#it's like this racial thing kind of which is why it really reminded me of killers of the flower moon because yeah that's a movie about | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

oldmemoria · 5 months

Text

okay heres the fucking thing about this script controversy that some people don't seem to get.

just gonna say it blatently:

strap in babes this is gonna be a long one!

The way Miguel O'Hara is written in the leaked transcripts is blatantly racist, here's why from a Latino himself!

all wrapped up in a sweet little bow for everyone who doesn't know how to comprehend what they're reading, cheers!

er. i mean.

¡Salud!

Miguel fans are not mad that they depicted him in a bad light and that they made it clear that he is in the wrong

WE FUCKING KNOW. WE'RE NOT STUPID.

Miguel has been depicted as a morally grey asshole since the early 1990s, which is when Spider-Man 2099 was initially debuted. And while yes, the movies are.... inaccurate, to say the least, it still stands.

The issue here is how he is depicted. They directly call Miguel O'Hara, a Latino man, an ANIMAL (he is directly called an animal TWICE. FUCKING TWICE.)

[1st image id: Miguel leaps onto Vulture, Clawing his way in past the renaissance armor. he is an ANIMAL. (keep in mind ANIMAL is literally in all caps.) /end id]

[2nd image id: Miguel SLASHES at the walls of light that surround Miles. Clawing the energy field apart, an animal in the throes of bloodlust -- /end id]

I need you to really soak in the fact that he is called "AN ANIMAL" twice. I'm awful at alts and ids but I feel I must so you can read it in plain text. sorry if they suck.

Our issue is not that the writers seem to have a bias against the character. a lot of writers write characters they dont particularly like and in turn tend to write them from a foggy lense of their own perception. An example would be Kate Cary and how she didn't like Crowfeather, a character she had to write about. I'm sure some of her bias seeped through. but this is different.

writing a Latino man as a bloodthirsty animal, implied to be called a predator because they call one of the people he fights (im not sure if its miles or the vulture, im leaning towards believing the former.) his "prey", THOSE ARE ALL RACIAL STEREOTYPES. ALL OF THEM.

[3rd image id: But Miguel can only see his prey: /end id]

There is no context to be needed here, the context is that this is miguel we're talking about and that they call him an animal. it does not matter if he is a villain or not (which he isnt, factually he fucking isnt im tired of having this conversation, fuck you). it matters that he's depicted in a racially insensitive way.

and this person brought this up pretty well actually, I didn't even think of it:

[4th image id: Tumblr user @/404-505 saying:

i want to be so mean to them

they couldn't write miguel crossing the border and stealing a job so they wrote him crossing into another universe and stealing his own identity

they couldnt write miguel as a drug addict so they gave him spider steroids instead /end id.]

They bring up a really good point about these clear stereotypes being seemingly. . . disguised behind points that are narratively relevant? This could literally just be pure coincidence, but noting how the writers wrote him before... it isn't looking too good for them. Sorry. Not sorry.

It is clear that there is some kind of bias against miguel that led to really disgusting, racist retoric. Whether or not it was intentional or if it was a first draft or whatever, the writers, which may i remind you were white, still wrote this at some point.

it makes me question whether or not they hated him because of his "bullshit utopia", their words not mine, or because of their own racial biases.

We cannot know because miguel is the only mexican character on the cast. I know Miles is Puerto Rican, but there are differences between how they were portrayed. also Puerto Ricans and Mexicans come from competely different cultural backgrounds that share simularities but are still different dont even try i will destroy you.

Using another users words again, but:

[5th image id: Tumblr user @/transmiguelohara says:

Don't talk to me about the Miguel parts in the script. I'm so disappointed in how the writers view him.

The difference between the way Miguel is written (antagonist, not the villain) vs Spot (the villain, whats to kill Miles' dad and everyone he knows) is soooo.....I don't know man it just screams racism in sorry. Describing Miguel as a bloodthirsty animal? Repeatedly? Treating him like he's mindless and has no motivation beyond having a hair trigger temper? It sucks man. /end id]

It also strikes me that now that we finally have a brown-skinned miguel, they write him like, well. this.

I don't really know if this is petty or not, but I want to wrap this back to the way the fandom also sees Movie Miguel.

Because TRUST ME it is not good either.

Miguel O'Hara Vs. FANDOM: Spoilers, it's been troubling since the beginning.

From the beginning (and by beginning in this case I mean since he was announced to be a character in this movie) Miguel has been continuously sexualized, beyond belief. He is repeatedly called "papi cholo" which NEED I REMIND YOU "Cholo" is a derogatory term used to call someone, usually a mexican person, a criminal or a delinquent.

FUCK YOU if you are not Latino OR hispanic and use this to describe people. from the bottom of my heart.

I'm pretty sure the majority of the people who called/ still currently call him "papi cholo" are mixing it up with "papi chulo" (white people moment.) which means something completely different but is still troubling as hell.

"papi chulo", which is slightly different in the way, just directly translates to "big daddy". Which again, Latino men being overly sexual "Latin Lovers" is ALSO A RACIAL STEREOTYPE. also its just blatant fetishization. Point blank fucking period.

Not only that but I notice a lot of art and fanfiction depicts him doing a lot of violence, or being very overbearing and demeaning, or in short terms.

a lot of people write him as physically and sexually aggressive.

fuck do you mean he growls during sex i can and will send you to space with no return.

which

for the millionth time

racial stereotype

halleluiah or however you spell it.

Having him say random spanish phrases you don't know the meaning or connotations of in your fanfiction is icing on the cake at this point.

fucking end me.

it isn't even only sexual depictions, since he's been shown in the movie, a lot of people seem to just see him as this guy who goes off and tries to kill children at a hairs trigger. which uh. fun fact no he fucking doesnt.

you clearly didn't watch the movie as well as you thought you did. hes just sarcastic and generally pretty level headed through the majority of his runtime, whether its implied by how characters around him act, or its just what we see on screen.

He doesn't necessarily have anger issues, the moment we see at the climax of the film is quite literally a mental break. he is not acting in a way that he usually would because he was cracking under the stress of holding the multiverse together with some scotch tape and orange glitter glue.

Also side tangent but he also has a mental break in the comics that's a little more... droopy and sad as compared to the movie, but it still happens. he has shitty mental health is what im saying. he only really lashes out angrily when hes at his wits end because that's how he grew up. he was taught to suppress his feelings and seem smaller when he was upset.

he is the result of abuse and neglect. of course he wouldn't be amazing at emotional regulation.

Which before anyone says it no, this is not an excuse for his actions. just an explaination that isn't "hes an angry animal that has it out for miles UwU" that everyone seems to have in their brain. I'm tired of you all. truly.

the sentiment that hes agressive and angry and his only emotion is anger and upsetness unless he's horny which is when he experiences all these emotions tenfold is. racist. idk how clear i have to be for people to get it through their damn skulls that the way the fandom depicts him is harmful. do i need to slap you in the face with a fish until you understand. do i need to burn your fanfiction. will you get it now that a 15 year old latino boy has to scream it in your face.

and dont even get me STARED on how inaccurately he is written

this is a more light hearted section because idk. feels like i should have it because this part is just comical, pun intended. How can you fuck up this hard guys.

I was gonna give them the benefit of the doubt because "Miguel has fresh trauma!" "He only shows up for like 10 minutes!" "insert 3rd reason!" for his drastic change in demeanor and personality, which, without context, are valid reasons for him to be a little different. trauma fucks you up man. we only see 10 minutes of him. but at this point im chalking it up to complete incompetence

it doesnt take that long to read a comic book guys. you could have done a little research, I know you can do it.

first off:

[6th image id: Miguel's SPIDER-SENSE goes off! He races to the edge if the building and peers into an empty alley -- /end id]

LMFAO WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN "SPIDER-SENSE"

Unless you didn't get the total of TWO jokes that they made in ONE scene (the vulture fight scene), Miguel doesn't have a spider sense. at all. He has elevated senses, but he doesnt have a spider sense.

guys

guys.

you made TWO jokes IN A ROW about it. YOU WHACKED HIM IN THE HEAD TWICE WITH IT. HOW DID YOU FORGET

I cant help but laugh! this is a rookie mistake! these are seasoned writers! They could have done at least a little research, or at least remembered that he doesnt have one, no? is it that hard? or does his lack of a spider sense only matter when you're making fun of your least favorite character? thats what I thought.

this one is less funny. not to sound like a stereotypical comic nerd but this infuriated me a little bit I'm not gonna lie.

[8th image id: tumblr user @/darksidecorner reblogged tumblr user @/spiderxpawz with:

They definitely didn't

a screenshot of the script reads:

AN INDUSTRIAL TANGLE OF HUGE PISTONS -- the literal DARK UNDERBELLY that undergrids Miguel's bullshit Utopia.

