#it is a regressive argument repackaged as progressive | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

odinsblog · 2 years

Note

What do you think about the organization PAAU - Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising?

It’s a troll, and there ain’t shit “progressive” about them. Their founder, Terrisa Bukovinac, was also the founder and president of Pro-Life San Francisco. So we’ve seen this weaponized identity politics playbook before, right? Using young, non-white, women’s faces to front for the most regressive, racist, sexist, anti-abortion messaging.

They’re using the same old, conservative, misogynistic, talking points that have been around since wayyy before I was born. They’ve just repackaged their messaging in slick, millennial, hipsterism. It’s another polished turd, a Lincoln Project piece of theater. Tbh, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that James O’Keefe was behind it. I’m surprised I haven’t seen Fox News pushing them more.

That said, I wouldn’t take them too, too lightly. Not because their pro-forced-birth arguments are compelling (they aren’t), but it’s the timing that worries me. The midterms are right around the corner, and Democrats are probably going to get slaughtered (this is me simply acknowledging the cyclical nature of politics when the winning party is in the White House; not me rooting for Republicans). I don’t believe Democrats will hold the Senate or the House. Now factor in the fact that the Federalist Society controlled SCOTUS isn’t finished dismantling Roe yet. And also keep in mind that Joe Biden did not stop supporting the Hyde Amendment until June of 2019, mere months before the primaries really started, and he actively worked to undercut the contraception mandate in the ACA, so we will definitely NOT have an ally in the White House. (Oh sure, he’ll publicly say all the right things, but if it comes down to a real fight, he’ll fold like a cheap lawn chair, and then blame the Senate parliamentarian or some such fuckery.) So what I’m really saying is, all the necessary and sufficient pieces for a rightward policy shift are already there, and I’m concerned that with juuust the right push, at just the right moment, PAAU might become the equivalent of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is largely forgotten now, or remembered as something of a joke, but they were a deadly useful tool for conservatism, and Republican politicians of the time were genuinely terrified of them.

Even though the Tea Party was an astroturf “movement” funded by billionaires, much like PAAU appears to be, they were instrumental in paving the road for Trump and his acolytes. So even though I don’t think they’re a genuine grassroots movement on the right, I fear that they could be utilized as tools for a regressive, evangelical lurch further rightward. And without radically transforming DNC leadership, I absolutely positively do not expect the Democrats to effectively counter a PAAU movement if it should catch fire on the right. You can expect Democrats to be about as effective as they were against the Tea Party—which is not at all.

Look, as far as fighting to protect Roe goes, if they really wanted to, the Democratic Party could have protected that right a looong time ago. They had at least 5 previous opportunities to ensconce Roe into law. Long before their two favorite scapegoats—Bernie Sanders and Susan Sarandon—entered the 2016 primaries. But they didn’t.

It’s not like me to be so pessimistic, but you asked the question, anon. As far as reproductive rights are concerned, we don’t have an ally in the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress are probably about to fall to conservatives, and the current president has a very, very, VERY long history of fighting against abortion rights. So I’m understandably concerned about the future.

Standard disclaimer applies: I could be completely wrong. But I don’t think so.

#ask #answered #anon #paau #abortion #reproductive rights #reproductive justice #womens rights #healthcare

21 notes · View notes

kob131 · 2 years

Note

I have reached the conclusion that Floof and the other "critics" are literally incapable of telling the truth about RWBY. Every comment he and everyone else on the sub made in the past day or so during a discussion about Oscar and Ozpin can be answered by saying "they did, you just ignored it". If you have to ignore everything that contradicts your argument for it to work, then it's not an argument.

I have to disagree Anon and I'll demonstrate why.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RWBYcritics/comments/t5adnt/how_can_rwby_have_so_many_episodes_produced_over/

RWBY is a show that conceptually started in 2011 and started in 2012 with the Red Trailer in November. White Trailer would be released on February 14th, 2013, Black Trailer on March 22nd and Yellow Trailer on June 1st of the same year. The series proper would begin releasing episodes on July 18th of 2013.

