#weaponize that colonizer privilege

[dndspellgifs]

leaked emails from last year's hugo awards organizers show they actively tried to single out authors and their submissions from being considered for the awards because of Chinese censorship laws. As in, it wasn't the censors who did it, they just were so scared of running into the law that they essentially did the censor's work for them in anticipation and talked among themselves which candidates shouldn't be nominated. One notable email singled out author Neseem Jamnia for being "queer, nonbinary, trans" and frequently writing about gender and being nonbinary as being potentially problematic for censorship.

worldcon organizers volunteering information to each other about which of the authors they know are queer so they can disqualify them. stay classy hugos.

[marcos--budt]

JUST SAW SOME CRAZY MISOGYNY AND MISOGYNOIR ON MY DASH SO NOW YOU ALL HAVE TO SUFFER THROUGH 10 FEMINIST POSTS IN A ROW😘

[boydyke]

we all need to step away from this idea of consuming a callout post/commentary vid to punch down. something which we do even unintentionally, subconsciously, without realizing.

is the way im consuming this helpful or does it just serve to boost my own ego, the creators ego, and to view someone as lesser? is there a point to this having been made? is there a point to consuming it how i am? am i a part of someones undoing or am i going to thoughtfully engage with the perspective that people can be redeemed, and am i going to make it harder for them to find a space to explore that possibility of redemption or not? am i going to shut down any attempt they make to improve? am i going to file them away in my mind forever as irredeemable and monstrous and inhuman rather than a person who fucked up? am i going to let even the worst people retain their humanity or will i revoke that from them? does it benefit anyone to revoke that humanity? does it benefit the victims? or does it just make me feel better about myself? glad that i'm not inhuman like they are? what if i'm capable of acting monstrously as well? what if those i love are? what if we all are? isn't that what humanity is? the capability to do harm and to hurt? am i setting myself and those i love up for failure by viewing humanity as a luxury and not as a right? as something i can strip away given it humors me or gratifies me?

[redjaybathood]

You know, it's kinda funny to see the "Ukrainians are white so they are more privileged compared to Palestinians" posts right when there's another air attack alert in Kyiv. Will my low chances of being shot dead at traffic stop in USA help me survive a Kinzhal rocket dropped at my house?

"You're white so this is why the racist media supports you" - sure, if you disregard a campaign to smear Ukraine that's being going since 2013. Yeah, before the war started.

"You're white and that's why governments support you, so don't whine" ironic seeing yet another refusal to give us more weapons. More ironic is, our victory is crucial to the world's stability and food security - your, my friend, safety and ability to feed yourself. Even more ironic, that countries that oh support us so much, and who rely on us to keep them safe, are dragging their feet so we die, die, die... How white of us.

"You're white, you don't deserve to be treated with basic empathy. You don't deserve respect, your life is worth nothing" from one side, and from another, it's "You are subhuman, you don't deserve basic empathy or respect, your life is worthless..." from another.

Let me be clear. Whatever issues you have with white people, we didn't do shit to you. We were the colonized people, we were enslaved. We are experiencing genocide - yet again from the hands of the same empire. You don't have a higher moral ground here - you have a social media acceptable target. Our whiteness makes it okay to call us names, be happy when we die, manipulate data, pictures, to show how unworthy we are of the help we managed to get. Spread propaganda justifying our genocide. Spread narratives that become barriers to us receiving said help we are, in your merry-world, entitled to. Justify why you personally call for people to stop helping us.

We didn't do shit to you. You are doing it to us. You are punching down. And that's your privilege, being an arrogant and ignorant cunt somewhere a bomb is not going to drop on you, whatever your skin color is.

[applesauce42069]

Your recent posts about anti Zionists resonate with me.

I have tried. I have really tried to have conversations with Jewish anti Zionists. I have read as much Jewish anti Zionist literature as I possibly can. I sympathize with being in the minority and wanting to be something more than Zionist and wanting to be heard.

But they fucking hate us. I'm not even talking about Zionists atp. They hate Jews.

To be a Jewish anti Zionist is to weaponize your existence against your fellow Jews and allow yourself to be a tool used to harm the Jewish community. I have tried to find Jewish anti Zionists who have some semblance of care for Jews but in some ironic way, they have long become a monolith with the same antisemitic beliefs. Every time I pick up a Jewish anti Zionist book, there has to be some mention of "colonization"/denial of Israel being our homeland/Zionism is racism/gross misunderstanding of what Zionism is/the list goes on. They have long thrown Israeli/Zionist Jews under the bus in attempt to redeem themselves for having their disgusting "Jewish privilege" (they genuinely believe we all control the worldejdhdhd and we need to apologize for it???). To a Jewish anti Zionist is to live in delusion where history is quite simple, such as evil Zionists from evil Europe who are Islamophobic and evil.

Look at the response from this Jewish anti Zionist group from the Netherlands: https://www.instagram.com/p/DCHr9XMoYK7/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

I'm pretty sure other Jewish anti Zionist groups all over the world had a similar response. We mock JVP but JVP's thinking is quite similar to what Jewish anti Zionists generally think/believe.