Miles doesn't know where to go... but he doesn't need to: SOMEONE YANKS him up into the safety of an alcove.

the user then continues:

This in particular made me PISSED because they quietly canonized that Miguel is CEO of Alchemax while conveniently ignoring that he did everything in his fucking power to BETTER Neuva York. Downtown wasn't built by him. It was built by people WAY before him.

I can excuse and defend some comic deviation, but THIS? Holy FUCK /end id]

I honestly cant tell if I find this part funny or pathetic because seriously. he did not do this. why are you blaming him for something he had nothing to do with. i dont think he decided "hey i should build a city for rich people over poor people because reasons" when he was like... not even alive. Alchemax did this before he was even sentient. it had always been this way since he was born. he also actively hated this decision. because he actively hates alchemax.

but right MIGUELS bullshit Utopia yeah HE did this that EVIL LITTLE BABY i cant believe him

kill me.

In conclusion:

I. . . Don't really know, to be honest. I'm still processing all this. I am genuinely disappointed and upset because this isn't okay. It never will be, and if it takes yet another blunt essay with absolutely no filter for people to understand it then so be it. I don't care if this comes off as mean. This is something I feel qualified to talk about and I will express my disappointment and anger if I want to.

All of the posts I reference I have reblogged within the last 24 hours of making this post, they shouldn't be that hard to find, but if you want the links to them here they are:

https://www.tumblr.com/spiderxpawz/735344322114977792/live-mexican-reaction?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/404-505/735289664739606528/they-couldnt-write-miguel-as-a-drug-addict-so?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/transmiguelohara/735289238625648640/cant-believe-the-writers-have-the-same-reading?source=share

if you want your image to be removed or for your link to be removed just ask and I'll do it. but currently im kinda bummed out and tired.

goodbye.

218 notes · View notes

madsworld15 · 1 month

Text

Why Queer as Folk (2000) Was Seemingly Forgotten

An analysis by a professional TV Critic

Let me start off by saying the initial run of Queer as Folk and its current resurgence can be represented by this mantra by Brian Kinney: There are two kinds of straight people. The ones who hate you to your back and the ones who hate you to your face.

The initial run of QAF coincides with the first half of the statement: hate behind your back.

So, recently I started thinking about how in the early 2000s, Queer as Folk seemed to be on a trajectory of going down in TV history. Then, seemingly just as quickly, people stopped talking about it. So much so that by the time I finished watching it in 2009, I only got a few good months of chatter on social media platforms (Twitter mostly) with other fans before it just stopped being talked about in a wide-reaching manner.

I will even admit that I stopped thinking about the show not long after that and wasn't reminded of its full impact on my psyche until late last year when it was back on easy-access streaming due to Showtime's merge with Paramount+.

But why is it that this show is only just now starting to pick up speed again? (I'm talking fan cams on TikTok, memes, etc.)

I have some theories about all of this, so buckle in.

To really get a grasp of what Queer as Folk was working against when it aired on Showtime -- a paid subscription channel back before the days of an overabundance of streaming services, you have to look at the climate we were living in. Also, how inaccessible a paid TV channel was for most people.

So, in the early 2000s, life in the United States, and probably the world, but I'm not fully educated enough to comment on that, wasn't the greatest for those in the LGBT+ community. It would be years before the President of the United States would pass legislation that Gay Marriage be legal nationwide.

Employers were able to fire people for being gay, and the employees couldn't fight it. Gay parents had very little in terms of rights to their own children; in fact, some couldn't even adopt the kids they wanted to because there were no laws against discrimination.

All of these things are depicted left and right throughout Queer as Folk, with Ted getting fired from his job, Michael being extremely closeted at his job, and Melanie not being afforded rights to Gus because of adoption regulations during that time.

So, for our community to receive a show that was by us for us, we were overjoyed. There was something so resolutely refreshing about the unapologetic manner in which these characters were allowed to present themselves and live their lives. And while the show gets dinged today for its lack of racial diversity, we were glad to see queer people represented in a variety of ways -- we got to see the Emmett's and Justin's of the world being friends with the Ted's and Michael's and Brian's.

Not only that, these characters got to love who they wanted, however, they wanted, and whenever they wanted. Characters like Michael and Emmett could go from wanting to freely fuck whoever to finding that special person and settling down. We got to see Ted find the right guy at the wrong time over and over and over again until it was finally the right guy at the right time.

But most of all, we got to see a character like Brian, who, in the hands of a straight person, might've actually gone "soft" and "domestic" just by being with Justin. Instead, we got to see him never change his opinion about what he wanted, but still finding love in his own way.

However, not long after the show ended (like around 2008), the climate in the United States started to shift more towards open acceptance of the queer community. So, people stopped needing an escape from the hardships of real life because things seemed to be on an upward trend toward love and equality. Therefore, Queer as Folk sort of fell off the radar of viewers because we didn't want more of the gritty, complicated, messy queer stories. We wanted our stories to be happy and lighthearted.

(Keep in mind I am speaking in terms of general viewers. There are always exceptions to the rule)

Then, in 2016, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, and suddenly, it was totally okay for people to openly mock us and hate us.

This is where the resurgence of QAF falls into the second half of Brian's mantra: hate us to our face.

Around 2016/2017, people started talking about this show again. And the love and fervor for it has only increased exponentially over the last few years, especially with the onset of COVID-19 and the merging of Showtime/Paramount+. Both events made the public more aware and able to access the show.

Now more than ever, we need something that isn't afraid to show queer people as we are, not as the media and those outside our community paint us. We need to feel like there is a media format that understands what we are like when we are with our closest friends. We say things that, in today's world, would probably get us canceled, and we judge those around us and have very biased opinions about certain people.

Brian Kinney's unapologetic "I am who I am and fuck anyone who tries to change me" attitude is the exact level of strength and courage we wished more people right now had. His biased, but not illogical, opinion of non-queers needs to be loud. It needs to be shouted from the rooftops because we now live in a world where we are hated just for existing as we are.

Even our rights that had been given to us just a decade ago are being stripped away from us once more. So, the fight for love and equality continues, and the hope that Queer as Folk gives us is important now more than ever.

So, people are seeking this story out and are begging others in the world to watch it and understand that we have always been here. We've always been these flawed but loving characters. We deserve to be heard.

In 2022, Peacock tried its best to create a redo of the series but failed miserably. But why? If we are desperately looking for queer media that is gritty, unapologetic, and real, then why didn't we latch onto this latest iteration?

The answer is simple. This new version was great at creating a more diverse image of the characters created for the Showtime series but failed to understand that recreating things almost note for note with entirely new characters isn't what we want.

It would've been better if the show stuck to broad-stroke themes and made these characters and their experiences their own. Queer today is different than queer in the early 2000s, just like queer in the 2000s was different than queer in the 1980s. Trying to put queer 2000s stories into a queer 2020s world isn't going to work.

We need to embrace this resurgence of Queer as Folk (2000) and give it the love and attention it should've always had. Perhaps finally giving its rightful due in the eyes of the history of queer media. Does it have its issues as the world changes? Absolutely, but we also can't sit here and deny the insane level of impact this show had on the queer media we now know and love.

We wouldn't have casually queer shows like Schitt's Creek, Heartstopper, and Our Flag Means Death if Queer as Folk hadn't broken down our walls and made us realize that we can demand stories for queer people by queer people.

#queer as folk #brian kinney #justin taylor #emmett honeycutt #ted schmidt #michael novotny #TV retrospective #TV history #queer history #looking at QAF from the lens of social queer climates then and now #opinions of a professional TV critic

14 notes · View notes

clonehub · 1 year

Text

It's just like idk after a year of some of the most racist people screaming about how good tbb actually is and how we just don't get it or even the non racist ones still saying tbb was doing all this work and we just just couldn't see it, only for the main complaint on both sides of the aisle to be "they're one dimensional and uncompelling" (phrased in various different ways of course). But whether it's a thread by a fan detailing why tbb needs to develop or a snarky post by a hater saying "these bitches flat as hell", these reactions are reminding me that even besides the racism, there's fundamental writing issues with the series that were baked into season 2 because it was already in production when s1 was airing.

And the writers are SO hesitant to do anything worthwhile with the bad batch themselves. You have a group of experimental clones. That's an awesome premise. Yeah they can look different without looking white. That's an awesome pote trial conflict if a clone who doesn't look like a clone realizes that there's certain privileges in the civvie world he gets for not having that face. They have special skills. That's great because a clone who potentially sucks at something crucial (tech w physical combat) can actually be a disadvantage to his brothers.

