#why yes i am usamerican

[arthur-lesters-left-arm]

if you’re relying on a time traveling blind man with a gun and control of only one arm, you can’t expect him to make the shot every time

[iwantthesouptube]

My new favorite petty reason to block people is when they complain about grits in the tags of that breakfast food poll. This blog is a safe space for people who love grits and hate oatmeal

[juanabaloo]

looks like I picked the wrong week to determine if my new anti depressant medication is working.

[transgenderbread]

saying this as someone who does in fact have a weird emotional attachment to meat. why do so many people have a weird emotional attachment to meat that being told to not eat it causes you to get Weird and Angry about it

[jynjackets]

can someone, maybe Mr Explain His Accent himself, explain to me in detail why B*x had to be Latina if she wasn't from Kenari and wasn't related to C@ssian? and why there were no other Latinas (as far I am aware of) in the cast? because this whole drugs/sexualization/womb-to-carry-the-bloodline/farm thing looks bad on any woman and even worse on a Latina and even more worse if there's only one Latina. was Adri@ supposed to play his sister originally and Mr Accent Explainer changed that to sexualize her?

anon pls 💀

Yes it feels painfully obvious. I think it’s hard to explain micro-aggressive xenophobia when people don’t even know about blatant xenophobia. Despite this, it’s going to bug me if I don’t spell it all out at least once.

Bin’s role was always part of the plan based on how prepared the script was for the actor. The casting specifically calling for a latina in her 20’s implicates the intention for her to match a ‘look’ they were going for, meaning there’s no coincidence that she looks like a modern influencer with veneers and botox. As a Razzie winner, we can say she was not hired for her talents. To fit the narrative for s2 she is made to be a stereotypical spicy latina wife with cringe dialogue and more sexualization to match.

The actor themselves having a consistent history of desiring roles where she’s serviceable to men, she could only be the perfect choice for such a regressive character. It’s worth mentioning that the actor loves the canon character exactly as she is so much she got a tattoo of her name, even when the creator himself begged her not to.

We know from interviews that tony has been trying to literally change what the fandom ships. Embarrassing. In order to sell a grand romance as a usurper, he pulls out all the classic sexist hetero tropes, particularly with her being a damsel in near constant distress and stay-at-home gf. Not only are bin and andor cassian violently heterosexual based on the show’s extra attention to past relationships, they get the latino bonus treatment with torture, attempted rape, and substance abuse.

To usamericans, they appear to be the same ‘race’ which, based on the pertinent xenophobia with cassian’s emphasis as an outsider, the need to explain his accent, as well as the fact she is the only latina in the entire show, this is designed to imply a racially-motivated ‘special’ bond. They are trying to make their latino status exotic in other words, by way of othering this particular couple based on their appearances and what we know about them.

Bin is latina to sell the idea that the couple have this idyllic heteronormative incest-coded homestead lifestyle while also allowing the benefit of each being sexualized to death. This is to all of course accomplish the idea that cassian would only and could only love a woman he is physical with, share a long history with, and even share the same ‘race’ with. On its own, without the implication this is meant for Jyn, I don’t know how to say how fucking disgustingly xenophobic and misogynistic this all is.

Why is nobody talking about the sexist latino elephant in the room?

Details and subtext like this are often reduced to speculation in fandom even if you’re talking about your own representation. Whenever minorities do talk about their own mistreatment, they are bullied into submission and told that we are “reading too much into things” or “taking it too personally.” That our complaints are a reach simply because somebody just feels like it is.

On top of that, Bin’s role as an ex is a sensitive topic for people who are particularly afraid to out themselves as misogynists. This may be because… they are 💀.

Or, they are inconspicuously pursuing male validation while projecting this idea onto all women. ‘All women are going to hate her because shes a girlfriend in the way, but not me because i’m different.’

Or they genuinely prefer women to be this way. They’re tired of women doing masculine or independent things because their scope doesn’t go past why this is important for women. They might be the kind to say that it’s okay to wear makeup or it’s okay to want to be a tradwife.

Or are prioritizing a narrative created by men on ‘female competition’, that to fight it they must do the complete opposite and be friends with everyone. This group doesn’t realize they are operating their lives completely based on what men think. They are also treating women as interchangeable instead of individuals if you really think you can like and be friends with all women, real or fictional.

Whichever of these reasons is the case, it is still misogynistic. There’s probably more reasons having to do with being obsessed with men but i don’t feel like getting into that today.

So then there’s this not-mutually-exclusive last group that HC or OC her and pretend she’s not all of these nasty things. And personally, I don’t understand how plastering fictional poop with fictional gold services the author or anybody when there are hundreds of relevant and inspiring not-poop all over the galaxy. Many of them are already gold you don’t need to pretend. Telling people, especially the people that the poop is supposed to represent, that it’s not poop, doesn’t actually change its DNA or its purpose. It’s still shit.

[transmutationisms]

Hello! I have a question. My brother in law is studying to become a doctor (usamerican) and I recently had a conversation with him where we discussed drugs and addiction. I had read your antipsych faq a few days before, and though I admit that I am terribly under informed, I pushed back against some of the ideas he had, but some of the things he said I’m still working through and wondered if there any go to readings you’d recommend?

