#side b rhetoric and beliefs are harmful

[hyperfixation-hideout]

this is embarassing but i want u to know so sorry im anon im just a coward. Im one of the people who said insults about critics and now i think about it ur right, i wasnt address the real problems just hating the group for existing. i went looking after ur post and i see the harasment on both sides now and i thought how dumb itd be to say the fndm is evil bc of some toxic fans and thats what i was doing with rwde. Ill argue the points now on, instead of accuse people of what i assume about them

You're not a coward; this ask proves it. Thank you for telling me, I'm so glad my words reached you. It's big of you to admit, bigger to recognize it as something worth rethinking, and even bigger to seek knowledge and open yourself to a potential change of view. Thank you for that.

I wanna reiterate some things in case I was unclear, because this is a nuanced topic, so please (pretty please) bear with me before passing judgment <3

First, I'm not advocating for ignoring toxicity found in rwde and r/rwbycritics. It DOES exist and it IS a problem. But people tagging me (& others who were supportive/considerate of my pov) in their hate anons to "prove" all critics are evil missed the points I made. Like I've said, I used to think ill of rwby critics as well, and all it takes to solidify a belief is examples that support it. It infuriates me that people would send asks like that, and I'm so sorry to everyone who gets hate. That's not okay.

What I am saying is the existence of hateful people who use a tag doesn't disprove the existence of non-hateful people who use said tag, nor does it make the tag's existence inherently hateful. ("RWDE" was a jokey name made for a place to critique RWBY without being called rude, so people could blacklist the tag.) I could broadcast every hateful person/take I see in the fndm or r/rwby, but it wouldn't prove everyone in the FNDM is like that. It's basic scientific theory.

It's important to be conscious of the toxic behavior in the FNDM as well, but I wasn't trying to say some wishy-washy "there's bad on both sides so it cancels out uwu" or "don't complain about one group's problems if your group has some too" or imply either group is worse than another. Not at all my intention.

Like you said, a lot of the stuff I see in antirwde or in replies to rwde posts isn't about debating opinions on the show, or discussing points they've made to express why they disagree; it's mainly:

A) Unrelated assumptions about the poster's character/beliefs/credibility (i.e. calling someone a n*zi for having an Ironwood profile picture, telling Jewish people who express discomfort with Coco's allusion that they're faking being Jewish just to bash/accuse CRWBY -- ironic to throw around the word n*zi and then tell Jewish fans they're faking discomfort with a character based on a literal n*zi -- telling queer people who wish Bumbleby had been implemented differently that they're "obviously cishet" and shouldn't complain about representation, telling Black people they're secretly white supremacists for saying the way the White Fang was portrayed was harmful, telling disabled people that pointing out ableist messages/rhetoric is ableist, etc., etc., I've seen it all.)

B) Generalizations of the tag and critique as a whole (saying all rwde posters and critics vehemently hate the show, harass CRWBY, are conservatives, homophobes, Trump supporters, fascist bootlickers, etc.) Yes, I've actually seen this. Many times. From people who directly told me they understood it's not all, immediately turning around to post the opposite in the tag.

C) People who are called out for harassment deflecting with "but look at THIS harassment done to ME, that proves I've never sent hate or death threats or doxxed anyone" instead of addressing or reconsidering the hurtful things they've markedly done or said in the past, even when provided with receipts. (I've seen this from both rwde and anti-rwde users, and no I will not name names)

D) People telling critics to shut up and stop watching, not considering that many critics do like the show and that's why they like talking about it, or why certain aspects disappointed them, or why they enjoy coming up with ideas for ways it could've gone they'd have liked to see! People say "we welcome criticism if it's respectful!" and on paper that's great! But in practice I've seen many (not all) of those same people jump to conclusions and insult/mock very respectfully-worded critique. It makes it hard to say anything without being assumed to be part of the htdm.

Even little things like "I wish Ruby's reaction to Yang falling had gotten more focus" get inflammatory comments/asks like "Why do you have to shit on Bumbleby? Actually, don't answer that. I know why. You're a sexist fucking lesbophobe and you probably stan Adam, go die abuse apologist" (that one was mine, despite saying IN THE POST that I liked Blake's reaction and ship Bumbleby)

And when it is addressing a particular qualm someone expressed, it's very, very often just people jumping to impose their headcanons to explain it away and enforcing them as canon, defending CRWBY as though it were an assault (again, not referring to the people who ARE harassing CRWBY, this is about those seeking genuine discussion), and calling OP names/telling them to kill themselves if they "can't see how obvious it is that ___."

To critics, fans, and all who overlap (and tbh just people in general):

If there's a pattern of shittiness in a group, by all means call it out as a prevalent issue! Or vent about your experiences! Try to avoid generalization words like "all" and "every" because they leave little room for change or understanding, and communicate a lack of desire to listen/cooperate, which keeps us from being able to tackle the issue. If there's a point someone makes you'd like to dispute, do so respectfully and engage in open conversation! Even if it's an opinion! It's fun to say "I actually liked ___ because ___" or "interesting, I interpreted it as ___" and spark a conversation. Try to avoid words like "obviously," the intent to prove an opinion "objectively correct," or insulting the person's intelligence (i.e. calling fans braindead/ignorant/simps, calling critics oblivious/bad-faith/bigots), because it shuts down discussion before it can begin.

I've just realized this has gotten really long and tangential, so I'll leave it at that. I don't have a perfect conclusion or an easy summary. It's a complicated topic. To anyone still here, thank you for reading this. I can only hope it doesn't come off too preachy, but I'm bad at conveying tone, so just know I mean it constructively and optimistically <3

[PS: to the person who sent me an anon saying my statement that not all critics have all the same opinions or beliefs is "just like saying 'not all men'" -- I want you to think about that for a minute. Actually, make that an hour. I want an essay on my desk tomorrow explaining why those are not at all the same thing.]

#again thanks for the ask anon #rwby crit #fndm crit #rwde #anti rwde #yes I'm using the two word tag so ppl who have the one word version blacklisted won't think this is anti-rwde #and can actually read it :P #long post #sorry #I'd make a tl;dr but tbh summing it up is hard #and whenever I make a tl;dr I get responses from ppl who clearly didn't read the post saying stuff I addressed in the post #I'm adhd I'm not good at being concise #quinpost #quinanswer #as you may have noticed... #I had some fun with the colors :P #hope it helps this come across with a lighter/more constructive tone #would this be... anti-anti-rwde? XD ignore that it's a passing amusing thought #watch me still get an ask telling me I shouldn't defend harassment or pretend rwde is full of kindness #hopefully not tho <3 #I have hope #btw @ my mutuals this isn't a vaguepost @ you jsyk #none of y'all are the people I said I wouldn't name

[disastergay]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again--all polarized discourse can be divided into three categories:

identity vs. ideology (ace discourse, fascism, antisemitism, ableism, islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, antiblackness, etc.)

ideology vs. ideology (shipping/fiction discourse, radical feminism vs. inclusive feminism, liberalism vs. socialism, etc.)

identity vs. identity (kink at pride, TMA vs. TME discourse, white/cis passing discourse, etc.)

the reason this community keeps going around in circles, repeating the same talking points and regurgitating the same old rhetoric, is because very few of us actually take the time to stop and step back to examine the underlying causes; the reasons why these arguments keep popping up in the first place. 