But did they do that? Did they write outside the mold? No. These guys don't have real flaws, even, besides occasionally being jerks to one another or to someone else.

You know what would have been a really compelling plot? What if wrecker was the one to break from the group and take omega with him. What if he was underestimated by his own team (good source of conflict) and his kind heartedness and empathy makes him want to take off with omega. What if hunters weird conflict avoidance and general lack of concern with the Republic or empire makes him stay, and tech follows because of """logic""" like not knowing how to take care of himself without the government, and crosshair stays for the same reason. What if it's wrecker and omega trying to survive but forming a real bond and doing their best to hide from the rest of the batch that's hunting them down. What if one by one the rest of the bad batch joins them, hunter first and then tech. And then we can still have crosshair be the fascist shit he wants to be so so so bad.

Like the bad batch that i have in my head on a scrap of mental paper is ten times more compelling than the bad batch that we have in canon. No risks were taken. It's so middle of the road. So bland. It's like an extreme version of avoiding the children's rhyme "step on a crack break your mother's back" like i can't begin to describe how avoidant it all feels, even with efforts to spice things up like having tech actually get angry for once and take out his problems on wrecker....which still ended up being problematic anyways.

But my own version would require wrecker to be written outside of the racial stereotype that he was for 75% of season 1. "Hes empathetic 🥺" and he still lacks depth. They all lack depth. They're foul for having made the fashy one the most compelling of the whole team like--

#ch posts #tbb critical

38 notes · View notes

kenyatta · 1 year

Video

youtube

(via (41) bell hooks on interlocking systems of domination - YouTube)

BELL HOOKS: I began to use the phrase in my work “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” because I wanted to have some language that would actually remind us continually of the interlocking systems of domination that define our reality and not to just have one thing be like, you know, gender is the important issue, race is the important issue, but for me the use of that particular jargonistic phrase was a way, a sort of short cut way of saying all of these things actually are functioning simultaneously at all times in our lives and that if I really want to understand what's happening to me, right now at this moment in my life, as a black female of a certain age group, I won't be able to understand it if I'm only looking through the lens of race. I won't be able to understand it if I'm only looking through the lens of gender. I won't be able to understand it if I'm only looking at how white people see me.

To me an important break through, I felt, in my work and that of others was the call to use the term white supremacy, over racism because racism in and of itself did not really allow for a discourse of colonization and decolonization, the recognition of the internalized racism within people of color and it was always in a sense keeping things at the level at which whiteness and white people remained at the center of the discussion. In my classroom I might say to students that you know that when we use the term white supremacy it doesn't just evoke white people, it evokes a political world that we can all frame ourselves in relationship to.

And I think that I was able to do that because I grew up, again, in racial apartheid, where there was a color caste system. So that obviously I knew that through my own experiential reality, you know, that it wasn't just what white people do to black people that was wounding and damaging to our lives, I knew that when we went over to my grandmother's house, who looked white, who lived in a white neighborhood, and she called my sister, Blackie, because she was dark and her hair was nappy and my sister would sit in a corner and cry or not want to go over there. I knew that there is some system here that is hurting this little girl, that is not directly, the direct hit from the white person. And white supremacy was that term that allowed one to acknowledge our collusion with the forces of racism and imperialism.

And so for me those words were very much about the constant reminder, one of institutional construct, that we're not talking about personal construct in the sense of, how do you feel about me as a woman, or how do you feel about me as a black person? But they really seem to me to evoke a larger apparatus and I don't know why those terms have become so mocked by people because in fact, far from simplifying the issues, I think they actually when you merge them together really complicate the questions of freedom and justice globally, because it means then that we have to look at what black people are doing to each other in Rwanda, we can't just say racism, what have you. We have to problemitize nationalism beyond race, in all kinds of ways that I think there's a tremendous reluctance, particularly in the United States to do, to have a more complex accounting of identity.

#bell hooks

34 notes · View notes

gamzee · 2 years

Text

I’m trying to introduce new things into how I digest Alternia little by little especially post-slurquest which I found very helpful. Is Alternia the internet of the early 2000s? The social goal there was often (still is arguably) to not introduce any consciousness of gender or race which was disruptive and treated accordingly. (There are no girls on the internet/tits or stfu/etc.) Following these rules required a certain amount of roleplay. Is it too simple to say Sburb/Sgrub is just the statement “society is an rpg...” or is it perhaps TOO ELEGANT???

I’m writing backwards. The whole purpose of this line of thought was to explore how Beforus followed Alternia. If so; on Alternia everyone is expected to roleplay whiteness, but on Beforus/in act 6, more explicit racial stereotypes and metaphors start to emerge. (”Blue blood’s burden” + Aranea and her necklace, Meenah and Condesce’s aave, Kurloz’s Dr Facilier inspirations, more use of 'Chucklevoodoo', Rufioh stealing Dante Basco’s typing style, Damara’s uh, everything! And Kankri to top it all off with the concern that the new internet is just too darn preoccupied with this stuff, and don't you realize you're making me-- i mean everybody else-- feel self-conscious?) On Alternia we have things like Mindfang in a Spanish conquistador outfit, but it’s kind of noteworthy that there aren’t really Beforan Ancestors (or roleplaying games!) to speak of in the same way, so her antics feel almost wistful. I believe Karkat when he says the beta and alpha trolls are “almost genetically identical,” and it’s only the setting that changes.

This lead to mulling on "inversion" and how you can't invert a flat plane or a grey image. It's only areas of high contrast that get flipped. So what's familiar stays familiar and what's strange gets stranger still. Back in the old-school internet you avoided spectacle with roleplay-- working for Karkat, I guess.

I'm STILL writing backwards. Is it going too deep to unpack Terezi's "your name sounds kind of like game" as a call to Gamzee to engage in roleplay-- "you are the game itself?" That makes the reply of "you should ask Karkat, he likes games" very funny for both reasons. Their whole thing might just be them duking it out over Karkat's assimilation (and affection.)

It also means Equius and Terezi are having the same conversation in what they're asking Gamzee to roleplay. That would make Eridan's "STOP BELIEVING IN MAGIC" the third-time charm. I think Magic has obviously been a cypher for homosexuality & gender nonconformity in homestuck but Gamzee's magic is slime/miracles and then named/revealed to be voodoo after their heel-turn.

Between the jubilant cheers, outbursts of song, and dispersed chatter of nonsense one makes when speaking in tongues, Herbert concluded every one of these children must be on drugs.

He began noticing a common thread among the kids, aside from the shared trait of exhibiting clinically psychotic episodes. Most of them were armed with books. Children’s books. Tales of marvelous imagination and adventure, and above all, magic... That kid over there was wearing a billowing rainbow-patterned hat. It would almost look Rastafarian, if it weren’t so flagrantly homosexual. - Page 1 of Wizardy Herbert... for no reason at all.

I'm finally at the Sea-Goat because I wanted a clear explanation for why Caliborn shoots off gamzee's fake wings. Really obviously the sea-goat as the threat of something existing mid-way through metamorphosis or something transforming makes them transphobia bullets. But it’s specifically Caliborn who takes Karkat’s verbal condemnation and makes it a reality. It could be the narrative going “you had your chance!” (See visual aid.)

The whole montage where Gamzee's crush on Tavros was revealed --> Doc Scratch speaks with them reminds me of this, a bisexual character's exchange with a predatory wizard from the same book;

“Ah.” Thundleshick produced a stern look behind the tangled, fibrous crisis on his face. It was the demeanor of one charged with forming a grave diagnosis. “You know, my elder brother struggled with this very challenge. Attraction to flesh of one’s kind, it’s a troubling demon.”

“I was jus hoping you might have, like, a magical cure for it. Jus make it go away.”

The old magician stroked his beard, as one might do to ameliorate a high-strung shaggy dog. “I will see what I can do.”

“Yes, yes. Now point yourself at that door. Like this.” He modified his posture for him by the shoulders. “Now, boy, fill your mind with manly thoughts. Visions of burly clout. A roaring motorcycle. Professional wrestlers clutching each other’s muscles for dominance. A friendly lady fitted with a swimsuit. Oh, yes, yes.”

“Um, ok.”

“Now, through the door with you!”

Russet drew a breath. His feet felt welded to the floor. He knew the strength was in him to run. It was in his faith. His faith to let go and trust God, to set everything right. Soon it would be over.

He ran as fast as he could toward the chalk door. There was the sound of bone against brick. Russet bounced backwards and dropped to the floor unconscious.

The fat old Campmaster stooped over the boy and proceeded to pick his pockets.

