#and all sorts were like inherently prejudiced

[gayspock]

sorry for the scattered afternoon thoughts but tbh the way some ppl (im talking white, middle-class background type of ppl) will project and assume that old people or working class people etc. are "bigoted" kind of baselessly.... but then never make immediate assumptions about people who are specifically from their OWN demographic like that... aside from it, like, kind of just being very unfair towards the ppl they're slating (as if those people are not also capable of the same judgement as YOU are...) i think its telling as to how they view/percieve themselves. like i cannot tell u the number of white ppl, in particular, ive met who thought younger gay ppl were inherently "less racist", that lgbt spaces were "more open", bc the people in those spaces walked and talked like them... so they view THOSE people as being capable of enlightened like them, and of themselves as unbiased BUT it was honestly just... a combination of complete and utter lack of self-awareness and some extremely ironic bigotry on their own part bc they couldnt self-examine properly. and also just assumed that ppl who didnt fit theire extremely narrow perspective, who weren't similar enough to them, were inherently stupider / less kind when its like... mmhm no i dont think so. i think you need to realise you yourself are quite capable of a lot of horseshit and do some actual self-reflection as opposed to the performative silliness....

#Egg.txt #sorry im in a mood #its just the number of ppl ive met who like #assumed council mums and nonwhite older people #and all sorts were like inherently prejudiced #and then whenn u ask them why its like #you follow through and its like... #so clear that they think that those people are like #somehow stupider and incapable of some higher brain function to like #comprehend stuff like race/etc. like theyyy can #when again so ironic bc babe that is YOU... #does anyofhtis make sense... ugh whatever

[baeddel-txt]

it's very concerning to me when i see people denounce baeddelism but not analyze any of the reasons why it's such a harmful ideology and instead pivot it back to how the original baeddels were cultlike.

like, yes, that's an extremely important thing to acknowledge. but we also need to take a step back and analyze how it's a flawed ideology that does nothing but hurt people.

trans people, as a whole, are almost never in a place of gender-based privilege in our modern society. never. it doesn't matter what sex you were assigned at birth or what gender you transitioned to. ultimately, none of us fit within the bounds of cisnormative society. it is impossible to transition into privilege because the act of transitioning itself ensures that, once again, you will never fit into what is deemed acceptable within these societal standards. it doesn't matter if you're fifty years down the line from the start of your transition- if the wrong person finds out your assigned sex at birth you still run the risk of violence. there are hundreds and hundreds of cases of trans people freely living their lives in stealth only to be outed and erased posthumously.

the entire baeddel movement hinges on the idea that, as opposed to the currently existing systems that perpetuate violence against trans people, the ultimate enemy of transgender women is AFAB trans people. this is absolutely untrue. the only world in which transgender men would hold any kind of gender-based privilege is in a hypothetical in which trans people are always treated as their preferred gender post-transition- and in this world, it's doubtful that transphobia would even exist in the first place. bigots do not look at a transgender person and determine what direction they are transitioning in before enacting prejudice. and while yes, some of this can definitely stem from misplaced transmisogyny, we also need to acknowledge that transgender men face their own unique form of oppression that serves as an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. the infantilization, erasure, and corrective violence that transgender men and similarly-aligned trans people face are, in fact, a form of prejudiced oppression!

this isn’t to say that afab trans people can't perpetuate transmisogyny. anyone can, because our society is inherently transmisogynistic and it falls on the individual to recognize and analyze their own unconscious prejudices. (this goes for all forms of bigotry.) what i'm saying is that this is absolutely not something unique to afab trans people. and once again the systems in place to perpetuate violence against trans people are a much bigger threat.

i think the reason i haven't seen much deconstruction of this is how this sort of rhetoric still echoes around online trans spaces to this day, with the most prevalent example being the established TME/TMA binary and scaremongering about any discussions of transandrophobia as inherently transmisogynistic. i never thought that i would have to explain in the year of our lord 2024 that transgender men do, in fact, face misogyny, but here we are.

other trans people are not your enemy. stop drinking the radfem kool-aid and fight alongside your brothers, sisters and siblings for a better future for us all. amen.

(apologies for any bad wording, this was written very late at night. i hope this was a good analysis of this topic.)

.

#i have nothing to add #ask

[myrfing]

i dont think like. i dunno why it is so hard for people to conceptualize the difference between what someone truly believes/what they believe they need to believe/what they think they believe/how their beliefs translate to how they interact with the world. all of these things are linked but different and while some may align for some some characters like e-s imo have far more contradictions and multiple answers to some. i keep seeing this “is e-s just prejudiced or was he made that way from observing the group he’s prejudiced against” which ok first people are looking at prejudice from an entirely wrong angle here and he demonstrates a revulsion towards creatures that embody mortality far before the sundering. in my view:

what he believes at his core: 2 answers. he’s observant of objective truth and is on some level cognizant that mortals are not inequal in a way that matters. this is why he even attempts to speak to us. the second answer is that he believes in his emotional reaction against mortality and the sundered soul. he is persuaded by his own disgust that there is something inherently detestable and wrong here

what he believes he needs to believe: that the sundered are clean cut inferior. like most prejudices this is a belief that he draws together and solidifies AFTER THE FACT in order to justify a certain aim. which is that he needs to eradicate all of them. his “inviolate” truths are that feeling of disgust and the fact he misses how things were and thinks it was better back then. this is why no external argument would or did work to convince him otherwise: what he thinks here is based on what he believes to be an innate magical truth that does not need proof no matter how many things contradict it. the mumbo jumbo about intellect and virtue whatever comes after (observably false/skewed)

what he thinks he believes: he is above prejudice and is acting on objective truth and responsibility, and thus he believes in the truth. but wait there was two contradicting ones that he never got to sort out. HERE is the only portion i blame on his grief: he doesn’t give himself a chance to examine his own thoughts and relies on the wol and scions in a bizarre way to do it for him because the reality created by the alternative is too much for him to bear.

how his beliefs translate into his interactions: Racist uncle at holiday dinner

[randomnameless]

The impression I got from his Byleth support was that Claude was angry at Fodlan for not living up to his expectations. He came to Fodlan seeking to learn something he could use to change Almyra's mindset, believing Fodlan would be more accepting of "outsiders" and when he found Fodlan had a negative view of Almyra he got upset and blamed the Church. Part of his story in Wind is him realizing he jumped to conclusions and blamed the Church without getting to know what they really stood for, being confronted with his own prejudice.

Part of his story in Wind is him realizing he jumped to conclusions and blamed the Church without getting to know what they really stood for, being confronted with his own prejudice.

Imo, he still doesn't totally get over those conclusions and prejudice especially in the Billy S-support :

And I...I want a ruler who can lay down a new set of values for the people. Values that don't exclude anyone for being different.

But yes, in this support, he also mentions having to go to Almyra to change his homeland for the better.

I see which support you're talking about, iirc it's the A support, right?

He confesses he came to Fodlan wanting to prove Almyra that Fodlan people weren't cowards, but ultimately found out people in Fodlan were as biased and prejudiced as the Almyrans are.

So his plan is to bring a "new set of values" to Fodlan and expand them to the rest of the world - so first start to bring his "new set of values" in Fodlan, and then bring them to Almyra to... destroy prejudice existing in Almyra.

Sure, why not, but bar the inherent "sus-ness" of bringing new "set of values" to a place - never once in those supports Claude reveals that the equivalent of Almyran calling Fodlaneses "cowards" is Fodlanese people calling Almyrans "brutes/barbarians" - sure, when he was a kid younger in Almyra, he used his mom as an example of why everyone in Fodlan wasn't a coward - but obviously we don't have in VW any situation where he'd try to tell Hilda and whoever in the Alliance that Almyrans aren't "savages/brutes/barbarians" to fight against their own prejudiced views...

The only sort of situation I can see this happening is apparently, off-screen, when Judith reveals that Holst and Nader got drunk together and became BFFs.

All Almyrans aren't brutes and barbarians - and yet, when we see some acting like the racist stereotypes the Gonerils depict them as, Claude doesn't pop up to say a thing. The best we can have is, iirc, him saying something like "we can let past grudges influence our decisions now" when Lorenz and Hilda are kind of arguing with the intensity of a wet paper against the inclusion of Almyrans in the army - completely oblivious to the fact (or maybe it was an oversight from the devs?) that Hilda's paralogue could be unlocked/played 3 minutes earlier, so we're not talking about past events and a long history of raids that have stopped, but about very present events : those raids exist.

In a nutshell, I agree with anon about the WTF of Claude's plan and general arc in VW - even if he shows progress and lets go, as much as the game allows anyone to do so - his hatred of the CoS - he's basically asking Fodlan, the victim, to stop being so prejudiced against people raiding for funsies and open their borders to the same people raiding them for funsies, and only after this, he will ask the people raiding for funsies to stop raiding for funsies because the people the raiders call "cowards" don't fucking want to die in what is generally seen as a dick measuring context.

Even post VW, Claude is still prejudiced, not as much as he was in the pre TS and ultimately Nopes lol, against Fodlan, expecting to change and have a new set of values "first" before bringing the values of not excluding people because they are different to Almyra.

And IMO, this is even more bonkers when you realise this S-support happens after Rhea's infodump, aka after the infodump where she reveals that the people opposing the war mongering ones with nukes were genocided - you don't ask the randoms/victims to play nice with their abusers, and expect said abusers to play nice too because you ask them.

Maybe it's a bad faith reading, but the ending illustration has Claude try to mediate or sign a treaty between, on one side, people with spears, and on the other side, people with armors (who look resigned, but maybe it's just the artstyle) and no weapons that are heavily implied to be from Fodlan.

And fun fact, now that i'm looking at them - we see Billy - aka the Church - in AM and SS, but we don't see them in CF and VW... We only see Alliance Lords - but no King/Queen Billy of Fodlan in sight.

Did he really change his POV about the Church, or not?