For example, when talking about drugs and addiction, I asked him if someone being an addict or being addicted was always a bad thing, because if someone wants to take drugs and are aware of the effects they should be allowed.

His response was that if a person is addicted to a drug then they don’t have that choice on the matter anymore then it is a bad thing. He also added that a lot of people aren’t actually informed of what a drug will do to them before they take it.

I didn’t have a good response to this and I’ve been thinking about it sense. I really appreciate your writings on antipsych; its definitely helped further my outlook on it. Thanks for your time!

-i have a drugs tag and an addiction tag (idr why i have both. sorry lol) you might want to check out in addition to my general psychiatry tag. for one thing Addiction is not a concept that even has a singular definition nor should we be reifying it

-this is precisely one thing that biopsychiatric diagnoses get perpetuated for lmfao, to remove patient autonomy by referring back to a biological entity that controls your brain and thus justifies the physician intervening oh so beneficently and in a manner that just so happens to always also line up with what their professional interests & thus the state and legal uses of their profession demand. does it matter these biological disease entities are heuristic assumptions that are circularly defined and always 'just around the corner' from being empirically confirmed for the last two and half centuries? no. does it matter this narrative does not 'reduce stigma' or contribute to patient 'recovery' but traps people in institutions to be traumatised? no. what matters is that your socially deviant behaviour is not actually just personally objectionable to me, the doctor, in fact it is actually prima facie evidence of your diseased brain (bc if you had a normal healthy brain then you naturally wouldn't be doing this pervert behaviour that i hate and that the state has economic interests in suppressing in order to make the lines on the graphs go up) so therefore it's clear you must lack self control and self possession and it's actually good for you if i forcibly intervene to correct you. in fact it would be irresponsible of me not to override your stated objections and impose my own judgment of what's best for you. i wrote a related essay about the rhetorical traps of these medical concepts of harm here

-if this person actually gave two shits about people being able to make informed decisions about drug use (i do) he could try oh i don't know. informing them about drugs (he won't bc he is a cop who believes only in scaring them straight and then punishing them sober)

-biopolitics tag also be upon ye

-typical doctor attitude to be quite fucking honest & exactly why i self censor intead of arguing with any of these demons irl. like godbless if you want to go back in but you won't win. sorry!

[lenalenouilleisblogging]

2024 feminist movie retrospective ~ day 6

YES. ANOTHER FRENCH FILM. AM I PATRIOTIC OR WHAT 🇫🇷🥐💥🥖🐓🐓💥💥🥖🥐🇫🇷🇫🇷💥

Watched : November 17th at my city's independent theater. The showing was.... I forgor.

Today i'm gonna take my time ; because to properly talk about my thoughts on Sauvages (trad: Savages) from director Claude Barras, i first need to mention two other films. Have you heard of Kirikou et la Sorcière (trad: Kirikou and the witch)? It's a huge classic of french animation released in 1998. When i was just old enough to focus on feature length films, this was the first one i became obsessed with and asked to watch on repeat. (even tho some parts really scared me) Every classmate i had my whole life knew this film and had grown up with it as well, it's a staple for my generation. So i was shocked when years and years later i learned that Kirikou was never widely released in the US. It was distributed by a small french-american company for an African culture festival, but not without some notes on the posters to warn the parents who would want to take their kids to see the film.

Why would they need to be warned you ask? Because Kirikou is a tale that takes place in West Africa, and it contains quite a bit of nudity. None of the adult characters wear tops, including the women, and the young children are fully naked for most of the film. Even tho it is never ever sexual in nature or really even the focus of any shot, it was a BIG problem for a lot of countries when the film was released. It was also a problem here in France while it was being produced (tho to be fair a lot of that was just racism) but it didn't end up being much of a problem with the french public. The film was obviously allowed for all ages as France doesn't have rules against this kind of content, and as a kid's film it ended up being, as i said earlier, a huge classic.

I used to date a USAmerican, and talking about this film i grew up with and love was quite the cultural shock. My ex was shocked by the content of the film, and kept being shocked by different elements of other french kid classics i introduced them to. This really made me realise like few things had before just how sanitised art is in certain countries and it was a bit depressing. I'm really happy that i grew up with the things i did, and i'm really glad France is still producing content that appeals to kids without treating them like idiots. Case in point : the second movie i wanna talk about, Ma Vie de Courgette (trad: My Life as a Zucchini).

This was Claude Barras's first film, and a huge critical success when it came out. I'm not gonna dwell on it too much as this is getting too long, but it was, well, very french as well. The movie didn't show anything explicit, but it was about very dark and serious issues, and didn't shy away from any of them. Back when it came out, i read some reviews from foreign watchers online, and with the way they spoke about it, i thought "holy shit! This must be the darkest, grimmest film of the year?!" Then i watched it, and i was like "oh okay, this is just a french film lol." A lot of people from english speaking countries just aren't used to serious subjects in animated films, much less in animated films that are marketed towards all audiences. The film takes place in an orphanage and the kids talk about why they have to live here. One is the son of drug addicts, one is the daughter of an illegal immigrant who got deported, one's dad is now in jail for doing "weird and disgusting things to her that gave her nightmares", etc. It's all very serious, yet the vocabulary and presentation is very kid friendly. I don't hang out with many kids these days, but i know the film was really popular for school movie trips.