(contd: me going on a long rant about online discourse and debate styles)

**disclaimer: I want to preface this by reminding you that most if not of these debates are manufactured in one way or another, and thus my acknowledgment of any discourse’s unfortunate existence should not be interpreted as me “picking a side” or agreeing that the buzzwords I’m using are “good and useful”

in identity vs. ideology debates, you have one group that’s made up of people who share a trait that is inherent for most if not all of them, and another group made up of people whose only connection is a common, underlying belief that the identity of people in the former group is inherently harmful in some way and thus needs/deserves to be excluded at best, or eradicated at worst. 

typically, the ideology side is bigoted and will try to convince you that the issue is two identities or ideologies being pitted against one another in an attempt to legitimize their bullshit, and put the marginalized community at a negotiative disadvantage. this is why the language surrounding ace discourse evolved to dividing people into “inclusionist” and “exclusionist” categories--to redirect the conversation away from a marginalized group and muddy the waters, making it more difficult for newbies and outsiders to figure out that “exclusionism” (in this context) is just a fancy word for “bigotry.”

in ideology vs. ideology debates, you have two distinct groups who only share their respective differing beliefs. each group believes the other is inherently harmful in some way, and needs/deserves to be excluded at best, or eradicated at worst. however, because neither one is directly marginalized or privileged for holding these ideas, there is less of a sense of urgency when it comes to these discussions. 

people involved in these debates will often try to convince you the other side has a cultlike ideology while their own side is actually being discriminated against based on identity, again, with the intention of legitimizing their ideology while also attempting to badmouth the opposition. sometimes there is a clear ‘correct’ ideology, other times there is not.

identity vs. identity is the most notorious and difficult to navigate of the three, as well as the easiest to spot, given it’s often blatantly absurd. you’ll see people spit out takes that are meant to pit two or more marginalized communities against each other, fueled by a) the belief that said communities cannot hope to coexist, or b) the desire, as a privileged outsider, to “troll” or “divide and conquer”. 

this discourse is the most insidious of all, because the other two very often masquerade as this one and vice versa--many TERFs who are less radicalized will try to convince you that, while trans people and women [read: cis women] are both undeniably disenfranchised by the patriarchy, there is “simply no hope” for both marginalized groups to safely exist and get access to life-saving resources. they will try to convince you that because said resources are high in demand and low in supply, women [read: cis women], who “clearly have it worse”, deserve said resources more, and fuck any trans person who is selfish enough to take said resources away from them.

though, there are some examples of actual and legitimate identity vs. identity discourse; namely “kink at pride” discourse. among members of the online LGBTQ+ community, there is a genuine belief that it is impossible for both kinksters and LGBTQ+ people to share safe spaces during pride events. 

people try to make this into an identity vs. ideology debate (puritans/homophobes vs. queer sex workers + flamboyant queers OR p*dophiles and other sexual predators vs. queer minors + queer survivors of trauma) or an ideology vs. ideology debate (what is consent really? where do we draw the line?), but these efforts don’t and can’t change the fact that both being kinky (inherently deviating from society’s sexual norms) and being LGBTQ+ (inherently deviating from cisheteronormative society) are both things people are marginalized for. despite having different needs, both communities do have a strong overlap, and thus the talking point of each community’s shared identity (as opposed to having a shared ideology) is inextricable from “kink at pride” discourse. 

you also see this with people who say “there is no good reason for someone who ever identifies as a man or masculine-aligned, under any circumstances, to enter a safe space meant solely for women and feminine-aligned people, let alone use their resources”, as if it’s ~impossible~ for someone to be both at once, let alone a closeted man/”masc-aligned” person who’s unable to access any "”proper”” resources without outing themself. regardless of your intentions, pitting two marginalized groups against each other is not an acceptable thing to do.

TL;DR: the first step to finding the heart of an argument--and dismantling any harmful or inaccurate beliefs circulating within said argument--is to identify what kind of argument it really is.

#discourse / #long post / #kink at pride #politics

[fidgeting]

apropos of nothing, i think one of the reasons why the concept of “passing privilege” is the source of so much intercommunity strife is that, by using a “privilege” framework to speak about the phenomenon, “passing”/”nonpassing” become solidified as static or consistent categories that have to do with an inherent quality or individual truth of a given person’s identity, when in reality passing is a constantly-evolving, always-precarious process that can apply to the same person in different ways on the same day, let alone within their lifetime. none of my thoughts here are particularly new to The Discourse, but i’ve been mulling it over lately as i’ve seen more mentions of the idea of “straight passing” in recent weeks than i have in a little while.

re: “straight passing”, these conversations usually revolve around discussions of existing in public with a partner and the way that someone’s sexual identity is perceived as a result. to use the classic examples, a bisexual person in a crossgender relationship may present with queer or gender-nonconforming signifiers and be read as gay/lesbian while on their own, but be seen as straight while in public with their partner. on the flipside, a gay/lesbian person who displays little to no signifiers of gender-nonconformity in public life may not be read as gay/lesbian until they are seen with their partner. much blood sweat and tears have been shed online over attempting to hash out whether either one of, both, or neither of these hypothetical people can be said to have “passing privilege", when, in reality, existing as a three-dimensional human person is almost always more complicated than these flat strawmen can be understood. the signifiers that affect how a person’s sexuality is read by strangers are complex enough to extend to the neighborhood in which they live, the job/s that they have, their hobbies, how vocal they are on political/social issues and what the content of those beliefs are, etc. it’s essentially impossible to make an external judgement on how the “people” (who aren’t real people but intentionally one-dimensional rhetorical constructs) in these examples would actually be read on a day-to-day basis.

even if there were no other factors that could determine these people’s passing besides a) physical presentation and b) relationship status, how coherent a categorization of an individual’s overall embodied experience of life can a descriptor be if it pivots solely based on whether or not they’re seen in public with a partner? what happens when someone is single and celibate? i’m not trying to argue that being seen with a partner doesn’t affect the way someone’s sexuality is read by strangers, but rather that this specific line of questioning is ultimately just one aspect of the variety of factors that contribute to their public perception and the types of discrimination they’re exposed to, and the act of describing another person as passing/nonpassing when you’re not exposed to the intricacies of their private life requires a lot of confidence in your external judgement of the way they move through the world. i think this is why the label chafes so strongly on so many people when it’s given to them by others.

obviously, identity in general (in the sense of one’s position vis a vis binary privilege/disprivilege states--straight/gay, white/nonwhite, etc) is always constructed and conditional and contextual blah blah. but the whole concept of “passing” is about the kind of individual encounters that happen many times a day. “passing” as a state of being doesn’t exist outside of the moment where you fall into one side or the other in the eyes of someone else based on a variety of factors which may change continually on an even hourly basis. (the line between passing or not passing for a trans person could literally be “having a chance to shave that morning”, frex). the state of “passing” or “not passing” doesn’t exist as an individual truth for anyone outside of very direct encounters with the public in circumstances where the question of passing has to do with whether or not you are going to be targeted for discrimination or aggression. because that’s what passing means; it’s literally just a denotation of whether or not you are recognizable as an “other” along certain grounds while in public space, in the context of whether or not you will be actively confronted with prejudice or just immersed in it in the passive way that a member of a privileged group is surrounded by ambient social hatred towards disprivileged groups and individuals. just as people absorb homophobic or transphobic social messaging and sustain psychological wounds that way before they know themselves to be LGBT, even the most consistently “passing” person is being exposed to the __phobia of society to a degree that causes more profound harm than it would for a straight, cis, etc person. passing isn’t protection from that, even if it can be protection from a variety of very real, material dangers.

on that note, i don’t mean to deny that there are a variety of pitfalls and dangers inherent in being “visibly __” in any given situation--being closeted, being stealth, etc wouldn’t exist if not. but i think a lot of the resentment and frustration that comes out of labeling people/being labelled by other people as “passing” comes from the precarity and unfixedness of that experience, as well as the way it’s so incredibly specific to a given person’s context. the way the designations are often given operates on a much less porous understanding of the division between public and private spheres than is actually accurate for most people’s lives. to the degree that the concept of passing has utility, i think it’s largely around a) individuals speaking about their own lived experiences of discrimination or lack thereof, rather than other people applying that descriptor to them from the outside and b) kept specifically to discussions of the ephemeral moments we experience as we move through the world, rather than being treated broadly as a thing that a person “is” or “is not”.

i’m speaking as a white bi trans person here, so my thoughts are more applicable to the concept of “[not/]passing for straight” as well as the variety of trans experiences on the spectrum between “backpassing [intentionally or not]”, being “visibly trans”, and being stealth*. i can’t speak for people of colour re: the experience of being (or not being) white passing; happy to have feedback one way or another on that score or others.

(*these concepts/categorizations in the context of transness are especially fraught and reductive but are relevant to the overall discourses/rhetoric i’m trying to address here.)

#.txt #i have twitter blocked rn so i have to bring my rants here... feel free to scroll on by... #lgbtq #i hate making discourse posts publicly but that's not really what i think this is in any case lmao... i just have thoughts...

[quellgame]

Prolegomena 1 - Nietzsche's Legacy

a. Cringe Culture as Philistinism

In his book Anti-Nietzsche, Malcolm Bull provides a thorough critique of Nietzschean aesthetic thought. “Philistine,” Bull claims, is the insult of contemporary times. A philistine is somebody who refuses to appreciate high culture, or fine art; one who denies aesthetic value. Yet, for all the vitriol, nobody seems to have taken on the mantle of philistinism. If there are no philistines, what explains the endless accusations?