#fantasyinvader #at least compared to Nopes Claude he tries to reconsider #even if it doesn't amount to a lot #bcs in the end he still thinks Billy can bring the don't be racist values to Fodlan #suggesting 'be racist" values existed even if he is supposed to have realised the contrary #and the lack of the CoS in the end is striking like wtf #seriously #still i can get his story is part him realising he was wrong and yet FE16 can't really let go the Rhea BaD Church BaD red herring #so claude realising the CoS wasn't the reason why people hated foreigners while still sort of thinking they are is fitting enough #of course a sensible story would be to try to understand why fodlan doesn't like foreigners #and that means tackling the constant raids #but we can't have that #Claude can make roundabout claims about the doctrine of the church and racism and what not #but cannot face Almyrans raiding for fun #so his entire arc and resolution feels very empty and imo artificial #where's the growth if you close your eyes to one of the sources of the issue you're trying to solve? #FE16

[magnoliamyrrh]

this is what a certain kind of progressive american and western discourses of moral purity and a overly simplified and dyshonest, static view on opression and prejudice which are surrounded by a severe lack of complexity and gray areas lead to and ive seen it way too much over the years

marginalized groups are not saints. never have been never will be. just because you're part of a marginalized group doesnt make you a saint either. there is not some sort of inherent collective conciousness among marginalized people which makes them incapable of being prejudiced or opressive to others in fact theres plenty more examples in the world of marginalized people doing the same sorta shit to others while complaining its being done to them. this is how humans are, this has happened for thousands of years, we have a tendency to this sort of hypocricy which is blatantly obvious. people which have been genocided commit genocides. people which have been enslaved enslave others. people which have been opressed because of their ethnicity or religion opress others for ethnicity and religion. here's another great obvious example: plenty of men throughout time will die and fight for the end of their opression and their freedom while opressing their women. the list goes on. Plenty of people both in the past and today are very well aware of how discrimination feels and still feel very comfortable being prejudiced and discriminatory twoards other kinds of people. and heres another lovely thing thats true then: if we consider people to be bound by the crimes of their ancestors, and we consider it normal to condemn someone just because they come from a group which did whatever, then were all fucking screwed because there are no clean hands in history

there is no true "perfect" or "pure" group of people with no damn issues and there never will be, ever. e v e r. the insane fucking complexity of the world cannot be boiled down easily into the mindsets that plenty of progressive people are running around with today with

. i cant believe i have to say this. no damn it palestinians or arabs in general, as a group - because apparently the invididual complexity and existence of people dont matter at all anymore - having a history, issues, and cultural issues with racism sexism and homophobia and whatever else Does Not by any god damn means justify their genocide, their treatment so horribly and so brutally. it fucking doesnt. and heres something too because idiot leftists, if theyll say something about palestine like this theyll throw ukraine under the bus the next instant - ukranians as a culture having a history of racism sexism and homophobia dont deserve to be bombed to death by russians and all the horrible shit theyre going through. and hey guess what heres another example, the crimes of serbs during the yugoslav wars dont justify that currently in kosovo theyre being ethnically clensed and little children are being shot over some collective sin crimes of the ancestors shit

because if we Dont have this mentality than sorry to fucking say it is acceptable for all of us to nuke each other off of the face of the earth and every genocide and opression is percectly acceptable to not rly give a damn about because welp sorry, collectively were all doomed then

#this feels like the wokie version of the american imperialist mindset of like #well its okay to bomb and kill x people because theyre sexist or whatever the hell

[steampunkforever]

The Shape of Water is an interesting film inasmuch as marine intercourse is concerned. Sure does it play with magical realism and also function as a defiant Hellboy ripoff? Yeah. But also there’s the furry/scalie/fishy(????) content. Specifically content of a more sensual nature.

Does the movie fall into the trap of “it’s the 50s-60s and we’re gonna translate the American intolerance and repression of this era by making everyone comically intolerant of something basically harmless except for one outcast character who inherently understands the target of the harm?” Also yes*. But what we’re focusing on here is what happens when a Fishman and a woman love each other very much.

Del Toro knows what he’s about. He knows what you’re here for. 

The movie is of course beautiful. The set design, lighting (Del Toro loves his greens!), and acting was impeccable. Octavia Spencer was amazing, Sally Hawkins was excellent (Can’t wait to see her in “Wonka”), as was Michael Shannon, who was beautifully written into the worst human being on earth with character motivations and goals so elegantly placed that I couldn’t help but clench my fist at how well written and acted his character was. Amazing villain.

Speaking of elegance and sophistication: It’s time to talk about Marital Relations of the Maritime sort. Del Toro is a saint, and though we never see any fishsticks, he gives the scenes of seagoing salaciousness a certain sensuality that cutting to black too soon would otherwise render silly. Say that five times fast! The liquid love scenes are R rated (Sally Hawkins disrobes, throughout the film our Fishman is always rendered in full nautical nudity) but never in an overly tawdry way. It’s all very intimate, much more so than I expected.

Not that the film doesn’t understand the ridiculous nature of fishy fornication. There’s an especially charming scene later on in the film where Octavia Spencer and Sally Hawkins discuss the Fishman’s own Creature from the Black Lagoon, and it’s played very well, answering questions about what happened during the aquatic acts Del Toro chose to omit from the screen.

Yes. Acts plural. What elegance! Del Toro’s choice to portray submarine seductions only twice was the perfect balancing act. Show the amphibious affections but once and your audience asks “was that very necessary” and “did this matter to the plot” (a bunch of squares, not even It Follows would qualify as plot relevant for them). Show it three times and you risk overextension into what we like to call “being *too* into it.” in this case, two is the perfect number, and it allows Del Toro to, as with Pacific Rim, fully understand the audience expectation of subaqueous snuggling and fulfilling it while also maintaining artistic ambition.

I do recommend this film, though if you watch with a group the conversation may devolve into speculation on how the Birds and the Bees might translate over to Sharks and Anchovies. 

*I wonder how many of these narratives in art, especially after the civil rights movement, were resultant of writers processing their youth in a time where society (and their parents) remained prejudiced but the writers themselves were too young to enact progressive change.

#the shape of water #filmposting

[horizon-verizon]

Why is it nonsensical to just like characters you like without this stupid fandom tribalism? This fandom is exhausting with everything being about teams.

Depends on why you like the character, anon.

What about them entices or appeals and do you believe those liked traits override their integrity? Or nullify it in lieu of enjoyment? How seriously do you treat the character's faults and what you think is a flaw that condemns them to EVIL. The quality of your admiration for the character. What you ignore or think is innocuous enough to ignore, or if you ignore it to then pretend you don't care about the ideological/moral/political element when you really do and are just trying to sneak in prejudiced ideologies that you would be accused of having or convince others is "not that bad" so it can become the dominant ideology.

One Alicent stan transphopically and misogynistically writes "see the problem with the 'what if rhaenyra had been born a boy' thing in regards to rhaenicent is the unavoidable truth that it would have changed them both so intrinsically that they wouldn't make sense anymore” this POST. And they want to say that Alicent provides Rhaenyra a “helpful” perspective. Kind of like how some U.S. southern resident try to claim that them trying to preserve their racist statues, monuments, etc. is "just" them preserving their Southern/Separatist "heritage" and is “just” about celebration and honor. 

You don't just "like" a character because of nothing at all. You have specific reasons why you "like" a character or their action, why you "like" the Targs or hate them, etc. Even though you never thought about why, they are there, these reasons. It's just that if you become a real fan, there are many reasons and many of them are "deep" and you may not be the person who would happily talk for 30 minutes why you love a character.

And you can understand why and how a person "likes" something or someone when you check out what they think is valuable enough to even be praised in the first place. This is where it matters, relating to the story you are reading, the circumstances surrounding the character and giving them their identity, their role, their very existence. You cannot separate a character from their story.

The Dance is a historical event in the Westerosi timeline where a woman was attacked and usurped because a group of people wanted power and used the sociopolitical value of her gender against her and try to discredit her. In the original story, there are already two factions: the blacks vs the greens (which used to be called the queen's versus the princess' party). They also used violence against undeserving individuals based on discriminatory beliefs (like how children born out of wedlock are inherently "treacherous", therefore they must be treated as lesser...that Alicent's religion, the Faith, pushes). The characters themselves fight and have deep emotional scars from their interactions in the past, and the motivations behind those abuses have to do with what they believe they "deserve". (Talking about the greens here).

The factionalism in the original story makes the story, because the very reason for the factionalism is that one side decided to oppose the other and seize power. To further their own desire for power for power's sake -- they felt entitled to break the law (King's word is law) and custom despite their claims of following custom, tradition and being subjects due to their oldest claimant (Aegon II) being male while Rhaenyra was a woman. Despite the fact that they themselves claim to believe in King's word is law and absolute monarchy, and want that sort of power for themselves and then go around as say Rhaenyra is unfit for it.

That is prejudice and misogyny at work, inherently unjust things, and their entire philosophy is inherently heavy classism and misogyny. They were entirely out for themselves and abused their power against those under their authority. Aegon rapes, Aemond rapes and murders an entire family's male members --children, babies, and adults, roasts whole villages, Daeron burns a whole town, Alicent tries to plot and grow a following against a ten year old and tries to get her to lose her entire reputation based on an act that is not inherently kill-worthy.....

You can definitely "like" characters for how layered their evil is and how strong of a contender they are, but to totally ignore them and then favor them is to be a bigot or a possible bystander of bigotry.

The Dance also sets up the circumstances for one of our principal heroes, Daenerys Stormborn Targaryen who is another beloved or reviled character of this series. It is due to what happens in the Dance and the gradual Targ assimilation into Westerosi patriarchy that the dragons the Targs have are lost.

Since the story has sides, readers will also form their opinions, read the text, understand the context through the lore and world holding, and thus they will also pick a side. And in general, with a situation/story like this, there are going to be strong, opposing opinions and feelings. And those manifest as "teams".

To pretend as if our philosophies or ideas of identity and "who deserves respect in this situation" never has a hand in what we "like" in fiction is to both lie and can be a real way that discriminatory and even fascist ideologies can prosper. Since you're discouraged to think analytically, learn your history, not look deeper into human motivations and their multiplicity, disprove ridiculous theories that seek to create justifications for prejudice and oppression and "might=right", and otherwise question authorities of power and morality.

And then you get people like Sansa, Aemond, and Alicent stans who try to excuse classism or reduce abusive, oppressive acts to mere "flaws".

#fandom commentary #asoiaf asks to me #asoiaf #a song of ice and fire #hotd #house of the dragon #hotd fandom #fandoms #fiction vs reality #asoiaf fandom

[zealsoughtsequesterustanxiedemon]

Also been thinking on the "inherently evil species" bit of Frieren, and I feel like its a mixed bag of Show versus the Audience. On one hand, I feel like the show so far has done a good job at displaying the world's, Frierens, and demons' biases against demons. More under the cut:

On the world's end, demons have obviously been antagonistic. They grouped together and tried to take over the world, genociding the other intelligent species.

Frieren's bias is well shown; she was one of the people closely affected by that genocide, and the answer her mentor gave to deal with her feelings on that was basically 'dedicate your life to deceiving and killing demons'.

And the demons' bias make sense too. Like, as a society, they treat humans as aliens and themselves as aliens to humans. And so they belittle the parts of themselves that resemble humans and emphasize the parts of themselves that are more unique to demons.

However, I do run into trouble when it sort of feels like most other fans are on a different page. Like a lot of people just believe what gets said about demons without questioning it. For example, "demons are just imitating speech to deceive humans" is something that just gets taken at face value and, like, you see demons actively use it to communicate with each other in private. You see them use it to gloat, threaten, criticize, warn other demons, etc. Like theoretically the speech thing could've been true once, but it's clearly not true now. It feels like a cheap way to other them, which makes sense if it's something that character's are doing within the show but is incredibly weak if it's something the writer is trying to tell me directly.

And like, I don't think the show's saying that. It's just somewhat annoying when that's a lot of other people's takeaway. It feels slightly more nuanced than that. I've also heard from friends who have read the manga that it gets more nuanced than that.