Look at Alternative Jewish Voices: https://ajv.org.nz/

Taken from the website: We are pro-Jewish and anti-Zionist. We agree that Israel as it exists today is an apartheid state, systemically oppressing indigenous Palestinians.  It doesn’t represent our Judaism. (IS THIS NOT GENUINELY DELUSIONAL AND AHISTORICAL?)

We are antiracist, and we distinguish between anti-Semitism and valid protest against Israel’s occupation of Palestine.  Some of us protest by joining organisations that boycott Israel. (support of BDS is insane and antisemitic. What is their definition of antisemitism? when white people wave neo nazi flags and that's it?)

Also if I had a penny for every time a Jewish anti Zionist group quoted Al Jazeera I'd be rich for sure.

Sorry for this long rant. I just feel so much anger. They think we hate them because we hate Palestinians and we hate opposition because we are evil cult but if you're going to hate us, can they at least have the correct info?

I understand how you feel. Especially since that Netherlands group has ALREADY BEEN USED by non-Jewish antizionists to try and justify mob violence against jews to me.

once an antizionist jew accused my jewish israeli friend of caring about Jewish lives more than Palestinian lives. but they've got it all wrong. WE care about Jewish lives and Palestinian lives the same. THEY care about Palestinian lives more and they are willing to throw their people under the bus for moral superiority

[hussyknee]

It says a lot that Global South people are far more concerned about finding out about the conditions of Palestinians, building trust with Palestinian blogs and their vetting processes and actually finding which GoFundMes to donate to, whereas white and western users first and foremost question is who the scammers are and whether they're getting scammed. And then they can't understand why the white right wing and "fiscally conservative" liberals in their own countries, who distrust the government more than the left and associate poverty and opportunism with minorities, don't want to expand welfare and social security.

It's for the same reason as why you think scammers proliferate more than the millions of people in need, and distrust any minority representatives that offer accountability and advocate for themselves. Why you seek to validate that distrust instead of trying to find information and processes that enable you to trust. The difference between domestic and foreign issues is that white leftists are often poor themselves or live within proximity to poverty and recognise that they themselves are in need of social safety nets. So the brunt of their racist indifference and paranoia of the Other is turned against the people of the Global South victimized by the same colonial capitalist and imperialist military systems.

Paranoia that your empathy, emotional labour and wealth will be exploited is part of white colonial anxiety, that resents its own guilt and sees oppression primarily as a weapon that can be turned against the "privileged but innocent". It's why the tide of leftist support is turning against Palestine after nearly an year of genocide. Accountability for and cessation of the genocide might extract a heavy cost from their domestic politics, and the funds begging private citizens for financial aid are increasing by the thousands in proportion to the amount of tax money their governments are sending to blow those people up. Unable to pay this cost of their complicity, western liberals rationalize that their empathy for Palestine is being exploited and used to extort them. This is the racist fear that liberal Zionists so successfully leverage against Palestinians to sabotage their credibility, protests and cries for help and allyship. Today it's attacks against the credibility of GoFundMes, but in a few months liberals will be questioning the credibility of the genocide itself.

Propaganda works by giving people rationalizations, fallacies and false evidence for things they already want to believe. People are predisposed to despise vulnerability, believe themselves victimized when called to account, and cling to a comfortable status quo. These are the building blocks of fascism. Genocide, colonization and war is the status quo on which the Global North was built, especially the US, and Palestine is the first time this status quo has been so thoroughly disrupted since perhaps the Vietnam War. The easiest way to return to it is to not believe Palestinians, return to deprioritising foreign policy, and giving yourself license to ignore their cries for help by telling yourself that it's "too hard" to find trustworthy information. And Zionists are only too happy to provide justifications, rationalizations and "evidence" to do so.

You have perfect right to delete, block, scroll past or blacklist tags and do whatever you need to draw your own boundaries. That's not in question. What you do need to sit with and examine is this "distrust" and "anger at scammers". If your distrust of asks and GoFundMe accounts is not followed by the will to find and follow Palestinians accounts and trust that they have done all they reasonably can to verify a fundraiser; if you believe that scam accounts truly outnumber the desperate and displaced Gazans who cite internet access as essential to survival as food and water; if you're not willing to run some reasonable risk of being scammed just so you might end up helping a real family being genocided; if you don't consider whether the people casting doubt on the veracity of Palestinian users and GFMs and their vetting process might be racists and Zionist saboteurs speaking to your own biases; then your "distrust" is actually just racism. Are you really angry at scammers or are you trying to validate your distrust and decision to ignore pleas for help by deflecting the blame onto the asker?

[sophia-zofia]

WHY TARGET ELBIT? Every hour, we receive thoughtful, well-aimed suggestions or inquiries about alternate targets for direct action: political offices, Embassies, NGOs, other weapons companies, intersections, etc., all of which have clear ties to the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza. It is right and just to rebel and act boldly in all places and moments, with all tactics, without a doubt. The more chaos ensues in the halls and courtyards of the normalizers and genocidaires, the better. But focus in targeting, from a strategic perspective, is the most effective route, which is why our campaign is singularly focused on Elbit Systems, Israel’s *largest* weapons producer.

