#about a lot of issues but especially in terms of racism compared to my friends back home | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

writingwithcolor · 3 years

Text

Jewish author writing about antisemitism; should I include racism too?

anonymous asked:

Hi! I'm a white Jewish person who's writing a story set in a fantasy world with a Jewish-coded culture. It's important to me to explore antisemitism in this distanced setting, and explore what the Jewish diaspora means to me. I have a lot of people of color in my story as well. I don't know whether I, as a white person, should include racism in a story if it isn't necessary, but I also don't want to erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism, and I also don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism, which is obviously not the case. I was thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based rather than ethnically or racially based, but again, I'm not sure how or whether to write about bigotry against cultures + groups based on cultures + groups that I'm not a part of, and people of color in the story would obviously have their own cultural elements. Is acknowledging bigotry necessary?

It's okay to focus on antisemitism

Other mods have important advice on what exactly might be helpful or applicable to include in your story and how. I want to take a moment with the anxiety you express that focusing on antisemitism and not talking about other types of xenophobia will imply to your readers that you think antisemitism is “more serious” than other forms of bigotry. I hear and honor that anxiety, especially since “Jews only care about Jews” is a stereotype that never seems to go away, so I’m going to say something revolutionary:

It’s okay to center Jews in a story about antisemitism.

There, I said it. But I’m not making the case that you shouldn’t include references to or depictions of other types of bigotry in your story. There are a lot of great reasons why you should, because of what it can do for the complexity of your characters, the depth of your worldbuilding, or the strength of your message about the nature of xenophobia, diaspora, etc.

- How your non-Jewish-coded characters react to the things they experience can affect whether they sympathize over or contribute to the antisemitism at the heart of your story.

- How other types of xenophobia do and don’t manifest in your world can help explain why your world has antisemitism in the first place, and what antisemitism consists of in a world that also contains other minorities outside of the fantasy mainstream culture.

- Including other real-world xenophobia can help you set your antisemitism in context and contrast to help explain what you want to say about it.

Both your story and your message might be strengthened by adding these details. But if you feel the structure of your story doesn’t have room for you to show other characters’ experiences and you’re only considering doing it because you’re afraid you’ll be upholding a negative stereotype of yourself if you don’t, then it might help to realize that if someone is already thinking that, nothing you do is going to change their mind. You can explore antisemitism in your story, but you don’t have the power to solve it, and since you don’t have that power you also don’t have that responsibility. I think adding more facets to your story has the potential to make it great, but leaving it out doesn’t make you evil.

- Meir

Portraying xenophobia

As someone living in Korea and therefore usually on the outside looking in, I feel that a lot of people in Western countries tend to conflate racism and xenophobia. Which does make sense since bigots tend to not exactly care about differences between the two but simply act prejudiced against the “other”. Sci also makes a point below about racialized xenophobia. I feel these are factors contributing to your confusion regarding issues of bigotry in your story.

Xenophobia, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers”. You mention “thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based”, and this description fits xenophobia better than most other forms of bigotry. Xenophobia can be seen as an umbrella term including antisemitism, so you are technically including one form of xenophobia through your exploration of antisemitism.

I understand your wariness of writing racism when it doesn’t add to the plot, especially as a white writer. Your concerns that you might “erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism” is valid and in fact accurate, since exclusion of racism will of course lead to lack of portrayals of the intersections between racism and xenophobia. I want to reassure you that this is not a bad thing, just a choice you can make. No one story (or at least, no story that can fit into one book) can include all the different forms of oppression in the world. Focusing on one particular form of oppression, particularly one you have personal experience with, is a valid and important form of representation.

You also comment that you “don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism”, but I honestly feel that doesn’t need too much concern. Much like how queerness and disability are two separate issues with intersections, racism and xenophobia form a Venn diagram, with large intersections but neither completely including the other. A story focusing on autistic characters that doesn’t also have queer rep doesn’t imply queer issues are less serious. Likewise, a story focusing on antisemitism doesn’t imply racism is less serious.

I am slightly more concerned that there might be an accidental implication of antisemitism being a more serious issue compared to other forms of xenophobia. Of course, exploring antisemitism alone is completely valid representation, and there’s no need to go out of your way to try and portray other forms of xenophobia. A microaggression or two, or maybe a mutual bitch out session with a gentile but marginalized friend should be enough to show that antisemitism isn’t more (or less) serious compared to other forms of xenophobia.

-Rune

Avoiding racialized xenophobia

I think one thing you have to be careful with here is racialized xenophobia. Are your characters of color getting disproportionately more xenophobia than your white characters? You might be falling into the trap of racialized xenophobia, which falls under racism, which you want to avoid. An example would be “all Chinese scientists are untrustworthy, but not you, you’re one of the ‘good ones.’” Although this is technically xenophobia, it is also racism.

--Mod Sci

In the case you choose to include even small snippets of other forms of xenophobia in your story, attempting to portray xenophobia without the complications of racism can be a difficult process when they often go hand in hand (especially to a Western audience). So here are a couple of suggestions I have of portraying xenophobia without racism.

First and the simplest method is portraying xenophobia between people of the same race. For example, there is definitely xenophobia against Chinese and Japanese people in Korea, but it would be difficult to claim there is a racial component when all of us are East Asian. (Something you might want to be aware of here is intersections with colorism, where even within the same race, lighter skin and other more westernized features are considered more desirable. I suggest looking through our colorism tag for more details)

Another idea is to include microaggressions for specific cultures rather than something more broad. For example, calling Korean food stinky because kimchi has a strong scent is specifically xenophobic against Koreans, while commenting on small eyes can be directed against Asians in general.

Finally, while antisemitism is a form of ethnicity-based xenophobia, it is also a form of religion-based xenophobia. Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus can absolutely be xenophobic against each other with no racism involved. Should you choose this method, particularly if religious xenophobia is only shown in a shorter scene, I suggest you try and avoid portraying any of the above religions as the Bad or Oppressive ones. As a Christian I will unironically tell you that Christianity is a safe choice for a religiously xenophobic character, as we’re far less likely to face backlash compared to any other religion, and inspiration should unfortunately be overflowing in real life.

-Rune

Other forms of ethno-religious oppression

Here is my TCK perspective as someone brought up in diverse environments where there are often other axes of oppression including religion, ethnicity and class:

Racism and xenophobia can definitely be apples to oranges, so creating a universe where racism no longer exists or has never existed seems doable to me. Perhaps in your fantasy world, structures that buttress racism, such as colonization, slavery and imperialism, are not issues. That still won’t stop people from creating “Us versus Them” divisions, and you can certainly make anti-semitism one of the many forms of xenophobia that exists in this your story. Meir has hinted that your reluctance to declaratively show the harm of anti-semitism indicates a level of anxiety around the topic, and, as someone non-Jewish but also not Christian or Muslim, my perspective is as follows: I’ve always viewed anti-semitism as a particularly virulent form of ethno-religious xenophobia, and while it is a unique experience, it is not the only unique experience when it comes to ethno-religious xenophobia. I think because the 3-way interaction between the Abrahamic religions dominates much of Western geopolitics, that can be how it looks, but the world is a big place (See Rune’s comments for specific examples).

To that effect, I recommend prioritizing anti-semitism alongside other non-racialized forms of xenophobia along ideological, cultural and class-based lines for both POC and non-POC characters. Show how these differences can drive those in power to treat other groups poorly. I conclude by encouraging you to slowly trace your logic when depicting xenophobia towards POC characters in particular. Emphasize bigotry along axes of class and ideology, rather than traits linked to assumed biologically intrinsic features. Ultimately, I think recognizing commonalities between forms of ethno-religious oppression as a whole will help make you more comfortable in depicting anti-semitism with the seriousness it deserves without feeling as though you are trivializing the experiences of other groups.

- Marika

Worldbuilding ethnically and racially diverse cultures

As has been mentioned by other mods, I think it’s completely fine to focus your story on antisemitism and not portray other forms of bigotry if that’s the focus and scope of the story you want to tell. My fellow mods have also offered several valuable suggestions for writing about “culture-based bigotry” in general if that’s what you want to do, while making sure it’s not coming off as racially based. One element I can add is that from a worldbuilding standpoint, it will also help to have your fantasy cultural groups be ethnically and racially diverse. After all, this was common historically in several parts of the world, and depending on which cultures you’re basing your coding on, you could absolutely have fantasy cultures in your world that include characters we would read (according to our modern-day standards) as white, and others that we would read as people of color, within the same fantasy culture. All these characters would face the same culture-based bigotry (such as xenophobia or religious oppression), even though they are read by a modern audience as different races.

As a note, the reason I say “read as” and “according to our modern-day standards” is that the entire concept of whiteness as we know it is very specific to our current cultural context. Who is and isn’t considered white has changed quite a lot over time, and is still the subject of debate today in some cases. Your work will be read by a modern audience, so of course, you need to take into account our current understanding of race and the dynamics surrounding it. However, it’s also helpful to remember that our modern racial categories are fairly new in the context of the many millennia of history of humankind, and that they are certainly not inevitable. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking a fantasy culture has to align itself entirely with modern-day racial categories.

- Niki

#Asks #fantasy #worldbuilding #anti semitism #xenophobia #racism #Judaism #Jewish

384 notes · View notes

lais-a-ramos · 4 years

Text

ok, this one is kind of a hard topic, and i appologize in advance for any mistakes i make or not being articulate enough

all the concearns over ppl in fandom hyping the only prominent white character, christina, in lovecraft country instead of the black characters are valid and the critique is definitely important, once it's common for ppl in fandom to either erase the half of a couple that is a BIPOC or to deny a canon cis het biracial ship to hype up a fanon white wlw ship and other problematic stuff plenty of times in LGBTQ+ fandom spaces.

but i also think we can't dismiss the entirety of the ship only bc the same LGBTQ+ fans are back at it again with their problematic behaviour, especially bc of its significance for black women and feminine-aligned nb folks who feel attraction to woman/feminine-aligned nbs -- lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, biromantic, panromantic etc.

for what i've seen so far, this ship is very important for black women and female-aligned nbs bc finally we have a dark-skinned black woman, who is also fat, to be treated with absolute respect and consideration and be passionately desired in a way that is not some kind of secret fetish or played for laughs, treated as being as worthy of being courted and romanced as her light-skinned and skinny half-sister.

christina respects ruby's choice and agency for most of the time -- i think the exception may be that first time ruby transformed into hillary;

she immediately explains to ruby her plans and intentions whenever ruby questions her behaviour and demands answers, including ruby in her plans when even ruby's loved ones keep secrets from her; she gives her all these baths and caresses her so softly, literally bathing her with affection and desire; she woos her with vows of devotion; and even tried to understand what ruby said when she asked her to try to understand her pain -- albeit in a fucked up way that only a privileged and sheltered girl raised in an enviroment in which magic is real and present in ppl's daily lives possibly could.

christina overall acknowledges that ruby is a woman with her own emotions, motivations, hopes, dreams, wants, needs and desires, and that's something y'all should keep in mind because i'll return to that later.

overall, these things i described are actually the basic that a person should do for the one they call their lover, and in no way erase the fact that christina is willing to kill innocent ppl to accomplish her goals of self-protection, nor turn these things acceptable from a moral standpoint.

but it's not the kind of treatment black women and feminine-aligned nbs receive, neither in fiction or in real life, by the way.

there are specific forms of misogyny that black women and female-aligned nbs face in which we are read as aggressive or animalistic, oversezualized or stripped from our sexuality and have our femininity denied if we don't check the boxes of what society deems acceptable.

there's this interview wumni mosaku gave for elle magazine U.S. in which she discusses her personal experiences with this problem, and how these eurocentric standards of femininity forced her to act in an overtly nice manner as a way to make sure ppl will treat her kindly instead of with suspicion and assuming she is aggressive.

that is because of the ways race and gender intersect creating a very complex scenario when it comes to definitions, experiences and stereotypes of femininity.

white women are overall treated with an authomatic presumption of innocence, as delicate and frail flowers who must be protected at all costs, especially if they are from upper classes -- that is something that is actually held against low-income white women, who are expected to adhere to certain standards to have their femininity acknowledged.

but, as we can see by that moment in episode 1x05, "strange case", when ruby as hillary is escorted by the policemen to her supposed husband who is actually christina shapeshifted , and, actually, by christina's entire motivations and characterization, that very same presumption of innocence is one of the sources of their oppression, because they are infantilized and stripped of their agency in favor of the men in their lives -- husbands, brothers, fathers etc --, being stopped and/or forbidden to do things cis het men usually get to and are expected to do.

in spite of this paradox, white women still have a privilege when compared to black women, because they're are still seen as ppl that belong to the world of affections and are worthy of receiving love, care and concearn for their wellbeing.

but that is not the case with black women.

usually, we are reserved two roles: one that revolves around being hypersexualized for men's consumption, both white and black alike; and the other, in which we are seen as "beasts of burden", carrying the weight in terms of work, emotions and so on, being expected to be desensitized to experiences and problems that no human would be expected to. sometimes, these two roles actually cross paths.

here in brazil, black activism and academics have been calling it "solidão da mulher negra", "the loneliness of black woman", and i think it's a very pertinent and powerful way to describe it.

