#'no ethical consumption' to some people means 'i get to say this to excuse any behaviors i do that exploit others and to justify | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

repentantsky · 3 years

Text

5 Companies That Have Too Much Hype Around Them

Look, we all love our favorite games with a passion, and to an extent that’s fine, but when that passion becomes obsession and that obsession becomes forgetting our own moral compass for the sake of entertainment, it does feel like it’s gone too far. It’s one thing to love what a company releases, it’s completely another to ignore every problem they’ve ever had. Not all of the companies on this list have done horribly un-ethical things, but they’ve at least been anti-consumer, and the fact that people don’t question that enough has led to them sometimes, making horrible mistakes. I am RepentantSky, I love making lists that trash on things that are popular, and these are 5 companies, that have too much hype around them.

5. Nintendo

Already I can hear people getting angry, and in a way I get it. Nintendo is for many people the place where they either begin to play games, or the place they go to keep on playing them when everything else let’s them down, and of course, they put an end to the flipping video game crash of 1983, and no one else will ever be able to claim that from them. That’s all wonderful, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be critical of them. I’ve talked about a number of things they’ve done wrong before, so let me quickly run down the list of some of their anti-consumer practices. They, charge too much for remasters and ports, they don’t drop prices in games, they used to charge for fixing Joy-Cons and now completely deny it’s a problem for legal reasons, despite everyone pretty much having experienced drift, they haven’t been good at getting stock for their items in at least 20 years, and oh yeah, they sell all the content for a remake for $115 on the 3DS, the system and the fans that helped them get by while the Wii U was massively underperforming, all while handing owners of the, at the time, unproven Switch, free content. Nintendo has a tendency to still think like a toy company, and they even used that idea to present the Nintendo Entertainment System as a toy instead of a console when they first game to the West with it, but they aren’t a toy company, their a gaming company that also sells toys, just like everyone else. I get they’ve done amazing things, I own over 150 physical handheld games from them, and a ton of digital games besides, but when they start charging twice what they are worth for SD cards, while releasing games that absolutely won’t fit on the limited space of the Switch, and they simply don’t care when costumers complain, it’s time to at least question their motives.

4. Bethesda

Boy I used to really rip on this company back when I posted lists on Facebook, but I haven’t done it in a while, so let’s do it again. Bethesda has absolutely spent at least the last 10 years lying to people, Todd Howard, has become famous for it, but I think I might have been the only person who wasn’t shocked when Fallout 76 was the disaster that it was. There were so many things wrong with that game, that I don’t even have time to go over every little thing, but lying, you know the thing that will get another company on this list very soon, was a big thing they did with the game. They promised at one point that they weren’t ever going to charge for items in the game that gave in-game benefits, and they did, allowing ammo and other items to be bought with real money for a time, they promised new, specialized servers if you paid for a yearly service that was way too expensive, and that wasn’t true because people found proof of things missing from what would have been a freshly made, private server, and there’s no excuse for that, games in early access do that correctly, and they aren’t, at least supposedly, even finished yet. I wish I could say that’s all they’ve done, but they also bullied an indie developer over their game Prey, a game they may have bullied the original developer for so they could get cheaper, but we’ll never know because they refused to comment on that when asked, they also refused to update their outdated game engine for years, which caused something they spent over a decade fixing, games releasing with glitches, some of them game breaking. Yet somehow, they have such a fan base that those who love their games will claim the glitches are just part of the charm. That kind of fierce loyalty led to Fallout 76, and even though we make jokes about it even now, the horse DLC from way back in the day, was an indication of everything they’ve done, including trying to charge for mods made for free, meant to be consumed for free, twice. Bethesda is a bad company and they do not care.

3. Activision/Blizzard

You know one of the worst things Nintendo does that I didn’t really mention directly in the first entry, is limit the amount of time a product is available, instead of just letting it be there for consumption as long as it’s selling (that was what the toy company reference was about if it wasn’t clear). However, Activision/Blizzard are the Kings of doing this, as they not only limited things while they were in control of Destiny 2 to the point where you pretty much had to use real money to get everything, and never mind everything else they did to it, because we’d be here all day going through it all, but they also don’t support games as a service titles long enough for dedicated fans. Crash Team Racing Nitro fueled, is a prime example of this. People weren’t done with that game, and when fans thought for even a split second that an update was going to come to fix an issue, their hype (mine to) was so explosive, it was almost like we were getting a new game, but then nothing happened, because they didn’t care. A lot of companies that do yearly release titles as a service have this problem and nothing exemplified that more for Activision, than Skylanders, a series originally made off the back of Spyro, who didn’t even wait for a year to release new games, as technically between October 21st and November 20th of the year the first game came out, they released three of them, and I’m not even kidding. Two of them, were mobile games! You might have thought I was going to go after Call of Duty, for this, but that horse has been beaten to ground, somehow, more than Skylanders was. They also, for whatever reason, released each expansion on different generations console generations, at different months throughout Fall, like somehow the season of Fall, they needed a release every month, if not two, and so off they went. I didn’t even get into Blizzard, but all I need to say is “Blitzchung” and all the memories will likely come flooding back. There’s also the fact that in two separate years, after gaining massive profits, they dropped hundreds of employees, and hired more than they’d let go, but I guess that doesn’t really matter to some of you, because when they did it this year, with so little warning, most employees found out via the news articles about it, but we all made such a little stink this time around, it didn’t create any media buzz, so I guess that doesn’t matter, you’d all rather play flipping World of Warcraft, like better MMO’s don’t exist.

2. CD Projekt Red

I know this one comes off a little more fresh in the mind, and they technically only lied about one game, but man, what a series of lies it was. Also, let’s be honest, one major game, does not a great developer always make. CDPR’s previous two Witcher games did exactly what the author of the books thought they would, and that was almost nothing in terms of making a serious impact, and the reason is, they are kind of bad. They aren’t the worst games out there, but there is a good reason why The Witcher 1 and 2 haven’t been ported and/or remastered, despite how important they are to the story of Witcher 3, and that’s because they both suck. Cyperpunk 2077, was in a lot of ways, them just going back to being the developer they were before, the BIG ONE happened. They lied about nearly everything in regards to the game, including how the main platforms where consumers were going to buy it, were actually running well. I made those references to Witcher 1 and 2 for a reason, although if I’m being honest, they actually look better than Cyberpunk did on day 0, and that’s completely unacceptable. The budget for CDPR was basically nothing for Witcher 1 and 2 combined to what Cyberpunk got, but they were so focused on the PC versions because PC ran the game better, somehow (like maybe because they didn’t try with consoles) and they missed glitches that were so bad, the game felt like it was still in beta, if not alpha upon release. The fact that they’ve only released eleven games in twenty-three years, and only two of them didn’t have The Witcher on them, should have told us all we need to know, and yet the game, even after returns, which was another massive screw-job that led to Cyberpunk being removed from the PlayStation store, still sold Sixteen million units, all because of hype, and because apparently, some people don’t care if they’re lied to. Do you want to know what the other game they released is besides a Witcher title? It was flipping Saints Row 2, a fun game, but also one that’s too goofy for it’s own good, and yet suddenly makes Cyberpunk’s release, make sense, because it was all a massive joke, and a parody of good, well running, open world games. CDPR needs to seriously do something, anything different, and never release a game in this poor of a state ever again.

1. Ubisoft

I put Ubisoft at number one for a damn good reason, and that reason is, that everyone seems to hate the company, but loves their games, and I don’t know why. They haven’t been the overall worst company on this list, although they are pretty bad, but the major problem they have, and have had for at least a decade is that none of their games have any identity, they are literally all the same game, with different coats of paint. Sure, an occasional gem sneaks through like Assassin’s Creed IV, but all of the rest of their games have the same visual style (although ACII does seem to be the base for which they create their art let’s be honest), the shooting mechanics they have in all the games that have guns, all feel exactly the same, which is something even Call of Duty manages to avoid most years (guess I took a shot at them anyways) and yet somehow, someway, I keep seeing people getting excited for their releases, and it doesn’t make any sense. Sure, they throw a celebrity actor in from time to time, and the artistic style they use does look pretty cool, but everything is always the same with them, every single time, no matter what it is, and they still keep making money. It doesn’t really make sense either, because a lot of developers do make games that are very similar feeling, see the Life is Strange team or much as well all loved them, Telltale Games, but at least those titles told extremely interesting stories, and developed their mechanics at least a little, which is something most companies do just on principal, but not Ubisoft. They throw out a few Tom Clancy games every time they talk about what their releasing, the Trials and AC games are still mostly a yearly experience, and I’ll say it again, their entire list of releases since at least 2013, the year the previous generation kicked off, have pretty much all been the same. It would be nice if they made more games like Child of Light, but despite the fact that their games will likely never be as popular as Call of Duty, they keep churning out same-y shooters hoping that one day, maybe just one day, they’ll create their own CoD, and it’s just not gonna happen. The saddest part of all is that when they announce something different, something fans have wanted for years, we get The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Remake, which was literally delayed because fans said they wouldn’t buy it unless some actual effort was put into making it, why is this company so popular that it can keep doing this, someone please explain it to me.

And that’s my list, can you think of any other companies that are too hyped? Let me know in the notes below, hit me up with a follow if you like my content, and give me a reblog, I’d really appreciate it. Have a wonderful life!

26 notes · View notes

conduitandconjurer · 2 years

Text

Sigh. Okay.

I can see that I’m going to have to write a full scholarly review of D.isappearing A//ct in order for anyone to understand my position on it. As usual I can’t occupy one extreme point-of-view or the other, so both the people praising it unabashedly and the people who think it’s total trash are going to misconstrue me unless I’m very, very careful.

I am seeing a sudden rash of back-and-forth posting between so-called “pros” and “antis” about the tension between censorship and moral obligation in the creative sphere: --Just because you can cover content that has a real and negative impact on other people, people who are vulnerable and traumatized by the content you share, should you? --Is art and writing that is inherently self-serving, cathartic, therapeutic, for the author, really bad or selfish, or is it necessary? -- When does someone have the right to ask for trigger tags? When should they just block/unfriend/unfollow? --At what point does cancel culture, which goes after problematic content and seeks to “shut down” its creators, go too far? (I have been on the receiving end of this myself, so believe me, I know how painful it is to be harassed and personally judged for your work) --Just because you can’t harass someone for producing harmful content that is fictional, does that mean they have unchecked freedom to produce content of any nature in a public sphere? I also have complicated feelings on these issues, and Rob’s book, which involves body horror, dubcon, child abuse, scat, and explicit pedophilia (with an unclear authorial pov about all things involved, which may be what unsettles me most, because women, children, and the poor should not be turned into tools for stoner-bohemian slumming-it shock value fodder) is fecund territory for the debate....so, because I’m Like That™, it’s making me feel pressured and uncomfortable.

I am reassured that my qualms are just the product of a provincial mind, that I need to expand my world-view and appreciate the freedom brought by creative amorality, which takes no clear ethical position on anything (usually the term used is “it’s not preachy” with the implication that the greatest of sins is said “preachiness”), but merely explores, ponders, and at times divulges. Clearly, I’m told, this is my middle-class Protestant background getting in the way of my intellectual potential. But I think that excuse is hackneyed, reductive and even condescending. And so I continue my search.