This all very much applies to today's film, Sauvages. Like Ma Vie de Courgette, it is stop-motion animated with figures, and you can really tell the team benefited from a huge budget increase. The previous one was already super well made, but this one is just stunning to look at. Every shot is full to the brim with incredible details that are all the more impressive considering this is claymation. The acting is great all around and the dialogues feel super real. The movie has no original soundtrack, but great sound design. The only musics you'll hear will be the musical selection of french classics the characters listen to.

The story takes place in Borneo and follows Kéria, a young girl who was born in an indigenous Penan community. Since her mother passed away, her father moved to the city and works in a palm oil plantation. She's now just a typical angsty tween who goes to her christian school and doesn't really remember her heritage. Her father and her rescue a baby orangutan from woodcutters who just killed its mom. Kéria gets very attached to the baby so when it runs away to follow her Penan cousin Selaï into the forest, she follow them. The rest of the film follows the two kids as they make their way through the nature and end up facing woodcutters who are trying to displace the local Penan community.

The movie's message is super well done. I expected it to be mostly about environmentalism, but turns out this is more about the protection of native communities. The film is honestly really subtle and doesn't beat you over the head with it, and it always remains very fun. The baby ape is just adorable and some of his facial expressions reminded me of Wallace and Gromit's animation. The characters feel very real and likeable, and the film has a great sense of flow. The 90 minutes honestly flew by. The movie is pretty light-hearted for most of it but it has its moments! (well, just ONE moment at the end that honestly shocked me a bit because of how unexpected it was)

As for everything i mentioned at the beginning of this post, some parts get really serious, and then there's also the nudity. We see breastfeeding, we see casual female nudity in multiple contexts and it always feel natural. Now. Why do i keep bringing this up? Well, non-sexual female nudity is super important for representation, and, i think, even more so in pieces of art made for a younger audience.

Breasts are not inherently sexual. The female chest in general is not inherently sexual. Yet we sell bikinis for girls who are literally not old enough to walk yet. We're so backwards that a woman being bare-chested in public is associated with extremist radical feminism. It's just our bodies. I think showing little things like this (because let's be clear, it IS just a little thing. You're not going to see tits in every shot.) to kids is super healthy. It's a great message for little boys and especially little girls.

In short, i recommend not only Sauvages but also the two other films i talked about today. It's entertaining, it's emotional, it's educative, it's very pretty to look at, it has a FANTASTIC ending. It's a very enjoyable watch as an adult, and i also recommend them for kids 7 and up if there's any sibling or cousin you do movie nights with.

Final rating : MONKEEEEEE/10

This film gets the official Léna seal of approval! It's one of the best of 2024! Here's a link to the trailer. Here's also the trailer for Ma Vie de Courgette (with subtitles! :D)

[elbiotipo]

Thinking about superheroes as a Usamerican thing.

You see, the thing about the United States during the 20th century is that it didn't experience major unrest. I know what you're going to say, and yes, there was PLENTY of unrest. But overall, the structure of the state was never compromised. There was never a coup, there was never a civil war, there was never a foreign invasion. War? It did happen, but in distant shores. You could live (and indeed, many did live) a comfortable life for decades without any kind of major political struggle reaching you. Many classic superhero stories have them showing up somewhere before or during WWII, just when the US was reaching the zenith of its global power.

And that's why a superhero in the United States has it easy. Just fight crime, and the ocassional supervillain, or alien invaders. Truth, Justice, and the (Us)american way. After all, you are convinced that you are fighting for democracy and liberty, who wouldn't want to do that? Okay, but what about civil rights and such? Oh, no need to get into politics, just do a speech about how kindness is the way, without getting into specifics. Most famous people do (many famous people did). It's easy. The government of the US will change parties, things will change, but at the end, you have decades of prosperity ahead, without really needing to pick a side, just punch bad guys.

What if Superman had landed in Santa Rosa, Territorio Nacional de La Pampa, Argentina instead? Say, somewhere in the 30s. During the Década Infame, coming of age during Perón's rise to power. What would an Argentine Superman do? Would he support Perón against the "Revolución Libertadora" coup? What would he do when the military's Gloster Meteors fly over Plaza de Mayo and bomb civilians? What would have he done as the military couped civilian governments and repressed protests? What would have he had done as the country split over ideological lines? When the dictators kidnapped and dissapeared people from the street and stole their children? When the struggle between popular movements and the interests of the oligarchs was very, very open? Would just a bland statement would suffice?

What if, instead, he had landed in Jinan, Shandong, China, again, somewhere during the 30s. As the Japanese were invading. This isn't like the US, where they could participate in World War II from far away. The enemies are at the gates. And after that, there is a civil war between communists and nationalists. There are sides to pick. There are big changes to come, there is a new China, there is a revolution, there is a Cold War, there is an industrialization that will change the lives of millions, there is struggle, against enemies abroad, and revolutions inside.

For that matter, China has the largest population in the world during this era. Others like India aren't that far behind. As it often happens with superhero settings, soon other superheroes and villains will appear and do the whole justice league thing. Now, why are they all in the US? Even assuming the US is the core of superpowers, with all the aliens landing and mad science going on... don't you think that there would be more of them in the Third World, just out of sheer demographics. Isn't the USSR, Japan, and other countries doing also its mad science experiments? Who are their superheroes?