These trailers are and remain the best part of RWBY to date. The audience got to see each of the four girls kick major ass accompanied by music themed for each of the four protagonists. Little did we know that this would be the first and last time we'd see the characters like this. Instead we see them attend generic anime school. A place where they learn how to fight worse than their trailer incarnations. This happened in the first Volume too!

Oh but Floof-

You yourself said in a different post that 'Volumes 1-3 don't have a plot'. So of course, the out of context Trailers certainly can't have plot in them by that standard. And they certainly don't have character (as everyone misinterpreted their characters post trailers) which you should agree with given how you. So...what do they have? Action. And the fight in Episode 8 is far more complex in movement, scale and scope than anything the Trailers did. And being more complex is a sign of quality in your eyes (my example being this vry post trying to portray the whole show as simplistic). So, by your own standards, the Volumes were better in one episode than all the Trailers!

... Or you're full of it and just mimicking other people to present yourself as correct (I know who too...). Either or.

In the heads of Miles Luna and Kerry Shawcross, these characters aren't as competent as Monty made them in fight scenes (i.e. the infamous "Run and live!" line by Jaune, the entire conflict between Ruby and Weiss in the Emerald Forest where they completely forget how to fight, I could go on about this stuff for eons.) and so you get several contradictory images of who these characters are right off the bat. We also don't really get introduced to the main characters beyond their name. Okay, and maybe the most surface-level display of personality. But that's pretty much all we get for the entire series for the main protagonists of RWBY. They don't actually change. They're stagnant characters with the same traits as how they were introduced. Only in later volumes, they say meaner things or yell more often. (This is not a form of character progression. This is dialogue regression on the part of the writers who can't think of alternative ways to make characters speak. Here's some terrible writing advice: It's much easier to resort to making characters sound and act like whiny children when you need to force contrived scenes one after the other. The "conflict" manufactures itself!)

You know, I could point out how Floof doesn't explain his first example and his second was due to character mismatch. Or that these are very early examples i.e. Before all shows actually DEVELOP their characters. Or that he provides no examples in his second half...

But let's discuss that bit about Miles and Kerry, implying that Monty had NO connection to the writing. See, remember what I said about Floof mimicking other people to look correct? Well, doesn't this argument as well as the last one praising the Volumes sound awfully familiar? They should: It's Hbomberguy's own arguments. Not even repackaged, it's just what he said. This isn't a one off case either, he regularly refers to Salem as 'Mommy Salami' referencing JelloApcolaypse's video on RWBY.

But see, issue about just parroting what other people say with no critical thinking whatsoever? Beyond something we'll discuss at the very end- You inherit their flaws. Like the claim that Monty wasn't involved in the writing of the Volumes falling apart when you know that Jaune, a character written after the Trailers, was referenced by MONTY HIMSELF in the commentary for Volume 1 (referring to Monty choosing his voice actor).

Nice job Floof.

Ruby is void of a distinct personality. Weiss is whiny, Blake is quiet, and Yang is all over the board. She's the most inconsistent, with random traits tacked onto her to make each scene she's in 'function'. Yang and Ruby not having a personality ties into the show's fundamental problems - There's no core. There's nothing holding the show together.

I could bring up other traits too but then Floof can just say that I'm making shit up to whatever I say. So I'll instead point out that he still hasn't brought up an example to prove this so I can just say 'Nuh uh' and my argument would win.

Real great argumentation- beaten by a slight breeze.

RWBY doesn't have intentional theming. As a show, it has failed at having a core message that reverberates throughout the work. Granted there are a few shows and movies that do just fine without, but the most devout and hardcore of RWBY fans often proclaim it's a very deep and well-written masterpiece that, "You just don't understand." Oftentimes, the writers espouse similar claims, unable to gaze past their own narcissism.

Yes, the well hated and notorious narcisstic writer of RWBY M-Monty Oum?