Palestine Action US has been given the privilege of carrying the banner of one of the Western world’s most successful grassroots direct action campaigns. Palestine Action UK, founded over three years ago by a Palestinian-Iraqi woman, has successfully shut down two of Elbit’s UK locations, permanently, and got HSBC to divest from Elbit. Their pressure has escalated over the years into a constant, relentless campaign, to the point where we see disruptions at Elbit in the UK nearly every day. Since October 7th, that pressure has only grown, and also exploded into the US, Canada, Australia, and everywhere Elbit is headquartered. In that time, while other weapons firms’ profits have skyrocketed, Elbit shares have taken a nosedive.

If one wishes to help build a city, one must first build a house, so others might see how it was built. Like other historic campaigns which have isolated the enablers of injustice, we start with Elbit, we shut down their operations, and we strike fear in the hearts of their staff and their investors. Once Elbit Systems of America has been vanquished, we will have a replicable model for targeted direct action, which might be used to target every single conspirator in the occupation of Palestine and the subjugation of the colonized world. Further, we absolutely uphold the necessity of mass demonstrations, marches, and softer forms of direct action. These are all elements of the elaborate tapestry of resistance, but marching alone isn’t enough. Thousands have been arrested in the US for civil disobedience since Oct 7; most of these arrests have been purely symbolic. Imagine if these bodies were blockading arms shipments, dismantling weapons companies, and actually threatening capital.

Power has shown it doesn’t move, even when millions have taken the streets, unless their profits are directly affected, or ruling class fear abounds. Beware of those who wish to co-opt the language of Direct Action for the benefit of their own opportunism and brand-building. Beware of “Shut it Down,” actions which are little more than theatrical performances, meant to contain the revolutionary instinct. For those who don’t live near a primary Elbit Systems location, there ARE targets near you. Bank of New York Mellon is Elbit System’s primary investor, along with being the fiscal sponsor for the Friends of the IDF, a non-profit which allows US citizens to materially support the Zionist Occupation Army. We have officially put Bank of New York Mellon on notice as a target of Palestine Action, and they are in major cities across the country and across the globe. Use this map to find Elbit Systems or Bank of New York Mellon locations near you, connect with Palestine Action US, and build an affinity group today.

Together, we become ungovernable, Together, we defeat the Zionist beast, beginning with Elbit Systems.

[jpitha]

Humans make friends with anything.

It's some strange power they have. I just don't understand it. When we first met Humanity, we were wary. Here was another race, alone for millennia off in their own corner of the galaxy, far from everyone. When we showed up they sounded relieved. There was no threats, no antagonistic actions, they immediately asked to set up embassies on our worlds and invited us to theirs.

Humans in droves volunteered to go to our starbases and colonies, to learn about us, to share with us their technology, and they offered everyone they met a chance to go live on a human station or colony. They really just seemed happy to have someone new to talk to.

That's not to say they were unarmed. We also (much later) learned that with no enemies around they had a tendency to turn on themselves. They showed us videos. We shuddered and looked at them with fearful wide eyes. "You did that, to yourselves?" we whispered.

Without anger, but with some sadness they replied. "Yes. We did that. We thought we had to at the time, and we're not proud of it now, and it took a long time for us to get here, but -sigh- yeah."

Note for others reading this: After much prodding they admitted they did not destroy or dispose of their weapons. Be wary of antagonizing them.

Anyway, we met them and learned about them and they us. We learned that they've been in space a long time. Long enough to assume they were alone in the galaxy at least. They colonized other worlds at regular relativistic speeds! Their planets were decades of flight time apart. Eventually they figured out how to generate wormholes and even though there were some wild side-effects - it turns out 1 in 10 sapients who go through a wormhole die and then...undie when they ship leaves the wormhole. I don't know why and to be honest, I don't think they do either - they used it enthusiastically and shrank their worlds. Not only was going to another world not a one way trip anymore, but you could go take a vacation on another world and come home!

And their ships! Their ships and starbases are beautiful. Each one different, and each one a riot of color and texture. No two were the same and they all were pleasing to look at. When asked why they simply replied "We like it."

Because they thought they were alone, they decided to build friends. Their AIs are unparalleled. They are fully sapient beings with rights and privileges in human space. They can (and do) change bodies at a whim and while most ships have an AI aboard, not all do and not all AIs are ships. There is friction occasionally but mostly, the AIs are friendly with their creators and their creators love their creation.

When we met the humans, they worked hard to show us that they were worthy of being our friend. We work harder than we'll ever admit to them that we work just as hard to be worthy of their friendship.

It's helpful though, that humans make friends with anything.