Also, although it's not mine, I can understand the "Frieren is racist" reading for the people who do think the story is actually telling them that demons are inherently evil. Lots of media (especially fantasy) do this and it's never not egregious once you notice it. Especially considering that the main push back to that reading is overly hostile and condescending. Like, if we take the inherently evil species thing at face value, then yes, Frieren isn't a prejudiced because her prejudice is justified.

However, to explain it a bit, this take is more a comment on the story than Frieren herself. Like Frieren isn't a bigot within the story, it's more as if the story itself is bigoted against demons and Frieren is the metaphorical bigot who's actually right about all of her prejudiced beliefs absolving her of the moral complexity of them. In this sense, some people are bothered by this situation because although the demons may not easily map to a "race" of humans in real life, the nature of the prejudice and justifications do mirror bigoted sentiments and stories in real life. And, like, understandably, that makes them uncomfortable with the story. It's like they're reading bigoted propaganda from another world.

Again, this isn't something that I see in the story myself, but I get it. I had seen some friends arguing about it as they were watching the show while airing, and so I decided that I'd have to think about it on my inevitable watch of it (hence why this post is so much longer than the other one). If you think people are fools for seeing that kind of thing in it, then I don't know what to tell you but I'll say that I would prefer people be more wary of that kind of thing in stories than not. Subtext can show up in a work whether a writer/audience wants it to or not.

#anx-i-e-demons #not tagging it directly but i'm sure some people will find it #can't be helped

[thejudgingtrash]

Annabeth is a good person,but not a nice or pleasant one,IMO.

YES.

That’s it. That’s the post. Pack it up everybody, we just cracked the case and cleared up one of the most compelling fights in the PJO fandom since forever. Good job everybody, clap it out and there’s the door! Don’t forget ordering the drinks at Starbucks, Mitch! They’re on me!

Okay, but on a more serious note: YES. YES EXACTLY.

And before some of you roll your eyes or grab your pitchforks – put your biases aside and hear me out for once. I like Annabeth. She’s my in my top three characters only second to Percy himself. I love Percabeth. It’s my favorite ship in the entire series and to be frank, the only ship that I care about PJO wise. Hell, I spend my time creating my own headcanons or writing my own fanfics with Percabeth being the star in them.

But that is not to say that I’m unable to see how certain things have developed over the years or where they stand now in regard to Annabeth. I’m not here to ignore things that have been said and/or done due to or in the name of Annabeth and I’m not here to vilify anyone that doesn’t like her. And I’m here to admit that I’m guilty of some of the things that may be addressed in this meta essay that you will read in just a second. However, I try my best to assure you, that I’m for once able to recognize my own bias.

Warning: a monster essay lies right upon you.

This should count as a paper of its own.

Back to the statement on top: I would go out even further to reframe your claim, anon:

Annabeth Chase is a good character but not a nice or pleasant person.

Annabeth is a wonderful character but she isn’t a nice one. Or at least not nice to everyone. She is (construction wise if I dare say) the best character out of the series. She has her positive traits (she’s caring, she’s emotional, she’s encouraged and volunteers, she fights for what she believes in, she forgives (even if doing so begrudgingly)) but she also has her negative traits (she’s stubborn, she’s brash, changing her mind takes forever, she is prejudiced, she baits others). That balances things out. She is branded as the intelligent kid but does irrational things (like I’ve just said a) she’s a kid and b) she’s not a robot). She should probably know better, but we all make mistakes and hopefully grow and learn from them. The clouds in the sky do blur and cover our visions sometimes.

Annabeth had clashes with other characters or was about to have fights due to her stubbornness or jealousy (Rachel, Reyna, etc.) and has of course her problems with the mortal world and her family but she also found new friends, some things cleared up throughout the narration and she was/is quite popular in Camp Half-Blood.

The thing is: she doesn’t have to be nice or pleasant (as a character). Or at least not all the time. Her character is humanized. That is what or who she is. Human. She does stand out as a character, not just because she’s the (future) love interest. She feels like someone you could meet in real life and either adore from the top to the bottom or declare as your biggest enemy. And that’s totally okay if you lean either way – liking or disliking her. Or even feeling indifferent about her. Also great!

To say that she has been the best character that Riordan has crafted is easy to say, because she has been sculpted after Riordan’s wife. He had a model he could rub some of real-life events or traits on. That’s not the problem. The problem truly doesn’t lie on Riordan’s side for the most part for once.

The problem is inherently on the fandom’s side. What the fandom does, how it acts and how it treats Annabeth as a character is the problem. The problems vary but it’s mostly the mischaracterization of Annabeth, starting fights and fan/ship wars, internalized misogyny (in some cases) and how some of the Annabeth stans lash out (ha, got firsthand experience in that field among many of my friends and mutuals!). There is a reason why many people are wary of people that have Annabeth or Percabeth related URLs.

The fact that we see Annabeth mostly through Percy’s lens and (until the Heroes of Olympus saga hits) we never really see her in chill everyday situations is essentially Riordan leaving the back door of the house open, ready for all of you asshats to rob his mansion in Boston. Because a frame on a character means that we don’t get to see the character in its entirety (unlike we do with Percy in PJO for the most part). That means a bunch of stuff is left open for interpretation which is the reason why Annabeth gets so many polarized headcanon and opinions tossed around. I think that is one of the true appeals of Annabeth. You can add on stuff and it necessarily doesn’t have to contradict itself.

We have people calling her abusive due to a (n admittedly stupid and unnecessary) judo flip and we have people that act like she’s never done anything wrong. People sorta use this excuse to form and shape Annabeth however they want and distort her characterization.

People in the fandom act like Annabeth is some weird prized possession. We perceive Annabeth mostly through the eyes of others (Percy, Apollo, etc.) and when we had some sort of insight in her ways (MOA, HOH) it felt… weird? Somewhat? Like Riordan left two bullet points of her characterization and told the ghostwriter: aight, fuck it up, gringo, see you on Tuesday and greet Fred the next time you see him for me. 

There have been many posts lately (by Tharini, Simi, Sawasawako, Jewishpercy and Annie I believe?) that HOO Percabeth felt weird. That they felt weirdly constructed, that there was no conflict, no growth. It felt stagnating, like we’re turning back. We had five books prior where we had Annabeth and Percy slowly shifting from disliking to liking and crushing each other. True development. And when we finally got the cake it felt… dissatisfying. Like the cheap box stuff and not the delicious exquisite taste that we were promised.

I said it previously in my Percabeth ship roast, but let me repeat myself: many Percabeth related things are straight up fanon. Some of it is very old fanon so that’s been unable to distinguish unless you’ve read the books recently and subtract nearly 99,9% of things you see on Tumblr (and occasionally the other shitty parts of the fandom like Reddit, IG, Twitter. Although they mostly steal and recycle tumblr stuff oh well. But back to the topic).

The way people treat Annabeth is so strange. She’s either an innocent fluffy smush baby that’s never harmed a fly and all that she wants for Christmas is being Percy’s lapdog or she’s the devil incarnate, broke into your house, killed your parents Batman style, kicked your puppy and didn’t flush the toilet on the way out. I think this is what mostly makes people hate her or the ship Percabeth. And both extremes are wrong and right at the same time? She is multifaceted so both stereotypes are true and untrue and sorta cancel each other out in the same way.

The true reason why people dislike Annabeth is because the stans are doing the most. (The haters as well, don’t get me wrong, but oh boy. Piss of a stan and you’ll know what I mean). That isn’t inherently new. Are you guys old enough to remember the ship wars that have happened cross platform? Perachel vs. Percabeth? Oh boy, oh boy. I saw some kids on tumblr a few months ago trying to infiltrate both tags and start shit (and also fail). The fact that Rachel still gets used as the bitchy (ex) girlfriend in fanfics? It’s 2020 guys. I know this apocalyptic year is far from perfect and over but I think we can let this trope die, right? Right? I thought we’ve established that Rachel is a pretty chill charcter by now… right?

If you posted your stuff on FFN back in 2010-2013 and it wasn’t the typical cutesy Percabeth story (Goode High, the gods read TLT, punk/prep Percabeth, college AU, etc.) people would’ve come for your fucking throat. Not because the story or the narration was shit. But because the pairing wasn’t Annabeth and Percy (in the sense that Annabeth had to be paired with Percy. I mean Percy gets shipped with everyone and their mother but for Annabeth it was strictly Percy. As annoying as this whole Connabeth thing is – the people behind it actually had a point. She never had a different love interest unless it’s a Percy centered story and he goes off dating Athena, Artemis and Zoe at the same time for some odd reason. Yeah, FFN Percy ships are something). Or it wasn’t the action filled canon compliant story or it wasn’t an AU that was popular.

People were really stubborn, snobbish and wanted their stuff in the four five boxes that were the most popular ones and that’s it. People have been bullied off the site in many fandoms, so it’s not a PJO-only thing but it’s still sad that it happened. (Off-note: most of these FFN tropes are still alive and well and thriving on AO3. Don’t be so snobbish and pretend that every piece you’d find there is a holy grail. There’s a lot of trash you have to waddle through. Same with Wattpad, Tumblr or anywhere else where fanfics get posted. Also had this discussion with Annabeth stans. Sigh).

And Tumblr back then? Forget it, wasn’t much better.

That view has sorta changed (at least for people that have been in the fandom for several years or have managed to find a way to navigate through it) but some of the negative sentiment from back in the day has survived. Be it by new fans coming in or from old fans that never let their stance die. The aggression feels differently and somewhat not. (I don’t know if the anon function had been abused that much back in the day. I was an observer not a participant in the fandom).

Crack a joke at Annabeth’s expense (Kal’s famous “Annabeth is a Republican” post or Dee Dee’s and many others “Annabeth has the education of a second grader, chill with the college plans, girlie” stance) and you have people insulting you, making callout posts, unfollowing and blocking you (based on only that? Okay, honey), making aggressive counter-posts, etc. in a minute. If you respond with “It’s a joke, it’s not real” you have a 50/50 chance of either getting blown off or embarrassing them so that they apologize for once.

This isn’t just about jokes. You can make a headcanon that’s not the cozy cute convenient mainstream saga and people would react the same way. Or art piece (no, not including the whole Tannabeth Blackchase shtick done by Viria and others) or fanfics.

People project so much onto the unfinished canvas that is Annabeth Chase that any form of negative sentiment as little as someone not liking her to straight up criticism, regardless of how tiny it may be, seems like an affront. Like an invitation to a fight. Like an insult to them, their character, everything they believe in. Let me state something:

You are NOT Annabeth Chase. Annabeth Chase IS NOT you. Annabeth Chase is NOT real. Her feeling cannot be hurt. Someone criticizing, disliking, joking about her or even insulting her will not bother her. Someone making a statement about her is not an insult to YOU.

Let me repeat that:

Annabeth Chase isn’t real. Annabeth Chase isn’t you.

So think a little before you act? I get it when you’re a kid and new to fandoms or haven’t been up with fan cultures in the past and are back in the scene. But if you’re in your late teens or even older as an adult and you’re unable to understand that you aren’t what you like – you aren’t the extension of a fictional character – I feel incredibly sorry for you. Because that’s just incredibly sad. Someone disliking something you like isn’t an attack of your character. It shows you that you are you and the other person is a human just like you. That they just have different taste. Disliking something you like isn’t a crime, you know? But me feeling sorry for the way some of y’all act won’t mean that that’s even remotely okay. Especially if you’re no longer in the intended audience for PJO age wise and should know better.