and, that is the thing, when you're a black woman or feminine-aligned nb that doesn't fit into this role of being sexualized, you can feel this loneliness go a step further, because all that is left for you is that beast of burden part.

you end up not only being cast aside and abandoned by cis het white men and black men alike if you're attracted to men, but, overall, everyone in your social circle, including family, relatives and friends, expect you to be this source of strength and carry weights and resist to things ALL. THE. TIME.

and, guess what type of women and feminine-aligned nbs usually don't fit into this role of being sexualized????

the ones that are dark-skinned, fat, bulky, or any combination of these.

it's a combination of colorism, fatphobia, misogynoir and other factors that come to play, really.

one can check a few boxes, or check them all.

i myself don't check the "dark-skinned" box because, as a biracial women, i have light-skin privilege -- even though my skin is not as light as jurnee smollett's, who plays ruby's half-sister letitia "leti" lewis. but i sure have dealt with the consequences of not having the right body type for my whole life. i've been one of the "fat kids" for all my teen years, and, even now that i lost weight because of health issues, i'm still bulky and with large shoulders, feet and hands bigger than what is expected for women, and for most of my life i've felt in a similar way than what wumni mosaku describes on that elle magazine interview i mentioned earlier.

now, ruby literally checks ALL. THE. FUCKING. BOXES.

while we haven't seen much of her past, for the tidbits we got we can imagine that she had to be the responsible one in her family, being the older child, and basically raise her two siblings while their mom neglected them.

and we can see that, while the producers and writers changed a lot of her characterization from the source material -- in the part of the book i am right now, she has yet to show up, but the way she's described she seems more domestic and the shrinking violet type like show!hippolyta at the begining -- she is still seen as someone respected in her community and a source of strength -- e.g. being trusted to take care of dee.

and that clearly takes a toll on her, because everyone in-universe seems to expect her to be this mammy type or a role model, "a credit to the race" -- which is kind of ironic, given that it seems the audience seem to expect this of her as well.

and she puts all this pressure on herself because of it, and, while she is a woman with a very active sexual life, she seems overall very unsatisfied and repressed.

interrupted, as ruby herself perfectly put.

everyone seems to expect something of her at home, and not only all of her goals in the professional realm seem to be frustrated by social structures of oppression, but even her relationship goals as well, given that most of the men that she gets involved with, whether they are black or white, seem to believe they have the right to abandon her and treat her like trash because she doesn't feel a thing and is "strong" enough.

and that is where christina comes in.

now, it's true that the character that's pointed by many as a representation of white feminism surely is problematic in many ways, including her "colorblind" approach to racial issues, which is a particular form of racism that comes from an indifference towards social issues that steem from the privilege of not having to worry about said racial issues because one's not affected by them.

but, inspite of this colorblindness, or precisely because of it, christina sees ruby not for the roles she plays in other ppl's lives, but as the woman with her own emotions, motivations, hopes, dreams, wants, needs and desires that she is (see??? i told y'all to keep that in mind because it would be useful later).

some of these things might not be politically correct, like wondering what would it be like to be white and not have to deal with all the bullshit she has to.

some of these things might be dowright immoral and unethical, like the revenge fantasy she made come true against that abusive, sexual harasser and possibily rapist that was the guy from the department store that appeared in episode 1x05.

but, they are what makes ruby, well, ruby.

they are what makes her human, what humanizes her.

and christina accepts all of it, all that makes ruby who she is.

like the av club review for episode 9 pointed out, the two women are actually not that different when it comes to motivations: the stakes might be different for them because christina is protected by her whiteness and wealth, but both of them want the same thing in the end -- to not feel interrupted by the social restraints that bind them.

and that is what draws them to each other and feel attracted to each other, even though they might not understand quite well what to be queer means to them, or even avoided/repressed the question altogether as they grew up.

they are two points that seem opposite, and might as well be in some ways, but belong to the same axis that is gender and sexuality.

their relationship is incredibly complex and layered because of all these intersecctions.

ruby and christina's relationship is all about revealing different parts of yourself to the other and peeling each other's layers (sorry for the pun, but, it was just there lol), and, because of this, it's no wonder that it's seen as more romantic than, say, tic and leti's relationship, that seems to be playing out like plenty of cis heterosexual relationships, moving too fast because of the passion involved and what society expects, without the two of them being able to truly proccess and decide what they want, something that will defintely get more complicated now there's a baby on the way.

everything is so raw between ruby and christina, quite literally (it's one ot the things i love the most about all the gory scenes between them, it's a very clever way of using a fantastical setting to highlight these metaphors and symbolism).

with all of this, it shouldn't be a surprise that many sapphic black women and feminine-aligned nbs relate so much to ruby and got so attached to this relationship.

it's not because they endorse the problematic stuff christina or ruby have done -- although, well, to be fair, in a show that draws inspiration from pulp fiction magazines, particularly horror and detective/mystery stories, all characters are expected to be problematic and do fucked up things.

it's because queer black women and feminine-aligned nbs, regardless of whether they check only a few of the boxes i mentioned before or check all of them, can relate to this feeling of loneliness that the producers and writers portrayed so well with ruby -- but also with hippolyta, and dee too.

and for relating to these feelings, they relate to this relationship between ruby and christina.

and it's kind of hard to know what's gonna happen next in the show and the future of this ship

hell, even know whether the show is gonna be renewed or not.

but this should be a lesson for the future, on this fandom and others, to try and consider the perspectives of LGBTQ+ black ppl in these spaces, because, when you don't do that, you're basically reproducing, in a space we should be safe to have fun, the same oppression and silencing we deal on a daily basis

#lovecraft country #ruby baptiste #christina braithwhite #ruby x christina #lgbtq #lgbtqiap+#black women #black representation #character analysis #character meta #meta

497 notes · View notes

demi-shoggoth · 3 years

Text

2021 Reading Log, pt. 25

121. The Unnatural Order of the Three Eyed Skull’s Field Guide, Vol. 3by Andrew P. Barr. This appears to be the last planned volume, as the fictional Andrew Barr is dead within the realm of the book. Of course, posthumously discovered notes, or even spirit writings, are staples of the horror milieu @andrewbarrillustrator is working in, and I would be delighted to see his remaining Monsters by Mail collected into a fourth volume. The creatures this time around include a smattering of gill-men and one or two folkloric entities, but are almost entirely original. Many of the sighting dates are also from 2020, which gives a great imagination hook. While many people were keeping their heads down during the pandemic, stranger things were crawling out of the woodwork.

121a. Occult America by Mitch Horowitz. I gave up on this fifty pages in. Although its main thesis is interesting (magical studies are intertwined with American religious life, especially for the various new religions that originated in the states), it cannot stick to a single thread for long enough to follow it through. It jumps wildly around in time and space in each chapter, not going in any particular apparent order in presenting its ideas. It whitewashes the inherent racism of beliefs like the presence of a “superior civilization” predating the American Indians, or Madame Blatavsky’s white supremacy. And it paints the Public Universal Friend as female, and refers to them by their birth name, instead of respecting the genderless presentation that was a major part of their spiritual presence. I would love to read a good book on the influence of the Burned Over District and occultism in American history. But this isn’t it.

122. Space Atlas, Second Edition by James Trefil. This is a very handsome volume put together by the National Geographic Society, with global views of all of the planets, some of the dwarf planets and moons, maps of the night sky and the galaxy, and more. Each chapter is extensively illustrated with photos and artistic rendering, and there are multiple sidebars highlighting the lives and accomplishments of astronomers and cosmologists. The book does abandon the “atlas” format in the last third, talking about the life cycle of stars, the Big Bang, and string theory, among other concepts. The book begins with a lengthy foreword by Buzz Aldrin, discussing the Apollo program and his plans to build long term research stations on the Moon and Mars. It’s somewhat self-aggrandizing, but I figure if anyone deserves to be self-aggrandizing, it’s someone who walked on the Moon.

123. The Dictionary of Demons: Expanded and Revised by M. Belanger. This is a book that’s been on my radar for a while, and I finally managed to get myself a copy when the second edition was released in a reasonably priced paperback. It’s an A-Z guide to the names of demons, mostly obtained through grimoires, but also including biblical, apocryphal and a few demons obtained through witch trial records. There’s a lot of overlap between sources, and the cross-referencing isn’t perfect, but it’s pretty good. Appendices and the introduction explain ritual magic in general and the traditions of binding and extorting demons in particular, as well as summarize the zodiac, planetary and other themes of the demons within. Recommended for anyone interested in fiends, magical history or just getting a collection of weird names. Although, personally, I am fondest of the hosts of Hell that have names that are super mundane to modern ears. Poor Amy, Darek, Leonard and Zach…

124. The Sirens of Mars by Sarah Stewart Johnson. This is another “popular science as memoir” two-in-one book, although it’s heavier on the science and lighter on the memoir than say, The Book of Eels. And since this is the memoir of a professor who’s worked on three Mars rovers, the overlap between the two subtopics is pretty strong. Johnson covers the history of people’s obsession with the idea of life on Mars, and how that has been altered and expectations shifted over the course of the various scientific expeditions since the 1960s. Johnson is an excellent writer, and I would be curious to see if she writes another book for wide audiences—she has a knack for explaining sedimentation and mineralization processes in interesting, readable ways.

125. Drunk by Edward Slingerland. This book supposes to tell the story about how intoxication, and alcohol use particularly, is an adaptive trait to humans and a cornerstone of how our civilization works. It does not succeed especially well. Basically, it’s built on a house of cards—it supposes that human evolution both works in concrete, goal-oriented ways and very quickly. It also has a real issue with whether non-human animals are supposed to be genetic automata and we’re unique, or if studying non-human animals can give us insights into human psychology and neurochemistry. It feels like he’s trying to have it both ways. Some of the things it has to say about history and comparative religion are interesting, but the biological framework doesn’t stand up. It’s worth pointing out that of the glowing pull quotes on the back, none of them are from evolutionary biologists or animal behavior specialists. An entertaining read, but should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

#reading log #astronomy #alcohol #mars #national geographic #occult #demon #demonology #monster book

37 notes · View notes

angeloncewas · 3 years

Note

I saw someone say that Quackity has internalized racism for playing Mexican Dream, which like I don’t think you should say? Because you don’t know him? Mexican Dream is supposed to be an exaggeration of stereotypes, making fun of those stereotypes, and when the community oversteps themselves in actually believing/perpetuating these stereotypes (because they can), they are usually shot down by Quackity or the large community as a whole. He even stopped the character eventually. They compared Quackity to King Bach but Quackity is not at his level at all Imo. They also called the POC members token POC, which.. yeah no I don’t think it’s ok to call real people who are friends with these people and streamers in their own right “token pocs”

I've seen some similar takes too - just stuff about Quackity putting up with too much or needing to stand up for himself more (I'm paraphrasing, so sorry if that's a bit off) - and while in a sense I understand where they're coming from, I agree that I don't think it's our place to speak on that stuff. (I mean, I am now, but in the presumptive sense, if you catch my drift.)

I know what it's like to have internalized issues about your own minority status and use that as a sort of pick-me in conversations with people who mock/belittle you (with everything from stupid shit to straight up racism). It's a pretty common experience and I wouldn't be surprised if Quackity has come to terms with that at some point in his life. But that's not for us to know unless he chooses to share it, and it's especially not for us to speculate on in regards to his friendships/professional decisions (of which Mexican Dream technically is). He's been very quick to call out racist portrayals of him in fanwork (from what I've heard) and - something I think a lot of people forget - he has these peoples' contact info. If one of his friends says something out of line, yeah maybe he won't call it out on stream, but that doesn't mean he doesn't sit them down afterward and explain not only that it was a problem, but why. Quackity's a grown man (albeit a young adult) and he doesn't need us to fight his (perceived and potentially fabricated) battles for him.

Discussions about poc on the DSMP have been around for a long time and while generally there's room to argue either side (or somewhere in between) I'm just not a fan of the "token poc" stuff. First off, do you want more diversity or not? Because if a creator was added simply for their race, then they really would be a "token poc" and I'm just not a fan of that path. Second - like you said - that's once again really presumptuous on our part as fans. Both in the sense of their real life friendships, and the "defense squad" that forms sometimes around a creator for no reason. Streaming is a lot of these creators' careers and they have more than enough knowledge and experience to know how to handle themselves and to recognize when their race is being used for tokenism or something similar. I get the concern and I know it's hard to see a situation that you feel is unfair and stand idly by, but we very rarely see the full picture.

#hopefully this makes sense #angel answers #long post #discourse #anon #cc critical #(reference too not from me)#fandom critical

19 notes · View notes

professionalfangirl24601 · 3 years

Note

Your response was so right and I really liked the posts you linked as well!

And like, idk but I feel like people saying “oh this book is ableist” is a very blanket statement while ignoring that most people didn’t know the r word was a slur in like 2015 which is around when the books came out. Like this wasn’t common knowledge to people, and it still isn’t common knowledge to a lot of people! It’s fine to warn people before reading like, “hey this book has ableist language by the way so watch out for that” but that doesn’t mean Nora is ableist.