If philistines were to have a theory, argues Bull, it must take shape as the transience of all values. We know from Nietzsche that nihilism approaches the devaluation of all value - but that this very devaluation requires a re-evaluation. For Nietzsche, evaluation ultimately takes the form of aesthetic valuation. It is easy to deny specific values, but it is not so easy to be rid of value altogether. Nietzsche argues that it is impossible to completely remove valuation. Once all other values have been removed, nothing is left but pure preference. This is the role of the superman: as taste-maker - the creator of value. But if there is no base on which value rests, why not re-evaluate these newly created values?

Thus, although value may be ineradicable, it may also be fragile, and its existence in any one area a contingent historical fact dependent on local conditions. [...] With this in mind, it is worth asking whether the fact that philistinism is a form of negation that is universally condemned but nowhere visible may be [...] a historically significant indication of the nature and location of positive value in contemporary society. (Bull, 6)

Nowhere can a challenge to aesthetic norms be seen more clearly in contemporary culture than in the based/cringe debate. “Based” refers to content that is aesthetically appealing in some undefined but culturally understood sense, while “cringe” refers to content that makes one “cringe” - is unappealing both aesthetically and morally. If Bull’s method is correct, it would do us well to take a look at based culture in an attempt to understand where its values lie. We’ll argue that based culture is oppressive. As based culture’s aesthetic opposite, we have a moral imperative to examine cringe culture so as to discover and replicate its value framework.

Bull’s genius lies in his method of deconstructing Nietzche: instead of reading Nietzsche as intended - on the side of the oppressor, or against the oppressor - Bull decides to read Nietzsche like a loser - as the one to whom all the fiery rhetoric is spoken. In this way, Bull discovers Nietzsche as a groomer, and positions himself as a rejected candidate. He examines Nietzsche’s rhetoric and theoretical framework to understand how and why Nietzsche is so capable of pulling in an audience and making them believe him. I’ll argue that Nietzsche’s abusive rhetoric is directly mirrored in both fascism and in based culture.

b. Nietzsche as Groomer

Nietzsche intends his books to be read for victory. He calls to an audience like himself, those who “belong to a time that has not yet come to pass;” in other words, people who might transcend the “idiotic,” “subhuman,” “slave-like” nature of contemporary society. Clearly, this is cruelty, but it is

[n]o wonder Nitezsche can so confidently identify his readers with the Supermen. It is not just flattery. If Nietzsche’s readers have mastered his text, they have demonstrated just those qualities of ruthlessness and ambition that qualify them to be ‘masters of the earth’. (Bull, 35)

One might recognize this as the first step in any grooming process: flatter your target, make them feel safe and loved. Fulfil for them a need: in this case, the need for power. Once the indoctrination has begun, those in power can begin to ostracize and criminalize the group they have othered. In Nietzsche’s case, few are left unscathed: only those powerful enough to say “yes” to the void will find within themselves the power to create value - and only they can survive the onslaught of nihilism. The rest will perish - and to Nietzsche, that is a good thing.

This is clearly mirrored in grooming tactics used by white supremacists and pedophiles. I will use my own experience as an example.

// CW: pedophilia, white supremacy //

As a child I spent a lot of time on a forum dedicated to the Super Mario Bros. franchise. The forum was not age-appropriate - several members talked openly about their time on 4chan; about pornography and subculture. Naturally I was curious. I wanted to consider myself grown, so I could talk about my interests. So I emulated the adults’ behavior. Eventually I started consuming pornography and visiting 4chan’s /b/ board. That’s where I was first exposed to Nazism and to child pornography. I recall having conversations about loli and shota when I was fairly young. I thought this was all quite normal - or at the very least, that I was strong enough to overcome whatever may happen to me as long as I could satisfy the need to see bodies like mine in a sexual context. In many cases, child pornography would be packaged alongside pornography featuring trans actors, as both were considered equally “alternative.” This is how I first discovered trans women - and this is not an uncommon narrative.

I was made comfortable: welcomed into a community where I could talk about my interests to a sympathetic audience. I was told I was special. I found myself trusting this community more than my local culture - they gave me an outlet to explore my queer identity from a young age. Then they showed me content that was actively harmful to my psyche - and I was threatened with jail time and social ostracization should I be caught. This is the grooming pattern.

Nietzsche makes his audience comfortable: he fulfils the need to obtain power through his writing style. He tells his audience they are special - literally superhuman. Then he launches abuse at every opportunity. He creates his sense of power through relating to the master race, the blonde beast; by actively deriding others and openly calling for the extermination of all “slave-like races.” And he says: we are unlike the others, you and I; and should you tell them this, you will be ostracized. So stay with me. Let’s conquer the world together.

This is directly echoed in the fascist grooming pipeline. Gamergate is an exceptional example: gamers were made to feel oppressed; they were made to be othered, then used the rage at their so-called oppression to be swayed into fascist beliefs. And should they leave, they too would be exterminated. You must be based. Kill the cringe. We see now the slogan “6MWE.” We see open genocide and warmongering in the American government (which, frankly, is nothing new). America has become a proudly fascist state - and much of this is with Nietzsche’s influence.

// CW //

If Nietzsche’s core project is abusive, how do we overcome it? Bull’s method is to reject the core hermeneutic: instead of reading for victory, we’ll read like losers. Whenever Nietzsche fires abuse at some subhuman thing, we will take the position of the abused. “Rather than reading for victory with Nietzsche, or even reading for victory against Nietzsche by identifying with the slave morality, we read for victory against ourselves, making ourselves the victims of the text. [...] Reading like losers will make us feel powerless and vulnerable” (Bull, 37). We can see this displayed quite clearly in cringe culture - it is an entire aesthetic created from the feeling of being worthless and small; of being less-than, plentiful, disposable - and embracing it. What does it mean to be one of these herd-creatures, so deprived of power? What could our values be?

c. Levelling

To understand what the losers of the nihilistic future believe in, we need to take a quick look at the history of Nietzsche’s interpreters, and how our understanding of the history of nihilism has developed over the years. This is the same history as the history of Being, the history of Nothingness. Bull spends much of the text discussing this, and it is well worth the read, but we’ll have to suffice for a brief synopsis here.

Bull brings us from the superman down to the lowest form, travelling from subhuman to animal to inanimate. He does so by continuing to read like a loser: examining Nietzsche himself, then Heidegger, then contemporary scholars Vatimo, Nancy, and Agamben. In each of these scholars Bull finds a target: for Nietzsche, the subhuman; for Heidegger, the animal; and for our contemporary scholars, the inanimate. In each case we must consider ourselves the loser of the exchange - we must consider ourselves as one with the subhuman, the animal, and the inanimate. We must become a mirror, reflecting on mu - absolute nothingness.

In essence: We must bring ourselves down to the lowest level of the un-valued if we are to escape the extremities of prejudice which Nietzsche’s lessons, so embedded in our culture, have taught us. This is levelling. Its essence is radical empathy. Nietzsche’s earlier works were focused on overcoming nihilism; he later gave up and decided that he must himself be a nihilist, one who destroys. Yet, in declaring himself a nihilist I think he was grasping at a concept that Hegel explains best: non-nihilating contradiction. To overcome nihilism is the same as to become a nihilist: to become dynamite - self-nihilating. If we are to reevaluate all values, we must obliterate ourselves. We must re-evaluate the concept of self, the concept of reality.

#philosophy #nietzsche #trauma #nihilism

[drivingsideways]

Alright, ok, oh wow, HOOOO BOYYYY. 

Episode 64!!! 

Summary: AN ENTIRE TRASHFIRE. 

How do I start? Every time I think show has hit rock bottom, they just smash through the floor and keep going. 

-I don’t know who can argue that the Emperor is acting ethically. WHO. There are two possible explanations to the positions the Emperor and Empress have taken re: Huirou

(a) The entire scandal would rock the court, and given that the Emperor is still steadfastly refusing to publicly name an heir (though privately his mind is made up),  the political fall out would be immense, and supremely inconvenient to the Emperor 

This is the guy who despite knowing he’s fucking dying won’t settle the succession issue because he still thinks his weak-ass body will produce an imperial son. In  the conversation he has with Fu Bi, he points out that if he does appoint someone from the Imperial Clan but later has his own son, things would be worse. 