This isn’t a “white stans” only thing. I’ve seen and witnessed firsthand how people of color, mainly women of color, act the same or not even worse when it comes to her character. People have projected their problems and real-life occurring events into her character (I’m sure that she isn’t the only character nor that this is the only fandom where this is happening) and in some cases like I’ve said cannot separate their own personality from the fictional world. Fights with woc happened because of Annabeth fucking Chase. So many things have happened in the fandom the past few months, mostly due to people being forced staying at home because of the quarantine but I’d say it’s 10% on quarantine and 90% on people for acting up like this.

So here’s a little story: There was the act of Riordan blowing the fandom up because of his own stupidity and being unable to apologize for his mischaracterization and lack of research (the whole Piper fiasco) back in June (?) and admits the upset fandom, people on Twitter, Tumblr and Discord legit thought that none of that mattered and that the outcry was destroying Annabeth Chase’s birthday. That’s right. People thought that Annabeth Chase’s non-existing birthday because she’s a fictional character had a higher priority than the rupture and prevalent racism in the fandom. Okay. This isn’t a great look, Annabeth stans. And this of course pissed a lot of people off. I made a post about it and someone not only berated three other people on said post but no, we had a mighty argument which had disrupted many friendships in our circle which haven’t recovered until this very day. We both had our parts in it and no one is innocent. But the cause of this still remains Annabeth Chase or how people prioritize her non-existing well-being. Anyway. I’m getting agitated just thinking about it.

Let’s go back to the characterization thing with Annabeth. Let me remind you:

Annabeth Chase is an asshole. There I’ve said it in a post ages ago (too lazy to look it up, sorry) and I’ll say it again. And that’s not me insulting her. That’s me actually loving that about her. Annabeth is one of the very few unapologetic female characters that really showed all young readers across the world that you can be a girl, a badass, smart, strong, standing up for yourself and what you believe in. You don’t have to be nice. You don’t have to hide your feelings. You don’t need a man in all cases but it’s also okay to accept help and defeat.

A large reason why I think she’s an incredibly important character in children’s literature/YA because many other novels (mostly (sadly)) have the “Oh, I’m a white skinny dark-haired girl that likes unconventional things like READING. I’m not like the other girls, that take care of themselves and pamper themselves by enjoying shopping and wearing make-up. No, I’d rather be one of the boys but a sweet cute little boy and not the jock fuck that drank vodka shots out of a filthy shoe once. Despite me calling myself hideous every man in a 10-kilometer radius falls in love with me and tells me I’m oh so sexy and by the way I’m only 16 years old” shit going on for no goddamn reason.

Yes, I do blame Twilight for this mostly in recent years, but this trope isn’t by any means knew. Pretty sure that you could even use classics as Pride and Prejudice and dissect them in the same manner (Bold statement: Lizzy Bennet is the OG Bella Swan. There. Go fight somewhere in the corner, people). The new wave of YA focuses on girls belittling themselves and only starting to believe in themselves because someone else (mostly the male love interest) tells them they’re worth it. And these books hit the mainstream because they’re incredibly bland and picture perfect white.

With Annabeth it’s different. She shows up for the job and is done with it. (Brie Larson would probably be the perfect in real life version of her. You either like or dislike her. Or you really don’t care). That is what is so refreshing about her. Her unapologetic nature. Can it be off-putting? Yes. Is it annoying? Yes! Hell, every time I read The Lightning Thief, I want to rip her goddamn head off. And it’s just so well written. Her shift from mistrusting Percy but secretly still believing in him to her opening up. Wow, Riordan did something right there.

Annabeth Chase isn’t a young character. She has existed along with PJO for 15 years. She’s on her way to the second decade. I’m pretty sure that with the success of Percy Jackson (and Harry Potter) many lives have been warped and shaped.

But when I say the problem lies mostly in the fandom, it doesn’t mean that Riordan’s completely innocent. The only problem that I have with Annabeth lies not truly with her but the fact that Riordan is only able to produce three variations of female characters:

The sweetheart (Hazel, Silena, Calypso, Hestia)

The strong feminist (Annabeth, Piper, Thalia, Reyna, Artemis)

The bitch (Drew, nearly every female goddess in the goddamn Riordanverse next to every female monster)

And these female characters only know three endings:

End up married with a mortgage, three kids, two dogs and a cat somewhere in Connecticut by the age of twelve

Get dumped into the hunt

Chill on Mount Olympus and only come down to be a nuisance and/or give a cryptic message before going back and doing a godly rave party or something

We know Annabeth as the badass strong female first (or the bitchy character we’re supposed to actually like. Choose your approach), the blueprint so to speak, so some of the other characters feel almost pale in comparison and almost not needed? Doesn’t mean that other characters can’t behave similarly, but it feels kind of redundant especially if their character arcs end in a rather anticlimactic way (Thalia, Reyna). The new additions are the much needed woc as the main story with PJO was inherently white (anyway stan black!Percy and Grover, folks). So it’s not to bash on the new characters, it’s more Riordan’s fault more than anything.

Since Riordan only knows three female character arcs it feels like he tried to copy the formula several ways with different nuances. Some more or less successful. This is where fandom actually comes in handy and helps create more distinguished and fleshed out characters in form of headcanons or fanfiction.

But even in these cases people still make it about Annabeth when it’s time for characters of colors to shine. Remember that whole spiel and discussion that broke out when people (Kal, diver-up, Caitlyn, Bee, reynaisalesbian, etc.) joked about or criticized that Annabeth thinks that she’s having it harder because she’s a blonde? In front of Hazel and Piper? If she would’ve been a real person that’s an invitation for getting decked. And then all hell broke loose because Annabeth stans couldn’t accept the fact that in the real world and/or in fictional worlds the woc/coc have it harder? That the white woman wasn’t the victim that needed the coddling? Yeah, that was mad pathetic.

I hope you people get my point?

Well fuck. I wrote so many things and have the feeling I’ve said nothing. Anyway, I hope I made sense. This is way too long.

TLDR: Chill about Annabeth please. She’s an important character but that doesn’t mean that everyone has to like her, regardless of being a character in the books or a reader/fan of PJO in real life. She isn’t nice or a sweetheart all the time. She also isn’t the monstrous asshole that some try to make out of her.

Peace out.

#Mel answers #pjo #percy jackson #Annabeth chase #percy jackson and the olympians #Percabeth #pjo Meta #Heroes of olympus #hoo #trials of apollo #toa #hazel levesque #piper mclean #reyna avila ramirez arellano #rachel elizabeth dare #pjo fandom #coc #rick riordan #riordanverse

[mostly-mundane-atla]

I enjoy learning from your blog sm—ty for all you share. Especially since I’ve found there’s very few sources. Sry if you’ve talked about this before, but if you’re still open to answering questions I was wondering what the culture surrounding lgbt+ identities? You talked a bit about gender roles and co-husbands, but is homophobia still prevalent? (Would it be less so in-universe versus a modern au?) Also, if you’re willing to share any terminology (whether two-spirit is used?) used?

Alright, here's where things get a little tricky.

It's hard to really talk about queerness in other cultures because the idea that sexuality and attraction is an inherent part of your identity is not in any way universal. This is where you get a lot of people claiming certain historians and anthropologists are homophobic (and that's not to say some of them aren't but people tend to make really harsh assumptions without reading into what's actually being said) for saying that x or y doesn't mean this person was gay as we understand it. In a lot of cultures, the people you persue personal relationships with isn't a part of who you are, just something you do. So a man who prefered the companionship of other men, say in medieval England, would likely still marry a woman and have children to help him with work as he ages and take care of him when he's old. Does that mean he couldn't have a loving relationship with his wife, just because she wasn't a man and he wasn't attracted to her? No. Is it wrong if he wouldn't consider this not being himself, because he grew up in a world where attraction and sexuality is what you do rather than who you are? I can't really answer that.

And so you take this idea that romantic relationships are something you do rather than an ingrained part of your identity, and you add to that this concept practically unheard of nowadays that romance really isn't important. That doesn't mean that people never had romantic feelings or acted on them, just that this idea of courtly love, that being in love makes you a better person and thus is inherently righteous, was never a part of the culture. You got together with someone because you weren't related and they were someone you didn't mind surviving and having kids with, not strictly because you were in love with them. And then, unlike medieval England, sex was not something to be considered shameful or sinful, and definitely didn't have to be exclusive between spouses.

There was a bit off accidental accuracy in Kya saying that sort of thing isn't talked about in the comics. You wouldn't hear stories about a romantic love between two men or two women, but you also wouldn't really hear about romantic love between a woman and a man; not unless that was your parents' or grandparents' experience and they shared that with you. The important loves are considered to be between family members. You'll notice in Inuit stories a lot that if a girl is kidnapped and force into a marriage, it's her brother who rescues her, not her sweetheart.

I'm sure there would be some prejudiced people, because let's face it, you can't please them all. But I think the main reason you wouldn't see many gay couples as we understand them to be would have more to do with needing children without access to artificial insemination, as well as very different and comparatively irreverent attitudes toward sex and romance. (In fact, I'm reminded of a story this elder woman shared when my class went to learn a bit about Native cultures back in elementary school. She and her friend left their village and started living among white people. They were still learning English and these two white men, friends themselves, were friendly with them and helped them out, not just that first day, but over the course of, I wanna say some months? Anyway, one of them proposed to the lady telling us this story and the other to her friend. The men had fallen in love and already considered themselves in romantic relationships with these women. The women got a good laugh out of this because they hadn't realized that being so personal and familiar and generally happy to be around someone could be interpreted as romantic interest. Their response to these guys was basically "sure, why not" because romantic feelings or no, they genuinely enjoyed their company.)

If we wanna talk gender, the cultural understanding there is a little different there too. Sipiniq is Inuktittut for "baby that changed its sex at birth" which, as far as I understand, has been used for both intersex and trans people. I can't find anything on the way they specifically were seen by the community, let alone regional specifics but to speak on gender as a whole the cultures are interesting for a few reasons. Inupiat names and third person pronouns aren't gendered. You are named after a person to carry on their soul, and this person is not guaranteed to be your gender. So if you're afab, no one is calling you "she" as opposed to "he" because that's not how the language works and a few people might actually call you "grandpa" or "uncle" because that's who you were named after and that's whose soul is kept in your body. You might be seen as having the body of a man or woman, and the limitations that come with it, but that which makes you yourself is not a gendered thing. King Islanders even had a Messenger Feast tradition where women would dress as men and men would dress as women. They had masks for it and everything.

Queerness is such a nebulous thing and so often we approach it with such a limited understanding, insisting ours is the only right way to treat it. Sometimes the answer to "well were they gay/trans?" can only be "it's complicated" and we all have to be more okay with that. Not every culture has the same concept of or places the same importance on sexuality, romance, or gender.