Also like as a woc, i have my own issues with people thinking the books are racist. I think Nicky could’ve definitely been handled better, but idk my thoughts about Nicky are more like “look how much he gave up for his cousins and how much he cared about them” instead of specifically the bad stuff he does. Like they’re all traumatized, I don’t expect them to be perfect or not say bad things. As for making all the villains asian, I feel like people just forget,,,,about Nathan? And Lola? And literally everyone in the scene where Neil gets kidnapped? And Drake? Like with all of the shitty people in aftg, I don’t even consider the yakuza the bad guys, only Riko and Tetsuji. My friend described it as Nora just having like “white blindness” and not realizing how stuff she writes can come across rather than intentionally being harmful, which makes a big difference to me.

I also hate the take that it’s like aphobic, considering Nora is aro ace and that there are people who don’t know what asexual or aromantic means. While it’s not great for Nicky to constantly push Neil for his sexuality, I also don’t blame him for not knowing that Neil is demisexual, especially considering that Neil didn’t know himself! And especially because there’s still so much ace discourse on tumblr! Like people still don’t know stuff about asexuality and aromanticism, so why do you expect her to write characters who are experts in it?

I think people forget that writing about problematic characters doesn’t make the author problematic. Also I agree that I don’t think aftg is even written that badly, but I also base books on how they make me feel, and I’ve been into aftg for 2 years (which is relatively long for me to be into something).

Sorry I rambled a lot but I just don’t like all the aftg hate, nor do I get repeating the criticism for it if people already know.

You bring up some very good points and It makes me want to go on another rant. And don't worry, I loved hearing your thoughts.

So the same warning here. Some discussions of racism, ableism and aphobia below the cut.

In general, I think accusing complete strangers of being x-phobic is a worse thing to do than defending them. Innocent until proven wrong, you know. I don't think there's enough proof of Nora being ableist in the books, and saying that she is can be very harmful. Here's a great post about aftg and ableism, and I'm glad you liked the previous ones :D

The yakuza wasn't even the main villain there. Considering it's well, the mafia, it didn't have that negative role. Ichirou wasn't portrayed as vicious and cruel, Nathan was. Ichirou didn't turn the nest into hell, Riko and Tetsuji did.

Riko was a complex character who had his motives and his race didn't have to do anything with his actions. If Nora wrote that Riko tortured people because he was Asian (? How??, but still), that would be racist.

This may be a controversial opinion, but I really don't like when people act like minorities can't be bad people. Isn't basing expectations of them on their race... racist?

Imagine saying Nathan being the villain of the story was anti-red haired people (let's pretend he's ginger, because there are people who actually hate them, for some reason. And I'm not comparing race to hair color, it's just the same logic). Wouldn't that be ridiculous? Especially because Neil, a flawed chatacter who's also one of the "good guys" has red hair too.

As a white person, I know I don't understand racism as well as poc, so correct me if I'm being wrong. I know that good representation is very important. But is having both white and poc characters being morally gray and deeply flawed that racist?

I really like the term "white blindness". Sometimes people come across as racist by accident or not thinking things through properly and it's so nice of you and your friend to acknowledge this.

(Like now I think I'm somehow being racist but I really am not. I don't know if what I said conveyed my opinion well, but please don't hesitate to send me another ask if you think I'm being one.)

I think aphobia is very compicated in the books. Of course Nicky saying life can't be good without a significant other and that he would give Neil a little "push" was clearly aphobic. Because Neil had said that he didn't swing before that and Nicky didn't believe him.

But considering how little known demisexuality was in the 00's, was Matt assuming Neil was gay after he found out about him and Andrew aphobic too? I think if Neil had explained that he was only attracted to Andrew, not men in general, Matt would have believed him.

Of course, in the end it doean't matter in this discussion because writing about it doesn't make Nora aphobic. It's purely realistic, both the people being assholes and just ignorant of it.

I've heard people say both, that they loved how trauma was handled in the books and that they hated it. It's clear that the books aren't for everyone. It usually leaves the reader either completely in love with it or filled with hate. Love and hate are both very strong emotions and people "criticizing" it isn't new either. I just hope it doesn't get to the point where aftg is just known as this horrible book and people don't even bother with reading it before judging it and writing hateful posts.

#Tysm anon!#Aftg

13 notes · View notes

historicity-was-already-taken · 4 years

Text

Guest Post: On Japanese Internment Camps

Since I am currently very

I’d like to post a piece of writing from one of this blog’s fave guests (and humans in general), Dr. Stephanie Hinnershitz; please note that this was originally posted to her personal facebook page, and is shared here with her permission: There's a reason why historians are moving away from using "internment" when discussing the forced removal of close to 120,000 Japanese Americans during WWII. I also realize that I recently used "internment" in an article I wrote. This was a stylistic choice on behalf of the editors and I should have pushed back more, but it made sense for context and readership. Incarceration is the appropriate term. Here's why: I received a few private messages and emails from friends and strangers asking if I knew that German Americans and Italian Americans were also interned during WWII. Yes. I am aware of this. Many times, people bring this up in a "gotcha!" way to try and prove the point that the incarceration of Japanese Americans was not racially-motivated or had no racial angle to it at all because if it did, why did close to 15,000 "white" people end up interned? In a more charitable way, people bring up the internment of German and Italian Americans because they did not know about it until well into their adult years and assume that I might not know about it. But let's return to the internment issue. I study the removal and incarceration of those--foreign and American-born--of Japanese descent. The internment of "enemy aliens" is not my area of specialty. Under American policy, internment during WWII was a specific term for the detention of immigrants who were nationals of enemy nations (Italy and Germany, for example). Now, there were certainly Japanese enemy aliens, but the majority of them were held with other German and Italian enemy aliens in detention centers overseen by the Department of Justice. Internment fell under the DOJ.

The word "internment" doesn't apply to Japanese Americans who were removed from their homes by the Army and then transferred first to "assembly" (detention) centers and later to the "relocation centers" or "camps" (or concentration camps--yes, this phrase was used by many officials in memos and correspondence--prisons, prison camps, etc.). The reason why internment is not the correct term is because the majority of those Japanese Americans who wound up in one of ten prison camps were American citizens, not "aliens." They were not "enemy aliens" because a) they were from America and America was not at war with America and b) they were citizens. Even the planners of incarceration and a lot of the military officials I researched were careful to avoid the term "internment" when discussing the removal and imprisonment of Japanese Americans after Executive Order 9066 because it was basically incorrect. (Side note: Many government and military officials knew that incarcerating American citizens was constitutionally a bad idea and tried to persuade FDR to avoid including Japanese American citizens in enemy alien roundups.)

Because internment was not really applicable to the majority of ethnically Japanese American citizens, the government created a new agency--the War Relocation Authority (WRA)--to oversee the ten prison camps. The Army was supposed to be free of any responsibility once Japanese Americans were transferred to the camps, but--if you read my article--this didn't work out. The WRA a bureaucratic nightmare, a massive waste of taxpayer money, and just a poorly-managed civilian agency tasked with running an unconstitutional program.

Internment of Germans and Italians WAS NOT the same as incarceration of Japanese Americans. Two different programs overseen by different agencies. So, really, there are responsible and interesting ways to place incarceration and internment in conversation, but you can't really responsibly do it if you're trying to say that there were not racial elements to Japanese American incarceration.

BUT--if you want to try and make that argument, here are some other reasons why you're wrong:

1) When you make a decision or policy based on the belief that an entire group of people behave a certain way because of racial characteristics, that's racism. And that's exactly what happened with Japanese American incarceration.

2) Did General John DeWitt (in charge of the military zones along the West Coast where most Japanese Americans lived) believe that ALL enemy aliens should be removed from vulnerable areas regardless of race? Yes. BUT this starts to break down once we get into citizenship...

3) German and Italian Americans (whether foreign or American-born) made up a HUGE portion of the American population, particularly on the East Coast. Initially, government officials thought that even American-born citizens of German and Italian descent should also be removed and incarcerated like Japanese American citizens, BUT Italians and German Americans should be given an opportunity to explain themselves--due process--before a committee. Japanese Americans did not receive this consideration at any point AND the idea of removing and incarcerating German American and Italian American citizens was eventually dropped. Officials argued that it would be impossible to do this because there were so many Italian Americans and German Americans. Also, because many of Italian and German descent were American citizens, they were obviously loyal to the U.S. and we shouldn't really be concerned

....

Wait--what?

I hope after reading that you were able to stop and think, "But I thought you just said the majority of Japanese Americans who ended up in the prison camps were American citizens?"

Yes! I did say that! Please continue reading.

4) Officials determined that Japanese American citizens were less trustworthy than Germans and Italian American citizens because even if ethnically Japanese individuals were born in the United States (and many of those incarcerated were members of the second generation--never been to Japan, went to public schools, had plenty of American-born friends), their parents (immigrants from Japan) were unable to naturalize or become American citizens...BECAUSE RACIST LAWS SAID ASIAN IMMIGRANTS WERE UNABLE TO NATURALIZE. See what's going on here?

5) Okay, so the next "whatboutisms" that usually pop up include planned attacks by Japan coordinated with Japanese Americans in the U.S. and the dual-citizenship of those born in America to Japanese parents. Were there attempts at or completed attacks of the West Coast by Japan? Yes, the "Bombardment of Ellwood" for example. Is there any proof that these were coordinated with the help of Japanese American citizens or even "enemy aliens?" No. Were there Japanese enemy aliens who did suspicious things or expressed anti-American attitudes? Yes--just as there were with German and Italian enemy aliens. But the fact remains that it was predominantly Japanese American CITIZENS with no connections to any subversive plans who ended up in the camps--a significant difference compared to German and Italian Americans.

As for dual citizenship, if you use this argument to justify the incarceration of Japanese Americans, congratulations! You're a bona fide 1920s racist! This is the exact argument used by 1920s racists and there's a grain of truth in there: Because of citizenship laws and negotiations in Japan and the United States, Japanese Americans born to Japanese parents in the United States before 1924 were automatically both citizens of Japan and--because of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment--were also U.S. citizens. Officials used this to argue that with dual citizenship, even Japanese Americans born in the U.S. had loyalties to Japan and deserved to be locked up. What this argument did (and does not) take into consideration is the fact that between 1924 and 1940, Nisei (second-generation Japanese Americans) began to renounce their Japanese citizenship--approximately 70% (according to records kept by the WRA and other data). And after 1924, this dual-citizenship situation no longer existed.

6) The end result of this was that the government and the military determined that even Japanese American citizens were less trustworthy simply because they were of Japanese descent. Discrimination and segregation laws along the West Coast made sure that Japanese Americans had a difficult time fully integrating into American society...and then this was used against Japanese Americans to argue that because they remained unintegrated, this meant they were disloyal to the United States! Anti-Japanese sentiment had been building for a long time along the West Coast, and enterprising and racist politicians and farmers who wanted access to Japanese farmland (Japanese were incredibly successful farmers because they took risks and developed different crops in California especially) took advantage of wartime hysteria and lobbied for removal. And it worked.

So what does this all mean? You can't compare Japanese American incarceration to German and Italian enemy alien detention if you're trying to make the argument that there was no racism in incarceration. Some 11,000 German Americans (most enemy aliens) were interned in enemy alien detention camps. As for Italian Americans interned, you'll see the misleading figure of 600,000 Italian Americans interned. This is not true. The government classified 600,000 non-citizen Italian Americans as enemy aliens and they were placed under curfews and other restrictive actions that violated their civil liberties--but 600,000 Italian Americans were not interned. About 10,000 were removed from the West Coast and ultimately under a thousand interned--all enemy aliens, not citizens. Additionally, on Columbus Day in 1942, FDR officially declared Italian Americans no longer enemy aliens (he got a lot of pressure from Italian American Democrats in NY who basically said, "If you want our support for the New Deal, don't even think about it, clown."). Japanese American citizens were removed from their homes, placed in prison camps in terrible areas, and denied due process. People also like to say incarceration was not that bad because Japanese Americans had places to live, the camps provided games and entertainment, and they got to leave to go work by 1943. All true. But many of you can't even wear a goddamn mask without griping, so to say that "it's not a big deal" to have the government remove you from your homes and place you in a desert somewhere is a little disingenuous, no?

And if you're still going to say it's not a big deal--Japanese American citizens also had their guns confiscated. So there's that.

AND here's the best part: About 15 years ago, some members of Congress tried to issue pass legislation to issue a public apology to German Americans interned during WWII and create some required programming in school curriculum to be sure kids learned about this. But you know what? Republicans refused to have anything to do with it because it was "un-American" and unpatriotic.

#world war II #japanese internment

57 notes · View notes

bigskydreaming · 3 years

Note

That post about "I'll keep reading a fic that mischaracterizes Dick even if it angers me because the plot is interesting" but with Scott McCall. I'll come across genuinely interesting concepts and plots and power through for that even when Scott is portrayed negatively in the story, he's there at least and it's either that or wading through 99% of fic which centers Stiles/Sterek and the most common Scott tag being "Scott's a bad friend" ya know?

Honestly, what is it about Scott McCall and Dick Grayson that gets them (mis)treated so similarly by their respective fandoms?