[Or, you know, you could stop taking young and fertile women into your bed? THE HORROR OF THAT CONCEPT, OH NO, IMPOSSIBLE. WHAT IS CONTRACEPTION.  WHAT IS ABSTINENCE. (don’t @ me techniques of contraception are historical, ffs)]

Basically, the desire to have a hypothetical biological heir to succeed him trumps his moral obligation to protect his real, live daughter. And somehow this is presented as a “non choice” in the drama that we’re supposed to agree with, or rather that it is still a “reasonable” and “justified” choice. No, it fucking isn’t. It’s one thing to keep hoping for an heir when you are 30 and healthy, it’s another when you are 50+ and dying. 

If Renzong had just made the choice to announce his heir, even with some remonstrances and whatever shit, he would have absolutely gotten away with getting Huirou out of the marriage, because he’d have given the majority of the court what they really wanted, and Sima Guang would have screamed for a bit and then had to shut up. 

(b) They could have left it at the above - i.e. it’s a political decision rather than a personal one and he would personally rather have annulled the marriage-  and I might have still have rolled my eyes and just moved on; HOWEVER. 

The drama makes it explicitly clear that HE DOESN’T THINK SHE’S BEEN WRONGED. EXPLICIT AS IN THESE ARE THE WORDS COMING OUT OF HIS FUCKING MOUTH TO HE’ER WHO’S COME TO BEG HIM TO SEND LI WEI AWAY SO THAT HUIROU WON’T HAVE TO GO BACK.

It’s a request that apparently offends HIS sense of justice!!!! His refusal to punish Li Wei is not just about political considerations, but because: 

(HE’ER’s FACE!!!)

OH REALLY.

SO MUCH WOW. MUCH AMAZE.

MY ETHICAL AND INFALLIBLE RENZONG WHO’S BEEN PUT TO SO MUCH TROUBLE BY A ‘STUBBORN’ DAUGHTER. 

Like, I honestly think the show could have left this entire thing as “political compulsions” and made it about his clash with his court. But no, they have him explicitly acknowledge that he doesn’t think Huirou should have any autonomy over her body, i.e. she is the property of the Li clan to do as they will, and we, as the audience are still supposed to sympathize with him, rather than Huirou? Still see him, with his victim-blaming, shaming rhetoric aimed at his own flesh and blood as ETHICAL AND JUST?????? 

WHAT THE ENTIRE FUCK. 

And now, also, because I still have MAJOR ISSUES WITH IT, let’s circle around to Fucklord and Danshu.

In one of the early episodes, he tells Maoze that he doesn’t want to “force” his legal wife to be with him i.e. he won’t force a consummation. I bet a lot of us went (oh!!! what a good dude!!! How sweet!!!(though god, like, what standards we have, huh???)

And then, 15 years later in the show’s time frame, that consummation happens when he gets into an argument with Danshu, and then, in a rage, uses his physical power to overpower her resistance. (Let’s not even get into how he’s the fucking Emperor, she has to obey, even if there had been no physical violence!)

Now you tell me: which is the real Renzong- the one in the first episode or the one the second? 

Was the first refusal on principle of “i don’t want to violate my wife’s consent because that would be a violation of personhood” or was it, in hindsight, “I want her to crawl to me, I will not be the one to beg her forgiveness for the insult i offered her on our wedding night”.

Because, you see, at some point in those 15 years, he ran out of “patience” and then acted on (what we guessed before and now explicitly stated in episode 64) his actual belief: a wife has no entitlement to her own body, she is the property of her husband. 

So, now, those still arguing about how the incident with Danshu was rape or not- not to him, certainly. 

“Oh but Danshu didn’t think of it as rape either!” 

Yes, the show does a huge song and dance about it too, to make it clear to US that Danshu doesn’t see it as rape. (just in case we had any doubts, huh, show? because you knew what you were trying to cover up right, you knew that some people would see that scene and go wait, what???)  I’ll come to Danshu’s attitude a bit later. 

But to us, as the audience? Where should it fall, now that you know without any ambiguity his attitude re: bodily autonomy of women within the institution of marriage?

And finally, let me touch on Danshu vs Huirou in the show, two women who are explicitly unhappy in their marriages, though for different reasons. 

- Danshu’s marriage starts out unhappy because she’s in love with a man who gives no fucks about her.

- In contrast/parallel, Huirou’s marriage is unhappy because she gives no fucks about him, and is actively repulsed by him.

Danshu’s crisis is resolved over a period of nearly two decades and achieved by her entirely subjugating her self to him, including not characterizing his violation of her body as rape. This isn’t even all that strange- if you view it in the context of the whittling down of her self worth by sustained emotional abuse to the point that she cannot even think herself worthy of the very basic respect. Do you know how many women stay in abusive marriages because they end up believing “he abuses me because he loves me”? or a variation “it’s not abuse, it’s love, it’s for my own good”. do you know how many women still continue to love their abusers? do you know how many abusers constantly insist that they love their victims, that their actions are actually out of love too? A WHOLE FUCKING LOT.

 At this point, Danshu’s entire being seems focused only on what can make Renzong happy, what will bring him most comfort, what will make his life easier- and every other relationship, including now, her’s with He’er and Huirou suffers for it. 

I could have even accepted this fate for Danshu’s character- because yes, some women don’t escape their tragedies-  if the writer had shown the SLIGHTEST FUCKING AWARENESS THAT THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE SHOWING. 

But NO, in the most EPIC gaslighting I’ve see in a while, they have continued to insist that Danshu and Renzong are a “romance.” 

Now coming to Huirou- in contrast with what has happened with Danshu, Huirou is still at the point that she’s ABSOLUTELY CONTESTING every attempt to have done to her what was done to Danshu. She sees clearly how her life will be, how her entire being will be destroyed, if she continues to stay in that marriage and she’s fighting for her own life tooth and nail with the only weapon in her arsenal- at this point - self harm and the threat of suicide. Luckily for her, she does have some support in He’er, Huaiji and even the head eunuch in her household, and Superintendent Ren. (Everyone except the Empress, who by rights, should have been on her side, and would have been, if the writers had chosen to take her down a different path early on)

Unfortunately for her, it’s clear where the writers sympathies lie: if they think that what happened with Danshu is the “happy ending”, then how can Huirou have any other ending either? Oh, they might show her sad for a bit to leave Huaiji, but i can bet you anything, that the ending will be framed in such a way that it shows that her final choice to go back to the marriage as the “morally right” one/. If they didn’t it would be inconsistent with the internal logic/moral philosophy of this story. 

I’ve said before- I can accept tragedies. I can accept tragedies that happen to women, even. 

What I can’t accept is when you don’t call it what it is.

Or the kind of writing that equates Renzong’s tragedies- which are largely products of chance (the death of his kids) or his position in life (an emperor who must sacrifice some personal desires in service of his duties)  to the tragedies of the women that are inflicted on them not by chance or circumstance but by the actions of those with more power than them. The writing in the show never, ever, acknowledges the specificity of the harms, and spends a considerable amount of time exonerating its perpetrators (see latest eg Li Wei), and wow, what more can I say except one last -FUCK. YOU. 

#serenade of peaceful joy #JFC i haven't had a show aggravate me this much in AGES

[luvsavos]

Cyrax and Sektor stuff wooo

The scuffed yellow cyborg glanced to his partner cyborg—a metallic red one with glowing blue eyes reminiscent of a pale blue river under a setting summer's sun—and then down to the male in his arms. A pale man with black hair like a raven's wing in the night, and a beard to certaintly be proud of. Upon his right eye was a scar that once surely fountained crimson human-blood. When open, his eyes were a beautiful ice blue, nearly indifferent from the whites of his eye. He was well muscled, and ice crept upon his thick arms.

Yet, he had been dangerously unconscious.

"Hou... Do you think they will accept us?" The yellow robot asked hesitaintly after a moment. The red cyborg skipped beat before replying.

"I don't know, Fenyang," he admitted. "They once knew us as Sektor and Cyrax, two of their best. Now they know us as machines of murder and destruction." He paused to laugh bitterly. "But I suppose that's all we really are now, isn't it?"

This caused the first—Cyrax—to wince.