And what side do all those "super-people" take? Because it can't just be Truth, Justice and the American way. They don't even call themselves American... unless they were, indeed, born in Latin America. Why does Capitán América has to carry the US flag, anyways?

Where am I going with this? Don't know, just something to think. It's kinda strange that none of these super-people have REALLY to take a side beyond a vague 'good vs. evil' right? I bet at least some of them has some kind of political opinion. And the means to enact it on the world.

[marimayscarlett]

Sorry to jump in on all the Till stuff that’s happening—I’m sure you’re probably getting your fair share of asks about it, but I think a lot of non-Americans (and Americans alike) don’t actually understand that Mar-A-Lago is, yes, a pay-for-membership type place, but it doesn’t look like Till actually…stayed there. Not only was the visit seemingly kinda last minute (I’m inferring here based on the caption of one pic/vid literally being ‘impromptu’) but it also wouldn’t necessarily be his decision where to perform, and Mar-A-Lago rents out spaces for private events. More than likely, whoever was running his event booked the place because of its proximity to larger areas of Florida (like artists booking in cities like Buffalo or Hoboken to allow for people from NYC and surrounding larger areas to come without the issues that a big city may impose onto a touring artist).

Anyway, just my thoughts as a USAmerican Till fan. Am I disappointed? Sure; his newest mv hit a bit weird and it’s not super cool to see the guy who wrote “Amerika” and “Links 2 3 4” at Mar-A-Lago. But even so, I don’t think he intends to actually hurt anybody or stir up controversy—not in this case, anyway. I think any provocative thing he does is specifically in the name of artistry just like it seems to be with the rest of the band (ehem. Pussy, the onstage dildo antics, etc).

I think he’s aging and trying to figure out what he as a 62 year old icon wants to do and where he wants to be. But I don’t think it’s fair to scrutinize every single thing he does—if we did that for every metal musician, we would be hard pressed by some pretty superfluous stuff. Not to discount anybody’s anger, but some of the stuff the fandom has been getting upset about seems pretty silly, in my opinion. He isn’t the first musician to use AI nor is he the first to use a mv to vent his personal frustrations—we can say it could’ve been done better (because it could have!) but what’s done is done, and here’s hoping he learns from this.

Basically, all this to say: as a very anti-Trump, leftist American, I really don’t fault him for the Mar-A-Lago thing. I went to school next to one of the Trump hotels, and it was never a big deal when people like Ariana Grande or the Kardashians stayed there or rented out the private rooms (this is actually anecdotal, this happened a LOT). I think we have more important things to deal with than why one of our faves happened to step foot within a specific part of Florida when he’s been outspoken about anti-fascism and his own personal dislike of the current administration. Sorry that this ended up as more of a vent than a short ask, your blog is one of my faves and I feel comfortable getting it all out here <3

Hi 👋🏻

I had this ask in my inbox five times - either you really wanted me to answer it, or Tumblr had a glitch 😄

I'll go through your message step by step and add my thoughts as bullet points:

- I do understand that Mar-a-Lago is essentially a resort or a hotel or something in that direction (I wasn’t assuming Till was staying there permanently in the sense of sleeping there or anything like that). Until 2017, even the Red Cross held an annual charity ball there. However, my main association with the estate was the FBI’s 2022 search, which was also covered in German media.

- Whether Till actually has a choice in selecting where he sings/performs is a valid point. Especially when abroad, one often has to rely on locals who know the area.

- Personally, I also don’t believe he intentionally wants to offend people with his actions. However, I do think that sometimes a little more mindfulness or willingness to inform oneself before making decisions would be appropriate.

- As I mentioned previously, I see it similarly: one shouldn’t lose their mind over every little thing - that’s unhealthy for one’s mental well-being. And, as I said in the past few days, if we applied the highest moral standards to everything, we wouldn’t be able to consume a lot of music, films, art, and books.

- I can’t comment on his new music video because I’ve only seen snippets. I understand that the use of artificial intelligence doesn’t sit well with many people, but not everything has to be to one’s liking.

- I appreciate getting an American perspective. As a European, I mostly hear about Trump through the news, where he comes across as a rather pleasant unperson and politician, bulldozing his way through global politics. Honestly, that’s quite off-putting and makes anything associated with him seem very fishy.

So, thank you for taking the time to write out your opinion in such detail! In discussions like these, it's important to engage in a structured and respectful exchange of thoughts 🤲🏻

[tossawary]

Tried watching some of "Star Trek: Enterprise" during work (that's the pre-Kirk one). The emphasis on the fact that Humans and Vulcans have been acquainted for, what, 100 years or so...? Like, okay, this show is going to be about various Human and Vulcan characters learning to get along over the course of the show, I presume, so the show wants them to have a very rocky start. I get that. "Star Trek" is constructed by writers to be a vehicle for heavy-handed "why can't we all just get along" messages and always has been, and that it why it is (and I mean this both positively and negatively) Like That.

But the fact that Vulcans and Humans are apparently so poorly acquainted (and yes, obviously, this is happening in the context of potential conflict with the Klingons and Humans launching out into the rest of space, so tempers are running high) even after all this time is... somewhat amusingly nonsensical from an in-universe, more realistic perspective. It's funny.