[gryficowa]

Yes, you see correctly, liberals believe in the propaganda about Hamas that Israel spreads (But when Israel committed these crimes and even worse ones, they remained silent, constantly trumpeting voting for blue terrorists)

Liberals have no dignity or human intelligence, fuck you, you are complicit in genocide, rape, beheading children, burning people alive, fuck Israel, a country like it shouldn't exist and I don't give a damn that it was founded by Jews (Who are colonizers) , so shove all sorts of accusations up your asses, Zionism is Nazism, defending the country of Nazis is disgusting

It's equally disgusting to force people to vote for your terrorists because they give you empty promises that you believe even when your actions say otherwise, you are filthy white privileged American liberals

If Trump wins, at least karma will come back to you for your crimes, but you will probably blame others and not yourself, because you yourself financed the terrorists who fed your disgusting ego

Fuck Zionists and blue people like we fuck Trump and his voters, you are worse than them because you are fake and use gashlighting for your own benefit

You don't support minorities when you defend Harris and the Blues, stop lying that you care about minorities when years ago you attacked them for striking in the name of their own rights because "They don't convince themselves" or "Too aggressive", liberals don't care about minorities, they care about their fragile egos

You were the one who enjoyed the attack on the strikers for Palestine, stop lying that you care about minorities, you are a disgusting liar

Your country is guilty, just like you, because you defend it and defend the people who supply weapons to Israel, if Trump did it, you would trumpet that it is wrong, but when blue terrorists do it, you are fucking silent and ignore it, as if their crimes were not were terrifying enough for you, you are idiots with no moral backbone, but what to expect from liberals? Their backbone is based on what others say, not what people fighting for their rights say…

Your views are based on the fact that you need to be patted on the head, otherwise it's bad and disgusting, you have no borders (Because you don't care about genocide) and double standards, because really, if Trump did what the Blue Party does, you would scream at the top of your lungs Internet, but it's clear that you have no moral principles…

[describe-things]

notfriendlyhougen said 2 hours ago

not reblogging to feed the trolls or whatever but @describe-things please get those pride flags the fuck off of your profile if you actually care so little about queer people and the like by not voting in support of them

[ID: A screenshot of the reply showing the text above. End ID.]

@notfriendlyhougen "stop letting people make their art accessible if you don't support genocide"

ok fascist. You really think you can use Queer people as an excuse to support genocide. You're really that dedicated to pinkwashing genocide to uphold white supermacy you're gonna get mad that I provide people with accessability tools. Do you not understand how pathetically racist and queermisic this is?

You cannot fucking claim you support Queer people if you're going to use our existance to uphold genocide. You are not supporting Queer people by using us as a bludgeon with which to uphold white supremacy and genocide.

Legitimately what has to be wrong with you to make a statement like this. "stop providing people with accessibility tools if you won't support genocide"

Yeah, no, that's not how this works. You do not get to use Queer people to support genocide.

None of us are free until all of us are free. You cannot fucking sacrifice Palestinians or anyone else to win "freedom".

You racist fascist shitheads do not get to pinkwash genocide and pretend that Queer minorities are the "real villains" when we refuse to play your fascist racist genocidal game.

What part of "Queer as in free Palestine" do you not understand.

I am lesbian and transgender. I am a working-class, secular Jewish socialist. So let my first words be these: I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Arab and Muslim people in this room and around the world in the battle against the real axis of evil: the White House, Pentagon and Justice Department. And with every breath and every sinew, I fight for Palestinian liberation.

-Leslie Feinberg at the Al-Fatiha international retreat in Washington DC in the spring of 2002

@notfriendlyhougen you will never get Queer liberation without Palestinian liberation. White Supremacy and Genocide will never pave the way for Queer liberation.

Don't you fucking dare tell actual Queer fucking minorities that we're harming ourselves by giving a shit about people suffering literal gods damned genocide. Don't you fucking dare try to use us as a weapon to silence opposition to white supremacy and colonization.

Voting for Genocide is never voting for the rights of Queer people. And the fact that you want to pretend otherwise just goes to show how despicably fucking evil you've allowed yourself to become.

You want to pretend you care about Queer people but you really only mean Privileged White American Queers. You don't give a single shit about anyone else.

Just fucking say you want to go back to brunch and leave fucking Queer people who actually have morals out of your fucking excuses for why you think it's okay to uphold colonialism, white supremacy, and literal out and out genocide.

There is no Pride in genocide. You cannot fucking weaponize us to support genocide.

I hope you spend every waking moment of the rest of your life suffering in shame for what you've done and what you're going to do.

Don't you fucking dare pretend you care about Queer people when you're fine with them being slaughtered on live TV as long as you think it'll benefit you.

You are not taking a stance for Queer rights. You are willingfully and proudly supporting genocide and white supremacy. And you do not get to fucking weaponize Queer people to justify it.

The fucking gall to demand I stop providing people with accessability tools because I refuse to support genocide. Do you have any fucking clue how absurdly racist and queermisic you are?

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

How true is the idea that I keep seeing in mostly sci-fi stuff is that when one society is low tech meets a high tech society and the high tech society refuses to share their knowledge because the low tech society will misuse it and just cause massive destruction and almost always accompanied by completely devastating examples of that having had happen. Although of course, in stories the tech differences are way more advanced than in real life and and almost always exchanged across different planets and usually species.