#eskimo on main #response #that elder's story is legit in case anyone doubts it #it sounds like a 1950s musical movie but it actually happened

[sk1fanfiction]

the many faces of tom riddle, part 4

-attachment, orphanages, and yet more child psych: time to add yet another voice to the void-

FULL DISCLAIMER THAT THIS IS JUST MY OPINION OF A CHARACTER WHO DOESN’T HAVE THE STRONGEST CANON CHARACTERIZATION, AND THUS ALL THIS IS BASED ON MY CONCEPTUALIZATION.

I'm going to be super biased, because my favorite portrayal of Tom Riddle is actually Hero Fiennes-Tiffin as eleven-year-old Tom Riddle, in HBP and I get to chat about child psych in this one, sooo here we go.

First of all, I’m just so impressed that a kid could bring that much depth to such a complex character.

This is the portrayal, I feel, that brings us closest to Tom’s character. Yes, Coulson’s brought us pretty close, but by fifth year, the mask was on.

We don't really get to see Tom looking afraid very often, but it's fear that rules his life, so it's really poignant in our first (chronologically) introduction, he looks absolutely terrified.

The void being the fandom's loud opinions on a certain headmaster. I wouldn't call myself pro-Dumbledore, but I'm certainly not anti-Dumbledore, either. (Agnostic-Dumbledore??)

Since I'm not of the anti-Dumbledore persuasion, I decided to poke around in the tags and see what the arguments were, so I don't make comments out of ignorance.

Most of the tag seems to be more directed towards his treatment of Harry and Sirius, but a few people mentioned that Dumbledore should have treated Tom with ‘exceptional kindness’ and tried to ‘rehabilitate’ him.

As I said in Parts 2 and 3, I am 100% in favor of helping a traumatized kid learn to cope, and I don’t think Tom Riddle was solidly on the Path to Evil (TM) at birth, or even at eleven. Not even at fifteen.

Could unconditional love and kindness have helped Tom Riddle enough for the rise of Lord Voldemort to never happen? Possibly, but...

Yes, I'm about to drag up that Carl Jung quote, again.

“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”

The problem with this is that if you’re going to blame Dumbledore for this, you also have to blame every other adult in Tom’s life: his headmaster, Dippet, his Head of House, Slughorn, his ‘caretakers’ at the orphanage, Mrs. Cole and Martha, and possibly more. In fact, if we're going to blame any adult, let's blame Merope for r*ping and abusing Tom Riddle Senior, and having a kid she wasn't intending to take care of.

Furthermore, you cannot possibly hold anyone but Tom accountable for the murders he committed. (I should not have to sit here and explain why cold-blooded murder is wrong.) And if you like Tom Riddle's character, insinuating that his actions are completely at the whim of others is just a bit condescending towards him. He's not an automaton or a marionette, he's a very intelligent human being with a functioning brain, and at sixteen is fully capable of moral reasoning and critical analysis.

I've heard the theories about Dumbledore setting the Potters up to die, and I'm not going to discuss their validity right now; but he didn't put a wand in Tom's hand and force him to kill anyone. Tom did it all of his own accord.

And while yes, I have enormous sympathy for what happened to Tom as a child, at some point, he decided to murder Myrtle Warren, and that is where I lose my sympathy. Experiencing trauma does not give you the right to inflict harm on others. Yes, Tom was failed, but then, he spectacularly failed himself.

We also have no idea how Dumbledore treated Tom as a student.

In the movies, it’s Dumbledore who tells Tom he has to go back to the orphanage, but in the books, it’s Dippet. We know that Slughorn spent a lot of time around Tom at Slug Club and such, yet I don’t really see people clamoring for his head.

I regard the sentiment that Dumbledore turned Tom Riddle into Lord Voldemort with a lot of skepticism.

But let's hear from the character himself -- his impression of eleven-year-old Tom Riddle.

“Did I know that I had just met the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time?” said Dumbledore. “No, I had no idea that he was to grow up to be what he is. However, I was certainly intrigued by him. I returned to Hogwarts intending to keep an eye upon him, something I should have done in any case, given that he was alone and friendless, but which, already, I felt I ought to do for others’ sake as much as his."

Now, assuming that Dumbledore's telling the truth, I'm not seeing something glaringly wrong with this. No, he hasn't pigeonholed Tom as evil, yes, I'd be intrigued, too, and it's a very good idea to keep an eye on Tom, for his own sake.

“At Hogwarts,” Dumbledore went on, “we teach you not only to use magic, but to control it. You have — inadvertently, I am sure — been using your powers in a way that is neither taught nor tolerated at our school."

Again, it seems like he's at least somewhat sympathetic towards Tom, and is willing to at least give him a chance.

More evidence (again, assuming Dumbledore is a reliable narrator):

Harry: “Didn’t you tell them [the other professors], sir, what he’d been like when you met him at the orphanage?” Dumbledore: “No, I did not. Though he had shown no hint of remorse, it was possible that he felt sorry for how he had behaved before and was resolved to turn over a fresh leaf. I chose to give him that chance.”

Now, I think Dumbledore is pretty awful with kids, but I don't think that's malicious. Yeah, it's a flaw, but perfect people don't exist, and perfect characters are dead boring. I am not saying that he definitely handled Tom's case well, I'm just saying that there's little evidence that Dumbledore, however shaken and scandalized, wrote him off as 'evil snake boy.'

It's also worth taking into account that it's 1938, and the attitudes towards mental health back then.

Why is Tom looking at Dumbledore like that, anyway? Why is he so scared? What has he possibly been threatened with or heard whispers of?

"'Professor'?" repeated Riddle. He looked wary. "Is that like 'doctor'? What are you here for? Did she get you in to have a look at me?"

"I don't believe you," said Riddle. "She wants me looked at, doesn't she? Tell the truth!"

"You can't kid me! The asylum, that's where you're from, isn't it? 'Professor,' yes, of course -- well, I'm not going, see? That old cat's the one who should be in the asylum. I never did anything to little Amy Benson or Dennis Bishop, and you can ask them, they'll tell you!

Tom keeps insisting he's not mad until Dumbledore finally manages to calm him down.

I'm really upset this wasn't in the movie, because it's important context. Instead we got these throwaway cutscenes of some knick-knacks relating to the Cave he's got lying around, but I just would have preferred to see him freaking out like he does in the book.

There was extreme stigma and prejudice towards mental illness.

'Lunatic asylums,' as they were called in Tom's time, were terrible places. In the 1930s and 40s, he could look forward to being 'treated' with induced convulsions, via metrazol, insulin, electroshock, and malaria injections. And if he stuck around long enough, he could even look forward to a lobotomy!

So, if you think Dumbledore was judgmental towards Tom, imagine how flat-out prejudiced whatever doctors or 'experts' Mrs. Cole might have gotten in to 'look at him' must have been!

Moving on to the next few shots, he is sitting down and hunched over as if expecting punishment or at least some kind of bad news, Dumbledore is mostly out of the frame. He’s trapped visually, by Dumbledore on one side, and a wall on the other, because he’s still very much afraid. uncomfortable, as he tells Dumbledore a secret that he fears could get him committed to an asylum (which were fucking horrible places, as I said).

It brings to the scene that miserable sense of isolation and loneliness to that has defined Tom’s entire life up to that point (and, partially due to his own bad choices, continues to define it).

And, when Dumbledore accepts it, his posture changes. he becomes more confident and more at ease, as he describes the... utilities of his magical abilities. 

"All sorts," breathed Riddle. A flush of excitement was rising up his neck into his hollow cheeks; he looked fevered. "I can make things move without touching them. I can make animals do what I want them to do, without training them. I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to."

Riddle lifted his head. His face was transfigured: There was a wild happiness upon it, yet for some reason it did not make him better looking; on the contrary, his finely carved features seemed somehow rougher, his expression almost bestial.

I do think Harry, our narrator, is being a tad bit judgmental here. Magic is probably the only thing that brings Tom happiness in his grey, lonely world, and when I was Tom's age and being bullied, if I had magic powers, you'd better believe that I'd (a) be bloody ecstatic about it (b) use them. And, like Tom, I can't honestly say that I can't imagine getting a bit carried-away with it. Unfortunately, we can't all be as inherently good and kindhearted as Harry.

Reading HBP again, as a 'mature' person, it almost seems like the reader is being prompted to see Tom as evil just because he's got 'weird' facial expressions.

So... uh...

Nope, let's judge Tom on his actions, not looks of 'wild happiness.'

To his great surprise, however, Dumbledore drew his wand from an inside pocket of his suit jacket, pointed it at the shabby wardrobe in the corner, and gave the wand a casual flick. The wardrobe burst into flames. Riddle jumped to his feet; Harry could hardly blame him for howling in shock and rage; all his worldly possessions must be in there. But even as Riddle rounded on Dumbledore, the flames vanished, leaving the wardrobe completely undamaged.

Okay, one thing I dislike is Tom's lack of emotional affect when Dumbledore burned the wardrobe, in the books, he jumped up and started screaming, instead of looking passively (in shock, perhaps?) at the fire. Incidentally, I can't really tell if he's impressed or in shock, to be honest. I think they really tried to make Tom 'creepier' in the movie.

This is one of the incidents where Dumbledore's inability to deal with children crops up.

I think he was trying to teach Tom that magic can be dangerous, and he wouldn't like it to be used against him, but burning the wardrobe that contains everything he owns was a terrible move on Dumbledore's part. Tom already has very limited trust in other people, and now, he's not going to trust Dumbledore at all -- now, he's put Tom on the defensive/offensive for the rest of their interaction, and perhaps for the rest of their teacher-student relationship.

Riddle stared from the wardrobe to Dumbledore; then, his expression greedy, he pointed at the wand. "Where can I get one of them?"

"Where do you buy spellbooks?" interrupted Riddle, who had taken the heavy money bag without thanking Dumbledore, and was now examining a fat gold Galleon.

But I'm not surprised Tom is 'greedy.' He's grown up in an environment where if he wants something, whether that's affection, food, money, toys, he's got to take it. There's no one looking after his needs specifically. I'm not surprised that he's a thief and a hoarder, and I don't think that counts as a moral failing necessarily, and more of a maladaptive way of seeking comfort. It would be bizarre if he came out of Wool's Orphanage a complete saint.

Additionally, I think given that the Gaunt family has a history of 'mental instability,' Tom is a sensitive child, and the trauma of growing up institutionalized and possibly being treated badly due to his magical abilities or personality disorder deeply affected him.

And there are points where it seems that Dumbledore is quick to judge Tom.

"He was already using magic against other people, to frighten, to punish, to control."

"Yes, indeed; a rare ability, and one supposedly connected with the Dark Arts, although as we know, there are Parselmouths among the great and the good too. In fact, his ability to speak to serpents did not make me nearly as uneasy as his obvious instincts for cruelty, secrecy, and domination."

"I trust that you also noticed that Tom Riddle was already highly self-sufficient, secretive, and, apparently, friendless?..."