Monty: The biggest motivation for [RWBY] is the need to tell a story much like those I needed when I was growing up. The stories about not giving up that pushed me along, and the people I'd meet along the way. Knowing how much all the shows and games I'd played all my life has influenced me, it is a great honor to be able to bring something of my own to a generation of people who are also looking for something to believe in. That is why the feedback from the fans only further strengthens the need to make this show the best it can possibly be.

Hey look at that, a bullet in the head of this argument AND the last one too! Funny that. You can also thank this interview for me being here in the fandom because even before I was deeply analytic of media, this article cemented my decision to stay with the series because it confirmed to me that feeling of Gurren Lagann I got from RWBY was right. And hey, being a flawed Gurren Lagann is better than most series could even hope to achieve.

Oh and- Vague argument with no examples that other people have said word for word.

It's no wonder then that narcissism ends up being a central theme of RWBY. I really, sincerely hope this was unintentional, but the idea of narcissism seeps into every aspect of the show even way back in Volume 1. The characters are all self-serving assholes. They don't receive any repercussions for actions that cause harm to others. There's no lesson they learn, it's just, "Do thing, complain when someone points out that doing the thing causes problems." Volume 6 made the transformation from this being a background theme to one at the forefront. Team RWBY begin regularly demanding things from everyone else, stealing the credit for the actions of others, and then proudly claim, "We went through so much struggle to get here!" This becomes their justification for all of their horrible actions later.

You know, dontcha love how Floof says there's no theme then directly references the theme with no self awareness (gee I wonder if a person's struggles and their reaction to them is part of a reoccurring element in the writing. I wonder if there's a word for that.)

These protagonists are wholly incapable of introspection. It's frustrating. And that frustration is why so many people dislike these characters. In a normal show, there would be a lesson as to why their behavior is awful and see each character humbled at the end of an episode or two. This would also give the characters an opportunity for character growth.

But nah. Writing hard.

And if that isn't an example of projection, I don't know what is. RWBY 'Critics' have repeatedly shown that for some reason, they're incapable of introspection as they make the same mistakes and never evolve as critics. And in a normal fandom, they would eventually get it that pulling this same bullshit in perpetuity would just result in the opposing fans feeling justified, thus radicalizing them. They could even use this as a means of personal growth, using the lessons they learned from their criticism and apply it to the world around them thus inciting personal growth.

But nah. Criticizing a rather basic-level flawed show is basically the twenty eighth labour of Heracles dontcha know?

I'd like to believe the intended theming of RWBY is around stuff like "friendship", "sisterhood", "camaraderie", "stand up for what you believe is right," etc. RWBY doesn't have any of that.

Characters are regularly reset so that conflict can be cheaply manufactured. Relationships are made and broken on a moment's whim to generate fake conflict. There's no real connection between the characters because they don't interact outside of their predetermined slots and due to the randomness of the writer's whims. (i.e. Nora and Ruby never interact, Blake and Ruby never interact, Jaune and Nora never interact, Blake and Weiss never interact outside of V1, Blake and Jaune never interact, Jaune and Yang never interact, Yang and Ruby don't interact nearly as much as they should, Yang and Ren never interact, Blake and Ren never interact, Yang and Nora never interact, Weiss and Ren never interact, Weiss and Nora never interact, etc.) These are just some of the unexplored dynamics I came up with on the spot for this post.

And Nui and Nonon, Ragyo and Mrs. Manchanchou, Rei and Mako and ect. never interact in Kill La Kill. You don't hear anyone making this argument despite the bonds between characters being a motivating factor in the show. Could it be that this is the result of a show being the limitation of the human mind and that human relationships often sprout from random coincidence which the human mind can't really achieve among so many other reasons? Oh wait, that requires thought and you can't even back this shit up with an explanation.

BTW, Nora and Ruby, Blake and Ruby, Jaun and Nora, Blake and Weiss, Yang and Ruby, Yang and Ren AND Weiss and Nora have interacted. 5/12 (being generous as Yang and Jaune did interac in Volume 1 and they've all interacted as a group before).

I'd like to believe the intended theming of RWBY is around stuff like "friendship", "sisterhood", "camaraderie", "stand up for what you believe is right," etc. RWBY doesn't have any of that.