Tex: Sci-fi, like every other genre, is a setting used by writers to discuss contemporary issues (see: horror writers and monster trends by generation, CBR, University of Alberta). Using the plots their setting affords them to talk about, say, segregation and systemic privilege, would look a lot like using different species and giving them reductive traits in order to fill the plot of a single TV episode or paid-by-the-word story in a newspaper column.

In order to write true to trope, writers will often exaggerate polarizing aspects of society in order to convey certain themes - enormous differences in technology will often fit the bill, and the plot becomes not about the technology, but about how it is used and who gets to use it, for various reasons.

Whether this is true to real-world societies is up for debate, as well as whether the argument is inherently about technology or that technology is used as a vehicle for other narrative devices. The closest I can postulate is the invention of the printing press in Germany, which saw the printing of Gutenberg Bible and also the rise of the printing press revolution.

Feral: So a lot of this is going to come down to real-world history of colonization and historical & current racism. 

Gene Roddenbury, for example, in developing his utopian Federation creates the Prime Directive, which isn’t about “if we give this lower tech society our tech, they’ll misuse it” so much as “historically, one society attempting to ‘civilize’ another society has been a really bad thing actually.” According to the Prime Directive, the Federation should not interfere, period; this isn’t limited to technology but also imposing moral standards or anything else that might make the Federation feel like a superior society to the “primitive” one that they encounter. Obviously, how much the characters actually heed this varies from episode to episode and plot needs, but that is the idea behind the Prime Directive - it is an attempt at an anti-colonizer mindset.

You’ll also see a lot of fiction in which the group with the higher tech is also the more morally bankrupt. This usually plays out because “higher tech” usually just means weapons. And this has a lot to with white guilt, white saviorism, and the Noble Savage trope.

I don’t know any examples off the top of my head like what you’re describing - that the less technologically advanced society would not use the technology wisely enough so the other society withholds their tech - but I am sure that it exists and I have probably encountered it. This too comes from colonialism. There is no moral attachment to technological invention. Complex social structures can and have existed without certain inventions - namely, in the case of the Age of Colonization, guns and warships. This can be dressed as “the group that did not develop the technology can fully appreciate the dangers the technology poses.” And this may carry some water in first contact stories in which the technology has not been used yet, but that falls apart as soon as the technology is used in front of or against the other group. The real fear that this is about is not that They are going to misuse Our technology, but that They are going to use Our technology against Us.

Also, again, this assumes that higher tech = greater firepower. Tex gave the example of the printing press as technological advancement, which can be and has been weaponized. But what about agricultural and medical technology advancement? You can say, “we don’t trust ourselves to not use sharing this technology to alter this society to look more like us,” which is what the Prime Directive does. You can say, “we could only achieve this advancement through morally bankrupt means, so we won’t taint this other society with our sins,” which is what white saviorism does. You can say, “we will only share this technology in such a way so that we can bend it to suit our needs; otherwise, we won’t share and make the group dependent on us,” which is what colonialism does. But these are not the only three avenues that are possible, nor are any of them foregone conclusions. 

When you’re evaluating any story or trope, the main questions are what message is the author trying to convey and how does this help to achieve that message? (Always keep in mind that the author may have failed in achieving their goal message.) And when doing this, remember that tropes don’t spring forth out of nothingness. There are often real world histories and anxieties that produce them; always look for those.

Licorice: When, in human history, a “high” tech society has encountered a “lower” tech society, the devastation has almost always been caused by the higher tech society. (I think the exception might be the Mongols, who were somewhat less technologically “advanced” than the Han Chinese). It’s generally been the high tech society that has misused its tech to wipe out, oppress, and/or control the lower tech society. In the few cases I know of where a society has actively sought to keep its “advanced” tech a secret, this has never been out of consideration for other societies, but to protect its own economic and political interests - e.g. Britain in the industrial revolution; China and its silkworms I guess. 

Given human nature and the evidence of our own past, if we were in the future to encounter a lower tech society of space aliens, we’d be much more likely to either use our tech to take them over, or try to sell it to them in return for something we want e.g. Europeans selling guns to the kingdom of Dahomey in return for slaves, or to the Japanese in return for silver. 

The Prime Directive is, as Feral points out, the invention of a science fiction writer. Like the Declaration of Human Rights, it’s a collective appeal to our better nature. My understanding of it, which might be wrong, is that this rule about not giving societies tech they aren’t ready for wasn’t just to avoid the risk of them destroying themselves, but also an expression of a belief that societies ought to be allowed to evolve authentically and organically, in their own time and their own way, without outside interference or “contamination”. The Prime Directive embodies an ideal to strive for. 

In reality, individual human beings would be breaking it all the time if they thought it would be to their personal advantage. 