I’ve literally been up till 3 and 4 am several days this past week haunted by this, unsettled further and further by each of the short stories as I read them. It has dislodged and called into question my fundamental views of the author as a person (a person I had previously admired highly without qualm), and what effect his literary work might have on his fanbase, in a COVID19 world where over 88% of us, reputedly, in a recent study, have developed “significant mental health problems, including clinical depression and suicidality.” No, of course one actor turned author isn’t responsible for the emotional welfare of the planet. But what role does his artistry play in all this? I can’t say that I know anymore. And I’d like to. I’d like to know the immediate relevance, the immediate impact, of new media produced by great artists.

If I were smart (which I’m not--after all I went to grad school, became a college professor, and now base my self-worth entirely on my ability to share with and support others) I would just keep my mouth shut till the shitstorm dies down. But again, I’m not smart.

So, at some point, I’ll be sharing an extensive analysis of the book which I hope comes across as clear, nuanced, and respectful, while maintaining my cardinal rule about media consumption: you can do it critically, informedly, and still enjoy it. A fair and balanced critique does not equal hate.

#ooc #do not reblog

2 notes · View notes

citrineghost · 3 years

Text

Humans Are Historically Known for Being Terrible

Hi I’m here with an opinion today. Let’s see how many words it will take for me to adequately get it across on this very fine 15th of January

I personally believe canceling things from the past* is fruitless, pointless, and accomplishes about as much as censorship does

*We aren’t talking about shit like nazi Germany, let me elaborate further

So, as I occasionally do, I have seen a post on my dash today criticizing something historical that people are ‘problematically partaking in.’ That thing today was the wellerman sea shanty due to its ties with colonialism, slavery, and so forth.

I’m not going to dive into this specific example, because I don’t know enough of the details and am not interested in going to find them out because I’m not planning to defend it or its history, so there’s no point. I learned what I needed to know from said callout post and it’s enough to work with.

To me, it is important that we remember that people, in general, have been historically pretty terrible.

There’s colonialism, there’s slavery (of all kinds, including chattel), there’s thievery, murder, genocide, sexism, the murdering of queers. There’s lying, manipulation, propaganda, and so many more things that I couldn’t possibly list them all. I’m not saying that everyone was equally shitty. I am aware that, especially in the most recent couple hundred years, white people, especially Western Europeans and Americans, have been pretty Shite.

Am I excusing them for their actions? Absolutely not. I think it is always important to bear in mind the way they played a part in cultures’ growth, death, and, ultimately, development from one year to the next.

The reason I’m pointing this out is because the result of people being historically shitty is that most, if not all, of our historical content, our history, is steeped in horse manure.

There is not one thing you can enjoy from centuries - even decades - passed that is not here because of something inhumane, unjust, or otherwise terrible.

The only thing keeping us from canceling every other historical thing that we enjoy is our lack of awareness of how each thing ties into the whole mess.

So, we’ve learned that wellerman was sung by slavers and thieves and colonialists. What about that nice little folk song from uh, idk, Ireland or something? Let’s take this metaphorical song and ask the question, “who wrote it?” The truth is, for many folk songs, we just don’t know. There is a very very good chance that 90+ percent of nice, soft folk songs about lying in the grass or feeding chickens or baking bread for your spouse were written by racists, sexists, abusers, homophobes, and so forth.

Does that make it wrong to enjoy that song about lying in the grass and looking at the stars? I don’t think so. No one is profiting off of you listening to it, regardless of who wrote it. It’s hundreds of years old. Do you even know the name of who wrote it?

Remembering that times were different may not absolve something of its wrongdoing, but it does provide us context.

We have to allow ourselves to admit that most, if not all, historical things, came from or benefitted from atrocities or injustices that we would not stand for today. That’s just how human progression works. Frankly, if people 200 years from now don’t look at US, CURRENTLY, and think we’re terrible assholes, I am actually very concerned by that.

The nature of humanity is to get better and better over time and to build a world and a society where we don’t feel the need to be controlled by greed or to consume unethically. The problem is, it takes time. It takes lots and lots of time. Would it take less time if certain people weren’t terrible, terrible people? Yes it would. But they are, and so it doesn’t.

The fact is, human progression and improvement will never reach its end because, as things improve, our perception of our past actions will change as well and we will begin to realize that what we were doing wasn’t acceptable and is no longer necessary nor excusable.

Hate Jeff Bezos? Look around and see that 90% of people still buy from Amazon, because it provides the only affordable source of many products for people who don’t make enough money under capitalism to buy from a small business.

Hate Bill Gates? How many of us are willing to switch to Linux to quit using Microsoft? Speaking of Microsoft, they own Minecraft. Do we stop playing Minecraft?

Think Steve Jobs is a terrible person? Why are people still buying iphones, ipads, and macs? Why don’t we stop buying those so that he and current CEO, Tim Cook, quit making billions of dollars?

These are just a tiny amount of examples, using big names. We also must consider, if you have 100 books on your bookshelf, how many of the writers of those books are racists, homophobes, sexists, or abusers? I guarantee you it’s a non-zero answer. The thing is, an author who’s relatively nobody is not someone who gets canceled. No one knows anything about them but that they wrote a neat work of fiction and it’s a good book.

The question is, should we be expected to quit buying, consuming, and enjoying things made by problematic people?

In some cases, the answer should be yes. If someone is currently profiting massively from people consuming their media or products and people are ignoring their atrocities, that person could end u making millions or billions of dollars despite being terrible, which is something that undoubtedly affects all of us, economically.

In the other cases, the answer should be, do you want to? If you’re not comfortable with something, you should, of course, stop consuming it. If you can ignore the thing, you might not need to bother. And, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re excusing it.

If we look at all of humanity, even in the present day, mathematically speaking, 50% of people are more bigoted and terrible than the rest. There’s no other way for it to be. Less than 50% would be a mathematical fallacy. Does that mean we only consume content from the better 50%? Does that mean we rigorously research producers and creators and their personal lives only to decide it’s not worth the risk of ‘contributing’ because they have no trace online except for a private Facebook account? Is them having a Facebook account enough of a ‘sin’ that it’s not worth it to buy their book?

This brings us to the censorship point

If you know your history, you know that censorship is a nasty thing. When one person decides who or what is unethical to consume from, they sometimes seek to get rid of that thing so that no one has a choice - so that no one is Allowed to consume that thing.

This has led to book burning, the destroying of decades and centuries of research about sexuality and gender. It’s destroyed religious texts. It’s destroyed content created by women that painted any single man in a bad light. It’s destroyed progression.

“But I only want to get rid of the bad thing that everyone agrees is bad!”

It doesn’t matter. If you open the door to censorship for yourself, those who wish to use it for worse reasons will become just as justified, in their own eyes, to do the same. You’ll have Christians saying it’s okay to get rid of gay content because it’s objectively wrong according to the bible. You’ll have conservative parents burning books with complicated topics like abuse and assault because they don’t want their children to have access to anything controversial or complex like that.

You cannot open the door to censorship for one group without opening that door for everyone. And that is why we do not censor things.

The question then becomes, but what of the people consuming that media? Even if it’s not censored, consuming it still makes someone bad, right?

Not necessarily. People consume problematic stuff all the time - things considered objectively bad. However, people don’t always consume said media because they support it being normalized in the real world. For example, fanfiction or books with rape in them may be something a victim reads to cope with their own past or present. A book with abuse depicted may actually make a young teen aware that what they’re going through is abuse. Content largely seen as ‘problematic’ can often play a part in solving the problem it portrays.

Then there’s historical, problematic media. Now, this is an area where I feel things have actually been OVER complicated.

Because everything historical has some tie to injustice, there is no ethical way to consume it.

There is no ethical consumption under passed time.

So, how do we judge whether something should or shouldn’t be consumed? It is my opinion that something historical should stop being consumed and become shunned when its meaning is well-known enough and its message is still pervasive enough that it is actively causing problems.

For example, we generally try not to consume content when it is made by someone who is a known nazi. This is because nazis are still a problem in our society, presently. We have antisemitism all over the place. Therefore, we cannot let the message become that it is okay to be a nazi by way of us treating nazis like normal people and allowing them to succeed in society without consequence.

However, there are certain problems that are no longer particularly prevalent or which are agreed to be terrible on a large enough scale that consuming the content does not necessarily imply you believe it is okay. For example, if you look at literally any media from the 1800s or which is placed in the 1800s, you will see a lot of casual sexism and gender roles. Should we despise that time period because sexism was readily available at every turn? Should we refuse to enjoy 19th century fashion or culture because it had problems? I think not. I think it would be pointless to refuse to consume, read about, or otherwise engage with the 19th century. It wouldn’t change the past and it isn’t going to somehow undo the progress we’ve made on women’s rights.

As a matter of fact, if someone merely suggested that perhaps the people of the 19th century were right for forcing women to wear long dresses and darn socks all day, they would be laughed into oblivion and called a shitty, sexist incel (which would be correct).

Does enjoying media from or placed in the 19th century mean you support sexism? I certainly hope not, since I enjoy it very much and know a lot of progressive people, women especially, who do enjoy that kind of thing. It is common sense enough, at this point in time, that people don’t generally believe that the sexism of the 1800s was acceptable. I am not going to see someone watching a period drama and assume they desire for our present-day social laws to be like what’s portrayed. That would be a ridiculous assumption. However, I could not assume the same about someone I saw watching openly antisemitic content. I would quickly wonder if they’re an antisemite/nazi/white supremacist.

So, what about that one thing I heard had a sordid past?

Listen, if we’re being honest here, most things from history have a sordid past. Sea shanties? You bet. But then when we talk of sea shanties being steeped in colonialism, we have to look at the bigger picture. What about pirates? Pirates were, by and large, a huge contributor to slavery, theft, colonialism, and murder. Does that mean enjoying media with pirates is glorifying or contributing to slavery, theft, colonialism, and murder?

(I’m about to talk a lot about pirates but this can be applied to anything that was historically bad but is no longer prevalent)

Pirates of the Caribbean is only a movie, but pirates did once exist and they did kill people. They did raid ships of merchants and tradesmen and they killed them and stole their goods. They took many good men from their families and even killed working children aboard the ships. Does that make enjoying pirates in media a contributor to these things? No. It doesn’t. We are looking at a dramatised, cleaned up version of the original piracy. I think most people are aware that pirates, in the real world, are bad and harmful and should not be supported. That doesn’t make pirate media any less fun in theory, and under our own terms.

Then we arrive at our perception - because most of this does come down to perception. When you watch pirate media, should you enjoy that, are you able to divorce yourself from their actual history enough to enjoy the media? If you can, you might enjoy it a lot. If you can’t watch a movie about pirates without thinking the entire time about how terrible they were and how much damage they did, then pirate media just isn’t right for you. But, it doesn’t mean you should attempt to take it away from others. Your opinion and perception of pirate media is not the global perception.

I have to ask, do you think others view it the same way you do?

When you read that question, you may be wondering what exactly I mean. What I’m asking is, do you believe others view that media with the same “clarity” that you do? Do you believe they understand the atrocity of real pirates and Feel that the entire time they watch the media and still enjoy it anyway?

Perhaps that’s why your response to someone enjoying something you feel guilty partaking in is, “these people all must not care about the real-world damage pirates did. The fact that they can watch this (despite sitting here and feeling the same things I do) makes me sick.”

However, if that is the case, you must remember that for a lot of people, the awareness of real world consequence is suspended during dramatised depictions of it. It doesn’t mean they have forgotten about the real-world consequences of piracy or that they don’t know it at all. It just means they are choosing not to think about it in that light while consuming media.

There is also the assumption that people must not know about something when partaking in it. You may think, “How can they enjoy this media? They wouldn’t be able to stomach it if they realized what really happened with pirates.”