"Don't think like that, Hou... We helped save their grandmaster. Our friend."

Sektor inclined his head slightly to the side, implying an eyebrow being raised. "You really think that they'll believe that when we come prancing to the doors of the temple, holding his limp body? By the Gods, they'll most likely think we killed him!"

Another wince from Cyrax. "I'm sure that they'll know we were doing no harm. He shows no injury, now does he?"

Sektor merely shook his head. "Tsk, tsk. Dearest Fenyang, as much as I admire your constant attempts at having faith... Sometimes it's misplaced. We cyborgs can easily deal damage that is not external, but is internal, rather. They know this. For all they might believe, we have killed him and are merely delivering his corpse."

Cyrax sighed. "I, the optimist, and you—the pessimist."

Sektor made to respond, but merely let his words form into a sigh as he looked up. The temple was near. 

And there were people outside.

"What have we to lose?" He laughed bitterly, and Cyrax averted his gaze from both the temple, and his cynical lover.

"Do you truly have no belief that they will be accepting towards us?" He asked in a small voice.

Sektor glanced to him, and was hit with a pang of guilt. He knew how much this all meant to Cyrax. He knew how much his lover—his best friend—simply wished to be accepted into the Lin Kuei as it once was.

He also knew it was not to be.

"I'm sorry, Fenyang," he said carefully after a moment.

Cyrax only numbly nodded.

Sektor cursed when two of the more prominent ones noticed the pair of them (and then realized it was highly rhetorical; who was bound to miss two tall cyborgs, one red and one yellow, upon the fresh white snow?). One was midnight black, with midnight black skin, and the other was a girl with crimson hair (I wasn't aware that the Lin Kuei allowed it's members to dye their hair, Sektor thought to himself) and fairly pale skin, adorned in white.

Cyrax whimpered in fear—neither party seemed friendly.

Sektor recoiled in confusion as the man disappeared, and as the female advanced threateningly towards them with no weapons visible anywhere.

Cyrax took a hesitant step back; the female was oddly unsettling. Perhaps it was the inhuman green of her eyes, or how horribly fang-like her teeth seemed. Perhaps it was the near animalistic way she held herself. Or, the way her eyes never left them. Never blinked.

Sektor let out a surprised, choked cough as he felt himself roughly pulled back, and a dagger pressed to his neck.

"Why do you have my brother," his attacker, clearly the man, demanded.

"B-Bi-Han? I thought you-?" Sektor sputtered.

"Quan Chi restored me," the man spat. "However, Bi-Han is dead. I am Noob Saibot."

Sektor growled, finding himself unable to retaliate in any way; as his arms were full, and he saw the female advancing on Cyrax.

"If you were with Quan Chi, why are you in the Lin Kuei?" Sektor spat.

"I broke free of his curse. Give me my brother, and you and Mustard will leave with little to no harm done," Noob Saibot growled in his dark, arresting voice as he pressed the dagger more to his throat.

Cyrax glanced to this, backing away a little more. A terrified squeak was torn from his throat as the female began to literally melt away. Her flesh began to melt from her body, but she still came for him, like some hideous, amorphous blob demon straight out of a nightmare. Blood was covering her body now, and it nearly seemed what was left has begun to change colour, to orange.

And then, all at once, there was no more melting. 

There was a massive, angry tiger.

"A shapeshifter...?" Cyrax managed before the cat suddenly leaped at him, mouth open and claws extended.

Narrowly did he sidestep, hissing in more surprise than pain (pain? what is pain? he asked himself. i haven't felt it in so long, but gods, please don't let me start now) when a long, black claw tore across his arm, causing it to leak oil.

The cat skidded in the snow before turning around and crouching to pounce again, tail lashing from side to side angrily.

"If you were with Quan Chi once, I cannot trust you with the grandmaster," Sektor hissed.

All at once, pain flashed across his throat, and then

Nothing.

Cyrax yelped in sheer suprise as he watched the shadowy male run his dagger across Sektor's throat, and as Sektor fell.

The shadowy man simply caught Sub-Zero before he could hit the ground.

No longer caring if he was mauled (as everything had suddenly gone very blank and hazy), Cyrax made his way to Sektor before dropping to his knees.

"Oh, Gods... Sektor... Oh Gods," he whispered, finding that his hands were shaking.

When he looked up again, the tiger was once again a beautiful and yet unsettling female, staring hatefully down at him.

"Leave these premises," she demanded. "You and your foul comrade."

Cyrax merely averted his gaze, lowering his head again. 

"If you must kill me, I only ask you do it quickly," he whispered.

The shadowy man scoffed. "Pitiful." He then turned to look to the female. "Come, Imperium. We should bring Sub-Zero inside to assess his injuries."

The girl nodded. "Of course, Noob."

With that, the two simply walked away, leaving Cyrax and Sektor.

Cyrax lifted a hand to Sektor's face, gently cupping it. There was no light burning in his blue eyes.

"Oh, Sektor... I wish I had listened to you," Cyrax whispered. He would not leave until forced to. And he would not leave without Sektor.

For days, he sat there, servos and joints growing stiffer and freezing up. None of the Lin Kuei paid him any mind. He was no threat.

On the third day, he felt a strong, firm hand upon his shoulder. Just barely was he able to turn his head to look, and when he saw its owner he nearly fainted.

Kuai.

"How long have you been here?" The man asked, kneeling beside him. "Your joints are all frozen up."

"Three days," Cyrax managed, voice glitching. 

"Ah." Kuai looked over Sektor, his face neutral. "I heard you two were in a scuffle with some of the Lin Kuei members?"

Cyrax nodded. "Yes. Your... Your brother, he-..."

"Sektor is not dead," Kuai calmly said. "My brother merely rendered him unconscious. May I?" 

Cyrax nodded a little, and Kuai began to tamper with the wires on Sektor's neck. After a mere moment, the fierce blue fire glowed back into his eyes, and for one horrible moment Cyrax was scared that he would be as he once was; without humanity.

"So," Sektor murmured after a moment, gently bringing a hand up and stroking Cyrax's cheek, "you stayed with me, Fenyang?"

Instantly, Cyrax threw himself upon Sektor, burying his face into his neck and allowing himself to sob. As Sektor curled his arms gently around Cyrax's torso, Kuai watched with satisfaction.

"We should get the two of you indoors, where it is far warmer and your joints can thaw. Perhaps then you might once rejoin is, if your are willing."

Sektor glanced to Kuai and snorted. 

"If we are willing? We both are, but what of your clan? The girl and your brother certaintly did not take a liking to us."

"Leah and my brother will be of no consequence," Kuai affirmed. He then stood, arching a brow as Cyrax reluctantly peeled himself off of Sektor. He then offered a hand to the cyborg. "Would you like some help up?" He asked.

Cyrax took his hand gratefully and stood himself, then helped Sektor stand. Gently, Sektor leaned on Cyrax, and the three of them together walked into the temple.

The inside of the temple was warm, and Kuai allowed them to stop at a large torch and warm themselves.

"Where are we going?" Sektor asked when they were walking once again.

"To the throne room," Kuai answered calmly.

Cyrax glanced to Sektor and tilted his head to the side, indicating his confusion, and Sektor merely shrugged.

After a large flight of stairs, they came to the throne room. The throne was made of solid ice, and much to the cyborgs confusion, Kuai sat in it, facing them.

"Sektor. Cyrax. You two wish to join the Lin Kuei once again."

With some giddy excitement barely contained, Cyrax realized that this was some sort of initiation.

"Yes," he breathed, and Sektor merely nodded.

Kuai leaned forward slightly. It was clear that he had done this a million times with a million other, as he nearly seemed bored. 

"You both swear to dedicate yourselves and your lives to the Lin Kuei?"

"Yes," Cyrax breathed again, and, once again, Sektor simply nodded.

"We have never had cyborgs in our ranks, before," Kuai murmured. "You will serve us well..."

Cyrax held his breath in anticipation.

In his hands, Kuai skillfully created a small jar made of ice.

"This is rather, ah... Brutal, I suppose. Cut your palms and allow some of your blood to drip into this jar."

While Cyrax wished to question, he dared not, and simply brought a small sawblade out, while Sektor simply took one of his pulse blades, and together they slit their palms, allowing the black, tar-like oil to drip into the jar with little plipping noises.