[atopvisenyashill]

I am so glad you articulated the criticism of Dany crucifying the slavers as a political folly and not a moral folly like listen I am a Dany fan if I could send asks from my sideblog you would know this but I do not believe we are supposed to just brush off the crucifixion like Dany herself isn’t even fully convinced it was the right thing to do. Remembering it she feels sick and has to shut down her doubts and TELL HERSELF it was right. She is an interesting character to me because she can’t stand the compromises she must make to maintain peace AND YET she does want justice and liberation BUT she also hates the suffering and bloodshed of war AND YET she is quick to command violence on impulse. I do think her peace in Meereen was real (big Meereen Knot Essays believer) but all of her internal conflicts lead her to her mistakes. Can’t stand peace but can’t stand war so she just tears herself apart!! It’s tragic! It’s interesting! So much more interesting than an unambiguously heroic Dany who makes no mistakes ever!

Yeah, like....it's certainly morally messy, and I think it's morally more messy because Dany isn't a slave of the Ghiscari like Missandei or an Unsullied like Grey Worm, Red Lamb, etc who is rising up and using violent revolution to liberate the slave class of Meereen - she is a descendant from a foreign, formerly slaving culture that enslaved most of the cultures represented in Meereen, someone of noble birth who has experienced immense suffering but was able to pull herself out of it because of her immense social privilege and magical abilities, using violence in an attempt to liberate those her family had once helped subjugate while...still keeping herself at the top of the pyramid.

There's a lot of mess and contradictions in this situation and I find it much less interesting (as you say) when people paint what Dany is doing here as unambiguously heroic. I know I sound like a broken clock when I say it, but the justification of "well this culture has slavery and slavery is bad" is the exact sort of rationalization many colonial and imperial powers make when conquering. White Americans made it about various Indigenous communities ("oh well the Iroquois had slaves and conquered their neighbors" yeah and white americans had chattel slavery which is objectively worse so what now??), the UK and France used it as a rationale for conquering most of Africa and parts of Asia; there's always this annoying through-line of "well Africans sold themselves into slavery" and I think making this argument that "Well the Ghiscari are brutal slavers" is really similar. And I know people don’t like the dragon/nuke comparison or the imperialism/colonizer comparisons but….what made the genocides of the Americas, and the colonization and imperialism of the 20th centuries stand out from the wars that came before is the sort of hellish combination of nationalism, political schisms, fervent hatred of the Other, and industrial growth. Never before could people amass armies and kill on such a massive scale before. Never before did we have weapons that were so fucking good at killing. Never before did we have the bureaucracy capable of streamlining the process so damn well! (and not for lacking of trying, shout out rome but like...still). I think the dragons are a commentary on that - when someone has access to technology like that, can one person be left to decide if it’s use is good or evil? can one culture not be completely corrupted by their technological advances? can nuclear bombs or weapons Ever be used for good, and if they can be then where is that line drawn? who draws the line? why does that person get to draw the line? I don't think any of this will have a clear answer because that's not exactly how he does things - he's just writing a scenario about this and letting us analyze why it happens on our own.

So it’s like okay the Ghiscari and Dothraki are slaving cultures...Sacking a city is still a violent, destructive thing to do and she does it three times including to a city she is attempting to rule. The moment she had an inkling she might be ruling Meereen, she should have rethought her actions there so she doesn’t start off alienating a large group of people. Coming in as a stranger from a culture who used to be slavers and constantly making comments about how much she hates the culture she’s ruling over is....not great! Dany going back and forth between "I hate these people I was right to crucify them" and "there's too much violence amongst these people I have to stop the violence" is why the issues in Meereen become so complicated. Does she have reasons for acting this way? Yes! It doesn't change the outcome of her actions!

What's interesting about her is that as you say, she does realize this conflicting dichotomy within herself! That’s like, the entire issue she’s facing in Meereen - she wants peace because she knows that’s what’s best for the people there and yet struggles to control her boredom and temper because she is too traumatized to sit still any longer. She’s associated the constant move, the constant fight, the violence and blood and death and destruction with righteousness, justice, goodness, and we can SEE it’s having a negative effect on her psyche, her emotions. She’s not HAPPY by the ending of adwd, she’s not self actualized, she’s just hardened herself completely in the face of this unending monster of a campaign. She wants off this ride and yet she’s unable to find a way out. I don’t think we’re meant to cheer her on here!! SHE is barely cheering herself on here!!! It’s a burden to her!!!!

[inariedwards]

Statement by the One Democratic State Initiative:

Israel's latest terrorist attacks on Lebanon, which used devices ranging from walkie-talkies to car parts to claim the lives of dozens and wound thousands, left humankind with a global feeling of dread. In any upcoming war, any party —a state, a militia, a lone psychopath, or someone else— may use your phone or your car to blow you up.

Of all belligerent entities in the world, it had to be the settler colony of Israel that ushered in this new, dark age of human history.

This should lead us to at least two conclusions.

First, that violence is intrinsic to the existence of a state that politicizes identities to enact and justify its occupation and settler colonization. And that, therefore, all efforts must be made to dismantle this state in favor of one that does not grant colonial privileges.

Second, that standing against the Zionist project and the global colonial project it originates from is not mere "solidarity with Palestine". It is a stance of self-defense. A stance that should be translated in a global struggle to dismantle this global system that weaponizes everything, from pagers to religions.