Firstly, you'd think that a supposedly logic-based culture that prioritizes cooperation for the purpose of communal betterment (the Vulcans) would have worked out by now that Humans are not going to suddenly all take to the teachings of Surak, and so would have efficiently adjusted their rhetoric to more effectively appeal to Human perspectives. Experienced Vulcans would adapt to structure their explanations and arguments slightly differently, surely?

Like, wow, there's not a single Vulcan ambassador who has studied styles of Human argument and personally found it logical to "speak their language" a little more rather than make huffy appeals to Vulcan authority? Any Vulcan anthropologists or sociologists seeking to understand Human cultures? Realistically, there's no way that all Vulcans would agree 100% of the time on what is logical behavior and what isn't. Some Vulcans might decide that smiling puts Human colleagues at ease and do so (even if they shouldn't HAVE to, Humans shouldn't expect Vulcans to perform emotions for them), because it makes cooperation easier, which is logical.

But that's just not what the writers want here. Which is fine! They want their rocky start here. They're doing their usual "why can't we all just get along" arc, which is fine and great and I'm fond of it, even if I also personally find that "Star Trek" has been incredibly clumsy about their anti-racism stuff most of the time.

(So many shows typically have one Vulcan character regularly on the ship, rather than have, say, two Vulcans with different opinions on things in order to explore interesting discussions on cultural differences and the definitions of "logic". It makes the shows' depictions of Vulcan logic feel a little "tell, don't show" sometimes. I think it's a missed opportunity. Just as it's a missed opportunity not to put neurodivergent Human characters on a ship so aliens and androids don't have to be the stand-ins all the time.)

Anyway, secondly, you'd think that Humans would all know by now that Vulcans don't like handshakes? There's a scene where a Human tries to shake a Vulcan's hand and she ignores him, and I was like, "Okay, wow, INCREDIBLY rude to offer a Vulcan a handshake."

(Side note: I am aware that "Star Trek" repeatedly has Vulcans engage in handshakes with Humans, such as during first contact and when Spock is being introduced to Kirk in "Strange New Worlds", but it always reads to me as Vulcans choosing to go along with the gesture out of politeness. I still think it's a little rude for Humans to offer a handshake in the first place, if they can't accept a refusal with good grace. Plenty of real people across different cultures really don't like handshakes.)

And for an audience member unfamiliar with "Star Trek" and Vulcans, especially a USAmerican, the Vulcan silently refusing the handshake is going to come off as incredibly rude. I haven't watched further but I assume that this scene was intentionally written to demonstrate the issue of culture clash. Two people can deeply offend the other without fully meaning to do so. I'm guessing the Human didn't know just how rude he was being offering the handshake and that the show will elaborate on this.

But, realistically, I cannot fully suspend my disbelief that Humans and Vulcans have been acquainted for 100 years without it being common knowledge that Vulcans don't like handshakes. That would be absurd. Some Vulcan ambassador, familiarizing themselves with Human cultures, would have realized by now that it would not be offensive to inform Humans that, like many Human cultures, Vulcans do not like to make physical contact. And realistically, the Human liaisons, presumably trained diplomats who understand basic politeness and courtesy, would have been like, "We apologize for any previous offense. We didn't know. How do you prefer to be greeted? We will inform our people not to offer you handshakes again and to respectfully greet you in the manner of your preference."

I don't know if these Human characters know yet that Vulcans are touch-telepaths. The Vulcans would not have to share that information to make it politely clear that they don't like handshakes. If it IS known by Humans that Vulcans are touch-telepaths (it would be on their Future Wikipedia page), you'd think people prejudiced against Vulcans would be very aware of the telepatht and more inclined than most not to make physical contact.

Personally, realistically, I would think that any Human expected to make contact with Vulcans would have received a mandatory briefing on manners and basic cultural different. Any Human officer on a ship expected to go make contact with currently hostile KLINGONS and other known Non-Human cultures should be thoroughly educated in basic rules of interaction, for the safety of the ship if not basic civility. So, any Human officer offering a handshake to a Vulcan is either being intentionally disrespectful or is just incompetent (doesn't already know basic facts about the culture of Earth's first, longest, and closest ally) (didn't read the cultural briefing).

This happens in front of the Human captain too, so either the captain doesn't care to call out the offense and apologize (seems likely, he seems pretty hostile here so far) or didn't know it was offensive. Which is also just... stunningly unprofessional for someone who is supposed to be an ambassador for the entire planet of Earth.

And again, the episode is presumably intentionally constructed this way so that the characters can get to know each other later and learn to get along where the audience can observe them. Every single "Star Trek" show I've watched has had protagonist characters be prejudiced and even bigoted in clumsy ways that feel like they ought to be textbook cases of "What NOT To Do" in Starfleet Academy classes, so that the show can deliver basic messages about how prejudice is bad and we all have the potential for it and we can all get better. It is "Star Trek"'s whole thing. "Star Trek: Enterprise" isn't at all alone on this, because all of the shows have done this.