In many instances, you would be correct. A lot of people are ignorant to what pirates have done in the real world. If you told every ignorant person the truth, maybe 5% of them would then become turned off by pirate media, and the other 95% would keep the truth in mind and then divorce themselves from it to continue enjoying said media.

There are realities that it is safe to divorce yourself from, and there are those that are not.

Is allowing yourself to enjoy dramatizations of pirates making you ignorant to present day conditions? Not largely. There are still pirates today, but not nearly enough for the average Joe to need to take them seriously. Those who need to know about them and do something to stop them are aware.

However, it is not safe to divorce yourself from, for instance, the holocaust. Divorcing yourself from the holocaust and seeing it as merely a dramatic setting with dramatic events and not a present-day real-world problem is exactly the kind of thing that leads to young teens being sucked in by white supremacy and naziism as well as what leads to many average conservatives believing the rise in white supremacy isn’t actually real or is not a big deal. They have distanced themselves so far from the real-world atrocity of the holocaust that they have forgotten it was real and that real people, like them, were contributors. They don’t want to believe that everyday people had any power in it and that it was tiny acts of willful ignorance that made concentration camps so successful.

All in all, there is a different answer for everything we consume.

Want to know if something you’re consuming is okay to consume? Ask yourself: is this produced by someone who is contributing to present-day conditions? If the answer is yes, quit consuming it. If the answer is no, ask yourself, does this media make me uncomfortable because I’m aware of its roots? If the answer is yes, stop consuming it. If the answer is no, it’s probably fine. You are most likely not doing any damage, so long as you are aware of what is wrong with the content and are not using it as grounds to perpetuate harm.

If, when thinking about something problematic in an old piece of media, you cringe? You’re on the right track. If you feel inclined to make excuses for it or justify the wrong in it, it’s time to step away and reevaluate why you feel the need to do so. If you’re doing so because you feel guilty for consuming it, you need to realize that it is actually more harmful to make excuses for the wrong in order to justify your consumption than it is to admit, “Yeah, this media is problematic and contains a lot of sexism, but I still enjoy it for its other qualities.” It is better to admit that you enjoy something problematic than to spread the message that what is happening in it is okay.

Some of you may be thinking, “Or, just stop consuming problematic media.”

I think in many cases, especially recent media, where your consumption has an effect on production, this is true. However, for media that is no longer being produced, I will remind you that most things have something wrong with them - yes, even pretty recent stuff.

Supernatural kills off women constantly, queerbaited the fuck out of its viewers, and sent a huge character to fucking mega hell for confessing his love.

Scrubs has no end to its sexism, transphobic and homophobic slur usage, and other problematic content.

V for Vendetta glorifies and shines a heroic light on a character who kidnaps and tortures a woman for what appeared to have been weeks or months so that she would be forced to understand his trauma and “no longer be afraid.”

Star Wars has incest, the producers/directors abused Carrie Fisher and sexualized her as a young teen, and probably a lot more that I’m not aware of because I haven’t seen the movies nor read the books.

I don’t even need to start on shows like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Community, That 70s Show, and so many more. Almost every popular piece of media has something worth canceling in it. There is no point trying to curate your media consumption to only unproblematic content, because it simply can’t be done.

Curate where it makes a difference. Sigh heavily the rest of the time. Make yourself aware what and how things are problematic. Put critical thought into how your consumption is capable of supporting or perpetuating a problem and how it is not. Make informed decisions.

Do not feel guilty if you are unable to flawlessly live up to the standards of purity culture. None of us can - not really.

13 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 4 years

Note

Is buying the new Harry Potter game supporting transphobes because I've been seeing a lot of that on twitter? Not playing it. Pirating is fine, but actually paying for it.

Hi, anon!

I’ve seen a lot of the same and had initially thought to post my thoughts on the issue… before I got a very angry ask condemning me for a post where I admitted that I thought the game looked great and was excited to play it. I can no longer link to that post because I deleted it: a late night, impulsive decision made in an effort to try and protect myself from further flaming. Thus, I considered ignoring this ask under the same justification… before realizing that it might not matter in the long run. The Harry Potter: Legacy trailer has been out for just a few days and already I have gotten that furious ask, been told off by a friend for mentioning the trailer, and was questioned (antagonistically) about why I had added a Harry Potter related book to my Goodreads list. They’re small and potentially coincidental anecdotes, but it feels as if any engagement with Harry Potter is slowly coming under scrutiny, not just the (supposed—more on that below) crime of purchasing the new game. Given that I will always engage with Harry Potter related media, if there’s any chance such subtle criticism will continue regardless of whether I make the “right” choice to boycott the game or not, I might as well explain my position. Especially for someone who asked politely! Thanks for that 💜.

Which leads to the disclaimer: Any anon hate will be unceremoniously deleted. This is a complicated issue and I intend to write about it as such. I ask that any readers go into this post with good faith and a willingness to acknowledge that this situation isn’t as black and white as they may prefer it to be. If that’s not something you can emotionally handle—which is 100% fine. Some subjects we’re simply not inclined to debate—or if you’re just looking to get in a cheap shot, please hit the back button.

Right. Introduction done. Now here’s the tl;dr: saying things like “Buying this game is inherently selfish/transphobic” isn’t the hot take people want it to be. Is boycotting Legacy one (very small—we’ll get to that too) way of showing support for the trans community? Yes. Is buying the game proof that you’re a selfish transphobe? No. This isn’t a bad SAT question. Legacy boycotters are to trans supporters as Legacy buyers are to ___? The argument that someone is selfish for buying the game is basically that you are choosing a non-essential video game over the respect and lives of trans individuals, but the logic breaks down when we acknowledge that purchasing a game has no real life impact on a trans individual’s safety, support, etc.

“But Clyde, you’re giving Rowling money. She is then using that money to support anti-trans organizations. Thus, you have actively put more harm into the world.” Have I? I’m not going to get into whether/how much/what kind of money Rowling is receiving from this project because the fact is we don’t know and we’ll likely never know. Suffice to say, she probably will get some portion of any $60/$70 purchase. The real question is whether those sales have any meaningful impact. Reputable information on Rowling’s net worth is hard to come by, but it seems to be somewhere between 600 million and 1 billion pounds. Or, to put it another way: a fuck ton. And money keeps rolling in from a franchise that is so, so much bigger than a single video game. It literally doesn’t matter how much money you might put in her pocket via Legacy because she’s already so goddamn rich she can do whatever she wants. If Rowling wants to give a million dollars to the heinous “charity” of her choice, she can. She will. You are not directly contributing to this horror because that money may as well already exist. Every person in the world could refuse to buy this game and she’d shrug, going about her disgusting life because it literally does not affect her in any meaningful way. You’re refusing to give the murderer a knife when they’re got direct access to a knife-making factory. Horrible as it is to hear, you can’t stop them from doing something horrific with that tool.

For me, this is the straw argument of the Harry Potter world. Not straw as in strawman, but literally straws. Remember how everyone was talking about plastic straws, swore off them, and subsequently deemed anyone who still used one to be selfish people who didn’t care about the environment? It didn’t matter if you had a certified “good” reason for using one (disability) or a “selfish” reason (carrying straws everywhere on the off chance you wanted a drink is a pain in the ass)—you’re a horrible person who wants the planet to die. Same deal here. If you can swear off straws, great! Do what tiny bit of good you can. But if you can’t or even don’t want to give them up, the reality is that your “selfishness” doesn’t make a significant difference in the world. The amount of plastic corporations are pouring into the ocean makes your actions inconsequential. It’s not like voting where every small, individual act adds up to a significant total. This is your lack up against others’ staggering abundance. It’s not adding a few drops of water until you have a full bucket, it’s trying to un-flood the boat with a teaspoon while someone else is spraying it with the hose. Have you, on the most technical level, made a difference by moving that teaspoon of water out of the boat? Yes. Is it a difference that holds any meaning in regards to the desired outcome? Not really. Now apply all that to Rowling. She is so phenomenally wealthy—with additional wealth coming in every day—that your purchase of Legacy is a teaspoon of water in her ocean of funds. It’s inconsequential.

“But Clyde, buying this game would support her and supporting her sends the message that what she believes is okay.” Exact same argument as above. JKR’s fame is so astronomical that no video-game boycott could ever make a dent in it. For every 100 people who swear off her work there are another 1,000 who continue to engage with both her writing and the writing related to her world because she is that prominent. Harry Potter is one of the largest franchises of all time, second only to things like Pokémon and Star Wars. This isn’t some indie creator who you can ignore into silence. The reality is that Rowling is here to stay and we have to take far more substantial acts to counteract that influence.

Even more importantly, buying the game is not evidence that you support her views and the black and white belief that it does is an easy distraction from those harder “How do we improve the lives of trans people?” questions. I started compiling a list of stories with problematic authors only to realize the number of incredibly popular texts with awful histories attached to them unnecessarily increased the length of an already long post. Everything from Game of Thrones to Dr. Seuss—if you love it, chances are one of the authors involved has a history of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. Which I don’t say as a way of excusing these authors, nor as a way to silence the justified and necessary call outs on their work. Rather, I bring this up to acknowledge that engaging with these stories cannot be concrete evidence for how you view the minority group in question. The reasons for consuming these stories are incalculable and at the end of the day no one needs a “correct” reason for that consumption (my teacher forced me to read the racist book, I only watched the homophobic TV show so I could call out how horrible it was, etc.) If fiction were an indicator of our real life beliefs we’d all be the most horrifying creatures imaginable. I may be severely uncomfortable with the queer baiting in Supernatural, but if a friend says they bought the DVD collection my response is not, “How dare you support those creators. You’re homophobic.” In the same way, someone purchasing Legacy should not generate the response, “How dare you support her. You’re transphobic.” There’s a miles’ worth of pitfalls in connecting the statements “You purchased a game based on the world created by a transphobic author” and “You yourself are transphobic.”

So if buying Legacy does not add additional harm to the trans community from a financial perspective, and it doesn’t make a dent in Rowling’s platform, and playing a game is not evidence of your feelings towards the group the author hates… what are we left with? “But Clyde, it’s the principal of the thing. I don’t want to support a TERF” and that is an excellent argument. Your morals. Your ethics. What you can stomach having done or not done. But the “your” is incredibly important there. People need to understand that this is their own line in the sand and that if someone else’s line is different, that doesn’t mean they’re automatically a worse person than you. For example, I have made the choice not to eat at Chick-Fil-A. Not because I believe that me not giving them $3.75 for a sandwich will make a difference in their influence on the world, but because it makes a difference to me. It helps me sleep at night. So if not purchasing Legacy helps you sleep at night? That’s a fantastic reason not to buy it. But the flipside is that if someone else does purchase it that is not a reliable reflection of their morals, no more than I think my friends are homophobic for grabbing lunch at Chick-Fil-A now and then. Sometimes you just want a sandwich.

“But Clyde, why would you want to buy it? Rowling is such a shit-stain I don’t understand how anyone can stomach supporting her—whether that support has an impact or not. Maybe someone eats at Chick-Fil-A because it’s close to them and they’re too busy to go elsewhere, or it’s all they can afford, or they don’t know how homophobic they are. There are lots of reasons to explain something like that. But you’re not ignorant to Rowling’s problem and there’s no scenario where you have to play this game, let alone spend money on it. So why?”

The reality is that I will likely be buying Legacy, second-hand if I can, but new if it comes to that, so I’ll give some of my personal answers here, in descending order of presumed selfishness:

5. Part of my work involves studying video games/Harry Potter and as a researcher of popular culture, my career depends on keeping up with major releases: good and bad. I often engage with stories I wholeheartedly disagree with for academic purposes, like Fifty Shades of Gray.