Oh yeah, definitely. Tbh, part of why I’m so loud and obnoxious in Batfandom is because in TW fandom it eventually got to the point where I just had to stop reading fic completely, because I wasn’t finding anything that was Scott-friendly outside of the handful of writers I was already friends with and I just got fed up. And I’m too stubborn to do the same thing twice in two separate fandoms so I just....refuse to give up on DG fic by way of a rousing morning “Not today Satan” pep talk. fhslakhfkal

But honestly, the parallels, there are more than a few:

1) Obviously I do think the racism element has plenty to do with it. Especially in the way “is Scott really even Latino on the show though, I mean did they ever actually SAY it” arguments could be swapped out almost word for word with the “is Dick really even Romani in the comics though, I mean it was just a retcon” arguments. With the primary aim of arguments against this being a factor focusing on just invalidating the idea that either are characters of color in the first place, rather than examining the way people engage with these characters for signs of racism. Instead of trying to refute that there’s anything wrong with certain ways people interact with these characters, people jump right into “well there can’t be racism if the character in question isn’t even REALLY a character of color, y’know not like, a board-certified one with proper accreditation and everything.”

But its definitely interesting when you look at how Dick Grayson’s been perceived by fandom overall, like, in terms of looking back over the years. As someone who’s been in and out of DC fandoms to various degrees since the late 90s, as in before Dick was retconned as being Romani in the first place, and as I’ve said before, he used to be a LOT more popular and forgiven for stuff in the past in fandom.....like, I maintain that if you look back at the early 2000s-2010, aka when that retcon was not just written, but gradually and more fully spread into the fandom’s overall awareness and perception of the character....you can almost like, SEE the empathy gap suddenly click into place once he was more fully solidified as a character of color in a lot of fans’ minds. Even if they won’t admit it because that would require admitting to the racism that then began to seep into how they interacted with this character now, compared to how they’d interacted with this character in the past.

And I think the empathy gap - and the complete refusal to admit that’s even a thing, because its not like these are REALLY characters of color so why would it even apply - like, I think that goes a long way to explaining the way both Scott and Dick consistently have their traumas invalidated and ignored by large parts of their fandoms, with the focus always being shifted to how bad things that happen to them are really MORE bad for how they affect the people around them, etc.

2) It also I think has a lot to do with their personalities and the archetypes they both embody as empathetic caregiver types. I think I described it pretty well here in my BUABS fic:

“What do you know about Impostor Syndrome?"

"It's a term sometimes used to describe over-achievers who have trouble internalizing their accomplishments. Perfectionists who think they're frauds because they don't know how to take credit for their own achievements and say its because of luck or timing or something other people did," Dick frowned, puzzling through both the question and the aim of it. He raised an eyebrow. "Doesn't sound like something that applies to someone as arrogant as me."

"Don't be a little shit, Dick," Dinah said with small smirk. "And you're right, I don't think any of that applies to you. However, it's also used in another capacity, to describe trauma survivors who are unable to internalize their own trauma. Who deflect from it, or mitigate it, treat it as less than it is on the basis that it wasn't as bad as what's happened to someone else. It's especially common in trauma survivors who are noted for being especially empathetic or who have caregiver personality types. People who are so used to self-identifying as someone whose role or purpose is in helping others, that they find themselves unable to identify as traumatized because it might shift the focus to themselves instead of people they feel need it more. Does that behavior sound a little more familiar?"

(For the record, that fic is set in the YJ universe, not the comics, and I go with the approach that Dick and Bruce have a much better relationship there than they do in the comics, and thus overall Dick’s mental health and self-esteem are better than in the comics, generally speaking. I only mention this as a tangent, but like....I think Impostor Syndrome as an issue for perfectionists and over-achievers with low self-esteem DOES pertain to comic book Dick Grayson as well as its trauma interpretation. But anyway).

But point is, I think that describes both Dick and Scott, and their respective approaches to dealing (or not dealing) with their personal traumas. This isn’t a problem in and of itself, as its a valid survivor reaction and issue plenty of people deal with....the problem lies in the willingness of fans to capitalize on the OPPORTUNITIES this presents, as fans of other characters, to keep the focus trained on the characters around these two, and THEIR issues, even at the expense of these two.

Basically, its not in either of their natures to ASK for help and forcefully DRAG focus and awareness to themselves and their issues, for a number of reasons including the fact that I don’t think either character feels they ‘deserve’ that focus or need that help more than other people need theirs.

And because these characters are the empathetic caregiver archetypes in their respective ensembles, ie the ones who usually take the lead in reaching out to even characters who don’t normally ask for help themselves....there’s often no one else immediately popping up in reader awareness as like, a likely candidate to extend that same awareness and offer of aid to Dick and Scott even without them actually asking for it.

(Which, is a large part of my commitment to the theme “Stop assembling your ensembles with just ONE of each archetype, mix and match more, or like....use more hybrid archetypes so you don’t HAVE this problem, and also, stop limiting characters to JUST their archetypes, three-dimensional people aren’t confined to only acting upon a limited menu of actions and impulses, and neither should three-dimensional characters be.”)

And then of course there’s the additional component, linked to point #1, that a lot of people refuse to write other characters seeing their need for help or support or offering it even when they do see it, simply because like....they don’t WANT these characters to HAVE help or support.

3) The Intelligence Factor - as in, do they really have it? Both Scott McCall and Dick Grayson are repeatedly and consistently established in their respective canons as being extremely intelligent, and no, not JUST in emotional intelligence. I don’t like sounding like I’m undervaluing that particular form of intelligence, I’m just really irritated by the way people go about saying “oh I do admit they have very high emotional intelligence” like they’re throwing them some kind of a bone. LMAO. No. They both have high emotional intelligence, true, but they’re also extremely intelligent across the board in all other ways. Both are excellent strategists, quick-thinking and repeatedly out-maneuvering even other noted strategists, both display a quick grasp of new information and an ability to see how and where and when to PUT that information to use in practical applications, etc. These are not dumb characters, at ALL.

But fandoms have this weird committment to the idea that only the Smartest Person In The Room REALLY matters, and like, there can only be one of those per room, or like, at most two, so that they can be a matched pair and make kissing noises and then very smart babies, or like, they can be the doting (smart) father and his adored (smartest) son, all others can go home now.

Like, no, that’s not how that works. A room full of geniuses does not suddenly become a room full of ONE genius and a bunch of random and irrelevant cuz they’re dumb non-geniuses the second someone deemed King of the Smarties enters the room. That’s not a thing. Stop acting like that’s a thing, fandoms. Nobody’s intelligence is actually threatened by the presence of more than one character with notable intelligence. Also fuck off with the adoration of notable intelligence like people have more value the more decimal points of pi they can recite off the top of their head. That’s not a more evolved human being, that’s just a nerd. Nerds have value but no more than people who like, chose other life pursuits aside from nerddom.

(Not actually intended as a slight against nerds, just for the record. I say that as both a self-described nerd and also a self-loathing nerd and also lol I’m not a nerd. Look, I’m a very nuanced person okay. I put the complex in complex organism).

But the point here is not just that people are weird about there only being one true genius allowed per ensemble, its that people are WEIRD about how in order to ACTUALLY be smart, you need to like.....accurately match the factory specs for “this is how a smart person looks and behaves.”

And Scott and Dick do not look and behave that way. The sheer number of times - and similar ways - people try to completely discredit the idea they have more than one brain cell by pointing to times they’re being INTENTIONALLY goofy and being like “oh yeah, would a smart person do THAT, hmmmm”.....

Its like...yes? LOL. There is no law that says that a smart person can not be a goofball, or that they are no longer smart if they fulfill a certain quota of actions deemed ‘dopey’ by the official arbiters of smartness.

Similarly the way people like to point at stuff like “my mom buys the groceries” when the writers BEHIND the characters were intentionally trying to play up a comedic moment rather than make a sealed declaration of IQ, and be like, “see, would a smart person be THAT dumb, hmmm?”

First of all, yes, even going off the same canon people try and cite as proof Scott and Dick are too dumb to actually be smart.....you can literally find similarly ‘dumb’ moments for every other TW character....the Sheriff expressed incredulity that Stiles didn’t know what a pendant was, and Lydia was like wtf how are you this dumb at Stiles when he asked if she read the movie the Little Mermaid because he didn’t know there was also a book.....Allison made the same mistake about bestiary as Scott did because the writers were so impressed by that joke they literally had to do it twice....and do not get me STARTED on the number of moments I can point to in comics AND movies AND cartoons where everyone from Bruce to Tim to Jason to Damian and more, like, make utter bonehead moves or utter completely bonehead sentences.

Despite what rumors of my being an ancient eldritch being might have some believe, I did not actually know Albert Einstein personally, but I can still with complete confidence say I GUARANTEE that at more than one point in his life, even he did things that might have been pointed at by time-travelers on vacay as evidence that geez, old-timey smart people were really dumb, huh.

And I think we would all agree that Albert Einstein was actually a very smart man.

But yeah, point is, both Scott and Dick are very smart characters who for a lot of reasons - including personal choice, as in, they don’t really see the appeal in conforming to standards of what a smart person is SUPPOSED to be like (especially when those standards have a weird amount in common with tendencies often described as elitist or condescending or like, having or pertaining to the qualities of an asshole) - like, they just don’t typically behave or conduct themselves in ways that match up with a lot of the assumptions people have for what ‘makes’ a genius or what that’s supposed to look or sound like.

And because they don’t SEEM like they’re that smart, a lot of effort then gets put into insisting that they’re definitely not, and they can’t be, because see look how dumb here and here and here.....which then leeches over into other aspects of the characters and their stories and dynamics, and then combines with the issues resulting from Point 1 and Point 2 and probably two more I’m not thinking of at the moment but are definitely there so that by their powers combined.....fandom summons Captain Dumbass to take over most interactions with these particular characters. And thus repeatedly and insistently engages with these two and their stories only in very dumb, very limited, and VERY annoying ways.

43 notes · View notes

imanes · 3 years

Note

Hello imane! Because of the pandemic, I still have all my uni classes online & idk ive been feeling v stuck in life like ik everyone has and im v privileged compared to alot of people but just submitting assignments in the same old home environment everyday. Ik we all have to get through this but life feels joyless and dull. Just endlessly depressing. So i wanted to ask u how u idk made life exciting while u were working from home? Like any rituals or a routine or hobbies?

hi angel! tbh i don’t know if i’ve suceeded in making my home life very exciting in the last year, but there are a few things that helped. my desk used to face a wall and it got really old after a couple of weeks of always staring at purple paint all day long so i turned my desk around to face the window, and surprisingly that helped a lot. having the cats around definitely do a lot of good things for my mind too. i decluttered my space, i burn a candle every day, got a lot of comfy clothes to wear around the house. i also take showers during my lunch break lol. i have a thing for fancy drinks so i got myself quite the selection of teas, coffees and various drinks to prepare at different points throughout the day. taking walks got real old bc living in the city means taking ugly street upon ugly street for little pay-off so i don’t really have that outlet akjkfjgld. one thing that really helped me was making my own food and be diligent with my meals by making sure i was treating myself to things i wanted to eat and by trying new meals and prepping my own pickles and fermented foods! i feel proud of myself even when i make a sandwich bc i can put in stuff i pickled myself etc, and it constitutes a highlight of my day even if it’s based on something i made many days ago. i make sure i talk to my friends every day, even if it’s just to share memes. i’d say just little things make a whole lot of difference when you add them up. starting tomorrow i’m going to do that 30 day yoga challenge thing by adrienne something something because to be honest i have a LONG way to go when it comes to my physical health and i really need to start generating happy hormones by working out and involving myself physically into activities. as far as food for thought is concerned i’ve been following a lot of webinars on decolonisation, anti-racism and stuff, it’s a topic i’ve always been interested in and i feel very lucky to be able to assist to so many online conferences where scholars and activists come together to share their expertise.

as far as hobbies are concerned, i’ve taken up playing electric guitar a few weeks ago and i’m getting back into drawing and painting a little, but i wouldn’t say it’s something i’m doing to alleviate the constraints of working from home if that makes any sense, it’s more part of a long-term plan to be more creative. and as usual i read a lot! reading is my favorite thing to do, especially now that life is so boring and monotonous. fiction is literally making me feel alive by proxy as pathetic as it sounds lmao. but i’m not berating myself for that, and neither should you. yes there is a mountain of privilege involved in being able to work or study from home when so many are at the end of their rope. however, it does not invalidate the fact that after nearly a year of repetitive lockdowns, isolation and general threat to mental and physical health, there is a lot of people who feel at the end of their rope and are still trying to find the silver lining somewhere. i think a lot of people have started journaling, which is cool, and jotting down stuff they feel grateful about, which works for some people but for me it’d be counterproductive. it all comes down to trial and error and see what makes you feel alive. lately even doing my laundry has been a highlight of my days bc i love the smell of cleanliness (it’s the virgo in me...).

last but not least u can join our book club~ the link is in the bio. to be honest it’s a book club but it’s not mandatory to read, there are plenty of channels and it’s a nice occasion to chat with people about common interests. if you feel like socialising that is <3 just being able to chat about this or that w/ cool people in a positive space does wonder for my feelings of depression and loneliness.

ok i typed a lot but idk if this has been of any help lol i’m a boring person and i don’t do any spiritual stuff or think about mindfulness at all and i’ve got a laundry list of issues to deal with so i don’t even feel qualified to share advice but at the end of the day i just wanted to tell u that i wish u the best and that u find ur cruising speed, and that if u do and lose it for a bit, it doesn’t mean that u can’t get back on track!! i wish the both of us and everybody else a better future

#Anonymous

18 notes · View notes

colorseeingchick · 3 years

Text

The Inevitable Dystopia of My Hero Academia (WITHOUT manga spoilers)

As noted by your local political science anime lover.