And while this is all empirically true, these are (a) a product of Tom's harsh environment, and (b) do not necessarily make him evil. But the point remains that child psych didn't exist as a field of its own, and psychology as a proper science was in its infancy, so I'd be shocked if Dumbledore was insightful about Tom's situation.

But I've gone a ton of paragraphs without citing anything, so I've got to rectify that.

Let's talk about Harry Harlow's monkey experiments in the 1950-70s.

If you're not a fan of animal research, since I know some people are uncomfortable with it, feel free to scroll past.

Here's the TL;DR: Children need to be hugged and shown affection too, not just fed and clothed, please don't leave babies to 'cry out' and ignore their needs because it's backwards and fucking inhumane. HUG AND COMFORT AND CODDLE CHILDREN AND SPOIL THEM WITH AFFECTION!

I will put more red writing when the section is over.

This is still an interesting experiment to have in mind while we explore the whole 'no one taught Tom Riddle how to love' thing and whether or not it's actually a good argument.

Andddd let's go all the way back to the initial 1958 experiment, featured in Harlow's paper, the Nature of Love. (If you're familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, him and Harlow actually collaborated for a time).

To give you an idea of our starting point, until Harlow's experiment, which happened twenty years after Dumbledore meets Tom for the first time, no one in science had really been interested in studying love and affection.

"Psychologists, at least psychologists who write textbooks, not only show no interest in the origin and development of love or affection, but they seem to be unaware of its very existence."

I'm going to link some videos of Harry Harlow showing the actual experiment, which animal rights activists would probably consider 'horrifying.' It's nothing gory or anything, but if you are particularly soft-hearted (and I do not mean that as an insult), be warned. It's mostly just baby monkeys being very upset and Harlow discussing it in a callous manner. Yes, today it would be considered unethical, but it's still incredibly important work and if you think you can handle it, I would recommend watching at least the first one to get an idea of how dramatic this effect is.

Dependency when frightened

The full experiment

The TL;DW:

This experiment was conducted with rhesus macaques; they're still used in psychology/neuroscience research when you want very human-like subjects, because they are very intelligent (unnervingly so, actually). I'd say that adult ones remind me of a three-year old child.

Harlow separated newborn monkeys from their mothers, and cared for their physical needs. They had ample nutrition, bedding, warmth, et cetera. However, the researchers noticed that the monkeys:

(a) were absolutely miserable. And not just that, but although all their physical needs were taken care of, they weren't surviving well past the first few days of life. (This has also been documented in human babies, and it's called failure to thrive and I'll talk about it a bit later).

(b) showed a strong attachment to the gauze pads used to cover the floor, and decided to investigate.

So, they decided to provide a surrogate 'mother.' Two, actually. Mother #1 was basically a heated fuzzy doll that was nice for the monkeys to cuddle with. Mother #2 was the same, but not fuzzy and made of wire. Both provided milk. The result? The monkeys spent all their time cuddling and feeding from the fuzzy 'mother.' Perhaps not surprising.

What Harlow decided next, is that one of the hallmarks being attached to your caregiver is seeking hugs and reassurance from them when frightened. So, when the monkeys were presented with something scary, they'd go straight to the cloth mother and ignore the wire one. Not only that, but when placed in an unfamiliar environment, if the cloth mother was present, the monkeys would be much calmer.

In a follow-up experiment, Harlow decided to see if there was some sort of sensitive period by introducing both 'mothers' to monkeys who had been raised in isolation for 250 days. Guess what?

The initial reaction of the monkeys to the alterations was one of extreme disturbance. All the infants screamed violently and made repeated attempts to escape the cage whenever the door was opened. They kept a maximum distance from the mother surrogates and exhibited a considerable amount of rocking and crouching behavior, indicative of emotionality.

Yikes. So, at first Harlow thought that they'd passed some kind of sensitive period for socialization. But after a day or two they calmed down and started chilling out with the cloth mother like the other monkeys did. But here's a weird thing:

That the control monkeys develop affection or love for the cloth mother when she is introduced into the cage at 250 days of age cannot be questioned. There is every reason to believe, however, that this interval of delay depresses the intensity of the affectional response below that of the infant monkeys that were surrogate-mothered from birth onward

All these things... attachment, affection, love, seeking comfort ... are mostly learned behaviours.

Over.

Orphanages, institutionalized childcare, and why affection is a need, not an extra.

His face is lit the exact same was as Coulson’s was in COS (half-light, half-dark), and I said I was going to talk about this in Part 3. I think perhaps it's intended to make Fiennes-Tiffin look more evil or menacing, but I'm going to quite deliberately misinterpret it.

Now, for some context, Dumbledore has just (kind of) burned his wardrobe, ratted out his stealing habit, and (in the books only, they really took a pair of scissors to this scene) told him he needs to go apologize and return everything and Dumbledore will know if he doesn't, and, well, Tom's not exactly a happy bugger about it.

But interestingly, in the books, this is when we start to see Tom's 'persona,' aka his mask, start to come into play. Whereas before, he was screaming, howling, and generally freaking out, here, he starts to hide his emotions -- in essence, obscure his true self under a shadow. So this scene is really the reverse of Coulson's in COS.

And perhaps I'm reading wayyy too much into this, but I can't help but notice that Coulson's hair is parted opposite to Fiennes-Tiffin's, and the opposite sides of their faces are shadowed, too.

Riddle threw Dumbledore a long, clear, calculating look. "Yes, I suppose so, sir," he said finally, in an expressionless voice.

Riddle did not look remotely abashed; he was still staring coldly and appraisingly at Dumbledore. At last he said in a colorless voice, "Yes, sir."

Here's an article from The Atlantic on Romanian orphanages in the 1980s, when the dictator, Ceausescu, basically forced people to have as many children as possible and funnel them into institutionalized 'childcare', and it's absolutely heartbreaking.

There's not a whole lot of information out there on British orphanages in the 30s' and 40s', but given that people back then thought you just had to keep children on a strict schedule and feed them, it wouldn't have a whole lot better.

The only thing I've found is this, and it's not super promising.

The most important study informing the criteria for contemporary nosologies, was a study by Barbara Tizard and her colleagues of young children being raised in residential nurseries in London (Tizard, 1977). These nurseries had lower child to caregiver ratios than many previous studies of institutionalized children. Also, the children were raised in mixed aged groups and had adequate books and toys available. Nevertheless, caregivers were explicitly discouraged from forming attachments to the children in their care.

Here's a fairly recent paper that I think gives a good summary: Link

Here, they describe the responses to the Strange Situation test (which tests a child's attachment to their caregiver).

We found that 100% of the community sample received a score of “5,” indicating fully formed attachments, whereas only 3% of the infants living in institutions demonstrated fully formed attachments. The remaining 97% showed absent, incomplete, or odd and abnormal attachment behaviors.

Bowlby and Ainsworth, who did the initial study, thought that children would always attach to their caregivers, regardless of neglect or abuse. But some infants don't attach (discussed along with RAD in Part 2).

Here's a really good review paper on attachment disorders in currently or formerly institutionalized children : Link

Core features of RAD in young children include the absence of focused attachment behaviors directed towards a preferred caregiver, failure to seek and respond to comforting when distressed, reduced social and emotional reciprocity, and disturbances of emotion regulation, including reduced positive affect and unexplained fearfulness or irritability.

Which all sounds a lot like Tom in this scene. The paper also discusses neurological effects, like atypical EEG power distribution (aka brain waves), which can correlate with 'indiscriminate' behavior and poor inhibitory control; which makes sense for a kid who, oh, I don't know, hung another kid's rabbit because they were angry.

Furthermore...

...those children with more prolonged institutional rearing showed reduced amygdala discrimination and more indiscriminate behavior.

This again, makes a ton of sense for Tom's psychological profile, because the amygdala (which is part of the limbic system, which regulates emotions) plays a major role in fear, anger, anxiety, and aggression, especially with respect to learning, motivation and memory.

So, I agree completely that Tom needed a lot of help, especially given the fact that he spent eleven years in an orphanage (longer than the Bucharest study I was referring to), and Dumbledore wasn't exactly understanding of his situation, and probably didn't realise what a dramatic effect the orphanage had on Tom, and given the way he talks to Tom, probably treated him as if he were a kid who grew up in a healthy environment.

In case you are still unconvinced that hugging is that important, there's a famous 1944 study conducted on 40 newborn human infants to see what would happen if their physical needs (fed, bathed, diapers changed) were provided for with no affection. The study had to be stopped because half the babies died after four months. Affection leads to the production of hormones and boosts the immune system, which increases survival, and that is why we hug children and babies should not be in orphanages. They are supposed to be hugged, all the time. I can't find the citation right now, I'll add it later if I find it.

But I think it's vastly unrealistic to say that Dumbledore, who grew up during the Victorian Era, would have any grasp of this and I don't think he was actively malicious towards Tom.

Was Tom Riddle failed by institutional childcare? Absolutely.

Were the adults in his life oblivious to his situation? Probably.

Do the shitty things that happened to Tom excuse the murders he committed, and are they anyone's fault but his own? No. At the end of the day, Tom made all the wrong choices.

And, for what it's worth, I think (film) Dumbledore (although he expresses the same sentiment in more words in the books) wishes he could go back in time and have helped Tom.

"Draco. Years ago, I knew a boy, who made all the wrong choices. Please, let me help you."

#tom riddle #the many faces of #tom marvolo riddle #character analysis #character study #albus dumbledore

[ramblings-of-a-mad-cat]

Apparently Hogwarts Legacy will let you be evil/go on a darker path but only if you’re a Slytherin for some reason? I don’t know if the Slytherin bit is true for sure, that’s just what I’ve been hearing tho. But if it is true then it’s kinda cool that they’ll let players choose what kind of morals their characters have but if it’s only for Slytherin MCs then that’s pretty lame. Why do they only get the choice but players with MCs in other houses apparently don’t?

You-

You gotta be kidding me.

Welp, you heard it here first. Playing Slytherin gives you a genuine advantage of over playing any other House. And by that I mean, the full in-game system is only available if you play Slytherin. What the hell is this nonsense...I can only hope this is a false rumor, or, barring that, modders get to work with adding an update that lets characters of any House choose the dark side as well. And if the devs are reading this, it's not too late fix this if it's real!

But beyond how limiting this would be in the actual game...I really just don't like what this is implying about the wizarding world at all? I thought...I kinda thought we were past this? Y'know, I'm someone who has never really gotten on board with the idea that "Rowling hates Slytherins" because, like, I understand that the isolation of Slytherin House was part of the point of their story, so giving them "better" representation within the original seven books wouldn't work, as their story wouldn't make as much sense.

But this isn't an adaptation of the books. (Even if it were, it's a damn video game, the option to go dark side should be available to players of all houses.) This is a different era altogether. Yes, I know that Slytherin has always been the House that dangles closest to the Dark Side, even after the Voldemort Wars, but this is like taking Hagrid's line from Philosopher's Stone about how "There's not a witch or wizard who went bad that wasn't in Slytherin" as gospel. And frankly, that line was always senseless and prejudiced, since Harry's own parents were betrayed by a Gryffindor Death Eater.