The next chapter of humankind need not be as dark as Zionism. The One Democratic State Initiative calls on Palestinians, Israeli allies and allies worldwide to join political organizations that adopt such a clear vision for the dismantling of the global colonial project, and welcomes coordinating efforts worldwide.

Source on Facebook

Twitter thread

Instagram post

LinkedIn post

[infinitysisters]

“Like everything based on the writings of Karl Marx—seeing oppressors and colonial struggles everywhere—DEI was doomed to fail. The uniformity of thought known as intersectionality, fostered by DEI, meant all oppressed people must support all others who are oppressed. But that idea burst on Oct. 7 when Hamas raped, murdered and kidnapped Israelis. Many liberals, especially Jewish ones, couldn’t support genocidal “colonized” terrorists. Pop! The long march is in retreat.

By the way, ESG, or investing based on “environmental, social and governance” principles, peaked last June, when BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said he would stop using “the word ESG anymore, because it’s been entirely weaponized.” Never mind that performance of ESG funds has been sketchy and that BlackRock had been adding the label “sustainable” or “ESG” to funds and charging up to five times as much. Then a study published in December by Boston University’s Andrew Kingfound “no reliable evidence for the proposed link between sustainability and financial performance.” Pop!

Most offensive to me was DEI’s devious underlying agenda: societal design. 𝐁𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐰𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐚 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐧, 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬. That was the “my truth” that Ms. Gay invoked on her exit. Critical theories and Marxist techniques would take power from you and me, using big government as the enforcer.

The new societal design, embedded in DEI and ESG, envisioned idyllic communal progress. 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐬. Diversity meant ideological conformity. Equity meant discrimination. Inclusion meant blurring the sexes. Men winning women’s athletic events would be considered normal. It was all theatrics, like the tampons I’ve seen in men’s bathrooms on Ivy League campuses. Somewhere George Orwell is rolling on the floor laughing.

One goal of progressive societal design is to shrink—depopulation. Twenty-somethings now question having children. Net zero and degrowth, both World Economic Forum approved, are pushed via energy myths: carbon bad, cows bad. A plant-based chicken in every pot and two electric cars in every garage. They envy the merit-touting rich, shout “inequality” and wear “Tax the Rich” dresses. They tear down statues to erase history. How did we let this happen?

𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧, 𝐢𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧. There was very little free speech at Harvard—the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression ranked it last of all colleges last year. Those against the societal-design agenda were shouted down. Dissent was met with accusations of privilege or cancellation. Conform or be cast out. On a larger scale, the Biden administration co-opted social media to censure opposing views.

I, like most Americans, am for diversity, but not when it’s forced or mandated. In a 2017 interview, Mr. Fink admitted BlackRock would use DEI tactics to “force behaviors” of corporations on “gender or race,” including via management compensation. Now that’s power.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜���� 𝐰𝐞’𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞. Does national security adviser Jake Sullivan really care about equity or climate change? It polled well and put him back in power to implement his own societal design via “industrial strategy.”

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬. 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬. Those prices inform production much better than any government bureaucrat or Harvard professor. Societal design—remember Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society?—requires government control. I’ll take freedom.

Preferred pronouns are fading. College admissions, and maybe hiring, based on race is illegal. DEI departments are being deconstructed. But while the DEI movement may have peaked, like that Monty Python character, it’s not dead yet. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐄𝐈 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫.”

— Andy Kessler//WSJ

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Ribu's anti-imperialist feminist discourse would later manifest in its solidarity protests against kisaeng tourism. This sex tourism involved Japanese businessmen traveling to South Korea to partake in the sexual services of young South Korean women who worked at clubs called kisaengs. Ribu's protests against kisaeng tourism represented how the liberation of sex combined with ribu's anti-imperialism and enabled new kinds of transnational feminist solidarity based on a concept of women's sexual exploitation and sexual oppression. From ribu's perspective, this form of tourism represented the reformation of Japanese economic imperialism in Asia. They were not against sex work by Japanese women, but opposed to the continued sexual exploitation of Korean women as a resurgence of the gendered violence of imperialism: Ribu activists hence connected imperialism and sexual oppression of colonized women to the continuing sexual exploitation of Korean women in the 1970s. In this way, they were able to expand the leftist critique of imperialism and, at the same time, point to the fault lines and inadequacies of the left.

In her critique of the left, Tanaka points to its failure to have a theory of the sexes.

Even in movements that are aiming towards human liberation, by not having a theory of struggle that includes the relation between the sexes. the struggle becomes thoroughly masculinist and male-centered (dansei-chushin shugi].

According to ribu activists, this male-centered condition infected not only the theory of the revolution and delimited its horizon, but it created a gendered concept of revolution that privileged masculinist hierarchies within the culture of the left. Ribu activists decried the hypocrisy of the left and what it deemed to be the all-too-frequent egotistical posturing of the "radical men" who "eloquently talked about solidarity, the inter national proletariat and unified will," but did not really consider women part of human liberation. Ribu activists rebelled against Marxist dogma and rejected these gendered hierarchies that valued knowledge of the proper revolutionary theory over lived experience and relationships. Moreover, ribu activists criticized what they experienced as masculinist forms of militancy that privileged participation in street battles with the riot police as the ultimate sign of an authentic revolutionary. While being trained to use weapons, activists like Mori Setsuko questioned whether engaging in such bodily violence was the way to make revolution. Ribu's rejection and criticism of a hierarchy that privileged violent confrontation forewarned of the impending self-destruction within the New Left.