4. I find the “Just pirate it!” solution to be flawed. I’ve spent the last four months struggling to get my laptop fixed and I currently have no income to buy another if it were to suddenly develop a larger problem. I am not going to risk my $2,000 lifeline on an illegal download, no matter how safe and easy the Internet insists it is.

3. We’ve been told that Rowling has not been involved in Legacy in any significant manner and I do want to support Portkey. No, not just financially because I know many others have insisted that everyone good has already been paid. Game companies still need to sell games. That’s why they exist. There’s a possibility that a company with just two mobile games under its belt will be in trouble if this completely flops. Is my purchase going to make or break things? No. Same reality as whether it will put new, influential money in Rowling’s pocket to do horrific things with. But I’d like to help a company that looks as if they put a lot of heart and energy into a game only to get hit with some real shit circumstances outside of their control. Even if they’re not impacted financially or career-wise… art is meant to be consumed. I know if I wrote a Harry Potter fic and everyone boycotted it because they want nothing to do with Rowling anymore, I’d be devastated. Sometimes, you can’t separate supporting the good people from supporting the bad. Not in a media landscape where thousands of people are involved in singular projects.

2. I’m invested in reclaiming excellent works created by horrible authors. That’s fandom! We don’t know much about Legacy yet—this is pure, unsubstantiated speculation—but this new story could be a step forward from Rowling’s books, giving us some of the respect for minority groups that she failed at. That’s the sort of work I want to promote because Harry Potter as a concept is great and I think it’s worth transforming it for our own needs and desires. The reality is that as long as Rowling is alive she’ll benefit from licensed material, but if that material can start taking her world in better directions? I want to support that too.

1. I literally just want to play it. That’s it. That’s my big justification. I think it looks phenomenal and I was itching to get my hands on it the second the trailer dropped. And you know what? I’m not in a good place right now to deny myself things I enjoy. I don’t need to tell anyone that 2020 has been an absolute horror show, but for me certain things have made it a horror show with a cherry on top. Not a lot gets me excited right now because we’re living in the worst fucking timeline, so when I find something that makes me feel positive emotions for a hot second I want to hang onto it. I have no desire to set aside that spark of happiness in a traumatic world because people on the Internet think it makes me selfish. Maybe it does, but I’m willing to let myself be a bit selfish right now.

Which circles back to this issue of equating buying a game with active harm towards the trans community. It honestly worries me because this is a very, very easy way to avoid the harder, messier activism that will actually help the queer community. When someone says things like, “You’re choosing a stupid video game over trans lives” that activism is performative. Not only—as demonstrated above—is purchasing a game not a threat to trans lives or ignoring the game a way of protecting trans lives, it also gives people an incredibly easy out while still seeming ‘woke.’ Not all people. Maybe not even a significant portion of people, but enough people to be worrisome. “I’m not purchasing that game,” some people post and then that’s it. That’s all they do, yet they feel like they’ve done their duty when in fact they’ve made no active difference in the world. Are you donating to trans charities? Are you speaking up for your trans friends when someone accosts them? Are you circulating media by trans authors? Are you educating your family about trans issues? Are you listening to trans individuals and continually trying to educate yourself? These are the things that make a difference, not shaming others for buying a game.

All of this is not meant to be an argument that people shouldn’t be absolutely revolted by Rowling’s beliefs (they should) and that this revulsion can’t take the form of rejecting this game wholeheartedly. This isn’t even meant to be an argument that you shouldn’t encourage others to boycott because though the financial impact may be negligible, the emotional impact for you is very real. I 100% support anyone who wants to chuck this game into the trash and never talk about it again—for any reason. All this is meant to argue is that people shouldn’t judge others based on whether they purchase this game (with a side argument that we can’t limit our activism to that shaming). That’s their decision and this decision, significantly, does not add any real harm to the world. Your fellow Harry Potter fan is not the enemy here. We as a community should not be turning our visceral on one another. Turn it on Rowling. She’s the TERF, not the individual who, for whatever reason, decided they wanted to play the game only tangentially related to her.

If Twitter and Tumblr are any indication, I can imagine the sort of responses this post may generate: “That’s a whole lot of talk to try and convince us you’re not a transphobe :/ ” For those of you who are determined to simply things to that extent, there’s nothing I can say that will change your mind. Please re-read the disclaimer and consider whether yelling at me over anon will benefit the trans community. For those of you who are still here, I do legitimately want us to think critically about the kinds of activism we’re engaging in, how performative it might be, whether it harms the community in any way, and (most significantly) whether it’s actually moving us towards a safe, respective world for trans people to live in. Personally, I don’t think telling Harry Potter fans that they’re transphobic for buying Legacy will generate any good in this world, for them or for the trans community.

At the end of the day only you can decide whether you can stomach buying this game or not. Decide that for yourself, but make that decision knowing that there’s no wrong answer here.

#harry potter #mymetas #Anonymous

33 notes · View notes

jyndor · 3 years

Text

so I was talking to my friend @timelordthirteen about some shit and I decided to just share with you all about the importance of actually explaining shit instead of just saying it. the Left, I am looking at you bitch (ily bitch but)

lol would put a read more but tumblr's being a petty little bitch today ❤

shitposting is fun. dunking on asshat right wingers is fun. you know what is not fun? seeing people not understand the basic terminology that we use in the ~discourse*

but. if we are going to use terminology, if we are going to inject regular old laypeople conversations with (imo) unneccessary amounts of academic terms, then we should try to use them correctly** because in many cases misusing them means we as leftists do not have a full understanding of what the fuck we're on about. this dilutes both the meanings of these terms and their purposes. I know I am wordy as fuck and can be hard to understand sometimes (thanks adhd) so what I am about to say is a little ironic, but clarity is fucking important when it comes to strategy and organizing.

so I am going to examine some commonly misused concepts and terms today. yay.

1. THEORY, PRAXIS AND FRAMEWORKS FOR ANALYSIS weeee yes I am fun at parties tyvm

what is a framework? a structure, in this case, for analyzing some bullshit we deal with irl. that's it lol but I use it a lot so I figured I'd define it here. examples of frameworks are: intersectionality, marxism, queer theory. seriously, if you can think it, it has already been analyzed through the queer lens.

what is theory? ideas, knowledge in the abstract based on looking at shit happen and analyzing that shit. it is useful because it can help us articulate what we are going through in our shitty lives. this is why I often recommend people learn about chomsky's manufacturing consent (theory of why we get the info we get from the media tl;dr), not because I think chomsky is the ultimate leftist grandpa but because this site needs some media literacy lmao. and btw, this clip narrated by amy goodman is a great, trippy little 4:30 min long video that explains the basics of manufacturing consent so you don't have to open a book or use drugs!

theory can help serve as a framework to understand what the fuck is happening to us irl, but imo is kind of an incomplete understanding of shit without lived experience (aka - theory v praxis). this is one reason why we should listen to marginalized groups on their own shit and not talk over them - because all of the research and theory in the world does not make me a Black woman living in Flint (aka - ground up organizing v technocracy). it is not about being nice, or politically correct, although we should be nice and we should care about people just because they're people. if you understand the why of listening to marginalized groups, you understand that it is mainly about communities knowing their own problems best and therefore having the best solutions for those problems.

2. MARXISM, CAPITALISM AND OTHER BUZZWORDS (and leftists need hobbies)

so marxism is a framework for socioeconomic analysis observed by mr kpop himself, karl marx (and his sugar daddy friedrich engels). because leftists love to argue, there are so many kinds of marxism, and if you ever feel like you are shouting into the void too much, just look up some arguments between stalinists and trotskyists. it's just... magical. no, I am not defining tankie here.

as many people smarter than I am have said (read: kwame ture seriously watch this video it's iconic), karl marx did not discover socialism or invent it or whatever, he observed capitalism and saw how shitty it is, like any other sane person would do. the point of marxism is not karl marx (which he would say) or tankies or fuckin guillotines***

things that marxism is:

- an analytical tool for looking at the world

- a theory which was used to develop the basis of different kinds of post-capitalist economic systems like communism and socialism

things that marxism is not:

- a system of economics or government lmao marx did not govern dick

- scary

marx looked at capitalism and said "this is definitely gonna fail someday because it's clearly unsustainable, I mean the proletariat is bigger than the bourgeoisie who owns everything uh yeah so I can do basic fucking math. if I have one capitalist and fifteen hundred workers, eventually that capitalist is gonna lose his damn head because he is gonna hoard all that wealth and his workers are gonna get pissed that they don't have their basic fucking needs met. lmao now put on some kpop, freddy" or something. idk that might not be a direct quote.

what is capitalism? (besides horseshit) a system of economics where industry is privately owned. and yes, this includes publically traded corporations because they are still owned by individuals (shareholders) even if they aren't privately owned by one person or a group of partners. truly a nightmare to live in, and we hate to see it.

what is the proletariat? well, the working class. and the bourgeoisie is the owner class, the capitalist class. the rich.

and this is something else that we need to discuss, tumblr. if you are going to say "eat the rich" please understand who you are talking about. we're not talking about random actors or musicians, or doctors or lawyers, even if they make better than a liveable wage. even if they often have zero class consciousness, meaning they don't ~see class, like colorblind racism for classism.

anyone who has to sell their labor for wages and is not part of the owner class is working class. this includes people who cannot work for any multitude of reasons (disability, can't find work, caretaker, etc) and also white collar workers who might be well off in relatively high paying jobs because they don't own the means of production, or capital that is used to produce shit. so yes, that rich actor who is a part of a union is actually part of the working class in marxist theory. when we say eat the rich, we mean jeff bezos, not john boyega. jeff bezos owns the means of production. john boyega is a working actor who is in a union.

this is important not because we shouldn't get pissed off when actors and celebrities do tone deaf shit like singing about imagining no possessions in their mansions while people starve during a pandemic. they need to put their money to good use, have some class consciousness, instead of asking fans to donate to causes that they could fund. but they are not the bourgeoisie until they start owning the means of production. and there is no doubt that many of them do, which is why we might eat gwyneth paltrow but we won't eat john boyega.

and by the way, eating the rich is metaphorical, a reference to french revolution-era philosopher jean-jacques rousseau's quote: "when the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich." obviously I don't even need to explain it but I will anyway. basically, the people will forcibly redistribute the wealth of the rich if they have nothing else. this is why there are some very smart capitalists who are in favor of reforms and raising taxes, because they recognize the danger to their necks in not providing for basic needs of the working class. no, "eat the rich" does not mean be pro-cannibalism. but there are many capitalists who would prefer to die than lose their hoard so

oh, and one last thing. "no ethical consumption in capitalism" is tossed around a lot and it's a million percent true, but I need all of us to understand that it is not an excuse to support harmful practices but it is also not meant to shame consumers. it is rather an understanding that we as consumers are not responsible for the monstrous impact of capitalism. we live in it, we have no choice but to consume, and sometimes (most of the time) that means we have to buy shit that was produced in unethical ways. unfortunately supply chains being what they are, all consumption causes harm in some way.

it is a reminder that individual actions are not going to have the impact of collection actions. this is why plastic bag bans, though well-meaning, are not going to have the same impact on climate catastrophe as, say, banning fossil fuels would.