When Kuai was satisfied, he drew the jar back, and froze the top closed, looking between the two tense cyborgs. He then allowed a warm smile to break across his face.

"Welcome home."

#cyrax #sektor #cyrax x sektor #cytor #kuai liang #cyber lin kuei

[keshetchai]

hey! i saw ur post about human sacrifice/Christ as a sacrifice. just wanted to let you know basically it's taught among Christians that Christ had to pay the price for our sins & He alone was capable of doing that. As someone fully human as well as fully God, He was able to fulfill & forgive that debt that we owed God bc of our sin. If a master tells his servant not to kill any of the master's sheep, it is right for the servant to obey, but it is still within the master's right to kill a sheep.

2/2 I understand that this isn’t the teaching in Judaism and I’m not asking you to agree, just trying to shed some light on the Christian perspective! This is a question that gets asked a lot in Catholicsm (not sure about the other Christian denominations) and if u want to look further into it i know there’s solid theologins out there that have talked about it!!

Ah, maybe it wasn’t clear in how I wrote my post, but I am an ex-Catholic! I am a Jewish convert, but grew up Mexican-Catholic. 

I looked into this kind of theology quite a bit while I was still Catholic, and found the principles and reasons given (like the ones you gave me) to be personally dissatisfying. I get that lots of people believe this, that it is part of Catholic (and Christian in general) belief, and so on, but uh, I guess basically I didn’t accept any of the statements that lead to that conclusion. I know the teaching, I just find it spiritual unfulfilling and “Begging the question.” 

For those curious, this is also a good example of why I was not good at Catholicism™. The asker is right, these aren’t how things are viewed Jewishly (this is all Catholic/Christian theology), but also just in the context of reading the Christian/Catholic Old Testament, I felt I had a list of theological problems I could not solve to my own satisfaction. Because while there are significant differences between Torah and OT, some of the underlying leaps of…well, faith, remain. 

Basically I happily admit this is (part of) the reason why Christian theology was not good for me, but may satisfy others. (Or rather, what spiritually satisfies you, does not satisfy me, and that’s all okay!) 

For the sake of…I don’t know, a dual view, my response to this line of reasoning, I think, makes it obvious why I decided Catholicism wasn’t for me. ;) It also shows I deeply appreciated a Jewish attitude towards theological questions and biblical events, that is to say, “@hashem, what the heck???” 

So ex-Catholic me had the following…issues (and I come from a long line of very argumentative bible readers, ahaha): 

“had to pay the price for our sins“ 

Original sin is not a concept in Judaism and was not “known” to the writers of the Torah/Tanakh. And so by extension, original sin was not a Thing at the time Jesus would have been alive. 

So therefore, which sins? 

If it’s just “sins” in general, why does someone need to die to “pay the price”? (Remember Hellfire and Damnation also Does Not Exist in Judaism) 

Why must a price be paid by someone else? In Judaism and in the Torah, the price of a mistake/sin/harmful act should be rectified by the person who did the thing personally. If a “sin” (and sin means something different in Judaism than it does in xtianity) is committed against another person, then to fix the problem you must essentially pay the appropriate damages (as in a court of law) or make things right between you and them, and “Repent”. If the “sin” or mistake is made against G-d, then we are told A.) a sacrificial offering based on the kind of act done is appropriate BUT B.) failing that, prayer is the appropriate course of action, and a sacrifice is never the only option:Hosea 14:3 Take words with yourselves and return to the Lord. Say, “You shall forgive all iniquity and teach us [the] good [way], and let us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips.In point of fact, Solomon, during the inauguration of the temple, tells us that if someone is not in Jerusalem (and therefore able to make a sacrifice), then they should simply pray:Kings I 8:46-4946 If Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by what way You send them, and pray to the Lord toward the city that You have chosen, and (toward) the house that I have built for Your name.45And you shall hear in heaven their prayer and supplication, and maintain their cause.46If they sin against You, for (there is) no man who does not sin, and You will be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, and their captors will carry them away captive to the land of the enemy, far or near.47And they shall bethink themselves in the land where they were carried captive, and repent, and make supplication to You in the land of their captors, saying, ‘We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness.’48And they shall return to You with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, who led them away captive, and pray to You toward their land, which You gave to their fathers, the city that You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your Name.49And you shall hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven, Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause.And this will be enough for God. 

What sins are exceptions to the rule that God will accept repentance through prayer and change of deed and action? (See also: God sending Jonah to have a community repent - and they do so only by prayer and fasting.) 

Why are they exceptions? Why were these exceptions previously unknown before, and is that not a “Stumbling block before the blind?” 

Why would God give us a debt we could not fulfill on our own? 

Why does the master need to kill a sheep? For what purpose? 

Why would “the master” declare killing men to be evil and wrong and banned, but then go and do it themselves? 

Is that not hypocritical?

Does that hypocrisy not seem alarming? like if that was a test, then people who accepted the blood sacrifice of a man failed.

And shouldn’t we openly question and rebuke this change of the law, a very important and fundamental law to not sacrifice our children/sons? After all, Abraham rebukes God for threatening to kill everyone in Sidom and Gemorrah since he had promised not to do so after the Flood. Shouldn’t we, as humans, rebuke God for sacrificing his “son” in DIRECT disregard of his own command to not sacrifice children/humans in general? 

Can we trust a God who would sacrifice their own son against their own law? (The lesson of Abraham’s near sacrifice might suggest No, you should not attempt to sacrifice your son, hence why an angel intervened. I also hold that Abraham misunderstood the instruction to “take up your son” as “sacrifice your son” - the words “take up” and “sacrifice” in hebrew sound the same!)

After all, Jesus said he did not come to replace the law, but to uphold it [Matthew 5:17]

Importantly, if Jesus was meant to uphold the law, then any sacrifice done outside the temple mount (as Jesus’s crucifixion most certainly was) is null and void, as sacrifices outside the mount are expressly forbidden and actually a grave sin. 

Does that not nullify said sacrifice pretty dramatically?

[SIDE NOTE: God also very explicitly banned drinking blood at all, whatsoever, and yet Jesus says to drink his blood? what???]

If God is all-powerful and unending, why would God become a man and die, even temporarily? To what purpose? 

God becoming a man takes away from his oneness attribute and quality. Trinitarian doctrine is the reasoning that god is one, except when god is three, which is also one. 

“He alone was capable of doing that”

 why? 

Was God not capable? 

Did God lose their all-powerful ability?

why (again) is an unrelated Son-of-God-figure  the only one capable of redeeming people? (Did not God personally redeem the Israelites in Exodus?) 

Is mankind not capable of atoning for our “sins” and righting our wrongs? 

What could Jesus really do that God couldn’t, if they are indeed the same? (if they are the same, how is this still a singular God characteristic of monotheism?)

what was the point of making a non-human person the only one capable of solving and absolving very human problems? Does it really teach us anything except to be dependent and not worry about our personal responsibilities? 

I could keep going, but these kinds of things are why my mom didn’t think it was wise for me to go to Sunday school, lest I get in trouble for arguing with a nun. lmao.

All of these questions “could” be answered, but they’re more or less rhetorical and I ultimately did not find myself satisfied with the answers I found in/from the Church and also found no person reason to believe in Jesus “saving” anything or anyone. 

#ex-catholic things

[codyjungdocu]

(W4) Reading Intro to Docu Ch3,4,6 and 7

CH 3

The voice in a documentary can be delivered by how the filmmaker engage with the subject and how he or she convey that engagement to the viewer. The filmmaker can use a voice like a news reporter and a voice-over commentary. But, instead of guiding viewer in a particular way, filmmaker can select a subtle voice of the subject as a metaphor. The subject’s personal experience will convey not only a figurative and vivid meaning of the film, but also a sense of what it feels like to the viewer. Also, the classic elements of film style and the documentary models and modes help the voice of the film.

Q. In the page 60, social, political and economic issues are almost always subject to debate. Also, each side have a beneficial or harmful for certain group of people. I wonder if every documentary topic have to be debatable? Maybe, poetic and performative documentary doesn’t have to be shown as debatable. If then, what’s the difference between experimental film and documentary film?