(This is a summary/rambling about a political science paper I wrote on My Hero. This is only based on the anime. I’m not caught up on the manga)

Warnings: Vague reference to abuse (Endeavor), discussion of political theory, discourse.

A/N: It’s lengthy and all over the place. It also might be impossible to follow. So I’m sorry in advance lol.

THESE ARE JUST MY OPINIONS AND A FORM OF DISCOURSE. I’m open to discussing if you have thoughts! Political science is about understanding policy and structures, not taking a stance. Any comparisons to ‘modern society’ are in reference to 1st world/developed societies, as those are the governments that parallel the My Hero Academia government.

The politics of My Hero Academia is... pretty morbid if you ask me. It’s not worse than the real world, sure, but maybe that’s why it’s all the scarier. Even with quirks and super powers, the impossible becoming possible, it isn’t enough to save them from the undesirable. Their society seems to have fallen into a cycle of suffering and oppression that has no end.

Now, I know no one really gets excited about political theory (unless you’re like me, then please be my friend), but there are some concepts that you’ll need to understand in order to follow along with my argument. So bear with me.

First, utopia. Utopia is probably a term you’ve heard casually, but the definition political theorists hold it to is simply- “a good place.” Often times it is depicted as a far away dreamland, only possible in the realm of fiction (and this makes sense given that My Hero is fictional). It is very important to understand that utopia is not necessarily perfect. It’s just better than average. There are a few standards that characterize utopia, one being the utopian focus on having very strict laws to repress the unstable nature of mankind [1]. I’ll come back to this.

Next is dystopia. Dystopia as an idea was actually made in response to utopia. It’s the ‘not-utopia,’ and is lumped with ‘anti-utopia’ (this comment is in reference to the semiotic square, if you would like to develop a further look into it). The simplest way to understand dystopia is to know it’s ‘a not-good place.’ [2] But that’s surprisingly broad. Dystopias can be a failed utopia, or they could have developed on their own as a result of any number of reasons. You’ve probably seen all sorts of depictions of dystopia (climate dystopias, medical dystopias, technology-based dystopias, literally any YA novel from my childhood, you get the idea). Its key to note that unlike an apocalypse, where there is utter destruction and it ends with complete annihilation of humanity, there is hope* inherently written into it.

*Hope here meaning there’s theoretically a way for the government to be changed/overthrown without death of the majority.

Now that all that boring stuff is out of the way- let’s talk about My Hero Academia.

I’d argue that, at first glance, Hero Society seems to be working towards utopia. When reading from Deku’s perspective, especially in the beginning, you would think that their society is close to becoming utopian. The impossible is possible, being a hero is a reality, and a symbol of peace tangibly and definitively exists. When you compare it to pre-quirk society, these changes would appear to be developments. As for the ‘in progress’ aspect, I think Hawks verbalizes it best when he says his goal is for heroes to have too much time on their hands. They aren’t there yet, but if that goal is achieved, it would be a mark of utopia.

They’ve achieved some level of utopian standards by meeting the ‘strict laws to repress the unstable nature’ standard. Think about the concept of licensing quirks, quirk regulation, and the government institutions that regulate quirk society. Remember when Tomura cornered Deku at the shopping mall and mentioned something along the lines of, ‘all these people could wield their quirks at any moment they want, but choose not to? Instead they smile and laugh.’

He has a point. Why is that? From a political theorist point of view, it’s honestly very shocking. For centuries, theorists have argued about how to manage human nature. It’s a difficult task as is. Give everyone superpowers? That would have to be 10x as chaotic. But in the My Hero world, it’s not. It’s well organized. The government took action to regulate the physical instability of humanity which arose from quirks. What’s so impressive to me is that they managed to mitigate (not eliminate) the instability of human nature/behavior along with it.

But if you take a step back to look at My Hero Academia, slowing down and stepping out of Deku’s shoes, I don’t think the instinct is to classify it as a utopia in progress. Of course, its superpowered with quirks- adding to the realm of possibility. But crime of all sorts is superpowered, just as the justice systems/law enforcement in the country.

When I made this realization, I understood I had kind of been drawn into the propaganda the society puts out. It’s a sort of cloak built up by the positive media around the heroes, the narrative being focused on young heroes and their great mentors, and the universal title of ‘villain’ being put on everyone that breaks the government’s laws (this really bothers me, and maybe I’ll discuss it another time). Things aren’t better. Crime rates have gone down I believe, but the anti-hero sentiments being harbored are more intense than in certain real world societies. Hero society hasn’t necessarily resolved any of the problems that our society would have. The balance is the same, but the possible actions people can take, or the behaviors that are exhibited, are scaled up on both sides of the law.

What’s worse is that- even if its not a universal experience, this society is also a dystopia for many people. The first hint of this society being less than perfect is when we hear from Stain and his pursuit of a ‘just society’ by eliminating fraudulent heroes. His ideals are surprisingly level-headed, and very rigorous in standard, even if it is based in questionable morals. But it’s easy to brush it off. However, its less deniable as you learn more about these characters.

Shigaraki was abandoned and waited for heroes to save him, but they didn’t. Overhaul was also an orphan living on the streets. Eri was abandoned by her mother because of her quirk. Twice was villainized, when in reality he has mental health issues (dissociative identity disorder I believe). It broke my heart when Twice said “heroes only save good people.” Who decided they were bad people? Why weren’t they saved?

Also, can we talk about the quirkism? (Which I don’t know if that’s a real term within this fandom yet, it might be, but just to be on the same page, I mean quirk-based discrimination) You have people like Shinsou, who’s treated as villain even though he wants be a hero- solely because of his quirk. I believe Toga was also treated poorly because of the nature of her quirk as well (correct me if I’m wrong). And then you have Midoriya, who was harassed and bullied for not having a quirk at all. Clearly none of them have control over the way they were born, and yet they all had to deal with how society treats them because of the uncontrollable. (At this point I’m sure its clear there are a lot of parallels with the discourse around quirkism, racism, and sexism, which is a whole nother conversation).

Having good quirks also seems to get you a pass, or puts you outside the reach of the law. The only example I need for this is Endeavor and his children. Despite all the abuse he’s done that makes him a villain in my book, he stays the number 2 hero. That’s all I need to say.

The suffering of all these individuals is a direct result of the failure of the government. And this isn’t a ‘government should have taken extra steps to help them.’ This is a situation where the government’s structure, including the sensationalized media and monopolization of quirk use, has actively attacked and oppressed people who otherwise would have been untargeted.

This is a world of misery for them- the people who make up the underworld. We call them villains and criminals because they are- but I don’t think its fair to call all of them bad people. They definitely didn’t start out that way. They are the results of suffering. They are created by a society that solely aims to remove them from existence. This hero society is so unjust that its faults create its own villains. The villains they aim to stop came to be because of the ‘heroes’ in the first place. The irony there is painful, and I hate that it’s a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.

The reason why I think it’s morbid is because there is no escape. Quirk society in its current state is undeniably a dystopia for many. But the issue is (and this was the crux of my argument in my paper) dystopia and utopia inevitably and consistently coinhabit space. What is utopia to one will be a dystopia to another. There is no way to get everyone to uniformly view society.

What that means is, somebody will always be suffering in this society. At least, that’s the cycle that’s been set up. In the episode where Tamaki got shot with a quirk erasing bullet and Kirishima fought the gangster on quirk enhancing drugs, that gangster did say that this was ‘their time’ to rise. “It’ll be the age of those who live in the shadows.” They’re not looking for resolution. They’re looking for revenge. They want to flip the script and be the ones living in utopia while everyone else is subject to suffering. The concept of everyone living happily in harmony and true peace isn’t even in consideration.

There seems to be no middle ground, no solution to the push and pull between the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains.’ The unfairness will continue to be passed around, and unless someone can break the cycle, attack the corruption of the system at its roots,

the problem is not going to go away.

Sources!

[1] Claeys, Gregory, and Fatima Vieira. “The Concept of Utopia.” In The Cambridge Companion to Utopian Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

[2] Robinson , Kim Stanley. “Dystopias Now.” Commune, November 17, 2018. https://communemag.com/dystopias-now/.

#my hero academia #boku no hero academia #my hero academia politics #boku no hero politics #political science and anime #political science #anime #discourse #colorseeingchick writes #discourse with the colorseeingchick

33 notes · View notes

therapy101 · 4 years

Note

(1/2) With a rise in young children expressing gender nonconformity being sent to gender clinics, being taught about gender dysphoria and being ‘born in the wrong body’ in schools, being guided towards pubertal blockers and medical transition, I was wondering if I could ask for your more knowledgeable input please. When treating such children and adolescents, why is the underlying assumption that the dysphoric feelings are valid and the body is what needs fixing? Why is APA/psychologists

(”2/2) allowing medical decisions to be made based on outdated mind-body dualism? We don’t affirm anorexia and offer liposuction, or the delusions of schizophrenia for instance, so why is this the only mind-body incongruence that’s treated this way? Does GD in a developing child really warrant medicalizing them for the rest of their lives? Since we’ve scientifically concluded gender is a spectrum, shouldn’t we instead be promoting gender diversity no matter what sexed body we’re born in?”

There are a lot of things to unpack and understand here.

1. The underlying assumption is not that “the body needs fixing.” Medical transition is not the first step for children, adolescents, or adults with gender dysphoria. From 2004-2016, only 92 total children and adolescents out of six million total patients younger than 19 seen in the sample received a hormone blocker for a transgender-related diagnosis. Even among adults, current estimates for the United States are that between 25-35% of trans and non-binary adults complete any kind of gender affirming surgery (this means, even enough those who have surgery, it may only be one type of surgery and may not impact all relevant body parts). Getting access to trans-affirming medical care is very difficult, and structural inequalities like racism impact access to care, leading some trans people, especially Black trans women, to have to buy hormones from non-medical sources. That’s one of the reasons why the APA has come out to support trans folks and gender affirming care: because otherwise, these folks don’t get any care, or they get mistreated. The point here is to ensure that everyone gets equitable access to high quality medical and mental health care. That includes hormones, hormone blockers, and/or surgery for some people, but not everyone.

2. All feelings are valid- dysphoric or otherwise. Sometimes feelings don’t fit the facts, or acting upon them doesn’t make sense, but that doesn’t take away from their validity. The question is not whether the feelings are valid for kids with gender dysphoria, the question is how to understand that dysphoria better and how to identify what to do about it, both in terms of gender identity and in terms of coping, support and improving overall mental health. This is a great place for a therapist with expertise to step in and help the child and their family figure it out.

Sometimes the child or adolescent has known literally or essentially their whole life, and that may mean no dysphoria (which is great!). From Katz-Wise et al., 2017:

For some youth, primarily but not exclusively those ages 7–12 years, indication of transgender identification occurred early and was described as “immediate.” One father of an 18-year-old trans boy from the Northeast noted, “It was so immediate that it was just, you know, it wasn’t like he was seven and he said, ‘Oh my god he thinks of himself as a boy.’ It was just kinda always like that with him.”

For other youth, it is a more gradual process, and may take some time to sort out. Some youth also don’t have dysphoria while they are doing that so there may not be a reason to seek out therapy unless there is some other mental health issue they are facing. But if they do have dysphoria, or are otherwise experiencing mental health symptoms related to their gender identity, then seeing a therapist can help.

3. Supporting a child to identify as trans or nonbinary or some other non-cis gender is not “medicalizing them for the rest of their lives.” Hormone blockers can be removed, and hormones can be stopped- but I disagree that these are “medicalizing” in any case. A person cannot be reduced down to the medications they take or the treatments they receive. Is a woman with cancer “medicalized” because she undergoes a hysterectomy? Are the children on puberty blockers for medical reasons “medicalized” (>2000 of them in the study I cited above, but no one seems concerned about them)? What about those people with delusions who are put on antipsychotics, which are known to have severe side effects including higher risk of diabetes and heart disease, seizures, tardive dyskinesia, overwhelming sleepiness impacting ability to work or drive, weight gain (I’ve seen clients gain >70 lbs in 3 months), and more?

I would encourage you to read either of these great studies by Katz-Wise et al: 1 or 2 to understand this better. When you ask trans youth about themselves, the medical aspect is such a small part- they are talking about their whole selves, their hopes for the future, their families and friends, and their wishes to be able to be loved and accepted for who they really are. Some of it is about their bodies, sure, and that can mean that some decide to use hormones and/or hormone blockers or undergo surgery (although we’ve seen that those rates aren’t super higher ). But they’re also just talking about being called the right name and pronoun, getting to wear the clothes that make them feel authentic, getting to date and marry and have sex, and: getting to live. Not being ostracized and assaulted and killed. Like this 8 year old who identifies as a girlish boy worrying he’ll never be able to get married AND be his true self (from the second Katz-Wise et al):

An 8-year-old youth participant who identified as a “girlish boy” similarly worried about other people's reactions related to gender norms in the long-term future, as told by his mother,

He said [to me], ‘But I'm not going to get married, because if I married a boy I'd want to be the bride...I would want to wear a dress and people would laugh at me because I'm marrying a boy and I'd be wearing a dress.