But my goodness is it amusing when a "Star Trek" episode presents a cultural clash problem that more realistically speaking probably would have been better settled about 100 years ago in-universe.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/772763169277034496/so-we-all-know-that-the-underage-sex-tag-is

The only fic I've ever used this for that wasn't rated E was one in which a character 1. had flashbacks to being raped when he was 13 to 16, during which he heavily dissociated/canonically thinks in a very scrambled, disoriented way 2. discussed it with his therapist and 3. slowly tried to navigate his feelings about having killed his rapist. The idea that I didn't need to check the box saying "Underage Sex" intrigues me, here, because... well, that feels like a thing that the readers should know about? And you can't just click "Rape/Non-Con" because that describes multiple characters in the cast and doesn't sufficiently let readers know whose experience we're going to be discussing, here. Only one character has had this happen to him as a kid, however, so checking that box made total sense to me as the author.

I guess I'm confused as to why your fic has to either be rated E or not use the "Underage Sex" label? Because if we're going to have this guy sit down with a therapist and go over how he hid the evidence, why he didn't come forward, how that was when he learned to switch off his feelings, etc., it's no longer in "Implied/Referenced Underage Sex" territory. The underage sex isn't 'referenced', it's the subject of entire chapters. Yes, the flashbacks to the physical event itself are rendered in that canonical scrambled way, but it's not as if the underage sex is something that's not integral to the plot.

Is the argument that unless the whole thing is on-screen in explicit detail, you can't use that warning? I can't really see the logic, here. Yeah, it's annoying when someone uses the warning for someone getting horny. That doesn't mean it doesn't apply to things that aren't rated E. It's rated M because it's a therapy fic and it's heavy, but it's not E, because there's no lengthy depiction of sex. Am I supposed to up it to E because any mention of underage sex automatically ups the rating?

That... feels kind of like what an anti would say, honestly. You know, that whole idea of sex as a topic being so taboo that if it's going to be discussed, it's gotta be rated E, lest the wee minors encounter it and get scarred for life or something. Even though M is already a rating higher than Teen, so it's not exactly being thrust out in front of kids, it's gotta get upped to E if we're addressing this topic at length?

IDK, maybe there's a nuance I'm missing here? Maybe it's a USAmerican vs. other rating systems thing. But personally, I'm of the opinion you can have underage sex in a story without it being E rated inherently. The idea every fic with that tag that's not E is mistagged seems very bad-faith. It feels like something you tell yourself so you can get more upset about the numbers than is really called for.

--

The 'underage sex' warning is for Australians with dumb laws.

It's so people don't accidentally read content that will get them slapped with legal consequences.

[libelula202]

I’m rewatching Numb3rs, a 2005 series about a mathematician helping his FBI Agent brother solve crimes.

And I’ve been thinking a lot of Jewish representation in media, what with the world being what it is right now.

Numb3rs stars Rob Morrow, David Krumholtz, and Judd Hirsch.

All three of whom are Jewish IRL.

Up until this point, the family’s religion has not been spoken about. Obviously the audience knows that all 3 men are Jewish IRL-but nothing has been explicitly talked about in the show.

I recently watched the season 3 episode Provenance, where a Jewish family has a claim to a painting stolen by the Nazis.

There is a scene where Don (Rob Morrow) asks his brother Charlie (David Krumholtz) why their family was never religious. Charlie shrugs and doesn’t really have an answer.

The story line continues, and is concluded when the family gets the painting back. And there is a beautiful scene where the song Hallelujah plays behind the family matriarch, as she holds the painting and reminisces about her family, who were all killed during the Shoah.

It ends with Don talking to his dad (Judd Hirsch) about using his FBI access to try and find any surviving extended family members. 

And it just struck me, that they never say their family is Jewish. The audience is just expected to know.

Their last name is Eppes (in the show), and of course we know these actors IRL are Jewish. But that’s all we know until this episode.

I just thought it’s so different to current times. The audience isn’t expected to be shocked that they’re Jewish, it’s just treated as a fact.

Yes, they’re Jewish.

Full stop.

No explaining, no “well I’m Jewish” moment in the dialogue.

Just an acknowledgment that this story hits close to home for them.

And then we move on.

——

I am not Jewish. I don’t know if I’m qualified to say if this is good representation or not.

But as a goy, I appreciated that I was expected to know this.

It feels like a flip of the normal culturally Christian USAmerican media script.

I don’t get explicitly told their religion, I’m just supposed to use context clues and figure it out myself. No explanation, no being force fed the answer.

It’s just a fact.

They are Jewish.

(Also I like that this is a s3 episode. Doesn’t feel forced this way.)

[lil-gingerbread-queen]

Why are people acting as if you have to be in the 1% to be considered rich??? That's not how it works. To be rich, you have to gain, per month, at least the double median net worth of households.

In France, if you make 3900€ per month, you are rich. That's not an opinion, it's what Insee (the French national institute of economic statistics studies) label as rich right now. Yes, the USA and France have a different cost of living, but I am pretty certain that the guys each makes more than the double median net worth of USAmerican households, I can say they make more than the equivalent of 4000€ per months.

Fellas, y'all just have a fucked view of what being rich is in the USA, y'all think one needs to make 2 millions per year to be rich (from this study). That's more than TWENTY times the median net worth of USAmerican households.