CH 4

The chapter 4 is about the engagement and the persuasion in documentary. To convince viewers, documentary needs both storytelling and scientific reasoning. Based on evidence, filmmaker can open more than just one interpretation. For example, filmmaker can use a person’s bizarre daily habits as an evidence for defining the characteristics of the person. Also, using a metaphor of personal experience intensifies the value and the belief in a bigger society. Not only the storytelling of the film and rhetorical power, but also viewer’s prior assumptions effects the persuasion of the film. 

Q. Although a certain experience and situation can encourage viewers emotionally to engage to the subject, too specific and exotic story may not be interesting to the viewers. I’m not sure how personal the topic of the documentary can be.

CH 6

Documentary adopt models such as the diary, biography, or essay.  Like the documentary modes, a film displays multiple models, not just a single model. Also, a new mode doesn’t mean it is a better mode than others, but it’s a different status of the representation.

The poetic mode usually focus on giving the audience what it feels like.  The tone and the mood of the film gives a vivid experience of specific event.

The expository mode is a framework with voice of god and b-roll as evidence of the specific perspective of the film. It emphasize the impression of objectivity and a well-supported perspective.

The reflexive mode reveals filmmaker’s engagement with the viewers.  It’s like “speak nearby” rather than “speak about”. Also, viewer’s awareness of social convention gives a big impact to themselves and readjust their original assumption. 

Q. I already asked a similar question before, but, in the page 128, the films such as David Holzman’s Diary (1968); No Lies (1973);  Daughter Rite; and The Blair Witch Project (1999) represent themselves as mockumentaries. It’s confusing that if filmmaker tell the viewers the film is staged and performed by actors and actresses, then it’s still a documentary or is a kind of experimental narrative film? 

CH 7

In the observational mode, viewers should be more active and should determine the significance of what is said and done from the film. But, such voyeuristic role can make the viewers feel discomfort. Also, it tends to force the viewers judge the behaviors of subject. Also, the responsibility of the filmmaker in the observational documentary is very controversial.

In the participatory mode, the interaction between filmmaker and subject gives the viewers a sense of what it is like for the filmmaker in the situation.  Because the participatory mode can be easily controlled by the filmmaker, it can be very limited to a formal interview setting. Also, what the viewers see in the film is only when a camera and filmmaker is there, so we can’t see the outside of the frame like how it is staged and how they discussed before shoot. 

The performative mode is very subjective and conceptual. It’s a combination of the actual and the imagined. Also, the performative film is about filmmaker himself, so it’s like “I speak about myself to you”. Such approach of the film is experimental or avant-garde cinema. It doesn’t try to evoke a certain debate, but it’s more toward emotion than reason for sure.

Q. What’s the difference between experimental film and the performative documentary? 

[kindabraveandlittlestupid]

This is a moral/political concept I been thinking about recently. It’s been in my head for some time and I am not sure if its something I carried over from a philosophy or sociology book I read in the past or an original thought of my own. Likely the former over the latter but I think my argument is sound none the less and wanted to pose it to anyone who comes across these writings during your adventures on the web. Feel free to let me know what you think.

The Intent - Harm - Remorse concept is supposed to be a lens for social statements made by politicians, social figures or even people in your life could be measured. I consider it one of the most important rules of discourse I created for myself in regards to handling anyone in my life or how I handle statements from famous individuals. There are caveats I will get into later which might be important to reflect on but let’s start with the broader concept.

General Concept Any inflammatory statement from the lips of a President, tweet from a celebrity or the joke from a friend in a bar should be measured by three basic steps to dictate how you should react to their statement (in my opinion). The first is always to measure their Intent which is the how or why they are saying this thing. Intent can range from general ignorance, misunderstanding, statement of belief, or even humor. It’s hard to measure which of these is really what was going thru their head but almost always the default escape from the burden of intent is to say it was a joke. Humor serves an important purpose in society but it often acts as an “emergency exit” or social scapegoat for some pretty fucked up comments made by political figures.

The next step is Harm this is also hard to measure and should always be reflective of what is most likely the persons intent. It is impossible these days to say any statement without some group or individual taking offense. This is true for both for Men and Women, Left and Right, Gay or Straight, and literally every other social group you might have. I know the word Snowflake is thrown around a lot these days but the truth is no one is above the sting of a sharp statement (EVERYONE is a ‘Snowflake’). Even if you agree with someone’s beliefs and views they might say something that cuts at you personally for fitting into a different group. The statement that “White Males are the problem” cuts at me personally because I am both white and male but I certainly don’t see myself as the problem. I can take offense to that comment or I can recognize that most people who say that aren’t harping on ALL white males but rather the power structure of modern society which is mostly well old white men. This is just one way of measuring harm but it’s important to be reflective of what is being said and why (intent).

The last step is Remorse. If upon examining a statement if we find their intent came from a place of ignorance, prejudice or even immoral belief with a measured harm to a person or people then it is not unfair to demand an apology. We are all accountable for what we say and what we believe. Remorse is a hard thing to come by as there a handful of modern options to feign remorse and make people believe it is authentic. There is the Public Statement often well-orchestrated letter read from a podium to a dozen cameras often favored by Politicians, the Hibernation in which that person disappears to resort to ‘receive help’ but it is really keeping their head down until social attention shifts elsewhere, or Denial which is becoming a quick favorite for the Trump Administration which suggests whatever evidence you have is wrong or never happened. Truth is we decide if that remorse is authentic or not. There are people who have said things that were misinterpreted and had no real harm factor but they still decided to make the step to apologize and clarify their views. This step is essential for discourse as forgiveness for honest/sincere apologies is needed for reconciliation. We have all said things in anger, misunderstanding or falsely held beliefs but recognizing that we have done wrong and being remorseful of those things should be an avenue back into society.

Reflection on Progressives and Conservatives Believe it or not, both sides fail at recognizing one of the first two steps for different reasons which has lead to some of the tribalism we see today. It should be noted I tend to lean strongly into the progressive side of politics which I feel gives me some license to be critical of the PC Culture which has their heart in the right place but poorly executed in their outrage (occasionally).

The Progressive and PC Culture have started to skip step one, which is Intent and solely focus their attention on step two, Harm. This is why we started to see some social attacks on comedians who often fringe on edgy subjects and are attacked by Progressives for not adhering to these new standards. By ignoring intent we skip over important concepts like discourse, humor, social narratives or even practicality of statements. An example away from comedy is the reaction to Amazons of the Justice League Movies having less armor on during the movie which resulted in an outcry that it was sexualization of women. Upon response those Amazon actresses pointed out A) they liked the armor B) allowed them to be more comfortable while riding horses and performing stunts C) the director was nothing boy respectful to them even with the wardrobe change. It was a skipping the intent going straight to ‘harm’ which is why the conservatives like to point out we cry foul when there was none which they aren’t wrong in those specific cases.

The Conservative and emerging Alt Right Culture fail at recognizing intent, harm, and remorse in their own unique way. Collectively I have noticed two things that make them fail at public discourse. The first is letting the narrative of intent be dictated by individuals who were usually stating beliefs and not humor. The second is a complete disregard to harm UNLESS it affects them specifically. Progressives have a deeper level of empathy these days and are able to put ourselves in the shoes of other people who do not share our culture, gender, sexuality or ethnicity. Which sadly leaves many Conservatives on a low road where decency isn’t a feature of the Republican Party. Trump (as an easy example) has said things about Mexican Immigrants, Gold Star Families, Women, African Americans, and Veterans over the past two years. Each time those two failings appeared after his remark in the Conservative Base. In regards to the intent, they simply say he was joking and in regards to the harm they simply didn’t care his comments marginalized vast groups of people.

You might have noted that remorse was not listed above for Conservatives or Progressives but the truth it both groups fail in the same way on this last aspect. We tend to be only forgiving to those who on ‘our side’ and less forgiving to individuals who are apart from us. I am no different in the sense that if two men said the same horrible thing I am likely to forgive a liberal over a conservative. Its something I am working on and it’s important we try to remain fair, we either forgive both or neither. I have always been an advocate of forgiveness, so long as it’s authentic and there is a real change in the narrative in regards to that offending individual then forgiveness should be available to them.