He is 8 years old and these are his worries. As a mental health professional, my immediate thought is that he deserves any and all support that makes sense to him and his family so that he doesn’t have to worry like this. So that he can be 8.

4. Finally, and probably most importantly: gender dysphoria is different because treating it with hormone blockers, hormones, and surgery is literally life saving.

As high as 42% of trans people have attempted suicide at least once. For comparison, the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts in the general population is 3%.

Study after study has shown that there are three primary factors that reduce suicide risk: 1. Timely medical and legal transition for those who want it; 2. Family acceptance and general support from friends and loved ones; 3. Reduced transphobia and internalized transphobia. (1 2 3 4 5).

Psychologists want to help people live, and live well. Living well means having a life you enjoy and find meaningful. If medical transition means someone’s suicide risk decreases and their mental health improves, then they can pursue the life they want. Being affirmed in their gender means they can have that part of the life they want. It might also help them get to other things they want (like having the marriage and wedding they envision, like that example). These are things we as psychologists prioritize. Period.

It’s not the same as anorexia because providing a liposuction for two reasons. One: It would not resolve the dysphoria. People with anorexia who lose weight do not feel better about themselves and their bodies. That’s the dysphoria: people with anorexia (and other eating disorders, sometimes) often cannot see their bodies as they really are. Changing the body won’t help. Unlike in gender dysphoria, where changing the body- either in presentation or actually medically -actually does help. Two: Liposuction for an underweight person with anorexia could kill them. As we’ve discussed, gender affirming surgeries for trans people can save their lives. These are not comparable.

The comparison to delusions doesn’t work very well because there isn’t really a “medical” intervention you would do to affirm someone’s delusion. But, since you may not know this: we sometimes do affirm people’s delusions, and it’s not necessarily psychologically helpful to try to change someone’s mind about a delusion. Delusions are not bad all on their own, and: sometimes things we think are delusional, actually aren’t, so it’s super important not to assume we know someone’s life and experiences better than they do. (Just recently a nurse assumed a patient was delusional, but actually they were quite rich and owned several expensive cars. People can be rich and have a significant mental illness.) So anyway- I don’t know how that applies.

Overall: we as a field are still understanding the full spectrum of gender identities and how to do good treatment and good science in relationship with that. But what’s clear is that medical transition is sometimes a part of a good treatment plan for both youth and adults, and that it can save people’s lives. It can make their lives better. I am 100% about saving people’s lives, so I am 100% about a medical transition when appropriate and gender affirming care in general.

References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(email me at academic.consultant101 gmail.com if you need full texts)

become a Patron | buy me a coffee | academic consulting | send an ask

68 notes · View notes

ladymazzy · 3 years

Text

One year on: the BLM event that divided a Gloucestershire town

I'm beyond furious and exasperated with the perpetuation of the lie that racism is a thing of the past. This woman is only 25, and her recounting her experiences of going to school as a Black girl in the West Country only around a decade ago speaks volumes

Some highlights from the article. (CW for racism and White Fragility™️):

Growing up, Khady Gueye was one of just a handful of black pupils at her school in the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire. By the time she was a teenager, she was desperate to fit in and conform. And so when her nickname became “Nigs” – short for the N-word – Gueye didn’t challenge it.

Here, in the rural west of England, where she had been fed racist stereotypes of black people her whole life, she didn’t want to be labelled “the angry black girl” or the self-pitying minority who “couldn’t take a joke” or what was considered a “bit of light banter”.

And so it was, that on the last day of school where it is tradition for year 11s to scrawl goodbye messages on one another’s school shirts, Gueye took home a shirt covered with the N-word in giant block capital letters across the front. “Gonna Miss You Nigs” was written on the back next to jokes about golliwogs and messages of good luck.

Gueye was supposed to consider it an affectionate send-off; it was written by her own friends. It was 2012, the year Britain proudly celebrated its optimistic and diverse Olympic Games opening ceremony, or as Conservative MP Aidan Burley would call it, “multicultural crap”.

“I became complicit in allowing it to continue, by being ‘Ha ha! Good joke guys,’” says Gueye, flatly. “But when you grow up in an area that is so predominantly white and are already made to feel different, you just do your best to fit in. The ideal is don’t call out racism. Let it slide. You become so accustomed to it, it becomes your norm.”

Now 25 and on the verge of finishing her English degree at Manchester University, Gueye has become a local community organiser and is more visible than ever in the town where she was born and grew up.

“I don’t want my daughter to grow up with the same experience I did,” she says emphatically, over lunch at her local pub. “This is my home and it’s a lovely area to bring up a family in. I want my daughter to have a life where she is celebrated for who she is, not feel attacked or unwelcome because of her skin colour.”

But Gueye’s attempts to hold a small “celebration of BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) culture” sparked a furious backlash that, one year on, still reverberates throughout the small Gloucestershire town of Lydney.

...an online petition was set up to stop the event going ahead on the grounds that it was unsafe and high risk in the middle of a pandemic. Organiser Natasha Saunders wrote: “A mass gathering is a slap in the face to people who have been tirelessly shielding themselves, the elderly and loved ones from this virus.”

Anger, tension and outright abuse boiled over online as a counter-petition to support the event was organised. It got twice the number of signatures, leading Saunders to say that hers was more valid by claiming “90% of [signatories] are from Lydney, can you say yours was?” Later, she would make Eldridge-Tull gasp by posting: “He couldn’t breathe, now we can’t speak”, in a reference to Floyd’s murder by a police officer.

“We’re a happy community, we don’t really have an issue with racism,” said one middle-aged man, who didn’t want his name published, as he nursed a pint outside a local pub. “Outsiders bring their problems, but there’s not a lot of them here,” he said, echoing in politer terms a point that was made repeatedly to the Observer last week.

Last year, Gueye and Eldridge-Tull spent hours patiently replying to comments online in an attempt to explain the event and reassure people about it, but still received threats. Hundreds of screenshots of the abuse have been shared with the Observer. A typical missive read: “Fuck off. Not everyone agrees with black lives. I can’t say what I want on here coz I’ll be reported for racism. But I would bring back black slavery.” Gueye was repeatedly told to go back to where she came from if she didn’t like it and that she would be responsible for bringing harm to Lydney residents.

The pair’s standard response to those with genuine concerns about mass gatherings in a health pandemic, during a lockdown, was to keep explaining that social distancing was being strictly adhered to – two-metre grids were hand-chalked by Gueye and Eldridge-Tull on the site – and that PPE was being provided to anyone who didn’t have any.

“I think it speaks volumes that BAME people are still willing to protest for their human rights even though they are disproportionately affected by the pandemic,” wrote Gueye. “Maybe this should highlight the severity of the inequality in our society”.

....

When asked if she [deputy mayor, Tess Tremlett] accepted there were a lot of racist aspects to the abuse the organisers had endured, Tremlett replied: “I think some of the comments coming from supporters of the event were actually racist in themselves. They were called ‘white trash’, they were called Nazis and all sorts.”

But as anti-racist activists have spent the last year explaining, racism isn’t simply prejudice based on how one looks, but a system...[based] around a specific set of ideas – in this case, racist ones.

It is useful to explain why it is possible for white people to experience individual prejudice and unpleasant behaviour simply based on the colour of their skin but why it is inaccurate to call that “racism”. Being white does not mean one is more likely to be criminalised by the police, or that one is more likely to work in lower-paid frontline work or that one is more likely to be exposed to and die of Covid as a result.

In Gloucestershire, for instance, police statistics show that being black means you are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than you would if you were white.

The numbers are blankly disproportionate; there are just over 5,000 black people resident in the county compared with 570,000 white people. Last year, Gloucestershire council published evidence that jobseekers from minority ethnic groups had to send an average of 60% more applications to receive the same level of interest as white candidates. It’s not a conversation that Lydney, like much of the country, appears to have much interest in yet.

Tremlett, who has two decades of experience working in community engagement, explained that her sole reason for opposing the event was to be lawful. “Racism is the biggest insult anyone can say to me and I was called a racist by Khady’s team, whoever they are.” Was being called a racist worse than the actual racism that Gueye was continually facing in her everyday life? At this, Tremlett began to cry.

”You don’t understand,” she said, explaining that her daughter had been to three Indian weddings, that her builder was black, and that she had run an equalities panel for years as a councillor. Her experience – being called a racist, being abused online – when she felt she was doing the right thing, understandably made her defensive and upset. But it’s a difficult position for Gueye and Eldridge-Tull to deal with. Especially as she described Gueye as “aggressive and confrontational”.

Last year, Tremlett took the matter of the Forest of Dean’s BLM movement to local Conservative MP Mark Harper, who raised the matter in the House of Commons.

On 17 June, Harper, who may be best known as the immigration minister responsible for sending vans encouraging illegal immigrants to “go home” around parts of London, appeared to encourage an online pile-on against Eldridge-Tull, who had a tenth of his 30,000 followers, and demanded she apologise to the local community for tweeting: “The reaction to the BLM protest in Lydney has brought to light so much support, but so much hate. I love where I live, but I’m ashamed of my neighbours, and ashamed to be part of a community that has so widely endorsed and exacerbated racial hatred.”

....

When Gueye posted a picture of her school-leaver’s shirt on Instagram last year, one of her schoolfriends wrote that it was outrageous, and that she was impressed with everything Gueye was doing. “I was really happy she felt that but it was awkward,” says Gueye. “I messaged her back to say that she was one of the people who wrote those messages.” An embarrassed silence followed, but Gueye is hopeful and optimistic. “It’s still a positive sign.”

#guardian articles #uk racism #uk politics #blm protests #the uk is not innocent #never tory #there's a special place in my soul where i nuture my rage towards the kind of mfs who talk about the 'chip on your shoulder'#or that woebegotten idea that we 'need to take a joke' etc

3 notes · View notes

laufire · 3 years

Text

Supernatural s1

my dash: decries Supernatural every five posts.

me: time to watch it seriously for the first time in my life.

-First thing first: it’s an amazingly well-crafted season of tv. I’m a character-focused watcher, not a plot-focused one; I never connected emotionally to the Winchesters (still haven’t and likely never will, as interesting I might find them as character constructs), so I feared I’d be bored and would want to skip scenes. Nuh huh. I was many things, but none of them were bored xDD. Each episode was a lesson in good pacing and the entire season another in proper build-up. There are one or two or a few dozen tv-writers I would like to show it to, ngl.

-Another thing it excelled at was in its portrayal in abusive family dynamics. The way Dean went mellow and so unlike himself when John gave an order (and what a SHOCK it is in the later episodes when he finally stands up to him!!). How Sam said HE would apologize to his father when they saw each other again, or how he made apologies for his father because “it could have been worse” (at least John didn’t beat them up, like it happened to that poor kid!). John showing Sam more “““respect””” (as far as he’s able at least) simply because Sam already proved he’s capable of leaving him; the way John controls the information he gives them and when and how and how much and how small they feel when they reunite with him. Dean knowing his father had been possessed by a demon because it wasn’t reprimanding him and belittling him. Dean’s psychic shapeshifter (?) expressing his resentment towards Sam for getting to escape. Dean’s quickness to resort to violence when Sam says something that makes him angry, or how he tries to severe ties between Sam and his college friends, or how he guilt trips him when Sam says he plans on returning to his studies, or how he minimizes Sam’s experiences with John or how Sam criticizes Dean’s compliance... (I don’t think Dean’s being consciously manipulative. I think it’s intuitive. Which is far, far scarier. He’s the Elena Gilbert of Supernatural and a walking red flag for controlling behavior). How it’s paired with ~honeymoon periods. The way they use the families around them to highlight their issues. It’s... chilling and terrifying and I can’t look away. I won’t get into the shit John pulls in 2x01 because that’s for the s2 POV, but oh my god I’m so happy he’s dead.

I wasn’t all that sure of how self-aware the creators were about this trend (especially because of how centralized and validated Dean’s POV is in his conflicts with Sam IMO. OTOH... characters like Dean and actors like Ackles are the type to take over a show by charisma alone tbf. The way he swoops in in the pilot and starts disrupting everything, including Sam’s relationship, reminding me of both Angel in BTVS and Chuck in Gossip Girl, Doylist-wise. This comparison is going to make sense to like three people I talk with regularly xDD). At least on early seasons, since certain spoilers about the later ones make me think it grew over time. I’m still unsure but I think they are a little self-aware because of this quote:

Eric Kripke said of Buffy: “I loved ‘Hush’ and ‘Once More, With Feeling,’ but overall, Buffy really taught me about effectively using metaphor in genre. For Buffy, it was ‘high school is hell (literally),’ and Joss Whedon did such a masterful job of grounding his horror and fantasy concepts in this notion, and ultimately telling allegories about high school, which turned what could’ve been B-Movie material into an all-time classic. I used that same philosophy on my run of Supernatural, with the mantra ‘family is hell (literally),’ and always grounded my horror episodes around the notion of families, to the show’s benefit. So thanks, Joss Whedon. I owe you a beer. (Credit: The WB)

everyone wants to be Buffy lol.