There’s more I could say about this but it also speaks for itself.

Those posts abt The Tombs of Atuan also come to mind;

But I didn’t and still don’t like making a cult of women’s knowledge, preening ourselves on knowing things men don’t know, women’s deep irrational wisdom, women’s instinctive knowledge of Nature, and so on. All that all too often merely reinforces the masculinist idea of women as primitive and inferior – women’s knowledge as elementary, primitive, always down below at the dark roots, while men get to cultivate and own the flowers and crops that come up into the light. But why should women keep talking baby talk while men get to grow up? Why should women feel blindly while men get to think? -Ursula K Le Guin, from What Women Know

Is HS mad at Gamzee for the “voodoo” -- preening herself on the things Sburb doesn't know? Refusing to play the game as “talking baby talk?” After trying to make the post for hours all I've been able to get is putting a few quotes next to each other, so I guess take this as it is.

#warning for some talk of racism/transphobia under the cut

58 notes · View notes

cbk1000 · 3 months

Text

Reading this book has made me think a lot about my time in Germany, where Holocaust memorials are everywhere (not just statues, but actual 'stumbling stones' underfoot which are engraved with the names, date of births, and fates of people who were victimized by the Nazi regime). I felt like everywhere I went in Germany, I was being reminded of the Holocaust. This aggressive acknowledgement of such a terrible history is imperative to fight attempts to rewrite it as something that isn't nearly as bad as hysterical liberals are making it out to be.

But that's what we're doing in the States. Some states (Republican-controlled, of course) are even passing legislation about what and how children can be taught about racism in schools. The Civil War was about 'states' rights' (the 'rights' of Southern states to own slaves), and Confederates were plucky rebels willing to die for their freedom. When we reframe the war and the enslavement of human beings in this way, we downplay the systemic issues that are still present today, because we never really reconciled ourselves to the horrors of our actual history, not this sanitized version of it wherein Southern plantation owners didn't even treat slaves that badly and the original iteration of the Ku Klux Klan was comprised of Southern gentlemen protecting their ladies from violent former slaves that the Yankees unleashed during Reconstruction to do as they pleased to innocent white people.

And even if the fiction of the benevolent slave owner were true in the majority of cases, it reminds me of a quote from Oscar Wilde's essay, 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism: “Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good.” Owning another human being is objectively wrong. The argument that many of the slaves were treated well under their masters is absurd. Whether slaves were whipped or not does not make slave ownership any less reprehensible. Human beings were property, whether they were physically beaten or not. Slave owners who refrained from beating their slaves likely did so not out of moral compunction, but because slaves were expensive property. You wouldn't dropkick your iPhone or laptop off a cliff, not because you care about their feelings or autonomy, but because they're expensive to replace; it was the same for slave owners. 'But plantation owners didn't even treat slaves that badly' is not the gentle revisionism you think it is. And the reason why, to this day, we still have such a deep racial divide in this country is because so many of us aren't willing to confront that.

I'm not saying white people need to constantly self-flagellate in this country, only that you always ignore history at your peril.

2 notes · View notes

lehhoh7822 · 5 months

Text

its so odd to hear discourse about how cracker is/isnot a slur

im australian and like. no one. NO ONE. here thinks cracker is a slur. it reminds me when i was like 11 oir 10and my white. (veyr white.) friend saw me write youtube as yt and was like thats acutally so offensive its a slur against white people. this was before i was into any like. fucking mcyt shit or really into a lot of fandom. so i didnt know why anything would be a slur and had no exposuyre to like. that. but they were like 14 and they were into mcyt at the time

and my rsd was really shit back then so i was like oh my god im so sorry oh shit and they wre like dont do it again :angry angry angry:

i guess for me, it seems odd to feel like something is a slur when its said against you even in a derogatory sense by a group which you are above them systemically. i guess it kind of works as a slur in terms of class maybe??? ive heard people say that so mauybe thats what matters????

im mixed race. im indigenous australian. im white. im norweigan. im new zealander. for me, its very important to remember my awabakal heritage because of the suffering, the rape, the poverty, the abuse and the loss that we have completely lost to hisotry. i am aboriginal. i a, white. i am chinese.

people have said and done things on all of those bases except for the white one. i have lost and lost on a racial level on all of those bases except for the white one. and here no one calls white people crackers.

it really does remind me of when people call "straight" a slur, because they dont like it that sometimes, queer people get to mock them using it.

whateverf. doesnt reallyh impact me. consider if it does for you., i dont think it matters that much.

#cracker discourse????#discourse???#cw....... slurs???????#MAYBE #i dont ever cw slurs to be honest again #its the curse of mobile tumblr; i cant add tags without having to reblog the post like 5 failed times and sometimes it breaks chrome entire #y on my phone #yeah buty #uhhh #disk horse #stupid shit #on the dash

2 notes · View notes

kyogre-blue · 1 year

Text

Finished the Dirge of Bilqis, Tadhla, and Apocalypse Now world quests (for now?).

We do have a mysterious additional quest “Her Foes Rage Like Great Waters...” that is gated until Feb 6, which I can only assume will finally remove the giant sandstorm in the center. But I’m done with the story for now.

And it’s... very disappointing.

I’ve come to have some expectations of the major world quest chains, since Sakura Cleansing, Aranyaka, and Golden Slumber were all quite good, better than the archon quests imo. Yes, I didn’t exactly love Ruu’s stuff, and the sumeru quests had some pacing issues, but the story was still good on the whole.

But I can’t really say the same for this. We have Jeht returning, and her parts were the best because they at least somewhat echoed the focus on family that Golden Slumber had, but the stuff with the Tanit and Liloupar was just kind of bad.

I will admit some of it might come down to me simply not liking this kind of story and tone, but I also think it just wasn’t written well.

There were also small visual issues that added up, like them using generic NPC models without any alterations for the Tanit (worst on Babel, who uses a stupid sexy model that just looks dumb, but also Tadhla who has a “coming of age” despite being very obviously a mature adult model) and the models having no expressions but the camera often zooming in on their faces. This isn’t unique, but it stood out more than ever here.

As for the writing, it’s... So there are basically three main plots: 1) Jeht finds her father’s old tribe and decides to seek out an ancient mystical location to lay her parents’ spirits to rest there, 2) the Tanit tribe’s machinations and internal struggles, 3) Liloupar’s story and the destruction of the ancient city of Gurabad.

As I said, 1 on its own is kind of okay. I still felt something because we already know Jeht. But unfortunately, she’s dragged through 2 and 3 as well, and she’s not strong enough to be our emotional connection to 2. They also do a number of “tell not show” on her personality, and in ways I don’t find beneficial to Jeht on the whole. When she goes off on the big guy and we fight him to the death, it really feels like Jeht is being unreasonable, even though she’s right by the power of writer clairvoyance.

3 is the usual Genshin lore that is too convoluted and pointless. Liloupar is also just awful. She’s extremely abrasive toward every single person we meet, by way of what feels to be racial slurs, weirdly suggestive, and utterly unapologetic for having done completely monstrous things. Yes, yes, the fae do not follow human morals, etc, but like... it’s just not interesting and it’s deeply unpleasant. Her “final words” are also a mess because she seems to have put this shepherd boy on a pedestal when she fell in love with him ("I thought he was above mortals”), then fucked him over when he proved to be fallible, fucked over their children and an entire city, and now puts the Traveler on a pedestal too. It’ll be fine because the Traveler doesn’t have any flaws, of course, but it’s so stupid to read through.

There’s also some really annoying patterns emerging, but I’ll complain about those separately.

But 2, the Tanit... man. MAN. That was so bad.

The Tanit are a tribe, so they’re a bunch of NPCs. We don’t have any room to really learn about them, except perhaps Tadhla in the most general way. But they are deeply fucked up. I don’t even mean Babel’s power struggles, because who cares, but everything else is just an endless parade of “look at the strange, savage ways of these desert barbarians.” It doesn’t just look bad for them, but also for eremites on the whole, since we have comparatively few eremite characters and especially groups.

I guess maybe I hang out on Tumblr too much, because I found it both annoying and shallow when they just had to go with “the desert is so harsh and unforgiving, and that’s why everyone here is a merciless asshole who kills without hesitation.” Really reminded me of a post I saw at one point about how sad it is that the desert areas are never home to anyone and always portrayed as utterly inhospitable.

#playing genshin

14 notes · View notes

gunsli-01 · 1 year

Text

People complaining about the verdict of certain prisoners switching and votes not mattering have really selective memories. So, let me remind you Haruka was at 50/50 several times during his second trial then people voted him guilty in mass during the last couple days and Yuno was voted Innocent two trials in a row.