I am a vegetarian and I can recognize that I am doing a whole lot of nothing by not supporting factory farms, and when I was a vegan I wasn't doing much either. boycotts without mass support don't have much evidence of working. this is why bds exists - boycott divestment and sanctions. boycott, meaning don't support goods from various conpanies connected to something, divestment, meaning get companies/countries/institutions to remove their money from something, and sanctions, meaning getting countries to penalize a country for their bad behavior until they comply.

this is what the anti-apartheid south africa movement did and what palestinian rights organizers support for israeli apartheid.

do not allow legislators to put the burden of fixing the ills of society that capitalism created on consumers' shoulders.

3. INTERSECTIONALITY (because it deserves its own section)

I don't have as much to say on this as I did the last bit because holy shit capitalism, man.

intersectionality, a term that was coined by law professor kimberlé crenshaw in the late 80s to serve as a framework for people to critically assess how legal structures impact Black women differently due to class, race and gender. it is not incompatible with marxism (in fact marxism has been argued to be a form of intersectionality).

intersectionality can and should be used to examine why the Black queer experience is unique, for example. I also want to acknowledge that professor crenshaw isn't the only person to come up with intersectionality; sojourner truth spoke about it even if she didn't coin the term, for example. patricia hill collins, another influential af Black feminist academic****, created frameworks for viewing intersectionality. also you can read her book black feminist thought here for free.

intersectionality has been used - improperly - by liberal feminists***** to excuse bad behavior from leaders who pretend to care about women while creating and enforcing legislation that harms women. anyone who stans politicians at all needs help. it has also been misrepresented as essentialism, which it is also not (essentialism is the idea that everything has some assets that are necessary to its identity) because intersectionality isn't saying that every Black queer woman has the same experience, just that Black queer women might experience similar issues because of a system that negatively views them as Black and queer and women.

intersectionality does not excuse kamala harris for prosecuting poor moms of truant kids.

okay if you guys have things to add please do because I want us to educate each other instead of always talking shit. both is good.

* I am not calling out people for not being academic enough or not speaking english or not reading enough theory because LOL I am a 2x neurodivergent college dropout who radicalized by working retail and not by hearing karl marx talk dirty to me. also, not everyone speaks english like, I am truly not shitting on people.

** I recognize that language is fluid and ever changing, and that is a good thing. But diluting terms that serve specific purposes is not ever going to be good.

*** and I don't want to dismiss intra-leftist theory discourse (🤢) because I know how annoying it is to hear bernie sanders lumped in with liz warren, or bernie sanders lumping himself in with post-capitalists lmao of course I get it. but twitter discourse is not dismantling capitalism so ANYWAY

**** actually crenshaw built on collins' work (black feminist thought) and the collins built on crenshaw' work we love to see it.

***** I should go ahead and define liberal feminism as well as rad fem and terf and shit because people use them all very very loosely, especially terf (not every transphobe is a terf but every terf is a transphobe, it's like the rectangle/square thing). but I am exhausted with this so next time.

#marxism #word vom #intersectionality #kpop idol karl #truly apologize for my mess

3 notes · View notes

wikipediaredoengl199fa20 · 3 years

Text

Nicolazzo - Wikipedia Rewrite for Overpopulation Page

Edits are in bold. The original page can be accessed here.

Current population dynamics, and cause for concern

Further information: Population dynamics

As of December 8, 2020, the world's human population is estimated to be 7.836 billion.[10] Or, 7,622,106,064 on 14 May 2018 and the United States Census Bureau calculates 7,472,985,269 for that same date[11] and over 7 billion by the United Nations.[12][13][14] Depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may have already occurred.[citation needed]

Nevertheless, the rapid recent increase in human population has worried some people. The population is expected to reach between 8 and 10.5 billion between the years 2040[15][16] and 2050.[17] In 2017, the United Nations increased the medium variant projections[18] to 9.8 billion for 2050 and 11.2 billion for 2100.[19]

As pointed out by Hans Rosling, the critical factor is that the population is not "just growing," but that the growth ratio reached its peak and the total population is now growing much slower.[20] The UN population forecast of 2017 was predicting "near end of high fertility" globally and anticipating that by 2030 over ⅔ of the world population will be living in countries with fertility below the replacement level[21] and for total world population to stabilize between 10 and 12 billion people by the year 2100.[22]

The rapid increase in world population over the past three centuries has raised concerns among some people that the planet may not be able to sustain the future or even present number of its inhabitants. The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth, circa 1994, stated that many environmental problems, such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution, are aggravated by the population expansion.[23]

Other problems associated with overpopulation include the It has been theorized that continued global population growth would lead to increased demand for resources (such as freshwater and food), starvation, malnutrition, consumption of natural resources (such as fossil fuels) faster than the rate of regeneration, and a deterioration in living conditions.[24] However, there is evidence to suggest that alleviating the effects of these crises (which already exist without Earth’s population passing any sort of “overpopulation” threshold) lie outside of population control, but rather, in an equal redistribution of resources from corporations and wealthy individuals (those in “the 1%”) to populations currently affected by these issues. Certain critiques of economic structures such as Capitalism suggest that the encouragement of endless growth for the economy is more damaging for the future of natural resources than individual impact, and therefore efforts do not need to be centralized around population. Moreover, there are certain ethical issues around the concept of overpopulation - mainly, which populations are being controlled, and who makes these decisions. While fears of overpopulation are not the outright cause of atrocities such as forced sterilization or eugenics (enacted against communities of color as opposed to white communities), the concept could easily be appropriated as a justification for the eradication of non-white populations, so an oppressor would not have to reveal their true intentions behind population control (or other policies such as immigration control).

Wealthy but densely populated territories like Britain rely on food imports from overseas.[25] This was severely felt during the World Wars when, despite food efficiency initiatives like "dig for victory" and food rationing, Britain needed to fight to secure import routes. However, many believe that waste and over-consumption, especially by wealthy nations, is putting more strain on the environment than overpopulation itself.[26] This relates back to the prior argument, suggesting that the idea of overpopulation incorrectly shifts the blame of climate change to individuals rather than the social systems in place globally. Focusing on the concept of carbon emissions alone, the sheer output of multiple corporations would far outweigh the impact of most human populations. Again, the impact the 1% has on carbon emissions is simply further argument for the redistribution of resources, rather than the focus on reducing one’s own “carbon footprint”.

(261 words)

Essay and Sources:

For this Wikipedia editing assignment, I decided to edit the Wikipedia page for “Human Overpopulation”, or the concept that the world will eventually no longer be able to sustain human life due to extreme population growth. I approached the subject from the angle of recognizing that humans are depleting natural resources at an alarming rate, while also acknowledging the fact that a specific number of humans are contributing to the depletion of these resources, making the issue of population size less relevant. Therefore, while reading this article, I quickly realized the pervasive viewpoint suggested that individual humans are largely to blame for issues such as climate change as opposed to the output that corporations produce or the lifestyles of the 1%, and that a smaller population size is absolutely necessary for the survival of the human race. Arguments similar to the one I discussed were confined to one or two sentence afterthoughts, with no section for the various questions surrounding topics such as “Who exactly is controlling population growth, and why? Would it be possible or ethical to regulate this (outside of reproductive rights and family planning, which is both ethical and necessary)?” I do not believe this exclusion was a case of explicit bias and deliberately withholding information, but this lack of information instead displayed implicit bias and a lack of foresight.

Since the article was extensive, I focused on revising a subsection titled “Current Population Dynamics, and Cause for Concern”. I altered the first sentence of a paragraph to reflect the fact that the term “overpopulation” itself has a vague definition, and added more information to this paragraph to express the opposing viewpoint more clearly. I summarized the various sources I read and included the relevant articles in links throughout the paragraph. The second paragraph is mostly a continuation of the arguments presented in the first, using one of the only examples of a differing viewpoint in the article as a starting point. This paragraph also had more of a focus on environmental issues in general, while the first paragraph addressed a variety of other topics.

Most of the articles I researched addressed similar topics and expressed discontent with the popular narrative surrounding overpopulation. The articles written by Lyman Stone, Heather Alberro, and Peter Wells and Anne Touboulic focus on the economic argument, tackling the issues of natural resources and supply and demand. As previously mentioned, those who are concerned about overpopulation will cite the impact humans are having on the environment as an example that the human race is living beyond its means. In fact, a small population of humans are living beyond these means, and manufacturing products that simultaneously use up and pollute the earth’s resources. Alberro, in the article “Debunking ‘Overpopulation’”, cites the statistic “The consumption of the world’s wealthiest 10 percent produces up to 50 percent of the planet’s consumption-based CO₂ emissions, while the poorest half of humanity contributes only 10 percent” (Alberro). This shifts the blame back from the individual consumer to the capitalist system which produces more than it needs, then hordes the surplus and says the population needs to decrease for everyone to get their share. The article by Erle C. Ellis takes a more personalized approach to the subject, citing first hand conversations with colleagues about overpopulation and the misconceptions around the subject.

There is one article, written by Robert Fletcher, which not only addresses the economic arguments surrounding overpopulation, but also has a detailed explanation of the link between eugenics, race, and the idea of overpopulation. The article “Barbarian Hordes: the Overpopulation Scapegoat in International Development Discourse” discusses how the idea of overpopulation can be used as a justification for atrocities such as eugenics or forced sterilization: ...the state’s concern with nurturing life applied primarily to its own population, conceived as an organism in competition with other national populations for limited resources and living space…” (Alberro). The fear of overpopulation is not an excuse for these actions that oppressors use against an oppressed group (generally white against communities of color). It is important to challenge the narratives surrounding overpopulation to ensure oppressors are not able to hide behind this idea.

In short, I did not think the wording of the Wikipedia article outwardly displayed a bias. However, the glaring lack of a counterargument was an example of implicit bias. The fact that overpopulation is being used to blame issues such as food scarcity on individuals instead of corporations needs to be addressed. Also, the usage of the concept of overpopulation could encourage oppressors to attempt to disguise eugenics as an attempt to solve the aforementioned issues of climate change, food scarcity, and others. If these changes were to be implemented, I would hope that this perspective allows readers to think critically about the concept of overpopulation.

Works Cited

Alberro, Heather. “Debunking ‘Overpopulation.’” Ecologist, 16 April 2020. Web.

https://theecologist.org/2020/apr/16/debunking-overpopulation

Ellis, Erle C. “Overpopulation is Not the Problem.” The New York Times, 13 September 2013.

Web. https://my.vanderbilt.edu/greencities/files/2014/08/overpopulation-is-not.pdf

Fletcher, Robert. “Barbarian Hordes: The Overpopulation Scapegoat in International Development Discourse.” Taylor & Francis Online, 2 October 2014. Web.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2014.926110?casa_token=DHJuHTs76sUAAAAA%3AsHy3C0NkWG8qnMvxIiGJgMQbOrk1ONGSBuZbe3HW7Pk_hzcxKsaZ-ifpXNKj_8i-q1KjDNtaklBO

Stone, Lyman. “Why You Shouldn’t Obsess About ‘Overpopulation.’” Vox, 11 July 2018. Web.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population

Touboulic, Anne and Wells, Peter. “Rich and Famous Lifestyles are Damaging the Environment in Untold Ways.” The Conversation, 23 January, 2017. Web. https://theconversation.com/rich-and-famous-lifestyles-are-damaging-the-environment-in-untold-ways-71641

Wikipedia Contributors. “Human Overpopulation.” Wikipedia, 8 Dec. 2020. Web.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

1 note · View note

iamnotbrianmay · 4 years

Note

Would you write something about roger having a speech impediment and getting made fun of by some asshole and the other boys jump into Protective Mode™

Tourettes!Roger, you say?