The writers believe and tell their audience that these characters are such strong friends who have bonded together for years now to the point that they would die for one another. Issue is, we never see them interact in ways that would establish this idea. There really don't exist any moments wherein we'd get any opportunity to explore or see how each character feels about each other from the character's perspective. I don't mean that screentime should be dedicated solely to exposition about how the characters feel towards each other, but that the writers should stop writing from their own outside universe perspective and consider their character's perspective on things. Why does Nora suddenly and randomly push away Ren in V8 after they "get together" in V4? Why don't Blake and Yang confess their love for one another? How do these characters even feel about the prospect of a relationship between one another? How do they view the other members of their team? (And no, I don't want to see another repeat of Nora randomly breaking the fourth wall and suddenly realizing she's a shallow, one-dimensional piece of cardboard who has been flanderized to irrelevancy. Bad. Writing.)

1. Because Nora can't see herself as anything but one half of a duo.

2. Why would they?

3. That's not something someone would think in this situation.

4. Blake sees Ruby as an innocent girl she sees herself in, Weiss sees Ruby as an annoying friend, Ruby sees Yang as a dear sister and vice versa. I can tell from their ACTIONS (from Blake acting more and more like Ruby combined with her talk with Sun and their interaction pre-initation in Beacon to Weiss's exasperated attitude around Ruby while also being shown with her most times and from Ruby's insecurity about disagreeing with Yang and Yang going out of her way to comfort Ruby after they reunite).

Floof's basically saying "TELL DON'T SHOW!" because he refuses to look AND while showcasing he'll ignore everything the shows says.

P.S. Yeah, not only did Nora not break the 4th wall but she had LESS traits in Volumes 1-3 (where she is SOLELY defined as being loud, crazy and in love with Ren). Floof is bashing the show...for doing what he SAYS he wants,

The characters need to feel alive, a part of the world and universe they exist in. Right now there's nothing. We don't know anyone's goals, motivations, or ideals. We don't even know Salem's goal and she's the main antagonist of the series! Why do these characters choose to participate in what's happening? We don't know. Why are they willing to risk their lives fighting monsters? They're the good guys of course! (We don't know.) What's their goal after beating Salem? Their lifelong aspirations? What's compelling them to keep doing what they're doing in the series? nO sPoIlEr QuEsTiOnS! (We don't know.)

0. She wants to die and spite Ozpin. Show tells the first and shows the second.

1. Because none of them want to just give up and let Salem win. Brunswick Farm.

2. Because Ruby wanted to be like the hero in story books, Weiss wanted to redeem her family name, Blake wanted to help the world and Yang wanted to enjoy fighting. Volume 1 dumbass.

3. Actually not said! ... Too bad most series like RWBY don't answer that until it's done (see: KLK and Gurren Lagann).

4. Ruby to become Huntress, Weiss to run her family business, Blake to fight against Fanaus oppression and make the world better, Yang to enjoy life. Again, Volume 1.

5. Because they want to do what's right. Fucking theme.

Gotta love how his big spiel backfires with BASIC critical thinking.

I know some people are going to go, "Well, you just want all the screentime spent on characters talking which is what RWBY currently does anyway! That sounds boring!" and to that I disagree. The things that the characters in the canon show say are almost entirely worthless and build nothing for either the world, the characters themselves, or the scenes they're in. There's so much time spent on unfunny cringe humor that could be better used for building real human bonds between these characters. It's a disgrace how the show mishandles time and why it's bloated with so many redundant, pointless episodes and scenes. If the dialogue wasn't written with the wit of a middle school student, maybe I'd be more forgiving. But RWBY fans deserve a better show with better dialogue than this.

Big issue with the amount of time wasted in RWBY is that each scene serves exactly one purpose for one surface-level event. Each scene exists, does the one thing, and then ceases to exist when it's convenient for the next shallow, one-event scene. Retcons, plot holes, inconsistencies, stupid contrived bullshit, it all serves to make for one of the biggest blunders in animation storytelling I have seen.

Translation: "Here's a tiny wall of text filled with common criticism cliches to make me sound smart and respectful but is just me puking what others have said."