Resulting in this

TL;DR: If a character you like is Guilty now that's not the result of a more diverse or robust fandom. Not everyone is going to agree on how to vote but everyone deserves to be able to vote. Regardless of anyone in this fandoms individual opinion.

The votes aren't changing because the fandom is larger or more diverse. This is the same crap that's been going on since trial one. Things are only changing because people are learning more information, and recognizing their previous favorable assumptions were wrong.

That's kind of what happens when you idolize real or fictional people. The only options left to them is to disappoint or live up to the image people imagined. Something impossible because no one is a mind reader and even though the characters can cononically hear what we think no one owes it to anybody to behave in a manner they don't wish to.

I can be upset about Haruka's verdict, but I can't objectively state that I don't understand why some people would want him to be Guilty. I can't even say wanting that verdict for him for malicious reasons is objectively bad. Everyone in Milgram has done messed up things. It's understandable that for just as many people that, like a certain character, there will be folks that hate that character.

No one is universally likable. However, I've literally seen people discussing wishing Milgram voting was region locked to Japan. Which is such a ridiculous wish... Like man, let's just create the Electoral College real quick just because the verdict Mu is getting here is not the one I want and certain votes should and do matter than others. This is like when they were discussing raising the voting age in the states because Gen Z appeared to be more liberal and progressive.

Everyone was real quick to tie Yuno's situation to politics, but now that Mu's case is clearly about classism and racial bias, people have gotten a bit quiet. People are literally saying certain people don't deserve to vote because of where they live. Hm, I wonder what that sounds like. I wonder what specific countries they don't want to have the ability to vote? Or would it be specific areas in certain countries that would be given that right outside of Japan based on some unknown standard?

Man that doesn't sound familiar at all... Everyone likes majority voting systems when they're a part of the majority. Yet, when the tides change, we need systemic reform. Fucking wild. The entitlement being displayed during Mu's trial should be documented as a point of shame in this fandoms history and studied in media classes as an example of the type of shit white passing characters and people can get away with. Like the younger generation is better my ass seems like a lot of these generations are just like their parents.

Can't believe I have to see some of these takes with my own eyes.

#milgram

6 notes · View notes

largemargo · 22 days

Note

As to “culturally intelligable way of being a heterosexual man that exists outside of patriarchial narratives”

… literally that’s just my dad, and a couple other male friends I have, tend to share the following qualities —

- Genuine kind person,

- has some patriarchally-affected blind spots, usually just needing to be told how something is sexist but then getting it

- being affected like this doesn’t doom these men to being “bad people” in the same way being white doesn’t doom those people to being “bad people” … and yet we are fine acknowledging yeah it is an effect. It affects how people act and we all have to work on it

- that’s it: be a man who is as normal as you can be about women, isn’t addicted to porn, knows you’re affected by patriarchy but lives with that like the rest of us have to, doesn’t repeat misogynistic or homophobic shit and shuts it down with others when you can, live your life not worrying about your “role” needing to be that of a “heroic and good by nature” by virtue of espoused identity no matter how people around you see things that way

… I mean, would you seriously suggest seeking racial passing as poc to a white person upset that there are no, “culturally intelligable way of being a white person that exists outside of racist narratives”? No??? Then why is a lack of, “culturally intelligable way of being a heterosexual man that exists outside of patriarchial narratives” a viable rationale to seek to pass as a woman?

Maybe that comparison can help you envision the “culturally intelligable way of being a heterosexual man that exists outside of in opposition to patriarchial narratives” that you will need to help further create if you want it to exist. As will that reframing to “in opposition to”. You’re in the world you’re in, with the history and society it has. You can be part of the present and future change, you are not the author of “the narrative” and cannot exist outside of it. To attempt to will ultimately be to attempt to pretend patriarchy doesn’t exist or you have nothing to do with it, which ironically is a very patriarchal narrative in the context of a society with — get this — a very entrenched many multi centuries long patriarchy spread over many cultures and societies.

And a “way of being a heterosexual man that exists in opposition to patriarchial narratives” does exist. Just without much fanfare. By definition it won’t be “culturally intelligable” as patriarchy is still predominant, though you are lucky enough to be in a freer time than say, the 1800s, to be part of this change. So you don’t get to be culturally intelligable as following some normative script when you don’t act like an asshole, overtly or covertly. That does feel bad, it also isn’t insurmountable as a problem.

It really becomes as simple as living as best you can and accepting some people will be wary about you, or that you won’t be part of literally every gathering or protest action or able to apply for every scholarship or whatever because some will be just for women, or just for an ethnic group you aren’t, but that it isn’t personal and that’s fine.

Again this tension reminds me a lot of my friend with the trauma and religious ocd that has mixed with identity politics to give him the worst complex in the world about being male. Along with many other reasons for the dysphoria. It had always made his insecurity worse to engage deeper in the idea that he could be perfect, find the perfect role and way of being seen to be the perfect person and so get perfect outcomes and be safe and secure from that. Because it doesn’t work, and you will feel how it doesn’t work. You need to find mental strength to live in a hostile world where we are conscripted into violence and systems of harm even when we try to change them … because they change too slow for our lifespans… you will need to find that strength from somewhere/something else besides convincing yourself and others you aren’t male.

"Knows your affectec by patriachy but lives with that like the rest of us have to" : this

Yeah i think you have to acknowledge the facts of it and the fact that as a male you are likely to have internalized some of what you were taught about maleness or masculinity. And the same with femininity. Things I internalized about femininity and identified with are sometimes missogynistic. I think a female person could similarly internalize toxically masculine ideas and identify with them. But we have to be able to name them through terms like toxic masculinity and male socialization. This is where my issue with some of the trans ideology comes from.

But thats a bit of a tangent

Personally I would assert that as a person with white skin I find it neccesary to reject whiteness and laugh at it as a concept. I obviously benefit from being regarded as white, but I wouldnt say I feel any allegiance to the concept of whiteness esp since that whole concept caused my irish ancestors to reject passing down thier culture. I think ethnically I would say I identify as pennsylvania dutch. But yeah I am white and have benefited from it in certain ways imo.

Idk though, i dont necessarily view the equivalency as that direct. I think racial opression and gendered opression are very different and we enter dangerous territory in drawing equivalencies there

I think various communities try to exist outside the narratives of patriarchy. Like you said, its a multi centuries long institution and it will likely exist after we die. The communities: homosexuals, crossdressers, sepratists. These things do not deconstruct patriarchy, but try to construct realities outside of it. If I were not trans i would probably be a homosexual man because I want a relationship that exists outside of the patriarchal norms of heterosexuality. I could try to create something like that with a woman, or a man. I think gay men are more likely to have already rejected gender norms though and would require less explanation. I think it could be done either way. And either way it does involve being in oposition to patriarchial norms. But what im suggesting is desireing a community where I dont have to oppose anything, where my comrades are already in agreement about not acting on the stage of patriarchy. I dont want to fight every day. So maybe thats what I sought out in lesbianism.

I want to have a place where I can take a deep breath. I am regarded as a male at work, with my family, in my music scene. I spend a lot of time talking to people about masculinity and male socialization. I spend a lot of time resisting patriarchy in its many forms and I do this from a male vantage point and with a certain ammount of privalege. Men are fairly willing to listen yo me when I talk about male experiences and toxic masculinity. That all is pretty cool. But I feel winded when I get home. So I dont feel like being regarded as a man would make me bad, im not really worried about being a bad person or anything. Sometimes I do regretful stuff due to male socialization and the lies we get told growing up. Having a name for it and being able to learn about unlearning it has been lifechanging. Overall everything has just been pretty tiring though. Im still looking for a place where I can take a deep breath. At times thats been the lesbian and gay communities and at times not. So maybe I just feel stuck? Im not sure. Would love to talk more preferably in my dms if youre willing. I appreciate your insights on this and look forward to hearing from you

