (mental illness or disorder) commits a crime, even though their history shows how society sucks:

Welcome to the absurdity where we dehumanize people in real life but cry over media tropes that are too "Ableistic" when the same thing happens in the fiction we consume

Let's start by changing our approach in real life, because it doesn't look very good, that when it happens in fiction it is ableism, but when it happens in real life, suddenly it is not, yes, we can not support it (Because murder or other crimes are bad, there is no doubts about this) but strenuously erasing this person's history and how stigmatization destroyed them is as ableist as this trope, when will we, as people who fight against ableism, finally understand it?

I simply don't like this approach in this fight, when we fight against ableism, we also fight for people who didn't have a chance and help like us, and not only for the chosen ones who we "like"

This pisses me off, as a person with ASD I hate how people try to erase many of these people as victims (Yes, they became perpetrators, but because they were victims of many terrible things before), and this shouldn't be the case if we are demanding this change. clue, let's change our approach to what's happening in real life, let's change and let's not allow ourselves to be divided (What ableists did to us autistic people), because what is happening in the true crime fandom on the part of other people with disabilities is ableism to feed your ego, yes, you can hate the crimes someone has committed without being ableist and erasing the fact that we failed this person, when they needed us, if they had gotten the help they needed then there is a good chance she would not have committed these crimes, it could have been us too, if no one had helped us, and then we would have been hated even more than before, no one would have looked at our experiences that destroyed us, and what we did made us feel bad

Yes, nothing is an excuse for the crime, but it is an explanation, although we, as people with disabilities, should not do to them the same things that were done to them in their lives before the crime, let's just learn and change the world for the better, without rejecting people like the protagonist reject the villain and ignore his experiences, to maintain the status quo of this world

Let's be better than ableists, not like them