No really. How many times, geniune or manipulative, have you heard a RWBY 'critic' mention the humor, basic character relationship, 'bloated', 'shallow' and 'you deserve better!'? And judging from Floof's comments in the past and the lack of examples: do you actually think he's sincere in the slightest?

It is 2022, almost 10 years since the Red Trailer first dropped. We should not be 106 episodes into a series and know as little as we presently do about the entire series. Better shows can fit more into far fewer episodes without insulting your intelligence and wasting your time.

You know what I would consider the biggest insult and waste of time?

Someone just vomiting others' opinions without even using their own words.

That is why people hate critics like the Irate Gamer and Lily Peet so much. Because everything they are and everything they say is empty, devoid of meaning because it's not their voice but anothers. That is why we hate ripoffs so much- Because we can already get it elsewhere without implying we're dumb enough to not see the resemblance.

And that includes you Floof. There's a difference between someone saying a common opinion in earnest and someone parrortting what's commonly accepted. Those slight differences in the expression carry with them a world of personality and belief. And I don't get that from you. I've seen ALL of this before except through their expression and examples- I could tell they honestly believed in what they said. You? It's blatant you're just a parrot squawking back what you think will get you a reward.

Aside from Hero Hei, I have never believed this more than I have with you: I could reduce everything you say down to 'RWBY bad' and lose nothing of value.

And that is why I disagree Anon. I don't think Floof is wrong about what he says. That implies he said anything and not that he's just the echo of other people. I don't give credit where it's not due.

10 notes · View notes

thevividgreenmoss · 5 years

Link

The process of forcibly integrating colonized peoples into the capitalist labour system caused widespread dislocation (a history I cover in The Divide). Remember, this is the period of the Belgian labour system in the Congo, which so upended local economies that 10 million people died – half the population. This is the period of the Natives Land Act in South Africa, which dispossessed the country’s black population of 90% of the country. This is the period of the famines in India, where 30 million died needlessly as a result of policies the British imposed on Indian agriculture. This is the period of the Opium Wars in China and the unequal treaties that immiserated the population. And don’t forget: all of this was conducted in the name of the “free market”.

All of this violence, and much more, gets elided in your narrative and repackaged as a happy story of progress. And you say I’m the one possessed of romantic fairy tales.

The Maddison database on which you rely might tell us what the dispossessed gained in income (eventually), but it does not tell us whether those gains offset their loss of lands, commons, supportive communities, stable local economies. And it tells us nothing about what global South economies might be like today had they been free to industrialize on their own terms (take the case of India, for instance).

Let me be clear: this is not a critique of industrialization as such. It is a critique of how industrialization was carried out during the period in question. If people had willingly opted into the capitalist labour system, while retaining rights to their commons and while gaining a fair share of the yields they produced, we would have a very different story on our hands. So let’s celebrate what industrialization has achieved – absolutely – but place it in proper context: colonization, violence, dispossession and all. All we gain from ignoring this history is ignorance.

Now, to the present period.

You say that the “massive fall of global extreme poverty” is simply a neutral fact of the data. But here again the data on this is more complex than you have ever acknowledged (I collaborated with Charles Kenny to review the basics here).

The narrative that you and Gates peddle relies on a poverty line of $1.90 per day. You are aware, I’m sure, that this line is not a neutral phenomenon, handed down by the gods or given in nature. It was invented by people, is used for particular ends, and is hotly contested both inside and outside of academia. Most scholars regard $1.90 as far too low to be meaningful, for reasons I have outlined in my work many times (see here and here). See Reddy and Lahoti’s withering critique of the $1.90 methodology here.

Here are a few points to keep in mind. Using the $1.90 line shows that only 700 million people live in poverty. But note that the UN’s FAO says that 815 million people do not have enough calories to sustain even “minimal” human activity. 1.5 billion are food insecure, and do not have enough calories to sustain “normal” human activity. And 2.1 billion suffer from malnutrition. How can there be fewer poor people than hungry and malnourished people? If $1.90 is inadequate to achieve basic nutrition and sustain normal human activity, then it’s too low – period. It’s time for you and Gates to stop using it. Lifting people above this line doesn’t mean lifting them out of poverty, “extreme” or otherwise.