-My absolute favourite thing was how competent the Winchesters are (I’m even reluctantly including John here. That bastard). They’re sneaky with local authorities, crafty about fake IDs, credit scams, research abilities, DIY supernatural detectors xDD... I loved the lack of an audience proxy, the fact that the story throws you into the deep end with people that already know their shit. And that the other side is competent too, like when Meg & YED’s plan to trap John relied on the Winchester being competent; on Sam immediately going into the defensive because, what are the chances of finding that cute weird girl a second time, miles away?; on John suspecting it was a trap and only revealing himself after Meg appears to be dead... Another scene that I loved in that sense, from 2x01 (I watched until 2x03, I wanted to see Sterling K. Brown’s first appearance lol) was how upon discovering Reapers are shapeshifters, Dean immediately knew that cute ghost he’d befriended was the one after him. I get the feeling this aspect will get lost in future season and it’s a pity, tbh.

-Related to that, some of my favourite moments: Sam straight up bribing a guy to get into the morgue when Dean’s arguments are failing (with Dean’s money!); Dean’s plan of “well, if this guy is haunting the house and there’s no other way to kill him, we burn the house. No house no haunting”; Dean telling that kid to fake appendicitis to get his parents out of the house; John blessing the tank of water knowing he’s walking into a trap with demons... I dig this stuff.

-I get whiplash sometimes, with the show making a point of (very briefly) telling you racism, homophobia or pro-life attitudes are Bad(TM) and the brothers are Against them (the Racist Truck episode, the one where a woman used a Reaper to exchange “virtuous” lives for those of sinners...), when the rest of the show is err... what it is lol. Dean is toxic masculinity’s poster boy (I was so disgusted by how he acted with Jess omfg), in s2 we don’t get the monsters’ perspective on hunters until we’ve conveniently met our first black one (I love the episode AND the character but it’s fucking true)...

-I need to make a note of paying attention to the writers credits/Bts stuff because I find this show’s progression fascinating on a metatextual level. The only problem is that audience reaction seems to have played a big role (which is a problem on one or two different levels imo xD), and tracking that down is sliiiiightly more difficult lol. Oh well (I don’t even think I want to see too much of this fandom, even to satisfy my curiosity. Some of the glimpses I’ve caught of it are disturbing to the extreme).

-The detail about dead people’s blood being toxic to vampires is SO COOL OMG. I’m tempted to steal it xD

Some random stuff:

-The monsters of the week were some legit creepy stuff.

-I love that Meg has her own hellhounds. Is that still a thing when she returns?

-Dean: you and dad are reckless and I’m going to have to be the one that buries you. / Me, with the power of foresight: 👀

-Also Dean: sometimes it scares me how good I am at killing. / Me: it scares the shit out of me how good you are at killing, too, fam.

-I get the impression Sam loses his demonic-in-origin powers later on, right? What a waste, I love those.

-I’m pretty sure at one point it’s implied John used Dean to honeytrap monsters (when he sends him as a trap for the lady vampire that stole the Colt) and I really don’t know what to do with this information.

-Cassie was GORGEOUS and even make Dean likeable for me while they lasted xDD. But given this show’s track record I’m considering the lack of more appearances a blessing.

-So many guest stars. Everyone’s been on SPN. Especially if they were on the Buffyverse first (I totally get the impulse of casting Buffy actor after Buffy actor lmfao).

-Funny how Luther Hargreeves is exactly who a lot of fans think Dean was (Dean is far, far colder imo), and yet one is constantly called pathetic and evil and the other woobified. Very Funny Indeed *coughs* (funnier still that the character I often see Dean compared to is Wynonna Earp when the parallels are kids-pool deep at best and offensive at worst. Dean is not a Wynonna. Again, Dean is an Elena Gilbert xDD).

-The two paranormal investigators were dumb as rocks, but their motto was “What Would Buffy Do” so I like them (if they ever change that to What Would the Winchesters Do or something like that I’m going to be furious lmao).

-When I want to ~chill I dress about exactly like Dean (minus the flannel I’ve seen in later seasons, you can’t pay me to wear flannel). Like, I think I have a couple of shirts that look exactly like ones of his. I don’t know how I feel about this xDD

-IDK how I’ll feel about Bobby later on (I get the impression every long-term character on this show has their hateful phases xD), but in his introduction he said the last time he saw John he threatened to shoot him (“he causes that reaction in people”), so he’s so far the most relatable character around lol.

#talking to the void #my thoughts #spn thoughts #the writing tm #sam winchester #dean winchester #john winchester #and others #abuse mention cw #here be negativity warning lol #spn s1 #the winchesters get to have a tag I GUESS

11 notes · View notes

missaureus · 4 years

Text

CRASH LANDING ON YOU

Number of Episodes: 16

Genre: Romance, Drama

Rating: 10/10

I actually finished this series prior to the quarantine season but let me just include it to the list because I invested so much emotions to it, to the point it left me handicapped.

Crash Landing on You has so much on its plate! Not to mention the controversy it faced, being criticized by the liberal party for romanticizing not their own kind. I truly appreciate how this production served something new to the audience! The disclaimer being rolled before each episode is a reminder how a vast mind can offer so much - a window to let us visually access how the life is in the world's most secretive country, North Korea. Sure, there are already dramas with North Korea as a setting but the overall portrayal of CLoY makes it loved by the general public.

Apart from the reason of casting big actors as leads, how the supporting roles in CLoY are being painted give a big impact to the whole canvas, even the hostiles and the helpless. The side stories are definitely not something to be skipped. Surprisingly, my favorite character is Seo Dan's mom. She exudes peak mom level! Actually, all mother figures radiate strong personalities! Among all, I appreciate Seo Dan's character development the most! She is definitely a revolution herself. Thank you for empowering women on screen! Lastly, the backbone of the story are the best squads in the history of kdrama, the soldier squad and the mom squad ㅋㅋThey are just pure and fun to watch, even their chemistry with Seri is good~

I honestly ran out of expectations from this drama. I was afraid how it is going to end but the greatest takeaway is that, each character reached their own resolution. Probably some might disagree re: Seo Dan and Seung Jun's tragedy. But the second male lead saying: I was wrong. When I die, there’s someone who will cry for me. The fact that it’s you makes me sad and happy. I guess that resolved his own conflict. *criii*

I have so much to say, to be honest because this drama is generous enough with insights. Highly recommended~ People saying this is too overrated need to sit down and repent lol!

ITAEWON CLASS

Number of Episodes: 16

Genre: Drama, Revenge

Rating: 9/10

First episode and it was already dark and bold. The plot caters a pool of societal issues such as class differences, abuse of power/injustices, transgender discrimination, and racism. This drama has a different aura compared to previous works of Park Seo Joon. Even the love story of the leads is not the typical lovey dovey~

The main character's determination to avenge his father's death is scalding hot throughout the episodes. It was as consistent as his hairstyle for years istg. Hard work does not betray, indeed. What struck me the most is when one character, Seung Kwon, who used to be Saeroyi jailmate, crossed paths again after years in the outer world. He narrated how everyone is given the same amount of time but the depth of time one spends is completely different compared to someone who does not set goals and persevere through time to get it.

No wonder how the rating of the show did good since the characters are effectively pulled off despite how tacky each personality is.

HI BYE, MAMA!

Number of Episodes: 16

Genre: Drama, Fantasy

Rating: 10/10

This series stirred the general public for a fact that the one portraying Seo Woo is actually a boy. The enormous attention it absorbed was also due to its heartbreaking storyline. It is not even an exaggeration that there is no episode that would not let you cry. It will give your tear ducts so much work.

It reflects a pool of family values and love. It will make you realize even more no matter what age you have, you will still need your mom. It will make you ponder how death can rob you in an instant. Midong, a shaman in the drama, once said: A woman who lost her husband is called a widow. A man who lost his wife is called a widower. And a kid who lost his parents is called an orphan. But there’s no word for a parent who lost their kid. Know why? It’s because no word can describe it. There’s no word in this world that can describe the excruciating pain. That is too devastating, I can't digest it.

I want to commend the three main characters so much! They deserve a round of applause each. Both Seowoo's moms deserve her. Yuri and Minjung are both selfless and strong, as mothers should be. It's true that being aggressive with their respective decision against the other without feeling sorry could have been done if one is mean towards the other. This drama has no antagonist and it is frustrating that no one can take the blame. Sadly, one mom must be hurt deeply in order to save the other mom. Shoutout to all stepmoms! Not all are evil, stop labeling them as one. Seowoo's dad, Kanghwa, for me, has the hardest character. He has been walking on eggshells. All his life, his shoulders are heavy. He endured so much and embraced unnecessary guilt. His walls are too high that made his relationship with others shaky. He is afraid for people to get hurt to the point being too considerate does not help him at all, making himself his own punching bag.

Hitting the resolution of the story is a painful process but it is the kind of hurt that liberated all characters involved. To be able to point out what went wrong and ungrasping it--- Yuri boldy telling his used-to-be husband "I am not yours anymore. You can let me go now." opened the door to silence the conflicts. Acceptance.

Literally, I cried how the epilogue gave a glimpse of the couple's life if Yuri was able to escape his death note. It only takes a second to change a life-changing event. But reaching the final episode was the real deal for my tear ducts ㅠ I seriously cried 90 minutes straight! I am so satisfied how it is wrapped up. No better ending no matter heartbreaking it is!

HE IS PSYCHOMETRIC

Number of Episodes: 16

Genre: Romantic Comedy, Fantasy, Thriller

Rating: 9/10

Why did I just watch it noW? ㅠ Wow, this is a masterpiece! The plot twist is insane! I love how the truth was unfold throughout the story. It was helluva stressful hahaha. Dark enough. Since I was hungry for an answer, I finished this one almost straight 16 hours!!! If you have watched While You Were Sleeping, which was about someone who can dream about the future, this series is a counterpart. The main lead can see the past by touching a person or object. This unique ability helped him solve cases, especially the event the greatly involved him in the past.

I commend Jinyoung for crying that much! Crazy he has lots of frame that in need of crying ㅋㅋㅋ Rise the flag of actor-idol! He is a natural, to be honest. His character, Ahn's funny antics always got me~ The female lead, Ye Eun has an uncanning resemblance of Yerim, hahaha it awed me while watching~

I am satisfied how it ended. Although I would to see more of their love story but in totality it is a must-watch definitely!

WHEN THE CAMELLIA BLOOMS

Number of Episodes: 40

Genre: Romantic Comedy, Thriller

Rating: 9/10

I love how this is filtered ♡ Very aesthetic that I want to live in Ongsan too! Life for the female lead is too complex. The plot revolves around straightening the strands of conflicts of her life. Dealing with her son who does not want her to have a boyfriend, who is short-tempered and acts maturely to protect her mom; dealing with her boyfriend who loves her unconditionally, who always believes in her and brings out the best of her; dealing with her ex husband, who wants to stand as a father to his child and fill in those years he missed to take care of him; dealing with her neighbors, who speak ill and put her in a bad light at first; dealing with her mother who made her an orphan and came back to her sick; dealing with her secret killer...

This runs for 20 hours and I could not remember the last drama I've watched this long but I savored it without any hint boredom. It ended but I still want mooore. I love how every character is given ample amount of screen time in the last episode. Everyone ended up happily. The went through so much, a happy ending is deserved by all. I was moved. I learned so much about life which is too complex to be completely understood.

Props to Haneul! His loud and vibrant acting is commendable!!! And the post-credit is so heartwarming ㅠㅠ I had a fair share of tears for this drama ㅠㅠ

BECAUSE THIS IS MY FIRST LIFE

Number of Episodes: 16

Genre: Drama, Romance

Rating: 9/10

I had two attempts to successfully finish this series and what a shame it took me this long? This series also moved me so much. It talks about views and opinion about living independently and marriage. Throughout, I was also questioning my decisions in life and effectively made me reflect.

Ji Ho who is 30, who is jobless, who is homeless. and Se Hee holds the answer to her problems. Se Hee who only loves his cat, who only values his house. Apart from having the same interest in beer and soccer, they mutually signed a contract that both benefitted them. Weird. How can you marry someone without involving emotions?

I also love the opposite personalities of the female lead's friends. Soo Ji who does not believe in marriage and described it as a tomb of a relationship. She is strong and independent. She does not take any guy seriously until Sang Goo happened. Ho Rang who dreams of being a housewife and a mother. She desperately wanted to marry his long-term partner because she is already hitting three decades. Sadly, his partner, Wonseok, expressed how he is not that ready yet and still starting to get a stable job.

I love how this drama ended! Heartwarming~

Part 1 | https://daisy-illusive.tumblr.com/post/162383689643

Part 2 | https://daisy-illusive.tumblr.com/post/169033240193

#personal #kdrama #kdrama recommendations #kdrama review #crash landing on you #hi bye mama #itaewon class #korean drama #korean series #review #he is psychometric #when the camellia blooms #because this is my first life

53 notes · View notes

romolite · 4 years

Text

*Important FAQ*

Aka questions that pertain to what I usually post about or stuff I don’t like getting asks about but continue to get asks about regardless.

[Insert any invasive question about my ethnicity/race]

I’m Ghanaian American. My parents were born in Ghana and I was born here in the US. I’ve seen it more on twitter and tumblr, but Black Africans don’t like me because I’m American, and black Americans don’t like me because I’m African. So I’m stuck in the middle lmao. I’m what you’d consider a First-Generation African, my parents are Continental Africans, and if I have children, they will be considered Generational African Americans.