...

News of URA [United Red Army] lynchings, released in 1972, devastated the reputation of the New Left in Japan, and many across the left condemned these actions. This case of internalized violence within the left marked its demise. Although ribu activists were likewise horrified by such violence expressed against comrades, many ribu activists responded in a profoundly radical manner that I have theorized elsewhere as "critical solidarity." Ribu activists had already refused to lionize the tactics of violence; hence, they in no way supported the violent internal actions of the URA. However, rather than simply condemning the URA leaders and comrades as monsters and nonhumans [hi-ningen), they sought to comprehend the root of the problem. They recognized that every person possesses a capacity for violence, but that society prohibits women from expressing their violent potential. In response to the state's gendered criminalization of Nagata as an insurgent and violent woman, ribu activists practiced what I describe as feminist critical solidarity specifically for the women of the URA. Ribu activists went in support to the court hearings and wrote about their experience and critical observations of how URA members were being treated. By visiting the URA women at the detention centers, consequently, ribu activists came under police surveillance. Ribu activists enacted solidarity in ways that were tot politically pragmatic but instead philosophically motivated. Their response involved a capacity for radical self-recognition in the loathsome actions of the other. Activists wrote extensively about Nagata - for example, Tanaka described Nagata in her book Inochi no onna-tachi e [To Women with Spirit] as a kind of "ordinary" woman whom she could have admired, except for the tragedy of the lynching incidents. In 1973, Tanaka wrote a pamphlet titled "Your Short Cut Suits You, Nagata!" in response to the state's gendered criminalization of the URA's female leader, the deliberate publication of such humanizing discourse evinces ribu's efforts to express solidarity with the women who were arguably the most vilified females of their time. Hence, ribu engaged in actions that supported these criminalized others even when the URA'S misguided pursuit of revolution resulted in the unnecessary deaths of their own comrades. Through ribu's critical solidarity with the URA, they modeled the imperative of imperfect radical alliances, opening up a philosophically motivated relationality with abject subjects and a new horizon of counter-hegemonic alliances against the dominant logic of heteropatriarchal capitalist imperialism.

While the harsh criticism of the left was warranted and urgently needed given the deep sedimentation of pervasive forms of sexist practice, it should be noted that, at the outset of the movement, there were various ways in which ribu's intimate relationship with other leftist formations characterized its emergence. At ribu's first public protest, which was part of the October 21 anti-war day, some women carried bamboo poles and wooden staves as they marched in the street, jostling with the police." Ribu did not advocate pacifism; its newspapers regularly printed articles on topics such as "How to Punch a Man." During ribu protests from 1970-2, some ribu activists-as noted, with Yonezu and Mori - still wore helmets that were markers of one's political sect and a common student movement practice."

- Setsu Shigematsu, “'68 and the Japanese Women’s Liberation Movement,” in Gavin Walker, ed., The Red Years: Theory, Politics and Aesthetics in the Japanese ‘68. London and New York: Verso, 2020. p. 89-90, 91-92

[ultfreakme]

If Absolute Power does it right, then you can have an amazing story arc with Jon, Jay and Nia about autonomy with the Waller situation.

Jon, from his conception, has been saddled with the story arc of being seen as a weapon or a tool of mass destruction. Jon himself is very aware of this and is afraid of this power. He's been controlled and trapped because of this by a lot of people, and Waller is one among them.

Jay is also a victim of having his freedom and autonomy being taken away all the time. His struggle with freedom is more historical due to Gamorra being colonized, exploited and abused- Jay is sort of a stand-in or representation of the Gamorran struggle. This manifests more obviously in him being forcefully experimented on.

Nia's powers have been the reason she's felt trapped, but also a source of liberation since it affirms who she is and gives her the chance to build a better life for herself. But these powers are now being used to control her, exploit her.

All of them have had power, enviable power, but ultimately it has never been theirs to hold or control.

They were all seen as tools.

These characters have also helped one another find strength in their powers (specifically in SOKE) but in Absolute Power, they are all being used against each other to strip down their autonomy. There's so much to commentate. How people in power force the marginalized to antagonize each other, how systematic injustice will keep you down, the queer themes coming in, the intersectional privileges in play(Nia being a US citizen and prioritizing Parthas at the cost of Gamorra, Jon initially thinking Jay shouldn't be involved in the final fight against Bendix and how the people should liberate themselves rather than use someone else, Naltorians abandoning Cyandiians, etc).

Like all three of these characters were torn down, but they formed a friendship first by helping one another. They have all experienced marginalization; Jay because he's an immigrant, Nia because she's trans and an alien, Jon because he's half-kryptonian. It's so heartbreaking to see these three in this situation.