Remember: $1.90 is the equivalent of what that amount of money could buy in the US in 2011. The economist David Woodward once calculated that to live at this level (in an earlier base year) would be like 35 people trying to survive in Britain “on a single minimum wage, with no benefits of any kind, no gifts, borrowing, scavenging, begging or savings to draw on (since these are all included as ‘income’ in poverty calculations).” That goes beyond any definition of “extreme”. It is patently absurd. It is an insult to humanity.

...But what’s really at stake here for you, as your letter reveals, is the free-market narrative that you have constructed. Your argument is that neoliberal capitalism is responsible for driving the most substantial gains against poverty. This claim is intellectually dishonest, and unsupported by facts. Here’s why:The vast majority of gains against poverty have happened in one region: East Asia. As it happens, the economic success of China and the East Asian tigers – as scholars like Ha-Joon Chang and Robert Wade have long pointed out – is due not to the neoliberal markets that you espouse but rather state-led industrial policy, protectionism and regulation (the same measures that Western nations used to such great effect during their own period of industrial consolidation). They liberalized, to be sure – but they did so gradually and on their own terms. Not so for the rest of the global South. Indeed, these policy options were systematically denied to them, and destroyed where they already existed. From 1980 to 2000, the IMF and World Bank imposed brutal structural adjustment programs that did exactly the opposite: slashing tariffs, subsidies, social spending and capital controls while reversing land reforms and privatizing public assets – all in the face of massive public resistance. During this period, the number of people in poverty outside China increased by 1.3 billion. In fact, even the proportion of people living in poverty (to use your preferred method) increased, from 62% to 68%. (For detailed economic data and references to the relevant literature, see Chapter 5 of The Divide).

In other words, the imposition of neoliberal capitalism from 1980 to 2000 made the poverty rate worse, not better.

Since 2000, the most impressive gains against poverty (outside of East Asia) have come from Latin America, according to the World Bank, coinciding with a series of left-wing or social democratic governments that came to power across the continent. Whatever one might say about these governments (I have my own critiques), this doesn’t sit very well with your neoliberal narrative.

But there is something else that needs to be said here. You and Gates like to invoke the poverty numbers to make claims about the legitimacy of the existing global economic system. You say the system is working for the poor, so people should stop complaining about it.

When it comes to assessing such a claim, it’s really neither absolute numbers nor proportions that matter. What matters, rather, is the extent of global poverty vis-à-vis our capacity to end it. As I have pointed out before, our capacity to end poverty (e.g., the cost of ending poverty as a proportion of the income of the non-poor) has increased many times faster than the proportional poverty rate has decreased (to use your preferred measure again). By this metric we are doing worse than ever before. Indeed, our civilization is regressing. Why? Because the vast majority of the yields of our global economy are being captured by the world’s rich.

As I pointed out in the Guardian piece, only 5% of new income from global growth goes to the poorest 60% of humanity – people living on less than $7.40/day. You have neither acknowledged this as a problem nor attempted to defend it. Instead you just ignore it, I suppose because it undermines your claims about how well the economy is working for poor people.

Here’s how well it’s working: on our existing trajectory, according to research published in the World Economic Review, it will take more than 100 years to end poverty at $1.90/day, and over 200 years to end it at $7.4/day. Let that sink in. And to get there with the existing system – in other words, without a fairer distribution of income – we will have to grow the global economy to 175 times its present size. Even if such an outlandish feat were possible, it would drive climate change and ecological breakdown to the point of undermining any gains against poverty.

It doesn’t have to be this way, of course. We can end poverty right now simply by making the rules of our global economy fairer for the world’s majority (I describe how we can do this in The Divide, looking at everything from wages to debt to trade). But that is an approach that you and Gates seem desperate to avoid, in favour of a blustering defense of the status quo.

#go OFF #essays #*

83 notes · View notes