He should have known that a visit to his parent’s house was a mistake. But his mother had been begging him to come to visit, and his sister had asked him to hold the fort with her.

He had agreed after some time, convincing himself that it wasn’t going to be as bad as it had been before, not when he was decently rich and famous and his father could no longer belittle him and make him think he was useless. Or so he thought, but he should have seen it coming from miles and miles away.

It started out pretty okay. They all received him with open arms and chatted about anything and everything for the first half an hour. Then he made the grave mistake of not excusing himself after a, particularly loud, bark.

His father’s eyes gleamed with anger, and he slammed his fists in the table with enough force to make the cups and silverware rattle, “I knew those poofs were no good! They’ve made you forget your manners!”

He let a whimper akin to a kicked puppy but leaned forward to glare at his father, “Don’t call then that!”

“I can call them however I damn well please,” he hissed, Roger barked again, “Besides, that’s not the point. You’ve forgotten to make sure people know you are sorry for being a freak.”

Ah, He thought, There he is. I was wondering where he had been hiding.

Roger stood up quickly, wiping his hands on the cloth napkin and throwing it at his father’s face. The older man spluttered and tried going after Roger, but that proved to be hard when Clare got in his way.

His younger sister said something he couldn’t quite catch and then his father had his hands raised, “Oh, of course, now I’m the bad guy! You know what, Roger? If I’m such a shitty man then leave, and never come back!”

He knew this tactic, he knew what his father was trying to do, and he wasn’t going to fall for it, “As you wish.”

He slammed the door on his way out.

❄︎ ❆ ❅

You’ve forgotten to make sure people know you are sorry for being a freak.

Sometimes Roger wished he could just erase his father completely from his memories. In his mind, he would always fantasize about the person he would be if Michael hadn’t been such an asshole. He could see himself with a better temper, kinder and maybe even a little bit less nervous.

But that was too much to ask, the damage caused by his father was already done.

You’ve forgotten to make sure people know you are sorry for being a freak.

He and Brian are walking side by side, holding hands, as they walk down the mall. He is pleasantly wrapped up in several winter coats, a red scarf, and thick gloves. Brian is dressed similarly, a fact which had caused John to roll his eyes at them when they walked out of the flat. He hated when they matched, the bassist insisted it made them look gross.

Brian had been talking for a while about ethical consumption while tracing small patterns on Roger’s hand with his thumb, and Roger had been trying to suppress his ticks for a long time, pushing down the small whimpers and ‘I love you’s and other embarrassing stuff in front of Brian.

It felt ridiculous, he hadn’t done that ever since they had met almost ten years ago, and he knew it was bound to come back and bite him in the ass later on, but he couldn’t help but do it. Not when his father’s words are fluttering around his head making him nauseous.

You’ve forgotten to make sure people know you are sorry for being a freak.

It comes to an end when Brian stops mid-sentence to stare at Roger who is trying, with all his might, to hold off the explosion. He stares at him for a few seconds the swiftly takes them back to their car. It only takes a few minutes, but it’s enough to make Roger’s head start hurting, and once they get inside, he can’t hold them back any longer.

He deflates like a balloon, five or ten minutes pass in which he lets the tics take over and once he is done he slumps back into his seat, exhausted. Tears of shame are brimming his eyes, and he wipes them before Brian can see.

You’ve forgotten to make sure people know you are sorry for being a freak

“I’m sorry.”

Brian turns to look at him as if he has grown a second head. He tilts his head to the side, the frowns. It looks as if he is trying to solve a particularly hard puzzle, “What’s brought this on?”

It’s Roger’s turn to frown, “What’d you mean?”

“I mean, you know you don’t have to say you're sorry, not about this, not when it’s something as normal as breathing.”

That made him snap, he slammed his feet and hands like a little kid, and then turned towards Brian, “It’s not normal,” bark, “Normal people wouldn’t act like me,” bark, “Normal people wouldn’t have their dad hate them.”

Ah, Brian thinks, There it is.

He gets the car out of the parking lot and starts driving towards the Taylor house, all while Roger was sitting in the passenger seat, anxiety bubbling up in his chest. After a few seconds, Roger gulped, feeling brave enough to ask, “Where are we going?”

“Michael’s house,” Brian answered, “I’m going to deck him for setting you back.”

“Setting me— Brian don’t be ridiculous, he is right, I have forgotten to be sorry for being a freak.”

The older man slammed the breaks of the car and parked on the side of the road, earning several angry honks and near misses, but the guitarist couldn’t care less. He turned to look at his boyfriend, who was desperately trying to hold back the urge to quack like a duck.

“Is that what he told you?”

Quack, “I’m sorry. Yes, and you know what? He might just be right,” Quack, “I’m sorry.”

Brian undid his belt and leaned over to cup Roger’s face, making the blonde turn to look at him, “I am going to kill that man. I promise you that I am. But first I need you to understand something, and I know it’s going to take a really long time to do so, but I don’t care. You are not a freak, and you don’t have to be sorry for your condition.”

“Why?” Brian knew that face and that tone of voice, it was one of utter defeat, something he didn’t often see in Roger’s features, “Why shouldn’t I be sorry?”

“Because it’s a part of you. Because it has shaped you into who you are today, and yeah I know it sucks ass sometimes Roger, but I wouldn’t have you any other way, and neither would John, or Freddie or anyone who is actually worth a damn.

“So what if you have Tourettes? So what if you can’t go a day without barking or jumping around? It doesn’t make you a freak, and you shouldn't be sorry for being who you are.”

His boyfriend pulls him closer and that’s all it takes for him to break down into soft sobs, and ever once in a while letting out a small tic which only helped to aggravate the situation more. But it seemed that Brian didn’t care about that, he just held him close and whispered sweet nothing into his hair, already planning how to make Michael’s murder look like an accident.

#brian may #roger taylor #queen #my writing #maylor #slash #fanfic #tourettes!roger

24 notes · View notes

meeresfem · 5 years

Text

why daily habits are important after all

To me, as a poor and psychologically wounded person, changing daily habits to be more environmentally friendly is sort of like being polite to mother earth.

I know turning off the tap when I don’t need the water won’t stop droughts in other parts of the world (or even here) and I am depressed about what happens with recycled trash afterwards whenever I think about it and I know there is “no ethical consumption under capitalism” (which by the way NEVER meant “so don’t even try to change anything”).

But all these things are important anyway!

I see this kind of as a parallel to microagressions and basic decency. Just like being polite to people who are systematically oppressed isn’t going to give them housing and health care and food sovereignty or free them from environmental racism or exploitation or any of that - it’s still important.

I couldn’t call myself an activist or social justice proponent or try to ally if I didn’t even bother to show minimal respect and politeness on the level of saying “please” and “thank you” and smiling and listening and giving everyone their personal space and apologising when I mess up or step on anyone’s toes (literally or figuratively).

Of course to be an actual activist, it can’t just stop there. But it has to start there imho.

So how could I call myself an environmental activist while wasting water and other resources, littering or buying unnecessary plastic or electronic throwaway-items, flying by plane or driving by car needlessly or being anything else than as-vegan-as-possible-for-me?

I wouldn’t trample a flower or rip off tree branches without good reason either!

Changing what daily habits and consumer choices I can change in my current circumstances - without guilting myself over the things I cannot do - is how I express and cultivate my respect for our earth.

If I were to be “rude” to mother earth on a daily basis and excused it with “consumerism doesn’t change anything”, I’d cultivate disrespect for our planet in myself. I’d get used to mistreating ki on a daily basis and justifying the mistreatment.

That’s just not a good basis for doing effective activism in any capacity!

I’m not saying this must necessarily be the same for everyone. But for me - and I’m guessing for a lot of other people too (you’ll probably know where you land wrt this) - it’s important to cultivate respect for everyone I value, including our planet.

Again, I know it’s not possible to always do everything. Heck, I’m not even able to hold eye contact or speak (and thus say “good morning”) 100% of the time! But I no longer beat myself up over this or call myself impolite or rude, because I know this is not done out of devaluing the other person, it’s a result of my psychological or physical struggles and limitations. Everyone has their struggles and limitations and everyone deals with them in a different way.

Everyone has different priorities and that’s as it should be! So if you’re “rude” on a day-to-day basis but effect real change through other avenues, then more power to you! If you use plastic plates because doing the dishes is too much for you, you rock!

But please don’t denigrate others or sap them of hope by telling us our actions are meaningless, when what we do is vital for us to feel and express and nurture respect for other people and the earth. And from that fertile ground of respect can spring beautiful flowers! (= Other types of actions, marches, protests, community organising, direct action, mass boykotts, art, what have you!)

It kind of reminds me of discussions around whether spending energy educating others on the correct usage of non-oppressive language is worth the effort or a waste of time and energy that could better be spent doing more meaningful activism. And I can understand both sides! For some people, being confronted with thoughtless (not even intentionally mean!) words and phrases that hurt them is bad enough to have to leave spaces that might otherwise have empowered them. So it’s not a waste of time to change our language to be welcoming to everyone!

On the other hand, some people simply don’t have the energy and time to have the same discussion about terminology for the hundredth time so they tune that out and focus on lobbying for societal and political change or building up community resources.

And we need it all. Not everyone needs to do all the work simultaneously, but we all can contribute something and we need some people who do this and some people who do that and some people who do a bit of everything and some people who concentrate on getting through the day!

33 notes · View notes

ill-be-istj-if-no-one-else-is · 5 years

Text

So...why are there still a disproportionate number of INFJs

I do want to open this with a couple disclaimers:

First: unless you provide descriptions of yourself that clearly conflict with INFJ I’m not going to tell any individual “you are not an INFJ.” It’s unlikely to be well received by someone not ready to hear it.

Second: I am operating under the assumption that the MBTI foundation’s numbers on type prevalence in the population are roughly correct and can be applied in general which is to say, only about 2% of the population at most are INFJs. You are welcome to assume that there are far more INFJs than that; in which case that’s fine but then all the special rarest type stuff is necessarily false.

Why INFJ?

We’ve talked about this before but let’s quickly go over it again.

Intuitive bias and specifically bias towards Ni being mystical and psychic and insightful (and Si being stodgy, conservative, and dull) is the first part. We get a Barnum effect. People want to believe flattering stuff about themselves.

Introvert bias - the idea that only introverts feel misunderstood or are capable of deep emotion and sensitivity.

Fe being seen as better than Te. I think this is more about the deep emotion and sensitivity again.

So why still INFJ now that we talk about bias openly?

People do not vet their sources. I know this, because I still regularly receive questions like “do you type people” which I usually delete, and someone who vetted me (by which I mean, read the FAQ and maybe read like, an arbitrary page or two of the archives) would know this. And if they don’t vet me my guess is they don’t vet random forums, or the Introvert Superiority Squad websites (which also all seem to have an intuitive bias and sometimes a feeler bias as well) or Facebook groups where literally everyone is typed as an intuitive. This creates a pretty ironic dynamic incidentally; the most earthshattering, non-traditional, unique thing you could probably do is show up in one of those groups and be like “Hi, I’m an ESTJ”. But with that in mind, the number of “Ni is magic” sources still outstrip anything debunking that, and it will continue to do so because anyone can start a blog or comment on a forum, so everything just keeps propagating.

However, there’s another factor that I think has only increased now that there’s more information about the drawbacks of intuition (not limited to INFJs, but definitely including them). I’m struggling with a way to refer to it that doesn’t make me seem like some kind of Millennials Are Killing Everything person, which is weird because I’m fully a millennial. But I think it’s important and I guess if you feel I’m yelling for you to get of my lawn, I kind of am.