This is just a very immature take on the Hogwarts Houses. None of them are automatically good or evil. None of the traits prized by the Four Founders are evil, not inherently. The Houses are all collectives of people (of children, no less) who are constantly gaining and losing members as people arrive and graduate. What is this, Deathly Hallows Part 2, where we shove all of them in the dungeons? (I have never forgiven the films for that, least of all for having McGonagall be the one to call for it. She would never-) This makes it feel like Rowling actually does hate Slytherins after all, or someone on the development team does.

I know it has problems. I know the history of Salazar Slytherin. How racism toward muggles persisted for years and infected Slytherin House. It created an echo chamber (really, all of the Houses were echo chambers, so this was a danger for all of them) where the racist ideas were never challenged, so the Slytherin kids grew up into racist adults who taught the same bigotry to their kids from the cradle. They proceeded to be Sorted into Slytherin as well, the House that everyone else hates, so they had only each other to talk to...starting the whole cycle all over again. It's a problem.

But racism and The Dark Arts aren't synonymous. They often go hand in hand, sure. But not always. A curiosity about The Dark Arts isn't exclusive to Slytherin, anymore than ideas of pureblood supremacy. It's also a humongous generalization to act as though every kid in Slytherin is just a budding Death Eater (or their generation's equivalent) because, like...even within the books, we have Horace Slughorn? We also have Regulus and Snape, who may have started out on that path, but ultimately proved to be better people. And HPHM handles this best, giving us memorable and good people like Barnaby Lee and Liz Tuttle. Actually, while it does have it's problems, HPHM is basically doing everything right that HPHL is doing wrong.

Just...on top of what I've been hearing about the game's plot, and how it's supposedly about one of the Goblin Rebellions...it just feels like the creators are trying to fan the flames. The Harry Potter brand is already in trouble. Making the plot of this game be about the heavily criticized Goblins, who( intentionally or not) came across as a Jewish sterotype...apparently that wasn't enough? They're also provoking the fandom by suggesting that Evil = Slytherin and no one else? This is a prank, right? I'm definitely being punked here?

#Harry Potter #Harry Potter: Hogwarts Legacy #Slytherin House

[cindersage]

This is going to be a series where I come and talk to you about heart warming books, movies and TV shows which have helped me ignore the fact that there is a deadly virus literally in the air, Asian hate, the broken Indian political and medical system and also climate change.

This is no way a conceited view on very important pressing worldly issues, this is simply an escape when the news gets too morbid and you need to remind yourself that there is still good to be found in this world (even though I want to burn it to the ground).

Full article: https://thebookishweb.wordpress.com/2021/04/26/lifes-shitty-so-let-me-help-you-ignore-it/

1. THE INTERN

MOVIE

I know people love endings, they always have. It can be the end to a relationship and they make songs about it, ending of a legendary career and they have made documentaries about it, Shawshank redemption sitting with pride at the top of IMDB movie ratings, lauded for its ending. But for me personally it’s the beginning which makes or breaks the story. When I look back on stories that I have loved and kept close, I often see myself fascinated at how they started. Beginnings are the hardest part to get right.

From Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of number four Privet Drive were perfectly normal thank you very much to It is a truth universally acknowledged, greatness to me is best viewed when it is just about to happen. And the Intern knows that well.

The beginning sequence of this movie is equivalent to the soft delicious smell of freshly baked cookies on Christmas eve beckoning you to come, have a bite, indulge. It is the perfect setting to a beautiful movie about life and love and relationships of all kind- love and friendship and parenthood and right at the heart of it, the dynamic relationship of a man who’s lived and loved and a woman who is just learning to do so.

where can you watch it? Amazon Prime

2. PRIDE AND PREJUDICE: THE MOVIE

movie

How can I mention a small, witty reference of Pride and Prejudice and not feature it in here? Whenever I think about this book, I think about humans. How they are misunderstood, how they miscommunicate, how they make mistakes but most of all how they love and learn and live.

If you look at the text on the bottom of the poster you can make out the tagline “A romance way ahead of its time.” and that is the beauty of this book, in a time and in a society when men held their heads high, arrogance dripped from their words like honey scented venom, Jane Austen creates a character so humanly flawed that he is all that and more. He is arrogant and proud and he is shy and apologetic. She is beautiful and poised, she is witty and prejudiced.

I know you’ve read this book, I know you have seen this movie and yet I urge you, make that bowl of popcorn or open that snack you’ve been saving to eat at the right time and re-watch this.

Where can you watch it? Amazon Prime, and if not just re read the damn book.

3. DIL DHADAKNE DO

movie

LANGUAGE : HINDI ; GENRE: BOLLYWOOD, DRAMA

If I had to choose one Bollywood movie to watch for the rest of my life, I would choose this tale of many, many different characters; different not only by their faces but by their struggles, their personal demons, their dreams which were walked upon, love that was lost, love that was not to be and love that finally is. And surprisingly when I say love, not only do I mean the four different romantic stories that weave themselves through the story, I also mean the love that blooms between the family.

Set against the unyielding, painfully proper backdrop of the Delhi High Society, this is a story of an ordinary family, other than the fact that the younger son owns a plane, as they deal with unhappy marriages, infidelity and forbidden romances and their inherent sexist narrators.

You will feel warm, emotional, happy and a sort of oneness with the Mehras (the family name of the main characters) when you’ll watch them figure their life out on a beautiful cruise cruising through Turkey. Also a really cute dog.

If you don’t know the language, please use subtitles, it will be very very worth it.

Where can you watch it? Amazon Prime.

4. THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL

continue: https://thebookishweb.wordpress.com/2021/04/26/lifes-shitty-so-let-me-help-you-ignore-it/

#movies #tv show #recommended #the intern #bollywood #harry styles #blogging #blog #reviews #good movies to watch #dil dhadakne do #the marvelous mrs maisel #pride and prejudice #harry potter

[thelordofdarkreunion]

A Message to Tumblr

I am done.  I have seen enough.  So if all you morons want to reblog something, reblog this.

I hate about 70% of the people on this website.  Almost all of you are intellectual and emotional idiots with cognitive dissonance on par with the rightists and bigots you so fervently hate.   Your egos are misplaced and you escape to an online reality to feel more important because normal people can not stand you nor your brainless ideas.  

Let me tell you a few things that you probably will not like hearing or perhaps straightly deny.

Bigot- noun

A person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership to a particular group.

Now, let me ask you this: how many times on this website, or perhaps, even, on your own blog, have you seen something that goes along these lines?

“If you are a conservative, Republican, or Trump supporter, you are a racist, homophobic nazi.  I am going to block you now.”

“Silence is violence.  If you aren’t with us, then you are against us.”

“All men are trash.”

“All white people are inherently privileged, racist, and garbage.”

Yes?  Recognize this?  Click on a blog, any random blog, and there is about an even or more chance that it will have something along these lines on it.  Now, go back up and take a look at the definition of bigot.  Sound familiar?  You are one.  The people on this website are consumed with hatred and self-importance, and so used to their ideas being bounced back and forth between extremists who agree that they have no idea what the opposition even thinks, because they are not willing to listen.  You do not want love, equality, or tolerance as you so claim, for if you did, you would welcome all with open arms, regardless of what they were.  Regardless of whether they disagreed.  Regardless, even, of whether they hated you.   Instead, your movement and ideas are founded upon what all extremist movements are: hatred and power.  You use hatred to fuel you.  You tell newcomers that the opposition hates them and everything they stand for, so therefore, you must hate them back.  

And, in the end, despite claiming that you want equality, you really don’t.  The statements above, and countless similar ones prove that you wish to silence and eliminate any group that you perceive as a threat.  You wish for your opinions, and yours alone, to be heard.  Now that is the totalitarian control of speech and ideas.  You do not want democracy, or to be heard, or tolerance, love, or equality.  You want one thing, and one thing only: power.  Power over everyone else.  

Still not convinced?  I thought not.  Let me put things simply: You are not willing to hear any ideas except your own.  I shall prove it to you.  

What if I told you that I was transgender, homosexual, a racial minority, or a woman?  I would be welcomed by all here with open arms.

What if I told you I was a white man, relatively wealthy, or a conservative?  I would be hated, despised, and hunted.  

The truth of the matter is this.  I could be anyone.  You have absolutely no idea what I am.  The words you see here could be typed by anyone.  I could be an older white man, living in the deep south, who’s grandchildren told me how to use this website.  I could be a nonbianary person living in LA, who came here to escape those who hate me for what I am.  I could be anyone.  

And so your own hypocrisy and bigotry shows.  So if you are reading this, and you say, “What?  No!  It has never been about that!  I may disagree, but we can do so politely,” then I thank you.  This message is not for you.  Go in peace.  But, if you are reading this, and you are upset, and you hate me and want send me all sorts of nasty shit, then you are merely proving me right.  Now let me give you two, final parting quotes from a man more wise than I:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

“I have a dream, that one day [we] will live in a nation where they will not be judged on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.”

- Martin Luther King Jr.

So, in essence, you get to choose now.  What exactly are you?

#tumblr #my writing #politics #conservatives #liberals #rant #vent #blm #bigot #bigotry #hypocracy #disagreement #feminism #liberalism #extremeism #what are you?

[cosmicjoke]

Man, I need to get this off my chest, because I can’t stand it anymore.

There’s this “trend” that’s been going on for several years now where I have to sit here and watch as all of these so called “virtuous”, “accepting”, “loving” people make it their life’s mission to degrade, generalize, stereotype and belittle white people.  Particularly, white men, and white men who are straight.  I can’t stand it anymore, because it’s absolutely sickening.  It’s blatant, unabashed, naked racism and sexism on full display, and yet it’s being trot out as if it’s indictive of some kind of proof of ones better character.  What a damned joke.  

These people sit there and claim themselves to be somehow morally superior, holier than thou, virtuous, enlightened and wise, but in reality, they’re some of the most bigoted, racist, prejudiced, judgmental and unaccepting people I’ve ever had the deep displeasure of encountering.  They claim that they’re helping to make the world a better place by being a righteous champion of the world’s minorities, but all they’re really doing is spreading hate, division, prejudice and intolerance.  They’re RACE BAITERS, pitting groups of people against one another, and making a person’s race the sole, defining factor of who they are.  They claim to want equality and justice among the different races, while in the same breath, proclaiming that a person’s race is the only thing that matters.  If you’re a Black person, you get your race capitalized, as if it’s some rank or title that you’ve earned, some great accomplishment to be proud and boastful of.  As if it’s your very identity.  You’re a Black man, or a Black woman.  But if you’re white, well, you don’t get your race capitalized, because it’s instead treated as some sort of degenerate defect you’ve suffered at birth.  A genetic trait which makes you inherently inferior and more detestable.  Somehow less than human.  If you’re “Black”, then automatically, regardless of your character, your conduct, your behavior, you’re deemed the nobler, the wiser, the inherently and morally superior.  But if you’re white, and God forbid, if you’re a straight, white man, you’re worse than the devil himself, and you’re saddled immediately with the burden of proof to show you aren’t what these people love to accuse you of being, a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, a white supremacist, a worthless piece of trash based on nothing more than an accident of birth.  If you don’t agree with everything they say about how “awful white people are”, and how beautiful and bold and perfect everyone who isn’t white is, than you’re all of those things and worse.  Lovely.  