First Generation African: A black person born in the US to parents who were born in Africa

Generational African American: A black person born in the US to US-born black parent(s)

Continental African: A black person born in Africa to parents who were also born in Africa

Non is just a prefix, black people don’t have a monopoly on the term! I suppose you think nonbinary people are racist huh?

Yeah sure it wasnt coined by black people but the context it’s currently used as was predominantly used by black people. ALL people who are not black benefit from and contribute to antiblackness, even if they are marginalized themselves. That kind of dynamic doesnt exist in other contexts (unless we’re talking about transfem + transmisogyny, but that’s something you’d have to talk to someone who is transfem about. Plus they have their own word for “non-transfem”). Using it in contexts outside of antiblackness is appropriative (Yall are annoying as fuck with the “non-aspec” “non-lesbian”(this term also has anti-bi roots btw) “non-bi” shit etc, stop it. You also can’t complain about the “replacement terms” lumping yall with oppressors when “non-x” does the exact same thing you’re so worried about. “Cis” puts cis gays with cis hets, cis disabled people with cis abled people, cis white people with cis poc, I could go on.)

Plus we’re talking about marginalized groups here. Black people are a marginalized group. Binary people as a whole are not so the term nonbinary isn’t appropriate at all. I dont take issue with terms like “nonamerican” or “nonwhite” because (obviously) whites + americans as a whole aren’t oppressed for being white or american.

Basically using "non-x” in contexts to talk about oppression bad, everything else good.

Follow up: If we can’t use non-[marginalized group], what can we use instead?

There are other words to describe the people you’re talking about

non-transfem- TME

non-LGBT- cishet, or people who aren’t LGBT

non-trans - cis

Black people don’t have a monopoly on the acronym nb! I’ll call myself nb if I want to!

At this point I dont really care, go on your antiblack crusade elsewhere and out of my inbox, I’m always gonna mean nonblack when I use the acronym nb.

And yes, you’re antiblack as fuck if you think black people telling you “nb” stands for “nonblack” is the same as exclusionists claiming “aspec” is for autistic people.

Is x AAVE?

I have a tag dedicated to what is and is not aave and how harmful it is for nonblacks to use aave given its history. I know some things overlap with southern culture but others are specifically for black people. A lot of “stan twitter” language/slang is just repackaged AAVE. No, I can’t tell you how to stop using AAVE. Don’t tell me you’re going to try to stop using AAVE, I don’t want to hear it.

Why don’t you like the n-word being compared to LGBT slurs?

Race and Sexuality/Gender aren’t comparable topics because each deals with a different history of oppression. I don’t care about slur discourse that much because I don’t even use/reclaim any myself except the n-word.

I have a problem with nonblack LGBT people co-opting black culture and struggle(like they always do), especially for trivial online discourse.

And to be honest it goes deeper than slur discourse. Every other day someone is weaponizing the oppression of black trans women, or comparing “cishet aces/aros” in the LGBT community to white/nonblack people invading black spaces (you know, something that ACTUALLY takes resources away from the people who need it, see the cultural appropriation of Black African and Blac American culture in literally any nonblack community while black people get demonized for said culture), or tokenizing their black friends to get away with something blatantly racist. And that’s not even getting into how a lot of gay slang/stan culture is just repurposed AAVE/black culture.

And I’m not gonna lie, I’ve seen this more with exclusionist accounts than inclus accounts, but it’s still not excusable for inclus to do that either. We get erased as black gay/trans/queer/aspec people up until it’s time for discourse accounts to bring us up to one-up each other

Can you give me advice on x?

Most likely not, because I’m not an expert or an advice blog. I’ll try, but don't take my word for it. I’m also tme, able-bodied, not Jewish, singlet, etc, so I’m not able to accurately answer questions about transmisogyny, (physical?) ableism, antisemitism, “sycourse”, etc.

I might be able to give advice on school-related stuff since I just graduated high school, but remember that students are not a monolith, and what worked for me may not work for someone else.

Can I follow if I’m nonblack/a minor/cishet?

Nonblack and/or cishet can follow but watch your step, minors blacklist the #minors dni tag before following

Why do you hate Ao3?

*long sigh*

I don't, I have a problem with the fact that it allows racist and (frankly voyeuristic) pedophilic/abusive/incestuous content to exist on its platform. It’s a good concept overall, but the devs are complicit in allowing “underage” and “noncon/dubcon” fics on their platform.

And there's the fact that they somehow need donations every year despite exceeding their goal several times over each year?

What’s wrong with Hazbin Hotel/The Ships/Vivziepop?

[WIP, as I have to go into extensive detail about this and I currently don’t have the energy for it]

TLDR: Viv made a half-assed apology for supporting racists (one of whom did blackface [yes the mask was used to do blackface shut up] to mock black activist) and drawing gross content. Her current projects including Hazbin Hotel are full of anti-gay/trans/aspec (Angel Dust, Vaggie, Alastor), antisemetic (Mimzy), and racist (Vaggie again, that yellow cyclops character that I’ve forgotten the name of) content under the guise of humor. If you’re into that shit, whatever, just don’t follow me and don’t whine when I make posts criticizing it.

What’s wrong with Hamilton?

Aside from the fact that it’s very obviously glorifying slave owners and made people worldwide believe the founding fathers were good people, LMM, the creator, is nonblack. This isn't his story to tell at all.

Can you tag x?

I have a list of things I usually tag because they come upon this blog a lot. I cannot do catch all tags, as I have way too many followers for that. The closest thing to that is the “ask to tag” tag when there’s something potentially triggering but I’m not sure what it is. Everything is tagged as “x tw”. If something is extremely triggering, I’ll tag it as “major tw”

Do you tag slurs?

I tag slurs I’m not able to reclaim at all (i.e., d slur, f slur, t slur) or slurs I can reclaim but are being used as a slurs. I don’t tag the n-word, as I reclaim that one. I always tag the r slur

Can I message you about something/someone?

Unless you’re a mutual, most likely no. My DMs are only open to mutuals.

Do you want to be mutuals?

I don’t usually follow back people who follow me, especially if you’re under 16 or post things I’m not interested in.

Why is it important to have byf or about?

1) So I know gross people aren’t following me. This is not up for discussion

2) So I know someone’s not speaking out of their lane, which tends to happen a lot. (i.e, someone refusing to disclose that they are tme when discussing transmisogyny, someone not having their race listed when discussing racism)

3) Some people don’t want to interact with people under 18 or over like 30 or something.

Yeah, yeah, people aren’t entitled to personal information and all that crap but I have a serious problem with people speaking on topics from a place of privilege. Not to say they can’t talk about those things, just perhaps add a disclaimer that you’re privileged when talking about these things and be open to criticism, and NOT blocking people of the said marginalized group when they tell you something you’ve said was problematic.

I also have a problem with people who are intentionally vague about their age. There’s a difference between interacting with someone who’s 20 and someone who’s 29. I don’t want to say it’s the opposite for minors but at the same time there’s a difference for saying something racist at 13 and doing so at 17, and keeping your age vague makes it harder to determine how to deal with something like that. (Not that 13-year-olds shouldn’t know better, it’s just I don’t feel whole ass callout posts and receipt blogs are necessary for someone of that age).

Also anyone under 16, I can't stop you from following, but keep your interaction limited, please. This isnt an 18+ blog but I do rb suggestive jokes from time to time

I sent you an ask and you never answered it!

It’s likely that

I never got it

You were blocked

I’ve already answered this or it’s been answered in my faq

It’s a random positivity ask (which I appreciate but not sure how to respond to those)

You were rude in your ask and I didn’t feel like answering

I forgot until it was too late, which happens when my inbox gets a lot of asks at a time.

You sent it to the wrong blog (I.e, sending asks about my ocs to this blog instead of @ochood )

Hey, the op is [insert post] is [someone on my dni]! I usually double-check myself, just to be sure.

Have you heard about [someone who is mutuals with someone I’m loosely connected with]?

Most likely, no. And unless they’re an immediate danger to someone or they’ve got my name in their mouth, I don’t care.

Do you know who [x person/group/thing] is?Most likely no. Not to sound like a hipster but I don't usually keep up to date with trends. If I do hear about something, it’s most likely from twitter or Instagram.

Why am I blocked? Check here.

Why do you continuously move mains/change URLs/update themes?

I’m inconsistent. And sometimes there are posts on my blog that I no longer stand by.

Can I tag you in posts I think I’d like?Of course!

#lite.txt #long post #faq

13 notes · View notes

firelord-frowny · 3 years

Text

If you like ~good storytelling~, unique plotlines, ~diverse~ casts in terms of not just gender and race, but also in personality, and if you like ~contraversial~ subjects explored with tact and objectivity, and you enjoy or even just Don’t Not-Enjoy sci fi, please please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE watch Star Trek omfg.

I can only speak on TNG, DS9, and Voyager, but they’re all SO freaking beautiful, and they reflect a looooot of the artistic values that I know are popular amongst the kinds of people I associate with.

TNG is great if you’re hella into ~concepts~ being explored in depth. Though the characters are all interesting and have compelling development in their own right, my opinion is that TNG is less character-driven, and more concept-driven. Episodes are more about analyzing points of view on complicated and sometimes contraversial subjects - poverty vs wealth, exploitation, racism, religious intolerance, adoption, war, judicial systems, capital punishment, grief, etc. Also, TNG is pretty well-suited to picking and choosing which episodes you want to watch. You don’t necessarily need to start from the beginning and watch everything in chronological order in order to understand each episode.

DS9 is great if you love interpersonal relationships and the ways in which they develop. Though there’s still a LOT of ~big concepts~ being explored and navigated and investigated, much more time is spent on how those big concepts affect people’s personal relationships with their friends, family, coworkers, etc... the series is set during a transitionary period between one alien race, the Cardassians, finally being driven out from controlling/oppressing another alien race, the Bajorans. The character’s relationships are all heavily impacted and influenced by the political climate and history. The types of relationships include parent/child, best friends, romantic partners, bosses and employees, spiritual leaders and the people who look up to them, etc. There’s also a HELLA prominent religious aspect, as the Bajoran’s are generally super devout to deities they call “prophets,” which non-Bajoran’s usually refer to as “wormhole aliens,” because the prohpets are Actual Proven Life Forms that reside within a wormhole, and are known to have at least some degree of omnipotence and ability to influence people and events. So, I guess you could say that compared to TNG, DS9 is more about culture, and TNG is more about philosophy. In DS9, it’s a bit more important to actually start from the beginning and watch everything in order.

Then, there’s Voyager. Voyager has a reputation of being one of the Least Good shows in the Star Trek franchise, but honestly, the rest of the franchise is so damn good that even the Least Good serises are still pretty damn good.

Voyager is unique in that the ~Federation~ and Star Fleet are both pretty absent, and the whole series works toward one overarching goal, as opposed to TNG and DS9, neither of which had any major predetermined goal that carried on throughout the seasons. I’d say it’s a bit more similar to TNG than to DS9 in that it’s less character-driven and more plot-driven. I think morality is a bit more of a factor than it is in TNG or DS9. The Main Plot is that the crew of Starship Voyager gets marooned several thousand lightyears away from Earth. They’re so far away that even if they were able to travel at full warp-speed all the way back home, it would still take them 75 years to get there. So, they’re faced with a lot of moral and ethical dilemmas as they try to seek out ways to get home sooner.

I at first didn’t understand why Voyager was held in lower esteem than other Star Treks, but now that I’m well into season 5 of 7*, I think I understand where it falls short to a lot of people. Or at least, there are reasons why I think it falls short of my tastes. Though Star Trek pretty much exists to explore moral philosophy from every angle they can think of, Voyager is a bit... preachy in it’s approach sometimes. A TNG episode about, say abortion, approaches the issue in a manner that explores ~all sides~ of the argument in a fair, generally unbiased manner. The characters have their own opinions about what’s right and wrong, and they often disagree with each other, but the narrative itself doesn’t seem to promote one ideal over the other, and allows the viewer to decide their own opinion about the issue. A Voyager episode about abortion, however, seems to be actively promoting one perspective, and most of the characters ultimately end up agreeing with it. Basically, I think Voyager sometimes has an ~agenda~, which feels offputting just because the other Star Treks do such a good job at keeping a neutral, tactful narrative. I also think Voyager panders more to sex appeal than the other shows. Like, TNG and DS9 both had super beautiful women in their casts, but there wasn’t much specific attention drawn to their beauty. Voyager, on the other hand, makes more of a point to ~accentuate~ the hotness of certain female cast members. But even then, it’s not to a degree that I would consider bothersome.

So, I guess one reason why Voyager wasn’t as well-recieved as TNG or DS9 is because it has a few cliche or mildly problematic and ~typical~ narrative elements that are common in most shows, but that Star Trek was known for rising above. People like Star Trek specifically because it doesn’t cater to the whims and values of mainstream television. But like. It’s still good.

I so so so so so so so recommend them. Like wow.

You’ll find, in the early seasons of TNG especially, that the visual effects, the sets, and the fight scenes and action sequences are SO FUCKING BAD lmfao like WOW. we really are spoiled in 2020 beause that shit was laughably horrendous. But it’s TOTALLY forgiveable considering all the other things that are amazing about it.

#*5 of 7 is a pun lolol ba dum tss #if you're familiar with the borg you'll get why it's funny

3 notes · View notes