I find Tumblr, and especially younger people on Tumblr who have not had a huge amount of life experience have what I might call a culture of inaction. It’s widespread. It ranges from politics (eg: the idea that no ethical consumption under capitalism means you don’t have to care at all) to mental health (eg: the attitude that suggesting depressed people do anything is ableist) to adulthood in general (hobbies are too expensive, outside is scary, etc). Weirdly, this does not extend to media, leading to a bizarre paradigm in which people swear that watching a specific show will solve racism and seeing a specific movie will permanently brainwash all girls under 12 and who you ship in a fandom is a major, revealing life decision but brushing your teeth regularly even when you feel terrible or voting in a midterm election are pointless, and that’s a whole other discussion [actually it’s not really much of a discussion. Healthy engagement with media is great! But passive media especially can enable a lifestyle of inaction. Few people do absolutely nothing all day, or at least, they put a screen in front of themselves while they do it.]. But getting back to the MBTI point, my hypothesis is that typing oneself as an intuitive is a way to validate this particular viewpoint - it becomes okay to live primarily in your head with little external action because you’re an intuitive, you’re supposed to be like that.

This mindset is particularly noted for introverts (extroverts tend not to need the same strong push to leave the house) and less so for high Te users since Te is seen for better or worse as the Do Things function (I mean, it is to some extent, but it’s also not the only way to do things as ESTPs demonstrate).

This also puts a lot of things that have annoyed me in ways I can’t articulate in perspective. The attitude of “I’m an intuitive and I wish I were a sensor” is fine on the surface, but when you dig into it, you can develop skills! I sometimes wish I were an extrovert! I’m really not! So I make myself do things that are difficult for me, like socializing at parties, to get better at them! Don’t wistfully say “I wish I were better at this thing but alas, I am not, I must lie upon my bed and tragically waste away ” - do something to actually get better at it! Unlearn your helplessness. The same with all of the “reality has a sensing bias” and “well it makes sense intuitives are rarer - a society only needed one shaman but plenty of hunter gatherers” - this idea that inaction and withdrawal from the real world are justified, superior actions.

When it comes to bias, the only way to help is to provide more information, but for this I think the only thing to do is stress that type is not fate, nor an excuse for complacency.

#mbti #long post #this is obviously an opinion and a theory #but like...it fits well #infj

69 notes · View notes

chloeywoey · 5 years

Text

hi everyone! i’m jay (24, est, she / her) and i’m so excited to be here! this is chloe, my social media obsessed darling who’s faker than a three dollar bill but a good person at heart. underneath the cut is an obnoxiously long intro. i’ll be around tonight to plot, and i’ve got a three day weekend so i’m super pumped to get some good connections going and get active on the dash :)))

BASICS

full name: chloe ann lautsch age: twenty-one birthday & star sign: february 6th, aquarius birthplace: festus, missouri sexuality: heterosexual gender identity & pronouns: cis female, she / her housing: audax occupation: social media influencer + traits: progressive, business-savvy, independent, imaginative, go-getting, determined, kind-hearted, take-charge - traits: inauthentic, dishonest, ashamed of her past, perfectionist, performative, untruthful, closed-off song: sampaguita by navvi

BACKGROUND

— chloe was born in missouri to a mother that was pretty much useless as a parent. her mother, deb, was a bar fly who would go home with almost any man who’d so much as buy her a drink. she inevitably ended up pregnant with chloe, but was woefully unprepared for motherhood. this led to chloe growing up without much structure, forced to be independent. the home was dysfunctional, as the only thing worse than deb’s parenting skills was her taste in men. chloe often found herself having to bandage up her mother’s wounds or with wounds of her own after drunken altercations. — all things considered, chloe did well in school. though socially, she struggled. it was hard making friends when she couldn’t invite them over without fear they’d walk in and find her mother passed out on the couch. or when people made fun of her due to rumors about her mother. chloe never had much money or nice things in general. and though this made it harder to fit in, it also instilled a fiery work ethic in her. by sixteen she was working two jobs, trying to study for her algebra tests while manning a mcdonald’s drive through or babysitting local kids. — with everything going on in her life, chloe barely had time to breathe, let alone eat or sleep. with exhaustion taking its toll and SATs coming up, she began buying adderall to help her get through long days and nights. later, her mother began dating a scummy dealer and chloe would steal from his stash, developing a cocaine habit. but chloe was always good at making herself and her life look like something it wasn’t. she mostly did it on social media, after finally saving up enough to buy an iphone. — at age seventeen, chloe petitioned for early graduation. and with her teachers basically clamouring over themselves to write her letters of recommendation, she was set for college. however, she had no idea what she wanted to do. her instagram had developed a surprisingly decent following for a girl from bumfuck missouri, mostly due to her seemingly “perfect” life. she loved the internet. her instagram followers didn’t know that she lived in a trailer or that her mom was a falling-down drunk. unlike her small town where reputation preceded people, on the internet, people only knew what she wanted them to know. she could make her life be anything. she could reinvent herself. so she’d put together cute outfits, not letting her followers know everything she wore she scoured for at goodwill. or take a carefree selfie, everyone unaware that just an hour before she’d been sobbing due to being pushed over an end table by her mother’s boyfriend. or she’d post food pictures, not saying how she had to drive 45 minutes just to get to the local whole foods and spent her entire paycheck on five items. she was incredibly talented at polishing the turd that was her life and making herself seem like a cool “it-girl” that others would want to be. — in two years, chloe capitalized on her love for social media by starting a YouTube channel and turning her instagram into an aesthetic wet dream. currently, she has 375k instagram followers, 120k YouTube subscribers and an ebook published. she’s reinvented herself as a vegan lifestyle blogger. her aesthetic is cute cafes and green juices, smoothie bowls, selfies, bikini shots, sponsored outfit posts...the usual cringe. — she moved to new york at eighteen. and with the city at her disposal, it became easier to live the lifestyle she had to try so hard to fake back in rural missouri. her pages grew to what they are today during her stay in new york, after which she applied to lockwood at age nineteen to study social media marketing. — however, all that glitters is not gold. chloe isn’t exactly honest with her followers. for example, her skinny body - which she attributes to yoga and veganism - is mostly due to her cocaine addiction which got worse while in new york. she rarely eats. she’s promoting a healthy lifestyle, posting self love quotes and publishing a vegan recipe ebook yet snorting cocaine and stress smoking cigarettes. she’s practically telling people “if you follow my diet, you can look like me”, meanwhile she doesn’t even follow her own diet. she often pretends to use products just to get ad revenue. or buys something, does something or goes somewhere just for a picture opportunity. like posing with a plate of pasta just to throw it away after. so even though she portrays herself as perfect, she’s far from it.

PERSONALITY

— chloe is obsessed with portraying her life as perfection. she’s borderline neurotic about it. she barely sees herself as a person anymore, but instead as a brand...as something to be marketed and for public consumption. social media is her career and it’s what pulled her out of poverty. it’s her only source of income, and the fear of going back to working retail and struggling between multiple jobs is always one hanging over chloe’s head. she’s absolutely not a rich kid who had everything handed to her, though you’d never know it because she refuses to talk about her past, going so far as to say her parents are dead and lie about where she’s from. — she’s definitely fraudulent, and there’s no excusing that. she perpetuates an unattainable perfect life to her followers, which is one of the biggest issues with social media. however, she doesn’t do it out of spite or a desire to deceive, but rather she almost feels as though if her life looks perfect, her real problems don’t exist. — chloe is a go-getter and takes initiative in her endeavors. she’s very business savvy, though that doesn’t mean she’s always been. when first coming to new york and growing her brand, she did do some things that made her uncomfortable. she took advice from predatory people under the guise of caring and only through that, she learned to advocate for herself. it also put another nail in the coffin of her ability to trust others. she’s busy and has little time for bullshit. that coupled with her trust issues lead to most of her relationships not working out well. she also fears abandonment and opening up to people, as she’s ashamed of her past and her imperfections. — if she had a reputation around campus, it’d probably be as little miss perfect, which is a persona that can be grating. she’s generally sweet, though can be blunt and bold. she’s definitely outspoken about things she believes in and can be found handing out flyers to get more vegan options in the dining hall or standing up to a misogynistic frat boy at a kegger. but she’s also performative, not feeling real unless people are watching. doing things to be perceived a certain way instead of just being authentic.

CONNECTIONS

— a genuine friend. someone she can just be herself around. — ex boyfriend(s). she tends to put herself and her career first. she also is obsessed with perfection and most likely trotted her boyfriend and her relationship out on her social media, wanting him to play along with her little games. most of her relationships, therefore, feel inauthentic. — boyfriend or bff for “clout” (i hate that word asdjkdjdl). basically a fake relationship or friendship just to get insta likes lol. fun spin on a fake dating plot. or a frenemies thing, like they don’t actually like each other but pretend to. — enemies. i’m sure she gets on people’s nerves by pretending to be little miss “i do pilates and drink celery juice and shove veganism down everyone’s throats”. — hookups and no strings attached things — her drug dealer, since she’s still very much addicted to cocaine — anything and everything else! <3

#lw:intro #drugs tw #abuse tw #death mention tw #addiction tw #fingers crossed this formatting isn't a hot mess!!!

5 notes · View notes

rotationalsymmetry · 2 years

Text

Re: cottagecore (this is a content warning, ok?)

Yeah. Yeah.

Also. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” can just as well be applied to media consumption, and also, desire is good and pleasure is good and figuring out what makes you happy is good. And there is a thing where certain kinds of interests get more heavily scrutinized than others, based on which types of people are interested in them (*cough* women, queer people, queer women), and there is a thing where if what’s attracting you to cottagecore isn’t the whiteness but is wanting simplicity or more nature in your life or whatever, you’re more likely to find ways to put the things you actually want out of it into your life. I know people who raise chickens or keep beehives in cities (people who do a lot of work to make the world a better place) — there are elements of cottage core that are not incompatible with staying where you are and fighting for change.

And I gotta say, as a disabled person, I do like this kind of thing as an escape. I watch goofy YouTube “ambiance” videos of vacation homes out in the woods or hipster cafes, and so far have managed to avoid seeing any criticism of those even though I’m sure there’s plenty to criticize. (Even apart from the extremely questionable photoshopping.) It’s not entirely a substitute for going outside, but some days it’s what I’ve got, and I’m pretty sure cottagecore photos of fields of flowers and pies cooling on a ledge have a similar effect for a lot of disabled people: it’s not the same as being there, but sometimes it’s as good as you’re going to get. (Plus, indeed, fewer bugs.)

Cities (and suburbs, but that’s not exactly a news flash) are fundamentally hostile to human life. People don’t actually do well stacked up on top of each other like sardines in studio apartments where you don’t know your neighbors. One of the things all species need, along with food and water and shelter, is space, and cities are pretty fucking awful at giving human beings adequate space. This is a true thing that almost never gets said out loud in the environmental movement, because … because how else are we going to live? And because packing humans together like sardines is efficient, and while the environmental movement doesn’t always make cost effectiveness our top priority we do value other forms of efficiency, like energy efficiency, like the fuel efficiency of not having to drive an hour to get to the Walmart three towns over.