From the "eat the rich" country (and, actually, the people sang "kill the rich"), the guillotine country, I'm telling you, those guys are rich. And also, they weirdly proudly displaying the luxuries they can afford, the "eat the rich" they throw around is like a protection, it doesn’t sound genuine (see: Voidzilla's video where he cringes when Ryan says "Eat the rich" before showing off his brand new Nike proudly)

And let's not talk about y'all calling their videos, where they get drunk and read ghosts' stories from the internet, "art".

[purplepints]

Without a supportive, cooperative Senate & Congress the President is hamstrung. Without people-first representation, we end up with petty incompetent representatives. Without functioning government, we all suffer. Local and state level politics are SO IMPORTANT, and yet a ton of voters only fill in for President and skip everything else. I am dead curious as to why people don't vote the entire ballot.

[orphee-aux-enfers]

I. Don’t understand how being against homophobia and misogyny and informational suppression is cultural relativism? Yeah I have a #USAmerican raised Christian bias but I think not being bioessentialist and anti-intellectual is. Normal???? Genuinely don’t understand

Okay so. My guess from how this was written is that you are either a child or just into your 20s. I'd expect much different wording and approach if you were older. So. I'm going to try and be as gentle and clear cut as possible.

1) Orthodox Judaism is actually quite diverse and also different from Christianity, even fundamentalist Christianity .

2) What you're witnessing is not necessarily indicative of the actual community values; you are interpreting without insider perspective, or seemingly any actual knowledge. You're also ascribing motive to actions that may or may not be there.

3) many orthodox Jews, myself included, are queer and trans and embraced by our community. Every person of authority I've spoken to on the matter says that my incredibly queer, t4t marriage that gets read as gay no matter what, still gets the mitzvah of sex on erev Shabbos, and that includes my main community of Chabad.

4) many books are screened before being given to children by all people everywhere for a variety of reasons. Just because you don't fully understand the reasons as you are not yourself Orthodox Jewish doesn't mean that they are automatically something to be hated due to your preconceived notions.

5) Assuming a group is inherently homophobic, misogynistic, etc. Simply because you don't understand them as you are not part of their community is in fact a bad behaviour, yes. Don't do that. Most of the time, in most communities people are at worst confused.

6) As for misogyny... It's important to know the ways in which Judaism actually structures it's sex roles. No one has different sex roles because they're lesser, which misogyny implies. And every SINGLE person I have ever met observes mitzvos based on sex due to actually desire, not coercion. But for example, married women cover their hair as a way of making their marriage even more holy. Men meanwhile are told to cover their head at all times so they are mindful of G-d at all times. What does this imply at first glance? Why, that women are capable of remembering G-d at all times and the men are silly and must forget G-d if not reminded! Do we think this is all to the interpretation?

So. Before you judge our community so harshly... Perhaps also consider the last century of human history alone. We are being killed and hurt at alarming rates again, especially in the USA. Is it any wonder we don't stop in the streets to justify our existence to you?

Lastly, an oversharing of my personal details because as I am currently safe and well at home, I feel I ought to give you opportunity to understand that you aren't seeing/understanding the complexity of sex roles in Judaism

7) so, yes, orthodox Judaism has gender/sex based roles. It also is, in my experience, pretty flexible to meet individuals. I was coercively assigned female at birth. I was however by Jewish law, tumtum. In English terms, I had ambiguous genitals which could be surgically changed. My sister wanted a baby sister. And so, I was surgically "corrected" and raised female, until puberty and onset of hormonal problems that indicated that it wasn't just a genital mutation. I felt disconnected from binary gender, and at time, in part of my community having a label for me while the hospital I was born at had simply labeled me "incorrect", I came to embrace a masculine social standing. Because I was unable to be sexed as an infant, have masculine levels of testosterone and a lack of menses for years at a time, I have to adhere to both male and female sex based mitzvos. Religiously, I am operating with the strictest possible adherence, but this is all written and debated, as are all of the other sexes in Judaism. I am, however, allowed to exist as intersex in a Jewish community in a way that I am NEVER allowed to exist as intersex without a fight in the secular world, to the point that if it's not relevant I identify only as trans, because otherwise it becomes too complicated in the secular world. And this is genuinely because there is actually a space for me to exist in, as there are six Talmudic sexes.

Being trans and intersex is "allowed". Being queer is "allowed". Some communities differ, but I've lived in seven, and all of them have been more accepting of me being queer, trans, and intersex, than any secular space, including liberal and leftist spaces. At WORST, I am met with curiosity because I am new to the community. I think, perhaps, too many people in this world mistake curiosity with hatred.

[wathanism]

Your ideals are going to kill people. The only thing refusing to vote is going to do is ensure that the republicans win and their project 2025 gets enacted. This is not a conspiracy theory. They want a theocracy. They want authoritarianism. They want fascism. You and everyone you convince to not vote is letting that happen.

I don't know who convinced you that its impossible to care about two things at once, but abandoning the vulnerable here in the states because you care so deeply about the vulnerable on the other side of the world doesn't make you more righteous.