0 notes

violetsystems · 4 months

Text

I think my holidays are meant to be ruined just to advance thematic developments. I don't know how much more disturbed I could be right now about everything. But I did manage to cook a juicy turkey breast for myself. I've been applying for jobs hardcore the last three weeks. Rejections on Christmas Eve. I don't really have any support in the process emotionally or any real encouragement from my family. It's scary to me. Especially when everyone around me in this neighborhood judging me by my family and my racial roots. Part of what fucked up my Christmas was a conversation I had with someone I fear is suffering from early onset Alzheimer's. I don't want to say it. But I do think it out loud often. Can't tell if the forgetfulness and lack of attention to detail is that or just an expression of no one caring. It's hard when you love a parent to process that they might not love you the same way back. Part of love is accepting that but it doesn't go very far in my family tree. Had to be reminded that the last time I saw part of my extended family was 2016. And yet they celebrated my uncle's retirement on my birthday weekend last year. So I don't know what those kind of wishes really mean to me at this point. I did reach out to some contacts professionally. When I say professional I mean in the white collar world and not this dj, musical art fairytale bullshit. They did take the time to send a holiday greeting in an email. Not some Spotify year ended wrapped jpg on instagram. I watch more anime than probably anyone. But to think we're going to ride off into the sunset on drink tickets and no health insurance is dangerous. I keep hearing this repetition that I should apply for a warehouse job stocking food or electronics. When I apply for a warehouse job or even for Costco corporate, I just hear back "Why don't you apply to Costco?" Then expected to provide free tech support for a non profit and act like that's not qualified labor or experience. I feel the disconnect is now total performance. But it's more suffering. Like someone wants me to revolt instead of pointing out the fact that it all seems set up with people watching me on the property like they're writing a sitcom or a play. You are writing your last will and testament if this is what that is about. Personally I'm not mad that it makes me madder about searching for a job that I'm not meant to find. I'm not even mad that a family member has to scoff at the job I'm still under review for in which I asked their boss to provide me with a reference letter. He just wants to dismiss that it's even legitimate and go backwards in my career for safety's sake. He wants me to give up and there's a part of me that already has. On my dreams. On my goals. On my life. On my happiness. So people can just shut the fuck up about watching every little fucking thing I do. There's going to be a point that I prove that this is all fake. And I'm going to walk off the set with a coffee and a settlement check. Until then I just have to play like this is all normal and you really expect that famous and connected people offer legitimate apologies for anything other than psychological manipulation. They don't. My own personal reality show might be a little different. But believe me when I say to you that how I write on here is just expressing my impatience with how sociopathic people accept their lives to be. What terrible way to die. Knowing you relented to all this and didn't fight for your own freedom. Even if freedom is minimum wage at this point. Or staying away from drunk people talking about the future on New Year's Eve.

0 notes

debunkingtherightwing · 4 months

Text

Michael Knowles Can't Handle Five Seconds Of A Show For Toddlers:

Michael Knowles is among the dumbest of these guys, like for crying out loud!

I figured we could use a break from AmFest (which is code for I could use a break from AmFest) so I figured that we should engage in one of our favorite past times here at Talking Points, dunking on Daily Wire third banana Michael Knowles.

The other reason why I wanted to do this episode is because Michael is once again on his deranged "They're turning you gay" soapbox and this time is targeting CocoMelon. It's just as stupid and hilarious as one might expect.

Warning: Transphobia, homophobia, and stupidity. These aren't my opinions, obviously.

00:00, Michael Knowles: "A popular kids show, quite possibly the most popular kids show in the world, is apparently trying to turn your child into a tutu wearing, mama denying, gender-bending dancer, as evidenced by this recently viral clip."

Let the stupidity begin.

So, depicting a child being raised by gay parents isn't "denying mothers", it's just a child in a different situation. Studies have shown that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as ones being raised by heterosexual ones. But these are the guys who are against gay parents even existing so this take is unsurprising.

As for the "child-crossdressing", a child wearing a tutu is a total "who cares" for me. It's a brief scene, really only lasting about five seconds, and the kid tries on multiple other costumes throughout the scene. This isn't weird at all, the only people making it weird are right-wing ghouls like Michael who are using it to justify their own homophobia.

01:00, Michael Knowles: "Why shouldn't kids shows depict little boys wearing tutus and dancing for the pleasure of homosexual men who have somehow gained custody of them, huh?"

Michael's mind is clearly in an extremely perverted gutter if that's the first thing he thinks of when seeing a five second clip from a CocoMelon video.

"Dancing for the pleasure of homosexual men", what?! Or it's a scene of him playing a game of dress-up with his dads. Even by Michael Knowles standards this is such a stupid take.

01:13, Michael Knowles: "Until the mid to late 20th century anyone who ever considered creating a scene like that for adults would have been ostracized from polite society and likely prosecuted."

Yeah, black people would also have been ostracized and likely prosecuted if they sat in the non-colored seat on the bus, what's your point?

Society actually does this thing called "change".

01:30, Michael Knowles: "This is just what kids are watching these days."

Yeah, a five second clip of a kid in a dress which is all of a sudden being turned into a dirty thing because the kid in this show happened to have gay parents.

Also now would be a good reminder of that time in college where Michael starred in a gay sex scene.

02:28, Michael Knowles: "I just assume that anything modern and popular and praised by the libs is poison, now we have proof."

This sums up Michael's entire mindset in one sentence. Michael, if he had his way, would drag us back into a backwards and Handmaid's Tale-esque world to "own the libs".

Racial equality is modern and popular and praised by the left, guess Michael doesn't like that. How about cell phones? Affordable healthcare? Women having the right to vote? I could go on and on.

My point is that this is an insanely stupid thing to say unless you want to go back to a Medieval feudal society.

Also your proof is just five seconds from a kids show that look innocent to anyone that doesn't have an extremely dirty mind.

02:35, Michael Knowles: "That's why we launched our own kids platform BentKey."

So, a lot of this fearmongering is mainly just to advertise the Daily Wires kids platform. This really shows how much of a grifter Michael is. Build up the fear about your kids being indoctrinated into...turning gay I guess and then BANG, ad pivot.

Most of the right uses these kinds of tactics to drive sales.

05:11, Michael Knowles: "I can already hear the objection to my criticism of CocoMelon. They're going to say, the libs of course, they're going to say 'Michael, what's wrong with a kid being himself? What's wrong with a nice supportive loving family encouraging a kid to be himself? Just be yourself!'"

As a person Michael would consider a "lib", that's the least of my objections to this. My 3 main objections are as follows:

This is a dumb thing to spend time on. There are so many important things going on in the world that spending this much time talking about five seconds of a kids show is a complete waste of energy.

2. As stated prior, it was only five seconds. The kid even tries on some more traditionally "masculine" costumes such as a firefighter one. There is no way that a child would be paying attention enough to even register it! Keep in mind that Cocomelon is targeted at ages 2-4.

3. Really all this is is a massive dogwhistle. Michael is talking about this because it gives him a way to paint gay parents as perverts and trans identifying kids as "groomed victims" to his audience.

Anyway, Michael argues against this strawman.

05:31, Michael Knowles: "I guess what's wrong with this is the assumption that that makes about human nature which is that there's this true self at the core of an onion, we just need to peel away the layers of society and norms and standards and practice and morality and tradition and ritual. We need to peel away all those layers and we will get to the true core of the self and the true core for that little boy is wearing tutus and dancing for a couple of homosexuals."

Again, mind in the absolute gutter. Michael absolutely would not give a shit if this was a straight imaginary couple. It's just a kid playing dress up, nothing perverted about it!

The episode doesn't even end with the child wearing the tutu or deciding to be trans or whatever Michael is saying it does!

This is also a stupid argument because it ignores the fact that those standards have CHANGED for everyone but Michael and other conservative reactionaries like him. While a child wearing a dress is appalling for reactionary trolls like Michael, the rest of society truly could care less.

06:24, Michael Knowles: "A lot of human behavior, and especially human desire, comes from imitation."

Yeah, a five second clip of a kid in a tutu is gonna make your two to four year old trans. Here I thought that the PornHub thing was a stretch, Michael is seriously grasping at straws to justify this being a big deal.

07:17, Michael Knowles: "We are mimetic when it comes to our desires as well. I mentioned this on the show yesterday in a different context, the reason people want the Rolex watch is not because they know anything about how the watch works, it's not because they no anything about the history of the company or the mechanics of watch gears, it's because other people want the Rolex watch."

Your sexuality isn't the same thing as a wristwatch, if that were true we'd all be running around banging inanimate objects.

Man this is one of the dumbest things I have ever watched for this blog, I'm almost beginning to miss AmFest....almost.

08:15, Michael Knowles: "So if a kid is raised by a lumberjack and his traditional wife in the mountains of who knows where, somewhere in the western United States, and they've got really traditional values and the dad goes out and chops wood and the mom churns butter and I don't know, I'm probably getting into some kind of fairy tale fable of a traditional life, but that kid is going to be more likely to go chop wood or if it's a girl go out and churn butter."

This removes all individual agency. What if that child doesn't want to chop wood or churn butter? It completely removes individual personality and hitches how a person is entirely on their parents.

08:45, Michael Knowles: "And if a child is raised by a couple of homosexual men who purchased the child from scientists and impoverished women in the third world through IVF and surrogacy then that kid is more likely to mimic their behavior."