Caveats While the Intent - Harm - Remorse is a good foundation for measuring public statements or poorly executed jokes. There are other ‘tools’ to help us cut to the core of intent and the harm its caused. The first I might point out is Repetition of Rhetoric which is a good indicator that something might be going on beneath the surface of a person’s views. The use of “Just Kidding” works only for so long before it loses merit and the veil of humor can erode rather fast if you’re not careful. If a stand-up comedian says she loves African Americans but her whole set is about how she is afraid of black men, no matter how much of a laugh she might get for jokes it is not unreasonable to walk away from the experience and feel like something more is going on in her beliefs. Another measure for politicians is Policy; this caveat is easier to measure as if you want to know what a politician really thinks then look at the laws he or she passes. Using Donald Trump again he claims that he fights for low/middle-class workers but his tax plan gives them a small boost in what their tax return while removing child care programs/maternity/healthcare/after school for kids/etc which adds up for way more than what they see on their tax return. A policy is an excellent caveat for finding those offenders who often fall beliefs instead of the rhetoric they display to the public. Closing Using the words of Jim Jefferies “We can all do a little better” and I think it starts by measuring the intent, harm, and remorse by our public figures, friends, family, community and even ourselves. I love to hear your thoughts if you have them.

Regards Michael California

#Politics

[medicalmarijuana-news]

High Horoscopes | Jan. 5, 2017

The HIGH TIMES weekly astrological forecast, complete with strain recommendations!

Ask Aelie anything! Find her on Facebook and Twitter.

Aries

In the last coughing sputters of 2016 we lost Carrie Fisher. She might have played Leia but IRL she was a true modern-day princess: a strong-minded, independent, take no bullshit, intelligent, witty, creative woman with a wicked sense of humor.  What she dished out is exactly what the cosmos want you to serve in 2017: irreverent, self-effacing, take no prisoners, laugh it all off marvelousness. And some creative hairstyling, of course: don’t diss the side buns. Strain recommendation: Harlequin

Taurus

Before 2016 could slink away into the darkness from which it came, it took with it George Michael. His life’s struggle to reveal to the world his true self empowered his fans to do the same. He encouraged us all to be free and to have faith in ourselves. You can borrow his leather jacket and jukebox and pantheon of ’90s super models if you must, or you can just be loud and proud, but your task in 2017 is to speak up for all the parts of you that have hidden in the shadows out of fear. Sing out, baby. Strain recommendation: Cherry Bomb

Cancer

At the end of this past year we lost the magical Debbie Reynolds. Her career was as long as it was diverse: a triple threat and an absolute joy to watch. She will also be remembered for dying a day after her beloved daughter, Carrie Fisher. Their relationship was difficult and fraught with the highs and lows that accompany addiction, mental illness, hard-won reconciliations and the showbiz child/parent dynamic. They ran life’s gauntlet side by side, and together they moved on to the next great challenge. This commitment to making their family functional is what you will be embodying in 2017. Either by working out your own kinks or by being a wonderful example to those around you, family togetherness is your key word. Strain recommendation: Snoop’s Dream

Gemini

Losing Leonard Cohen in 2016 came as a real blow to lovers and poets across the globe, not to mention Buddhists, Montrealers, and musicians who all held him in a dear place in their hearts. 2017 is calling upon you to summon your inner romantic artist, to speak your truth and craft it until it is specifically yours and universally relatable. You will be unafraid of rejection and vulnerability, and when you connect to your spiritual power you will be able to harness the strength it gives you to bring a deep comfort to others. Put your heart out there for the world to embrace! Strain recommendation: Bio-Jesus

Leo

So much of 2016 was dominated by the US election that you wouldn’t be wrong to think of Trump as the face of the year. And what a year, and face, it is. Now, as the US braces itself for a 2017 under his rule, we are all left to wonder who will step forward as the face of 2017. Will it be an anti-Donald figure, a humanitarian Mandela type, a Bernie-esque politician, or a celebrity protester à la Mark Ruffalo? Or perhaps it will be a Trumpy ally, like a Putin or a Bannon? I mention this because the cosmos are calling for a political Leo this year. That part of you that speaks your mind and holds fast to your beliefs will be called upon. It is now that you must decide what kind of leader you want to be and whom you will support in the year to come. A great divide has formed, and no fence sitters are allowed anymore. Strain recommendation: Sour Jack

Virgo

So Brexit was a shocker. The world was left gobsmacked when the impossible happened. England voted to leave the EU and no one seemed more surprised than the British people themselves. A huge amount of exit voters said after voting day that they had changed their minds and wanted a revote. The ugly truth couldn’t be avoided, however; their beds had been made. As 2017 sweeps in, you must think of  those Brits who recanted and what they learned the hard way; listen to no rhetoric, take no action without contemplation, and weigh all possibilities carefully. It’s a precarious time for you, and while risks need to be taken, you must tread softly and with purpose. Each step you take this year will leave an indelible footprint. Strain recommendation: Red Haze

Libra

There is a dog in my family that I find looks naked when he isn’t wearing his collar. He reminds me of you in 2017. When you allow yourself to be the real you it will come off as incredibly vulnerable, beautiful (even if slightly inappropriate) and uncommon. No matter how frighteningly nude you feel, you must continue in this vein, unabashedly in your birthday suit for the whole world to see. You are a bastion in these times of obfuscation and double speak: someone willing to be unadorned, raw and sometimes even a bit ugly. The cosmos applaud you and recommend a healthy diet of compassion for those who can’t handle your truth. Shine on! Strain recommendation: Silver Surfer

Scorpio

When you come across tough times in 2017, it will suck just as hard as it has in previous years, but there will be a slight difference… you will see the pain, even feel it, but it won’t damage you. You have lived through irreparably harmful events in your life, and have learnt from them. Finally, this year, your past pains have formed a shield that lives between the core of you and your experiences. This wonderful distance will help you on your path towards mindfulness, allowing you to keep that vulnerable part of you protected yet not blocked off. It’s an exciting time ahead for your personal growth. May you find joy in the self-awareness. Strain recommendation: Citrix

Sagittarius

Remember the Zika virus? Like the bird flu and H1N1 it came in like a horrifying nightmare and went out faster than a B-lister on the reality show circuit.  In 2017, we’ll encounter a few more apocalyptic style news pieces that’ll scare the bejeezus out of everybody, but you’ve learnt by now how that little boy likes to cry wolf for the attention. You’ve got a grip on this year coming, you’re ready for it and heck, you might even have a little fun along the way. Take this newfound bravado and let it lead you to adventures that build your self-esteem. Stack it on top of each new accomplishment and by this time next year you’ll be flabbergasted by the advancements you’ve made. Make the space and it will be filled. Strain recommendation: Banana Diesel

Capricorn

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee – sadly 2016 took down Ali. Cassius Clay, aka the great and beautiful boxer Muhammad, was an inspiring speaker, a strong activist and one hell of a fighter. When he lost his words and full control of his body due to Parkinson’s, it was particularly poignant as he had been naturally so graceful and eloquent. In honor of his spirit, I challenge you to activate your muscles and your words toward serving your causes: be they political, spiritual, personal or communal. Approach this year to come with a bit of his style and you should sail through like Ali’s The Rumble in the Jungle. Strain recommendation: Galactic Jack

Aquarius

When people talk about their physical body as if it is separate from their mind, their spiritual self or their emotions, I hear them saying they need to learn how to ingrate their many compartments into one self, to take a holistic approach to their life. Lately you have been focusing so much on your physical doings you have left the rest of you in the dusty dry haze of a Sunday afternoon, eating rusks and watching old home videos. Your arid neural pathways, the desert that is your emotional center and the tumbleweed blowing through your spiritual realm are signs that you need to drink a big glass of rehydrating reincorporation. I suggest cleaning out your bits in a heavy rain, bathing in the light of the moon and crying some tears over nothing but spilt water until all the barriers have been lifted and the river flows freely again. Strain recommendation: Blue Boy

Pisces

Remember when Ryan Lochte lied to everyone about being held up at gunpoint in Brazil after the Olympics? What a strange moment in sports history that was. From all accounts, he and his team were caught being dumbasses at a Rio gas station and instead of ‘fessing up they turned it into an international incident by fabricating some ridiculous story. This is a great lesson for you in 2017. Sometimes Pisceans can stretch the truth a little, maybe decorate reality with their own brand of historical revision… but this year must bring an end to that silliness. You must get in the habit of talking straight before you get caught with your pants down. This year Pinocchio needs to go into retirement before he ends up toothpicks. Strain recommendation: Voodoo

from Medical Marijuana News http://ift.tt/2je6o8Z via https://www.potbox.com/

#Medical Marijuana News