Refusing to vote for him is a foolish act that will do nothing to stop what is happening. Even if he finally pulls back all aid for Israel at the eleventh hour, no one will vote for him now, which means the vulnerable right here at home are fucked. Thanks.

i was really close to not answering you at all because i have a hard rule about not talking with selfish cunts who are commited to misunderstanding everything a non-white person says to them. but since you had the good sense to realize that you were being an ass right then, i'm going to assume that you're worth engaging with, and i'm going to hope you'll talk with me in good faith and read everything i have to say rather than blow up at me again. if nothing else, i'm going to use this as an opportunity to say all the things i've been wanting to say since i made that post. that said, i'm real pissed and i'm not gonna be all nice and palatable in my answer.

first of all, no i'm not a US citizen. i live in west asia. y'know, where all the wars are? gaza is five hours away from my hometown of damascus, which is also being bombed with your tax dollars, by the way! in fact, i grew up living under a textbook authoritarian theocracy. so don't sit there and talk to me like i don't know what it's like to be afraid of your own government. we're in this shithole world together, and you and i are a hell of a lot more like each other than the politicians putting our lives on the line.

second of all, i should have been more clear about what i actually would like for US voters to do. contrary to small-minded liberals' assumptions, i'm not republican nor am i anti-voting. i'm saying people should vote third party. i even have a preferred candidate in mind, jasmine sherman. they even have strict and well-defined policies to protect trans rights and provide universal healthcare that includes gender affirming care and reproductive care.

this is usually the point when usamericans talk down to me like it's my first day on earth, so let me be clear. i know about the electoral college. i know about the flaws of the first-past-the-post voting system. i know about ranked-choice voting and why that's a better system in almost every way. i know that until there's drastic changes to the US voting system, there is no chance a third party candidate could even win. i'm not delusional about that. and i'm asking you to protest-vote anyway. which, yes, i realize is a big ask, but consider that this is a big fucking problem that requires pretty drastic actions.

several absolute dumbasses who i refuse to engage with said some very interesting stuff that made me realize why so many people are quick to dismiss the idea of refusing to vote for either major party. some examples:

they describe the push to vote third party as us lashing out at biden. in their eyes, we're not politically aware adults with a righteous passion for justice. no, we're petulant children causing problems for everyone whose rights actually matter. maybe a nicer person than me can give them the benefit of the doubt, but i find it extremely suspect that they truly seem to believe that non-white people are irrational, easily-angered, thoughtless creatures with no understanding of the complexities of the situation. there's a complete refusal to consider that there might be an actual coherent strategy behind the activism of indigenous and black people.

and again, because this is not my first day on earth, i know about the "but trump!!" argument. i honestly am BAFFLED that liberals seem to genuinely believe they're offering anything novel or valuable to the discussion at hand when they parrot talking points that we've been hearing since 2016 with quite literally nothing to show for it.

but i digress. the important thing is: yes, i fucking know. i know trump would have a near identical policy on gaza. he'd also have an identical policy on the police, on covid, on immigration, and on most other issues. you worry about project 2025, and you're right to! but the thing is, and you'll forgive me for quoting imani here but she is the most correct person ever always, "everything in project 2025 relies on biden doing exactly what he's fucking doing right now. the more successful this genocide is, the more likely project 2025 is to happen." because at the end of the day, it doesn't require a republican president. it requires a CONSERVATIVE president. and that's what biden is.

i don't know if you're missing it or if you don't care, but democrats benefit from you being terrified, and that's exactly why they'll never keep you safe. you will always be one election away from being killed by the system because that's what keeps you complicit. democrats won't shoot the gun, but they will ALWAYS make sure it's loaded and that you're trapped in a room with the person who'll shoot you. don't forget that roe v. wade was overturned on biden's watch. trans rights were rolled back on biden's watch. covid deaths skyrocketed and protections were dismantled on biden's watch. he'll find every loophole in the book to funnel weapons to israel's military but he'll never lift a finger to fix the problems ruining your life, because he needs you to be as scared as you are. that's exactly what's keeping you from showing an ounce of compassion or solidarity to palestinians right now. and no, your fucking lip service and crocodile tears don't count as solidarity.

liberals have managed to completely forget the most important lesson about social justice: none of us are free until all of us are free. you've been so busy yelling at arabs to even realize that this moment in time is one of the greatest pushes against the two-party system. do you not get how important that is? right now, when damn near everyone who's even mildly left leaning (and many who are right leaning) is so deeply unsatisfied with both major candidates, is the perfect time to be thinking of ways to break out of this system. to organize, to advocate for your mystical fucking ranked choice voting!

palestinians aren't asking you to lay down your life and throw away your human rights so they can mildly spite joe biden. they're asking you to grow a fucking spine and stand on principle and god damn DO SOMETHING to tear apart the two-party system. make people realize that a third party candidate IS a viable one, so that one day they can be.

you're framing this as a matter of pitting palestinians versus americans, which couldn't be further from the truth. maybe instead of directing your hate towards palestinians and their allies, show some gratitude. palestinians are uncovering the veil of all the atrocities and all the corruption in the world, and they're giving the people of the earth a banner to unite under. there have never been so many people (afaik, at least) pushing against the systems of corruption in america. that kind of thing ripples out. standing with palestine isn't easy, but all of our lives will be better for it, including and especially the lives of minorities living in the US.

there is so, SO much more i can say about palestine, and it will inevitably turn into a very spiritual rant about the uniting force of the holy land. but i'm instead just gonna leave you with this tweet that i think sums up everything about this.