Yes, there are some ethical concerns about cross-border surrogacy depending on the nation but a majority of surrogates are in the United States and a lot of cross-border surrogates are in other first world countries. The regions with the most surrogacies are India, Ukraine, California, and Central America. The most concerning on that list to someone would probably be India, but they've banned commercial surrogacy.

Also, what behavior is that? This statement is running on the homophobic myth that gay couples are inherently hypersexual which is false and rooted in harmful stereotypes.

9:02, Michael Knowles: "And if a kid is told that it is oppressive for a boy to play with G.I Joe and it's wonderful and liberating a boy to wear a tutu and dance for the pleasure of his 'fathers', quote on quote, he's gonna do that too."

When did the show even say that?! It never said it was oppressive for a kid to have traditionally masculine interests because nobody is saying that. Like I said earlier, the episode actually has the kid dressing up in more masculine costumes like a fireman before these five seconds that triggered Michael occurred.

I'm also getting really sick of Michael implying to his audience that all gay fathers are pedophiles. Like I've been saying from the very beginning all the way back when this blog was still called "Wired", this rhetoric can and will inspire violent attacks against the people these goons are targeting.

Since Michael is so obsessed with the concept of mimicry, here's something to chew on. What happens if someone sees this episode, decides to "do something about it", and shoots and kills a gay couple to "save the kid". Obviously Michael would have to take responsibility because that person was spurred on by Michael’s bigoted rhetoric, but Michael won't because he cares about his paycheck and not about who gets hurt.

Has Michael ever met a child by the way? Children usually rebel against what their parents want from them! If strawman child is being denied his G.I Joe doll, odds are he'll want it more!

09:12, Michael Knowles: "And if a kid is raised watching that absolutely degenerate cartoon than that kid is more likely to mimic those behaviors."

That's like saying eating one piece of broccoli will turn you into a vegetarian. Michael is breaking new ground in the world of right-wing stupidity.

09:39, Michael Knowles: "The more bad stuff we take in the worse we're gonna feel, the more it's gonna twist our desires and our sense of identity."

Yeah, five seconds of a toddlers show is gonna twist our "sense of identity". God, did Ben Shapiro OK this? Michael is making the Daily Wire look like a bunch of idiots who can't handle a toddlers show.

09:54, Michael Knowles: "That's probably clearest when we talk about porn, it's even worse than Cocomelon."

I don't think I've laughed as hard at one of these right-wing ghouls as I just did. The comparison between porn and COCOMELON, oh my God that is funny but also sad when you remember that people believe this shit.

10:23, Michael Knowles: "The company was called MindGeek but of course the company is so disreputable and so despicable that they have to keep changing their name because like the euphemism treadmill bad connotations just glom on naturally to whatever this company is called."

That's not how companies work. Even if MindGeek changes their name, it's not like a hard reset button that wipes the companies slate clean. Everybody knows that Aylo is the same company as MindGeek.

Michael then plays a clip of another PornHub employee that runs counter to his narrative. Michael chalks it up to him "not being one of the writers". He then, after an ad-break of course, drops a "rule for life".

14:41, Michael Knowles: "Don't let your behavior stop you from acknowledging the truth. Don't become a captive to your own bad behavior."

You lie to people on the internet for a living, get off your high horse when it comes to "the truth". Michael is a captive of both his own bad behavior and his audiences.

Michael basically says the same thing in different ways for three minutes. Who the hell cares?! He talks about the Trump and Colorado thing for a bit, mainly by playing clips of people who disagreed with Trump who don't agree with the Colorado decision, Michael reacting to CNN isn't something we need to dwell on. Ad pivot. And then he drops this amazing line.

24:05, Michael Knowles: "Peppa Pig, Blues Clues, Muppet Babies, and more continue to aggressively push radical leftist propaganda"

BAHAHAHA. I was drinking some coffee while listening to this in the background and this legitimately made me snort coffee out of my nose. Yeah, Blues Clues and Muppet Babies, well known radical leftist TV shows. They're not even making Muppet Babies anymore, the show ended in 2022.

The Daily Wire is legitimately a parody of itself at this point.

He then advertises BentKey a bit, gotta prevent kids from being exposed to the radical leftist ideas contained in Muppet Babies right? He talks about Vivek's PR stunt where he declared that he'll pull his name off the ballot in Colorado and how DeSantis didn't do it. I really don't care, again it's Michael reacts to CNN. We probably will have to do a blog post addressing the Colorado thing, everyone except Ezra (which makes sense because he's too busy yelling about Trudeau) did something on it. Anyway, here's Michael yelling about a diversity initiative.

33:06, Michael Knowles: "Now we found out that the Harvard president once created a taskforce on visual culture and signage to make white males less visible at Harvard."

First of all, white males don't need the extra representation at Harvard. According to Harvard's demographics, the student population at Harvard is 34.6% white. This is the vast majority as the second largest demographic is Asians which make up 13.6%.

Out of those white people on campus, 18.9% (the majority again) are males. So if they are trying to erase white males from Harvard they are doing an insanely crappy job.

As for this "taskforce" thing that Michael is talking about, it was just about making the campuses symbols (such as portraits) more diverse. It's completely innocent and a total who cares news story.

33:39, Michael Knowles: "The recommendations included a mandate to change quote 'spaces whose visual culture is dominated by homogenous portraiture of white men'. Homogenous, you know all those white guys look the same. You know how all those black guys look the same, hold on you’re not allowed to say that!"

I can't tell if Michael is trying to be stupid or if it just comes naturally.

It wasn't saying that all white people look the same, it was saying that the portraits and visual materials on the campus were all of white males.

Anyway, we already talked about the Congress thing with Tim Pool but essentially it's just an example of grandstanding and highly loaded questions meant to provoke the exact response the congresswoman got.

Michael says super dumb crap about climate change but I can't be bothered. Apparently some study said that breathing contributes to climate change, he didn't link it and I couldn't find it on Google but Michael's conclusion that it means that climate change advocates want you to kill yourself is stupid as hell.

Conclusion:

So, that was one of the dumbest things I have ever watched for this blog. I love how the same people who are complaining about leftists being "triggered" are the same ones who can't handle five seconds of a show geared at toddlers. The fact that ANYONE could take Michael Knowles seriously after this is honestly baffling.

#right wing bullshit #journalism #conservative bullshit #fact checking #bad takes #conservatives #disinformation #daily wire #debunking #michael knowles #god this guy is a complete moron #fuck transphobes #fuck conservatives #conservative l's #conservative logic #the right is dumb #Michael Knowles is such a dumbass

0 notes

msjansaccountant · 9 months

Text

Hey y'all!

Today I'm going to give an abridged review of a scene from a movie that is very near and dear to my heart. I'll be discussing the "where there's a whip, there's a way" scene from the 1980 animated adaptation of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

Before we jump into it, I'll just say that this scene is a 10/10. Fucking brilliant. It is peerless, and nothing before or after will ever match its quality.

The scene starts with a relentlessly groovy synth bass line as we transition to a procession of singing orcs. For those of you weaned on the teat of Peter Jackson's trilogy, you might find singing orcs to be a bit befuddling. I did too, until I actually read the books and found out that they're chock-a-block with cunts singing about anything and everything.

Which brings me to a side tangent.

I hate the songs in The Lord of the Rings. Not that I'm against music, not at all, I'm just against songs in books. My issue is that I have to invent the melody I think best fits what I'm reading. And let me tell you, the melodies I invent are shit house. Everytime I have to read another one of Tolkien's songs I'm reminded by my own musical inadequacies.

Anyways, back to the regular scheduled programming

Skipping ahead a bit (the first minute and a half of this scene is just orcs whining about how they don't wanna go to war). We find our good pals, Frodo and Sam, sleeping on a rock. And boy oh boy are they fucked looking. Whoever designed the hobbits in these animated movies really went ham with these hobbits, creating some of the most foul creatures I've ever laid eyes upon.

I feel sick just looking at Bilbo. It's the eyes that really frighten me. Anyways, shock horror, the boys wake up to broad daylight and, oh no! The Lord of the lash thinks they're orcs and is getting them to march.

We're then treated to another solid 20 seconds of orcs singing the same shit. Then Samwise comes out with an absolute scathing remark, saying "I'd rather be singing a good old Hobbit song myself." Fuck yes Sam. Tell it like it is.

The orc army comes to a fork in the road at the same time as an army of Easterlings (I'm assuming they're Easterlings, I might be wrong). The Easterling general pushes over the Lord of the lash, telling him that men get to march before orcs. For some reason the Lord of the lash, instead of fighting back like orcs always do, gets all coy and submissive and is like "🥺👉👈 okay".