That’s how these people act.  That’s the kind of sickening trash they spew and spread.  They aren’t interested in making the world a better place for ANYONE.  They aren’t interested in equality between the races, they aren’t interested in an even playing field.  They aren’t interested in improving anybody’s lives.  What they’re interested in is self-aggrandizement, in making themselves look and feel morally superior to everyone else by signaling how enlightened and in touch with the plight of the minorities of the world they are, how sympathetic they are to the suffering and pain of the “black” and “brown” people.  As if they have even the faintest damned notion of what it means to be any of those things, or what that experience is like.  Hilariously, most of the people spouting this trash as white college students.  The definition of sheltered, ignorant, self-important douchebags.  

Well, I’ve got news for you.  You aren’t making the world a better place.  You’re making it infinitely WORSE.  In what deluded reality does singling out an entire group of people based on their race and gender and sexual orientation and judging the entirety of their worth based on that one factor make anything better for anyone?  Do you really believe that shitting on white people is going to somehow make the world a better place for black people?  Really?  If you really believe that, then you’re dumber then any rock I’ve ever seen.  So dumb, it’s hard to believe anyone COULD be so intellectually deprived.  But see, I don’t think that’s it.  No one could possibly be that stupid.  Rather, if these people actually allowed themselves a modicum of self-reflection and analytical thought process, they might actually realize the unmitigated idiocy of their words and actions.  They might realize the sickening levels of division and separatism and hatred they’re spreading.  That, in reality, instead of helping to make things better for people, instead of bringing people together and recognizing our shared, common humanity, they’re pitting groups and races against one another, and actively encouraging each of them to view the other as unlike them, as something alien and unwanted and lesser.  Maybe, if they allowed themselves to actually THINK, they might realize then the reality that they aren’t driven by any sort of moral virtue or enlightened superiority, but rather an inflated sense of self-worth and self-importance.  Driven by purely selfish and self-promoting desires.  Simply put, they want to make themselves look good, want to make themselves look BETTER than everyone else.  Maybe, someday, they’ll actually realize this about themselves, feel appropriately ashamed and correct their blatantly ignorant world view, but given the absolutely anemic levels of self-awareness they show now, I highly doubt it.  

What we saw happen at the Capital the other day is just a result of a this sort of thing.  Of the division and hatred and prejudice these people are spreading.  Setting white people against black people, and against everyone else.  Isolating and harassing and belittling white people until they lose it and act out.  It’s no different then the groups of black militants we saw in the 60s, people who finally snapped from being treated like shit.  Those people at the Capital were idiots, but what happened is a result of targeting an entire group of people and treating them as worthless because of an aspect of their genetic makeup which they can’t control.  And then they turn around and go “see!  I told you these white people are pieces of shit!”.  As if you didn’t want to see it happen so you could then pat yourselves on the back and proclaim yourself brilliant.  So fucking stupid.  

Now I’m sure I’ll get attacked and called a racist and bigot and a sexist by all the enlightened geniuses lurking around this site, but I don’t give a shit.  I’m a jew, the most oppressed group of people in the history of the world, so... have at it, I guess.  

[spooky-chapscher]

I want to talk about Steven’s comments in the latest HWYD. There are apparently quite a few posts cancelling him and I have seen many more fully supporting his comments. I don’t agree with either.

For context, here is the moment of discussion, which occurs at 53:22 in “Surviving a Boring Job” in response to a submitted question where the writer, Janette Shortlocker, wants to cut ties with a racist, homophobic friend but isn’t sure when or how to do so. Steven says the following:

“I have a lot of friends who are a little bit racist and a little bit homophobic and I’m still friends with them. And I’m not saying that I’m friends with them because of their values*, I just value them as people themselves and I try to keep them around and try to, you know, educate them with what I can, but it’s not something that… I don’t want to cut ties with everybody because of their belief system*, because, frankly, I have a different value system than Katie and Shane and Ryan.”

*In his apology (found on the podcast video’s comments section), Steven apologized for his word choice here. He writes, “Racism and homophobia are not values, belief systems, or ideals, they are simply hate and nothing more. Furthermore, there is no amount of intolerance that is okay when it comes to validating someone’s humanity and identity.”

I am not here to discuss the unfortunate word-choice, which I will generously frame as an unfortunate byproduct of this sort of off-the-cuff podcast format. Why he would associate the words “value” and “belief system” with bigotry I’ll get into in my main point.

 -

I’ll come out and say that I do not agree with the message of what Steven was trying to convey on the podcast. I will say, as a queer Latino, that if you know someone who has embraced racism/homophobia/etc… that person isn’t your friend. This person either rejected you or will reject you eventually based on some other thing they can hate. You can know them, you can have a history with them, you can want to help them, you can try to help them… but you are not “friends.”

I say this as someone who has fully dropped people from my life because of shit like this. Friends, mentors, family members. It might sound cruel, but after knowing someone endorses shit like this it leaves a sour aftertaste to every otherwise fond memory I have of them. Like, “wow, I thought things were great but it turns out that they were hurting other people and I had no idea.” That sort of shit really bothers me.

Note that these people I cut out “embraced” bigotry. I do have friends who have occasionally said some kinda prejudiced shit and I have said “whoa, what?” Sometimes it led to earnest discussions of race or class or religion. Sometimes it prompts them saying “oh shit, you’re right. I didn’t think that through. I guess I don’t know that much about it.” But, you know what, the prejudice goes away after this talk and doesn’t rear its head again. Because the prejudiced shit was something that was offhandedly said and normalized by society, not something my friend genuinely believed. And when your friends do this, confront it in (initial) good faith that they didn’t mean what they said. I mean, you probably made mistakes like this too, I know I have, and every time I feel like my friends have made me a better person by calling out some ignorance that I wasn’t even aware of.

But when you try to address prejudice and a bigoted person stands their ground or, even worse, tries to counter with “well, agree to disagree;” then I think that’s the time to start distancing yourself from this person. The “friend” in Shortlocker’s letter is this type of person, and I hope that Shortlocker is able to cut them out of their life as quickly and cleanly as possible. But that’s just my opinion.

Cutting people out can be a very difficult decision, especially if you’re younger and the person in question is a family member. For people of any age, it’s a difficult call to make when the bigoted friend holds some kind of position of power over you – be they a boss, a landlord, a mentor, a spiritual leader, or just someone who can make you miserable or put you in danger if you get on their bad side. All I can say is that you do not need to announce to someone that you’re done with them. You can become “busy” with a project or another friend who “needs help” and then steadily grow apart from this hateful-ass friend until they’re only a hateful-ass acquaintance. Please stay safe.

 -

Why I’m this way goes into where I think Steven’s coming from. Some people have commented that holding onto racist and homophobic friends is “unlike” Steven. I disagree. If anything, I think this is very on-brand for him, if only because I know quite a few religious Midwesterners and almost all of them are like this. I have seen my parents try to hold onto friends who once marched with them for civil rights but the friends ended up radicalized by racists after moving to small towns. I have seen friends try to maintain work friendships where my friends would have to remain closeted or risk losing their job. My parents and these friends? All quite religious. And none of the “friends” they tried to change ended up changing, which left the people I care about miserable and hurt.

There’s this sort of attempt to turn the other cheek, because that’s the righteous thing to do. It is what my parents and people like them genuinely believe. So no, they wouldn’t approach hatred with hostility or indignation, as I would, but instead approach it with the genuine belief that this “friend” is misguided and needs to be shown the light, an action which requires love and patience. Perhaps it’s because it’s how it was raised, but I think that’s a very noble approach, despite the obvious roots in evangelism. Part of me wants to believe that with enough time and love (and therapy) that someone can unlearn their own hatred. That’s a beautiful thing. There have been stories of a number of people who truly have turned their lives around after being helped by a friend… I just have yet to ever see this actually happen.

With this in mind, it makes sense to me why someone who believes this will find ways to rationalize keeping someone so hateful in their lives. On one hand, staying with this hateful person in order to help them is an act of charity, which is a good thing. On the other hand, staying with this hateful person might make them think that their behavior is appropriate, which is a bad thing. However, having healthy debates and discussions with someone with different beliefs than you and trying to find compromise and common ground is a good thing. It’s certainly easier on the conscience if, during these discussions, you think of your friend’s hatred as a “value” that you need to learn to see from their perspective in order to fully understand and confront properly. And when someone is so far into this line of thinking, it’s sometimes difficult for them to remember that there are people on the outside who are still being hurt by this person. It’s easy to forget, when trying to salvage a relationship, that ignoring the hurt of others is itself an act of cruelty.

 -

The root of this discussion is “why do people hate” and, basically, I think it’s because they have found some kind of community in their bigotry. Their family is like that or their friends are like that or their neighborhood is like that or their online circles are like that or their entertainers are like that. There are so many people telling them “everyone in the circle is good and everyone outside the circle is evil and untrustworthy and will hurt you.” Some people, like my parents and other religious Midwesterners, will think that the way to confront this is by repeatedly demonstrating that “no, there is nothing inherently wrong with the people outside the circle,” in hopes that their dissenting voice will overwhelm all the other insider voices.

My approach is that if you make the circle as small as possible then eventually they’ll have nobody to talk to and start rethinking the whole “outsiders bad” thing. I’ve gone back and checked on a few people I cut out. Some of them are still in their hate circle. Some of them have left the circle and started a new life and I’m proud of them and if we ever meet again I’d give them another chance. 

-

The heart of Steven’s sentiments come from a place of good intentions and reflect a philosophy that firmly believes that people want to better themselves morally. I do not share this philosophy and think that his approach minimizes and risks trivializing hateful actions. It puts far too much of an emphasis on making sure the bigoted person is comfortable and not enough emphasis on defending the targets of the bigot’s hatred.

Our aim should always be to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. 

I disagree with Steven’s approach and hope that he will do better in the future when discussing things like this. Hopefully he’ll take the time to consider how his actions impact those he means to defend.

-

(If you’re curious, my philosophy is that we all want to make each other happy the best way we know how. Self-betterment has only a minor role to play in all this. For some people happiness means helping others and telling jokes and making art and cooking and all that good stuff. For some people this “happiness” comes from keeping those closest to them inside their walled-off circle, firmly believing that the outside world would hurt them. These people far too often go out of their way to harm outsiders, be it through verbal abuse, physical violence, or systematic violence - leading to larger societal issues such as legalized discrimination, redlining, and corrupt law enforcement).

 -

(Oh, and regarding Shane and Katie’s lack of comment to this… at first I was let down and hoping that they just wanted to avoid a very long debate at the end of a podcast that was already approaching the hour mark. But, after giving it a little more thought, it would be kinda gross if Katie and Shane went out of their way to police how Steven handles his racist friends, what with them both being white. I understand their reluctance to speak up on this matter but still feel that there should have been a better way to deal with it… although I don’t know what that way is.)

#discourse