Maybe it’s possible to re-make cities to be better habitats for humans — more open spaces/third spaces where you don’t have to buy stuff to exist there, good walkability, structural changes that make it easier for neighbors to know each other, something changing in that thing where if you’re at a certain level of affluence you’re expected to be willing to move for work (it’s hard to build community when you’re moving all the time, and incidentally a lot harder to really know the plants and animals and climate patterns of your area, hard to connect to the land.) Probably normalizing remote work. More plants — always more plants. Fewer cars — yeah, a lot of disabled people, myself included, need cars, but also, cars take up so much space, in roads and parking lots and parking garages, it’s ridiculous. (The rise in delivery as a normal way of buying things is not good for this — a consumer might bike or take public transit, but a delivery driver is on a tight schedule and can’t.)

Getting more informed about indigenous issues and getting plugged in to racial justice movements is a good idea whether you’re into cottagecore or not. It’s not like mainstream culture isn’t racist and inclined to justify/excuse/minimize/perpetuate colonialism. City/suburb land is also stolen land. The land I’m currently on was stolen so long ago the tribe that used to live here doesn’t even exist any more. The land I grew up on was also stolen land. It’s. All. Stolen. Land.

That’s not a reason to not care, but it does mean that going “oh, now that I know that cottagecore is kinda connected to homesteading and actively taking away land from indigenous people, I can just find a different interest and then my hands are clean and I’ve done everything I need to do” that’s extremely not how this works. Decolonization is going to be a thing you do or a thing you don’t do, independent of whether you like pictures of sunflowers, and anti-racism isn’t something that you do by making sure you only have unproblematic hobbies — because you can achieve whatever level of personal purity you want and racism will still exist.

(As usual, please don’t use me to justify ill-advised arguments with other people on tumblr, especially indigenous people, over this, and better yet don’t have ill advised arguments at all. Definitely don’t harass people.)

(I have like 90% confidence on this? It’s always possible that a few years or like 6 months from now I’ll run into something else and be like, “wow, that was a terrible opinion, what was I thinking.”)

#commenting on without reblogging

1 note · View note

fumblebeefae · 7 years

Note

I know you didn't say anything about hating vegans or anything but are we actually doing a bad job? like is all of this just a lie and not actually helping the environment or anything :/ because one of the biggest reason for me to go vegan is cause of environmental issues and all

I don’t hate vegans, not the ones that aren’t spreading misinformation or think they are on some sort of moral high ground to everyone else. But I don’t agree with it myself because it is all superficial, without any proper action if I’m being honest.

And when there is action it’s usually targeted at the wrong issue and does more harmful then good. My main issue is that vegans see animals as very individual. They want to save every single cow or pig or chicken without thinking about it rationally or about the horrible impact that would have no important species (species that are actually vital to ecosystems). Veganism fails to see the bigger more important picture.

“Saving” domesticated farm animals is not important. I’m sorry but it’s just not. Not when it means “saving” these animals will have drastic negative effects.

I mean there are always ways that agricultural and animal industries can be improved. But just refusing to buy meat or use animal products don’t change anything. And realistically we’re not going to stop eating meat or producing wool ect. You have to understand that and accept it and look at ways to improve those processes not try and shut them down completely.

And more veganism just means more demand for certain crops, which require more land clearing + more pesticides ect. Veganism is just as bad for the environment and animals as any other diet is. In a capitalist society there really isn’t any ethical consumption.

The world and the environment can’t survive under a capitalist society. Capitalism is what’s stopping us from using green energy solutions or inverting more. Not because these solutions are “expensive” or hard to make or whatever use excuses are being made. It’s because they won’t make as much money as easily.

Just like buying honey isn’t going to “save the bees” or turning the tap off when you brush your teeth won’t save water. They’re things corporations and company’s push because they’re easy and shift the blame onto consumers and away from them.

We need to look into real solutions. Realistic solutions that aren’t just superficial I-want-to-feel-good-without-doing-anything-too-hard “solutions” but real ones. And they need to be towards actual important significant issues. Animals being killed for a source of food or harvesting honey or wool, is not even close to being an issue we should be worried about. I’m sorry that you’ve been led to think otherwise, there is alot of misinformation out there and people will lie to get their agenda across. But veganism just doesn’t help the environment. It just doesn’t.

#veganism #biology #environment #this kinda turned into a bit of a capitalist rant but it's important #Anonymous

4K notes · View notes

lucalicatteart · 7 years

Photo

Some random info about blood in Nanyevimi..

Particularly on the topic of the collecting and selling of it in the realm, attempts to regulate the industry, implications of it, reasons against the practice, etc. (info under read more, even though this is an extremely short post compared to others it’s still in that weird in between length where it’d be just slightly too long if posted fully I guess lol)

---------------------------------------------

The concept of blood in the supernatural realm has always been complicated. Many scholars and cultures theorize that it itself, has supernatural properties and something to do with the nature of magic, while others (which is a more common view) claim that though some blood can indeed have magical properties, that is more reliant on the already existing magical aspects instilled in the person themselves by their soul/magic/etc (as there’s still debate as to where precisely magic comes from and what indicators are present on a physical or tangible level). Some people believe all bloods to have differing special properties depending on the species, and some say they’re all virtually the same with little difference, especially when you look at them under scientific examination. But despite the various beliefs and cultural systems in Nanyevimi all having their own unique relationships with and conceptualization of the idea of blood, and how it should (or shouldn’t) be used, there has always been a (rather small) market for the distribution and collection of it.

There are ethical concerns with the mass collection of blood, as despite there being humane ways to collect it, in an industry as unregulated and largely spread out across the world as it is, it can be hard to ensure that that was the case.

In addition, most species have a huge list of incompatibilities and harmful effects that can occur due to the mixing or accidental consumption of blood. Which is one of the things that has lead some people to believe blood contains magical properties in the first place, as it can have such varied reactions in others. Even if, when examined in a lab two bloods have seemingly no large difference (like obviously blood will vary by species and all blood has normal variations in it, but I mean like.. it's not like you'll compare two of them and one is of such absurdly different composition that you're unsure if it's even blood, etc. Most of them seem fairly in the same range, and there are no currently recognizable properties that correlate with or account for the differences that have been noticed in blood, etc. ), they may still have wildly varying effects in certain applications, hinting at some sort of undetectable inherent properties. Not to mention all the other various health concerns that arise from improper storage and handling, etc.

Due to this, it is illegal in many countries in Nanyevimi to collect blood for non-medical purposes, and especially to buy and sell it (with exceptions for Navyete of course as the population (vampires/avirre'thel) literally needs it to survive, but they have their own extensive laws and hugely strict cultural ceremonies and conditions surrounding it, leading to it being highly regulated there and limited to the native population/species). Though of course people find a way to do it anyway.

Some people collect blood as a form of unofficial research, to use it and examine it, for whatever reason an amateur at home scientist may want to examine blood (like for example, certain small groups of hobbyists who are determined to research and document and test the limits of every known species in the world, but would rather not be subject to the ethics laws of working officially so they just run a lab out of their basement and try to hunt down different people from various species and convince them to come have tests done (or kidnap them, depending on the.. particular attitude of the amateur scientist in question)).

Others collect it more as a sport, given how many different species and subspecies there are in the world, some (this is like a ridiculous rich person thing lol...like, nobody would give a shit to do this if they weren’t some combination of bored, rich, and lacking empathy for the general population that isn’t like them) people seek to collect samples from them all, making rare or endangered species’ blood incredibly valuable (and again like.. not animals.. like.. very conscious living humanoid beings.. hence the claim that they’re detached from the humanity of others. Stalking and hunting down groups of people like animals just so you can get a blood sample is.. Freak Behavior). This is different from the science hobbyists, in that they don’t want to study them and don’t care about discovering rare evolutionary branches or secret capabilities, they legit just see it as a cool game, like collecting all trading cards in a set and then bragging about it to their other bored and rich friends.

The most popular reason to acquire blood however, would be to consume it as a delicacy (these are like a sub-category of the 'bored rich idiots', who happen to be more gullible and are convinced it has magical properties. Like, rich fools who are willing to spend tons of money on blood samples because some other vaguely less foolish rich person manipulated and scammed them by claiming that it would give them good luck or get them high or help make them fertile or something), and probably a majority (about 65%) of the underground blood market is for this purpose. People trying to get their hands on different blood from the most obscure or important species, thinking that consuming it will help them in some way or give them bragging rights or that it will just taste different than the others*, and is similar to trying a new fancy food or sampling different wines at an upscale restaurant (but it's USUALLY still out of them thinking it will do something for them. Even a lot of the people who claim they just like sampling and want to try all different types are always, secretly hoping to themselves that they’re going to unlock secret magic from it or something lol)

*(interestingly though, kind of similar to how some wines in our world have been proven to be this way, most people actually can not distinguish any difference between the different blood of humanoid species. It’s all the placebo effect at best, and pseudoscience peddling blood sellers actually tampering with the blood using magic to give it fake flavors at worst. The only species ever verifiably and reliably proven to be able to detect a distinction between types of blood (in humanoid creatures and animals alike) are the Avirre’thel (which is interesting since perhaps they have a rare ability to actually pickup on some of the aforementioned ‘undetectable magical properties’ or something), but like anyone else who says they can is probably just… a silly rich person tricking themselves into thinking it was wise to spend $20,000 on a rare blood sample from a dingy black market blood shop )

Ironically, the Avirre’thel/vampires, the only species in existence that literally requires consumption of the blood of living beings to survive (so has the best excuse out of everyone to participate in these things), are one of the main combatants of this industry, partially due to the cultural traditions they’ve built up around similar concepts, leading them to see this treatment of blood as highly disrespectful and also grossly irresponsible (especially due to them often having to interact with various human populations be incredibly careful about it, and also being pretty much experts in things like blood sensitivities, what species are compatible/incompatible, basic cross species/cross cultural standards of respect and communication, how to interact safely with those from other areas without starting conflict, etc etc. They have some of the highest standards in the world for all things of that nature (given they have thousands of years of forced experience with it), and they see stuff like this as like absurdly inappropriate and not at all in accordance to how things like this Should be handled). They see it as not only insulting to them (given the significance of blood in their culture), but more importantly, reckless and dangerous to everyone else as well, given how serious of matters are being tampered with and the potential harmful effects that a lack of knowledge and regulation can bring. A deep respect for blood and a cautious reverence for the lives around them is so deeply ingrained in their culture that, despite being probably one of the biggest groups that could stand to gain from an entirely unregulated blood market, they're actually some of the most strongly opposed to it.

The industry has especially flourished in (or basically has entirely relocated to, as it’s one of the only places where it’s actually legal) Mippya (another reason the Avirre’thel are often involved, given it’s so close to them and… the.. cursed Fanyin elves on their bullshit again), as it is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the supernatural realm (and the least regulated which makes it particularly popular for.. certain types of people). Blood selling is one of the most prominent forms of “tiri gyeddania” ( meaning ’hidden tourism’ or ‘unseen tourism’, aka any broadly illegal activities/items/etc. that tourists regularly show up to do/purchase, since Fanyin/Mippya have virtually zero ‘human rights’ or any sort of system that would regulate anything involving other people) that they are known for. Most efforts on an international level to regulate the industry, and warnings from groups like the main council of Navyete and etc., have gone pretty ignored in Fanyin and Mippya, to the delight of weird basement scientists and gullible rich supernatural folk that like to drink overpriced likely fake** blood in underground caves to feel elite and cool about themselves.

(**often it’s just bird blood labeled as elf blood since nobody can tell the difference. While some buyers are adamant about actually having proof or seeing a living source (which is often, worse and more expensive since, generally implies kidnapping and keeping people captive as living proof of where the blood came from), a majority of people still are just like… taking a shady vendor’s word for it lol)

#blood mention #blood tw

33 notes · View notes