Then Sam, ever the shit stirrer, decides to take advantage of the racial tension between the orcs and men to goad the Lord of the lash into starting a fucking race war. He does this ostensibly to create a diversion so him and Frodo can slip away, but I can't shake the feeling that he did this out of some sick, sadistic desire to watch the world burn.

The scene ends with Sam and Frodo running away as we see glimpses of the devastation wrought by Sam play out in the background.

Well, that wasn't really a review so much as it was a retelling of what happened. I guess I'll give my actual review here.

I do really think the song is groovy as shit. It's catchy, the whip sound effect slaps, the choir sounds great. I think the mood of the song is a bit strange though; I never really thought of the orcs as resenting being sent to war. War kind of seemed like their favourite thing (to me at least). I'm also a fan of the voice acting for pretty much everyone, barring the Easterling general. Special credit goes to the whip master, fucking love that guy's voice. I do have to question why, in a movie so strapped for time, they decide to give this scene a full 4 and a half minutes to play out. I have to respect the choice, though, even if I think it's a weird one. Sam starting shit is always funny to see, so that's a big plus.

Once again, I give this scene a 10/10. I probably rewatch it about once a month, and I hope I've visible all of you to do the same.

#lord of the rings #lotr #lord of the rings animated film #samwise gamgee #frodo baggins #the return of the king #the return of the king animated film #the Lord of the lash #the return of the king 1980

1 note · View note

wouldnt-it-be-hilarious-if-i · 1 year

Text

Currently listening to: Mirrorball by Taylor Swift (yes...again)

I am currently on chapter 13 of 16 in Woke Antisemitism by David L. Bernstein, and I won't lie y'all, it's kind of beating my ass a little. I won't pretend this is a hard post for me to write and post. But I'd feel worse not doing it. Since reading this book and also reading more about Hasidic Judaism, I have been keeping a running tally of things that I have done or said in the past that I now understand is not the behavior I ever want to exhibit as an ally.

I never thought I knew much or learned much about Jews from my family other than what my mother told me. But after speaking with her, I've been made aware of yet another thing that I didn't realize I may have picked up but not been aware of. The conversation went like this:

Mom: "My whole life, I went to school with Jewish kids, and was told by my older sister that Jewish people were super cool. Then....well, have you ever heard your father's side of the family talk about Jews?"

Me: "No...I mean, maybe a little. But not really."

Mom: "Well, it wasn't until I went to New York and spent time with them that I realized that people there...like your grandmother, think Jews are dirty people."

And that reminded me of another aspect of that memory from when I was a child, staring at those tall men in black hats from across the street. I can't remember my age. But I remember I felt weird around them because they didn't look at anyone and they just talked to each other. I remember thinking they were weird and feeling uncomfortable. Not wanting to go anywhere near them. I thought the same thing about the Mennonites in Missouri. That I felt sorry for the girls in their long dresses and skirts, and I wondered if anyone had told them about the outside world.

I found out that not only was my family on my dad's side antisemitic, but it also very well could have been the reason why I've never stepped foot in my namesake city. Brooklyn was one of the areas my dad most disliked and warned us about.

I thought about all this a little in passing when I wrote my last post, but it wasn't until my mom said something that I realized that this was a bias that I had been around and that I had sponged up without ever realizing it. Then, I realized that there were other examples of times where I hadn't exactly been the best ally.

Not understanding the cultural differences between myself and Hasidic Jews meant, for example, that I also didn't understand when my friends weren't super good with the internet, and I definitely wasn't that nice about it (even if I wasn't out right mean). Not understanding how diverse Jews actually are meant that I had come under the assumption that all Jews were white unless they were visibly not white, and that came with it's own biases: That all Jews speak the same languages, that all young US Jews are from the US, that Judaism is genuinely not just a religion but much more than that (which I thought I understood, but clearly do not). Not understanding the way antisemitism works in our society meant me thinking that Jewish experiences where they are not safe wearing religious clothing or necklaces or bracelets were completely different from my experiences as a half black person.

"They can take the necklace off, I can't take my blackness off." Either way, antisemitism is still a threat and it's still affecting them even if they aren't visibly Jewish. And what about the people who are visibly Jewish? Jews were only just persecuted because of their racial characteristics like eighty-three years ago. How could I say something like that? And would I say something like that necklace comment about a Muslim woman in a hijab? No! So, why the hell would I think I could say or think something like that about Jews? Reading this book has me embarrassed about what other dumb and hurtful things I might have said in the past.

Bernstein talks about how in his book, equating Jews and other groups to "white-adjacent" identities leaves little room for nuance. This is definitely something I didn't realize I was falling into, and I'm very glad I read this book and started doing this research lest I spend another minute accidentally making another person feel bad about the cultural and religious background that they came from, or even worse, making them feel unsafe admitting who they are to me.

It's not something I thought I'd have to reckon with, and it's definitely something that I spent a lot of the day struggling with admitting to myself. But it became easier to admit the moment I remembered that I am actively trying to do and be better, and that I was once homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic, all the phobics, and I had to come to terms with that fact over and over again, one by one, until I began to root those behaviors out. Confronting these things never ends, and unlearning is a process. It'll always be a process. All I can ask of myself is that I never think I'm above admitting that I was wrong and that I can always do a better job at being a good friend and ally.

There was a time when my homophobic comments made my sister unsure as to weather or not she could come out to me when I was 12. Now, I'm older, have been an out bisexual since I was thirteen and deeply support LGBTQ+ rights. Now, I watch the movies and TV shows I loved and read old conversations between my friends and I, and I understand why she wasn't sure. I wouldn't have felt comfortable coming out to me either.

There was also a time when I had a crush on a boy in my Spanish class, a boy that I knew was Muslim, and had to come to terms with the fact that my Islamophobic beliefs were harmful. That what I had been taught and what I was actively being taught was hateful.

And there was also a time when I was anxious at the thought of being around trans people until all my friends were trans and nonbinary and gender nonconforming and I realized that I, once again, had to confront a harmful and hateful belief system.

Antisemitism is something I've spent my whole life trying not to engage in, but biases happen so easily. Not just in conservative households, but on the left too. It's so easy for people to sweep antisemitic beliefs under the rug, or to even make light of them or to assume that it's okay to say them when you're talking about another minority group. I've been increasingly progressive since high school, but one of my biggest regrets was sitting there and saying nothing as two guys at my table in Spanish class sat there openly saying that Hitler "should have finished the job." It made me so angry because they were also calling Africans stupid, saying that they all live in little huts and wear loin cloths and don't know anything. But I'd get so angry that I didn't know what to do or say, so after talking to my dad and being told not to say anything and give them the satisfaction of knowing they got to me, I did absolutely nothing other than refuse to work with them. Knowing that my dad's side of the family was antisemitic, that course of action makes a lot more sense now.

And the worst part is that behavior? It wasn't like me. That wasn't the girl who hopped across her desk to beat the ass of a boy who even dared call my frenemy ugly and "monkey-looking." That wasn't the little girl who shouted at boys three times her age for picking on my little nephew when we were kids. That certainly wasn't the same girl who pelted a boy with her unused pads and shouted at him for making her feel bad about dropping a pad on the floor. To this day, I regret allowing that behavior to even exist in my realm. I try to let that regret energize me to make better decisions when it comes to standing up for people.

People make such a huge deal about being great allies, about punching Nazis and deconstructing privilege, but how many people have actually acknowledged the antisemitic beliefs that our entire society just...allows? Where are those same people when it comes to learning about antisemitic dogwhistles, or acknowledging hateful statements made by popular leftists or in school curriculums? Or listening when Jews talk about their experiences? Where are those same people when our favorite TV shows do things like filming in old concentration camp buildings?

Even someone like me, who has cared about this topic since I was a child, can have antisemitic and bigoted belief systems they don't realize they have. If we really want to root out systems of injustice, we have to remember to include all minorities, even the ones that people consider "white adjacent." Our society can't keep pretending that we are not and do not have blatantly violent, bigoted and antisemitic beliefs about Jews. Not just because we have such high populations of Jews in the US, not just because we have so many beloved Jewish actors and actresses or people in virtually every avenue of society, not just because we might know and love the Jews in our lives, not just because we have Jews from all over the world who came here from oppressive and highly antisemitic regimes, but because antisemitism anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and their struggles matter just as much as black struggles, LGBTQ struggles, women's struggles, etc.

I don't pretend to be a completely reformed and rejuvenated ally. I said before that unlearning these things is a process, and it will always be a process. I'm just grateful for the people who are willing to talk about their experiences, share their research, discuss their ideas for change, and giving me a place to start working on this issue.

And I highly recommend this book!

0 notes